Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-03-21 PZC MINUTESI I I Page 1407 MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: Mar~h 7, 1972 SUBJECT: Easement Vacation, Lot 12, Oxford Heights, Second Filing. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the easement in the north 16 feet of Lot 12, Oxford Heights, Second Filing, as further described in Case #7-72, be vacated; the reason for the vacation being that no public purpose will be served by the retention of the easement. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONJNG COMMISSION March 21, 1972 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Comm~ssion was called to order at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Lentsch presiding. Members present: Stanley; Carlson; Ross; Robins; Brown; Lentsch Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Henning; Vobejda; Weist Also present: Public Works Director Waggoner; Sergeant Wallace; Planning Assistant Young ; Assistant Director of Community Development Romans. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Lentsch stated the Minutes of March 7, 1972, were to be considered for approval .. Carlson seconded: Ross seconded: The Minutes of the meeting of March 7, 1972, be approved as written. The motion carried. III. FLOYD-ELATI INTERSECTION Traffic Island in Elati CASE #10-72 Mr. Supinger stated that he has received a request from City Manager Dial for Commission opinion and recommendation on the traffic island on South Elati Street at Floyd Avenue, north side. At a meeting of the City Council to consider the Paving District, several resi- dents living north of Floyd on Elati Street requested that the island be removed. Mr. Supinger stated thai he understood the installation ·of the traffic island at Elati and Floyd dated back to the development of Cinderella City, and that it was proposed in an effort to reduce the traffic resulting from this development dispersing through the residential area north of West Floyd Avenue. South Fox Street was proposed as the only through street from West Dartmouth Avenue south to the shopping center. Mr. Weist entered and took his place with the Commission. Mr. Supinger stated that the median strip installed in West Floyd Avenue had "breaks" at Cherokee and Elati Streets, and at South Fox. At South Cherokee and South Elati Streets, the traffic islands were installed to prevent traffic from crossing Floyd and going through to Dartmouth. The islands were proposed to be designed to allow right turns for westbound traffic on West Floyd Avenue, and right turns for southbound traffic on both Cherokee and Elati. The traffic island at South Cherokee Street and West Floyd Avenue was removed in 1969 after due study and deliberation by city officials, Planning Commission and City Council members. At that time, it was also requested that the island at South Elati Street be re- moved, but the Planning Commission recommended that this traffic island be retained, noting that there is an elementary school in the 3100 block of South Elati Street, and that heavy traffic should not be instituted on this street in the interest of safety for the children. Also, the majority of residents on South Elati Street between West Dartmouth Avenue and West Floyd Avenue asked that the island be retained as was promised by the City when the Floyd Avenue Agreement was signed. The Commission also noted that if there were changes in the traffic volume and traffic patterns, the island could be removed at a future date when so warranted. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff has contacted the Police Department, Fire Department and Public Works Department, and all three departments are in favor of removing the island from South Elati Street. Mr. Supinger stated that letters with return post cards were sent to property owners in the 3100 and 3200 blocks of South Elati Street, and also to the principal at William E. Bishop Elementary School and the Superintendent of Schools. This letter requested that property owners return the post card indicating whether or not they Page 1408 felt the island was serving a public purpose, and whether or not they felt it should be re- moved. To date, of 37 letters sent, 7 return cars request the i~land be removed, 17 request that the island be retained; 1 card from the School District indicated they had no strong feeling either way. Mr. Lentsch asked of Mr. Waggoner why his department thinks the island should be removed? Mr. Waggoner stated that the , installation oj the island was . the res~lt of conferences be- tween the Planning Commission, Planning Department (Planning and Traffic Department at the time) and the residents living north of .Floyd Avenue. Mr. Waggoner stated that his depart- ment feels the i~land impedes tpe flow of traff~c, and the Floyd-E~ati intersection is very confusing to motorists. Mrs.· Romans discussed the history of the Floyd Avenue Agreement. She noted that there were quite a number of meetings with the residents living north of West Floyd. Avenue prior to the election for the sale of the City Park and the zoning of the land for the construction of the shopping center. These residents were ~oncerned about the amount of traffic the shopping center would introduce into the area, and in an effort to keep the heft of the traffic out of the residential area north of Floyd, the median strip down Floyd Avenue was proposed. The islands were placed at Elati and Cherokee streets, thus giving local residents access and egress from the 3200 block, but keeping the heavy shopping center traffic off the residential streets, with the exception of South Fox Street. Mrs. Romans stated that at the time the Floyd Avenue Agreement was drawn and the islands installed, the traffic functions were a part of the Planning and Traffic Department. Mrs. Romans noted that when the removal of the island was considered in 1969, the School District indicated they felt the island should be retained as it was a safety measure for the school children attending William E .. Bishop Elementary School. This time, however, the School District, by Mr. John Kramer, Manager. of Property Services, has indicated they have no strong feelings on the matter. Mr. Lentsch asked if there was a traffic count of the number of automobiles using the inter- section? Mr. Waggoner stated he didn't have a complete count on Elati, but does have a turning movement count at peak periods. Sergeant Wallace stated that during the holiday season, this intersection causes a "complete block." Sergeant Wallace stated that during peak times, two patrolmen have been required at the intersection to direct traffic. He stated that the traffic ligh~ at South Fox Street and West Floyd Avenue causes the traffic to back up to South Elati Street. Mr. Robins asked if a traffic light could be installed at the Floyd-Elati intersection? Sergeant Wallace stated that he recommends such a light, and pointed out that it would free two policemen · for other duties if they didn't have to direct traffic at that intersection. Sergeant Wallace stated that two years ago at the holiday season, 35 policemen were assigned to traffic control, directing traffic at · intersections on #285 ·and ·other strategic locations around the shopping center. He noted that last year, with the installation of left-turn arrows on traffic signals along U.S. 285, patrolmen weren't needed at most of the inter- sections. Sergeant Wallace also noted that the "No Right Turn on Red" at .South Elati Street and U.S. 285 helped the traffic situation during. the holiday season. He stated that the exit from the shopping center by Joslins is under study, and that they may recommend a right- turn only from that exit in an effort to alleviate congestion. Sergeant Wallace also stated that curbing is needed along Soµth Elati Street north of Wyatts Cafeteria on both sides of the street. He pointed out that there are not continuous entrances and exits to and from the parking areas, and he feels it needs to be restricted. Mr. Lentsch asked how many · cars would travel · north on South Elati Street -across Floyd Avenue if the island were to be removed? Sergeant Wallace stated that he felt it would be "moderate" for the majority of the time. Sergeant Wallace stated that it was the turning movement that caused the most problem. He noted that drivers will go around the ·island ·at either end to go north on Elati Street. He also pointed out that the median strip in Floyd Avenue projects into the center of the intersection, and again eauses problems for drivers making left-turns ~ Sergeant Wallace stated that he is recommending three procedures: 1. Removal of the island on South Elati at West Floyd Avenue. 2. Shorten the median strip in West Floyd Avenue at South Elati Street. 3. Make South Elati a through street to. West Dartmouth Avenue. Discussion followed. Mrs. Stanley asked if there were many accidents at this intersection? Sergeant Wallace stated there were eight accidents in 1971, and there have been two or three this year. Further discussion followed. Mr. Waggoner discussed the possibility of a traffic signal at the intersection, noting that a complete traffic count has not been taken. He stated he felt there would be justification for a traffic signal at this location. Mr. Ross asked the cost of the signal versus removal of the island? Mr. Waggoner stated that the signal eould cost from $3,000 to $5,000 and that removal of the island would be very minor --a couple hours labor and a few men, because the island is only "pinned" down. Mr. Weist stated that he felt there was a problem, and that most people recognized this fact .; but, he felt the real issue was the importance of honoring the agreement. Mr. Weist stated that if the City feels it does not have a commitment to continue the agreement, then we should take the island out and improve the traffic flow. But, if the City does feel the commitment is important to people living north of Floyd Avenue attempting to keep the area pretty much as it was before the shopping center, then the ~ity should go to extra expense if necessary to design a plan to protect the residents. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch asked if there were residents of the area who would like to address the Commission? I I I I I I Mr. A. Kulp 3274 S. Elati - Page 1409 stated that at the time the islands were installed~ it was to · protect the children attending the William E. Bishop Elementary School, as well as to try to protect the residential area. ~r. Kulp noted that the school and children were still there, and he felt the island should re- main. Mr. Kulp stated that he had talked to residents on Cherokee Street, and they report that the traffic has greatly increased since the island was removed in 1969. ·Mr; Kulp ·stated that ·he agreed ·there are traffic problems at Christmas time, but stated that during the rest of the year, he didn't feel there was a problem. He stated that he felt the traffic would increase "considerably" if the island were to be removed. Mr. Kulp stated that "some people do sneak across, but most of them obey." Mr. Brown ·asked Mr. Kulp if he lived on Sou th Ela ti Stre~t when the Agreement was written? Mr. Kulp stated that he did': .He noted that residents of the area ~ere ihvited to several · meetings to consider . the traff~c pattern; and that one .big argument for diverting the traffic from Elati and Delaware Streets was the elementary school .. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger noted that the Floyd Avenue Agreement was entered into between the City and New Englewood, Ltd. The Agreement does indicate that the City may make · modifications to the plan, of which a copy is included with the Agreement. Mrs. Martha Scott 3231 South Elati Street -stated she had lived at the present address fo~ 21 years. Mrs. Mr. Todd Scott stated that the original plan for Floyd A:venue. ha·d a green strip of evergreens proposed, with no breaks · for traffic except at South Fox Street. Mrs. Scott .stated that she appreciates having the island detering traffic from South Elati Street, and she stated that if it were to be removed much more traffic would be using the street. Mrs; Scott pointed out that the entrance to the William E. Bishop School is on Soutb Elati, and that parents park in the block to pick up their children after school •. She stated that t~ traffic, if it went through from Floyd Avenue, could be very heavy at that point and would be unsafe for the children. Mrs. Scott noted that all shopping centers have traffic ·problems, and commented that if the traffic backs up on Floyd Avenue because of the traffic light at Sou th Fox S·treet ,. "It is only . for a short time." Mrs. Scott stated that she felt the removal of the traffic island "won't solve the problem." Mrs. Scott stated that she felt the majority of residents on. South Ela ti Street want the island to remain. 3258. S. Elati St. -stated he has lived there since October, 1950. He . stated he was attracted to this neighborhood by the City Park south of Floyd Avenue. Mr. Todd stated he "was very unhappy to lose the park!', and during meetings with residents, city officials, and shopping center promot~rs, residents were "promised that Elati and Delaware wouldn't be open streets." Mr. Todd stated the residents were promised evergreen trees along Floyd Avenue to "hide the shopping center. '1 Mr. Todd stated that he felt better signing a~d enforcement would handle the problem of confusion and motorists dodging the center island in Elati Street. Discussion of the signing ensued. Sergeant Wallace indicated that citations . are not issued because of . the way the intersection is signed. Further discussion followed. Mr ~ Todd stated that the residents were promised that the traffic would be "curtailed" through the residenti a 1 area. Mrs. Scott suggested that if the island is removed, the green strip might be closed, preventing traffic from crossing Floyd. Mr. Kulp stated that possibly the people "who sneak through are local residents." Further discussion followed. Sergeant Wallace stated that he has been on the police ·force 18 yea-rs, and that there has -not been a · serious accident or fatality at the t Bishop Elementary School; he . stated they have an "excellent safety record." Sergeant Wallace point(ifd out that a great many of the children a ·ttending this school must cross Dartmouth Avenue a very heavily traveled street. Mr. Waggoner suggested that a means of so-lving ·part of the • problem might be to put a cul-d~ sac on Elati Street at Floyd; this would preclude any traffic whatsoever from entering or leaving the 3200 block of South Elati Street by way of the Floyd intersection. Mr. Weist stated he felt the matter went back to the question of honoring the commitment made to these residents. He stated that he would be opposed to removing the island in light of this commitment. Mr. Ross stated that he felt when a public body makes a commitment to people that the commit- ment was inviolate until the people say they are willing to amend it or terminate the agree- ment. He stated that he felt "we should go back to the drawing . board and come up with a better traffic flow." Mr. Ross stated he felt the City could come up with something to alleviate the confusion and congestion at this intersection, and remarked that "you see traf fie patterns changing a 11 the time.!' Mr. Ross stated that he felt a "commitment is a commitment", and he is "in favor of keeping the commitment." Mrs. Stanley stated she has "never seen an island cause so much confusion to so many people," and that she ·thought the intersection was very confusing. Discussion followed. Mr. Waggoner stated that he didn't feel the island was designed properly. Further discussion followed. Mr. Brown asked how people in the atidience felt about the pro-· posed "cul-de-sac?" Mr. Todd stated he felt it would cause less confusion than is existing now, and also that it would meet the origin.al promise made to the residents that no through · traffic would be allowed on this street. Mrs. Scott stated they would not object to the cul-de-sac. Discussion followed. Mr. Weist asked if it would be appropriate to refer the matter back to the Public Works Department? Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger suggested that perhaps Public Works Director Waggoner be asked to work up plans and additional information for the cul-de-sac, a larger island, etc. Discussion followed, Page 1410 Brown moved: Ross seconded: Public Works Director Waggoner be asked to present alternate plans for the intersection to the Commission for consideration at the next meeting of April . 4, 1972. The motion carried. IV. OFF-STREET PARKING LOT Offices, Ltd. CASE #B3-72 Mr. Supinger stated that Offices, Ltd., have submitted revised plans for the . construction of . the proposed office building, and for the off-street parking for the building. Mr. Supinger stated that the applicants have also submitted two copies of a contour map, showing contour of the land after it has been filled .. Mr. Supinger reported that the City Council took no action on the requested alley vacation in Block 6, Premier Addition, at their meeting of March 20, 1972. Inasmuch as the vacation of the alley is important to the design of the parking area, the City Attorney has suggested that the Commission defer action on the approval of the parking lot until the City Council has vacated the alley. Mr. Carlson asked if this procedure would hold the developers up in construction? He asked. if there were some way the Commission could act subject to the alley vacation approval by the City Council. Mr. Supinger stated he didn't see any problem if the Commission wished to take action at this time; he pointed out that the initial consideration of the parking lot was approved subject to the alley vacation. Mr. Supinger stated that if the alley wasn't vacated by Council, the applicants would have to submit revised plans again. Mr. Brown pointed out that the City Council had only a 3-2 vote on the alley vacation, and that a majority vote is required. ,Mr. Lentsch asked why the two members voting against the vacation objected? Mr. Brown stated that he understood these two members felt the alley should be left open for , future use. Mr. Harry Carlepo, counsel for applicants, stated that one 0£ the . Councilmen voting in opposition to the vacation was not present at the meeting when the alley vacation was approved on first reading. Mr. Carleno theµ proceeded to review the proposed construction. He noted that in the initial plans, the building was situated on South Lincoln Street ; since that time, however, the applicants have acquired additional land, and the building is now s~tuated on the South Sherman Street side. Mr. Carleno stated that the applicants have met with Mr. Parker, owner of property at Girard on the west side of the alley, and have reached an agreement with Mr. Parker whereby the alley will be used for access to the property of Offices, Ltd. and .Mr. Parker's property, even though the alley is vacated. Mr. Carleno copunented that he didn't feel that City Council understood the importance of the agreement between Offices, Ltd. and Mr. Parker. Mr. Carleno stated that he feels the amended parking plan does meet the requirements for off-street parking as set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and requested Com- mission approval of the amended Plan. Mr. Carleno stated that the height exception wasn't necessary with the revision and relocation of the building. Mr. Parker stated that he felt the agreement was worked out satisfactorily, and will provide ingress and egress. Mr. Parker stated that the drainage problem that now exists in this block is a health problem, and this will be elimipated with the proposed development. Mr. Parker stated that he felt the proposed development will be very helpful in encouraging de- velopment in the downtown area. Brown moved: Weist a~d Carlson seconded: . The Planning Commission approve the off-street parking plan submitted by Offices, Ltd., date of March 8, 1972, which plan contains space for 93 cars. Approval of this parking plan is contingent upon: 1. The City Council vacating the north/south alley in Block 6, Premier Addition. 2. A signed agreement is filed with the City giving Offices, Ltd. continued right of access across the north 125 feet of the west eight feet of the vacated alley. 3. The on-site drainage plans are approved by the Department of Public Works. 4. The construction of the parking lot is approved by the Department of Public Works. Mr. Lentsch asked for the vote: The motion carried, Mr. Robins voting nay. - --- - - - - ------ - - - --- ----- V. STREET NAME CHANGE CASE #9-72 West Hampden Place to Carl Norgren Way Mr. Supinger asked that this matter be deferred until the next regular meeting to enable the staff to notify the First National Bank that the matter will be considered by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lentsch so ordered. - --- ---------- - - - VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Supinger asked if the Commission would like to set a date for study of the proposed sign code. It was determined that a special study session be set for April 11th, 8 p.m. M!. ~upinger st~ted that City Council had scheduled. a joint meeting with the Planning Com- mission for April 17th, and that he has notified Mr. Dial that some members will be out of town. I I I I I I Page 1411 Mr. Supinger stated that the meeting of the Planning Commission and Parks Commission has been scheduled for March 29th, 7:30 P.M. Mr. Supinger asked if there were members of the Commission who wished to attend the Planning Commissioner Seminar that is sponsored by the Denver Regional Council of Governments. This seminar will be on Thursday, 7:00 to 9:30 p.m., March 30th, thru May 11th. It will be held at the Council of Governments offices, 1776 South Jackson; the cost is $15 per person, and the City will pay this fee. Mr. Supinger stated that at the present time the City does not have adopted standards for the design of a parking lot. Mr. Supinger stated that he has asked Mrs. Romans , Assistant Director o f Community Development, to draft recommended standards to submit to the Com- mission at the next meeting. Mr. Supinger stated he hoped to have a set of design standards adopted by ordinance, and included in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Lentsch asked if these st~ndards would include the ·type of surfacing required? Mr. Supinger stated that the draft of proposed standards could include specific surfacing and bumpe r stops as requirements. Mr. Robins questioned that the City could specify such items; he felt the City could only ~equire that no cars extend over sidewalks. Discussion foll owed. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff felt such standards were important enough and will be recommended to -the· Commission for consideration. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Lentsch asked members of the Commiss.ion if they all received .council Minutes and Agendas? He stated that he had received a letter from City Manager Dial asking if members of the Com- mission felt they benefitted from receiving the minutes and agendas. Mr. Lentsch stated that he for one felt he benefitted from receiving this information. Mr. Robins agreed that it was helpful. Mr. Supinger asked if the Commission felt that the staff reports prepared by the staff on matters to be considered by the Commission were helpful : He stated that the staff attempted to include all the important information that was possible, and asked the Commission's opinion. • I Mrs. Stanley stated that she had found the staff reports to be very helpful to her. Mr. Ross stated that he found the staff reports t o be very useful. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch stated that even if a · recommendation was includ·ed by the staff in the staff report, the Commission should be able to "make up their own mind" on any matter. Mr. Robins stated that he felt the staff should give the facts on both sides of an issue, and make their recommendation; the commission may or may not agree with the staff recommendation. · Council- man Brown stated that he felt the staff reports were ~ery helpful, and that he felt the staff did present the facts on both sides of an issue in the staff reports. He stated that he felt the staff recommendations were based on facts, and that after study and consideration of the staff reports the Commission should make their own· decision. Mr. Carlson pointed out that the function of the Planning Commission is considerably different from the function of other boards and commissions;· for instance, the Board o f Adjustment and Appeals decisions can be appealed only to a Court of Law, whereas the Planning Commission is a recommending body to City Council. Mr. Len sch asked if Mr. Supinger had checked on' the expense fees of the Planning Commission? Mr. Supinger stated he would do so. Mr. Lentsch asked when the Traffic Study would be completed? Mr. Supinger stated that a meeting with Mr. Voorhees was scheduled for · March 23rd, and that the final report would be submitted very shortly. Mr. Lentsch stated that he would like to have Mr. Robins review the report by Mr. Voorhees, and keep the Commission up-to-date on it. Discussion f ollowed. Mr. Brown stated that the Planned Development Ordinance is still tabled at the Council level. He stated that he has received sev€ral letters asking that Council act on this Ordinance. Mr. Brown stated that he tried to get it raised fr om the table at the Council meeting of March 20th, but could not do so. Discussion followed. The meeting adjourned at 10 :00 p.m. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 4, 1972 ' I. CALL TO ORDER. The Regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Lentsch Members present: Carlson; Brown; Lentsch; Stanley; Robins; Henning; Vobejda Members absent: Weist; Ross Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development and acting Ex-officio.