Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-08-22 PZC MINUTESI 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. Page 1458 Ross moved: Weist seconded: The Minutes of August 9, 1972, be approved as written. AYES: Robins; Ross; Stanley; Weist; Carlson; Lentsch NAYS: None ABSENT:. Brown; Henning ABSTAIN: Vobejda The motion carried. III. CAROLINE B. WEIST 835 E. Cornell Ave. SUBDIVISION WAIVER CASE #24-72 Mr. Weist stated that he would abstain from voting on the matter. Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Supinger to give the bac~ground on this request. Mr. Supinger stated that the property in question is on the northwest corner .of East Cornell Avenue and South Emerson Street. Mrs. Weist is asking a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations to divide the property into two parcels, and to enable her to sell off the north 75 feet. The total ownership is 192.9 x 166 feet; Mrs. Weist will retain the south 117.9 feet of the site on which her house and garage are located. Mr. Supinger stated that the Department of Com- munity Development has no objection to the granting of the waiver, inasmuch as there is no public purpose to be served by the filing of a Plat. Mr. Lentsch asked if the applicant wished to speak? Mr. John Criswell stated he was representing Mrs. Weist. Mr. Criswell stated that all utilities are in existance on the site, and that both sites would front on paved streets. Mr. Carlson noted that there had been some litigation on this property in reference to a paving district. Mr. Carlson asked if this would affect Parcel "B", the north 75 feet of which Mrs. Weist proposes to sell? Mr. Criswell stated he didn't feel there would be any problem. Mr. Criswell stated that he did not feel the request for a Subdivision Waiver had anything to do with the assessments for paving and the subsequent litigation. Discussion followed. Mr. Berardini also stated that the matter of litigation had nothing whatsoever to do with the request before the Commission, namely that of a Subdivision Waiver. Further discussion followed. Ross moved: Robins seconded: The request for a Subdivision Waiver on property at 835 East Cornell Avenue filed by Mrs. Caroline B. Weist to divide the property into two parcels as hereinafter described be approved. There is no substantial benefit to be served the City or the public by requiring the submission of a Subdivision Plat. Parcel "A": The south 117.9 feet of the following described parcel: A parcel of land located in Section 35, T4S, R68W, described as: Be- ginning 16 feet east and 10 feet north of the southeast corner of Lot 25, Dobbins Resubdivision; thence east 166 feet; thence north 192.9 feet; thence west 166 feet; thence south 192.9 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel "B": The north 75 feet of the following described parcel: A parcel of land located in Section 35, T4S, R68W, described as: Be- ginning 16 feet east and 10 feet north of the southeast corner of Lot 25, Dobbins Resubdivision.; thence east 166 feet; thence north 192. 9 feet; thence west 166 feet; thence south 192.9 feet to the point of beginning. AYES: Stanley; Vobejda; Lentsch; Carlson; Ross; Robins NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Weist ABSENT: Henning; Brown The motion carried. Mrs. Romans stated that the Subdivision Waiver will be recorded with the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder as soon as possible, and the applicant will be billed for the recording fee, which is $1.50 per page. --- ---- - - --- - --- ------- - -- --- IV. STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 1973-74 Work Program Requests Mr. Supinger stated that, annually, requests are submitted by the Planning Commission to tre City Council, thence to County Commissioners, and the compiled requests of all jurisdictions within the County are then referred to the State Highway Department for inclusion in the work program for the coming fiscal year. Mr. Supinger stated that the requests submitted to the Commission were prepared with the cooperation of the Public Works Department and were · in fact, submitted to the County Commissioners last year. None of the requested pr~jects ' were accomplished, however. Mr. Supinger directed the attention of the Commission to a map on which was indicated the location of the suggested requests. Discussion followed. Mr. Weist asked if this year's request differed in any respect from the request submitted last year? Mr. Supinger noted that the over-passes over U.S. 285 at South Logan or South Sherman and at South Elati Street have been eliminated. Mr. Supinger also noted that the request to improve the off-lane from U.S. 285 westbound onto East Hampden Avenue at approximately South Lafayette Street should be eliminated, as should the ~equest under TOPICS to "add another group to the master traffic control system which will take counts every 15 minutes and adjust the master controller to accommodate the heavy flow of traffic." Mr. Weist asked if these requests were in a priority. order? Mr. Supinger stated they were. I I I I I I Page 1459 Mr. Ross asked why the request to improve the off-lane from U.S. 285 westbound onto East Hampden Av~nue was eliminated? Mr. Supinger stated that Public Works Director Waggoner has stated that in discussions with representatives of the State Highway Department, it is their feeling that by improving the exit from U.S. 285 at Lafayette onto Hampden Avenue it would create a hazardous situation for through traffic. Mr. Supinger stated that he understood it is proposed that the median be closed at this point, and traffic wishing to go east on U.S. 285 will have to use the signalized intersection at South Downing Street and U. S.285 .. Mr. Ross asked if it was the inte~t of the State Highway Department that traffic on the highway move freely? Mr. Supinger stated that it is. Mr. Ross then asked what the State Highway Department feels abo~t the development of the KLZ Site, and the proposed points of access on this property? Mr. Supinger stated that he had not discussed the matter with State Highway representatives. Further discussion followed. ' Mr .. Weist asked what the difference was between Federal Aid Urban System projects and Con- struction Projects? Mr. Supinger stated that it was a matter of financing; federal funds vs. state funds. Mr. Ross asked what the problem was at the Downing /Dartmouth intersection? Mrs. Romans ex- plained the situation. Mr. Ross asked if the installation was being up-graded? Mr. Supinger stated that it was. ~ Mr. Weist asked if there was any thought given to abandoning Santa Fe Drive as a major arteFial, and concentrating on South Platte River Drive? Mr. Supinger stated that approval by the . Council of Governments has been given for application for planning funds for Santa Fe Drive from Yale Avenue to County Line Road. Further discussion followed. Vobejda moved : Weist seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the approval of the following requests for submission to the County Commissioners for the State Highway Department 1973-74 Work Program: Federal Aid Urban System: Add to System : a. Clarkson from Yale to Littleton Boulevard, and oonstr,uct. b. Quincy from Yosemite to Wadsworth. c. Yale from University to Fede~al Boulevard. d. Windermere and Santa Fe Lane from Ridge Road to Kenyon. e. Kenyon from Santa Fe Drive to Broadway. f. Union Avenue from Federal Boulevard to Windermere. g. Tufts from Windermere to Broadway. ~rban System --Construction projects: 1. Broadway from Yale to U.S. 285 to be widened to the same width as Broadway south of Quincy, providing left-turn pockets. Construction Projects: 1. Improve West Dartmouth Avenue at its intersection with South Santa Fe Drive by widening both the east and west approaches to accommodate two lanes in e~ch direction, with a left-turn .pocket. It is recom- mended that the west approach be 300 feet long and that ~he east approach be 250 feet long. There is a 60 foot right-of-way on Dartmouth, and it is proposed that 56 feet of this right-of-way be utilized for the traffic lanes and left-turn pocket --the left-turn pocket would be 10 ft. wide and the two inner lanes 11 ft. wide, and the two outside lanes 12 ft. wide. 2. Broadway from U.S. 285 to Quincy to be widened to the same width as Broadway south of Quincy with a painted median providing left-turn pockets. 3. Widen Belleview from Clarkson to Santa Fe with left-turn pockets at · those intersections where a study shows they are warranted . . 4. South Santa Fe Drive widened and improved to a six-lane major arterial. 5. Improvements to the Santa Fe Drive and West Union Avenue intersection, extending Union across Santa Fe to Windermere and then tieing into West Tufts Avenue. 6. Install s t orm sewer at Federal and Union. 7. Storm inlets on the north side of Belleview from Elati to Big Dry Creek. TOPICS : 1. Signalization of the Santa Fe /Union intersection. The vote was called by Chai~man Lentsch •. Mr. Robins stated he could not vote on this matter. AYES: Ross; Lentsch; Vobejda; Weist; Carlson ; Stanley NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Robins ABSENT: Henning ; Brown The motion carried. Page 1460 V. SUBDIVISION WAIVER Larwin Company -KLZ Site CASE #20-72A August 9, 1972 Mr. supinger stated he had given members of the Commission a written summary of his under- standing of the efforts of the Larwin Company .for development of the KLZ Site. t Mr •. Lentsch stated he did not understand why the Commission went to the effort of going through the procedures to consider a subdivision waiver, etc., when the developer changes the course of action as they apparently have done. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt representatives of Larwin shoulq have been a t the meeting tonight, and he noted that none were present. Mr. Lentsch stated that he wanted representatives of the Larwin Company present next meeting to explain what is going on. Mr. Supinger stated .that he has been in contact with Mr. Roman of the Larwin Company, and he had indicated to Mr. Roman that he did not feel anything would be gained by their attendance at the meeting this evening. Mr.· Supinger stated that Larwin Company does plan to be before the Commission at t~e meeting of September 6th for approval of the parking plan on the north half of the proJect. Mr. Lentsch stated: Do you mean we will be asked to approve a parking plan for half of the site without knowing what is going on the other half? Is this all we will have to say about this?" Mr. Berardini stated he would attempt to answer some of the questions the Commission may have. He stated that as he understands it, .the area was to have been developed under the Planned Development Ordinance. The application for a Planned Development was submitted along with the application ~or a subdivision waiver, which seemed to him to go hand-in- glove. If you approve a Planned Development, the waiver isn't necessary, as the Planned Development takes into account all matters that can come in a subdivision. Mr. Berardini stated he understood that the Larwin Company is under some extreme financial burden, and they must begin construction as soon as possible. Mr. Berardini stated that he did not feel that building permits should issue, when the Planned Development was pending; after the Planned Development was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, building per- mits could be obtained and construction begin. Mr. Berardini stated that the City Council has requested an opinion from him as to whether the KLZ Site falls under the requirements of the Sub-division Regulations or not, and that he will render this decision to them, and to the Commission. Mr. Berardini stated that he understood the Commission has received Larwin's request to withdraw the app~ication for a Planned Development and to proceed with- out filing a subdivision plat or a waiver. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that the Larwin Company wants to begin construction ~his year; they withdrew the Planned Development application after City Attorney Berardini stated that no building permits could issue while the Planned Development was pending. Larwin Company is now questioning whether they have to file a subdivision plat or waiver and that is the reason for the letter requesting that the City determine whether they must meet the Sub- division Regulat~ons with regard to platting or a waiver prior to filing for a building permit. Mr. Supinger stated that he did not believe that the Larwin Company is not con- cerned about what the Planning Commission, City Council and the City as a whole feels about the proposed development; he stated that the representatives of Larwin have indicated to him that they want to have, for their own protection, a Planned Developm&nt approved on a majority of the property. Mr. Ross asked "how much is a majority?" Mr. Supinger stated that the staff ha~ attempted to clarify this with Larwin, but were unable to do so earlier this afternoon. He stated that he understood that Larwin wants to obtain building permits for the north half of the site, for a total oi 558 units. Mr. Ross asked "is the entire parcel not subject to the Subdivision Regulations?" Mr. Berardini stated that the subdivision of .land is nothing more than dividing into lots and blocks, assuring access to the sites, dedication of public streets, provision for utilities, storm drainage, etc. Mr. Berardini. point~d out that the Subdivision Regulations for the City of Englewood state that when a ' structure is built on an unplatted parcel of land this constitutes a division of land. Mr. Berardini pointed out that the drainage plan has been submitted by the Larwin Company and approved by the City Engineer and the .Consulting Engineer; the traffic plans have been submitted, parking plans have been submitted; fire lanes have been designated. He stated that in view of this, the question arises of what public interest does the City have with reference to requiring the platting of this area? Mr. Berardini stated that Mr. Eason, representing the citizens of Northeast Englewood, holds a different point of view in that he feels the construction on any portion of this tract is a subdivision of the land. Mr. Berardini conceeded that Mr. Eason has good argu- ments for this view. Mr. Berardini stated that in a meeting held with Mr . Eason, Mr. Supinger, Mrs. Romans and himself earlier in the day, it was suggested by Mr. Eason that possibly a solution to the problem could be reached by the Planning Commission accepting the site plan in lieu of the Subdivision requirement, and waive the subdivision require- ments for the northwest quadrant (232 units) on the condition that the Larwin Company sub- mit a Planned Development application on the balance of the property within a reasonable time. Mr. Berardini stated that he agreed with Mr. Eason that this is a reasonable approach to the problem. If the Commis~ion would accept the site plan, it would held the Larwin Company to the site plan. A portion of the site could be released for construction and a Planned Development would be filed for the remainder of the site. Mr. Berardini stated that Mr. Eason stated this solution would be acceptable to his clients, and Mr. Berardini stated, again, that he feels it would be a very workable solution. Mr. Robins discussed the matter of the desire to begin construction before the end of the year. He pointed out that the Commission was first notified of their intentions in February, and the Commission has heard nothing further since then. He stated that no plans have been brought before the Commission on drainage, traffic or whatever. Mr. Berardini stated that the drainage plan has been submitted to and approved by Sellards and Grigg, the Consulting Engineers. Mr. Robins .asked ~f this was a firm hired by Larwin Company, or if it was a consulting firm for the City? Mr. Supinger stated that this is a consulting firm for the City of Englewood; Mr. Supinger pointed out that the drainage plan was designed by engineers for the Larwin Company, but reviewed and approved by the City's consultants. Mr. Robins asked if the plan is for surface drainage storm sewers or what method? Mr. Weist stated that he understood that the site drainag~ would tie into the City storm sewer system. Mr. Supinger stated that he understands that the drainage for the western portion of the site will tie into the existing underground line at Floyd and Lafayette; most I I I I I I Page 1461 of the remainder of the property will drain to the center of the site where, as part of the Northeast Englewood Drainage Basin project, the City is planniµg to install an underground pipe system that will drain to the Harvard Gulch area in Denver. This pipe system will accommodate a two-year storm; however, the Larwin Company has been required to plan for a 100-year storm in their depign plan. The excess water will be stored in the proposed park, but the design is not yet completed. Mr. Supinger pointed out that the stprage of water in the park area will not be for a prolonged period of time, but oµly until the pipe system for the two-year storm can handle it. Mr. Supinger stated that this proposal is typi~al of several drainage retention ponds designed throughout the City of Englewood, many of which will be put to recreational use. Mr. Ross questioned if the water retained in the park area. could be expected to drain in? 24-hour period? Mr. Supinger stated that he could not answer ~his questio~; however, he stated that he had been informed .that the water would be retained for only a short period of time, short enough that it would not damage the grass in the pa;rk. Mr. Ross asked if Larwin Company has submitted the documents to dedicate the park laµd to the City. Mr. Supinger stated that the City is working with the Company on this matter. The City wants to delay acceptance of the park lapd until next spring in an effort to ob- tain Federal funds for development of the park itself,. and the value of the land dedicated to the City may be used for the "matching funds." . However, it is a matter of proper timing. Mr. Ross asked if there would be any way this timing could be accelerated? Mr. Supinger stated that he knew of no way, as we are into the current fiscal year. The deadline for filing applications for federal grants for next year is December 30, and approval can be ex- pected sometime in March. Mr. Supinger . pointed out that the land is valued at $35,000 per acre, and the total park area is 4.6 acres ~ Mr. Robins asked if the Federal Government would allow the park to be used as a flood water collection basin? Mr. Supinger stated that he would assume so. Mr. Robins pointed out that the park area is less than five acres vs. 57 acres on the total site. He stated "all you need is.one inch of rain and you will have five acre feet of water to be stored." Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch stated that he feft a study session was warranted, and suggested September 12th, as the date of this study session. Mr .• Lentsch stated that at this study session he wanted to see and discuss the storm drainage plans, traffic plans, parking, etc., anything that pertains to the development of the site. Mr. Lentsch asked if the drainage from the KLZ Site had been considered when the Storm Drainage program f or Northeast Englewood was drafted and adopted? Mr. Supinger stated that it was. Discussion followed. Mr. Ross stated he would not be opposed to a study session, and stated he felt such a session should have been held several weeks ago. Mr. Ross stated that he has the impression f rom discussions with the staff that the Larwin Company is trying to cooperate with us on the development. Mr. Ross stated that he felt that if there was a chance to get part of the development or all of the development into a Planned Development, we should make every effort to do so. Mr. Ross asked if perhaps Larwin representatives could be in attendance at the study session, and that the Commission covld at this time encourage the Planned Development. Mr. Lentsch commented that he felt the total parcel o f land should be con- sidered; we "shouldn't piece-meal it." Mr. Ross agreed; };le stated that he could understand the desire of the Larwin of f icials wanting to get started on the project, but he felt that the proper procedures should be followed within the jurisdiction of the Commission and right down the line. Mr. Ross stated that he felt this was a big project for the C:j..ty, and "we don't want to get caught stubbing our toe." Mr. Lentsch stated that at the study session of September 12th, he also wanted the site plans, and further detailed plans as are available. Further discussion followed. Mr. Berardini stated that he understood Larwin Company has submitted the following: a survey plan; an aerial survey; total site plan; elevations; revised site plans for the north half ; parking plan for mid-rise for the north half; drainage plans. Discussion followed. Clifford Harvey . .. 3345 S. Lafayette -·asked if detailed sewage plans had been submitted? Mr. Berardini stated that the enginee~s for the Larwin Company have submitted drainage plans . based on a 100-year storm; these plans have, in turn, been submitted to Sellards and Grigg, consultants for the C~ty of Englewood, and they find the plans to be feasible. Mr. Harvey noted that there are "quite a few problems with drainage in this area with every rain storm." He stated he felt there should be "detailed broad plans on all the utilities" for the development. Mr. Harvey stated that "if the City of Englewood is financing the park, it's not fair to have the park depend on the drainage plans of Larwin." Mr. Harvey stated further that he was concerned about the traffic plan. Mr. Berardini noted that access onto and from Floyd Avenue has been restricted but for two points for emergency access. Mr. Harvey stated that with the initial phase of construction --558 units --approximately 1,000 cars could b~ anticipated. Mr. Harvey stated that he felt 95% of these motorists would be using the Lafayette Street points of ingress/egress rather than the two points on Hampden Avenue. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that "the document prepared by Meurer-Serafini- Meurer which has been revie~ed by Sellards and Grigg for this site woulp have to be con- sidered a Storm Drainage Master Plan for this site." The Sellards and Grigg Storm Drainage study would also be considered a Master Plan for the City as a whole. The Meurer-Serafini- Meurer report for this site is a conceptual plan for handling the storm drainage water generated by this site; it does not show detailed grading plans, for instance. The detailed plans are designed following approval by the City consultants of the concept or Master Plan. Mr. Supinger stated that in regard to the traffic plan, it is his understanding that the Public Works Department has approved the circulation plans as proposed. On the westerly s:ide of the site, a major exit is proposed at Lafayette and GiFard with two minor access points on Lafayette. Mrs. Blanche Harvey 3345 s. Lafayette St. -asked why the City didn't widen South Lafayette Street in the recent paving district if they knew that the volume of traffic using South Lafayette Street would be increased. Page 1462 Mr supinger stated that he would have to assume the Department of Public Works has projected th~ traffic flow to the area and feel that the width of South Lafayette Street would be ade- quate to accommodate the traffic. Mr. Harvey stated that it is a little hard to imagine a residential street thrown open to that much traffic· there will be parking on both sides of the street, and will be a "very congested area". 'Mr. Harvey stated there would be an average of 2,000 cars per day using this street from the project, plus ~radesmen and visitors who would be frequenting the de- velopment. Mr. Supinger pointe.d out that even though development would beg~n in the northwest portion, the "sales office" will be developed in the central portion, with a main entrance from U.S. 285; this will assure two primary points of ingress and egress right from the beginning. Mr. Criswell asked if these would be private roadways throughout the development? Mr. Supinger stated they would be. Mr. Criswell asked if thought had been given to mail deliveries, pointing out that postal employees do not go on private roadways. Mr. Robins questioned the term "sales office", and asked what kind of sales? Mr. Supinger stated "that is the way they refer to it." He stated that he doesn't understand they will sell units, it would be more a rental office." Mr. Robins asked the size of the units? Mr. Supinger stated that the smallest unit is a "bachelor", and there are fpur-bedroom two and one-half bath units; 1173 adult units allowing no children under 16 years of age, and 327 family units. Projections estimate a total of 164 elementary students, and 237 secondary students .• Based.on the location of the units, all of the elementary students will go to Cherry Creek Schools; the 273 secondary students would be divided evenly between Englewood and Cherry Creek Schools · if the school district boundaries remain .as they are today. The Larwin Company does, however, want to have the entire site in one school district. Discussion followed. Mr. Carlson asked why, if the City was not concerned with a public street through the development ~ we should be concerned with approving the parking, etc? Mr. Supinger stated that if a street was needed through the development for public access he felt the City would ask that such street be dedicated. Mr. Carlson asked about the fire fighting equipment and whether or not the access was sufficient for turning movements of tre snorkel and pumpers? Mr. Supinger stated that .a meeting with the Fire Department and Larwin officials had been held, and it is felt the widths of driveways and radius of streets are adequate for the fire equipment. Discussion followed. Mr. Robins asked the width of the driveways to the buildings? Mr. Supinger stated they werw 24 feet or 25 feet, and when de- tailed plans are submitted for building permits, they will be assigned as fire lanes., and parking along these driveways will be prohibited. Mr. Lentsch asked that the statf look into the situation of mail deliveries to the proposed development if the streets are not to be dedicated public streets, and to report to the Com- mission at the study session of September 12th. Mr. Lentsch asked that the study session be between the Commission and the staff; he noted that he had discussed the matter of study sessions with various Council members, and it is their feeling that the Commission should indeed have study sessions. Mr. Lentsch stated that in light of this, the study session will be closed to the public. Mr. Lentsch asked that City Attorney Berardini, Public Works Director Waggoner, Mr. Richard Eason and representatives of Larwin attend this study session. Mr. Robins left the meeting. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Supinger reminded members of the Boulder Conference scheduled for September 13 -15. Mr. Supinger stated that no additional information has been received, but time is getting short, and names of members wishing to attend should be submitted as soon as possible to · facilitate registration and reservations for those wishing to stay overnight in Boulder. Mr. Supinger encouraged members to attend this Conference. Mr. Ross stated he would like to attend the conference if at all possible. It was determined that possibly a block of rooms could be reserved immediately, and regis- trations submitted at a later date. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Lentsch noted that action on the Larwin Subdivision Waiver had been tabled at the meeting of August 9th until the meeting of August 22nd. Mr. Lentsch noted that according to Roberts Rules of Order, a motion that is tabled until a set date dies if not raised from the table at that date. He asked what the Commission desired to do? Mr. Carlson stated that for some reason, the property seemed to be outside the realm of the subdivision regulations, and the "rules we have don't seem to apply." Further discussion followed. It was suggested that perhaps the motion could be raised from the table, and retabled to a future date to k!e~p the motion before the Commission. Ross moved: Carlson seconded: The ~atter pertaining to the Application for Subdivision Waiver by Larwin Company, Case #20-72, be brought from the table for discussion and further disposition as the Commission may desire. AYES: Carlson; Stanley; Weist; Vobejda ; Lentsch; Ross NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Brown; Henning; Robins The motion carried. I I I I I I Page 1463 Ross moved: Vobejda seconded: The request for a Subdivision Waiver filed by Larwin Company be tabled until October 3, 1972, subject to being called from the Table at an earlier date i f the Commission may so desire. AYES: Carlson; Lentsch; Ross; Stanley ; Vobejda; Weist NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Brown; Henning; Robins The motion carried. Mr. Lentsch stated that he wanted to go on record that the Council did feel it was necessary to have study sessions, and he feels such sessions are appropriate. Mr. Lentsch stated that "if Council didn't feel it was proper, they should notify us." Mr. Lentsch requested that members bring their copies of the "HANDBOOK" to the study session. Mr. Lentsch discussed the Commission consideration of the Highway Request program and Capital Improvement program, and noted that every yea r there is a last-minute rush. He asked how this could be scheduled so that ample consideration may be given these requests and still meet the dates for submission to the City Manager? Discussion followed. Mr. Carlson sug- gested that these items be placed on the agenda for the Commission in June of each year. There being no .further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 P.M. Gertrude G, Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 6,.1972 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Lentsch at 8:00 P.M. Members present: Brown; Carlson; Stanley; Lentsch; Robins Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Weist·; Vobejda; Henning; Ross Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development for Planning; B. Young, Planning Assistant II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Lentsch stated that Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 22, 1972, were to be considered for approval. Mrs. Vobejda entered and took her place with the Commission. Brown moved: Carlson seconded : The Minutes o f August 22, 1972, be approved as written. AYES: Robins; Vobejda ; Stanley; Lentsch; Carlson; Brown NAYS: None ABSENT: Ross ; Weist; Henning The motion carried. III. RONALD BRINKHOFF Lots 2 and 3, Rafferty Gardens Sub. Vobejda moved: CASE #23-72 Brown seconded: The Public Hearing on the request for rezoning filed by Mr. Brinkhoff be opened. AYES: Carlson; Brown; Vobejda; Robins; Stanley; Lentsch NAYS: None ABSENT: Henning; Ross; Weist The motion carried. Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Supinger to give the background on the request. Mr. Supinger stated that the property under consideration for change of zoning is Lots 2 and 3, Rafferty Gardens Subdivision, which is located on the south side of West Lehow Avenue, and north of Big Dry Creek and the City Boundary. Mr. Brinkhoff is sole owner of Lots 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, Rafferty Gardens, and all of Lots 1 and 2 except the following described property : Beginning at the northeast corner of Lot 1, Rafferty Gardens, thence south 264.82