HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-06-06 PZC MINUTESI
I
I
I. CALL TO ORDER.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
JUNE ·6, 1972
Page 1425
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; Lentsch; .Ross; Stanley;Weist
Supinger, Ex-officio
Members absent: Brown; Henning; Robins; Vobejda
Also present: Fire Chief Hamilton; Captain Hartley; D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of
C0mmunity Development
---- --- -- -- --~ ----- --- - - - - - --
II. APPROVAL OF ·MINUTES.
Chairman Lentsch s ·tated that the Minutes of May 16, 1972, were to be co:usidered for approval.
Mr. Robins entered and took his place with the Commission.
Carlson moved:
Ross seconded: The Minutes of May 16, 1972, be approved as written.
The motion carried.
III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE
·Amendment of §22.4-11 b
CASE #14-72B
May 16, 1972
May 2, 1972
Mr. Lentsch stated the request by Mr. Alan Sternberg and Mr. Wayne Roberts for amendment of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to permit dry cleaning establishments using flammable
liquids in the B-2 Zone District has been scheduled for Public Hearing tonight.
Ross moved:
Robins seconded: The Public Hearing be opened.
The motion carried.
Mr. Lentsch asked the staff to present the1 background of this request.
Mrs. Romans stated that information from the Denver Department of Health and Hospitals was
received· by the office on June 5, 1972 ; copies of this information have been given Commission
members this evening.
Mrs. Romans stated that notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Herald
on May 18, 1972. Mrs. Romans then discussed the resea.rch done by the staff on the matter
of the flammable Stoddard Solvent versus the non-flammable Perchloroethylene cleaning fluid.
Mrs. Romans state d that the cies of Denver and Littleton, under their zoning codes, do not
permit new dry cleaning establishments using flammable liquids. Arvada, Aurora, Boulder and
Lakewood do not specifically prohibit the use of ,flammable liquids in dry cleaning establish-
ments, and Boulder does attempt to "discourage" these uses. Mrs. Romans stated that Captain
Hartley had researched the matter in regard to Fire Codes, and has found that Denver and
Aurora will not permit any new Class II dry cleaning establishments; Boulder will "discourage"
new Class II dry cleaning plants, and Littleton "to the best of their knowledge" has no
Class II solvents in dry cleaning plants. Mrs. Romans noted that none of the municipalities
contacted have "taken an official stand on the matter", and couJ.d put nothing in writing as
to why f lammable solvents are prohibited or discouraged. Mrs. Romans then reviewed Health
Department statements. on the matter: Tri-County Health, Mr. Upthegrove, stated they were
concerned about the toxicity of Perchloroethylene; the Colorado Health Department, Industrial
Division, Mr. Ray Brannon, stated that they approved either the Stoddard Solvent or
Perchloroethylene;· Denver Health Department, Mr. Bullock, stated he was more concerned about
the toxicity of Perchloroethylene than the flammability of Stoddard. Mrs. Romans then re-
viewed information she had obtained from the Air Pollution Boards: Colorado Air Pollution
Control Board, Mr. Weiner, stated there are no hydrocarbon emission standards from a stationary
source in the State at this time; Denver Air Pollution Control, Mr. Dobler,. stated they were
not concerned about either Stoddard or Perchloroethylene as far as air pollution was concerned.
Mr. Crowe of the Colorado Department of Labor stated that he f elt Perchloroethylene is safer
than a flammable liquid. Mr. Crowe did state that if used properly, there may be no danger
with either substance, but that if there should be a leak in the equipment, he felt the
danger to the employee from fire would be greater with the Stoddard Solvent than of fumes
with the Perchloroethylene. According to the Uniform Building Code, dry cleaning establish-J
ments using flammable liquids are an E-2 Occupancy, permitted in Fire Zone 1 and 2. The
B-2 Zone District is in Fire Zone 2. The maximum floor area is limited in Fire Zones 1 and
2. If the size of the building exceeds 1,500 sq. ft., the building must be sprinklered.
There are requirements that must be met on the fire resistance o f the walls of such structures
housing uses such as dry cleaning establishment using flammable liquid. Mrs. Romans stated
that she had contacted insurance companies and the Inspection Bureau; the rates are higher
for a use that has a flammable liqu~d used in their process; the rates are also higher for
structures adjacent . to the initial use. There are many factors involved in determining the
insurance such as location, type of building, etc . Chemical companies were contacted. It
was learned that the Stoddard Solvent is considerably more inexpensive than the Perchloroethylene.
Mrs. Romans stated that at the May 2, 1972, meeting, the dry cleaning establishment using
flammable liquid was compired to a filling station, and it was questioned why one use would
be permitted in a B-2 Zone District, and the other would not. Mrs. Romans noted that
filling stations are a Group F Occupancy, and are not -considered to be the hazard that the
dry cleaning establishment using flammable liquid would be. She noted that the service
station has the flammable liquid stored underground, out-of-doors, and the storage tanks
must meet UL standards.
Page 1426
Mrs. Romans stated that there are two cleaning establishments in the City of Englewood using
the flammable liquid: Quincy Cleaners, owned by Mr. Roberts, the applicant; and Koit Cleaners,
which is located in an industrial district. ·
Mrs. Romans stated that the staff, after considering the information available, has recommended
that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance not be amended to permit dry cleaning 'establishments
using flammable liquids in the B-1 Zone District.
Chairman Lentsch asked Chief Hamilton if he wished to add to the background given by Mrs.
Romans? Chief Hamilton stated that Captain Hartley has researched the problem, and asked
Captain Hartley to present the information.
Captain Hartley stated that he bad checked with the local Fire Departments to determine their
restrictions on flammable liquids used in dry cleaning establishments. He reported that
Denver and Aurora prohibit ney.r Class II establishments; Boulder "discourages" new Class II
uses, and the City of Littleton does not have any such uses to their knowledge.
Mr. Lentsch asked the proponents to present their case.
Mr. Ralph Taylor stated he was representing Mr. Roberts for Mr. Sternb~rg. Mr. Taylor
stated that while the staff has done a very comprehensive study and report, still when
analyzed point by point, the staff rep9rt does not support the staff recommendation of not
amending the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Taylor stated that the applicant, Mr. Wayne Roberts,
is desirous of constructing a new buiiding in the same block as his present use, the pro-
posed building to be to the south of his present location. Mr. Taylor discussed the section
of the staff report entitled: Information Obtained From Other Sources by the Staff, and
noted that the restrict~ons in the fire and bui~ding ~odes are not set forth for considera-
tion. Mr. Taylor stated that he felt the information was incomplete and inconclusive. Mr.
Taylor stated that the applicants have not been given an opportunity to review the material
received by the staff from the Denver Department of Health and Hospitals, and that they
would appreciate such an opportunity. Mr. Taylor stated that be felt the matter of increased
insurance rates on the subject property owner was the concern of the property owner.
Mr. Taylor took issue with the statement on Page 6 of the Staff Report, paragraph 2; "Because
the Stoddard ~s so much cheaper the owner or operator does not have to be quite as careful in
reclaiming the used fluid." Mr. Taylor stated that the gentleman at Quincy Cleaners has an
"enclosed system", and stated that P.e felt it was incQrrect to assume that operators of
establishments _ using the Stoddard Solvent would be more "careless because its less expensive ·."
Mr. Taylor statep that he further felt the argument that other dry cleaning establishments
might change over to the Stoddard System and cause a hazard because of the construction of
the building and equipment was invalid. Mr. Taylor noted that the staff report states that
static electricity and friction can ignite the. Stoddard Solvent; he stated that no statistics
were set forth, and asked if this possibility was more dangerous than the possibility of
poisoning by Perchloroethylene. Mr. Taylor stated that he bad received the staff report
Monday, and had only a day or two for review; he stated that the staff bas done a good job
of research and has gathered a lot of facts; however, he does not feel that the material
contained within the staff report supports the conclusion recommended by the staff. Mr.
Taylor asked the Commission to re.commend that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be amended
to permit dry cleaning establishments using flammable liquids in the B-2 Zone District. ·
'
Mr. Lentsch stated that while Mr. Taylor had mentioned the "legal" points --that the exclusion
of flammable liquids for use by dry cleaning establishments was prejudicial and discriminatory
he had not spoken to the matter of public health, safety and welfare as w9uld be affepted ~
the .approval of the request.
Mr. Taylor stated that it is the . applicant's position that the restrictions fro.ma legal
standpoint are prejudicial and discriminatory, and are not related to the public health,
safety and welfare.
Mr. Lentsch asked if Mr. Taylor had information on the number of persons poisoned by the
fumes of Perchloroethylene in the last year? Mr. Taylor stated he did not have such informa-
(
tion. Mr. Taylor stated that if the applicant was "opposing" the use of Percbloroethylene,
they would have the information, but the applicant is not opposing the use of that particular
solvent. They are asking that th~ Stodpard Solvent be approved for those businessmen who
wish to use it in their dry cleaning establishments. Discussion followed. Mr. Ross asked
Mr. Taylor to summarize his points on the legal aspect of the matter. Mr. Taylor stated
that his arguments were in the area of constitutional law, whereby discrimination between
people and things is constitutionally lawful if, there is valid basis in logic and reason of
such discrimination .. Mr. Tpylor stated he did not feel that there was a valid basis of
reasoning for the discrimination between the filling stations, spray paint booths, and the
use of the Stoddard Solvent by cleaning establishments in the B-2 Zone Distri~t. Further
discussion followed., Mr. Ro~$ stated .that he didn't feel a technical point of view of the
real difference between the two types of systems has been set forth; he asked if Mr. Roberts,
the applicant, could give the Commission this information. He asked "what are the chances
of liquid escaping?" He asked if the Stoddard Solvent was heated ~n the cleaning process
to remove the vapors from the cleaning? Mr. Roberts stated that both systems were enclosed
as far as escape of fumes from either. He stated that they were controlled to the extent
that Perchloroethylene is reclaimed from the atmosphere, and the reciaimer is designed to
change the f~mes back to liquid form by dist1i1ation. Mr. Roberts stated that the fumes
from the Stoddard Solvent can be distilled and reclaimed, but must be in a "vacuum still."
Mr. Ross asked when a person would be exposed ~o the !umes if both systems are enclosed?
Mr. Roberts stated that a person could be exposed to the fumes ''when you have the door open
when you change the loads; clothes are extracted at very high speeds and put in the tumbler."
In a dry-to-dry system, the clothes come out dry and odor free; it is not necessary to
change the clothes into a tumbler from the cleaning machine, as it is with the "wet wheel"
system. Mr. Ross asked how long a person would be expos~d to the fumes etc. from the solvent?
Mr. Roberts stated about one-half to one minute at a time. Mr. Roberts stated that the
danger with Perchloroetbylene is that it will. burn the skin when the clothes are touched
before they are dried. He stated that the Stoddard Solvent acts more as Kerosene does when
it gets on the skin. Mr. Roberts stated that Perchloroethylene must be used in stainless
steel equipment. Mr. Lentsch asked to what' ,degree t 'he Sto'ddard Solvent was heated? Mr.
Roberts stated that the solv.ent is. not "heated"; it may reach 120 ° in drying the clothes,
but there is no flame and it is dry heat, steam and a ~r circulation. Discussion f ollowed.
Mr. Roberts stated that 2 % to 3 % of _soap, 1 /2 % to 1% sizing agent, and mothproofing agents
are added to the cleaning loads; these are all non-flammable agents and decrease the degree
of flammability of the Stoddard Solvent.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1427
Mr. Robins asked why, if the Stoddard Solvent wasn't considered highly flammable, the in-
surance companies raised rates, and why municipalities are discouraging the use of this
Solvent. Mr. Roberts stated he didn't know. Mr. Lentsch asked why most cleaning establish-
ments have put in the Perchloroethylene system? Mr. Roberts stated that the restrictions
on the Stoddard Sol vent prevented the usage of that sys,tem. He stated that he has been in
his ~resent location for 20 years, and has used the Stoddard Solvent the entire time. He
stated that just because "of the changes in the Ordinance that have taken place in the past
20 years, should he have to pay $20,000 to $30,000 for new equipment to change systems be-
cause the Stoddard is no longer permitted.'' Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Roberts how old his
equipment is? Mr. Roberts stated· he "can't say for sure; he would say its over 10 years,
but less than 20 years."
Mr. Ross asked if Mr. Roberts had ever ·had 1a fire in his establishment, or if he knew of
establishments using the Stoddard~olvent that have had fires? Mr. Robe n ts stated he would
have to answer "no" to both questions. Mr. Ross asked Chie -f Hamilton if_ there had been any
fires in cleaning establishments using the Stoddard Solvent around the area? Chief Hamiltcn
stated there have not been any in Englewood. He stated that at one time there were about
five places that used the Stoddard Solvent in the City; these establishments have since
either changed to Perchloroethylene, or have moved out of the City. Chief Hamilton discussed
the hazard of Stoddard Solvent, and stated that he felt sure the people who drafted the Com-
prehensive Zoning Ordinance took into account ·the fact that it was a hazardous operation and
that "this is why it has been eliminated in the Business Districts. ·He stated that the "NFPA
recognizes .it's a hazard.'' Chief Hamilton discussed the advantages of having a business
using a flammable liquid -such ·as the Stoddard Solvent in a low density area, as in the in-
dustrial district. t He noted that in the business areas, no setbacks are required; buildings
are side by side. Mr. Ross asked Chief Hamilton how many fi~es had occured in service
stations? Chief Hamilton stated that in 33 years he has been with the Department, he has
fought about six; he reported that there are several "incidents" a year at a service station.
Chief Hamilton stated that the two most serious f ires at service stations occurred at the
Co-op station in the 3200 block of South Broadway, and at Oxford and Broadway; in both
cases, the cause was the spilling of liquids within the structure. Discussion followed.
Mr. Weist asked what zone dist~icts pe~mitted restaurants? Mr. Supinger stated that they
were permitted in B-1, B-2, and I-1 and I-2. Mr. Weist pointed out that the restaurant use
is considered to be a very hazardous use. Mrs.· Romans stated that eating and drinking
establishments are rated a "Group F", and are not as hazardous as the ·"Group .E". Discussion
followed.
Mr. Lentsch re-emphasized that the Commission must consider the public health, safety and
welfare, and that he has not seen to this type any good argument to change the Comprehen-
sive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Taylor stated that he felt he had answered the matter of public
health, safety and -welfare previously; it is the argument of the applicant that the proposed
use is not that different from other permitted uses, and that 1denial of this appeal would
be discriminatory. Mr. Taylor emphasized that the applicant f eels there }s no ·valid dis-
tinction between uses -permitted in the B-2 Zone District, and the use of ·the Stoddard Sol-
vent in dry cleaning establishments. Discussion followed.
It was moved and seconded that the Public Hearing be closed. The motion carried.
Discussion followed.
Weist moved:
Ross seconded: The Planning Commission -recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance, §22.4-11 b, be amended to permit the use of flammable
liquids in dry cleaning establishments in the B-2 ·Zone District. The
Commission agrees with the applicant that restrictions on the use of
flammable liquids in dry cleaning establishments is prejudicial and
discriminatory.
Further discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch further discussed the aspect of health, safety
and welfare. ~e stated that he does not understand why the applicant cannot change to the
Perchloroethylene cleaning system; he noted that "sometimes we all have to change and it
will cost us money." He stated he did not consider the matter of cost a good argument for
this amendment, and pointed out that this would .affect the entire community.
Mr. Carlson stated he felt the City's stand was that the use of flammable liquids in dry
cleaning establishments is not permitted in this zone district, but that it is permitted in
the City. He felt "we are ar.guing the zoning." Mr. Carlson further discussed the aspect
that the use is permitted in the industrial zone district; he commented that he didn't think
the flammable liquid "is as perilous as it seems." Discussion followed. Mr. Ross stated
that he had not been convinced of the safety advantages of Perchloroethylene over the Stoddard
Solvent; he pointed out that all esta~lishments that want to use the Stoddard Solvent, if the
amendment is approved, will have to meet the standards of the Fire and Building Codes. Mr.
Robins stated that he felt there had to be a reason "everyone is going against the Stoddard
System." He pointed out the number of municipalities and agencies that recommend against
the use of the Stoddard Solvent.
Carlson moved:
Robins seconded: In view of the fact that three members of the Commission are absent,
and there are still some points to be further researched, the matter
be tabled.
The motion carried, Mr. Lentsch voting nay.
Mr. Ross stated he would like to have someone from the Dry Cleaning Association present at
the next meeting to discuss this matter with the Commission. Discussion followed. Mr. Roberts
stated that the Association has two laboratories where they analyze solvents and fabrics, and
that if a representative from the Association were present, "they would give you straight
facts."
Further discussion followed. Mr. Supinger suggested that the American ·Society of Planning
Officials could be contacted to see what information they have on the Stoddard Solvent vs.
the Perchloroethylene. ,
-- - ------ --- -- -------- - - --·--- --
Page 1428
IV. SUBDIVISION WAIVER
1101 West Dartmouth
CASE #15-72
May 16, 1972
Mr. Supinger stated that this matter was discussed ~t the last meeting, and was tabled be-
cause additional information was ne~ded. Since that time, the applicant has amended his
applicati~n to divide his property into three parcels rather than two as originally stated.
He applicant has agreed to dedicate 30 ft. along the west side of the entire property for
street purposes. The amended application requesting the division of the property into
three parcels has been consid.ered by the staff'· and t .he recommendation is now that the
Commission deny the request for a waiver, and require the applicant to file a Subdivision
Plat.
Mr. Snider stated he was part owner of the property, and a majority stockholder in the
Fiberglassics Company, loca~ed at 1101 West Dartmouth Avenue. Mr. Snider stated that the
parcel on the northwest corner of his property is for sa~e, and the sale is being held up
until such time as the Waiver is approved. Mr. Snider discussed the required dedication
of land for roadway to serve Parcel "C", said road~ay running east and west. Mr. Snider
stated they have dedicated a 30 ft. easement running east and west to provide this property
with access on their proposed plan. He questioned the need of dedicating a 60 ft. roadway
in this particular instance; he also pointed out the fact that there are property owners in
the area whose only access is by way of a 200 ft. roadway which roadway accommodates large
equipment and mobile homes. fie stated he felt that in light of this, the proposed 30 ft.
easement across his property east and west would give adequate access .to Parcel "C", and
pointed out that this easement will be serving only his property. Mr. Snider then asked
' what access will be provided on the property immediately to the west of his, a portion of
which the City is purchasing. Mr. Snider protested the dedication of th~ land to put in
an 80 ft. cul-de-sac at the east end of the proposed roadway across his property. Mr.
Snider stated that Fiberglassics would "probably take up most of Parcel C", and that he
is planning to build another building in the near future. Mr. Snider further discussed
the street system and widths in the area; he stated that West Dartmouth Avenue was only
30 ft. ~ide in front of his groperty. '
Mr. Norman Barton stated he had sold the property to Mr. Snider. He stated that Mr. Snider
has agreed to dedicate 9,000 sq. ft. for access to Parcels "A" and "B". He pointed out that
if Mr. Snider is required to dedicate the 60 ft. east ~west roadway, this will mean a total
dedication of .25,000 sq. ft. from the property, and that .one acre of the property will be
lost to roadway purposes. This will also mean that Mr. Snider will have to put in curb
and gutter and paving, and will "tie up money" in these improvements. Mr. Barton stated
there will only be three buildings in the development and there will not be a lot of heavy
trucking into and out of the property.
Mr. Robins asked why Mr. Snider didn't want to file a Subdivision Plat? Mr. Snider stated
he didn't want to give up the 25,000 sq. ft. of land or have to pay for the paving and
curb and gutter. Mr. Robins asked if it was Mr. Snider's idea to sell the l~nd without
providing access? Mr. Snider stated he was willing to deed 9,000 sq. ft. for access north
and south, providing access to Parcels "A" and "B". Mr. B~rton stated that with only three
parcels, he felt the proposed 30 ft. easement would provide adequate access. Mr. Robins
stated he felt the propoerty should have been subdivided in the first place, before any de-
velopment was begun. Discussion followed. Mr. Robins asked "why don't you subdivide and
have it over with?" Mr. Snider stated it would cost him $40,000 to subdiv~de, figuring the
paving, etc. for an industrial street. Further discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch asked Mr.
Snider what he planned to do with the property when he bought it. Mr. Snider stated he
planned to build a building where it is now in fact built, and sell off the back part. He
stated he knew he would have to dedicate the 30 ft. on the west part of the property for
access at ~hat time. Mr. Snider pointed out ihat now the point of discussion is a 60 ft.
roadway 440 ft. long "that will go nowhere."
Mr. Snider stated that the proposed use of Parcel "B" is a qabinet shop and workshop.
Mr. Supinger asked if Mr. Snider had plans for the use of Parcel "~"? Mr. Snider stated
that he felt Fiberglassics would eventually use Parcel "C". Discussj_on followed. .Mr. Barton
asked if the Commission didn't feel that giving one acre of land for street purposes was
more than is needed on a "normal" subdivision? Mr. Supinger stated that the average was
1 /4 of the total land area for street purposes. Mr. Carlson asked how many acres the Parcel
"C" contained? Mr. Barton stated there were 95,000 sq. ft. in Parcel "C", and approximately
115, 000 sq. ft. in the tot a 1 north property. Mr. Carlson noted that Parcel "C" could be .
subdivided and accommodate at least three property owners; in light o f this he stated he
didn't see how the waiver could 'be approved. Dis.cuss ion followed.
Mr. Snider stated that he would go back to the original plan or parcels "A" and "B", and
allow the finance compa.ny to "encumber the total Parcel "B" if this would meet with the
approval of the Commission. Further discussion followed.
A recess ·of the Commission was declared at 10: 30 P.M. The meeting was ca'lled to order again
at 10:45 p.m.
Mr. Snider stated that he felt the original plan of two parcels· should be considered at this
time. Mr. Supinger stated that this would still give the 30 ft. dedication on the west portion
of the property; that Parcel "A" would be the portion to be sold off, and that Parcel "B"
would encompass the remainder of Mr. Snider's property. Mr. Supinger stated that it should
also be noted that the Waiver will not be effective until the revised plan is recorded with
the County Clerk and Recorder. Mr. Supinger stated that the legai description for the 30 ft.
street dedication on the western portion of the property should also be submitted so that the
City can prepare a Quit Claim Deed. ·
Carlson moved:
Ross seconded ": The request for ' a subdivision waiver by Mr. L. Wayne Snider be granted
to permit Parcel 11 A11 to be sold, provided that 30 ft. on the west end
of the total property be dedicated to the City of Englewood for stree~
purposes. This will become effective at such time as the revised map
showing Parcels "A" and "B" is submitted to the Office and the resolution
approving such waiver is recorded with the .County Clerk and Recorder.
The Commission approves the granting of this Waiver, ~nasmuch as there
is no public purpose to be served by requiring the filing of a Sub-
division Plat.
The vote was called; The motion carried.
- ------- -- -
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 1429
V. SUBDIVISION WAIVER CASE #18 ... 42
NE Corner of West Dartmouth and South
Platte River Drive, East Side.
Mr. Supinger stated that Mr. and Mrs. Charles Keim, property owners, have ask~d for a Sub-
division Waiver to enable them to sell portions of their property to the City, and another
part to a Mr. Welbourne. The City has negotiated to purchase all but the south 300 feet of
Mr. Keim's property over a 10-year period. This property is immediately west of Mr. Snider's
property for which a Subdivision Waiver was just approved. Mr. Supinger stated that all
parties in this matter have agreed to dedicate a 30 ft. strip on the east side of the property
at the time of development for street purposes. The staff recommends the Subdivision Waiver
be granted Mr. and Mrs. Keim.
Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that the City has determined that no dedication
is required at this time; it will be required at the time of development. The City has
entered into a contract to purchase Parcel "B" from Mr. Keim,. Mr. Carls.on noted that Parcel
"B" is divided into ten sub-parcels, and that if Parcel #1 i 's the first purchased by the City,
it could be some time before Parcel #7 will be .acquired, and the street improved. Discussion
followed. Mr. Supinger reiterated that the City Administration has determined that it is
not necessary to require the dedication at this time. Further discussion ensued.
Robins moved:
Ross & Carlson seconded: The Commission a 'pprove' the request for a Subdivision Waiver made
by Mr. and Mrs. Charles G. Keim, owners of property at the north-
east corner of West Dartmouth Avenue and South Platte River Drive,
east side; this waiver shall be subject to the dedication of a
30 ft. x 513 ft. strip of land on the east side of the property
extending north from Dartmouth Avenue.
The vote was called; the motion carried.
VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE.
Mr. Supinger stated that he would be unable to attend the next meeting of the Planning Com-
mission on June 20th, due to having to set up the City's exhibit for the Colorado Municipal
League Conference in Colorado Springs.
The staff was asked to review the rezoning application that has been filed for the 2800
block of South Sherman Street. Mrs. Romans stated that the application has been filed by
Mr. Keith Dryden, owner of 100 ft. in the 2800 block of South Sherman Street. This is an
R-2-A zoning, which requires 75 ft. frontage for a duplex. Mr. Dryden's property has a
single-family house on 50 ft., and Mr. Dryden wants to build a duplex on the remaining 50
ft. His request is for R-2-R zoning, which will permit a duplex to be built on 50 ft., or
would permit a four-p1ex on 100 ft. frontage. Discuss.ion followed.
VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE.
Mr. Lentsch stated that he would like to see the Commission recommend to City Council that
Dartmouth Avenue be widened from Logan Street west to Santa Fe to the same width as Dartmouth
is east of South Logan Street.
Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Robins for a report on the Traffic Study. Mr. Robins stated that he
had been unable to give the report sufficient study to report to the Commission. Mr. Robins
stated that he felt an in-depth report would encompass at least an hour. Mr. Lentsch statErl
that he felt the meeting of July 11th would be an opportune time to invite a member of the
Voorhees staff to a~tend the meeting and discuss the study in length. The staff was asked
to contact the Voorhees people and ask that a representative be prepared to discuss the re-
port with the Commission at the July 11th meeting.
Mr. Lentsch asked the staff to write a letter to City Council, to be signed by Mr. Lentsch,
asking the Council to review the work and time that the Planning Commission members put in
on matters that come before them, and consider a raise in expense allowances for the Com-
mission mempers. Mr. Lentsch requested that the increased expense allowances, ii approved
by Council, be effective immediately. Mr. Lentsch commented that he felt the members of the
Planning Commission spend more time than ·any other Commission or Board in the City.
Mr. Lentsch stated he would like to explore the idea of a convention center for the City of
Englewood, possibly on the Abbott property on Lincoln. Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Carlson to
work on this project. Mr. Carlson suggested that perhaps there wasn't much that could be
accomplished until the Core Area Committee presented their plans. Mr. Lentsch stated that
he disagreed, and felt we should not wait until the Core Area Committee "gets going." Dis-
cussion followed. Mr. Lentsch stated that he would work on the matter of the Convention
Center with Mr. Supinger.
Mr. Lentsch noted three members of the Commission are absent; he stated that in the future,
he wanted every member to present a reason why they could not attend a meeting of the Com-
mission.
The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
Gertrude G. Welty
Recording Secretary
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *