Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-08-09 PZC MINUTESPage 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 I I I Page 1453 Mrs. Henning then asked if there 1were requirements by the City for providing access for emergency vehicles in situations such as this? Mr. Supinger stated that there .are re-. quirements for turning radius etc., and that as property is developed the staff works with the developer to work out such problems. ,There are no standards spelled out in a legal document requiring such emergency access provision, however. Mrs. Henning noted that without the easement as auggested by the staff, it will be difficult to get fire service to some of the buildings in the apartment complex. Discussion followed. Mr. Ross asked if the Fire Department has indicated that the 16 ft. easement is needed. M~ Supinger stated that the Fire Department officials have so indicated. Further discussion followed. Mr. Ross asked how close to the property line the carpet store and car wash were situated? Mr. Supinger stated the~ were. about 50 ft. from their east property line. Mr. Weist commented that he felt the matter should be discussed further. \ Weist moved: Robins seconded: ( The application. be tabled until the next regular meeting to give the applicants time for further negotiation on obtaining the 16 ft. ease- ment. AYES: Weist; Lentsch; Robins NAYS: Henning; Carlson; Ross ABSENT: Stanley; Vobejda; Brown The motion failed .. Discussion followed. Mr. Prater stated that fire equipment would have access through the car wash and carpet store lots to the west. at the present time, and "would have more ease of movement for fire trucks than most alleys provide." Mrs. Henning stated that she is concerned that there be a document recorded to assure t~t the access.will remain open for emergency equipment. Mrs .. Henning asked if it would be a hardship on the applicants if this were to be delayed two weeks? Mr. Prater stated they "are about seven months behind now." Mr. Ross &sked if the structures there now --the carpet store, car wash, etc. --use the rear of the buildings for ingress or egress? Mr. Prater stated that they do not;. there is no back door in any of these buildings. Mr. Prater commented that "if it is kept like it is, the Fire Department can get in there; otherwise, we will have trouble --people will park there." Discussion followed. Mr. Prater stated that in discussion with Mr. Adams, "he said he will be willing to give a letter, but doesn't .. want to give up property" for the perpetual easement. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning asked if the Commission would be agreeable to approving the plan subject to obtaining the easement? Further discussion followed. Henning moved: Ross seconded: The off-street parking layout as contained in Case #22-72, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. An instrument is to be obtained and recorded with the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder setting forth a 16 ft. easement for a fire lane across the east 16 ft. of the west 145 feet of Lot 6, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park; a similar document which meets the approval of the City Attorney may be used to grant this access for emergency vehicles by perpetual easement. 2. No stru9tures or plantings are to be located over a sewer line in- stalled along the north line of Lot 6 which would interfere with that line or which would obstruct the flow of storm water run-off across the north line of Lot 6. 3, The surfacing of the parking area and the drainage of the site is to be done to the specifications of the Director .of Public Works and/or the City Engineer. 4. The radii of the access ways are to be modified to the specifications of the City Engineer, to provide for an easier turning movement. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning stat~d that she was attempting to allow, by the motion, the submission of a lett~r co~veying the 16 ft. easement if the City Attorney feels such procedure is proper. Mr. Supi~ger stated th~ he would attempt to discuss this matter with the City Attorney as soon as possible. The vote was calleq: AYES: Weist; Carlson; Henning; Lentsch; Ross NAYS: Robins ABSENT: Vobejda; .Brown; ~tanley The motion car~ied. IV. SUBDIVISION WAIVER Larwin Multi-Housing Co. -- -.- CASE #20-72 Mr. Supinger stated that the application is for a waiver of the Subdivision Regulations as they apply to the former KLZ Site at U. S. 285 and South Lafayette Street. The total site is approximately 57 acres of unplatted land, Mr. Supinger stated that the Larwin Multi- housing Corporation is asking the waiver for the north 1 /2 of the site. Mr. Supinger pointed out that the property will be developed in "stages", and there. will be different financing on each stage in the total development. The initial stage will be development of 558 dwelling units <?n the north portion. Mr. Supinger stated that the plans have been checked; and it is determined that they meet the zoning requirements even ~hough this particular facet is not required for the granting of a subdivision waiver. Mr. Supinger sta.ted that if the Subdivi·sion Waiver is granted, this will enable the applicant to apply for building permits immediately to begin construction of the 558 dwelling units. Page 1454 Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Supinger to explain the Planned Development Ordinance recently adopte~ by the City. Mr. Supinger stated that .th~ Planned ~eve~opme~t ?rdinanc~ allows the Planned Development to be combined with any existing zone district within th~ City. ~t d~es not permit a change in density, or a change in per~itte~ uses of t~e basic zone district. Mr. supinger emphasized that the same use and density will be permit~ed under the Planned ~e~ . velopment as would be under the R-3-A Zone District. The PD Ordinan~e does .a~l~w flexibility in areas of lot coverage, height, setback, etc.; however, none of this flexibility has been. requested by the applicant in their application for a Planned Development: M~. S~pinger stated that a reason for the· application for a Planned Development for this site is to allow the recording of a plan wh~ch meets the current requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance --this would set forth what the City would expect to be developed and the require- ments and restrictions to be met by the developer. Mr. Supinger stated that the density will be limited to 1,500 dwe~ling units for the total parcel, but the development will be done over a period of time. Mr. Supinger emphasized that once a document is recorded which approves a Planned Development for that site, the developers cannot change the plan, and the City cannot change the requirements for development of this site. Mrs. Henning noted that it has been stated that the approval of the Subdivision Waiver will enable the applicants to immediately apply for building permits; she asked how this could be done before the Planned Development is considered. Mr. Robins asked "is there any reason we can't see the plan for the whole thing?" Mr. Supinger indicated a rendering which was on display, and stated that this was a plot plan of the site. Mr. Robins stated "this is just a picture --it doesn't show drainage." Mr. Supinger state:l that a report has been submitted to the storm drainage consultants by the developer. Provisions must be made by the developer to meet requirements set forth by the consultant, and such pro- visions must be set forth in the Planned Development. Mr. Robins reiterated "is there any reason we can't see these plans --they aren't in here." Mr. Supinger stated that the Planned Development application was not under consideration at this time. Discussion followed. Mr. Ross asked for a definition of a "survey plan". Mr. Supinger stated that a suryey plan was an engineer's study of the boundaries of a piece of property, locating property lines, etc. Mr. Ross then asked. the definition of a "sketch plan". Mr. Supinger stated that the plan presented by Larwin Multi-housing Corporation and on display at this meeting would . be termed a sketch plan and /or a general plan. Discussion followed. Mr. Ross referred to the plan on display, and asked "is this how it will be built?" Mr. Supinger replied "Yes, for the north one-half." Mr .. Ross stated that by approving the waiver for the north one-half there will be no assurance that the south one-half will be developed as presently indicated. Mr. Supinger stated that Larwin Corporation has applied for approval of a Planned Development, and the staff hopes to have the advisory report on this said application to the Commission at the next regular meeting. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff had not been in receipt of the detailed plans for the mid-rise units in stages one and two until Tuesday, August 8, 1972. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning asked if the Waiver could possibly be approved with con- ditions, such as no issuance of building permits until such time as the Planned Development is approved. Mr. Supinger questioned whether this could be done. Mr. Ross read from the ordinance which states that the Commission may impose any reasonable conditions upon the Waiver. Mr. Ross stated that he felt there was a great deal of merit in the Planned Develop- ment; he is "concerned that we are going ahead with the chicken-egg approach." Mr. Ross noted that the "sketch plan" provides access only onto Lafayette Street and none onto Floyd Avenue. He asked if any access was proposed for Floyd Avenue? Mr. Supinger stated that there is proposed emergency access from Floyd Avenue --break-away gates or some similar provision. Mr. Ross asked if the access would be "closed?" Mr. Supinger stated that it would be; the proposed access would restrict all normal traffic, but would permit emergency vehicles by way of "crash gates". Mr. Ross then asked what type structures are proposed along Floyd Avenue, and the height of these structures? Mr. Supinger stated that two structures two stories high are proposed along Floyd Avenue. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch asked why there was an application for a subdivision waiver if the applicants were planning to apply for a Planned Development. Mr. Supinger stated that he assumed it was to get development under way. Mr. James Roman Larwin Multi-housing 9100 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, California ' stated that the applicants are not asking for a waiver of the conditions and ordinances, but the applicants .do want to get away from filing a subdivision plat. Mr. Roman stated that even were the waiver to be granted, they would still have to meet all requirements and conditions of the ordinances of the City. Mr. Roman stated that Larwin Multi-housing Corporation has applied for a Planned Development approval. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that the sketch plan which is displayed is the plan that has been filed for the Planned Development. Mr. Robins stated that "if this is the total plan why don't they ask for a waiver for the entire thing?" Mr. Supinger stated "they don't need it." Further discussion followed. Mr. Carlson asked what the next step in pro- cedure would be in the event the request for subdivision waiver were denied? Mr. Supinger stated to file another request for a Waiver, or to file a complete Subdivision Plat. Mr. Supinger stated that by requiring the filing of a Subdivision Plat, the City would be asking for extra documents and an extended approval period. Mr. Supinger again pointed out that Larwin Multi-housing Corporation has, in fact, filed an application for Planned Development. Mrs. Henning asked if the normal implication of filing a subdivision plat was that parcels ~f land would be sold off? Mr. Supinger stated that the filing of a subdivision plat was important for the dedication of public streets. Mrs .. Henning stated: "but if there are no publ~c streets a subdivision plat would show nothing over what the sketch plan does." Mrs. He~ning t~en aske~ Mr. Roman "you are asking to skip a legal step that is meaningless on this p~rticular piece of property?~ Mr. Roman stated this was the request of the applicant, and pointed out that the property is under one ownership 2nd will be so maintained under o~e.o~nership., M:s. He~ning stated that she saw no reason to re.quir~ the filing of a sub- division plat. Discussion fo~lowed. Mr. Ross asked Mr. Roman if, by "voluntarily applying" for the ~lanned Development, if the sketch pla~ on display would be the plan to be considered at the time of the Public Hearing on the Planned Development? Mr. Roman stated that it would be. Mr. Ross stated "if this is true, why isn't the question here tonight on the ap- proval of the Planned Development?" Mr. Supinger reiterated that the staff had hoped to have I I I I I I Page 1455 the advisory report on the Planned Development to the Commission members at this meeting, but were unable to do so. Mr. Supinger indicated that the architects for the development had experienced some problems in working out underground parking for the central mid-rise structures, and this had delayed submission of the final plans for this portion of the plan. Mr. Richard Brown 34Q3 South Race -stated that he owns one of the westerly homes in Kent Village, and their front door overlooks the KLZ Site. Mr. Brown stated that he thinks Mr. Roman over-simplifies the matter of the subdivision waiyer; i f a waiver is granted, i t can be assumed that each building permit will comply with all the Ordinances of the City. Mr. Brown stated that he feels the major thing to be accomplished by granting a subdivision waive r would be to approve the gener a l layout as to the plaµ of access, the loc~tion of parking lots, adequacy of off-street parking, and all o f the material things set out in the sketch. Mr. Brown stated that he believes the Commission should fully understand the scope and breadt h of its action if the request for subdivision wpiver is approved. Mr. Brown sta t ed that he felt the Commission wouid be approving the park as a "drainage lagoon" f or 57 acres; he pointed out that there is a passage of drainage waters across the subject site. Mr. Brown stated that he f elt the relationship of this development to the neighborhood in general should be considered; he stated "this development seems to be conceived with total disregard of the neighborhoods on all four sides of it." Mr. Brown stated that in the Kent Village development, the homes face the west~ and the front yards look out over the back yards of the proposed development ; they "look over the trash cans" of the proposed apa r tment complex .. Mr. Brown stated that there were a number of one story resi- dences proposed in the Larwin development, but none of these one-story residences are proposed along the east or west boundaries of the site; Mr. Brown charged that the development has been designed to "provide the maximum blockage of views of the neighbors." Mr. Brown stated that he thinks "the implications of the total plan are such that it should not be approved and should not even be seriously considered until much more careful analysis of the placement of the units is made." Mr. Brown stated that he did not feel it is accurate to say the applicants can do whatever they want if the subdivision waiver is approved; Mr. Brown stated. that it was his opinion that in waiving the subdivision regulations, you waive any further right to say anything about the placement of alleys, buildings, parking, etc. in the total plan. Mr. Supinger stated that he would like to clarify the. fact . that there are no one story structures proposed in the development ; there are some structures that will be partially one-story. Mr. Richard Eason 2261 E. Dartmouth Place -.Mr. Eason discussed the history of the subject site since multi- family zoning was first sought by Mr. Lou Carey for Security Life prior to the sale to the Larwin Company. Mr.: Eason stated that throughout the history of this multi-family zoning matter, it has been reported to the City Council that the developers · would not attempt to develop the site to the density · allowed under the R-3-A Zone District; that they would, in fact, limit the density to 1,500 units, Mr. Eason stated that the Larwin Company officials have also stated that the total development will not exceed the 1,500 units. Mr. Eason asked a t what point in time are the developers of this ground, going to "sanctify their statements" and take the legal steps to assure the citizens and the City that the land will be developed at the density they have previously stated? Mr. Eason referred to the sketch plan and stated "this is just a picture, and has no more legal effect than a picture somebody drew." Mr. Eason stated that he felt the City should take steps to protect the property owners in the , area; he stated he was "only asking that they limit themselves to 1,500 units." Mrs. Henning stated she understood the density limitations were contained in covenants that run with the land?. Mr. Eason asked if the covenants have been recorded. Mrs. Romans stated that the covenants have been recorded. Mr. Supinger stated the covenants were a matter of record before Larwin purchased the site. The Planned Development application filed by the Larwin Multi-housing Corporation is for a 1,500 unit development. Mr. Supinger stated that the density is 11 locked in" as far as the City is concerned; the covenants run to the Planning Commission. Mr. Eason asked if the covenants restricted the height? Mr. Supinger stated that the height would be restricted by the zone district --R-3-A limits the height to five stories or 60 feet. Mr. Don Fullerton 3265 South Race -asked if there were any structures in the proposed development higher than the five stories? Mr. Supinger stated there were not. Mr. Supinger pointed out that the Planned Development would permit a greater height, but such a flexibility is not requested on the plan filed by the Larwin Corporation. Mr. Robins asked if there were any single-family residences included? Mr. Supinger stated there were none included in the plan presented. He pointed out that the area zoned R-1-A, Single-family, is the area planned for the park, a total of 4.6 acres. Mr. Fullerton asked how many more weeks or months would be required to bring the total site under the Planned Development? Mr. Supinger reviewed the time schedule for the Planned De- velopment, and stated about three months should be adequate time. Mr. Fullerton asked why there was a "rush" on consideration of the request? He asked "why can't we wait until it's ready and lock the whole thing i n?" Discussion followed. Mr. Fullerton stated he would be "violently opposed to the granting of the subdivision waiver"; he "would like to see this thing tied down before building permits are issued." Page 1456 Mrs. Henning reviewed requirements for a Preliminary Plat as set forth in the Subdivision Regulations, such requirements including ~ "total acreage; lega~. descrj..pt:io n of the. proi:erty; contours with intervals of two feet; approximate angles and radii of curves; zone district or districts in which the land proposed for subdivision and the land within 300 feet , from the boundaries thereof is located; location of land intended to be conveyed, used, or re- served for public purposes or reserved in deeds for the common use of all property owners within the prpposed subdivision; location of all existing .structures within the tract; lo- cation widths and, where appropriate, names of all existing and proposed rights-of-way for st;eets alleys or other public ways and all existing and proposed easements, either public or p;ivate, for utilities, drainage, or other purposes, w~thin the area propos~d fo~ subdivision and at least 100 feet immediately adjacent thereto; layout, numbers and dimensions to the nearest foot of proposed lots and blocks; flood :plain, drainage channels, stream channels, irrigat~on ditches, other bodies of water, and any other significant natural features within the tract and at least 100 feet immediately adjacent thereto; existing and proposed sewers, utility mains, culverts pr other underground structures within the area proposed for subdivision and within at least 100 feet from the boundary lines thereof; typical cross sections of . proposed streets, show the widths of roadways and the location and dimensions of sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and other structures to be located within the right-of-way; profiles to a scale of 40 feet horizontally and 5 feet vertically of streets and alleys; one tracing and one print o;f sam~ shall be required." Additional requirements are set forth for a Final Plat. Mrs. Romans noted that there were also requirements set forth in the Planned Development Ordinance; also, that the ~ Flood Plain Ordinance precludes residential use on the first floor if the site is within the flood plain, Discussion followed. Mr t. Ross stated that he felt the Commission needs an opinion from the City Attorney as to what effect the survey plan and sketch plan have when submitted with an application? . Mr. Roman stated that the survey plan indicates the boundar~es of the property, and the sketch plan is a general plan of the proposed development. Mr. Ross asked "from this sketch plan do you develop your design plans, etc.?" Mr. Roman stated "we have done so." Mr. James Hilger 3166 South Vine -stated that many of the residents of the adjacent area were in attendance "wondering what the final plans are." Mr. Hilger stated that "most of the questions asked this evening were answered in defense of Larwin, and were answered by a man who is a ·member of the Community Development Depart- ment wno is to represent the people of Englewood, and not a foreign de- veloper." Mr. Hilger stated that he had appeared before the City Council some months ~go asking that the .City, retain a 1 piece of this land in the northeast quadrant for park development for present needs, and for future development also. Mr. Hilger stated that he now finds out that the total park area has been "cut down to 4.6 acres." Mr. Hilger stated "if this is the plan for the park, am I to expect my kids to come in with snorkel equipment and plan on playground equipment that will be underwater?" Mrs. Henning stated that the park development will be the responsibility of the City Parks and Recreation Department, not tpe Larwin Company. Mr. Hilger sta.ted "but they have planned it as a drainage route",. and ;•maybe I should rejoice that there will be less grass to main- tain." He ptated he would rather pay a little more in taxes and have this land in grass than under water. Mr. Hilger stated he would also like to see the land retain the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Hilger stated he hoped the Commission would "reject the p_lan and give the citizens more breathing time." Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Supinger how the staff could give an opinion when plans for the central portion had not been received until Tuesday, August 8th? Mr. Supinger stated that the re- quest under consideration was for a subdivision waiver, and that on such a request building location is not a matter of concern. Mr. Supinger stated that his interpretation of a "sketch plan" as required by the Subdivision Regulations is a layout of streets and lots; it is not meant to show building locations. Mr. Supinger stated that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance sets the lo~ation of buildings. Mr. Ross stated that he was, at this point, rather confused about the request before the Com- mission and the action that is expected. He stated that he wished to have clarification on the "sketch plan"; that he had learned for ' the first time this evening that there were re- strictive covenants in effect limiting the density of the development; there is now on file in the Community Development Office an application for a Planned Develop~ent. Mr. Ross asked which comes first --the subdivision waiver or the approv~l of a Planned Development? Mr. Ross stated that it appeared to him that if the develop~rs of the prop~rty are indeed planning to go into a Planned Deve~opmept that it would much , more logical and orderly to get approval of the Planned Development first, instead of going ahead with construction of something that may or may not fit witpin the Planned Development as it is proposed today. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt that procedure would be correct on a 11 typic'1.l" Planned De- velopment, but does not think it is required on this particular application. Mr. Ross asked why this application was different? Mr. Supinger stated that the applicants "are not asking . for any change in any zoning requirements; the Planned Development was set up to provide flexibility in zoning requirements." Mr. Ross stated that "they haven't really affirmed any of those things", and asked if it would be in order to have a study session with the City Attorney. Ross moved: Robins seconded: The Commission go into a study session with the City Attorney in a~tendance to further explain all ramifications with respect to the action the Commission is beiµg asked to take. . . ' Mrs. Henning stated that she felt this should be discussed at a regular meeting of the Com- mission, and not at a ~study se~sion''. Mr. Lentsch stated that he agreed that the meetings should be open, but pointed out that City Council does indeed hold special work sessions but if it is proper for C?unci~ he feels that it will likewise be proper for the Commission. Mr. ~oss state~ that he had no ~ntention of barring the public from attendance at the study session --he intended the session sol~ly for the education of the Planning Commission in- asm~ch as _we are dealing with a relatively new Ordinance and there are some facts to b~ ex- plained. Mr. Ross stated that he felt if th~ public is invited to attend this study session, the developers should most certainly be invited to attend this session also. I I I I I I Page 1457 Mr. Ross stated that with the permission of his second, he would amend his motion to state that members of the public and personnel fro~ the ~arwin Corporation are invited to attend the study session. Mr. Robins gave his approval to the amendment. Mr. Ross stated that he felt it was time "this was buttoned up once and for all", and that the Commission shouJd proceed with whatever steps to have the proper clarification, etc. be- fore them. Mrs. Henning stated that she was "concerned that we have gotten off the track of what the request is tonight;" she pointed out that what information would be required by the Sub- division Regulations to be shown on a Plat is required in a Planned Development prior to approval. Mrs. Henning stated that she could not see that the City was accomplishing any- thing by turning the request for subdivision waiver down. Mr. Carlson asked what type of construction could take place if the Subdivision Waiver were to be approved before the Plaqned Development could be considered by the Commission? Mr. Supinger stated that as a practical matter no construction could take place, as the plans would have to be sub.mitte.d for plan check, etc., and it is doubtful that this could be done . before the date of the public Hearing. The vote was called:. . AYES: Ross; Lentsch; Robins; Carlson NAYS: Henning; Weist 1 ABSENT: Brown; Vobejda; Stanley Xhe motion carried. ' Mr. Supinger asked about a date for the study session?. Mr. Robins left the meeting. A study session on August 16th, at 8:00 P.M. was decided upon. Chairman Lentsch called for a motion to table action on the request until the next regular meeting. Henning moved: Ross seconded: The matter be tabled until the next regular meeting of August 22nd. AYES: Carlson; Lentsch; Weist; Ross; Henning NAYS: None ABSENT: Robins; Brown; Stanley; Vobejda The motion carried. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Supinger stated that he hap nothing to bring to the attention of the Commission. VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. There was . no discussion under Commission's Choice. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *· CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION August 22, 1972 I. CALL TO ORDER. The Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning CommissiQn was called t0 order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Lentsch. Members Present: Ross; Stanley; Vobejda; Weist; Carlson; Lentsch; Robins Supinger, Ex-officio Members Absent: Brown; Henning Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development for Planning; Mr. Berardini, City Attorney; Mrs. Caroline Weist; Mr. John Criswell; Mr. and Mrs. Clifford Harvey. - -.---- II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Lentsch stated that Minutes of August 9, 1972, were to be considered for approval.