Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966-05-11 PZC MINUTESPage 910 I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 11, 1966 Special Meeting The special meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Woods at 8:10 P.M. Members present: Carlson; Love; Parkinson; Touchton ; Woods Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Rice Also present: Don Truesdale and Robert Shanks, Town of Sheridan; Frank Burton and Harold Beier, State Highway Department; Bob Trenka and H. E. Owsley, Ar apahoe Counzy Planning Department; Warren Brandt, I n ter-County Regional Planning Commission, Roland Muhrer, Englewood State Bank; a nd James Hammond, Englewood Planning Assistant. II. ENGLEWOOD STATE BANK CAS E #3-65D May 19, 1965 Mr. Roland Muhrer, representative of the Englewood State Bank, was present for discussion m their request to exceed the height l~mitation for the B-1 zone district. Section 22.4-lOd of the 1963 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requires a Public Hearing by the Planning Com- mission for all structures proposed to exceed the height limitation before a recommendation is made by the Planning Commission to the City Council. A letter from Mr. R. J. Franks, President of the Bank, requested a date be set for the Public Hearing. Mr. Woods suggested either June 8 or June 15 as a date for the Public Hearing. Discussion followed. Touchton moved: Parkinson seconded: Public Hearing on the proposed Englewood State Bank height exception be set for June 15, 1966, proper notice to be given. The motion carried unanimously. III. MASTER STREET PLAN DMATS CASE #2-65M April 6, 1966 Mr. Woods welcomed representatives from the State Highway Department, Arapahoe County Planning Department, Inter-County Regional Planning Commission, and the Town of Sheridan to the meeting. Mrs. Romans stated the meeting is to provide the Pl a nning Commission and Sheridan representatives an opportunity to meet with their representatives to the DMATS Committee, and discuss the pro- posal as it will affect Englewood and Sheridan. She pointed out that there is currently a ~eat deal of redevelopment and speculation within the core area of Englewo6d. There is 350,000 square feet of retail floor area in the core area; New Englewood plans show a proposed 1,204,000 square feet retail floor area , for a tota l of 1,554,000 square feet of retail floor area. This development should be taken into consideration by the Commission a nd the Committee in any recommendations and /or decisions they make. Mrs. Romans stated it was her opinion that Highway #70 should be the location of the proposed east /west freeway through the southern corridor of the Denver Metropolitan Area. Mr. Trenka, County Planning Department, stated he was a member of the technical committee cf DMATS. It is the purpose of this committee to coordinate traffic plans of the various municipalities and make recommendations following s t udy of all available information. Mr. Brandt, Inter-County Regional Planning Commission, stated that System 4B of the study concerns itself with surface streets only. This plan, if accepted by the var i ous planning agencies, would be adapted to a final design. System 5A, B, and C will be concentrated on freeways and various proposed locations. Mr. Brandt suggested that the surface street system (System 4B)become a "major street and highway plan" for Sheridan and Englewood. Once this is accomplished, developers can be given notice if their project is on one of these streets and highways, that additional right-of-way may be required for such s t reets or highways. Mr. Woods asked what the difference was between Systems 3, 4, and 5? Mr. Bur t on stated that the Highway Department has been testing several different street systems; each is given a different number. The program was begun to project traffic volumes to 1980, and to determine if the present street system could accommodate it; t h e present street system was found to be inadequate. Mr. Burton stated that all levels of streets were required to ca r ry traffic; one-way, collectors, arterials, and freeways. Mr. Woods asked if the proposed change of land use was taken into consideration when the figures for System 4B were computed? Mr. Burton stated that discussions had b een held with Planners in the various jurisdictions, and such pro b lems had been considered. He pointed out that the New Englewood site had increased from 15,200 "trip-ins" per day to 45,600 "trip- ins" per day. Mr. Parkinson questioned the change of Highway #70 from a freeway in System 3 to a 6-lane major arterial in System 4B? Mr. Burton stated that System 4B is a study to see how well the projected traffic can be accommodated without freeways. Mr. Trenka commented that it had been a recommendation of the Technical Committee that Highway #70 be fully developed as a freeway and tie into Interstate #225; this would give major corridors in the vicinity of the County Line, Highway #70, and Sixth Avenue. Mr. Burton stated these three routes are being tested for a possible freeway development as is Belleview Avenue. I I I I I I Page 9 11 Mr. Woods asked if System 5 will be a study upon which the jurisdictions can rely? Mr. Burton stated it was very important to reach an agreement on the surface street system (4B), and then attempt to pin the freeway corridors down; this, he felt, would aid in acquiring needed right-of-way. Mrs. Romans discussed the traffic congestion on South Broadway in the recent Brookridge annexation, and asked if it was felt a 4-lane major arterial could carry the projected volume of traffic? Mr. Burton commented that part of the Broadway traffic congestion was a conflict in the roles the street is required to serve --thru traffic versus shopper traffic. He felt that an adequate freeway, such as the proposed Columbine Freeway, would aid in the solution of this problem. Mr. Parkinson asked if any consideration had been given to financing of the system? Mr. Trenka commented that every city should give very detailed consideration to financing the system, and pointed out that in some cases right-of-way could be reserved at the time a subdivision is given approval. Discussion ensued. Mr. Carlson stated that freeways must be planned and located now, or they will be unobtainable. Mr. Burton agreed, and commented that traffic volumes have increased 30% within the past six years, and would more than double in the next 20 years. Mrs. Romans inquired of Mr. Brandt on the progress of the street classification study under- taken by Inter-County Regional? Mr. Brandt replied there was "no uniformity in terminolog~ width, or anything else" within the jurisdictions of the Denver Metropolitan area. He stated that the information had been obtained from the subdivision regulations of the various municipalities and counties. He stated that it would be the recommendation of ICRPC that there be a degree of uniformity, and a maximum-minimum street width set forth. Mrs. Romans discussed the proposed one-way street pattern within the City of Englewood, and commented that an opposing petition has been submitted already. Mr. Burton stated the purpose of streets was to move traffic, and that a governmental agency does have the police power to use streets for specific purposes. Mr. Brandt commented that people seem to feel that because their property abuts a street, it is their private property, but this is not so; they may not always have parking, etc. on this street, as it is to serve an entire area, not just that one property or block. Mr. Burton stated he realized that Englewood was in a peculiar position of being a "bridge" city, that is, located between Littleton and Denver, thus necessarily having to carry the through traffic on the streets. Mr. Truesdale stated that the New Englewood development in Englewood will undoubtedly in- crease the traffic in Sheridan, and possibly aid in new development in Sheridan. He commented that he would not want another freeway with the Highway 70 design,(no curb cuts in Sherida~ to go through; he did not feel this would aid the town at all. Mr. Woods expressed the appreciation of the Commission for the opportunity to meet with the representatives of the various agencies, and thanked them for coming. The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be May 18, 1966, at which time it is proposed we meet with the Parks and Recreation Commission. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "'*' CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 18, 1966 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting was called to order by Chairman Woods at 8:25 P.M. Members present: Parkinson; Rice; Touchton; Woods Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Carlson; Love II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Woods stated minutes from the meetings of May 4, 1966, and May 11, 1966, were to be considered for approval. Parkinson moved: Touchton seconded: The Minutes of May 4, 1966, and May 11, 1966, be approved as written. The motion carried unanimously. III. ANNEXATION. The potential for growth of the City of Englewood was discussed.