The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1978-04-10 (Special) Meeting Agenda• - • • 0 CITY COUNCIL MG.t:Tii-.G -SPECIAL -At~ri1 10, 1978 - - ( ( • • • • AGENDA FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL APRIL 10 , 1978 7 :30 P.M. Call to order, invocation, pledge o f allegiance, and roll call. 1. Public Hearing. (a) Mr. John Criswell will be present to discuss a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of February 22, 1978 con- cerning Mr . Rex T . Garrett , 1451 West Tufts Avenue. (Copies enclosed .) 2 . Adjournment . /' / ANDY MC COWN City Manager I • • - • • • • ROLL CALL Hoved Sec()nd~ Yt! Nay ' Wfl'fl'r.-·C~~l I W•h•,. ~·- A :,mar, _HarD@; - Clayton Mann _L }ofayor f~J::u Jv_,,.,~~~ ¥ ~~/}?~c)~ vh~v f~ 0.vv1/ilv /he Cnv >c) • Abstatn Absent _...._ 1 -.:1~-ti? I . • - • • - -- Moved Abstafn • I . . • :v:ID ____ _ " . • - • • - KOLL CALL Moved Sec~ndM-Aye Na.Y Abstafn Absent _v j W11'tl'i~~T v ' w .. h .. ,. _1J:.-? 5m1tr, -.1 v--Harott_ I v- Cla.Yton I v-.k"' Mann i V ""!!l~r Ta yX:u v • • I . • - • • • • ,. -~· I • RO LL CALL !'nc Ct-w Jl) ~d ~nlo Mry~ ~u tJ ()/)~0 y.uAJ-~·-1/Y\ if ;g;&iluf ~) . n (cUA'-""J ()._ f ;u-J ftnl /J-i J" MAUI-r m.. 1(-; c 1[ _1--I /<L r ?I' ;v ~ Pd .J-;uu'YYV>'Yl.L~ cl;--,u ·J (o .JSaCA.Lv )~A~, ~~ufl4 ~t ~lu.o 011--~~ -MJ_Q}. ~~~ ~-;()_.J /u__J r ~ . a;~/1U u h·-fW-tJ ~ jif~ 6vmo r? ~ -r~ /lAA.L<v <7 /)'Ln) -r~ UAiUJ • - I . • • • • ----- Moved Sec'lnd d p Ave Hav Absta1n Absent I W11'ii'~~~---T , w~ a;::·- smwr, -.l Har!M'r I Clavton I Mann -y,ay~!. Tay]_?U I . . • - - • • . ' I • RO LL CALL Moved Sec~ndP<! -----t-.,-;;o--L!!lW'!..!'-..:..:' ·L·~ !::.:-:.~--·r"'""AIIve..lt.....:.ZNa~y...._!A~b!.Js t:.!.a ,!!1 "L,-.JA~b~se~n~t ___, I /7 I W',l;;;.l'r:"., if" J __ ~p~-~-1r-----+----1 Clavton v r-----+-----~~~~nn v-'----...L....---l...!1fi~,~or T a y_1_~ui-";,.r7t--t----1f---_j • I . . • - • . \ . • KO LL CALL Moved S d d A ec~n e ve Nav Abstain Absent I W11, ~;o rr;,----·r- ' w .. h,.,. -.. ·-·- Sm1ti'o ··-· Haro!U:..._ Clavton Mann ' Ma~~!. TayX:u • • I . • ~11':1 ___ _ • - • ,. • --- Hoved Sec~nd d ... Ave Nay T wn, 'i .. r..> --·-~~~ Abstain Absent 'w~ sm r, ~aro!t!:_ -- Clairton Mann I "V~or T~y_1_~.d_ --· • • I . • ~~~-·--------------------~--~·~-L----------~.~~10 ____ __ • - • • ]- Moved SecQnded I Wifn:~ Ave Na.l Abstain Absent I w,.h,.r L ---~ SWI'Itr1 ---.l -Hirnl:.[__ I Clavton I Mann 1 Ma'!~r Ta y]_?U • I . • • • - • ,. L • • -- Moved Sec~ndP<l Ave Nav Abstafn bsent I W1 f~ l'r.-3 ~ . ..=-:r= , w~ A _smnr. -Harof!r Clavton Mann 1 Mayor Tay]_~u • • I . • • lo - - • • • • • ROLL CALL M ed S dd OY ec:ln t' Ave Nay Abstafn Absent I Wi 1 'i ~i~---·r= I WolllhiiU'~·· :>mttr~ I -Harno~~~r I Cla.Yton 1 Mann I Ma'i«?r Ta y)_?U 't3~~ -JL'" I~ ._;_tf -k./1~ 1~""-' . ..A--~ ~~ <r _e~ . ..,~./YM-a ·)i-0~ ~-kJ ~};£' W?Lu.V ~ 6&~ ----::;1 f-1-p£ .fY 0/lfi<:v I fJ 3 3 3 0 v;!}~ ., , ~~ • -//)1(YnM__to-d.uJu.. _ M fl)ur d-~ /)TlR~_~ tloo ;@f (I 0 :J"-U.W'"J ~ :U ~<U'J /;rt:t P~I-1 -/Y1.t..Ul I ~i, A ~ U /Oj rt -~ J),t Cle.-14) -ac~ /2hYJ M~a_J~~--'~ .~~ • I . • lo ___ _ • • • r • Hoved Sec~nded ~m~tr. __ 1!--t--~-----+------~ .Harof!r ·· • Cl~ton 1 ~-a"'-7/ ~ne~ Gn~ZJ ,~ ~-~if .A_j M~~ /JLtJ--{fu,,,} wru_u~~u~ I . . ·In • • • ROLL CALL Mo eel Sec nded y 0 A 'Ye Nay Ab sta n A bsent W1Jl1ams v w.twor v :ill1tll l/ Ha.roer j,/ Cll.vton v Mann v _11ayor Tay_l or '/ ;1..icAM "Mlitf aJ-q,. !) 0 I . . • - 1- • • • I . . - ___ ___..:_ _ __..:..__,~------~ ~---- • ROLL CALL Ho ed s nded v eco ~e l.Y sta n sent Will_hmll A Na Ab f Ab ~~" ~tr:n Haro"U' C~ton Mann M~or _T'!)'_I or ~~Of~~ ~ {Jtl:ul1YlL~- CA~cJ4n ,~ rn~ ~ ra~ . I . • • • r . • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded A 'Ye Nav Abstain Absent W1111ams w.m~r _;,mltn Haro~r Clavton Mann Mayor Tay]or - • I . • • • • - • ' I • • ROLL CALL Moved Seconded A "Ye Wfll fams ~f!h .. ;-,t..\--- 51111t:n Nay Abstafn Absent ...HarD;;" Clavton Mann -~ayor Tjly_l or I . • • . . • - • .. I . • ] ROLL CALL eco ~e Nay Abstafn Absent Wfllfams Moved S nded I Jll~b;; _:ij _SIIIT!n Haro~r C14.Yton Mann Mayor _Tay_lor I . VJ . f2 ~ 11o-o b.J~ -/YlR-U) 'Am,_,_, ~ ~~ j!ff-~v. ik~~'-L s r . -~ ~<-~ _L-/.'-fLcvwl ~~/v., -a~ 2f ?!. S'LcMui . -~aL~~/}~~ -L ~Lduai;u__J ~ -~~~J~~ -~~cL ~ -11~~ • • • - • • - ROLL CALL Moved Seconded Aye Nav Abstafn Absent Willfams ..,.......;.. J.-'r 51111th -~ CliVton Mann 1favor Tayler • • I . • • • lo • - • • • ROLL CALL Hoved Seconded \....!} ' :h-nda.-tJoy, 4sos cS +;,., C£,'UJ1]; -"'"~ u-f ~ 11 ch.L _L -I -&-v-~ ~ r:JAM~ rLo 6-u_rJ rf-vJ . l)'U.)lff . . -~ U --t~ r~~7 ?1FYIMd- -~· :z ~ I ' c/d_~ ~~ .JA/>c:tJ ~~~erm~ -------------- YJau_P ~~ cS k t ~ -_f~~~ -~ rJb""cfl tuzU £j~r ;t (}//1,4_) -~ 1iv t7YULJv <0 .0' cz,vv_ft . -W1/w ~<0 tiVJ ~ ~~ I . • • ~lo • • • ROLL CALL Aye Nly s Moved Seconded I Wf U_fams W..tw>r Ab tafn Absent _)Ill_!~~ .JW-Der CllYton Mann - I'NIYOr ·~Jor I . • • - • • - ROLL CALL v 0 ~e.-::_ ~ sta n sen WUliams ~ ~ ~ ~ .k"'_ ~ ~ ...It::::::::_ Mo ed Sec nded A Na Ab Ab t lfAroer ,.,....-- C~ton _v Jknn .!:::::::.. __!'191:)r _I ~-'Er "" I • • • n • • • ROLL CALL Moved Sec nded 0 Ave Nay Abstafn Absent Williams v w.~va.. },.>(' v v :smn:r v AI"_ I" ,_ .., lavtiin -v _V_ lnn v • iYor Tay]or v ;o.·oo I . . • J • • SPECIAL MEETING: • • • COUN CIL CH AMBE RS CITY OF ENG LEW OOD, COLORAD O April 10, 197 8 The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in special session on April 10, 1978, at 7 :30 p.m. Mayor Taylor, presiding, called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Councilman David Clayton. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Taylor. Mayor Taylor asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Williams, Weber, Smith, Harper, Clayton, Mann, Taylor. Absent: None. Also present were : Assistant City Manager Curnes City Attorney Berardini Director of Community Development Wanush Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * COUNCILMAN MANN MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING CONCERN- ING THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS IT REGARDS MR. REX T. GARRETT, 1451 WEST TUFTS AVENUE. Councilman Williams seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the v ote resulted as follows: Ayes : Nays: Council Members Weber, Smith, Harper, Clayton, Mann, Williams , Taylor. None. Th e Mayor declared the mo tion carr i ed. * * * * * * Mayor Taylor stated that City Manager McCown was also pre s ent at this meeting; however, because of the nature of the public hearing and it concerning the neighborhood in which Mr. McCown lived, Mr. McCown has requested to be excused from the proceedings • * * * * * * • I • • ~In - ( • • • April 10, 1978 Page 2 • • • Assistant City Manager Curnes, requested Director of Community Development Wanush to appear before Council and dis- cuss the nature of this public hearing. * * * * * * Because this meeting was a legal publtc hearing, City Attorney Berardini informed Council that each person giving testi- mony concerning the rezoning request would have to be sworn in. * * * * * * Director of Community Development Wanush, 5165 South Elati Drive, appeared before Council and was sworn in by the Clerk. Director of Community Development Wanush discussed the background on this case which is Case 16-77 and stated the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended to Council to deny the rezoning of Mr. Garrett's property from R-1-C single-family residential to I-1 Light Industrial. Mr. Garrett has now chosen to take his case before Council with Council's permission and that was the purpose of this meeting. Director of Community Development Wanush stated the pro- perty is approximately 6 acres~ the northern boundary is on Stanford; the southern boundary is on Tufts; the western boundary is Arapahoe County; and the eastern boundary is the City Ditch. Director Wanush stated the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded that a public hearing had been appropriately held and that while the property may not be properly zoned as R-1-C because it was the Commission's opinion no developer would go in and build single-family residences in the area; it may not be in the best interest of the adjacent single-family residential area to rezone the property to the I-1 because of the total impact that an I-1 zoning carries. However, the Commission did think that some businesses under the I-1 permitted uses could operate without disturbing the area too much • COUNCILMAN SMITH MOVED THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE COUNCIL PACKETS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. FINDINGS OF FACT EXCERPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES-FEBRUARY 22, 1978 EXCERPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES-FEBRUARY 7, 1978 EXCERPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES-DECEMBER 20, 1977 PETITIONS SUBMITTED BY OPPOSITION APPLICANT'S EXHIBITS STAFF REPORT APPLICATION • I • • - • • • April 10, 1978 Page 3 • • • BE MADE A PART OF THE HEARING. Councilman Weber seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Weber, Smith, Harper, Clayton, Mann, Taylor. Council Member Williams. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * John Criswell, business address 3787 South Broadway, appeared before Council and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Criswell stated he represented legal counsel for Mr. Rex Garrett. Mr. Criswell discussed the need for rezoning the land to I-1 pointing out several areas on the map near Mr. Garrett's property that were under light industrial zoning and stated the existing indus- trial areas would promote future industrial development rather than residential development. Mr. Criswell suggested an alternative to I-1 zoning would be high density multi-family zoning and the latter could pose more problems for the neighboring single-family residents than a controlled I-1. Mr. Criswell entered into the record a copy of a letter from M. E. Collier, Jr., Senior Vice President of First Federal Federal Savings and Loan Association, dated April 16, 1970 and addressed to the Planning Commission stating that the association would not be able to finance single-family residential development on subject property and advised the proper use of Mr. Garrett's property would be light industrial. (Exhibit 12) Mr. Criswell entered into the record a copy of a letter from M. E. Collier, Jr. President, of First Federal Savings and Loan Association dated Jaunary 17, 1978 and addressed to Mr. Garrett advising that someform of light industrial development would be appro- priate for Mr. Garrett's property and he (M.E. Collier, Jr.) would be willing to discuss financing. (Exhibit 13) Mr. Criswell stated both he and Mr. Garrett have met with the neighborhood and both sides agreed that if the zoning was changed to I-1, Mr. Garrett would not apply for a building permit until a plan for development is approved by all. Mr. Criswell entered into the record a copy of the City's rezoning policies and procedures. (Exhibit 14) Mr. Criswell offered that Council accept the following terms for solution to Mr. Garrett's case:l) a~opt I-1 ordin~ncc; 2) mal~e ·the rezoning subject to the owner filing and havin6 • I • - ( ( • April 10, 1978 Page 4 • • • approved a PO; 3) Mr. Garrett will waive the right to contest the imposition with respect to the condition of a PO; 4) by Council's action in rezoning the property, the neighbors will be advised and they will be given an opportunity to come before the Planning Commission and discuss the PO with respect to height, set back, landscaping, etc.; 5) Mr. Garrett would not apply for a building p·ermit until he had gone back to the Planning Commission and had a proper PO approved. Mr. Criswell concluded his presentation by reiterating he was sure the property could not be developed under the present zoning. * * * * * * Councilman Smith asked the City Attorney about the legality of placing conditions on a development plan and making the PO binding. City Attorney Berardini stated several com- munities have achieved placing conditions on a PO; but it was his opinion that placing conditions on a zoning was illegal because a developer should be allowed to build whatever he chose within the zoning limitations. He advised the Council that precautionary controls might be placed on the PO and if there was any possibility of doing so he would inform the Council. City Attorney Berardini also stated that placing conditions on a PO may seem proper in the beginning; but they could be objectional by subsequent owners. City Attorney Berardini further stated to restrict the use of the land would be improper; however, the Council may be able to control external effects. * * * * * * Councilman Smith stated in response to Mr. Criswell's Exhibit 14 there are areas in City that do not have to rezoned with contiguous adjacent areas ; sometimes the adjacent areas only have to be compatible. * * * * * * Mr. Rex Garrett, business address 300 E. Hampden Avenue and residence at Route 3 Box 97 Parker, Colorado, appeared before Council and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Criswell questioned Mr. Garrett on the proper posting of this public hearing. Mr. Garrett stated that proper posting had been done. Mr. Criswell then re- quested Mr. Garrett to sign the "Certification of Posting" which Mr. Garrett obliged. Mr. Criswell then entered into the record the signed certificates. I • ~------~------·~-•[]-----------~ • - - ( ( • • ( • April 10, 1978 Page 5 • • • Mr. Garrett discussed his request with the Council and the difficulty he has had trying to get financing for single- family residential construction. Mr. Garrett stated he has re- ceived numerous requests from people interested in I-1 businesses. Mr. Garrett asked Council to consider his dilema and the stipulations he has agreed to and act favorably on his request for . I-1 zoning. In a nswer to City Attorney Berardini's question, Mr. Garrett stated he understood the implications to waive the right to contest submitting a PO before he could apply for a building permit. * * * * * * At the request of Mr. Criswell, Ralph Davis, 12333 West Louisana, Lakewood, appeared before Council and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Criswell then questioned Mr. Davis on the nature, etc. of his business and why he was asked to attend this public hearing. Mr. Davis stated his business was a job shop in precision sheet metal located in Sheridan across from a residential area. Mr. Davis stated he was interested in buying or leasing some property from Mr. Garrett if the rezoning request was granted. Hr. Davis also s t ated the materials required for his business have to be stored inside his building out· of the weather. He has received no compliants with respect to noise or pollution on his business. In answer to Councilman Clayton's question, Mr. Davis stated the nature of his business prohibits any materials being exposed to the weather; therefore, all materials are stored inside. In answer to Mayor Taylor's question, Mr. Davis stated the height of his proposed building in Englewood would be 14 feet from ground level. * * * * * * Mayor Taylor declared a recess at 8:45 p.m. The Counc i l reconvened at 9 :00 p.m. Upon a call of the roll, the follow i ng were pre s ent : Counc i l Members Williams, Weber, Smith, Harper, Clayton, Mann, Taylor. Absent: None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * • I • • ,Jo __ _ ( ( ( • April 10, 1978 Page 6 • • • Mr. Criswell, appeared before Council again, and corrected some statements he made earlier on the location of the warehousing of construction materials and the location of another construction ware- house which he thought was in the County but now finds the location to be proper under the appropriate zoning. * * * * * * Mayor Taylor asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak in favor of the rezoning request. Paul Hendricks, 4400 South Lincoln, appeared before the Council and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Hendricks stated he was sympat~etic with Mr. Garrett and his predicament in that his land is setting idle. Mr. Hendricks stated he was in favor of proper land utilization and would be in favor of industrial zoning because of the similar surrounding land use. * * * * * * Gerald Ray, 4505 South Lipan Court, appeared before the Council and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Ray asked Mr. Hendricks if his land was on the particular ground in question. Mr. Hendricks stated that it was not. * * * * * * Mayor Taylor asked if there was anyone else in the audience wishing to speak in favor of the request. No one replied. * * * * * * Mayor Taylor asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak against the rezoning request. Gerald Ray, 4505 South Lipan Court, appeared before the Council again. Mr. Ray stated he really wanted the area to stay residential; however, if Council granted the I-1 zoning then he requested that some controls be placed on the development. Mr. Ray expressed his dissatisfaction to the Friedman plant. Mr. Ray stated neighbors tried to work out an agreement with the plant officials; however, the terms were never carried out. In response to Councilman Clayton's questions, Mr. Ray stated only a verbal agreement was arrived at with Mr. Garrett and Mr. Criswell. Mr. Criswell interjected the transcript of the agreement could be found in the minutes of the Planning Commission's meeting on February 7, 1978, pages 5 through 10. * * * * * * • I • - l - • April 10, 1978 Page 7 • • • Mr. Glenn Helfer, 4501 South Lipan Court, appeared before the Council and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Helfer requested Council to drive out in the area. Mr. Helfer stated he thought I-1 zoning would devalue the residential property next to it. Mr. Helfer wanted to bring to Council's attention Mr. Garrett's lack of plans for the property and requested Council to postpone a decision on the rezoning 'request until some legal binding conditions can be agreed upon. * * * * * * At the request of Councilman Smith, Gerald Ray, 4505 South Lipan Court, appeared before Council to answer some questions. In response, Mr. Ray stated he represented a group of concerned citizens at previous Planning Commission meetings; however, the group had not met since the last meeting so he would not be aware of any new opposing agruments. Mr. Ray stated there were six or seven homes directly across the street on South Lipan that are affected and seven properties on the opposite side of Tufts. * * * * * * W. R. Eldridge, 1450 West Tufts, appeared before Council and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Eldridge stated that two new homes are being planned for construction on the south side of Tufts and the west side of the ditch. * * * * * * Robert Heldebrand, 4510 South Jason, appeared before the Council and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Heldebrand stated he lived not on the broader line of the subject property but nearby. Mr. Heldebrand stated he opposed the I-1 zoning because of its attendant problems. Mr. Heldebrand stated he objected to the continuation of industrial development because of the increased noise factor, the industrial fumes, the paper and debris blown out of the Friedman plant and the increased tratfic. At the request of Mr. Heldebrand, seventeen (17) people in the audience stood to indicate their opposition to the I-1 zoning request. * * * * * * Elmer Jungck, 4606 Mariposa Drive, appeared before Council dnd was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Jungck stated he was against the I-1 zoning for reasons of increased noise and traffic that accompany this type of zoning. Mr. Jungck invited the Councilmen to drive through the area and evaluate the situation themselves. * * * * * * • 6 ~1 n I • • - ( ( • April 10, 1978 Page 8 • • • Gary Crouse, 1120 West Stanford Drive, app e ar e d b e fore Council and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Crouse invited the Councilmen to come into his home and look at the view of warehouses that he has out his front window. Mr. Crouse stated there is debris strewn all over and around buildings and some of the area is torn down. * * * * * * Linda Ray, 4505 South Lipan Court, appeared before Council and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mrs. Ray stated she did not think the subject area was surrounded by I-1 zoning and that it was not impossible for Mr. Garrett to find private financing in order to develop his property with single-family residences. Mrs. Ray requested Council to delay making a decision on the rezoning 1r 1tter until some conditions can be placed on the development plan. * * * * * * Mayor Taylor asked if there was anyone else in the audience wishing to speak against the rezoning request. No one replied. * * * * * * Mayor Taylor asked if there was anyone who would like to appear before Council again to discuss the rezoning request pro or con. * * * * * * Paul Hendricks, 4400 South Lincoln, appeared before Council again and stated he was in favor of granting the rezoning request. Mr. Hendricks asked Council to consider the needs of Mr. Garrett. Mr. Hendricks stated the industrial zoning of Mr. Garrett's land should favorably effect the tax base of the City. * * * * * * Linda Ray, 4505 South Lipan Court, with the permission of the Mayor while remaining in the audience asked Mr. Hendricks if he had viewed the area and if he knew exactly from where the tax base came. Mr. Hendricks answered no. * * * * * * John Criswell, 3787 South Broadway, appeared before Council again. Mr. Criswell stated that the public hearing has accomplished one purpose, i.e. Mr. Garrett's dilema. Mr. Criswell I • • ( ( • April 10, 1978 P a ge 9 • • • stated Mr. Garrett can not develop the prop e rty under the pr ese nt z oning and Mr. Garrett is willing to d e velop the land under re- strictions if the Council rezone s the property I-1. Mr. Criswell discussed the increased market value of the neighborhooding pro- perties and partially attributed the incr e ase to the controlled industrial development. * * * * * * Mr. Glen Helfer, 4501 South Lipan Court, appeared before Council again and rebutted Mr. Criswell's statement on increased property value due to industrial development. Mr. Helfer stated property values have increased across the nation and has no relevance to Mr. Criswell's agrument. Mr. Helfer stated his main concern is that Mr. Garrett wants to have a piece of property rezoned that is located between Arapahoe County's buffer zone and Englewood's R-1-A. * * * * * * Mayor Taylor asked if there were any Councilmen wishing to ask any questions on this matter. No one replied. * * * * * * COUNCILMAN SMITH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Councilman Weber seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as. follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Weber, Smith, Harper, Clayton, Mann, Williams, Taylor. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * COUNCILMAN SMITH MOVED TO SET THE DECISION ON THIS MATTER AT THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ON MAY 15, 1978. Councilman Mann seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes : Nays: Council Members Weber, Smith, Harper, Clayton, Mann, Williams, Taylor. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * Mayor Taylor adjourned the specia~mjf~ing at 10 :00 Q-;,dl,:Ot' or ~r~ ~uty City Clerk p.m. • I • • n • SPECIAL MEETING: • • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO April 10, 1978 The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in special session on April 10, 1978, at 7 :30 p.m. Mayor Taylor, presiding, called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Councilman David Clayton. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Taylor. Mayor Taylor asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Williams, Weber, Smith, Harper, Clayton, Mann, Taylor. Absent: None. Also present were: Assistant City Manager Curnes City Attorney Berardini Director of Community Development Wanush Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * COUNCILMAN MANN MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING CONCERN- ING THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS IT REGARDS MR. REX T. GARRETT, ~WEST TUFTS AVENUE. Councilman Williams seconded the motion. U~6' a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes : Nays: Council Members Weber, Smith, Harper, Clayton, Mann, Williams, Taylor. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * Mayor Taylor stated that City Manager McCown was also present at this meeting; however, because of the nature of the public hearing a~q _i t concerning the neighborhood in which Mr. McCown lived, Mr. McCown~quested to be excused from the proceedings. * * * * * * • I • • n • April 10, 1978 Page 3 • • • BE MADE A PART OF THE HEARING. Councilman Weber seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Weber, Smith, Harper, Clayton, Mann, Taylor. Council Member Williams. T-he Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * Ma,er; Tayler; aelted if the tepteseutattve for Mt. ear tett: was pr:a~t}qu..-~ ~ John Criswell, business address 3787 South Broadway, appeared before Council and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Criswell stated he represented legal counsel for Mr. Rex Garrett. Mr. Criswell discussed th~ '~h@fzon:i,ng .,tl)e ~o_l;.-:L ppinting out several areas on tne·ma~ Wffe ~nffet 1~ -~1 zon- ing and stated the existing industrial areas would promote future industrial development rather than residential development. Mr. Criswell suggested an alternative to I-1 zoning would be high density t multi-family zoning and the latter could pose more problems for the neighboring single-family residents and a controlled I-1. Mr. Criswell entered into the record a copy of a letter from M. E. Collier, Jr., Senior Vice President of First Federal Federal Savings and Loan Association, dated April 16, 1970 and addressed to the Planning Commission stating that the association would not be able to finance single-family res~~~i~~~~P~, on subject property and advised the proper use ~ou~ oe~~v -q -~ industrial. (Exhibit 12) Mr. Criswell entered into the record a copy of a letter from M. E. Collier, Jr. President, of First Federal Savings and Loan Ass~cjption dated Jaunary 17, 1978 and addressed to Mr. Garrett advising~e form of light industrial d~~loP.~~q~.~~yld be appro- priate for Mr. Garrett's property and he'W6fi10"""15"e'Wl11ing to discuss~ financing e£ aa~e• (Exhibit 13) Mr. Criswell stated both he and Mr. Garrett have met with the neighborhood and both sides agreed that if the zoning was changed to I-1, Mr. Garrett would not apply for a building Ll .• permit u~. a~e;r:_l~~~n~ _i..s_,llj_P~~~~~·~ ~ ~~ Mr. Criswell of~~i't"·for solution . to Mr. Garrett's case: 1) adopt the I-1 ordinance ; 2) make the rezoning itself subject to the property owner filing and having · . approved a PD; 3) Mr. Garrett will waive the right to contest the imposition with respect to the condition of a PD; 4) by ~~ Council'• action in ro,oning tho proporty, tho neighbor• will C{"~ I • • • April 10, 1978 I../) Page 4 I • • - be advised and they will~ortunity to come before the Plan~ing Commission and discuss the PD with respect to height, . set~~ landscaping, etc.; (5 Mr. Garrett we!!ld not ee Bele 7.).Jt_JJ ~ ~o g~ building permit until he has gone back to the Planning ~ Commission and ~ a proper ~ PD approved. ~ Mr. Criswell concluded his presentation by reiterating he :vas ~l.!Y~th9-~r.oper~_c?~7~~.W1?! the present zomn,~~ C"Stit~d,~~~:t~~. -~~~b; ~~ ~ ~=== !=~ aReuePe8 qtJest~~ 'fhe eoundt-~;~=e;~ the legality of placing conditions on a development plan and ma~~he PD binding. ~y 4 tto~Ray ierarai~ &tate& tke !lfteuer is aeRt~Psiel. City Attorney Berardini stated ~ several_.cr>mmunities have achieved placing conditions on a PD~.aaQ Ab a a tiL> states ~as his opinion that placing condition~-~~~~ni~~w~~.illegal because a developer should be allowed to build~-w~e~ limitatio~·:~. Ne .. ~~V\~d the Council that precautionary controlfs'~oe placed~1~there was any possibility of doing so he would inform the Counlt~· City Attorney Berardini a~so~~~ted' tha~la i g onditions~~ seem proper in the beginning; ~~ be ~P~~uent owners,of !he p!epert~ City Attorney Berardini ~strict the use of the land would be improper; however, the Council may be able to control external effects. * * * * * * Councilman Smith stated in response to Mr. Criswell's Exhibit 14 there are areas in City that do not have to rezoned with contiguous adjacent areas;~ &9111f!!t~iele ll.s well. '---4' I • k<>t:;:,~ -fit 11 ~~;• ,/l.N'VV\ • ..;.. -_.: • t:/.u. d ... ·u .. ~...... ~ ~ t-k ~ ..... -.. ·-· """"~'~ * * * * *-* --?!' -u --x Mr. Rex Garrett, business address 300 E. Hampden Avenue a nd residence at Route 3 Box 97 Parker, Colorado, appeared before Counc i l and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Criswell questio~d. - Mr. Garrett on the proper posting of this public he a rin~~~ q ue st e d Mr. Garre t t to sign the "Certification o f Posting" whlch Mr. Garrett obliged. Mr. Criswel~ then entere d i nto the record~ the signed &eeWR&RI>ea ~ 1 • Mr. Garrett discussed his request with the Council and the difficulty he has had trying to get financing for single-~ ~am~!y res~dentia! construction. Mr. Garrett stated he has re-~~ ceived numerous requests from people interested in I-1 businesses. · Mr. Garrett asked Council to consider his dilema and the stipulat i on s he has agreed to and act favorably on his request for I-1 zoning • • I • • SPECIAL MEETING: • • • COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO April 10, 1978 The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in special session on April 10, 1978, at 7 :30 p.m. Mayor Taylor, presiding, called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Councilman David Clayton. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Taylor. Mayor Taylor asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Williams, Weber, Smith, Harper, Clayton, Mann , Taylor. Absent: None. Also present were: Assistant City Manager Curnes City Attorney Berardini Director of Community Development Wanush Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * COUNCILMAN MANN MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING CONCERN- ING THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS IT REGARDS MR. REX T. GARRETT, ~WEST TUFTS AVENUE. Councilman Williams seconded the motion. Uifo~· a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes : Nays: Council Members Weber, Smith, Harper, Clayton, Mann, Williams, Taylor. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * Mayor Taylor stated that City Manager McCown was also present at this meeting; however, because of the nature of the public hearing a~q _it concerning the neighborhood in which Mr. McCown live , Mr. McCown~quested to be excused from the proceedings. * * * * * * • ) I • • - April 10, 1978 Page 2 • • • Assistant City Manager Curnes, in Ci~y HeReger MeGe\~l's place, requested Director of Community Development Wanush to appear before Council and discuss the nature of this public hearing. * * * * * * Because thja apgcjal meeting was a legal public hearing, C1ty Attorney Berardini informed Council that each person giving testimony concerning the rezoning request would have to be sworn in. * * * * * * Director of Community Development Wanush, 5165 South Elati Drive, appeared before Council and sworn in by the Clerk . Director of Community Development Wanush discussed the background on this case ~is Case 66-77 a~~~~te9 ~~Planning and Zoning Commission's._,r~:~dti1zu6M~o deny"'t:11'e""'-ezoning of Mr. Garrett's property from R~J:C single family residence to I-1 Light Industrial, Mr. Garrett hasN:'Tlosen to .tg.Js.e~~o_;wg~-~c hearj A8 ubicb Qeuudl !;'P~tl'ie purp'OS'e'""''"! ..... ~ ~ meeting. Director of Community Development Wanush stated the pro- P*8Perty is approximately 6 acres ~;the northern boundar~~~ Stanford whi:eh is zoned l•l ; the southern boundary ail Tufts""'=f!ek ie 8~Hgle ramily !S2i~•tial; the western boundary is Arapahoe Council ~iek is~itng~farnjly 5Q8~8eH~~al ~; and the eastern boundary/It~ ~i~l:,n~ly teSldelltlal. Director Wanush stated the Planning and Zoning Commission concluded that a public hearing had been appropriately held and that while the property may not be properly zoned as R-1-C because it was the Commission's opinion no developer would go in and build single-family residences in the area; it may not be in the best interest of the adjacent single-family residential area to rezone the property to the I-1 because of the total impact that an I-1 zoning carries. However, the Commission did think that some businesses under the I-1 permitted uses could &e-operat-' ~tbg~~ 1ft !i' Biug II I 0 /( ' . COUNCILMAN SMITH MOVED THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE COUNCIL PACKETS: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. EXCERPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES-FEBRUARY 22, 1978 EXCERPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES-FEBRUARY 7, 1978 EXCERPT OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES-DECEMBER 20, 1977 PETITIONS KSUBMITTED BY OPPOSITION APPLICANT'S EXHIBITS STAFF REPORT APPLICATION I • • • April 10, 1978 Page 5 '. • • • In answer to City Attorney Berardini's question, Mr. Garrett stated he understood the implications to waive the right to contest submitting a PD before he could apply for a building permit. * * * * * * At the request of Mr. Criswell, Ralph Davis, 12333 West Louisana, Lakewood, appeared before Council and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Criswell then questioned Mr. Davis on the nature, etc. of his business and why he was asked to attend this public hearing. Mr. Davis stated his business was a job shop in precision sheet metal located in Sheridan across from a residential area. Mr. Davis stated he was interested in buying or leasing some prop~rtY fr2~.Mr. Garrett if the rezoning request was granted. Mr. Davis~ated~terials required for his busines~)uLve to be stored inside his building out of the weather\~ h~~ received no compliants with respect to noise or pollution on his business. In answer to Councilman Clayton's question, Mr. Davis stated the nature of his business prohibits any materials being exposed to the weather; therefore, all materials are stored inside. In answer to Mayor Taylor's question, Mr. Davis stated the height of his proposed building in Englewood would be 14 feet trom ground level. * * * * * * Mayor Taylor declared a recess at 8:45 p.m. The Council reconvened at 9:00 p.m. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Williams, Weber, Smith, Harper, Clayton, Mann, Taylor. Absent: None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Mr. Criswell, appeared before Council again, and corrected some statements he mad~earlier on the location of the warehousing of construction materials'-\& "Rii RiiH 81188 abutt tAil ll'lbj&iilii p•eperey and ~he location of a~ruction warehouse which he thought was in the County but now finds the location to be proper under the appropriate zoning. * * * * * * • I • • • April 10, 1978 Page 6 • • • Mayor Taylor asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak in favor of the rezoning request. Paul Hendricks, 4400 South Lincoln, appeared before the Council and was sworn in by the Clerk.h;~r. Hendricks stated he was sympathetic with Mr. Garrett and ~predicament in that his land is setting idle. Mr. Hendricks stated he was in favor of proper land ut~~ation and would be in favor of industrial zoning because of the~ding land use. roj)a.tu * * * * * * ' Gerald Ray, 4505 South Lipan Court, appeared before the Council and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Ray asked Mr. Hendricks if his land was on the particular ground in question. Mr. Hendricks stated that it was not. * * * * * * Mayor Taylor asked if there was anyone else in the audience wishing to speak in favor of the request. No one replied. * * * * * * Mayor Taylor asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak against the rezoning request. Gerald Ray, 4505 South Lipan Court, appeared before the Council again. Mr. Ray stated he really wanted the area to stay residential; however, if Council granted the I-1 zoning then he requested that some controls be placed o the development. Mr. Ray expressed his dissatisfaction to the r1edma plant. Mr. Ray stated neighbors tried to work out an agreement w1t thed~nt o~icials; however, the terms were never carried out\. aAd d&'b;; Jd'il ilil veF¥- alai'MiRg te the FeeideHte, ~ ~~ , In response to Councilman Clayton's questions, Mr. Ray stated only a verbal agreement was arrived at with Mr. Garrett and Mr. Criswell. Mr. Criswell interjected the transcript of the agreement could be found in the minutes of the Planning Commission's meeting on February 7, 1978, pages 5 through 10. * * * * * * Mr. Glenn Helfer, 4501 South Lipan Court, appeared before the Council and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Helfer requested Council to drive out in the area. Mr. Helfer stated he thought I-1 zoning would devalue the residential property next to it. Mr. Helfer wanted to bring to Council's attention Mr. Garrett's lack of plans for the property and requested Council to postpone a decision on • I • • • April 10, 1978 Page 7 • • • the rezoning request until some legal binding conditions can be ovl!li:ncda ~ ~· * * * * * * wR At the request of Councilman Smith, Gerald Ray, 4505 South Lipan Court, appeared before Council to answer some questions. In response, Mr. Ray stated he represented a group o~ed . citizens at previous Planning Commission meetings; ~d the group had not~p~n~e the last meeting so he would not be aware of any new ~fumentl,iA eppaai~ieR,~e the rczeni:rt! 'l'eEjvcet. Mr. Ray stated there were six or seven homes directly across the street on South Lipan that are affected and seven properties on the opposite side of Tufts. * * * * * * W. R. Eldridge, 1450 West Tufts, appeared before Council and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Eldridge stated that two new homes are being planned for construction on the south side of Tufts and the west side of the ditch. * * * * * * Robert Heldebrand, 4510 South Jason, appeared before the~oYVc~l and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Heldebrand stated he~ on the broader line of the subject propeW:~~t llS:flt"i.Y... Mr. Heldebrand stated he opposed ~the I-1 zoning~af"t~~t problems. Mr. Heldebrand stated he objected to the continuation of industrial development because of the increasJb4lnoise factor, the industrial fumes, the paper and debris blown out of the Friedman plant and the increased traffic. At the request of Mr. Heldebrand, seventeen (17) people in the audience stood to indicate their opposition to the I-1 zon i ng request. * * * * * * • • I I • • D - • • April 10, 1978 Page 8 • • • Elmer Jungck, 4606 Mariposa Drive, appeared before Council and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mr. Jungck stated he was against the I-1 zoning for reasons of increased noise and traffic that accompany this type of zoning. Mr. Jungck invited the Councilmen to drive through the area ~evaluate the situation themselves. * * * * * * Gary Crouse, 1120 West Stanford Drive, appeared before Council and was sw~r~~n by the Clerk. Mr. Crouse invited the Councilmen to com~i~ home and look at the view of warehouses that he has out his fro~window. Mr. Crouse stated ere is debris strewn all over and around buildings and some of the area is torn down. * * * * * * Linda Ray, 4505 South Lipan Court, appeared before Council and was sworn in by the Clerk. Mrs. Ray stated she did~ot think the subject area was surrounded by I-1 zoning and that iB;was not impossible for Mr. Garrett to find private financing in order to develop his property with single-family residences. Mrs. Ray requested Council to delay making a decision on the rezoning matter until some conditions can be placed on the development plan. * * * * * * Mayor Taylor asked if there was anyone else in the audience wishing to speak against the rezoning request. No one replied. * * * * * * Mayor Taylor asked if there was anyone who would like to appear before Council again to discuss the rezoning request pro or con. * * * * * * Paul Hendricks, 4400 South Lincoln, appeared before Council again and stated he was in favor of the granting the rezoning request. Mr. Hendricks asked Council to consider the needs of Mr. Garrett. Mr. Hendricks stated the industrial zoning of Mr. Garrett's land should favorably effect the tax base of the City. * * * * * * Linda Ray, 4505 South Lipan Court, with the permission of the Mayor while remaining in the audience asked Mr. Hendricks if he had viewed the area and if he knew exactly from where the tax base came • • I • • - • April 10, 1978 Page 9 • • • Mr. Hendricks answered no. * * * * * * John Criswell, 3787 South Broadway, appeared befor~ Council again. Mr. Criswell stated that the public hearing ~s accomplished one purpose, i.e. Mr. Garrett's dilema. Mr. Criswell stated Mr. Garrett can not develop the property under the present zoning and Mr. Garrett is willing to develop the land under re- strictions }f t~e Council rezones the property I-}t. Mrv~riswell discussed ~o~Mil~&wet£ial lievelepllle'ftt w~wlli ha:e !~J&! ·~s~.J2..c:,(._ market value of the neighborhooding properties~~ .. ~~~-~~~ * * * * * * ~_;r~ Mr. Glen Helfer, 4501 South Lipan Court, appeared be~ Council again a~~.refu~~~X~• Crts~~~·~~~te~ent on i~creas:~~ ~~~ property value~. Hel~~~ues have ~ncreased across the nation and has no relevance to Mr. Criswell's agrument, that eentrolled indus tt tal zouittg is the reaeeft eettind increased property "alwell Mr. Helfer stated his main concern is that - Mr. Garrett wants to have a piece of property rezoned that is located between Arapahoe County's buffer zone and Englewood's R-1-A. * * * * * * Mayor Taylor asked if there were any Councilmen wishing to ask any questions on this matter. No one replied. * * * * * * COUNCILMAN SMITH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Councilman Weber seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Weber, Smith, Harper, Clayton, Mann, Williams, Taylor. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * COUNCILMAN SMITH MOVED TO SET THE DECISION ON THIS MATTER AT THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ON MAY 15, 1978. Councilman Mann seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: • I • - • • • April 10, 1978 Page 10 Ayes: Nays: • • • Council Members Weber, Smith, Harper, Clayton, Mann, Williams, Taylor. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * Mayor Taylor adjourned the special meeting at 10:00 p.m. Deputy City Clerk • I • • D ____ _ - - • • • • • f/J'LtiARd .-t-1/k ./U--Cild.- 1-I 0-'-/ 8 0J.-:J .Vv"-U....P H OF SIGN HERE CERTIFICATION OF POSTING Attached is a photograph of a sign as it is erected on the following described property: 4!e ~ • Legal Description I hereby certify under oath that the above described property was posted continuously for a period offl:. days, from ~ .2 .!> ____ , 19...:1....%_, to _...;~~~=.~oo~.------/ tJ • 19.JL_. Sign~ State of Colorado ) ) ss County of Arapahoe ) Date ~/Jf/?Y Subscribed and sworn to be f ore me this ________ day of ----------------~ 19 ____ __ Notary PUblic A separate certificat ion shall be presented to the Department of Coamunity Development for each Notice of Hearing sign. Such certification should be sub.itted to the Departaent prior to the Publi c He aring in order that it can be included in the inforaation presented to the Public body before whom the Hearing is being held • I • - • • • • • LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY POSTED Beginning at a point where the centerline of the City Ditch inter- sects the north line of the SW 1/4, NE 1/4, Sec. 9, TWs. SS., Range 68 w., of the 6th P.M., Arapahoe County, State of Colorado: thence w. along said N. line to the City of Englewood City limits line: thence s. along said line to the s. line of W. Tufts Avenue: thence E. along the s. line of W. Tufts Avenue to the centerline of the City Ditch: thence NElly along the centerline of the City Ditch to the point of beginning: said parcel containing 6.35 acres, more or less. • I • • ~l o ____ _ - • • • • ..; r{i;(p_ u J.. _,t/),;6 ltLuzd.., -1 -1 0-i ~ ev.·o~ PH OF SIGN HERE CERTIFICATION OF POSTING Attached is a photograph of a sign as it is erected on the following described property : ~ ~ Legal Description I hereby certify under oath that the above described property was posted continuously for a period of / ~ days, from ~ .Z .J ~~-____ , 19~, to State of Colorado ) ) ss County of Arapahoe ) <-) It o/7S Date T/ ' J Subscribed and sworn to before me this ________ day of ------------------ 19 __ _ Notary Public A separate certif ication shall be presented to the Department of Community Development for each Notice of Hearing sign. Such certification should be submitted to the Departaent prior to the Publ ic Hearing in order that it can be included in the information presented to the Public body before whom the Hearing is being held. • • I • • • • • • LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY POSTED Beginning at a point where the centerline of the City Ditch inter- sects the north line of the SW 1/4, NE 1/4, Sec. 9, Tws. SS., Range 68 w., of the 6th P.M., Arapahoe County, State of Colorado; thence w. along said N. line to the City of Englewood City limits line; thence S. along said line to the S. line of W. Tufts Avenue; thence E. along the s. line of w. Tufts Avenue to the centerline of the City Ditch; bhence NElly along the centerline of the City Ditch to the point of beginning; said parcel containing 6.35 acres, more or less. • • I • • ,., n • • • ( FI:R.ST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASS'N . 4 301 South Broadway • Englewood, Colorado 80110 April 16, 1970 Planning Commission, City of Englewood City Council, City of Englewood Englewood, Colorado 80110 Gentlemen: OF DENVER. '789-1873 Mr. Rex T. Garrett has consulted with First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Denver about a six acre tract of land he owns between Tufts and Stanford, west of the City Ditch. After studying the property and the general area, we have determined that we would not be able to finance any type of single family residential development on this property. The use of the surrounding properties make the subject property unsuitable for single family development. Our conclusion is that the proper use of this property would be light industrial. Sincerely, ~Y . Senior Vice Presi~ MEC/sm ~~~rt- oTHER OFFICES : 3460 WEST 38TH AVENUE o DENVER. COLORADO 80211 o PHONE 433-6701 I 1641 GLENARM PLACE • DENVER . COLORADO !0202 • PH ONE 261 ·1918 • I • • n Principal Ortice: 215 South WJidsworth Blvd. LAkewOOd , Colo. 10226 232·2121 Other Offlc.s: ~60 West 38th Avenue Denver, Colo. 10211 433·6701 4301 SO. BrOJidWJIY Englewood. Colo . 10110 789·1873 • 1389 So . Hi1Vilnil Auror•. Colo. 10012 755-5301 1641 G len•rm J»t. Denver, Colo. 80202 629·1971 a•J Main St. Louis¥ lite, Colo. 80027 666·1 526 5805 C.rr St. Arv•d•, Colo. 80005 420-1840 1733 Greeley Mill GrHiey, Colo. 80631 356·3530 329 Den ver A ve. Ft. Lupton, Colo. 80621 125·2706 1405 E . Ev•ns Denver, Colo. 80210 778-1331 1300 Wun l n;ton Golden, Colo. 80401 278·1321 6775 W . Ken Co1ryl Ave. Littleton, Colo. 80123 973·1094 • • • • ~ p/)wu4 MW ~d 4-10-rfg (;~ 13 lirst federal Savtngs and Loan Assoc1at10n 215 South Wadsworth Blvd. I Lakewood, Colorado 80226/ (303) 232-2121 Mr. Rex Garrett 300 East Hampden Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Rex: January 17, 1978 Our real estate loan department has evaluated the property you own at 1451 East Tafts. This property is bounded by Tafts Avenue on the south and the city ditch on the east and consists of about six acres. It is our opinion that because of the industrial develop- ment to the north and west the best use for the property would not be residential. We believe some form of light industrial development would be appropriate and would be happy to discuss financing this type of project with you. Yours truly, MEC,Jr/jg ~·~ if£1.J-13 Colorodo'o Oldott Est. 1885 At FIRST You Will Suc-1 I • • I I • • I .. ·;-· .. ' ~~~ ;u~ -+-to -'1J ~lu 14- ...... I I REZOXI XG POLICIES AND PROCEDL~ES The following resolution was approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Englewood, Color a do, Au g ust 5, 1957, amended in 1962 and 1966. RESOLUTION 1. In 1963, Englewood's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was approved by the City Council under due proc e ss by noti- fication to the public and holding of public ·hearings. 2. Such ordinance was drawn on the basis of "percentages of square footage as related between one zoning area and an- other". 3. This percentage ratio was the result of a thorough study of land use by persons knowledgeable in the professional field of zoning. 4. On approval, this Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance became an integral part of Englewood's Master Plan as provided by Colorado Statute. 5. The people, through their elected councilmen, did approve this Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance -for, among several purposes, "the most appropriate use of land throughout the city", and for said purposes to divide the city into zones of such number, shape, and area as may be deemed best suited to carry out those zoning regulations. It is noted that the term "highest and best use" of small parcels of land is becoming more and more promi- nent as a basic reason appearing in rezoning applications. Zoning for the "highest and best use of a small parcel of land" is considered to be "spot zoning••. In no sense does the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance provide for "spot zoning". "Spot zoning" is known to be the "cardinal" sin in zoning, and as such is the prime factor in th e reduction of land values and the neutralizing of zoning in general of any city. Council hereby endorses the follo wi ng enumerated elements now considered as reasonable requirements for each rezonin g application by Engl ewood 's Planning Commission: 1. Ar ea: must complete at least on e (1) city block of compatible zone class ification, or must consist o f at leas t one (1) city block and be contiguous to l ike or compat1 ble zoning classifica~ion. 2. Proof must be pres ented that there is a demand for and need o f enlarging the existing zoning areas, and th at th e proper ~y cannot be ''reasonably '' d e veloped u nder the existing zone classification . 3 . Th ere must be co:npl1anc e w1tl1 all lhe o ther u sua l elements which ':h e ord 1r~a.ncc provides for as a part -.c ,_, . • I • - - I I I • I I I I • EXCERPTS FRmi THE ZO~I:-:G ORDINA:\CE CO :-iCERii l NG REZONI NG 1 . Section 22 .3-3 Amendment fees of Planning and Zonin g Com- ml.SSl.On . "Any person applying to the Commission for zoning amend- ments shall deposit with application for amendment a sum determined by the Commission as necessary to cover cost for processing said amendment and for advertising costs, but in no event .shall such sum be less than fifty dollars ($50.00)." * 2. Section 22.3 Amendments Section 22.3-1 Requirement for Change. "Whenever the public necessity, convenience, health, saf~ty, morals, general welfare, or good zoning practice justifies such action, and after having been submitted for consideration by the Commission, the City Council may change the zone or the regulations established by this Ordinance after Public Hearing has been held on the proposed change." Section 22.3-2 Initiation of Change. "A proposed change of zone may be submitted by the City Council, the Commission, or the Board without fee, or by an application with proper fees by one or more of the owners of property within the area proposed to be changed. Any proposed amendment or change, initiated otherwise than by the City Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be submitted .-to said Commission for its examination and recommendation before consideration by the City Council." Section 22.3-4 Changing the Ordinance. a. Commission shall meet. ''The Commission shall meet to cons1der proposea-cEanges or amendments to the Zoning Ordi- nance and Map at such times and places as established by rules and regulations of the Commission, and after Public Notice of Hearing. b. Adoption of recommendations. After the Commission has cons1dered theiproposed amendment and/or map change, and has submitted its recommendations to the Council, the Council may adopt by ordinance the proposed amendment and/or map change, after a Public Hearing thereon . Any such amendment and/or map change shall require the a ffirma~ive vote of the majority of the membership of the e ntire Council for final passage. * Th e fee is $50.00 for the fi1 ·st 10 acres or any portion thereof, plu s SS.OO for each additional 5 acres, or any portion th e reof, as determined by the City Pl anning and Zoning Co~n ission. • I • • ...... ·' .. . ' . ,. ] • • • • c. Disapproval of change. [n the event the Commission disapproves a change 1n the Ordinance, a report thereon shall be made to the City Council. An applicant, if dis- satisfied with the recommendations and report of the Com- mission, may appeal to the City Council, and the City Council shall thereupon review the recommendation and report of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. On such appeal, the City Council may, after Public Hearing, make such change in said Ordinance, by the affirmative vote of the majority of the membership of the entire Council . I • - • .. • • • • TIME SCHEDULE Rezoning hearings are held quarterly before Planning Commission. The time from application to the finalization of the rezoning would necessarily depend upon the lapse of time between the filing and the next scheduled quarterly hearing. From the time of the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission until the rezoning bill is complete would be approximately four (4) months. Steps for Rezoning 1. Submit application to Planning Office. 2. Public Hearing before Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. Public Hearing before City Council. 4. Second reading of bill for rezoning before City Council. 5. Final publication of bill for rezoning. 6. Rezoning bill is complete . • I • • - • • • • - CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRlL 10, 1978 ORDINANCE # 10, 11, 12, 13 , 14 RESOLUTION # 31, 32, 33 , 34 , 35 • 0 0 • I . • n • • • • • INTRODUCED AS A BILL BY COUNCILMAN~W~1~·l~l~i~am==s~------- BY AU'l'HORITY ORDINANCE NO. , SERIES OF 1978 AN ORDINANCE REZONING A CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND AT 1451 WEST TUFTS AVENUE IU THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, STATE OF COLORADO, FROM R-1-C SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO I-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP ACCORDINGLY. · WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 22.3 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, extended public hearings were held before the City Planning and Zoning Commission to rezone a certain parcel of land within the City from R-1-c Single Family Residence, to I-1 Light Industrial and amending the officia~ zoning map accordingly; and WHEREAS, said Planning and Zoning Commission has considered the proposed amendment and map change and has submitted its recommendation to City Council there-fore; and WHEREAS, the applicant for the zoning change has appealed the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council; and WHEREAS, City Council has decided to consider the appeal and hold a public hearing on said requested zoning amendment and map change; and WHEREAS, public necessity, community health, safety, the general welfare, good zoning practice justify the proposed amendment to said official zoning map as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, as follows: Section 1. The following described property shall be • I • • n - • • • • rezoned from R-1-c to I-1: Beginning at a point where the centerline of the City Ditch intersect• the north line of tbe SW 1/4, NB 1/4, Sec. 9, Twa. 5 s., Range 68 w., of the 6tb P.M., Arapahoe County, State of Colorado; thence w. along aaid N. line to the City of Englewood City liaits line; thence s. along said line to tbe 8. line of w. TUft• Avenue; thence B. alon1 the s. line of w. TUft• Avenue to th• centerline of the City Ditch; thence HB/ly alonc the centerline of the City Ditch to the point of beginning; said parcel containing 6.35 acre•, aore or leaa. Section 2. The official zoninq map of the City of Enqlewood, Colorado is hereby amended accordinqly. Introduced, read in f\ 1! and passed on first readinq on the 20th day of March, 1978. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the ~day of Marci, 1978. Read by title and passed on final readinq on the ________ d.ay of April, 1978. Published by title as Ordinance No. of 1978, on the ____ day of April, 1978. ___ , Series MAYOR ATTEST: ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer I, William D. James, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, accurate and complete copy of the Ordinance, No. , Series of 1978. ex officio city Clerk-Treasurer -2 -· • >I I • • • • • • INTRODUCED AS A BILL BY COUNCILMAN_W~i~l~l~i~am~s~------- BY AU'l'HORITY ORDINANCE NO. , SERIES OF 1978 AN ORDINANCE REZONING A CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND AT 1451 WEST TUFTS AVENUE Il~ THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, STATE OF COLORADO, FROM R-1-C SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO I-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP ACCORDINGLY. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 22.3 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, extended public hearings were held before the City Planning and Zoning Commission to rezone a certain parcel of land within the City from R-1-c Single Family Residence, to I-1 Light Industrial and amending the official zoning map accordingly; and WHEREAS, said Planning and Zoning Commission has considered the proposed amendment and map change and has submitted its recommendation to City Council there-forer and WHEREAS, the applicant for the zoning change has appealed the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council; and WHEREAS, City Council has decided to consider the appeal and hold a public hearing on said requested zoning amendment and map change; and WHEREAS, public necessity, community health, safety, the general welfare, good zoning practice justify the proposed amendment to said official zoning map as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, as follows: Section 1. The following described property shall be • , I • • - 0 • • • • rezoned from R-1-c to I-1: Beginning at a point where the centerline of the Cit7 Ditch intersects the north line of the SW l/4, NB l/4, Sec, 9, Twa, 5 s., Range 68 w., of the 6th P.M., Arapahoe Countr, State of Colorado; thence W, along said N, line to the City of Englewood Cit7 lt.ita line; thence 8, along said line to the 8, line of W. Tufts Avenue; thence B. along the 8, line of w. Tufts Avenue to the centerline of the Cit7 Ditch; thence NB/17 along the centerline of the Cit7 Ditch to the point of beginning; said parcel containing 6,35 acres, more or leas, Section 2. The official zoning map of the City of Englewood, Colorado is hereby amended accord i ngly. Introduced, read in ft 1 1 and passed on first reading on the 20th day of March , 1978. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the ~day of Marci. 1978. Read by title and passed on final reading on the _________ day of April, 1978. Published by title as Ordinance No. of 1978, on the _____ day of April, 1978. ____ , Series MAYOR ATTEST: e x of fi c i o City Cl erk -Treasurer I, Will i am D. James, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, accurate and complete copy of the Ord i nance, No. , Series of 1978. ex officio city Clerk-Treasurer -2 - • I • • - ( • • • • INTRODUCED AS A BILL BY COUNCILMAN_W==i=l=l=i=arn~s ________ __ BY AUTHORITY ORDINANCE NO. , SERIES OF 1978 AN ORDINANCE REZONING A CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND AT 1451 WEST TUFTS AVENUE IU THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, STATE OF COLORADO, FROM R-1-C SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO I-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP ACCORDINGLY. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 22.3 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, extended public hearings were held before the City Planning and Zoning Commission to rezone a certain parcel of land within the City from R-1-c Single Family Residence, to I-1 Light Industrial and amending the official zoning map accordingly: and WHEREAS, said Planning and Zoning Commission has considered the proposed amendment and map change and has submitted its recommendation to City Council there- fore: and WHEREAS, the applicant for the zoning change has appealed the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council; and WHEREAS, City Council has decided to consider the appeal and hold a public hearing on said requested zoning amendment and map change: and WHEREAS, public necessity, community health, safety, the general welfare, good zoning practice justify the proposed amendment to said official zoning map as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, as follows: Section 1. The following described property shall be • I • • ~ 'l( I o ___ _______; - • • • • rezoned from R-1-c to I-1: Be1innin1 at a point where the centerline of the City Ditch intersects the north line of the SW 1/4, HI 1/4, Sec. 9, Twa. 5 s., Ran1e 68 w., of the 6th P.M., Arapahoe County, State of Colorado; thence w. alon1 said N. line to the City of En1lewood City lt.ita line; thence s. alODI said line to the s. line of w. Tufts Avenue; thence B. alon1 the 8. line of w. Tufts Avenue to the centerline of the City Ditch; thence Nl/lJ alon1 the centerline of the City Ditch to the point of becinninl; said parcel containinl 6.35 acres, aore or less. Section 2. The official zoning map of the City of Englewood, Colorado is hereby amended accordingly. Introduced, read in f\ 11 and passed on first reading on the 20th day of March, 1978. Published aa a Bill for an Ordinance on the ~day of Marc!, 1978. Read by title and passed on final reading on the _________ day of April, 1978. Published by title as Ordinance No. of 1978, on the __ day of April, 1978. _____ , Series MAYOR ATTEST: ex officio C1ty Clerk-Treasurer I, William o. James, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, accurate and complete copy of the Ordinance, No. , Series of 1978. ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer -'1.-· • ~I I • • ~l o - 1-- ( • • • • • • INTRODUCED AS A BILL BY COUNCILMAN~W~i~l~l~i~am~s~-------- BY AUTHORITY ORDINANCE NO. , SERIES OF 1978 AN ORDINANCE REZONING A CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND AT 1451 WEST TUFTS AVENUE IN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, STATE OF COLORADO, FROM R-1-C SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO I-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP ACCORDINGLY. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 22.3 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, extended public hearings were held before the City Planning and Zoning Commission to rezone a certain parcel of land within the City from R-1-c Single Family Residence, to I-1 Light Industrial and amending the official zoning map accordingly; and WHEREAS, said Planning and Zoning Commission has considered the proposed amendment and map change and has submitted its recommendation to City Council there- foreJ and WHEREAS, the applicant for the zoning change has appealed the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council; and WHEREAS, City Council has decided to consider the appeal and hold a public hearing on said requested zoning amendment and map change; and WHEREAS, public necessity, community health, safety, the general welfare, good zoning practice justify the proposed amendment to said official zoning map as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, as follows: Section 1. The following described property shall be • I • • lo __ _ - ( • • • • rezoned from R-1-c to I-1: Beginninl at a point where the centerline of the City Ditch intersects the north line of the SW 1/4, NB 1/4, Sec. 9, Twa. & 8., Range 68 w., of the 6th P.M., Arapahoe County, State of Colorado; thence w. along said N. line to the City of Englewood City limits line; thence s. along said line to the s. line of W. Tufts Avenue; thence E. alon1 the 8. line of w. Tufte Avenue to the centerline of the City Ditch; thence NE/lJ alon1 the centerline of the City Ditch to the point of beginning; said parcel containing 6.35 acres, .are or le••· Section 2. The official zoning map of the City of Englewood, Colorado is hereby amended accordingly. Introduced, read in f\ 11 and passed on first reading on the 20th day of March, 1978. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the ~day of M.:1rci. 1978. Read by title and passed on final reading on the _________ day of April, 1978. Published by title as Ordinance No. of 1978, on the __ day of April, 1978. _____ , Series MAYOR ATTEST: ex off1c1o C1ty Clerk-Treasurer I, William D. James, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, accurate and complete copy of the Ordinance, No. , Series of 1978. ex officio city Clerk-Treasurer -2-· • • I • • - - • • • • COUNCIL PACKETS: APRIL 10, 1978 / Findings of Fact Excerpt of Planning Commission Minut es: February Excer pt of Planning Commission Minutes: Febru a ry Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes: December l. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Petitions submitted by Applicant's Exhibits.J opposition. t~t 7. Staff Report. 8. ftpplication • 22, 1978 / , 7, 1978 20, 197711' I • ~~-----·--------------------------------~·~-A~~~~--~~-L~~I rl ________ __ • - ( • • • CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO CASE NO. 6-77 IN RE: THE APPLICATION OF REX T. GARRETT FOR REZONING FROM R-1-C, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO 1-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ) A Public Hearing was held in connection with Case No. 6-77 on December 20, 1977, in the City Council Chambers at the Englewood City Hall. A quorum of the City Planning and Zoning co .. ission was present, those members being: Mr. Draper, Mr. OWens, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Smith, Mr. Tanguma, Mrs. Wade and Mr. Williams. Commission member Lathrop was absent. Following the receipt of testimony, a motion was approved to continue the Public Hearing on Case No. 6-77 un- til January 24, 1978. Prior to January 24, 1978, the ap~licant, with the concurrence of persons present at the Public Hearing on December 20, 1977 who opposed the application for rezoning, requested that the Public Hearing be continued until February 7, 1978, and this request was granted by the Planning co .. ission. On February 7, 1978, the Public Hearing was continued on Case No. 6-77, with the following members of the City Planning and Zoning co .. ission present: Mr. Draper, Mr. Lathrop, Mr. McClintock•, Mr. Owens, Mr. Parker, Mr~ Pierson, Mr. Smith, Mr. Tanguma and Mr. Williams. No members were absent. Testimony was received and again, a motion was made to continue the Public Hearing to February 22, 1978, on which date the Public Hearing was concluded. The following members of the City Planning and Zoning co .. ission were present at the meeting on Feburary 22, 1978 : Mr . Draper, Mr. Lathrop, Mr. Owens, Mr. Parker, Mrs. Pierson, Mr . Smith and Mr. Williams. Mr. McClintock and Mr . Tanguma were absent . • Mr. McClintock was appointed by tbe City Council to replace Mrs. Wade on the City Planning and Zoning eo .. ission , such appointment being effective on February 1, 1978. • I • • In ( ( • • • • FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports and filed documents, the Comaission makes the following Findings of Fact: -2- 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing to consider the requested rezoning was given by publishing and posting. 2. That the land which was the subject of the rezoning application is an unplatted parcel described as follows: Beginning at a point where the centerline of the City Ditch intersects the north line of the SW l/4, NE l/4, Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 68 West, of the 6th P.M., Arapahoe County, State of Colorado; thence W. along said N. line to the City of Englewood City liaits line; thence s. along said line to the s. line of w. Tufts Avenue; thence E. along the S. line of W. Tufts Avenue to the centerline of the City Ditch; thence Ne/ly along the centerline of the City Ditch to the point of beginning; said parcel containing 6.35 acres, aore or less. 3. That the application for rezoning was filed by Rex T. Garrett, the owner of the subject property since 1957, whose business address is 300 East Haapden Avenue, Suite 328, Englewood, Colorado 80110. 4. That the land which is the subject of this applica- tion was annexed by Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1959, and that siaultaneously, the land was zoned R-1-A, Single-family Residence pursuant to Section 6-7 of Ordinance No. 45, Series of 1955. 5 . That in subsequent action of the City Council, the subject property was zoned R-1-D, a less restrictive single-faaily zone classification. 6. That in 1963, the R-1-D Zone District was repealed by action of the City Council and the subject property was zoned R-1-C, a zone classification coaparable to the repealed R-1-D; which zone district permits single-family residences as a Peraitted Principal Use, with a ainimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a miniaum frontage of 50 feet, a ainimua floor area of 850 square feet and a maxiaum height of 25 feet. 7. That the land to the north of the subject site is in Englewood and is zoned I-1, Light Industrial, that the land to the east is in Englewood and is zoned R-1-A, Single- family Residence, and that the land imaediately to the south and west of the subject is unincorporated and is zoned R-3, a single-family residence district under the Arapahoe County Zoning Ordinance • • I • • ...... • • ( • • • -3- 8. That there is industrial development to the north of the subject site ; to the west there is undeveloped land used in part for storage of aaterials and a single- faaily residence, beyond which there is industrial develop- ment; and to the south there are three single-family residences which are adjacent to industrial developaent on the soutb1 and further, that no per.its have been issued by either Arapahoe County or the City for other than industrial uses in this area since 1970. 9. That the subject site is bounded on the east by the City Ditch, which ditch is at a higher elevation than the property owned by Rex T. Garrett. 10. That there are nine single-family houses on property adjacent to the City Ditch on the east, which are at a higher elevation than the subject property; thus giving the occupants of said houses a visual exposure of any development on the Garrett property which they would not have were they at the sa~ or siailar elevation. 11. That development in the I-1, Light Industrial Zone District, is lt.ited to industrial uses of a less intense nature than in the Heavy Industrial District, plus certain uses which would provide services to the area, and that regula- tions are established to govern the external effects of said light industrial uses and to provide screening of the industrial uses to ainiaize their visual effect on adjacent areas of a aore restrictive residential nature. 12. That the screening which is required consists of landscaping and/or the construction of a decorative closed- face or solid concrete, block, wood or brick wall not less than six (6) feet high, and tbat while such screening is designed to lessen the incompatibility between a residential district and an industrial district at the same or similar elevations, it would not necessarily provide the intended screening effect between an industrial development and an adjacent residential district which is at a higher elevation . 13. That the applicant, Rex T. Garrett , ba s no ex- pressed pla ns for the development of his property at this t iae, although Mr . Garrett bas applied for the rezoning o f the subject property previously, proposing to develop the subject property as either a aobile hoae park or indus trial park ; but such applications have not been favorably referred to the City Council by the Planning eo .. ission. 14 . That access to the subject property is via a Collector Street, West Tufts ~venue, on the •outh and West Stanford Avenue, a deadend street, on the north . • I • - - ( ( ( • • • -4- 15. That in order to provide a ~re efficient move- ment of industrial traffic in this area, it is proposed to ex- tend South Navajo Street between West Oxford Avenue and West Tufts Avenue ; and that the 60-foot right-of-way for the pro- posed South Navajo Street is planned to be along the west side of the Garrett Property. 16. That testimony bas been given by persons knowledgeable in the real estate sales, real estate appraising, construction and banking fields and also written evidence bas been entered into the record of the Hearing from the insuring office of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which supports the position of the applicant that his property cannot be adequately developed under the present zone classification. 17. That testimony bas been given that leads the co .. ission to determine that while certain types of industrial developaent on the subject site could have a negative effect on the adjacent residential property, other uses aay not depre- ciate the value of the adjacent residential developaent if certain controls were placed on those uses as to the height of the structures, access, screening, lighting and external effects. 18. That it is the understanding of the City Planning and Zoning Co-.ission that they cannot recoamend the approval of a rezoning application based upon conditions being placed thereon. CONCLUSIONS 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing was given and the Hearing was held in conformance with the rules of procedure adopted by the City Planning and Zoning Commission. 2. That while the property which is the subject of this Public Hearing may not be properly zoned as R-1-C, Single- family Residence, it would not be in the best interest of the adjacent single-family residential area to rezone said property to the I-1, Light Industrial zone classification. RECOIOIEND.ATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council of the City of Englewood, that the above described land not be zoned I-1, Light Industrial Zone District. Upon the vote of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on February 22, 1978. I • - ( ( • • ( • • • • -5- Those aembers voting in favor of the motion not to reco .. end the rezoning as requested: Mr. OWens, Mr. Parker, Mr. Sai th and Mr . Draper. Those meabers voting in opposition to the motion: Mrs. Pierson and Mr. Williams. Those members abstaining: Mr. Lathrop Those aeabers absent: Mr. McClintock and Mr. Tanguma. BY ORDBR OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. • I • • lo - 0 • ( • • • .. • CITY OF ENGLEW OOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSI ON February 22, 1978 I. CALL TO ORDER. Th e regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Larry Owens. Members present: Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Will i ams, Draper Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent : Smith, Tanguma, McClintock Also present: Associate Planner House; Assistant City Attorney DeWitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. February 7, 1978 Mr. Owens stated that the Minutes of Februar y 7, 1978, were to be considered for approval. Mr. Wanush noted a correction ~at should be mad e in the fi rs t paragraph on Page 18. Lathrop moved: Parker seconded: The Minutes of February 7 , 1978, be approved as amended. AYES: Owens, Parker, Pierson, Williams, Draper, Lathro p NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith, Tanguma, McClintock The motion carried. III. REX T. GARRETT 1451 West Tufts CASE #6-77 February 7, 1978 December 20, 1977 Mr. OWens stated that the Public Hearing on Mr. Garrett's re- z oning request for property at 1451 West Tufts Avenue was continued to this evening from February 7, 1978. Draper mov ed: Lathrop seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #6-77 continue. AYES: Parker, Pierson, Williaas, Draper, Lathrop, Ow ens NAYS: None AB SENT : Smith, Tanguma, McClintock The motion carried • • I • - ( 0 • • • • • -2- Mr. Owens asked Mr. Criswell if the applicants and opponents had reached an agreement at this time? Mr. John A. Criswell 3780 South Broadway -was swor n in. he would yield Gerald Ray. Mr. Gerald Ray Mr. Criswell sta ted that at this point to Mr. 4505 South Lipan Court -was sworn in. Mr . Ray stated that the applicant and opponents have reached an agreement. Mr. Garrett has submitted a letter o f intent and the proposed covenant s which are to be filed to the opponents, and the proposed covenants are acceptable, in principle, to the residents of the neighborhood. Mr. Ray stated that they have another document which was drawn up by the neighbors, which document covers points that have been agreed upon by both parties. Mr. Ray stated they do not have a formal contract drawn and signe d by both parties at this point. Mr. Ray stated b oth the applicant and the residents of the area have, in good faith, agreed to proceed with the Public Hearing, and will continue to work on the actual con- tractual document before the matter is heard by the City Council. Mr. Smith entered the meeting and took his chair with the Commission. Mr. Ray stated that he would like to point out that the Com- mission does have two choices in this matter: either approve the requested rezoning to 1-1, Light Industrial, or deny the rezoning request. Mr. Ray stated that the residents of the area pave been considering the private covenants between Mr. Garrett and themselves, looking at the possibility that t be 1-1 Zoning would be approved; but the choice of approval or of denial by the Commission does exist. Mr. Ray stated that they feel that the covenants that Mr. Garrett and the res i de nts have agreed to will help to protect the residential area if the I-1 zoning is approved. Mr. Ray stated that "everyone on both sides" has worked on the agreement between the applicant and residents. Mr. Ray stated that if the private covenants be- tween the appl icant and opponents had not been agreed upon , a nd 1f the rezoning were approve d, the residents would have to rely on the Co mprehensive Zoning Ordinance and enforcement by the City of Englewood to protect their properties. If the rezoning is approved, the enforcement of the approved c ovenants will be b y c1vil action by the private parties to the covenant . Mr. Ray pointed out that, in either case, the residents abutting Mr. Garrett's property are of the opin ion that they would be facing property devaluation that would result from the zone change from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to I-1, Light Industrial . Mr. Ray pointed out that none of the abutting property owners want to deny anyone the use of their property, unless use of that particular property denies the right of the home owner to use and enjoy his own property • • I • - • ( • • • - -3- Mr. Ray emphasized that the Planning Commission still h as t he same basic decision to make: to take into account all of th e testimony received on the three evenings of the Public Hearing , and determine whether this land should be rezoned to I-1, Light Industr i al, or whether the request should be denied an d the land remain as R-1-C, Single-family residential. Mr. Draper noted that Mr. Ray had said the written agreement is acceptable to the residents in the area, and asked whether or not this includes the residents to the south of West Tufts Avenue? Mr. Ray stated that it did not, He noted that the people he represents have invited the residents south of West Tufts Avenue to attend the meetings, they have left flyers notifying them of the meetings, and no one has shown up at any of their meetings, In view of the apparent lack of interest, they determined not to pursue that course of action, and also felt that there should be a limit on the number of people made a party to the covenants with Mr. Garrett. They felt that by limiting the participation to those property owners abutting Mr. Garrett's property--those persons who "had the most to lose and also the most to gain" by the development of that property for industrial purposes --if those property owners were satisfied with the proposed covenants, that the covenants "couldn't do anything but help the other residents." Mr. Owens asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak in opposition to the requested rezoning? No one indicated they wanted to speak further in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Criswell asked that Mr. Owens inquire whether or not any- one in the audience lived to the south of West Tufts Avenue? Mr. Owens asked if any member of the audience present did reside south of West Tufts Avenue? Mr. Ernest Hoefer 1327 West Tufts Avenue -was sworn in, Mr. Hoefer stated that he was speaking for Mr. and Mrs, Vern Porter, who do reside on the south side of West Tufts Avenue. Mr. and Mrs. Porter are on vacation at this time; t hey have stated t o Mr. Hoefer that they do feel the proposed agreeme nt between Mr. Garrett and the residents of the area is satisfactory, Mr. Criswell noted that the property has been posted, and that this is the third evening that has been scheduled for this Hearing, He stated that he felt if there were any great concerns, the property owners would have been present to voice their objections. Mr. Criswell referred to the Applicant's Exhibit booklet that was submitted to the Commission on the evening of December 20th; information contained under Exhibit #3 discusses the zoning history of this parcel of land. Mr. Criswell stated that when this property was annexed to the City in 1959, the Zoning Ordinance automatically zoned the land to R-1-A, Single-fami~ Residence, upon annexation, Since that time, the property • I • • • • • • -4- owner has been before t h e Planning Commission on three or four different occ asions; o n e occasion when the Commission initiated the rezoning of the property, and the other times on Mr. Garrett's own application, Every time this matter has been before the Commission, the staff has recommended that the property be rezoned from R-1-C, Single-family Resi- dence, to I-1, Lig ht Industrial . Mr. Criswell referred to Exhib it #4, which is a history of the development in t his area since 1963. Mr. Criswell no ted that development west of the City Ditch in this area has, since 1963, been substantial ly industrial in nature , There has been subs t antia l change in the neighborhood from the time Mr. Garrett's property was annexed to the City and zoned f or single-family purposes , Mr. Criswell referred to Applicant's Exhibit #8, copies of the maps contained in the Comprehensive Plan , The Generalized Land Use Maps for 1970 and 1980, which were adopted ~Y the City Council as part of the official Comprehensive Plan in 1969, show industrial development in this area, Mr. Criswell stated that he felt a point that should be taken into account is that the applicant bas shown, irrespective of what this Commission would consider to be the appropriate zoning on this ground, that this ground cannot, under any circumsta nces, be reasonably developed for single-family residential use , Mr. Criswell state d that he feels all of these factors would indicate that a change of zone classification is dictated. He pointed out that when one talks about zoning change, you are ta lking about property values, and the protection of tho~ property values , Mr. Criswell stated that the main question befor~ this Commission is a weighing of property values of the property owner-applicant, Mr. Garrett, as opposed to the property values of the neighboring residents, Mr. Criswell state d that a zoning plan must be designed so that every land owner may use his property for some legitimate purpose, He stated that the present single-family classification of Mr. Garrett's property makes t he land unusable . Mr. Criswell stated that he felt all of the above factors justify a recom- mendation from t he Planning Commission that the rezoning be approved . Mr. Criswell stated that the applicant bas "always been willing to talk about l i mit ing the use of this land beyond those limits set forth in the I-1 Ordinance," The question has been whether or not the City can approve a rezoning with conditions pla ced on it, Mr. Criswell stated that the applicant, Mr. Ray, and other neighbors in the area, have talked for a period of a couple of months and are willing, as demonstrated, to place c ovenants on this ground to restrict the use or method of use be y o nd those restrictions contained in the Comprehensive :.-.oni ng Ordinance , Mr. Criswell pointed out that this Com- mission initiated those discussions between the applicant and oppone n ts . Mr. Criswell stated that the applicant has furth er • D I • • ( • • • • -5- restricted the height of structures in the developme nt o ve r and above the restrictions in th e Zoning Ordi nance, Mr . Criswell s tated that the proposed l imitations on height o f the structures is lower than what could be constructed now under the R-1 -C Zone District. Mr. Criswell stated that he felt it is fair to say that between now and the time of th e Cit y Council meeting at which this matter might be heard, that both sides are confident the written agreemen t between them can be reduced to a legal document that "any attorney would approve." Mr. Criswell stated that as he understands the City Attorney's opinion, it would be tec hnically impossible for the Commission to rely on the private covenants that both Mr. Garrett and the neighboring residents want recorded. Mr. Cri swell stated that based on the criteria submitted, he thought there were fou r reasons the Commission shou ld recommend favo rab le consideration by the City Council: 1 . Both property owners and neighbor s, under any concept o f land use, are allowed to make a reasonabl e use of their land. 2. The applicant has gone as far as can be expected to produce evidence and information to ·show tha t the present R-1-C zoning on his land will not allow the reasonable use of his land, 3. The applicant has attempted to produce evidence and in- f orma tion which would indicate tha t some of the fears of the neighbors, in terms of industri al development and zoning, are empir ically unfounded . The applicant has attempted to show how property values east of the City Ditch have incre ased in spite of the fact of the industrial development in the area. 4. The present R-1-C Zone classification of the proper ty is "confiscatory"; no one could reasonably expect homes to be built across from the present industrial development to the north and west. Mr. Criswell stated that it seems in- consistent to say that the property east of the City Ditch would be damaged by industrial development west of and below the City Ditch, while saying that the subject property value would not be hurt if it were developed for r esidential purposes across from industrial uses on the same topographical level. Mr. Criswell stated that he thinks he speaks for both sides of the issue --the opponents and applicant have confidence that in addition to the Com- prehensive Zoning Ordinance and the limitations contained therein, they have confidence in the signed documents that both sides have agreed to. Mr. Criswell stated that he felt a favorable recommendation from this Commission would not be inappropriate at this time. Mrs. Pierson asked Mr. Criswell if the prepared documents are the same as those read into the record by Mr. Criswell at the last meeting? Mr. Criswell stated that they are substantialzy • a I • • - • • • • • -6- the same. Mr . Criswell stated that Mr. Garrett was called out of town becaus e of family illness, but prior t o leaving he did sign and notarize a document setting forth the po ints of agreement as cited at the meeting of the Commission on Fe bruary 7th. Mr. Criswell stated that he was out of town, also, and the par ties to the agreement could not get toget her to prepare the final legal documen t, He stated t hat a l egal document would be prepared and signed prior to discussion at the City Council level, however. Mrs . Linda Ray 4505 South Lipan Court -was sworn in. Mrs . Ray also reminded the Co mmission they do have a choice of rezoning the property to I-1, Light Indus trial, or d e ny ing the request and leaving the property as R-1-C, Single-fami l y Residence. Mr s. Ray point ed out that at the beginning o f the Public Hearing on December 20th, Kr. Garrett stated that he visualized an industrial development with buildings pro bably not exceeding 12 ft . in height. She pointed out that the applic ant's estimates on height have now risen to the 17 feet et out in the a g reement. She acknowledged th at th e applicant has eliminat ed his right to a 25 foot height , but that he also has no t g iven up any thi n g whe n he has increased the estimated height of the development f rom 12 feet . Mrs. Ray pointed out that Mr. Garrett's proper ty is surrounded by residential zoning on three sides : east, west and south . Mrs. Ray reitera- ted that the County ha s said they feel their land would be an ideal buffer between the residential development and industrial development to the west . She stated that she felt the County was talking in terms o f a greenbelt or some similar park effect. She stated that "this would off-set any residential development built on Mr. Garret t's land being subject to industrial develop-ment".on the west . Mr. OWens inquired about the industrial property to the north o f Mr. Garrett's property? Mrs. Ray stated that she understood the City is having considerable problems with the developer o f the industrial property to the north, and that a suit has been fi led against the deve loper. Mrs. Ray st ated that the developer apparently dug into the City Ditch, and the Ditch is crumbl ing and other problems have occurred. Mr. Owens asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak ? Mr. Roy Eastin 4546 South Lipan Court -was sworn in. He noted that Mr. Criswell has stated that the subject property cannot be used f or residential purposes. He inquired abou t the use o f the s outhe ast corner of the site for the l ast 20 years? Mr . Criswell stated that there is a house on the site and is surrounded by a weed patch. Mr. Eastin stated that be did not feel the use could be classified as a "weed garden", and that the site is not incompa tible to residential use. Mr. Eastin • I • • D - • ( • • • • -7 - stated that Mr. Criswe ll had noted that a change of zoning was "dictated"; he stated that he felt this attitude has "infiltrated e verything today. There are minority groups i mposing their will on the majority." Mr. Eastin also pointed out the fact t ha t Mr. Garrett's land is surrounded by residenti al ly z oned land on three sides. Mr . Draper asked for the City Attorney's opinion on this case. Mr. Rick DeWitt Assistant City Attorney -was sworn in. Mr. DeWitt stated that a public body may no t impose its will on the private public and enforce covenants between private individuals. Mr. DeWitt stated that the method of control and use on land is thru the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Mr. DeWitt stated that covenants between the City an d private in- divi duals is restrictive and is prohibited as contract zonin~ He stated that the Courts feel that contract zoning is a re- linquishment of power on the part of the governing body. Mrs. Pierson pointed out that the City is not a party to the proposed covenants, but the covenants would be between Mr . Garrett, the applicant, and the neighboring property owners. Mr. DeWitt stated that if these parties enter into a valid contract, these private parties can enforce the restrictions set forth in that contract. Mrs. Pierson asked if the Commission can impose any restrictions on the granting of zoning? Mr. DeWitt stated that the Courts have struck down contract zoning. Mr. Criswell stated that the Courts have approved the imposition of covenants on zoning. He stated that he would agree that the Planning Commission cannot enforce private covenants. Mr. Criswell stated that he understood the question is whether , when the Cou n cil zones a piece of property from R-1 to I-1, the z oning could be subject to conditions? Mrs . Pierson asked if Mr. Criswell felt that the Court case said the City may impose reasonable conditions on zoning? Mr . Criswell stated that Arapahoe County, Jefferson County a nd the cities of Lakewood and Littleton, just to cite a few, do place conditions on zoning. Mr. Criswell stated that the City of Eng lewood does not recognize their authority to impose reasonable conditions on zoning, and the City Attorney says that the decision does not state what he personally thinks the decision states. According to the City Attorney 's in- ter preta tion o f t he decision, the City o f Engle wood would ha ve to zone land I-1, for instance, and may not impose any additional conditions on the zoning; this would grant the zoning with no control over the use for that site over and a bove what the Zoning Ordinance permits. The City then, has an inability to attach or impose reasonable land use conditions. Mr . Criswell state d that he personally would say to impose • I • • - • • • • • -8- conditions, and then if the matter is taken to court, tr y t get a clear determi nation whether or not the imposition o f additional conditions is permitted. Mr. DeWitt stated th at he felt the imposition of addition al conditions on a rezo ning is outside the scope of the law , and is not authorized . Mr. DeWitt sta ted that he felt it is better to deal with the law "as we know it." Mr. DeW itt stated that the Commission has c odes and laws to follow wh ich cover the matt e r, and until there are changes in those l aw s , he could not advise that conditions be impose d on a rezo ning. Mr. DeWitt stated that he also differed in opinion on wh at is go ing on in other c ities and counties . Mr. DeWitt state d that he has read the Kings-Mil l case ; he stated that this case did pertain to z on ing, but the matter wa s appealed on the question of procedure, and that it was a valid appeal . Mr . DeWitt stated that he was not sure whether the zoning question was conditional in fact , or if it was part of the zoning ordinance ; but that the fact is extraneous to the issue at hand. Mr. DeWitt emphasized that the Kings-Mill case was appe aled on a procedural matter, and that the appeal was found to be valid. Mr. Sm ith stated that he wanted a simple yes or no answer : was this case dealing with zoni ng with conditions attache d? Mr. DeWitt stated tha t the decision did not pertain to zon ing with conditions. Mr. Criswell stated tha t he felt the case did pertain to con- ditional or contract ual zoning. The Ordinance adopted in this ca se zoned the land for commercial use under the standard zoning distric t, and then added: "But this ground cannot be used for any oth er use authorized in this district but one use." Mr . DeWitt interposed that there was a time element conta ined in this restrict i on. Mr. Criswell stated that he felt the proh ibit ions agains t con tract z on ing developed when a land owner would offer the cit y something in return for his land being rezoned. Mr . Cr iswell that this sort of thing was not allowed. Mr. Criswell stated there were cases dated back to the 1950 's, not in Colora do, that say if you ha ve an R-1 District, f or i nstance, you cannot ex clude any use authorized by the R-1 District . Mr . Criswe ll questioned that wh en a la ndowner would ask for an R-1 Distr ict, for instance, can the City say they will approve the R-1 z oning, but "you can't use it for a use permitted in the dist rict ?" Mr. Cri swell stated that the question was whether or not this was contract zoning. Mr . Criswell stated that the Kings-Mill case was a matter of z oning property to a commercial dis tric ~ and the City Council stated they would rezone the property , but the property owner could not use the land for anyth ing but a shopping center. Mr. Criswel l stated t hat one of the iss u ~ • I • • ( • • • • -9- a t the appeal level was "can the zoning authority, wh e n p ro perty is rezoned, place a restriction or limitation upon uses a ut h orized in the zone district," Mr. Criswell stated that the Cour t of Appeals discus s ed this in terms of contract zoning ; cases o f c ontract zo ni n g were cited, and they did not view this as being c ontract zoning , It was determined that it is not improper for a zoning a uthority to impose reasonable restrictions on re- zo ning, Mr. Criswell stated that on the issue of whether the Ci ty can enforce restrictions over and above those contained in the Zoning Ordinance, and whether this is contract zoning --h e f eels that the public welfare authorizes the City to do so, as long as the restrictions are reasonable and ar e related to tre matter of land use. Mr. Criswell stated that he feels the Court of Appeals has said this. Mr. Draper questioned the possible sale of the land after the zoning and covenants are approved and recorded; he questioned what would ensue if the covenants were determined to be illegal, Mr. Criswell stated that would be a matter of litigation , He pointed out that there is a 90 day period of appeal on the adoption of an ordinance by the City Council, Mr. Smith asked, in the opinion of both Mr. Criswell and Mr. DeWitt, if it would be possible to rezone a parcel of land on the condition that a private agreement is consumated, and if such agreement is not reached whether the rezoning could be revoked? Mr. Criswell stated no. Mr. DeWitt also stated no, Discussion ensued, Mr. DeWitt stated that what the Commission does today will have an effect on the future; this is when the "quibbling" begins over what specific restrictions or provisions mean, He stated that the courts have addressed this problem, and have determined that it is "contract zoning " when you deal in individual cases. Mr. DeWitt stated that the Com- mission mus t cons i der what the property owner ca n rely on in t he future . Mr s . Pierson asked if the imposition of restrictions made this c ontract z oning? She noted that the "label makes a difference a ccording to Mr. Criswell", and asked if this was true? Mr . DeWitt stated that the criteria established by the courts has cal led it c ontract zoning, Parker moved : Williams seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #6-77 be closed, Mr . Smith stated that he felt note should be made of the reasons f or rezoning, as cited in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and that these reasons should be read into the record, Mrs . P ierson questioned the necessity for doing this, inasmuch as t hey are in the Zoning Ordinance and the Commissioner's Hand- book, • I • - • • • • -10- The vote was called: AY ES : Owens, Parker, Pierson, Williams, Draper, Lathro p NAYS : Smith ABSENT: Tanguma, McClintock The motion carri ed . Parker moved : Smith seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the request for rezoning from R-1-C , Single-family Residence, to 1-1, Light Industrial , for property at 145 1 West Tufts Avenue be denied. Discussion ensued. Mr. Smith stated that based on all t he testimony received from both the residents of the are a, from Mr. Garrett, Mr. Criswell and Mr . DeWitt , and after look ing at the subject site and the surrounding area, he personally f eels the land is not going to be adequat ely used as R-1 ; be stated that he also feels the private covenants between the land owners and Mr. Garrett are more restrictive than the regulations g overning R-1 development. Mr. Smith cited the height restriction contained in the proposed covenants, vers~ the 25 ft. height limitation permitted under the R-1-C Zone District. Mr. Smith stated that this is a very difficult dec ision facing the Commission . He personally feels the Com- mission should recommend the rezoning if the covenants be- t ween Mr . Garrett and the residential property owners could be included as a condition on the rezoning. Mr. Smith state d that he felt the Commission would be justified to recommend the rezoning and if the covenants between Mr. Garrett and the resi dents were not formally prepared and signed befor e thi s matter was c onsidered at the Council level, he stated he woul d v ote against the matter at that time. He stated that he would like to see a fav orable recommendation to City Council on th is rezoning, and then have both the applicant and the oppo nents a ppear before City Council and determine if the covena nts were signed and agreed to as proposed. Mr. Williams pointed out that the Commission has been tol d that the covena nts play no part in the decision to be mad e by the Commission. He stated that he felt the Commission was mislead by even bringing up the possibility of the covena nts between these parties. Mr. Williams emphasized that the de- cision t o be made by the Commission is to rezone the land or to deny the request . Mrs . Pierson stated that the Commission has before it a case where it is clear that Mr. Garrett needs his property rezo ned in order to develop it; it is also clear that the res iden tial neighborhood needs to be protected. Mrs. Pierson stated tha t she felt this was an instance where the use of restrictive covena nts between the private parties is warranted. She agree d that the covenants should not run to the City , but should be between the applicant and opponents. Ms. Pierson • I • • n - • ( • • • • -11- stated that th e Commission has heard diverse opinions from t wo very competent attorneys, and it is not clear whe ther or not restrictions or conditions can be placed on a rezoning. Mrs. Pierson stated that she did not feel the Commission "should live i n fear of the future"; she stated that she felt the Commission had enough flexibility to condition the rezoning on the imposition of restrictive covenants on this land. Mrs. Pierson stated that she would like to see a motion recommending the rezoning to City Council, imposing restrictions on the rezoning that would closely parallel the agreement between the two parties. Mrs. Pierson stated that sh e would make such a motion if the motion to deny the request should fail. Mr. Parker stated that he bad lived in this area for 50 years. He stated that he felt whether or not someone can develop their land financially is not his concern, and is not the problem a the people who live in the surrounding area . Mr. P arker stated that he felt the fact that the City of Englewood is completely surrounded and cannot expand for any more residential develop- ment is important. Mr. Parker questioned the need for further commercial and industrial development, and pointed out the falling school population could be aided with further residential development. Mr. Parker stated that he "isn't sold on the fact that land abutting I-1 cannot be developed for high-density living just because the attorney shows some letters regarding the financing." Mr. Parker stated that he felt private money would be available for the financing of the residential con- struction. Mr. Parker stated thatto keep the quality of life we have now, he would hate to see the ratio of industrial and business zoning and development increase. Mr. Smith stated that if this rezoning request was denied, or approved, both parties would have recourse to City Council ; is this correct? Mr. DeWitt stated that this is correct. Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Williams had a point ; the Commission must consider the rezoning of land from R-1-C to I-1, and can- not and should not consider the private covenants . This being the case, Mr. Smith stated that he would have to vote to deny the zoning request, and let the applicant appeal the matter to City Council. Mr. Owens stated that he appreciated the cooperation that both the applicant and the opponents have shown in this matter. Mr. Owens stated that the City Attorney has stated that the City cannot put covenants or conditions on this property, and both Councilmen have indicated that the matter is that of a "straight rezoning", which means that the Commission is con- sidering a change of zoning from R-1-C, Single-family Residence , t o I-1, Light Industrial. Mr. OWens stated that if the City At torney agreed that conditions could be placed on the rezoning, he personally felt that the rezoning was warranted. However, if conditions cannot be placed on the rezoning, he stated that it would be difficult for him to vote to change the zoning des ignation on the subject property . • I • • • • • • -12- Mr. DeWitt poi nted out that the Commission must consider the criteria for rezon ing; he stated tha t he is n ot saying, be- cause c onditions cannot be placed on the rezoning, that the criteria for a rezoning is or is not being met in this in- sta nce, He cautioned the Commission not to base their opin i o n on this criteria alone, and not to exclude consideration of these criteria, Mr. Owens pointed out that the covenants wou ld be between the applicant and the abutting property owners . He q uestioned what could be done if the applicant defaults, and if they come in for a Building Permit, Mr. DeWitt stat e d that the City wou ld have no authori ty to deny issuance o f a Building Permit. * Mrs. Pierson asked if Mr. DeWitt felt the Commission could not impose restrictions, and that if the Commission did, would they be struck down in a court of law? Mr. DeWitt referred to the criteria the Commission must consider in a rezoning request , such as a change of character in the area, etc . Mr. DeW itt stated that he did not see that the Commission has the au t hority to impose conditions and re strictions on rezoning. He stated that he has read through many cases on rezoning, and cited Rathkopf, Anderson, and other authorities on Planning and Zoning. He stated that there is no authority for the Planni ng Commission to impose conditions and restrictions on rezoning . Mrs. Pierson asked "are you saying we are specifically pro- hibited from doing this, or are we not specifically allow ed?" Mr. DeWitt stated that (1), there is no authority to allow the Commission to do it, and (2), there is a prohibition f rom doing it because it would be termed contract zoning. The yote on t he motion was called: AYES: Owens, Parker, Smith, Draper NAYS: Pierson , Williams ABSTAIN: Lathrop ABSENT : Mc Clintock, Tanguma The motion carried . Mr. Williams questioned Mr. Lathrop's abst ent ion in the voting. Mr. Wanush pointed out that Mr. Lathrop had been a bsent at the initia l hearing on December 20th, and had not listened to the ta pe of that meeting; therefore , he abstained from voting on this issue . Mr. Owens advised the applicant of his rights of appeal to the City Council. Mr. Smith questioned the staff about Findings of Fact on this matter . Mr. Wanush stated that they would be prepared and presente d a t a later meeting . Mr. Criswell asked if the time limitation for appeal of this matter would begin until the adoption of the Findings of Fact? He was assured that the *As amended March 21, 1978 • • I ( • • • .. -13- time to appeal would follow the adoption of those lindings of Fac t , and that he woul d be sent a copy of the Findings of Fact . Chairman Ow ens declared a recess of the mee ting, Th e meeting reconvened with the f ollowing members present : Draper, Lathrop, Owens, Pa rker, Smith . Absent were: McClintock, Pierson, Tanguma, Williams, IV, LITTLE DRY CREEK FLOOD CONTROL Alternate #5 CASE #2-78 Public Works Director Kells Waggoner stated that h e is seeking some directio n from the Commission on the proposed alternatives for flood control on Little Dry Creek. Mrs. Pierson entered and took her place with th e Co mmission. Mr. Waggoner traced the course of Little Dry Creek through the City, noting that it bisects the Cinderella Ci t y Shopping Center in a box conduit, and ends at the South Platte River at approxi- mately West Dartmouth Avenue. The box conduit begins to the south of the Chamber of Commerce building, and extends under the shopping center and then runs into an open channel north to its confluence with South Platte River , It is also an open cha nnel from Clarkson to the box conduit at the Chamber o f Commerce building. Mr. Draper questioned whether there could be construction over a box conduit? Mr. Waggoner stated that the box conduit is strong enough to withstand construction over it. Mr. Waggoner noted that all alternatives for flood control on Little Dry Creek call for an open channel in the area between the South Platte River and South Santa Fe Drive . Mr. Waggoner discussed studies on Little Dry Creek by the Urban Drainage District and by McCall, Ellingson . The existing box conduit was proposed to be extended to Sh erman Street with a covered channel to Clarkson Street . Improvements were proposed east of South Clarkson to bring Greenwood Gulch into Little Dry Creek; the proposal included the construction of six dams . Englewood Dam was in existence, and has been improved since that study. There are funds set aside in the Urban Drainage District budget for the construct ion of the Holly Street Dam. The District is working on getting some of the sanitary sewe r lines relocated to facilitate the construction of the Holly Dam. Mr. Waggoner stated there was no time schedule on t he remaining four dams, but he hoped that Prentice and Berry dams would become a reality. He stated that on the Blackmere and Quincy dams, they have been told by the property owners that they will not sell the land for these dams to be built. Following this, the City Council retained Sellards and Grigg to devise alternates for the Little Dry Creek flood control. Fo ur alternatives were recommended in the Sellards and Grigg study, all four of which would accommodate a 100-year storm • • 0 I • • ( • • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 7, 1978 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Pierson at 7:15P.M. Members present: Williams, Draper, Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, McClintock Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: None Also present: Assistant Director Romans; Associate Planner Steve House. Mrs. Pierson welcomed Mr. Richard McClintock to the Comaission. Mr. McClintock was recently appointed to a four-year term by the City Council. Mrs. Pierson announced that Mr. Ed Draper was reappointed to a four-year term by the City Council. Mrs. Pierson stated that, as a rule, the Coamission elects a Cbairaan and Vice-Chairaan for the coming year at the first meeting in February. She suggested that the agenda be revised to continue the Public Hearing on Mr. Garrett's request prior to re-organization of the Coaaission. It was ~ved by Mr. Williaas that the aatter of Mr. Garrett's Rezoning be considered prior to the re-organization of the Coaaission. Mr. Williaa's motion was seconded, and the vote was called: AYES: Parker, Pierson, Saith, Tanguma, McClintock, Williams, Draper, Lathrop, Owens NAYS: None The action carried. II. REX T GARRETT 1451 fest Tufts CASE #6-77A December 2o, 1977 Mrs. Pierson stated that the Commission would now consider the request of Mr. Garrett to rezone property at 1451 West Tufts Avenue froa R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to I-1, Light Industrial. Parker aoved: Tanguma seconded: The Coaaission resume the Public Hearing on Case #6-77, Rex T. Garrett, applicant. A YES: Draper, Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Sai th, Tanguma, McClintock, Williaas NAYS: None The motion carried. • I • • - • • • • - -2- Mrs, Pierson stated that at the meeting on December 20th, it was suggested that the applicant and opponents attempt to reach an agreement on the use and development of the site. She asked for an up-date on this matter , Mr. John Criswell 3780 South Broadway -was sworn in, and testified that the applicant, Mr. Rex Garrett, and he have had three meetings with representatives of the opposition group. This group had met earlier this day and reached an agreement on a couple of points that had been of concern to both parties. Mr. Ray, representative of the opponents, was to reduce this agreement to writing, With the exception of a couple matters that need further clarification, they are in substantial agree- ment, Mr. Criswell stated that he would like to read into the record the agreement as they have proposed it. Mr. Criswell stated that, on behalf of the applicant, he would appreciate the Commission acting on the matter at this meeting; and within ten days, the band-written agreement would be reduced to a legal document for presentation to the City Council if the Commission approves the rezoning request. Mrs, Pierson stated that she personally had concerns about proceeding in this manner; she questioned if it would be possible for the applicant and opponents to enter into a final written agreement, and if this agreement could be presented to the Commission for their consideration at the next Comaission meeting of February 22nd? Mr. Criswell stated that if the Commission postponed this matter for two weeks, in all possibility they will be faced with the same situation. Mr. Criswell stated that he would like to read the agreement into the record and get his client on record as to the agreement at this meeting, Mr. Cri .. ell stated that he would, in fact, like to get both sides on record on what they have agreed to; he noted there has been six or seven hours of discussion pertaining to the proposed agreement. Mrs. Pierson asked Mr. Gerald Ray to approach the podium. Mr. Ray was sworn in, and stated that it was their intent to have a final document signed and ready for presentation, He stated that they have reached basic agreement on all points, Mr. Ray stated that he did not want to misrepresent his position with the neighbors: the intent of what they have agreed to is written; however, not all of the parties affected by this proposed rezoning have bad an opportunity to read the latest draft of the agreement. Mr. Ray stated that if acceptance of this agreement by the co .. ission would endanger the rights of other people who have not bad an opportunity to read the proposed agreement, be would agree to a postponement of the Commission decision if that is their desire, Mr. Ray emphasized that the discussions have been "in principle, as opposed to what a legal document would say", but reiterated that the hand-written document does indicate the "intent" of the agreement. • I • • ( • • • • -3- Mrs. Pierson asked if Mr. Ray would be "comfortable" to have the proposed agreement read into the record? Mr. Ray stated that he would have no objection as long as the reading of the proposed agreement into the record would not bind the opponents ; the opponents do not want to give up their right to oppose Mr. Garrett's proposal at this or any other public hearing. Mr. Smith stated that he thought the Commission was considering a "straight forward zoning"; the applicants and opponents were to draw up a set of covenants between themselves so the con- sideration of the rezoning by the Commission would be "straight forward." He asked if the covenants would be legal and binding at this point if both parties agreed to them? Mr. Criswell stated that Mr. Garrett would not agree to sign the agreement until the zoning is granted. Mr. Criswell reiterated that he felt the applicant and opponents have resolved every issue between them. He stated he did not know what opportunity Mr. Ray had had to speak to all of the property owners that are named in this agreement since the dis- banding of their meeting at 5:15P.M. earlier this day. Mr. Criswell stated that both parties have yielded points to reach this agreement, and that parties to the agreement "have not discussed anything they haven't agreed upon." He stated that Mr. Ray has outlined 14 points upon which both parties are agreed; he felt this could be termed a letter of intent, which would be transposed into a legal document for signing by all parties concerned. Mrs. Pierson asked what motivation Mr. Garrett would have to sign the covenants if the Commission granted the rezoning as he has requested without the agreement being reached and signed by all parties? Mr. Criswell stated that be understood the applicant and opponents were to determine if they could reach an agreement on industrial development of the land if the zoning was to be granted; they did reach such an agreement, but it has not been reduced into a recordable legal document at this point. Mr. Criswell stated that what he was asking the Commission to do this evening would not be binding upon anyone, whether or not the zoning is approved. He pointed out that the Planning Commission would only be making a recom- mendation to the City Council based on testimony received at the Public Hearing on December 20th, and testimony received this evening. Mr. Criswell stated that if the Commission recommended favorably on Mr. Garrett's request, there would be a second Public Hearing before City Council at which time the agreement could be presented in final form. Mr. Criswell pointed out that if a favorable recommendation were rendered this evening, it would be at least 30 days, and possibly five to six weeks before the case would be heard by the City Council, by which time the written agreement could be reduced to a legal document. Mr. Criswell stated that the Commission recommends to City Council on a matter, and the City Council decision determines whether the matter is approved or disapproved. Mr. Criswell stated he felt there was no question but that there • I • • • • • -4- is an agreement between the applicant and the opponents listed as party to the agreement, and he would like to proceed to read this hand-written agreement into the record. Mr. Criswell reiterated there would not be a final recorded document until the rezoning request is approved by the City Council. Mr. owens asked if Mr. Garrett would be opposed to a postpone- ment of the decision until a final document is prepared? Mr. Criswell again pointed out that there would be at least four weeks after Commission action until the Council would consider the request, at which time the final document would be presented. He stated, however, that if the Commission determination was for postponement for another two weeks, they would go along with this determination. Mr. Criswell stated that "what this Commission recommends must be based on this Commission's feelings at the time; what the Commission does tonight is not final; whatever this Commission does, it must go before Council and there must be another Public Hearing. If this Commission wants to wait until a final legal document is prepared --it will not be recorded until after the City Council action on the matter." He stated that their position is that they have reached an agreement and are willing to read it into the record; both parties are saying this is their agreement, and will fullow it up with a legal document. Mr. Parker suggested that perhaps the procedure should be to close the Hearing and call for a vote on the question of the rezoning. Mrs. Pierson stated that if she were to vote on the matter at this point without an agreement in final form between the parties, she would have to vote against the re- zoning request. Mr. Owens pointed out that the question be- fore the Commission is ~at of rezoning and that the City Atto~ney has stated that additional stipulations cannot be placed on a rezoning in regard to uses, etc. Mr. Owens stated that the agreement is a private agreement between the concerned parties, and does not concern the Commission. Mr. Wanush stated that the Commission could make a decision without an agreement of the parties. He pointed out that there is an agreement between the parties, but that this agreement will not be enforced by the City. However, "if the Commission has taken the tact that they want the parties to agree to something, you should see the agreement before you pass on it." He stated he thinks reading the proposed agreement into the record is a sound idea. Mr. Williams stated that he agreed; the applicant and opponents are ready to give a statement, and he felt the Commission should hear them. Mr. Tanguma agreed that the Commission should bear what the applicant and opponents have to say; he pointed out that the Commission did ask for the document, and questioned that the Commission could act until they know what the applicant and opponents are talking about in their agreement • • I • • - 1 ( ( • • • • -5- Mr. Owens agreed that they should be given an opportunity to speak; he pointed out that the verbal agreement is just be- tween the two parties, and the decision of the Commission must be on the matter of rezoning. Mrs. Pierson stated that she would like to hear the agreement read into the record, but before she could approve the rezoning she would have to know that the agreeaent is signed by all concerned parties; she stated that an oral agreement does not bind the parties to that agreement. Mr. OWens suggested that the applicant and opponents be given the opportunity to present their case this evening, and read the agreement into the record; at that point, if the Commission is not comfortable with the agreement, the applicant has in- dicated they would agree to a two-week postponement. He noted that some of the homeowners might want to speak on the matter. Mrs. Gerald Ray 4505 South Lipan Court -stated that the opposition to the re- quest depends on whether the agreeaent is signed; she stated that she can't say she is for the 1-1 zoning if she doesn't have "something in my hand" signed·by Mr. Garrett. She stated that she is against the 1-1 Zone District requested by Mr. Garrett unless that agreement is signed. Mr. Criswell stated that when the meeting in his office ended at 5:15 this evening, it was agreed that Mr. Ray would write the agreement that would be presented, and that it would be signed when redUced to a legal document. Mr. Criswell statEd that "subject to two lawyer•s-nitpicking-comments", they do have something that they intend to sign. Mr. Criswell stated that Mr. Ray's hand-written agreement will be written in a legal document that will be recorded at such time as the re- zoning is approved by the City Council. He again stated that he would like to read into the record the matters that the applicant and opponents have agreed upon. Mr. Criswell stated that what Mr. Ray has written out is 99% correct in intent, and the problem is with the language. Mr. Criswell stated again that he would like to read the proposed agreement into the record and ask both Mr. Garrett and Mr. Ray, for the record, if this is what they have agreed to. Following is the transcription of this section of the Public Hearing: MR. CRISWELL: As a culmination of all previous proposals and conversations, the undersigned parties agree in principle to the following items. The specific legal wording of the covenants will be set forth in contractual form and agreed to and signed by both parties prior to the Public Hearing before City Council on rezoning Case #6-77 . • I • - 0 • • • • -6- 1. The agreement would be between the present owners of the property sought to be rezoned and the present owners of Lots 43 thru 50, Belle Isle Gardens --the properties on the west side of Lipan Court, plus the property abutting Mr. Garrett's property on the east which is the Hoefer property, the triangular property. The covenants and obligations would run with the land, would burden Mr. Garrett's property, and would be for the benefit of the other nine properties. 2. The objecting property owners would withdraw their objections to the presently pending rezoning, and would support that re- quest; in addition, they would agree not to oppose a request for a variance from the Englewood Board of Adjustment to eliminate the fencing requirement along the east boundary of Mr. Garrett's property as outlined in the I-1 Zoning Ordinance - apparently §1(2), Page 9 and 10; that's a reference to the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Even though there may be no legal requirement therefor, no building permit would issue until: (a) There has been submitted and approved by the City a formal Subdivision Plat upon the ground, or (b) There has been submitted and approved by the City a Planned Unit Development Plan under the Zoning Ordinance, The property owners would continue to have the right to appear at all Hearings upon either of these matters and object to the specific plan submitted, Now, if I may stop right there and add a comment: there was some question raised, both in the Public Hearing previously before this Commission and in our negotiations, that if Mr. Garrett sold his property as a unit, to a single purchaser, there would be no requirements necessary for a subdivision plat. And we have said that, OK, that may be true, but we agreed for ourselves and whoever our successors are, that there be a subdivision plat filed and approved, or a Planned Unit Development Plan filed and approved before any Building Permit will issue. 4 . The use of the ground will be limited to those uses presently authorized in the I-1 Zone District, and no --no further re- zoning would be requested, unless: (a) The abutting property across Tufts to the south is rezoned to permit uses now authorized by Englewood's I-1 District ; and (b) The nine properties, that is to the east, are rezoned to allow 14 or more dwelling units per acre, or any non-residential building for profit, I think that's pretty clear, but if the area to the south of D I L_~~----·-----------------------------------------------·------------~----~~·0 ____ __ • - l ( • • • • - -7- us is rezoned industrial, AND the area to the east of us is zoned for either a commercial building OR to apartment houses of a density of 14 units per acre, which is fairly dense, then the covenants would be off. That may happen within 80 years or so. 5. The maximum overall exterior height shall be as follows, measured from the present grade, Now, most of your city, counties height limitations are measured from finished grade; we have agreed to measure these heights from present grade, which means if we bring fill in for two feet, and that probably isn't going to happen, but if we bring fill in for two feet, that is two feet of our height. (a) All buildings on the east portion of the property, the maximum overall height at any point may not exceed 17 feet. (b) Where the e~evation to the west is 10 feet or aore below the elevation of the point of setback on the east side, the maximum overall height at any point may not exceed 28 feet. Now, I have some objection that language that I have expressed to Jerry [Ray] and he says no problems. If you look at the topo, there is a point where the topo line runs that is approxi- mately 10 feet below the ditch, That point --Rex, it's "X" number of inches on that scale --is, I would judge, and don't hold me to this, about 175 feet west of the ditch. What we have said is, anything to the east side of that shall be 17 feet measured from natural grade; anything to west of that will be a maximum 28 feet measured from grade, and I think that's what we're talking about, OK? Now, you see, the problem is that we can't express that now, because we're going to probably have to come to the City Engineer to get that line for us. 6. There will be a minimum setback of 25 feet from the center- line of the City Ditch, or the west property of Lot 43, whic~ ever is further west, to the wall of any building located on the property. Now, the most northerly property on South Lipan Court is owned by the Helfers, and if you'll recall that is the one property that owns property on both sides of the ditch, and where their property line starts is where our setback would start, 7. No billboards, signs, or other extensions will be allowed above the roof line of any building located on the property; it is further understood this limitation is not applicable to necessary heating and cooling systems necessary to the use of the building. 8. Screening will be in accordance with the 1-1 Zoning Ordinance, except as provided in Item No. 2; and Itea No. 2 • D I • • • • • - -8- of course, was the thing that referred to the granting of a variance for a fence. The construction of a screening device on the west boundary of Lot 43, which is the property --the northernmost property, which extends to the west of the ditch a ways; the construction of a screening device on the west boundary of Lot No. 43 will be negotiated directly between Mr. Garrett and the owners of Lot 43. The Zoning Ordinance presently requires a solid fence, and we have agreed to erect a solid fence along that boundary, unless we can go to the owners and convince them that some other typs of shrubbery screening, or some other type of screening would be more beneficial. The 25 foot setback described in No. 6 would be landscaped based on the following formula: (1) ---well, let me read "b"first, Jerry, OK? (b) A tree or shrub will be provided for each 200 square feet of the setback area, i.e., you take 25 feet of setback, you multiply that by the length of that setback from Stanford to Tufts, and you come up with "X" number of square feet, and we're going to provide one tree or one shrub --evergreen type, for each 200 square feet. Each tree will have a minimum height of 4 feet; each shrub will have a miniaua height of a foot and a half. One-half of these things will be trees, one- half will be shrubs. Trees and shrubs will be of both the deciduous and evergreen variety. (c) At the option of the abutting property owner, the landscaping will be done on either side of the ditch, whichever is aore beneficial due to the slope of the land. Now, let me explain that to you, if I aay, just to give you some ~dea what the devil we're talking about here. We've agreed to take 25 foot setbacks in this area here and put a --interruption by Chairman Pierson --these are the property owners that are involved: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. We've agreed, first, to setback 25 feet froa the centerline of the ditch; we've agreed to put in one tree or one shrub for each 200 square feet, i.e., 25 feet by whatever that length is. You will notice that the property lines of these property owners here are set way back froa the ditch ; also, if you look at the area you will note there is already a great deal of large trees and landscaping in this area here . We've said we will put in one tree and one shrub, or one tree or one shrub, for each 200 feet in this setback. We'll either put them along here, if that's where you want thea planted, or if you'd rather have thea planted along here, as a landscaping device, we'll give them to you to put there. OK, that's what that language means. 9. Lighting facilities for the property and any buildings will be such that no flood lights will be directed, and will be shaded downward, toward the adjacent zoned residential area, except that soft lights of a aercury type, as approved by the City of Englewood, for night protection aay be used similar to s treet lights and this will be for the protection • 0 I • • ( ( • • • -9- of both industrial and residential p~operty owners from theft, etc. 10. The permitted principle activity of the building or building structures abutting any of the nine properties, i.e., any buildings that are built in this tier, the first buildings west of the ditch, will be limited to and conducted from the west side of said buildings. Such activity shall include but not be limited to access, parking and trash removal. So all activity, there will be no activity between the ditch and the buildings. All of the activity will be on the west side of the buildings. 11. Outside storage shall be enclosed by a solid fence or wall not less than six nor more than eight feet in height, so as to conceal such facilities from the abutting residential area. Further, any trash collection centers will be of the covered type and no outside storage shall create litter, fire hazard, health hazard or create a nuisance. 12. Except where the agreement is more restrictive, the lillitations upon the property shall be governed by City regula- tions, such as zoning, building and fire codes. Example; zoning and fire regulations pertaining to inflammable materials. 13. Amendments to the agreement would be permitted only in accordance with the procedure and v.otes set forth in the property owners original proposal dated 1/6/78. Jerry, explain to me again what that would require in order for the neighbors to amend it, what type of vote would we have to get? IIR. RAY: In that document, it reads "the covenants, agreements, conditions, res rvations, restrictions and charges created and established herein, may be waived, terminated or modified as to the whole or any portion thereof, with the written consent of 1001 of the covenantees whose properties abut the subject property, those being: 4501 and 4505 South Lipan Court, and 1327 West Tufts Avenue, and a majority of the remaining covenantees. IIR. CRISWELL: Alright, in order to get modification, as I understand it, these three would have to agree, all three of them have to agree, plus ---unintelligible on tape --- We have to get this property, this property, and this proper~ is it? to agree? OK, we have to get this property owner, this property owner and this property owner all to agree plus we have to get a majority of the other one, two, three, four, five, six, ---so we have to have seven votes out of nine to get it, any modifications. 14. No junk yards shall be peraitted. 15. The agreement would be null and void if either: (a} The City refuses to rezone as requested, or • • I • - • • • • - -10- (b) There is litigation commenced to set aside the rezoning within 90 days from the date Council approves the rezoning with the understanding that the person commencing the suit has no legal or equable interest in the subject property and there is no indication of collusion on the part of either the undersigned parties." Mr. Criswell stated that this is what they have agreed to, and the legal wording of this document will follow. He stated that he feels this is more than a statement of principles; he stated that there has not been an opportunity for counsel for both sides to get together and put it in the legal language suitable for an agreement, but this will be done as soon as possible. Mr. Criswell reiterated that if this Commission wanted to postpone its action, the applicant will live with it, but they are saying that the agreement is dependent on City Council action. Mr. Rex T. Garrett Route 3, Box 97 Parker Colorado --was sworn in. Mrs. Pierson stated to Mr. Garrett "you have heard the agreement in principle; do you agree with this statement?" Mr. Garrett stated that basically all of these items have been agreed upon after seven hours of deliberations. He stated he did not dis- agree with any specific items, but he does have some concern about some of the wording. Mrs. Pierson asked if Mr. Garrett disagreed with any of the items in principle? Mr. Garrett stated that he did not disagree with any of the items in principle. Mr. Smith questioned Mr. Garrett on the language be objected to. ~r. Garrett noted that in Item No. 1, the statement that the covenants and obligations would run with the land and burden Mr. Garrett's property and be for the benefit of the other nine properties; be stated that be felt the covenants and obligations placed on his property will not only benefit those nine property owners, but would benefit the entire ne ig hborhood. Mr. Garrett also mentioned #5(b) on the matter of elevations; be noted that the 10 foot difference in elevation to the west is approximately 145 feet west of the point of setback. Mr. Criswell pointed out on a topo map of the area a topo line that indicates a 10 foot difference in elevation from the centerline of the City Ditch to the east of this line. Mr. Criswell stated that Mr. Garrett is saying there will be 145 feet between the centerline of tm Ditch, which area may be developed with buildings not to exceed 17 feet in height, to that area which is 10 feet below that elevation, which area may be developed with structures not to exceed 28 feet in height. Mr. Garrett stated that he felt he has done everything that be can do to meet with the opponents whenever they indicated they wanted to meet, and has done everything he can do to reach an amicable agreement on the development of this land; he stated that as far as be is concerned, the agreement can • D I • ( • • • • -11- be formally written at any time ; it is up to the opponents. Mr. Garrett stated that he has agreed to everything cited in the proposed agreement in principle and stated that he felt every point they have covered has been agreed upon. Mrs. Pierson called Mr. Ray to the podium. She stated that Mr. Ray has stated that he represented the nine property owners directly involved in this matter, and asked if she had under- stood this correctly? Mr. Ray stated that he did represent those nine property owners. Mrs. Pierson asked if those property owners were in attendance this evening? Mr . Ray stated that there were only three property owners present this evening; he stated that he has called other property owners of the nine involved, some were ill and unable to attend. He stated that he bad talked to two of these people about the "letter of intent". Mr. Ray stated that the optimum thing for all of these property owners would be not to rezone the land; but that in view of Mr. Garrett's applica- tion, they have no alternative but to deal with the possibility of rezoning and to oppose the request. He stated that they are approaching the proposed covenants as an alternative or mid-ground approach, if the Commission and City Council deter- mine that the 1-1 Zone District is proper. He reiterated that the adjoining property owners would prefer to see the land remain zoned for residential use and development. Mr. Ray stated that be feels the proposed covenants would be more restrictive than the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance if the 1-1 Zone District were to be approved on Mr. Garrett's land. He stated that he and the other property owners still do not feel the 1-1 Zone District should abut an R-1-A District. Mr. Ray stated that the people present who are affected by the covenants have asked him to ask for a postponement of the decision by the Commission until a final document has been prepared; not everyone has had an opportunity to review the agreement as presently proposed, Mrs . Pierson asked "are you saying you don't agree to this at this point?" Mr. Ray stated: "Yes; we have agreed to this between us, but not everyone bas reached this agreement, and I don 't feel I can properly represent everyone's opinion ." Mr. Smith asked Mr . Ray if he felt there was any reason that a formal agreement could not be reached by all parties con- cerned by the next meeting of the Commission!On February 22nd? Mr. Ray stated that he foresaw no problem in doing this. Mr. Ray asked how much impact a formal agreement, agreed to by all parties, would have on the decision of the Commission? Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt this is one item the Commission will take into account. She stated that she is personally op- posed to the rezoning request without the agreement. Mr. Ray stated that he did not want the co .. ission to think the agreement removes the opposition to the 1-1 Zoning ; it does not. The property owners are still opposed to the re- zoning reque st • • I • • - • • • • -12- Mr. Criswell stated that he recognized the difficulty of reaching an agreement when you represent a group of people. He stated that his client, Mr . Garrett, bas made concessions and that an agreement on everything but the height of the structures was reached two weeks ago; they did reach the agreement on the height of the structures at their session earlier this evening. Mr. Criswell stated that the record should reflect their willingness to enter into the restricti~ covenants pertaining to the development of Mr. Garrett's property. Mr. Criswell stated that if the nine property owners affected by the covenants are not willing to sign the proposed agreement, he stated that he would hope they would notify the applicant and himself as soon as possible. Mr. Criswell stated that it should be made clear they have spent a considerable amount of time on this agreement, and have made their concessions; he felt that the applicant should be told now whether or not the agreement will be approved. Parker moved: Williams seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #6-77 be closed. Mr. owens pointed out that some other members of the audience may want to speak on this matter before the Hearing is closed. Mr. Parker withdrew his motion, and Mr. Williams withdrew his second to the motion. Mrs . Pierson asked if there were anyone in the audience who wished to make a statement in favor of this matter? No one spoke in favor of the rezoning request. Mrs. Pierson then asked if there were members of the audience who wished to speak in opposition? Mitch .Wagers 4550 South Lipan -stated that he understood the agreement would be in effect only if the rezoning is approved. He asked whether or not this agreement would have anything to do with counteracting the decrease in property values that would probably result if the rezoning were approved? Mrs. Pierson stated that this could not be determined. Mr. Wagers stated that if this rezoning request is approved, he felt that in 20 or 30 years "they can come up again and say this . land should be condemned and more factories and manufacturing must be put in"; he asked if this would be possible? Mrs. Pierson stated that if the rezonin& is granted, and the p roposed agreement is in effect, by that agreement it would require signatures and approval of seven of the nine property owners who sign the agreement to have changes made to that agreement. If a use is proposed that would be contrary to the permitted uses in the Zoning District, the matter would have to be considered for rezoning. Mr . Wagers stated that be feared that in 20 years or so, "they • I • - ( ( • • • .. - -13- may force people in residences out; that they could come in and say it's condemned." Mrs. Pierson stated that a private property owner would not have the right of condemnation. Mr. Elmer Jungck 4606 South Mariposa Drive -stated that he has lived at this address for 17 years; this is the fourth time that the property owners have been before the Planning Commission on the same issue of rezoning Mr. Garrett's property. Mr. Jungck noted that Mr. Garrett has moved away from this area, and stated that they were told that the area "was overbuilt". Mr. Jungck discussed the air pollution which has been extremely bad ; he noted that the additional trucks which will be in the area as a result of additional industrial development will only add to this problem . There will also be the problem of additional traffic on Tufts Avenue --he noted that Tufts Avenue is only a two lane street at the present time, and the increased heavy industrial traffic will increase the need for additional maintenance; the street is now black- top with no under-surfacing . Mr. Jungck questioned why only the nine properties adjacent to Mr. Garrett's property were considered in the agreement? He noted that all the other hoaeowners in the area would be bothered by the pollution, noise and other nuisances attendant on further industrial development. Mrs. Betty Helfer 4501 South Lipan Court -questioned the accuracy of the topo maps presented and used by the applicant. Mrs. Romans stated that the topos were from an aerial flown m 1973. Mrs. Helfer stated that she would like a definite date on the topo maps . Mrs . Helfer also asked if there were any plans for a deceleration lane on Tufts Avenue going into Mr. Garrett's property? Mrs . Helfer discussed the dangerous traffic situation which exists on Tufts Avenue; she stated that if there is not a s pecial turning lane into Mr. Garrett's property, there will be a very serious accident at that location . Mr. Wanush stated that this factor would be considered at such time as a Subdivision Plat or Planned Development on the property is considered. Mr. Wanush pointed out that Tufts Avenue is designated as a Collector in the Master Street Plan . Mr . Draper stated that he was inclined to agree with the state- ment made by Mr. Jungck; all parties affected by the rezoning request are not included as parties to the covenant. He pointed out that the people to the south of Tufts Avenue will most definitely be affected by industria l de velopment on this site . Mrs. Helfer s t at e d that she had circula ted a pe tition agains t • I • - • • • • -14- the rezoning in this area; and she felt the property owners that are not part of the proposed covenants should be heard. Mr. Wanush pointed out that the Commission could still grant or deny the rezoning no matter what the parties have agreed to; he pointed out that the property owners along the south side of Tufts Avenue are in Arapahoe County, Mr. Criswell stated that at the meeting of December 20th, Councilman Smith suggested that possibly the applicant and opponents could talk the proposed rezoning over and come up with some sort of agreement for development of the land if the rezoning were to be granted. Mr. Criswell stated that no boundaries were set as to the properties that would be considered as parties to the agreement, but they did want specific properties to enforce specific covenants that would be drawn, Mr. Criswell stated that in respect to the matter of traffic and streets, he has pointed out in the agreement that there will be no building on the property until a subdivision waiver or Planned Development has been approved; he stated that they are not asking the neighbors to waive their right to objection to any specific plan. Mr. Criswell stated that the applicant has not gone to the expense of engaging an engineer to present specific plans as far as streets, utilities, etc., is concerned. Mrs. Helfer suggested that she would like to see this property purchased by the City for park land; she noted that there are standards of so much park land for a given figure of population, and that she understood the City does not have sufficient park land, Mrs. Helfer noted that they would donate their land below the City Ditch for park purposes if the City would pur- chase Garrett's property for park purposes, Mrs. Helfer stated that she would like to see a community building for the entire community constructed on this land --where senior citizens could mingle with the young people and possiblY teach the youngsters crafts, etc. that would be of interest. Mrs, Linda Ray 4505 South Lipan Court -stated that she has talked to Arapahoe County regarding this proposed rezoning; there is County land between Mr. Garrett's property and Englewood property to the west; the County says there should be a buffer zoning between industrial and residentially zoned land; she stated that from their viewpoint, they would like to use the land in this area for the buffer zone if Mr. Garrett's land were to remain z oned for residential uses. Mrs. Ray stated that the neighbors of this area have been "kicking around the idea of a community center for everyone, and if Mr. Garrett's land were to be purchased by the City for recreation purpose~ Mr. Garrett wouldn't be saddled with land he can't use," Mrs. Ray urged that this property be considered for recreational purposes; she stated that there is a lot that could be done with the land if the City were so inclined, She stated that the neighborhood "needs a place for the kids to go." • D I • • - ( • • • • -15- Parker moved : Williams seconded : The Public Hearing on Case #6-77 be closed. Mrs. Pierson expressed concern about closing the Public Hearing; she stated that she felt the matter of the agreement is as yet unconcluded, and she would hestitate to "close" the Hearing at this point, Mr. Smith stated that he felt at the previous meeting of December 20th, that the residents of this area were willing to sit down and work out the covenants with the applicant, and would not object to the development of this area if it were in keeping with the covenants. He stated that he does not get this feeling at this meeting. He stated that he would like to see the Hearing continued for another two weeks, to hopefully give the applicant and opponents time to reach a final signed agreement. The vote on the motion to close the Hearing was called : AYES: OWens, Parker, Williams NAYS: Lathrop, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, McClintock, Draper The motion failed . Mr. Williams asked that the document be prepared and submitted so that the City Attorney can review the agreement, Mr. Criswell stated that he would be happy to do so, but questioned why he should until there is some indication that the opponents are agreeable to the proposal, as outlined in this meeting? Mr. Criswell pointed out that some of the neighbors have been in consultations with legal counsel on their own and that he felt that the opponents should present something to the applicant to sign. He stated that he had thought they had an indication of an agreement prior to the Commission meeting this evening, but the time element has not allowed all the opponents to read the proposed agreement. He stated that "someone must tell me it's agreeable." Discussion ensued. Mr. Owens stated that he hated to see this issue drag on much longer; he stated that the applicant wants a decision on the rezoning request. Mr. Owens pointed out that both parties came before the Commission this evening with good faith on some sort of an agreement ; he stated that he feels if there is a problem with this agreement, it is between the homeowners who are not present this evening, Mr. Owens pointed out that when the matter gets to City Council, provided it is approved, "probably the same property owners will be present" as are present this evening, Mr. OWens stated that he did not feel anyone would be hurt if the Public Hearing was closed right now. He stated that the applicant and opponents have both indicated that the final agreement will be drawn up be- fore the matter gets to City Council for Hearing. He pointed out that if the c ovena nts were not prepared when the matter got to Ci ty Council, he felt there could be a pretty good case for denial at th at point . Mr. Owens reiterated h e did 0 I • • • • • • -16- not feel that the applicant or opponents would be hurt if the Commission made a decision on this matter this evening. Discussion ensued. Lathrop moved: The Public Hearing on Case #6-77 be continued until February 22, 1978; the Commission should have the other property owners attend that meeting, and get a statement from them on this matter to go along with Mr. Criswell's agreement for presentation to the Commission. Mr. Smith stated that he would move that the motion be amended to state only that the Hearing is continued until February 22nd. Mr. Draper stated that be would second the amendment. Discussion ensued. Mr. Lathrop stated that be would be agreeable to amend the motion to state that the Hearing is continued to February 22nd. Mr. Smith then seconded Mr. Lathrop's motion, as revised. AYES: Draper, Lathrop, McClintock, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma NAYS: Williams, Owens, Parker The motion to continue the Hearing carried. The Commission recessed at 8:45 P.M. The Commission reconvened at 9:00 P.M. in Conference Room A. Members present: Smith, Tanguma, McClintock, Williams, Draper, Lathrop, Owens, Parker, Pierson Wanusb, Ex-officio Members absent: None Also present: Romans, House III. RE-ORGANIZATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Commission elects a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman at the first meeting in February. Mrs. Pierson stated that her law practice has increased to the point that she did not feel she could devote the time needed as Chairman of the Commission and do justice to that position. She stated that she would continue as a member of the Commission, and would probably have time for the Commission work if she were to be elected Vice-Chairman; she stated that she would not run for Chairman. Parker moved: Tanguma seconded: Larry Owens be nominated as Chairman of the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission. Mrs. Pierson asked if there were further nominations? • I • • 0 • • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIO N December 20 , 1977 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was c alled to order by Chairman Judith B. Pi erson at 7:00 P.M. Members present: Draper, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma , Wade, Wil liams Wanush, Ex-officio Me mbers absent: Lathrop Also present: Assistant Director Romans, Assoc iate Planner Steve House II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chai rman Pierson state d that Minutes of the No vember 15, 1977, meeting were to be considered for approval. Owens moved : Wade seconded: The Minutes o f November 15, 1977 , be approved as written. AYES: Williams , Draper, Owens, Parker, Pi e rson, Tanguma, Wade NAYS: None ABSENT: Lat hrop ABSTAIN: Smit h The motion carried. I I I • PLA NNED DEVELOPMENT The N. 1 /2 of Lot 38, Lots 39 thru 42, in- clusive, Block 2, Higgins South Broadway Heights. Smith moved : CASE #27-77 Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #27-77 be opened . AYES: Wade, Williams, Draper, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Lathrop The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson outlined the procedure to be followed in conducting the Public Hearing for the information of those persons in the au dience. Mrs. Pierson asked that the staff make the initial presentation. • I • • - • • • • ,. • -3- Mrs. Pierson asked if there were any questions of Dr. Bigelo~ the applicant? No questions were asked of Dr. Bigelow. OWens moved: Smith seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #27-77 be closed. AYES: Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Draper, OWens, Parker, Pierson, Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Lathrop The motion carried. Smith moved: Parker seconded: The Planning Commission recommend approval of the Planned Development proposed for the following described property, provided the following conditions are met: "The north one-half of Lot 38, and Lots 39 thru 42, inclusive, Block 2, Higgins South Broadway Heights, Arapahoe County, Colorado." 1. The final drainage and storm runoff plans are to be approved by the Director of Engineering Services prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 2. The final landscaping plans are to be approved by the Department of Community Development. The Planning Commission hereby adopts the staff report as the Findings of Fact. AYES: Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Draper, OWens, Parker, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Lathrop The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson stated that this matter would be referred to City Council, and thanked the applicants for coming to the meeting. IV. REX T. GARRETT 1451 w. Tufts Parker moved: REZONING CASE #6-77 R-1-C to I-1 Smith seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #6-77 be opened. AYES : Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Draper, Owens, Parker NAYS: None ABSENT: Lathrop The action carried. • ) I • • ( • ( • • • .. -4- Mrs. Romans stated that the case before the Planning Co mmis sion is a request for a change of zoning on property at 1451 We s t Tufts Avenue from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to I-1 , Light Industry; the applicant is Mr. Rex T. Garrett, The public notice of the hearing did appear in the official City newspaper, and the property has been posted as required. Mrs. Romans presented the Certification of Posting and the Staff Report, and asked that they be entered into the record of this Hearing. Mrs. Romans stated that the subject property is located north of West Tufts Avenue and is on the west of the City Ditch, and so indicated the property on the map. Under the present R-1-C Zone classification, the property could be developed with single-family houses with a minimum lot area of 6,000 sq. ft., and a minimum floor area of 850 sq. ft. The request is for I-1 Light Industrial. Mrs. Romans reviewe~ the I-1 Zone District provisions, and noted the excluded uses and the uses that would be permitted in that District. There are limits on the external effects of uses, such as sound and vibration levels, the prohibition of emission of heat, fumes, dust, etc. beyond the property line. There are screening requirements for light industrial properties that abut or adjoin a residential zone district that must be met, said screening may be by the means of a decorative wood, brick, block or concrete wall, or by plantings and landscaping. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff recommends approval of the request for a change of zoning from R-1-C to I-1 for the following reasons: 1. Because of the topography and the proximity of the subject property to industrial development, it could not feasibly be developed under the present zoning. 2. Because of the topography and its location below the City Ditch, the property should not have been zoned for single- family use upon annexation to the City in 1959, 3. Expansion of the industrial zoning and development to the west, north and south of the subject property has changed the area to one o f an industrial character. 4, The zoning of the subject site from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to I-1, Light Industrial, would be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Romans noted that property to the east of the subject site above the City Ditch is zoned R-1-A, Single-family resi- dence; land to the north is zoned I-1, I.igbt Industrial. Land abutting the property to the west and immediate south is in Arapahoe County, and given an R-3, Single-family designation. Property in the City of Englewood to the west and south of the subject site is given an I-1 Zone designation. • D I • • D r 0 • • • • -5- Mrs. Pierson asked what height limitations existed in the 1-1 Zone District. Mrs. Romans stated that the square footage of the building may exceed the square footage of the lot two times; theoretically, a developer could cover the entire site with a two-story building, or could construct a four-story building covering one-half of the site, etc. Off-street parking and off-street loading spaces must be provided on the site, which is a form of control on the building height. Mr. Parker asked what action City Council had taken on the proposed amendments to the 1-1 Zone District regarding per- mitting auto wrecking yards as a Conditional Use? Mrs. Romans stated that this matter is on the agenda for January 3rd, and the City Council will set a date for the Public Hearing at that meeting. Mrs. Romans noted that Mr. Garrett's property at 1451 West Tufts Avenue is unplatted; a subdivision plat will have to be prepared and approved before development can take place. Mr. John A. Criswell 3780 South Broadway -was sworn in, and testified that he has been retained to represent the applicant, Mr. Rex T, Garrett. Mr. Criswell presented the staff and Com- mission with a prepared document entitled INDEX TO APPLICANT'S EXHIBITS, and made reference to a topographical map, a land use aap, and a zoning map showing Arapahoe County Zoning in the immediate area, Mr. Criswell discussed the topography of the subject and surrounding areas. He pointed out there is approximately a 20 ft. grade difference from the east to the west line of the subject property, Mr. Criswell stated that the subject area is approximately 6.35 acres, with dimensions of 49~ ft. on the north, 631 ft. on the west, 287 ft. on the south, and 678 ft. on the east. Mr. Criswell pointed out that property to the east of the City Ditch is of considerably higher elevation than the property just west of the City Ditch, and those homes to the immediate east of the Ditch would overlook any development on Mr. Garrett's property. Mr. Criswell presented as Exhibit #2, a series of photographs taken from the boundaries of the subject property viewing adjacent properties, and pictures taken from given points in the surrounding area viewing the subject property . Across Stanford Avenue to the north, the land is developed with four or five large warehouses that have been developed within the last five to six years ; to the west of the subject property there is a large industrial area, part of which is developed by the Friedman Paper Company. To the east and above the City Ditch, is a single-family residence area. Mr. Criswell noted that on the western boundary of the City through this area, the property is zoned for Light Industrial develo~ent, There is an enclave in this immediate area along Tufts Avenue which remains in Arapahoe County, There are some older single- family homes on the south side of Tufts Avenue which are still • I • • - ( • • • • -6- in the County; sou th of .hese home s, the la nd is in tho Cit y of Englewood, and is zoned for l1ght industrial devclot ~ent . Mr . Criswell stated tha t the hom es a l ong Tu fts and prOJ:El t · tha t is in the County in this "encla ve " is zoned R-3, Sinbl ·- fa mily, with the exception of a small parcel north of Tufts Avenue and west of Mr. Garrett's property, which is given an I-2, Heavy Industrial, designation. Mr, Criswell emphasized that properties within the City of Englewood to th e north, wes t and south of Mr. Garrett's land are zoned for I-1, Light Industr ial, which, in his opinion, is logical considering the topography of the area. Mr. Crisw 11 noted that Stanford ~venue does not go through in this area across the City o• ~h. and Tufts Avcru 1~ is the only through street in this immediate are a to carry the t raffic. Mr. Criswell referred to a County Zc-:i .-; Map, Exhib it #5, and stated that they have been advised the R-3, Single-family Re&- dence, zoning was applied when the Co unty first adopted the over-all zoning resolution in 1961 or 1962 , Mr. Criswell stated they are also advised there is a small portion of I-2, Heavy Industrial, land to the west of Mr. Garrett's land which was given the I-2 classification in 1962, Mr. Criswell displayed a land use map of the area, and noted that industrial development to the west of the City Ditch has occurred very recently, and cited warehouses constructed in 1972 (3), 1974 (2) an d one that was constructed as far back as in the 1960's. The property immediately to the west of Mr. Garrett's property, even though zoned for R-3 Single-family residence, is used for storage of construction materials; this property may or may not be in violation of the County zoning code. To the west of Mr. Garrett's property, and south of Stanford Avenue, a building was constructed in 1974 that is used for storage, and the Friedman Paper Plant was constructed in 1976. Mr. Criswell pointed out six residences on the south side of Tufts Avenue that are older residential structures; to the south of these residences is further industrial develop- ment that has occurred in the 1970's. Mr. Criswell stated that in this area, the land to the west of the City Ditch is developed for industrial purposes, and that if you consider the develop- ment since 1970, it has all been of an industri al nature. M~ Criswell stated that the residences on the south side of Tufts Avenue were constructed as far back as in the 1940's or 1950's, and that basically, the development of the area west of the Ditch since 1955 has bee n industrial. Mr. Criswell discussed the zoning history of this area, noting that at the time the land was annexed to the City in 1959, the policy was that all property was given the R-1-A, Single-family Residence classification unless and until the land was given f urther consideration by the Commission and Council and another z one classification was placed on the land. This land was, therefore, zoned R-1-A upon annexation to the City of Englewood. It is the client's b lief that the land was given an agricultural • I • - • • • • -7- zone classification when under the jurisdiction of Arapahoe County. Sometime between 1959 and 1963, following annexation to the City of Englewood, the land was given an R-1-D, Single- family, classification, the R-1-D classification being less restrictive than the R-1-A, but both being single-family zone districts. In 1963, the City of Englewood adopted the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance, and at that time, the staff recom- mended that the property be given an I-1, Light Industrial, zone classification. In 1965, Mr. Garrett proposed to develop the property for a mobile home park; the rezoning request was withdrawn before the Planning Commission acted on it. Two years later, Mr. Garrett again asked for the I-1 Zone classifica- tion; the Commission recommended that the request be denied, and upon appeal, the Council refused to hold a Public Hearing. Three years later, in 1970, the Planning Commission initiated a rezoning to I-1, Light Industrial, to allow the development of a Mobile Home Park. The minutes of the meetings in 1970 indicate that the City was drafting a new mobile home park ordinance; Mr. Garrett asked that the Commission not proceed further until the adoption of the new mobile home park ordinance. Mr. Criswell stated that in 1969, the Commission and staff studied the City in depth, and tried to forsee reasonable de- velopment for the City ; a Comprehensive Plan was compiled, and recommended to City Council for adoption. The City Council adopted the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Criswell referred to two maps, Tab 8, which are copies of the Comprehensive Plan --Generalized Land Use 1970, and Generalized Land Use 1980. Both of these maps in- dicate an industrial development of the subject area, and by virtue of approval of the Comprehensive Plan by the Commission and City Council in 1969, both bodies are "on record that the area 1est of the City Ditch should be developed for industrial use." Mr. Criswell stated that these are the facts of the case as he and the applicant know them to be. He asked if the Commission had any questions of him. Mrs. Pierson asked if the applicant had considered applying for Planned Development approval in addition to the rezoning on this site? Mr. Criswell stated that the applicant has not considered a P.D. at this point in time. He pointed out that Mr. Garrett has been before the Planning Commission three times in the last 14 years in an attempt to get the land rezoned; Mr. Garrett has gone to the expense of having plans drawn and presented on previous occasions and the request has been denied. Mr. Criswell stated that there are no definite plans for de- velopment of the property at this time. Mr. Criswell pointed out that before development could occur on the land that it would have to be subdivided. He stated that at the time the subdivision plat is considered, he would anticipate there might be plans for development. Mrs. Pierson commented that the question of development of the land is not within the scope of the consideration at this time. Mr. Criswell agreed • • I • - - ·•' ( • • • • -8- Mr. Smith stated that he felt the proposed development o f the land is germane to this consideration, He pointed out that the applicant is requesting a change from a single-family residential classification to an industrial zoning; there must be some reason the applicant has requested the industrial zoning rather than a higher-density residential classification. Mr. Criswell presented a letter from a Mr. Roland Barnard, President of Midland Federal Savings, dated December 16, 1977, as Exhibit #10, and a letter j from Mr. Robert Starkloff, dated December 21, 1977, as Exbibi} #11. Mr. Criswell read both letters for the benefit f t~e audience. Both Mr. Barnard and Mr. Starkloff stated in be ~etters that in their opinion, the subject property would ~t suitably developed with other than single-family resid utl 1. Mrs. Pierson called a re esa f the Commission at 8:05 P.M. the meeting reconvened a 8:15P.M., with the following members present: OWens , Parker, Pie~on, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Draper. Mr. Lathrop was absent. Mr. Criswell made reference to a copy of the Master Street Plan Map from the Comprehensive Plan (Tab 8), He pointed out ·that no streets are planned to extend over the City Ditch between Quincy and Tufts Avenues, and added that, in his opinion, the cost would be astronomical to do so. Mr. Criswell then called t .he applicant, Mr. Rex T. Garrett, to the podium. Mr. Rex T. Garrett Rt. 3, Box 97 Parker, Colorado -was sworn in and testified that he maintains offices ,at 300 East Hampden Avenue in Englewood. Mr. Garrett testified that •be is in the real estate business, and has been for 25 years, -all . of that time in Englewood. Mr. Criswell asked that Mr . Garrett describe the circumstances un- der which he acquired the property at 1451 West Tufts Avenue, Mr. Garrett state d that in 1957, he traded a newly constructed residence on South Lipan Street for the subject property. Mr. Criswell asked if, in the time period between 1957 and the present, Mr. Garrett had developed any single-family residences in Englewood? Mr. Garrett testified that he had. Mr. Criswell then asked if Mr. Garrett had developed residences and sold them or sold the building sites in this area? Mr. Garrett stated that he had. Mr. Garrett stated that he had developed the homes on West Stanford Place ; the 4600 and 4700 block between Lipan and Kalamath --approximately 16 building sites in each block; he has developed the north end of the 4600 block between Huron and Inca streets; the east side of Inca in the 4500 block, for a total of approximately 60 homes in this particular neighborhood. Mr. Criswell noted that in 1957, when Mr. Garrett took this property in trade, it was under County Jurisdiction ; he asked what the County zoning was at that time on this land? Mr . • I • • • • • • -9- Garrett stated that it was given an agriculatural classification. Mr. Criswell stated that the land was annexed to the City of Englewood in 1959, and was given the zone classification of R-1-A, Single-family; he asked if Mr. Garrett had attempted to develop the property for single-family sites? Mr. Garrett stated that in the latter part of 1959, he had an engineer draw up proposed plot plans for single-family development, which was submitted to Midland Federal Savings; his request for a development loan was turned down. Mr. Criswell asked if this contributed to Mr. Garrett's seeking to have the property rezoned? Mr. Garrett stated that it did. Mr. Criswell stated that Mr. Garrett had been before the Planning Commission on three occasions regarding the zoning on this land, and each time there was opposition; he asked what reason was given for the opposition? Mr. Garrett stated that it is his understanding that the neighbors in the area feel the rezoning of the land to industrial would devaluate their property. Mr. Criswell asked if Mr. Garrett was aware of the industrial development that has taken place in this area 6ince 1970? Mr. Garrett stated that he is aware of this development. Mr. Criswell asked Mr. Garrett if he had taken any steps to determine if the industrial development west of the City Ditch had had any effect on the property values of the homes east of the Ditch? Mr. Garrett stated that he has checked on the sales of properties in the area, and has taken special notice of the multiple-sales. Soae properties in this area have been sold three or four times. Mr. Garrett stated that he felt the sales records of several of the properties in the area show that the property has not devalued as a result of the industrial development. Mr. Criswell made reference to Tab 7, which sets forth selling prices and the rate of increase of several properties within the immediate area. Mr. Garrett noted that properties with just one sale have ]lot been indicated on this information; "just one sale does not give an indication of the increase in value." Mr. Criswell asked if the sales increase in this area was comparable to other sales increases throughout Englewood? Mr. Garrett stated that they were comparable. Mr. Criswell asked, based on the figures of percentage increase on resales, and Mr. Garrett's knowledge of real estate values, whether Mr. Garrett felt that industrial development on his property would have any effect on the real estate values of properties east of the City Ditch? Mr. Garrett stated that he did not feel the properties east of the Ditch would be affected by the industrial development of his property. Mr. Garrett discussed the terrain of the area, and noted that the property at 1451 West Tufts Avenue is considerably lower than the properties to the east of the City Ditch. Mr. Garrett noted that he lived at 4750 South Lipan Street for 12 years; this property looked over the Water Plant and the industrial developments in that area, and that the development was below the line of view from his property. Mr. Criswell asked if Mr. Garrett felt his property could be used for residential purposes at the present time? Mr. Garrett stated that he felt it could not be developed for residential • I • • ( ( ( • • • - -10- purposes; he noted the cost of building the house as well as the cost of preparing the site for construction. The ultimate cost of the home would render it very difficult to sell in that particular area. He noted that the land is very low, and the structures would look directly into the warehouse develop- ment to the north. Mr. Criswell noted that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance allows a residence with a minimum of 850 sq. ft. in the R-1-C Zone District. He asked if this size of house could be sold, and if not, what minimum floor area would be marketable at the present time. Mr. Garrett stated that on today's market, he would say that a minimum size of 1,100 sq. ft. would be marketable. Mr. Criswell asked Mr. Garrett what he would estimate construction costs for a house of 1,100 sq. ft. to be. Mr. Garrett estimated construction costs of approximately $25,000; the sale price of such a home would be, at the very minimum, $35,000. Mr. Garrett stated that he did not feel that a $35,000 house could be marketed if it were constructed on that site. Mr. Criswell noted that in 1965, Mr. Garrett bad plans to develop a mobile home park on the site; in 1970, the Planning Commission initiated the rezoning of the site for a mobile home park. He asked Mr. Garrett if he had any plans for'the development of the land now if the rezoning should be granted? Mr. Garrett stated that he had no definite plans at this time. Mr. Criswell asked Mr. Garrett if he was aware that he would have to comply with the subdivision regulations prior to any development on the property? Mr. Garrett stated that he is aware of that requirement. Mr. Smith made reference to Tab 9, f4, which reads: "It is so economically unfeasible to attempt to develop this ground for residential uses that a continuation of single-family residential zoning will result in a confiscation of the owners' property." He stated that by testimony presented, the property Mr. Garrett owns is worth, probably, two times what he paid for it; how could this result in a confiscation of property if the land is not rezoned? Mr. Criswell stated that in legal terminology if a property owner is denied the use of his property it is termed "confiscation" of property. It does not refer to an actual "taking away" of the property. Mr. Smith questioned the reasoning for requesting an industrial zone classification over a higher density residential classi- fication, or the R-4, Residential Professional District? Mr. Garrett pointed out there would be the same problem with obtaining financing for development. Mr. Smith asked if the possibility of a multi-family development had been discussed with a lending agency? Mr. Garrett stated that he has discussed the possibility in generalities, but not in reference to a specific proposal . Mr. Criswell pointed out that the criteria for granting a zoning is whether it is an extension of a like or compatible zone; this would not be the case with R-2, R-3, or R-4 zone classifications. • I • n • • • • -11- Mr. Criswell called a Mr. Dick Rees, Star Route, Box 409-A, Morrison, Colorado, to the stand. Mr. Rees was sworn in and testified that he maintains offices at 300 East 9th Avenue; be is engaged in the consideration of financing for all types of development for Midland Mortgage; be stated that be is a business graduate, and bas been in business in the metro area for 22 years, 5-1/2 years of which were with the Continental National Bank of Englewood. He testified that be is familiar with the lending policies of the area, and did look at the site in question. Mr. Criswell asked Mr. Rees if, in his opinion, it would be possible to develop the subject site with single-family residences. Mr . Rees stated that the marketability would be very limited for single-faaily structures located on that site. Mr. Criswell asked about the possibility of obtaining mortgage financing for a single-family developaent on the site? Mr. Rees stated that he would suggest it is iapossible to get mortgage financing for a single-family developaent on this site; he pointed out that one of the things a lender would look at is the general neighborhood and the collateral for the loan. Mr. Rees stated that a single-family development on this particular site would be greatly influenced by the industrial area to the north, west, and south. The lender would also look at the amenities of the neighborhood, and this neighborhood "has no amenities of a good neighborhood." Mrs. Pierson asked if Mr. Rees felt the developaent of the industrial area had an adverse effect on the value of the properties to the east of the City Ditch? Mr. Rees stated that he did not think so 1 and he did not feel the industrial use of the subject site would be a negative aspect. The properties east of the City Ditch will over-look the site rather than looking "into" an industrial development. Mr. Rees state,d that most of the industrial developaent is for warehousing, and that there is very little manufacturing and fabrication in the area. Mrs. Pierson asked if any members of the audience had any questions of Mr. Rees? Mr. Gerald Ray indicated two properties on the north end of the west side of the 4500 block on South Lipan Court, on the land use map and asked why an industrial development would not devalue these properties? He noted there is a grade difference on their properties, so that the structures appear to be one story from the street. In actuality, these are two-story houses with walk-out basements on the west; these structures would be looking directly into the industrial development if Mr. Garrett's request is granted. Mr. Rees stated that he did "not feel what you are viewing now would be affected by development that is not single-family" on Mr. Garrett's site. Mr. Ray stated that be did feel an industrial developaent would act to devalue the property east of the City Ditch. Mr. Criswell asked Mr. Paul Garkie to ca.e to the podiua • • 0 I • • ( • • • • -12- Mr. Paul Garkie 4020 South Bellaire -was sworn in and testified that he has been a real estate appraiser for 33 y e ars. He is a member of the American Society of Real Estate Appraisers , and of several other organizations pertaining to his profession . Mr. Garkie stated that he has viewed the property in question, and that he had looked at properties in the neighborhood, but not for appraisal purposes. In his opinion, the highest and best use for Mr. Garrett's property would not be single-family use. Mr. Garkie stated that he has been an FHA appraiser, and in his opinion, it would be impossible to get FHA or VA financing for a single-family development on the subject site. Mr. Tanguma asked Mr. Garkie what he felt the highest and best use of the subject site would be? Mr. Garkie stated that the fact there is light industrial directly across the street, the City Ditch is a boundary for the residential area, he thinks the best use for the site would be for light industrial ware- housing. Mr. Draper asked if owners of single-family property in the area would be able to obtain a loan in this industrial neigh- borhood. Mr. Garkie stated that he is not in the loan business. He felt that each would have to be considered individually. Mr. Garkie stated that if the "wrong type of developnent" goes t in on the Garrett property, he felt there would be a considerable depreciation in property values for the residential properties. Mr. Garkie stated that he felt a mobile home development on this site would have an effect on the property values, but questioned that a warehousing development would have. Mr. Tanguma asked Mr. Garkie what type of use be would suggest that would not adversely effect the residential area, and would be economically feasible? Mr. Garkie stated that the permitted uses are established by the zoning controls; he stated that he felt a light industrial use that did not create smoke, glare, noise, etc. would be acceptable. Mr. Owens asked if Mr. Garkie felt that a house located in this immediate area would have the same value as that house would have were it to be located in a residential area that did not abut an industrial area? Mr. Garkie stated that generally, it would have the same value, but that each situation must be considered individually. Mr. Garkie stated that he was asked to view the subject pr~perty --Mr. Garrett's property to determine if it is feasible to construct single-family residences on that property; he stated that in his opinion it is not feasible. Mr. Smith asked if the reason single-family home construction on the site was not feasible is that the land abuts an indus- trial property? Mr. Garkie stated that this would be one of the main reasons. Mr. Smith asked what would happen to those houses east of the City Ditch which would abut an 1-1 Zone District if the zoning were granted? Mr. Garkie stated that • I • • • • • -13- he felt most of the adverse effects on those houses has already taken place, but some houses might be affected. A member of the audience noted that discussion has centered on the industrial zoning of land west of the City Ditch; he pointed out that the City of Englewood has developed Jason Park which is west of the Ditch; there are nice single-family homes being constructed on South Lipan at West Quincy. He questioned why this area could not be developed as single- family and why the units would not sell? Mr . Garkie noted that to get a development started, subdivision approval would have to be obtained from FHA, VA or a conventional lender. He questioned that this approval could be obtained. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Commission would hear statements from members of the audience in favor of the rezoning. No one indicated they wished to speak in favor of the rezoning. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Commission would now hear state- ments from those opposed to the rezoning. She asked if the opponents had a representative? Mr. Gerald Ray 4505 South Lipan Court -was sworn in, and stated that Mr. Criswell had made reference to a "bluff" along the City Ditch; Mr. Ray pointed out that the change in grade runs through the R-1-A area east of the City Ditch ; he noted that there is approximately a 12 ft. change in elevation on their property, and that grade variations exist on the other residential properties also. Mr. Ray pointed out that Mr. Garrett's property is surrounded on three sides by residential zoning on properties that are either in the City of Englewood or in the County. Mr. Ray stated that the pictures presented by Mr: Criswell do not reflect the view from the rear of the residential properties east of the City Ditch. Mr. Ray stated that the topography of the area is such that the residences on the west side of South Lipan Court would have a view directly into the industrial development from the rear of their properties. Mr. Ray noted that the houses being constructed at Quincy and Lipan face into warehousing on the south side of Quincy Avenue ; no landscaping has been provided by the industrial uses, and the developer of the residential uses has been able to obtain financi ng for the construction of these houses that sell for $45,000 to $50,000. Mr. Ray stated that Mr. Criswell has testified that when the property was annexed in 1959, it was annexed and z oned as R-1-A, Single-family; he stated that he felt there had t o be a reason it was brought in as R-1-A . Mr. Ray stated that he has been told that persons living on South Mariposa Drive in the 4600 block south, were told that this area would be developed into a park, and residential use, and that this would be a "fantastic area". Instead, the property owner has applied for a change of zoning from R-1-D to I-1, Light Industrial. Mr. Ray stated that he is not aware of who made the alledged statement, but Mr. Garrett was the owner of t he property at the time the statement was supposed to have • I • ( • • • ,. - -14- been made. Mr. Ray questioned the validity of the statements that loans would not be available for residential construction on this site. He stated he felt an industrial developme nt on this site will definitely have an effect on the residences east of the City Ditch. Mr. Ray stated that he does have a petition in opposition to the rezoning request that has been circulated in the area and has been signed by property owners living directly east and south of the subject property. Mr. Ray presented these petitions for the record . Mr. Ray stated that he felt it was fair to say that the opponents were present because they have no alternative but to oppose the request. If the request is approved by the Commission and City Council, and the property is zoned I-1, there are no controls over what goes in --it could be a paper plant or an auto wrecking yard. Mr. Ray stated the lack of control and enforce- ment of the Zoning Ordinance is a very important factor, and cited the promises by developers of Friedman Paper Plant that there would be no outside storage of paper, etc. Mr. Ray stated that paper is stored outside all day and all night; it blows all over the neighborhood. People have called personnel at Friedman to complain about the blowing paper and have been informed that Friedman has "never heard about any problem" prior to that specific call. The neighborhood is also disturbed with the noise from the P.A. system at Friedman. The neighbor- hood has had problems with the warehouses to the north of Stanford Avenue. No screening has been provided by either the developers of the warehouses or the Friedman Paper Plant. •~ Ray stated that because of the way the ordinances are written, there is only the police department to enforce the ordinances, and he did not see how some of the requirements could be enforced. Mr. Ray emphasized that none of the warehouses that are along Quincy Avenue have been made to provide screening. Mr. Ray stated that building height is a very important consideration. He noted that there is no control over the height of the building in an industrial area in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Ray stated that the R-1-A Zone District is very restrictive, and should not abut a light industrial zone district. He stated that he did not feel the people living in this district "should be subjected to abutting an industrial area." He pointed out that he and his wife purchased their property about 14 months ago; they had previously owned a house in Denver and wanted to relocate to the suburbs. He stated that when they purchased the house, it was the "worst one in the block", and that they have improved the house and the area. He stated that they have gone to considerable time ane expense to make the property liveable, and if the I-1 Zoning is approved, he stated they are looking at a depreciation factor. Mr. Ray stated that he had asked a Crown Realty representative to view the area in light of the rezoning request; it was this realty representative's opinion that the I-1 zoning would have a negative effect on property values. Mr. Ray stated that he did not feel the granting of the rezoning request would be compatible with what • I • • • • • -15- the City Council has said they want to accomplish --preserving the single-family areas. He stated that more and more industrial development is coming into the City. Mr. Ray stated that this R-1-A District is the nicest area in the City, and that once the I-1 District gains a foothold in the area, it will move east of the City Ditch. Mr. Ray commented on the shortage of park land for the City; he stated that there should be 10.5 acres of park land for each 1,000 people; at the time the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, the City had a total of 110.3 acres of park land, and was short a considerable amount of land to be developed for park and recreation purposes. Mr. Ray stated that he felt there was sufficient industrial zoning and industrial use in the City; he stated that it did not make sense to encourage additional industrial zoning and development, and at the same time to make low-interest loans to persons to improve the residential area. Mr. Ray stated that he would suggest, as an alternative, that the rezoning not be approved at this time; rather than accepting the rezoning petition for the I-1 District, the Commission and staff should design and implement buffer zoning along the City Ditch . He stated that be felt a buffer zoning could be made to work in this area. He stated that be had attempted to find some information on "co tractural zoning", but has been unable to do so to this time. Mr. Ray suggested that another alternative is to establish an enforcement person or agency to enforce the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; he stated it was not fair to the people of Englewood to be given promises and not have those promises lived up to. Mr. Ray stated that he did not feel the resid~nts of the area are being unreasonable, but they are trying to protect their family life and their homes. Mr. OWens asked Mr. Ray if they had questioned the zoning of the parcel of land owned by Mr. Garrett at the time they pur- chased their property? Did they notice the warehouses that were constructed at that time? He asked if, considering the industrial development in the area which adjoins the subject p a rcel of land, whether or not Mr. Ray might have considered t h at t he subject parcel would be considered for industrial use i n the future ? Mr . Ray stated that they were not aware o f t h e Fr i edman Plant until two days after they signed the contract on their house. But, at the time they were looking at t h e site they purchased, they bad a clear view to Santa Fe, a nd t he houses in the neighborhood were of good quality. Mr. OWens noted that by looking at the Zoning Map on the wall in t he Council Chambers, it is evident there are places where t h e R-1-A District does abut the I-1, Light Industrial District. Mr . Ray stated that he would suggest there was an error made sever al years ago in the zoning designations. Mr. Owens asked wha t use Mr. Ray would suggest for the site? Mr. Ray stated t !1a t he would prefer to see the site developed as a park • • I • ( • • • .. -16- Mr. Saitb asked bow many of the houses on South Lipan Court had basements or patios which would face directly into the industrial area if the zoning were to be granted? Mr. Ray stated that four of the houses have basements or patios wh ich would be affected. A recess of the Commission was called at 9:35P.M.; the meeting reconvened at 9:55 P.M. Present: Owens, Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Draper Absent: Lathrop, Williams Mrs. Pierson stated that the Commission would continue to hear statements from those opposed. Mr. Don Gamet 4550 South Kalamath -stated that he has lived in this area that is under discussion this evening since 1934. Mr. Gamet stated that be is concerned about the traffic that will be generated in the area if this property is zoned for industrial development. Tufts Avenue is one of the main arteries children have to cross to reach Clayton Elementary School. He urged that the increase in industrial traffic be considered before reaching a decision on the re- quest. Mr. Gamet stated that he is opposed to any more industry moving into the City of Englewood; he noted that the school enrollment has decreased markedly in the last few years, and be felt that additional residential development should be en- couraged. Mr. Roy Eastin 4546 South Lipan Court -stated that be has lived at this location for 14 years. He s~ated that he wanted to bring out the fact that the "paper shredder was rammed down our throats", and the annexation and zoning procedure was accomplished in a little over a month. This action upset a lot of the people, and the City Council didn't care about doing anything about it. He asked what the acreage of the City is? Mrs. Romans replied that the City is a little under seven square miles ; 65% of which is residentially zoned and the remaining 35% is commercially and industrially zoned. Mr. Eastin stated that it "looks like there is enough industrial zoning for now". He stated that there is already industrial traffic through the residential neighborhood, and additional industrial zoning and development will only compound the problem. Mr. Eastin stated that Mr. Criswell bas referred to the R-1-A zoning upon annexation and inferred that it was illegal. Mr. Criswell stated that it has been ruled unconstitutional to annex property and apply zoning without notice and without benefit of a Public Hearing. The initial residential classi- fication for this property at 1451 West Tufts was unconstitutional. The property was zoned R-1-D several years after it was annexed, which was constitutional . Mr. Criswell stated that the point • I • • - • • • • -17- be was making was that the initial residential classification of the property was unconstitutional, and that the staff has recommended on several occasions since that time that the land should be given an industrial classification. Mr. Eastin stated that as he understood it, the property annexed at that time all got ~he same treatment? Mr. Criswell replied that it did. Mr. Eastin asked if the property was owned by Mr. Garrett at the time it was annexed? Mr. Criswell stated that it was. Mr. Eastin asked of Mr. Garrett how many lending agencies he usually contacts before he begins to build houses? Mr. Garrett stated that at this time, Midland was the only agency he con- tacted. Mr. Eastin asked if plans for construction were always dropped after only one refusal? Mr. Garrett stated that this is not necessarily the case. He stated that he could get further information from lending institutions if it is required. Mr. Ernest Hofer 1327 West Tufts Avenue -stated he opposed the 1-1 zoning. Mr. Gamet asked if there were restrictions on the storage of flammable liquids, pesticides and insecticides in the 1-1 District? Mr. Gamet stated that he has been a fire fighter, and is aware of things that are stored in the warehouses. In the event of an explosion and/or fire, these could be lethal. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Pierson asked if there were further questions or more testimony to be heard? Mrs. Ray asked "if he has no immediate plans to put anything on his property, what is the big push at this time?" Mr. Garrett stated that if the rezoning to industrial is granted, he will probably start development, but he has no plans at this point in time; he pointed out that he made plans prior to one of the previous hearings, and "got no where". He stated that he wanted to be assured of the industrial zoning before having plans prepared for the development. Mrs. Ray asked i f Mr. Garrett felt there might be less opposi- t ion if there were definite plans for the development? Mr. Garrett stated that it is possible. Mr. Garrett stated that Mr. Ray had called him prior to the meeting, and asked what sort o f development he envisioned for the site if the zoning were to be approved. Mr. Garrett stated that he told Mr. Ray that he would like to have something on the site similar to the development around the Elks Club on South Jason --a one story structure, 12 ft. maximum height. Mr. Garrett stated that he would agree the Friedman Paper Plant should not have been permitted in the 1-1 Zone District. Mr. Garrett reiterated that he had lived at 4750 South Lipan Street for 12 years. Mr. Owens asked if Mr. Garrett would be agreeable to filing a Planne d Development for the site? Mr. Garrett stated that if • I • • ) ( ( • • • • -18- he understood the Planned Development concept, he would be agreeable. Mr. Criswell stated that he felt Contract Zoning was proper, but the City Attorney has stated that it cannot be done, and Mr. Criswell stated he would not discuss that issue further at this time. He noted that as the staff and applicant have pointed out, the property cannot be developed as R-1. The property will have to be subdivided before any development can occur, no matter what zoning is applied to the land. Mr. Criswell stated that at this stage, Mr. Garrett is not in the position to come in and state which uses will be put on this land --the uses will be limited if the I-1 Zone District is approved. Mr. Criswell noted that conditions may be placed on a Sub- division Plat that could control the development to a degree, as well as the controls that are in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Criswell stated that be felt there would be sufficient control over the property if the I-1 Zoning were granted to require a Planned Development or Subdivision Plat at the time of develop- ment •. Mrs. Pierson asked if the property owner could develop the entire six acre tract without coming back to the Commission? Mr. Criswell stated that he felt this is possible. Mrs. Pierson asked if the Commission could grant the zoning with the con- dition that the property owner come before the Commission with a Planned Development or Subdivision Plat of the property? Mr. Criswell stated that he knew of no zoning authority in the metro area that granted zoning on unsubdivided land that did not make the zoning conditioned on subdivision of that land. Mr. Wanush stated that he did not feel subdividing of the land could be required, based on the statements of the City Attorney. He stated that be felt there would have to be subdivision of this land to make proper use of the land, but that it is pos•ible to use the land without subdivision. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Criswell and Mr . Ray if it would be possible to get the applicant and the opponents together to discuss the possibility of placing covenants on the land? Both Mr . Ray and Mr. Criswell stated that they assumed this would be possible. Mr. Smith stated that he felt it was possible, if some agreement could be reached between the applicant and the opponents, to grant the rezoning request and still protect the property owners in the residential area. Mr. Garrett stated that he would be willing to work with the residential property owners if at all possible. Mr. Criswell commented that he felt something could be worked out through negotiations with the opponents. Discussion ensued. Smith moved: Owens seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #6-77 be continued to January 24, 1978, at 7:00 P.M. AYES : Parker, Pierson, Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Draper, Owens NAYS: None ABSENT : Williams, Lathrop The aotion carried. • D I • • • • • It was moved, seconded and carried that the meeting be adjourned . Meeting declared adjourned at 10:35 P.M. • -19- • I • • ( ( ( • • • - December 8, 1977 The Honorable James L. Taylor and Members of the Englewood City Council and Members of the Planning Commission Englewood City Hall 3400 South Elati Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Gentlemen: We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed rezoning -of the following described property from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to 1-1, Light Industrial: Beginning at a point where the centerline of the City Ditch intersects -the -north line -of the SW 1/4, NE 1/4, Sec. 9, Twp. 5 S., Range 68 w., of the 6th P.M., Arapahoe County, State of Colorado; thence W. along said N. line to the City of Englewood city limits line; thence s. along said line to the s. line of w. Tufts Avenue; thence E. along the s. line of W. Tufts Avenue to the centerline of the City Ditch; thence NE/ly along the centerline of the City Ditch to the point of beginning; said parcel containing 6.35 acres, more or less. It is the general consensus of opinion that this is not good planning since three sides of said property is abutted by R-1-A property in Englewood and R-3 in Arapahoe County. Certainly within the realms of planning,Industry should not be abutting Residentia1 R-1-A or R-3. If members of the Planning Commission will investigate where 1-1 was put in across the street (West Tufts Avenue) among R-3, they will note it it a disaster and is downgrading all surrounding p1·operties. We feel that there is sufficient Industrial property within the limits of the City of Englewood west of the railroad tracks and that more residential property should be available in Englewood if we are going to be a city in which people would be proud to live. THEREFORE, WE REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THIS REZONING. • I • • • - • • ( 'l.r l t..-' ..J"' ~S:t . ''!!>~[:) /) < '· ./ .1.4 •. · '><' ./-/ ~5-;/v ~ V0-[·,: $7, ( I . • • • - • • ]- • I ( • I . ( • - ( • • • • December 8, 1977 The Honorable James L. Taylor and Members of the Englewood City Council and Members of the Planning Commission Englewood City Hall 3400 South Elati Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Gentlemen: We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed rezoning -of the following described property from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to I-1, Light Industrial: Beginning at a point where the centerline of the City Ditch intersects -the -north line -of the SW 1/4, NE 1/4, Sec. 9, Twp. 5 s., Range 68 W., of the 6th P.M., Arapahoe County, State of Colorado; thence w. along said N, line to the City of Englewood city limits line; thence S. along said line to the S. line of w. Tufts Avenue; thence E. along the s. line of W. Tufts Avenue to the centerline of the City Ditch; thence NE/lF along the centerline of the City Ditch to the () point of beginning; said parcel containing 6,35 acres, more or lesa. It is the general consensus of opinion that this is not good planning since three sides of said property is abutted by R-1-A property in Englewood and R-3 in Arapahoe County. Certainly rlithin the realms of planning,Industry should not be abutting Residential R-1-A or R-3. If members of the Planning Commission will investi~ate where I-1 was put in across the street (West Tufts Avenue) amor.g R-3, they will note it it a disaster and is downgrading all surrounding pt·operties. We feel that there is sufficient Industrial property within the limits of the City of Englewood west of the railroad tracks and that more residential property should be available in Englewood if we are going to be a city in which people would be proud to live. THEREFORE, WE REQUEST THAT YOU DENY THIS REZONING. I • - 1 c ( • • • • ADDRESS '-\'"\m S>ru.'$'s'\ s--~\ -Qs:>'S.~ Sx ~~~ tl t{~-u . Q, :' 1f~ {fj: &.54(, k· ~0 a-· I . . - - ( ( • • ( • • • i' • INDEX TO APPLICANT'S EXHIBITS 1 Topographical map, showing approximate boundaries of property. (Large exhibit--not included in packet) 2 Photographs of property and views of surrounding area. (Large exhibit--not included in packet) 3 Zoning "history" of land . 4 Land use map, showing development dates in neighborhood. (Large exhibit--not included in packet) 5 County zoning map, showing county zoning. (Large exhibit-- not included in packet) 6 Excerptsfrom county zoning reolution. 7 Table of residential sales. 8 Excerpts from City's Comprehensive Plan. 9 Applicant's Statement of Position. 10 Letter from Midland Federal Savings of December 16, 1977, 11 L tter from Spruce Homes, Inc ., of December 21, 1977 . I • • lo __ _ - - ( ( • 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 • • • .· ( ( INDEX TO APPLICJL~'S EXHIBITS Topographical map, showing approximate boundaries of property. Photo~ra~hs of property and views of surrounding area. Zoning "history" of land. Land use map, showing development dates in neigh-borhood. County zoning map, showing county zoning. Excerpts from county zoning resolution. Table of residential sales. Excerpts from City's Comprehensive Plan. A~plicant's Statement of Position. I . - - ( ( • ( • • • (_ ( Zoning History 1959 -Annexed to City of Englewood and "automatically" zoned --R-1-A. Prior to 1963 -Rezoned to R-1-D (lowest residential classi- fication). 1963 -City adopts wholly new zoning ordinance and map. Staff recommends I-1 zoning. Planning Cornmision determines to leave R-1-C. 1965 -Owner requests change to I-1 so as to allow development of mobile home park, but withdraws request before Commission action. 1967 -Owner requests rezoning to I-1 so as to develop indus- trial park. Commission recommends against and Council refuses to hold hearing. 1970 -Commission initiates rezoning to I-1 so as to allow develooment of mobile home park. Action is postponed pending adoption of new mobile home ordinance. (The foregoing history is derived from a review of the Commission's minutes of December 9, 1964; January 20, 1965; ~~rch 3, 1965; March 31, 1965; April 14, 1965; April 21, 1965; ~ay 12, 1965; September 20, 1967; March 3, 1970; and April 21, 1970, which we request be ll'.ade a part of the present "record".) ~~~--·-----------------------------·-----------------~~·0 I • • l \ , . • • • ji · ,· ( .. ~ ·~LE T. I-l INDUSTRIAL LI~IITED • ( 1) GEriERAL . STANDARDS :· r • · • '_;. 7· • I · ' · • · a. All uses conducted in this .distrkt shall · be conta i nerl . '~i thin the structure ( s) shown on tt,e P.u.o ·. plan : .. (~lo outdoor storat"Je,. dis!JlaY~ or: sale.), ... ,•j._,~::,..; :,-,,. :::.-· .. ~:-:. "·'. . ' "' · ••,..,, ) : '~ I' ••.'', !' -' '' ' :. ''· • • ,• ·.· • • . ' 1 • • b. Jl.ll utility lines shall be unrfer~round unless : .·. the Board of County ·.Col'lllissioners nP.mits · · · an exception. -~-· .... _-.·--: ~ · · (2) PRINCIPAL PER~IlTTED . USES: ... a •.. t;eneral. offices, for exam~:~le: 1. Jl.clmini~trativ~ ~~d -executive offic~~- . ~-·2 ... Con~~ltinq servic~~ offic~s · {busi~ess ·: : · · · . : .. , .. a11rl nrofessional) · . .. . . · · ~ • ' I • • ', #I · .. -.3 •. ·nE>si~n professions {rtrchitect. nli\nners, ·. · _i 11terf l'r, etc.) . , 4. Financial Institutions b. lahoratoriE>s. for exa~le : 1. P.rtsic rtn~ ~o~lie~ res~arch 2. f.xoeril"!entrtl .: ·, · .: ... _,_·. ;3. -Test inn ; . :-.;·:.: . ,• '"".\ --·. ·. . . . . : ~ c. Repair of small af)Oli<!nc~s anrt"ooocls Man~:··;".).··...-...... . . . . ... · . . f~ct.ure1 in this district ... :· · · .. . .·_. ...... -~·-.. :; . -·--· ·:-. .. . .. d. Hholesale sale or warehousfnn of anv coi!I!IOdftv ... · corr.pl_vinn \4ith (1) a . above. · · : . e. ~anufacturfno, fabrication , processin(l, or ·. · asseM h ly of products provir4et1 that such facil fti es co m pl ~· with (1) a . a bovP. C'ntl nrovir1erl that no effects from noise, smoke, qlare, vibration, fumes, or other environMental factors ~re mertsurahle at th~ property lim~. f . P.estaurant, orovide~ that ~ne parkinq space for each forty-five (45) squ are feet of ~ross floor area shall be provi c!etl . -2 .34-. ·.· • I • • "l_~ ·In - • • • • j, •. (3) ACCE~SORY USES;- a :· ·rndoor·eatfnn and drinkinn establishment · .:. ·:·on the saMe lot as and ·incidental to any ·:. ·. [l·~!7~;r~: \·~.e: ·.·~~~: .·;·_ ·: ·.-, -.: ·~ .-~ 'Y';· --;;,-j ·:~.;~-,>·.:· ·.,. b .. ··:sleepinrffacilitfes ·reouired b.v caretakers · ·: "<'·· or' ni~ht \-ratchm1m emoloyl!d on the oremises. c: · Parkin,.,· for licensed I"'Itor vehicles aoourtenant .. to the princioal peMI'ittetf use. : ··· ·· . .. .. : .... t . . . : j •• -• .. • .... • •• (4) NAr!EPLATES .II.N!:l SHlNS: (5) (6) . (7) .·. :_;:,: ... .._-· . ·.: .... i . . t : . ·.Nameplate or si~n (one) appurtenant to· anv · · · permitted use provided that the sion is perma- nently affixed or attached to the buildinq in which 'the use · is carried on and provided that the aggre~ate area of the faces of sairl sign ·shall not . exceed fifte@n (15) s~uare feet. · Said si~n. if illuminated, shall ~ illuMinaterl indirectl .v 11ittr ~o~hite lil'lht .. Flashinq or . :· · mavin!! sinns are prohibitetf.: One free standi no sign shall he permitted oer use, or buildinn, or COMplex of buildinos (whichever offers the least numher nf si~ns) shown on the P.U.O. Plan oro- vide~ th~t the al'!~rel'!ate area of the faces of saic1 sirm shall not exceed on~ hundred fortv (140) S!"uare feet. Maximw11 heitJht of sai~ ·sion Shall not f!XC~ecf that perMitted in Daraorap~ (S) belo,.J. · · 'ti\XIWJP.f ".IIILOIPH= llEir.IIT: ~ . . . :.. . • .. As set hy Plan"ed llnit "'~ev~loPfl'@nt Plan .. YAPO REOll I QE'~'ITS: . ... As set hy Pl~nn~ Unit nevelo~ent Plan A I RPOP.T RF.r.IILATII'ItiS This zoninn· cate::'ory ma.v be ilffectP.~ by the special heinht restrictions and nerfornance reoulations as · set . fort~ in ·t~i~ P.esolution . (8) SPECIAL AREA ~~D ACTIVITY REGULATIONS This zone district classification may be affected by special area and activity regulations as set forth in this Zoning Resolution. -2.35 - -. . .. ·.·.: :-- . .:-. .... .·. ;.:;:-:.. :; ·-.:.. . .. . ~. ... . • : • -'": • r' ·:-- -.. ·- . . ~. .. .. . . ......... ·:. : ·-.' . ·-. .. :· ::"' .. ~· . .: ~-... 'r·· . ··l . . . . . . ~-·-·-·---·--·-·· _____ :. _________ ~ . • I • • 0 - ( ( • ARTICLE .U. (1) • • .. • I -1 . LIGHT INDIJSTP.IAL GENERAL STANDARDS , . .-1 i I ( ,._ ..... __ ·: . .. · ... : . a~·· Storane of .liv@ ani~als. cn~rcial exblo-· . · ·. sh~es ·, or .junk .shall be P':'OhihitP.d. · . .:.' -· ·:· .-~ .. ; ~ ;_..: :. ; -~-; : . : .... ~ ! : • _.·· .:t· .. ~ . -- b.' ·~1~tttt{i;t/lf~e~· ~h~h···he -~~d:~·rnrouncf unless _:,·_:._~~~-:-~.;_{:·.-... ' the · P.oard . of ·countv r.o11111f ss foners PP.rr.'lfts < • • •. • • , • ·: • • , • . ·ari exc~pt1on: . .. .• . . ··· ... · .. : .. ~. ~· ..• -:: .. -7: • .. ,• .• :-..... :.:-·.: .. • · c. ·'lri effects from nofs·e. smokP., nlare. vihration, .'. fu~s. or other envfron~nt~l facto~s shall he · l'lea_sura!:Jle at the !'lrnpert.Y 1 fne. :· . (2) P~INCI~I\L PERMITTEll IJ~ES: a. Any use permitted in the 1-L District b. Manufacture, fabrication, processing, or .assemb11ng of products. . . ·. c •. Wholesale sale or storaoe of an.v co1'1'110rlfty .. ·. : COI!Wilvina with (1) a. above. · ''f;• • . . • .. ·,_·d.,. Repair. rental, and servfcfnq of any coll'l'nOdit.v. ,. the manufactur@, fabrication. orocessinq, warehoustnq sale of which is oermftted fn .· . the district. · · · · e. Retail sale of anv co111no«Ht.v manufact•Jred, processed, fabrfcaterl, or warehnusert onlv nn the ttrf'!ltises. f. Comm@rcfal wholesale nreenhouses. g •. Restaurant, orovfded that one parktnn soace for each forty-five (45) souare feet of ornss floor area shall be provided. h. Office .. ( 3) ACCESSORY IISES: a. Sleepfnq facilities requirerl by caretakers or nfnht watchlll'!n P.Mnloyetl on th!! orf!lll_fses. (4) NM1EPLATES ANO SIGNS: (Subject to Chapter Ill, Article A. Section 11 ). (5) ~ti\XIMUM BUILDING HE:H;HT: a. Fiftv feet (50'}. or b. As set by .Plann!!d Unit Oevelopment Plan -2.36- ····;.....!"•-· ... ---··------·-·· ... ·-- • . . ... --~! . -. -.. .. ;: ... .·I · .. .. ' I • - • • • .. • . ··'·-( . ·_ ··'-: .. :<\"-~::;-; -~ .· ;~:, -~-:-·-. .-~ ··~,~· .~.;~ -6 ; • '•; :: .... ·= .. ·: :, ... . . ... -·· (fi) YARD P.EOIIIRE~E:ITS: . ; : --.: .:·-·:' 'b. 'All uses in this district shall set back fifty feet '(50'} from property lines abuttino all residential . : . · :· .:' ''zones, or uses and twenty-five feet (25') from all : -_-.. _, __ :., ·. --- ... ~. comnercial. zones or uses. (Street R.O.W. may be counted '_. ··;-~-·,.-~.:: ... ·:··· toward the setbacks or as permitted in a. above.} . : :·-:-~:-··,: ~·-_::.~''}~ (7). : :~··~1:::~::~I~~~:::~~~.,:~~~: .,· .. ··• .·:.'· i .:ti··.•• .. ;~~~j~1r~~ (8) AIP.PORT REGULATIONS: (9) This .zonino category may be affecte~ by the special · heioht restrictions and performance r~nulations as set fort~ in this Resolution. · SPECIAL AREA AtlD . ACTIVITY REGULATIONS This zone district classification may be affected by special area and activity regulations as set forth in this Zoning Resolution. • . . ·.-7. .. ~ · ... ·. ·.. . . .:, .·. . .. • ... . . :. . .: _., .. ·-.· . : ~:::. :. ~ .... ~. . . _. .. : I • I .• •, •! , · ... ·; . . , • •-" ... _ .. := .. -~- " , !., -2 .37- • I . • - - • r I ' ARTICLE V. I-2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL (1) GENERAL STANDARDS: • • • r \ a •.. All utility lfn@S shall be underground unless the Board of County Commfssfoners permits an ( ~ ·:-·· .:-;'.exception.:.;. ' ~ ----. ·> i" .• .... : •• • .• (2) PRINCIPAL PERMITTED USES: .. ' a.· All uses permitted in · 1-1 District. <- -.. , -.b •. · Manufacturing,· fabrication, and/or processing of any commodity. ':. ~ • : • • _,:: ·~ •. ' : ,! I ', :~: 't~ t ', . ·:: .. -··~ -:' ~ J._ •. c. Repair ·, rental, or servicing of any corrmodity . • · .• ' ·1_ ...... ::. -.. : • d._ Retail sale of any cornnodity manufactured,· . · fabricated, or processed on the premises or of any commodity desi~ned especially for the use --in agriculture, minin9, industry, business,. · tran~_portation, or construction. ; ~ e: 1'-,wholesi.le sale, or storage of ·any article. f. Du~ or incinerator g. Quarry h. Restaurant f. Office j. Sand pit k. Gravel, mineral, or sand excavation, (subject to Chapter III, Article A, Section 13, and may be ' · affected by the regulations fn Chapter V). ' 1. Sewage disposal plant m. Animal hospital (subject to Chapter III, Article A, ·section 3 ). (3) ACCESSORY USES: a. Sleeping facilities required by caretakers or n1ght watchmen employed on the premises. -2.38- .. . :' . - . .... .·,· .. • • .. : ... · _:_,. .. I . - • ( • '<, :. · ... • • • ·.··. ... ·c. ~ :. !-. ~ ! ·: _· . . . . . :-·- '_, '· . ..... .. . . · .. ·· ( 4) NAMEPLATES AND SIGNS .-........ . -~-~-~~ .. ' -~ ·._ . . . (Subject to-Chapter III, Article A, Section 11 ) • ... : '{. ~~ .. ·~·\ ~ .-·-i:. -~·:.';-;;' ';.. ,' ~-' . • .... • ... . • •· :.: .. ·.•.. -;:_._. MAXIMUM BUILDING.. HEIGHT: -;_~~ ..... ·-~ -r .->.:t:~-. _· -:. -~-:l: . .. L_. ~. -_!!,~-;,.:·:. · .. ::~J:t~~ '7-~ -~.,, .. :.r-·, . -~_;:·:;:;·~---: -, · ~ ~ --.. :-. ~-~~ :· · ;· ·: .. . ,. a~ ·: ~:~'.~~.; f~et·~~~~~M--~~;.\;!;;;,/~ <-'·:::::~~/~;:(:.:~: :. • . .. o . b. As set by Planned Unit Development Pl an · ... ,. ·• ~ ·•• -~ • :: -.. "' • • ';• .... : . '.: :·-,_'I'(. :' •. ' ·-•. : .• -:""_I ~ I -.~ •• : : ;..~ '; ~--~-' . (5) · (6) YARD REQUIREMENTS:.'·.'···': -·~ · · ,-: " .. . -· -.\. . . . . . . . . .. ·;'-·a >· As set by Planned Unit Development Plan, however, b •. All uses in: thfs district shall set back fffty feet (50') from property lines abutting all residential · zones; and twenty-five feet (25') from all commercial zones and the 1-l zone. (Street R.O.W. may be counted . ::; toward the fffty foot (50') setback, or as permitted __ in a. above.) • ~: I • ' • I : ' • . . ~:. '. . • ... • {7) UNOBSTRUCTED OPEN SPACE: _a. Ten p_ercent (101), or b. As set by Planned Unit Development Plan (8) AIRPORT REGULATIONS: This zoning catego~ may be affected by the special height restrictions and performance -regulations as set forth tn thts Resolution. (9) SPECIAL AREA AND ACTIVITY REGULATIONS This zone district classification may be affected by special area and activity regulations as set forth in this Zoning Resolution. -2.39 - • . . ~ ·:. . __ ... ·: .! : · ... . . . : . : ... . .. . : . .' :-.' ' . • •• . ' ' . . ;. . ~ '· I . • - • • - ( ( Sales of Residential Prooerty I .__..,z• Date of Sale Sales Price ., Increase ,, I. 4600 Block South Mariposa 4600 South Mariposa: July 10, 1961 $16,500 March 22, 1968 $19,500 August 5, 1974 $33,000 100'7, II. 4500 Block South Linan 4540 South Lipan: January 10, 1956 $1'~. 850 October 17, 1973 $26,500 October 16, 1976 $35,500 139'7. 4550 South Lipan: ( June 22, 1956 $15 ,lf00 April 6, 1962 $15,500 June 5, 197lf $34,000 June 30, 1976 $36,300 138% III. 4600 Block South Lipan 4601 South Lipan: November 17, 1970 $28,000 November 14, 1974 $37,000 32'7, • IV . 4700 Block South Li2an 4710 South Lipan: June 28, 1957 $19,000 July 5, 1960 $21,050 July 16, 1970 $24,500 I • October 6, 1972 $31,440 66'7, • • Presently offered (December, 1977) $62,0')0 226'7, ( • • n - ( .. ( V. South Lipan Court 4545 South Lipan Court: March 5, 1965 January 1, 1971 June 2, 1975 February 23, 1976 4595 South Lipan Court: Others November 1, 1971 February 6, 1974 1101 West Stanford Place : November, 1962 June 28, 1973 December 24, 1976 1470 Hest Tufts Avenue: August 27, 1975 June 16, 1976 • • • ( $17,600 $34,500 $38,950 $43,762 $17,000 $20,500 $17.950 $28,500 $33,500 $25,500 $31,000 .. 149% 87% 22'7. I . . I ~ n - ( 6.- .. 7!.:-~·:::J R-L (Ruidonriol, Low) R-M (Residonrior, Medium) R-H (Residtnliol, High) B (Busineu) !lnduslry} Porks • • • • ' I I GENERALIZED LAND USE 1970 .... ,.·-·--· ~ ... ,,. , ·-· • , ...... !» ........ . • I • • -I -L'= rB t c:=n l~ • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD L (ResiderT~""j..aw) R -M (Residential, i'Aed i um) R -H (Residential, H i gh) 8 (Busi ness) (Industry) • • • GENERALIZED LAND USE 1980 ~~==~====-=-- • -u-•--• ~ .. , .. ,. ""~-~ lltt•-\o.=-•·•-.. c •• I • • . -I • - • • MAfTER STREET PL~I\1 ( • ( I . • • - • ( • • • ( Statement of Apolicant's Reasons Justifying Rezoning This ground has continuously been zoned by the City for single- family uses since its annexation in 1959. Applicant asserts that single-family residential use zoning was, and is, i~roper because : 1. The existing development of the area had assumed an industrial character even at the date of this proper- ty's initial zoning in 1959. It was, therefore, a "mis- take" to zone it for residential uses at that time. 2 . In 1969, when both the Planning Commission and the City Council formally approved of a "land use plan" for 1970 and for 1980, as a part of the City's "Compre- hensive Plan", both those bodies determined that this area should be developed for industrial uses. (See Council's Resolution Uo. 28, Series of 1969). Since all zoning must be in accordance with this Comprehensive Plan, the present zoning is improper . 3 . Since 1959 , when this land was originally zoned, and Particularly since 1970, substantially all develo pment in the area has been of an industrial character . Since 1970 , these developments have occa- sioned such substantial changes i n the neie hborhood I • • - ( • ( • • • • / ( ( that, even if the original zoning was not a "mistake", it is clear that residential uses of this ground would no longer he compatible with the character of the neighborhood . 4. It is so econ:Hnically unfeasible to attempt to develop this ground for residential uses that a con- tinuation of single-family residential zoning will result in a confiscation of the owners' property. 5. The history of residential property sales in the area clearly indicates that industrial development to the west of the ditch has a miniscule, if any, effect upon the values of that residential property . • I • • ~l o ____ _ • MIULANU FEDERAL SAVINGS 444171h StrHt Denver. Colorado 80202 303/573-7283 Rollin D. Bar"•rd PntstdMI December 16, 1977 Mr. Rex T. Garrett, Realtor 300 East Hampden Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Mr. Garrett: • • • At your request Midland Federal Savings and Loan Association has examined your 6-Acre parcel of land located at 1451 West Tufts Ave. in Englewood, Colorado. We have examined this property with the thought of consideration for mortgage loan purposes in the highest and best use of the land. It is our opinion that the industrial facilities which extend to the north of your property for some four blocks to Quincy Avenue has substantial bearing on the proper utilization of your land. This property north of your land is well utilized for industrial purposes. The land abutting your property on the north has, of course, a continuous row of newer type concrete twin-T Industrial warehouse-type buildings. The Friedman & Son waste paper processing plant that lies at the northwest edge of your property has likewise ~n affect on the highest and best use of your property. Because all of these industrial facilities are clearly visible from your property, and because your property seems ideally suited to the expansion of industrial occupancy, it is our considered opinion that the highest and best use of your land is for industrial purposes, and that it is not suitable for the best type of residential property which would be intimated in the current R-1 zoning. If I may be of any additiolllll service to you, please do not hesitate to let me know. RDB:rMc ~·ex. • • I • • /0 :In - - ( • • ( December 21. 1977 Englewood Planning Department Attna Mr. Rex Garrett Gentlemen a • • • I am Robert H. Starkloff of Spruce Homes. Inc •• we are home builders and have been for JO .years. This letter was written in regard to the gound north of Tufts and west ot ditch. I believe this ground was turned down for residential by the Federal Housing Authority a few years agor Since that time. there has been more and more industrial development around this property. I don't believe it lends itself to residential property at this time. I know Spruce Homes, Inc. would not buy this property for residential development as we believe this area has reached the point, sale would be very difficult for one family residence as they would have to be in our opinion low cost houses, and with development costs what they are low cost houses are becoming a thing of the past. This is only our opinion and to reiterate we would not be interested in building any type of residential houses on this property. Sincerely, SPRUCE HOMES, INC. ~~~ ~·E"X./1 I -~ i ! , I I . < • STAFF REPORT Page -1- STAFF REPORT RE: • • • REZONING Case #6-77 Request to rezone property at 1451 West Tufts Avenue from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to 1-1, Light Industrial. DATE TO BE CONSIDERED: Public Hearing to be held December 20, 1977 NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT: Rex T. Garrett 300 East Ha•pden Avenue, #328 Englewood, Colorado 80110 PROPERTY OWNERS: Rex T. and Martha A. Garrett 300 East Hampden Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 LOCATION: An area west of the City Ditch on the north side of West Tufts Avenue. The address of the property is 1451 West Tufts Avenue, and the site is described as follows: Beginning at a point where the centerline of the City Ditch intersects the north line of the SW l/4, NE 1/4, Sec. 9, Tws. 5 S., Range 68 W., of the 6th P.M., Arapahoe County, State of Colorado ; thence W. along said N. line to the City of Englewood City limits line; thence s. along said line to the S. line o f W. Tufts Avenue ; thence E. along the S. line of W. Tu f ts Avenue to the centerline of the City Ditch ; thence NE /ly along the centerline of the City Ditch to the point of beginning ; said parcel containing 6.35 acres, more or less. (See attached Vicinity Map.) ZONE DISTRICT : R-1-C, Single-family Residence. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicant requests that the zoning of the subject property be changed fro• R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to 1-1, Light Industrial Zone District. The applicant states that the land is not suitable for residential use and, therefore, cannot be developed under the present zoning • • I • - ( ( • STAFF REPORT Page -2- .. • • • REZONING Case #6-77 RECOMMENDATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: The staff recommends that the application to rezone the subject property from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to I-1, Light Industrial, be referred to the City Council with a favorable recommendation for the following reasons: 1) Because of the topography and the proximity of the subject property to industrial development, it could not feasibly be developed under the present zoning. 2) Because of the topography and its location below the City Ditch, the property should not have been zoned for single-family use upon annexation to the City in 1959, 3) Expansion of the industrial zoning and development to the west, north and south of the subject property has changed the area to one of an industrial character, 4) The zoning of the subject site from R-1-C, Single- family Residence, to I-1, Light Industrial, would be in con- for.ance with the Comprehensive Plan. DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND THE ADJACENT AREA: The subject property is bordered on the east by the City Ditch, the centerline of which is the boundary between the R-1-C Zone District which is applied to the Garrett property, and the R-1-A, Single-family Residence District to the east. The property to the west of the subject site is unincorporated and has been zoned R-3, Single-family Residential by Arapahoe County, even though this property has been used for the storage of construction material and agriculture. There is one older residence on the site. Recently, Friedman and Sons purchased and developed land west of this agricultural land for a paper recycling plant which fronts on South Winder.ere Street, and the EMJD Corporation is to the south of Friedman. Several new warehouses have also been built north of the subject property on West Stanford Avenue. The area to the south of the subject property which fronts onto the south side of West Tufts Avenue, is unincorporated and is zoned R-3, Single-family Residential, by the County and is occupied by several small houses. The land behind these houses is zoned and de veloped industrially. Since 1970, any development which has taken place in this area has been for industrial purposes. West Tufts Avenue, which provides access to the Garrett property, is identified as a Collector in the Master Street Plan. The Master Street Plan also shows South Navajo Street extending along the west side of the subject property as a future Arterial to serve the industrial uses in the area, and to provide access • I • • ( ( • STAFF REPORT Page -3- • • .. REZONING Case #6-77 between West Tufts Avenue and West OXford Avenue. This is necessary because South Windermere Street cannot be extended between West Quincy Avenue and West Oxford Avenue, and South Navajo Street offers the most feasible alternative. The subject property is slightly under six and one- half acres in area, and although it appears to be relatively flat, the property falls approximately ten feet from the east side to the west side. The land generally slopes in a north~ westerly direction. The top of the City Ditch is approximately twenty feet higher than the west side of the property, and South Lipan Court, the first street to the east of the subject site, is approximately forty feet higher than the west side of the subject property. There is an old, two-story stucco house on the south- east corner of the property with a garage and several small sheds in the rear yard. The area is not in an identified flood plain. BACKGROUND OF PREVIOUS CITY ACTION RELATING TO THE PROPERTY: This property was annexed to the City by Ordinance No. 16 of 1959, a part of the 135 acre annexation which ex- tended west of South Santa Fe Drive into the Centennial Acres area. At that time, all land annexed to the City was auto- matically zoned R-1-A, the aost restrictive single-family zone district. This land was then zoned R-1-D, a less restrictive single-faaily zone district. In 1963 when the Comprehensive Zoning Map was adopted, the staff proposed that the Garrett property be zoned I-1 rather than R-1-C, but the Planning Com- mission did not agree and the property continued in the single- family classification. Requests for a change of zoning for the subject property have been subaitted on two previous occasions by Mr. Garrett. The first time he made such a request was in 1965, when he applied for a change from single-family zoning to light industrial ; which zone at that time peraitted mobile home parks as a Con- ditional Use. Mr. Garrett's proposed use of the land as a mobile home park was vigorously opposed by residents in the area and he withdrew this request. The request was reintroduced to the Planning co .. ission in 1967 and a Public Hearing was held on September 20th of that year. Mr. Garrett proposed a landscaped industrial park on the property if it were zoned for industrial use. The Planning Coamission voted to deny the request for three reasons: (1) there was industrial land available in the area for development; {2) the request would not be compatible with the residential zoning of the adjacent areas to the east and south; and {3), the residents of the area were in opposition to the request • • I • • - ( • ( • STAFF REPORT Page -4- • • • RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: REZONING Case #6-77 Industrial use of the subject property would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. COMMENTS FROM OTIIER DEPARTMENTS: No City departments have opposed the proposed rezoning. The subject site is in the South Englewood Sanitation District and adequate service is available; water service is available to the site. Two letters are included in this report; one dated April 21, 1965, from W. o. East, the Director of the Denver office of F.H.A. at that time, and one dated May 25, 1977, from John J. Endres, Director of the Insuring Office of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Both letters indicate that in the opinion of those agencies, the best use of the subject site is for something other than single-family residential. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS: The owners of residential property in the vicinity of the subject site have in the past been vigorously opposed to a zoning change for this property. Their primary concern has been that an unattractive industrial use could be developed which would be offensive and be a detriment to the established residential neighborhood. New industrial development has taken place in the adjacent area which bas been previously zoned for industrial use to the extent that the character of the area has changed since the rezoning of the subject site was last considered. The I-1, Light Industrial Zone District, regulations amended in 1974, made some changes in the section dealing with screening : "§22. 4-13 1. Screening. In an effort to lessen the incompatibility between a residential district and an industrial district where those districts abut, adjoin or are adjacent, one to the other, it is deemed necessary that the owner of the use in the industrial zone district take certain measures to protect those persona in the residential district from the possible adverse effects of the noise and lights from cars, the passage of materials or wastes from parking lots, loading areas and storage yards and to discourage juveniles from trespassing in hazardous areas where the storage of equipment and supplies may create an attractive nuisance ; the following provisions are applied : • I • • ( (. • • • • STAFF REPORT REZONING Page -5-Case #6-77 (1) If the principal permitted use is within a building and the building entrance faces the residential zone district, there shall be no less than a ten (10) foot setback in front of the building and that area shall be landscaped with lawn, trees and shrubs of both a deciduous and evergreen variety. The landscaping may be accented by the additional use of ornamental features such as driftwood, rock, fountains or objects of art. (2) If the portion of the building site which abuts upon, adjoins or is adjacent to the residential zone district is not the building entrance, but is used for off-street parking, loading or the storage of equi~ent, materials and/or supplies, those uses shall be enclosed by a decorative closed-face or solid concrete, block, wood or brick wall not less than six (6) feet high ; · Which wall need not be set back from the property line. An exception to this provision shall be made as necessary at an intersection or an entrance to an alley or driveway in order not to obstruct the view of a motorist; this can be done by reducing the height of the fence or wall or the plantings for such distance and to such extent as re-quired by the Code Enforcement Division." Because of the extreme difference in elevation between the property to the east of the subject site and the site it- self, it would be very difficult to effectively screen the Garrett property on the east side. Indeed, it is questionable that development on the property would be visible from most of the homes to the east. With the imposition of the screening requirements, it would be possible to protect the residences south of the subj e ct property, if the rezoning were to be approved. The staff agrees that the property cannot be developed under the present zoning and that industrial development is the logical use of the subject property because of its location and the topography in the area. - I • - - i··:!'i!r ""r .. ,,I . .'1 • • ;· ' ... ,·, ,-...,' \ :' ~ J.; ~1: ~~· \~ ~;,:· , .. ~:·.~ 1~~:· . ' ~ ': • ll&GION VIII Ea_T_IM 14el~ ~-~ .. ,., • • • DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URIAN DEVElOPMENT INIUfiiiNG OFFICE TITLE BUILDING, a · 17111 ITAEET DENVER, COLORADO 10202 May 25, 1977 IN ... ,.L.Y ... P' •• TOt 8.1U (Hara) ( 303) 837-2475 Barbara s. Younq Planninq Assistant City of Englewood 3400 south Elati Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Mil. Younq: In response to your request, we have inspected the site north of Tufts Avenue and west of the City Ditch . As stated in our previous letter, considerinq the present land uses in the area which are inco.patible with residential use, it is our opinion that the highest and best use of the site is for aa.ething other than single fa.ily residential. Please feel free to contact us if we may be of any further as- sistance. ... I • • I ( I ( ( • • • • FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION Office or . THE DIRECTOR 909 Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado 80202 City of Englewood P. o. Box 178 Englewood, Colorado April 21, 1965 IN REPLY PLEASE REF"ER TO , 51 Attention: Hr. D. A. Romans, Director Planning and Traffic Regulation Gentlemen: We have your letter of April 12, 1965 regarding problems which would be considered in development of a tract of ground in Englewood lying west of the Denver City Ditch and between West Stanford Avenue and West Tufts Avenue. Since recaipt of your letter a review of the area hae been completed. Considering the present development, existing industrial zoning and uee on the north and west, and probable future development it would seem the most reasonable and appropriate use of at least the northerly three-fourths of the tract would be for other than resi- dential. Very truly yours, /dP.G~ w. o. East Director • I . - RC::Q"EST FOR ZONING \Arapahoe County ZoninQ in Parentheses) VICINITY MAP DE PAR TMENT O F COMMUNITY DE VELOPMENT CITY OF EN GLEW OO D 1 NORT H - 1-1 .. , ... 1-1 ... \ PROPERTY "'' • • • • ... ...J VI .. ....: ~ . ~c..?OI :'' '1:~, !,: .. ""' ~~!-... ..... --z c( 0.. ... :J ... "" oor ... ... 1 ·~ .... ... ... :r ... ... :::> 0 ""' 0 :r .... c( ::; c( ..J c( ... " ... - '" ... ... :r • .... :::> .... 0 """ ~ TUFTS II: . .• I I ... '11''; .. ·· -- ~ ... \ . •• .I '• ..... _ ; ............... I ef : •• !' .I . ·f ·.-.·. ..... j' l ..... STMlF ORO 'l ·~'r ... I ..... .., 1-----~ I ; ... :-.. ,-.. ... I • .. .. ,. ·~ll I ..... I >A:.. ... .. , .. . ~ STANFORD ~~ ~ ,--: z 0 V1 c( ..., .. • - ' ' ,i :> }j ., f I~; J __ _w ( WINDERMERE WAREHOUSES /"1'··~ . ·· .. 5¢--1 . (!N8UWOOOI I •-SIANtORO SONS PAPER RECYCU NG • • • 0 ,,..,, ., ... ..:. .. •:- !. ~. WAIIEHOUS( • ( { • OEPARTt.IENT OF COMMUNIT'f 0 ~ APPLICATION FOR REZONING City of Englewood, Colorado ~$ DATE: ____ ~M~a~y~2L,~1~9~7~7---------------- APPLICANT: Name: Rex T, Garrett Address: ___ 3~0~0~E~a~s~t~H~am~p~d~e~n~·~#~3~2~8 ______ _ Englewood, Colo, 80110 Telephone: __ --~76~1~-~7~8~8~7--------------- Relation to Request: __________________________ __ OWNER: Name: ______ R_e_x_T __ ._G_a_r_r_e_t_t ______________ _ Address: __________________________ ___ Telephone __________________________ __ FOR CITY USE ONLY Hearing Number Statement of prior contact with City Planning Department: Submitted herewith is the Rezoning Fee of $100 for the first 5 acres, or any portion thereof, plus $100 for the next 5 acres, or any portion thereof, $20/acre for the next 20 acres or any portion thereof, and $10/acre for any area over 30 acres, as determined by the City Planning and Zoning Commission. It is understood that this fee is necessary to defray the administrative costs entailed by this request and, therefore, will not be returned, and ·that additional fees may be required to cover the costs of advertising, if necessary. In addition, the applicant will be required to post the property in accordance with the specifications set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and at such locations as designated by the Planning Division. The undersigned certifies that he has City policies and applicable excerpts received and read a statement of current from City o;ryces, :;:c~~/f; rezo,~ • APPLICANT OWNER /Lee! S./-; ~"V~ ----------~(~M~u~s~t~b-e~s~i~g~n~e~dOLb~y~p~erson paying depolrit) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • COMMON DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL TO BE REZONED: The East .l.i East .l.i Northwest \ Southwest \ Northeast \, and all that portion of West .l.i Northeast t Southwest \ Northeast \ lying west of City Ditch, all in Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th P. H. commonly known as 1451 West Tufts • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL TO BE REZONED:* * * • .. ... • • • • • • • • • • • • • * * • * • * * * * * * * • * • • • • .. • PRESE Nr ZONING : RlC REQUESTED ZONING : I-1 * • • • • • • • * * • * • * • * * * • * * * • * • • * * * • * • • • * * • • • •Attach additional sheet if necessary • • I • • • • -' • • • • • • • • • • • • • * • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . ) REASONS FOR REQUESTED ZONE CHANGE: Land is not suitable for residential use ) I '~ • f • I • • - • ( • • • •' • INTRODUCED AS A BILL BY A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE REZONING A CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND AT 1451 WEST TUFTS AVENUE II~ THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, STATE OF COLORADO, FROM R-1-C SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO I-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND AMEt~DING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP ACCORDINGLY. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 22.3 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, extended public hearings were held before the City Planning and Zoning Commission to rezone a certain parcel of land within the City from R-1-c Single Family Residence, to I-1 Light Industrial and amending the official zoning map accordingly; and WHEREAS, said Planninq and Zoning Commission has considered the proposed amendment and map change and has submitted its recommendation to City Council there-fore; and WHEREAS, the applicant for the zoning change has appealed the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council; and WHEREAS, City Council has decided to consider the appeal and hold a public hearing on said requested zoning amendment and map change; and WHEREAS, public necessity, community health, safety, the general welfare, good zoning practice justify the proposed amendment to said affirmed zoning map as here i nafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, as follows: Section 1. The following described property shall be • • I • • ·I n 1 - ( ( • • • • ,. I • rezoned from R-1-c to I-1: Beginning at a point where the centerline of the City Ditch intersects the north line of the SW 1/4, NE 1/4, Sec. 9, Tws. 5 s., Range 68 W., of the 6th P.M., Arapahoe County, State o f Colorado; thence W. along said N. line to the City of Englewood City limits line; thence S, along said line to the s. line of W. Tufts Avenue; thence E. along the S. line of W, Tufts Avenue to the centerline of the City Ditch; thence NE/ly along the cente~line of the City Ditch to the point of beginning; said parcel containing 6,35 acres, more or less. Section 2. The affirmed zoning map of the City of Englewood, Colorado is hereby amended accordingly. Introduced, read in full and passed on first reading on the day of March, 1978. Published as a bill for an ordinance on the ______ _ day of March, 1978. Mayor ATTEST: ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer I, William D. James do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, accurate and complete copy of a Bill for an Ordin ance , introduced, read in full and passed on first reading on the ~day of------------' 1978 . ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer -2- _C ...... -·-------~----"-'----~-·~. • I • • In ,,., _;In