Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-07-11 PZC MINUTESI I I Page 1445 MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: Ju~e 20, 1972 SUBJECT: Amendment of Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.4-11 b RECOMMENDATION: Ross moved: Vobejda seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that ~he Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.4-11 ~be amended to permit dry cleaning establish- ments using flammable liquids in a B-2 Zone District. It does not appear that operations involving use of the Stoddard Solvent are exceptionally hazardous. The vote was called: AYES: Ross; Carlson; Vobejda; Weist NAYS : Robins; Lentsch; Brown · ABSENT: Stanley; Henning The Chairman ruled that the motion carried. 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 ZONING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1972 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P. M. by Cha irma·n Lentsch. · Members present: Members absent: Also present: Henning; Vobej da ;· Stanley; Carlson; Robins ; Ross; Lentsch ; Weist Brown James L. Supinger, Ex-officio D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development B. V. Bsrardini, City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairmap 'Lentsch stated that Minutes of the regular meeting of June 20, 1972, are to be considered for approval. Vobejda moved: Weist seconded: The Minutes of June 20 ; 1972, be approved as written. The motion carried. III. KEITH A. DRYDEN 2800 Block South Sherman Street CASE #l 7-72A June 20, 1972 Mr. Supinger s t ated that Finding s and Conclusions have been prepared on the request by Mr. Keith Dryden to rezone the 2800 block of South Sherman Street from R-2-A (Two-family Residential) to R-2-B (Two-family Residential).. These "findings and conclusions" will be referred to City Council after approval by the City Planning Commission. Mrs. Henning stated that she felt more emphasis should be given to the fact that tbe original zoning was in error, and suggested that the findings be revised to place this particular fact as #1. Discussion followed. Henning moved: Vobejda seconded: The motion ca r ried. That the statement set forth as #6 be numbered #1, and the subsequent statements renumbered accordingly. Mr. Brown entered the meeting and took his place with the Commission. Further discussion followed. The findings, as amended, were approved. Page 1446 IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Amendment of §22.4-11 b CASE June June May May #14-72D 20, 1972 6, 1972 16, 1972 2, 1972 Mr. Supinger stated that Findings and Conclusions have been prepared on the matter of amending the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.4-11 b, to permit dry cleaning establishments which use flammable liquids as requested by Mr. Roberts, owner of Quincy Cleaners, through his representatives, Mr. Sternberg and Mr. Taylor. Discussion followed. The Findings and Conclusions on the recommendation that the Comprehen- sive zoning Ordinance be amended to permit dry ,cleani.ng establishments in a B-2 Zone District, which establishments upe flammable liquids, were approved. V. GRADY FRANKLIN MAPLES 300 -330 W. Belleview Mr. Supinger stated that this matter was tabled at the last meeting. Henning moved: CASE #16-72A June 20, 1972 Vobejda seconded: The matter of the Maples rezoning request be raised from the table. AYES: NAYS: Carlson; Weist; Brown; Vobejda ; Henning; Ross; Lentsch ; Robins; ~tanley None The motion carried. Mr. Lentsch stated that the matter was now open for discussion by the Commission. Mr. Weist asked if comments from members of the audience could be received? Mr. Lentsch asked the City Attorney's opinion. Mr. Berardini pointed out that the Public Hearing had been clos.ed at the meetin·g on June 20th, and that in order to hear additional comments f rom opponents or proponents the matter should be readvertised and the property reposted. Mrs. Henning asked Chairman Lentsch to state the reason that six members of the Commission met one-hal f hour prior to the regular 8:00 o 'clock meeting time. Mr. Lentsch stated that the Commission members were seeking guidelines and advice from the City Attorney. Mr. Berardini stated that he had set f orth legal guide-lines he felt the Commission must con- sider, and emphasized "that no decisions were r~ached and no one said how they were going to vote." Mr. Weist asked "what is the status of the Comprehensive Plan?" Mr. Berardin_i stated that the Comprehensive Plan divides the City into three major classifications o f land use: resi- dential, commercial and industrial. The Comprehensive Plan is a "plan of development for the entire City --parks, public utilities, water, density, location. ft~C.'' Mr. Berardini stated that City Council is charged with adoption of such a Comprehensive Plan, and "there should be reasons why there is a departure from this Plan.'' Mr. -Berardini cited reasons that might be used, such as error in original zoning, changes in the character of the land use in the area, etc. Mr. Berardini reiterated that a Comprehensive Plan is a guide line for development of the City. Mr. Supinger pointed out that a Comprehensive Plan is "only a policy Qf what is desirable in land usage", and that "it does not restrict the use of t ,he land." .On the other hand, zoning is a legislative matter that requires adoption of an ordinance by City Council, and does impose restrictions upon use of land. Mr. Supinger stated that according to State Enabling legislation, the zoning plan must be based on a land use plan, and it is intended that zoning implement the land use plan. Mr. Supinger pointed out tha ~ the Comprehensive Plan is "policy", and that zoning is "law". Mr. Ross asked "what are the limits and restrictions with respect to th.e B-2 use as it may apply to the proposed use of this particular piece of property." Mr. Berardini referred to the Zoning Ordinance, noting that any use permitted in the B-1 Zone District is also per- mitted in the B-2 Zone. District, with additional use,s such as service stations, drive-in restaurants, etc. being allowed in the B-2. Mr. Ross questioned limitations on lights, noise, etc. as might occur from a use such as a car sales lot? Mr. Berardini stated that the Supplementary Regulations of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance does indeed have restrictions on lighting; there are, however, no restrictions on noise, smoke, etc. Mr. Berardini commented that he felt you could expect a certain amount of noise from a use such as the proposed car sales lot. Mrs . Henning stated that after having studied the background material that was presented to the Commission, she feels that over the time the City has had an interest in this property, a commitment has been made to the area residents; beginning at the time of annexation and the litigation which returned the jurisdiction tp Arapahoe County, the City formally ob- jected to the zoning o~ the K-Mart property by the County, as did the City of Littleton. After the annexation was determined to be valid, and the area was returned to Englewood jurisdiction, the City has entered into zoning hearings before the City of Littleton with our statement of intent that the area along Belleview Avenue shall be residential. Mrs. Henning reiterated that the City has made a commitment in the past ,to the residents of th.e area. She stated that she did not feel there has been enough change in the area to warrant a change of the commitment. Mrs. Henning stated that the ambulance service located on West Belleview is not ~ co~ercial use; it is a non-conforming use that cannot be changed to any use of greater obJect1on, but must revert. to residentia:J_ at such time as it is no longer us-ed as an ambulance service. Mrs. Henning stated that she felt it was "unfair to say it is com- mercial". Mrs. Henning stated that the K-Mart property is as far as the ColIIJllercial zoning ~hou~d extend on Belleview Avenue; that the area between the K-Mart property and the parks in Littleton and Englewood at approximately Inca and Belleview is residential and should stay so. Mrs. Henning stated that in light of these reasons she would vote to deny the request for rezoning. ' Mr. We~st stated that he felt the City has indicated the possibility of the area from app~ox1m~tely South Delaware Street west to South Huron Street changing to a higher density res1dent1al, as noted on the projected 1980 Generalized Land Use Plan, a section of the I I I I I I Page 1447 Comprehe.nsive Plan. Mr. Weist presented a hypothetical situation, a developer purchasing several parcels of land in this area, and then asking for a rezoning to R-3; he asked what the staff reaction to such a request would be inasmuch as the Comprehensive Pl.an does indicate some change? Mr. Supinger staxed that the Generalized Land Use Plan for 1980 indicates a change to "medium density" residential from the "low density" residential as developed today. Mr. Supinger stated that .the approach the staff has taken is that th is would be a "gradual" change and would result in a mix of residential uses --the medium density would permit 15 units per acre, a density comparable to the Kent Village development. Mr. Supinger stated that it is the opinion of the staff that a mix of residential uses --low density multi-family, two-family, and single-family, can be good neighbors and will be a compatible area. Mr. Supinger noted that the 11 1980 General Land Use Plan" does not mean that the changes will have occurred by that time. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff has tried to set up a plan tha.t will allow an area to "regenerate" itself, and in light of the economic costs, most redevelopment will be in a medium or higher density use than the present low- density single-family type. Mr. Weist asked "this doesn't mean it will be what is developed in the R-3 districts --three story walk-ups?" M ~. Supinger stated that it did not ; neither did it mean the development would be all like Kent Village, but would be that type of density. Mr. Brown stated that "this will be a hard decision to make", and that he was "concerned with what is best for the City." Mr. Brown stated he felt there are "good arguments on both sides." Mr. Brown set forth some of the arguments he felt must be considered if the request was recommended to Counc~l: 1. What is best for the City as a whole? 2. Consider this property between two pieces of commercial zoning. 3. Would we have enough buffer zone if the property were rezoned? 4. Would the development be far enough from the residents that they could live with it? 5. Would this be considered strip zoning? 6. Will it be something that would be done and this would be the stopping point? 7. Why have other businesses developed in that area in the last few years? 8. Has this been presented as a threat? 9. Is this proposal based on economy only? On the other side, Mr. Brown set forth these points: 1. Should we protect the residents? Now and in the future? 2. How much faith should we put in the Comprehensive Plan? Should it change? 3. Is this case strong enough that we feel it should be rezoned? 4. Do we have enough commercial. prop.erty in the City at the present time? Mr. Brown stated that he feLt these questions would have to be answered by each Commission member tonight before rendering a decision. Mrs. Henning asked Mr. Brown what conclusion he had reached?. Mr. Brown deferred his answer until a vote was called. ' Mr. Robins stated that he agreed it would be a difficult. decision, and that the only con- clusion he had reached was that whether the land west of K-Mart is zoned commercial or res:i:- dential, "it should all be the same." Mr., Weist stated he felt there was an added. probiem in that "there is no good zoning practice set down in law", but only a policy. Mr. Weist discussed a comment of Mr. Loser's from the last meet~ng, in that the Commission could be opening the door to additional requests for commercial zoning along Belleview. Mr. Weist stated that he "might be in favor of the ap- plication and say it's as far as commercial zoning is going on Belleview, but this migh~ be set as a precedent. It might be our intent to do one thing, but another Commission migh~ do something different." Mrs. Vobejda stated that she felt "people have to be able to have faith in their City govern- ment"; "these people bought their l fi nd when it was zoned residential"; "you must keep faith with those people." Mrs. Henning stated that she would like to hear the conclusions ~eached b¥ other members of the Commission. Mrs. Henning stated that. she felt there should be reasons for the conclusions. Mrs. Vobejda stated that the conclusion she has reached is that the people have to be con- sidered. She stated that she felt Englewood's most valuable asset is its people, and cited the concern expressed by the Commission about the declining school population and efforts 1o attract families to the City. Mrs. Vobejda stated that she would urge that the City keep faith with the residents in the subject area, and stated she would vote against approval of the request. Mr. Carlson asked that Mr . Berardini review the law on rezoning. Mr. Berardini stated that the points to be considered are set forth in the staff report. Mr. Berardini stated that a Comprehensive Plan is a report for , the most desirable development o f the City, and any amend- ment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map would indicate that something has happened to warrant a change of the land usage. Mr. Berardini set forth the following points: 1. A change in character of the surrounding area? 2. An error in the original zoning of the land? 3. Can the property be developed under the present zoning? 4. Can the applicant show that the property cannot develop under the present zoning? Mr. Berardini stated that the Commission must consider each of these points. Mr. Carlson stated that "proving an error in the original zoning isn't so easy." Mr. Carlson then di~cussed ,the method of zoning, pointing out that zoning may break on a centerline of a street, or may break on a~ alley centerline : Mr. Carlson stated that the traffic has increased on Belleview considerably, and that he feels this does change the character of the area. Mr. Carlson stated that there has been some development of the R-3-B area north of Belleview in the Carmel Park Subdivision, and there is ,an apartment structure being built in Littleton. Mr. Carlson stated that the Comprehensive Plan indicates a change from low density to medium Page 1448 density residential on the north side of Belleview to approximately Sou~h Hu~on Street. He stated that this means to him that at some point there will be a change in the character of the housing. Ms. Stanley stated that she felt there was a moral obligation to protect the home-owners. She stated that she would like to see the area protected as a residential area. Mr. Ross stated he wished to reserve his opinion until the vote is called. Henning moved: Vobejda seconded: The request for rezoning filed by Grady Franklin Maples for property at 300-330 West Belleview Avenue from R-3-B to B-2 be denied ~or the following reasons: 1. There has been no change in the character of the area. 2. There is sufficient land zoned for COIIlillercial use within the City at the present tim~. 3. This would lend itself to strip development along Belleview Avenue, and is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. It has not been demonstrated that the property cannot be developed under the present zone classification. Mr. Weist stated that he feels "it has been adequately demonstrated that there is no other suitable land in the City o~ Englewood'' for the proposed use. Mr. Weist further stated that he feels "there has been an attempt made to demonstrate there has been significant change in the character of the property"; he stated he would have to disagree with the reasons given for the motion, and would also disagree with the statement. The vote was called: AYES: NAYS: Henning; Vobejda; Robins; Stanley Lentsch; Ross; Weist; Brown; Carlson The motion failed. Mr. Brown stated that he had studied the information presented by the staff dating back to the time of annexation of the area to the City of Englewood; he stated he had also viewed the subject property and the surrounding residential area. Mr. Brown stated that it was his opinion that the residents would be protected if the subject property were to be rezoned, and this would be one reason he would vote in favor of the request. Mr. Brown stated he d:id . not feel that the proposal would be considered "strip zoning", and that the property is situated between two commercial uses. Mr. Brown stated that he would consider what was best for the City as a whole. Mr. Brown stated that the reasons he has set forth account for his not voting to deny the request. Mr. Brown stated he did not feel the request was presented as a threat. Mr. Brown stated that he "feels it needs to be done for the City, and feels the people will be protected." Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch stated that if the request were favorably recommended to City Council, a Public Hearing would be held before Council, and the opponents would again be given an opportunity to present their views. Mr. Brown asked if the request were denied,. would interested part~es also be given a chance to present ~heir views a seconp time? Mr. Berardini stated that a Public Hearing might be held upon the appeal of the applicant, but it is not mandatory that the Council hold a Public Hearing following a denial by the Com- mission. Brown moved: Weist seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the request for rezoning of property at 300-330 West Belleview Avenue from R-3-B (Multi~ family Residential) to B-2 (Commercial), filed by Grady Franklin Maples, be approved for the following reasons: 1. This action will be best for the City as a whole. 2. This property will adjoin commercial properties on either side. 3. There will be an ample buffer of R-3-B zoning between the Commercial zoning and the R-1-A zoning on South Elati Drive. 4. The proposed use will be far enough from the residential uses as to be inoffensive. 5. This is not felt to be strip zoning. 6. There does not appear to be any danger of the commercial zoning ex- tending further west. 7. There is considerable traffic on West Belleview Avenue, and R-3 developments would add to this. 8. This has not been presented as a threat, nor is it regarded as a thre~ t. 9. The approval is not based on economy, but for the betterment of Englewood. 10. It has been proven there have beep changes in the neighborhood, and greater changes are expected to come. The vote was called: AYES: NAYS: Weist; Ross; Lentsch; Carlson; Brown Robins; Vobejda; Stanley; Henning The motion carried. A gentleman from · the audience addressed the Commission, and ,most specifically Mr. Brown. He stated that he most certainly did not appreciate Mr. Brown's comments, and the "apology", for the way he voted. A woman in the audience also addres~ed the Commission, and stated that "if the area has changed ~t's t>ecause of mealy-mouthed councilmen" and further stated that "what Englewood really needs is another car lot." She further stated th th d . . at she "loves to see somebody sitting here rat1· ona11· zi· ng e ec1s1on that has been made." I I I I I I Page 1449 Mrs. Henning commented th~t the K-Mart zoning .was approved by the Arapahoe County Commissioners during the period in litigation the jurisdiction wa~ returned to that body. Mr. Brown thanked the members of the audience for their comments, and stated ."others voted the same way." VI. VOORHEES TRAFFIC REPORT . Mr. Lentsch welcomed Mr. Bob Leigh, a member of the Alan M. Voorhees Associates, the con- sultants hired to do a traffic study of the City of Englewood, Littleton, and Arapahoe County. Mr. Leigh stated that the study had been begun well over a year ago, and the Englewood study was completed in April of this ,year. Preliminary recommendations were presented approxi- mately one year ago, and it has taken a year to get a full review and approval of the governing bodies; they do not yet have the approval of Arapahoe County. Mr. Leigh reviewed recommendations in the report as they would affect the City of Englewood. High volume traffic carriers, or freeways and expressways to be improved and expanded, or total new construction are I-470, I-25, U.S. 285, and Santa Fe Drive (U.S. 85). Mr. Leigh stated that Santa .Fe is proposed to be improved to a "high-type arterial", but not ,up to interstate standards for freeways. Mr. Leigh stated that on the proposed I-470, an Environ- mental Impact statement was prepared, but no action has been taken. This proposed freeway would tie into I-70 and I-25 through the southern portion of the metro area. Mr. Leigh stated that many people in Jefferson County are opposed to this freeway, and feel that it is premature. Mr. Leigh stated he was of the opinion that right-of-way should be "pinned down" now for future needs. Mr. Leigh stated that the improvement of Santa Fe Drive was one of the major recommendations in the study that would affect Englewood; he stated that they are of the opinion now that the Columbine Freeway is not needed. It is the feeling of the Voorhees Associates staff that with improvements to South Santa Fe Drive, South Platte River Drive, and Platte Canyon Road there will be adequate facilities to handle the traffic. Mr. Leigh stated that a second major item recommended is the tunnel under #285. This pro- posed tunnel would extend from Santa Fe Drive east to Broadway, and would accommodate four lanes. The reasoning behind the recommendation is to provide a separation of through traffic from the local traffic. It is proposed that the through traffic would be directed through the tunnel at Santa Fe, and the ~ocal sbopper-businessman traffic would still use the at-grade street. Mr. Leigh stated that a limited number of ramps will be provided for access to and egress from the proposed tunnel: two ramps at the First National Bank; Santa Fe, and Broadway. .Mr. Leigh stated that this would warrant an entire reconstruction of the #285/Santa Fe interchange; they proposed diamond inter-changes as these require a lot less land than the cloverleaf and conventional inter-changes. Mr. Leigh stated that it is recommended that Hampden Place tie in with Hampden Avenue, eliminating .the intersection of Hampden Avenue /South Bannock/U.S. 285. It is further proposed that Girard Avenue be converted to a "pedestrian way", extending between South Elati Str~et and South Broadway. Mr. Leigh then discussed north/south routes through the City. He stated that South Logan Street carries a high volume of traffic. There is a need for additional north /south streets that will extend from Denver into Littleton. It is suggested that South Clarkson Street be improved to a two-lane arterial from U.S. 285 south to Orchard ·Road in Littleton. Clarkson Street has no important continuity to the north of U.S. 285; -however, it may provide access to U.S ~ 285 and traffic may then disperse to other traffic carr.iers that do extend north, such as South Downing, South University Boulevard, etc. Mr. Leigh stated that it wo1.H 'd re- quire considerable expense to improve the capacity, and should be a joint project between Englewood, Cherry Hills and the Department of Highways. Mr. Leigh then discussed the Pecos /Windermere /Santa Fe Lane route. This is an important arterial system to provide north-south traffic with moderate expense. Quincy Avenue as a main arterial was then considered. Mr. Leigh stated that the study recommends the up-grading of Quincy Avenue to minor arterial status, and construct a new four-lane section from South Irving Street to U.S. 85. The re-alignment of the Tufts /Union/Santa Fe intersection was discussed. It is recommended that the "jog" be eliminated, and a new intersection constructed. The Study also recommends that South Bannock Street and South Sherman Street revert to two-way traffic. These streets "serve no important arterial function; there is no con- tinuity, and there is no reason ·to maintai~ the one-way status." Mr. Leigh stated that they recommend the extension of South Platte River Drive south of U.S. 285 to Belleview Avenue. Discussion followed. Mr. Weist asked about the improvement of South Clarkson Street, particularly about the width of Clarkson? Mr. Leigh stated that most of South Clarkson has 60 ft. right-of-way, but it does vary. Mr. Leigh noted that the "Englewood side has been improved; the Cherry Hills side has not, and will require curb, and gutter, etc." Discussion followed. Mr. Leigh stated that Greenwood Village does seem to have the attitude of being willing to work toward a solution on the matter; he has not approached Cherry Hills Village. Mr. Leigh further discussed the "internal movement" proposal, using the Hampden Avenue / Hampde~ Place and Floyd Avenue. He stated this would improve movement around -the core area a great deal, and ~ntersections would be easier to signalize. Mr. Robins asked if the through traffic would be removed frpm U.S. 285, if this could cut down on the turning movement th~t is now a problem along the highway? Mr. Leigh pointed out that it could increase turning movements for the very fact that through traffic would not be accommodated on the surface street, and drivers would be freed from that element of the problem. Page 1450 Mr. Leigh further discussed the Bannock/Hampden/U.S. 285 intersection, and noted that the signalization must accommodate three phases, therefore affecting the signalization all along the highway through Englewood. Mr. Robins asked about a continuous lane through from Hampden onto U.S. 285? Mr. Leigh pointed out there would have to be barriers erected to prevent a hazardous situation. He agreed that "it's less expensive, but it's not as effective." Mr. Robins asked if it would be logical to put an overpass on #285 instead of a tunnel? Mr. Leigh stated that it would be "horrible" and would destroy the concept of downtown Englewood, and the development around and along the highway. Mr. Leigh stated that the consultants did look at this possibility, but found it to be extremely unaesthetic. Discussion followed. Mr. Robins asked how much parking would be eliminated by Hampden Avenue /Hampden Place route? Mr. Leigh stated very little; he stated that it would entail (removal of three or four houses to get a 60 ft. right-of-way, 40 ft. road-way. Mr. Robins asked where the traffic using the Pecos /Windermere /Santa Fe Lane route would "be dumped?" Mr. Leigh stated that this route goes _to Kenyon Avenue, and would disperse there. Mr. Lentsch asked if the study delineated plans for Dartmouth Avenue? Mr. Leigh stated that the study does suggest improvement at Santa Fe Drive, with a suggested "park and ride" site on the south side of Dartmouth at Santa Fe. It is also proposed that the intersection ap- proaches on Dartmouth Avenue should be improved by widening. Mr. Lentsch pointed out that Dartmouth c~rrie~ a considerable amount of traffic; tbat .it ha~ been widened east of South Logan Street, and he feels it should be consistent width at least to Santa Fe. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger noted that at a meeting last wee~ witb staff of the State Highway Department, it was stated th~t the Highway Department is investigating the possibility of abandoning imp~ovem~nts of Santa Fe Drive, and extending South Platte River Drive down to the County Line. It is the feeling of the representatives that met with City officials, that there are greater possibilities for capacity improvement along South Platte River Drive, and the additional opportunity to create a "parkway" effect along the .route. Discussion followed. Mr. Leigh stated that the Voorhees Study has recommended a two-lane "pleasure drive" develop- ment on South Platte River Drive. Mr. Supinger stated that the Highway Department representa- tives "see an opportunity to create excess land area through purchase which would go to park land; there would be at least a 5Q ft. setback from the river to the inside traffic ,lane to permit landscaping. They have talked to HUD about the possibility of coming up with a park system all along .the Platte and interest was expressed." Further discussion followed. ' Turning movements at U.S. 285 and Hampden Avenue itself were discussed. Mr. Leigh discussed the signalization of #285, and noted that it is the consultants' .feeling that arterial highways should be controlled access facilities, and further stated that highways have been "butchered by commercial zoning" along them, so that they no longer serve as a through traffic carrier as they were meant to do. Mr. Leigh stated that Wadsworth Boulevard is an example, as is #285, where a great portion of the traffic are local shoppers. Mr.Carlson asked what the consultants hqve proposed for the traffic to be generated on the KLZ Site when it is developed? Mr. Leigh stated that while the traffic would increase, he did not feel there were no good solutions. He stated it would depend a great deal on the type of controls provided .on #28q and Hampden and Lafayette. Mr. Ross asked how Mr. Leigh would suggest that residents of the proposed development have egress? Mr. Leigh suggested Lafayette to University, and Floyd Avenue to University. Further discussion followed. Mrs. Henning asked if Mr. Leigh co4ld justify the recommendation for a "subway" system along . Broadway? Mr. Leigh stated that both Santa Fe and Broadway had been considered for transit service. Broadway is considered the better location; it is presently serving as a transit "corridor", anq meets the requirements of higher population densities, high-activity generators on or near the corridor. Mrs. Henning asked about the comparative costs of using Santa Fe vs. Broadway? Mr. Leigh stated that Santa Fe has many cost factors today r and that he didn't feel they have b~en fully explored. Mr. Leigh stated ~hat there would be additional air pollution generators impos~d on the Santa Fe Route, and this would com- pound the air pollution proqlem that follows the river valley. One could further expect land conversion from an industrial nature and a low-density area to a higher density apart- ment area. He stated that an .interstate system should serve the people who live in the area today. Mr. Leigh stated tqat the subway system would not be a large system; it is proposed as a small "personalized" facility. He pointed out that these costs are the only costs that are not "skyrocketing." Mrs. Henning asked how Broadway connected to high-density areas? Mr. Leigh stated that Broadway could connect with the Phipps Ranch to the south, that from Englewood south the employment is along B~oadwaY., and cited Marathon Oil and other companies that would be served by this transit system. Mr. Leigh pointed out that"Santa Fe is in the valley, and is too revolutionary." Further discussion f ollowed. Mr. Leigh again stated that Arapahoe County has not approved the report, and this is costing the consultants money. Mr. Carlson stated that he felt ~t was a good report, and was well written. Mr. Lentsch expressed the appreciation of the Commission to Mr. Leigh for his attendance and discussion of the report. Mr. Supinger introduced Mr. Tom Loft, Planning Director for the City 0£ Littleton. ' -- -\ VII. BUJXiET -'1973 Copies of the proposed budget for .the Planning Commission were previously sent to members for their review. Mrs. Henning stated that City Council, at thair meeting of July 10th, decided that compensation for all .boards and commissions should be reviewed, and t .hat possibly it should be based on a per meeting basis rather than a monthly basis. Mr. Brown stated that it was brought out also, that members of boards and commissions spend a great deal of time outside .of meeting~. vieWJing projects and requests, etc. -- - - --- - - --- - - - - - ---\ I I I I I I Page 1451 VIII. PLANNING INSTITUTE September 13 -15 Mr. Supinger stated that a letter notifying planners of the 1972 Colorado Institute for Planning Officials, to be held in Boulder September 13 -15, has been previously submitted to members. Additional information will be transmitted to the Commission when received by the office. Mr. Supinger stated that he· felt participation by members on a part-time basis should be discouraged, and urged all members to plan to attend the Institute full- time. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Supinger stated that he had nothing to bring before the Commission. X. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Lentsch stated that he and Mr. Supinger had met with Mr. Dial and had discussed the pro- posal of a convention center for Englewood. Mr. Supinger stated that it was reported to him that the Council feels this is something that should be done under the new task force com- mittees recently appointed. Mr. Supinger stated that the Chairman of the Planning Commission is a member of the steering committee to which the task forces report : Mr. Weist stated that the former Penn-Dart Market has changed use,1 and is now a carpet and tile sales place. He asked how this occurred? Mrs. Romans st'ated that the Board of Adjust- ment and Appeals granted a variance for this change of use. Mr. Brown stated that at South Humboldt Street and East Floyd Avenue, a house has been moved in that strongly looks like a duplex. He stated that he had prev1ously asked Mr. McDivitt to check this out and report back . Mr. Supinger stated that the staff would check into this, and rerx:>rt to the Commission. Mr. Supinger stated that inasmuch as Monday, August 7th, is a holiday ; City Council has schequled their meeting for . Tuesday, August St~, and the Planning Commission will, therefore, meet on August 9th, Wednesday. Mr. Carlson asked for .an explanation of the procedure of approving Findings after a recommenda- tion has been made to City Council? Mr. Berardini stated that a court case involving the Aurora Planning Commission stated that findings and conclusions of the Commission are required. The Aurora Planning Commission had refused to recommend a requested rezoning, and the Court said the Planning Commission was a "fact-finding body." The matter of voting on the findings was discussed. It was determined by Mr. Berardini that the approval of the findings and conclusions should be approved by the same vote as was the recommendation to City Council. Further discussion followed. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 P. M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording. Secretary . MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: July 11, 1972 SUBJECT: Rezoning of 300 -330 West Belleview Avenu·e RECOMMENDATION: Brown moved: Weist seconded: Tlie Planning Commission recommend to. City Council that the request for rezoning of property at 300 -330 West Belleview Avenue from R-3-B (Multi-family Residerltial) to B-2 (Commercial), filed by Grady Franklin Ma~les, be approved for the fol~owing reasons: 1. This action will be best for the City as a whole. 2. This property will adjoin commercial properties on either side. 3. There wili be an ample buffer of R-3-B zoning between the Comniercial zoning and the R-1-A zoning on South Elati Drive. 4. The proposed use will be far enough from the residential uses as to be inoffensive. · 5. This is not felt to be strip zoning. 6. There does not appear to be any danger of the commercial zoning ex- tending further west. · 7. There is considerable traffic on West Belleview Avenue, and R-3 de- velopments would add to this. 8. This has not been presented as a threat, nor is it regarded as a threat. 9. The approval is ~ot based on economy, but for the betterment of Englewood. 10. It has been proven there have been changes in the neighborhood, and greater changes are expected to come. The vote was called~ Page 1452 AYES: NAYS: Weist; Ross; Lentsch; Carlson; Brown Robins; Vobejda; Stanley; Henning The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 9, 1972 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:12 P.M. by Chairman Lentsch. Members present: Ross; Carlson; Henning; Weist; Lentsch J. L. Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Stanley; Vobejda; Brown; Robins Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director for Planning II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Lentsch stated that Minutes of July 11, 1972, were to be considered for approval. Carlson moved: Ross seconded: The Minutes of July 11, 1972, be approved as written. ·AYES: Weist; Ross; Henning; Carlson; Lentsch NAYS: None ABSENT: Stanley; Robins; Brown; Vobejda;· The motion carried. III. OFF-STREET PARKING LAYOUT 4600 Block of South Decatur CASE #22-72 Mr. Supinger stated that the subject property is on South Decatur Street just across from Centennial Park. The developers propose an apartment complex containing 69 .units, for which they are providing 118 off-street parking spaces. Mr. Supinger stated that while the staff feels that basically, "it is a good plan", there are some minor recommendations made in the staff report. Discussion followed. Mr. Robins entered and took his chair with the Commission. Mrs. Henning asked if the applicants have agreed to conditions suggested by the staff and set forth in the staff report? Mr. Kenneth Prater stated he was one of the property owners of the subject site. He stated that the staff is asking for a 16 ft. perpetual easement on the east 16 ft. of the west 145 ft. of Lot 6, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park. Mr. Prater stated that he has discussed this matter with Mr. George Adams who has, in turn, discussed it with officials of the car wash and carpet store; it is their feeling that perhaps some agreement for provision of a ''fire lane'' could be worked out. This would not be a perpetual easement, but would be re- quired to be kept open for access by fire trucks. It is the feeling of the applicants and Mr. Adams that this could be accomplished by a letter, rather than by recorded document. Mr. Prater pointed out that if this 16 ft. was to be opened by perpetual easement, "it would allow all sorts of traffic to use it." Mr. Prater stated that Mr. Michael Brauer, architect for the property owners, was present. Mr. Prater noted that their plan provides a 15 ft. setback from the property line for the buildings, and if the 16 ft. easement is required, all buildings, etc. will have to be relocated. Mr. Prater stated that original plans for development were for 110 units; the applicants have revised the development pro- posal which now is for 60 units. Mr. Prater stated that this gives much more open space and a much more attractive plan. Mr. Prater reiterated that the applicants are of the opinion that an open fire lane would be much better than a perpetual easement. Mr. Robins asked about the drainage of the site. Mr. Brauer stated that the drainage could be handled by a "swale" in the sidewalk to allow passage of the water, or by allowing the water to drain under the sidewalk on Decatur Street. Mr. Brauer pointed out that the drainage plans must be approved by the Ci~y Engineer. Mr. Brauer stated that he felt the site could be graded and contoured to take care of the matter of drainage. Mr. Weist asked the opinion of the staff if the 16 ft. perpetual easement could not be ob- tained. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff feels the easement would be necessary. Mr. Supinger stated that he did not know whether this could be accomplished by letter or not· he stated he felt it should be some sort of recorded legal document to ensure that the a~ea is maintained for access. Mr. Supinger stated that if part of the easement cannot be ob- tained from property owners to the west, then the total easement should be required from the apartment complex. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning asked the height of the proposed structures? Mr. Brauer stated two to two and one-half stories. I I I