Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-09-19 PZC MINUTESI I I I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 19, 1972 Page 1469 The Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Lentsch. Members present: Vobejda; Brown; Weist; Carlson; Henning; Lentsch; Stanley Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Also present: Robins; Ross Romans, Assistant Director for Planning; Young, Planning Assistant II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Lentsch stated that Minutes of September 6th, 1972, were to be considered for approval. Brown moved: Vobejda seconded: The Minutes be approved as written. The motion carried. III. RONALD BRINKHOFF CASE #23-72A Lots, 2 and 3, Rafferty Gardens Sub. September 6, 1972 Mr. Lentsch stated that this matter had been tabled at the last meeting of the Commission. Henning moved: Vobejda seconded: The matter of the Brinkhoff Rezoning request be removed from the Table. The motion carried. Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Supinger for a review of the case. Mr. Supinger stated that the re- zoning request submitted by Mr. Brinkhoff was considered at a Public Hearing by the Com- mission on September 6th, and tabled at that meeting following the closing of the Public Hearing. Mr. Lentsch asked if the Commission had any questions on the matter? Mrs. Henning noted . that the staff report indicated the 100-year flood would be contained in the river channel, and asked if this statement was based on a study by the Corps of Engineers or by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District? Mr. Supinger stated that there has been no study on this drainage-way by the Corps of Engineers or by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control Dis- trict, and that the statement is based on the observations of the staff on the channel it- self. Mr. Supinger stated that the 100-year storm elevation has not been plotted on a map for Big Dry Creek. Mr. Brown asked if there was any further information on the bridge across Big Dry Creek that was mentioned at the last meeting? Mr. Supinger stated that this was mentioned by the applicant, and that the staff has received no further information on the proposal. Mr. Brinkhoff stated that Meurer-Serafini-Meurer are engineering the proposal for him now, and trying to straighten the creek channel; they have received favorable comments from the Corps of Engineers on the project. Mr. Brinkhoff stated that this project would extend from Broadway to about 200 feet west. Mr. Lentsch referred to a letter written to members of the Commission and signed by members of the Citizens for Better Community Development, and asked the location of the addresses of the persons · signing the letter. Mr. William Bashor stated that they were residents of the area; three couples who live in Littleton on Rafferty Lane just south of the subject site, signatures from one couple who reside on Oxford Avenue but who are concerned about the zoning in the City, and the remainder are Englewood residents living in the immediate area. Mr. Lentsch asked of the opponents if they had any suggestions as to what the site might be used for in the event the zoning were to be denied? Mrs. Henning asked if the Public Hearing was being reopened to allow comments from the audience? Mr. Lentsch stated it was not, but that he felt questions could be asked of the audience by the Commission. Mr. Wm. Bashor 5250 Miramonte Rd. -stated that he realized it is a very difficult piece of land to develop under the present zoning, and that he feels it will be difficult to de- velop under any other type of zoning due to the topography, the Public Service Company easements, etc. Mr. Bashor stated that he wondered if it could be developed as a credit to the City and to the neighborhood at all, and stated that he felt some study might be needed on what was the best use of the land. Mr. Brinkhoff asked if the opponents realized how much of the property is already zoned for commercial use, and indicated such on the map. Mr. Bashor reappeared before the Commission, and stated that inasmuch as the residents were of the opinion that this meeting would be closed to comments of the audience, they had made every effort to include all their objections in the letter sent to Commission members. Page 14'10 Mr. Loren Jacobson 369 W. Rafferty Gardens -stated he would like to reiterate that they don't want to see any further intrusion of commercial zoning further west on Lehow into the residential area. Mr. Robins entered and took his place with the Commission. Mr. Jacobson stated that he felt a barrier was needed between the resipential area and the commercial zoning to the east. Mr. J. E. Finn 5166 S. Elati Drive -asked that the letter sent to members of the Commission be entered into the Minutes as a record of the opponents reasons of protest. Mr. Lentsch stated that the letter could and would be entered into the Minutes of this meeting, but could not be entered into the record of the Public Hearing. Subject letter is as follows: Mr. Leo Lentsch 1550 East Dartmouth Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Mr. Lentsch: "September 16, 1972 May we again define for you our reasons for opposing the Brinkhof f rezoning request upon which you as a Planning Commissioner must decide Tuesday evening. Perhaps first and foremost, we believe that common sense and an order of priority for the good of the people of the community must exist and that that good is more important than precedent or financial gain for a single business. In this particular rezoning case, should it be approved, common sense tells us that we will have a whole new series of applications for c.ommercial zoning. Included in these will be a reapplication by Thoroughbred Datsun and an application by the new owners of Plot 15, Interurban Addition directly across the street from the subject property. We believe that the people of this area and of Englewood in general, by their response to the Datsun rezoning case, have said that additional commercial zoning in this area is not for our "good". It will ruin this neighborhood, and we need good neighborhoods in our city. We understand perfectly well that this piece of ground is not deyelopable under its present R3 zoning, but for the same reasons, neither can it be developed for business purposes as a creditable asset to the community. Those of us who know Big Dry Creek best can only antic- ipate with some degree of apprehension the arrival of trailers, campers and other oddments of Mr. Brinkhoff 's bu~iness on our property at flood time. We also know that Mr. Brinkhoff bought this land with the full knowledge of the above mentioned zoning problems. We find it difficult to understand ~hat justification can be found for making uniform zoning on a piece of land that is four (4) blocks long and protrudes into a residential area, particularly when the owner purchased it knowing these disadvantages. What justification can there be for thi rezoning when it will take value and the joy of ownership away from every other piece of ground around it or in view of it. If there is justification, we need to take a whole new look at our zoning procedures. We feel that the City Council, in deciding for the homeowners, in the Thoroughbred Datsun case, have conceded the existence and the integrity of our neighborhood, have recognized the fact that we have been here for many years, are a prideful group of homeowners, and that we have no place else to go. Please recognize that we are also an exhausted group of home- owners. We feel that we have been unduly harassed in recent months by these attempts to take away the residential characteristices of our area .. Our entire summer was colored by the threat of these impending disasters. We gave been put to a great deal of expense in hiring an attorney to defend our rights. We ask now that you put an end to this incursion upon our neighborhood. Please do not open the door to another round of commercial applications, including a reapplication by the Thoroughbred Datsun people, who have already been to the Planning Department asking who they can apply again for their commercial zoning. They only need a small change in the neighborhood to justify a new fight. We are tired, but we are also determined. If we must, we will again arouse the public opinion that we generated in the Datsun case. We spent days talking to the leaders of our Service Clubs, members of the League of Women Voters and other members of our community who have taken an irierest in civic affair~ in the past and without exception they expressed the · opinion . that we have an overabundaµce of commercial ground, much of it under-developed, and that we need more and petter residential areas. Therefore, for the following reasons, we ask you to preserve our residential area: 1. Each "split zoning" case is so individual in its circumstances that one case is not easily related to another in order to form a precedent that is applicable to both. Further, to apply any precedent to the Brinkhoff case, where there is a norrow parcel of land foor (4) blocks long located in two (2) incompatibly zoned areas, is impossible. We refute the assumption that there is a precedent that applies to this case or any other "split zoning" case. · 2. Approval of this rezoning would indeed open new commercial zoning applicat~ons in the area. 3. Development of the subject land is questionable under any zoning. 4. While the Comprehensive Zoning Plan is not absolute, there is not provision for commerc1al zoning in this area as projected by the plan. I I I I I I Page 1471 5. The Brinkhoff zoning and the Thoroughbred Datsun zoning are, for the same reasons equally incompatible and undesirable for our neighborhood, and the City Council has ruled that the one is unacceptable to it -thus, the second should also be ruled unacceptable. Please prevent a solid thrust of campers and trailers or anything else that Mr. Brinkhoff might choose to put on this land, if it were zoned commercial, from ruining forever our desire to remain in our present homes, or anywhere else in Englewood, for that matter. Louis T. Cangilla Patricia A. Cangilla Roy W. Hankle Geraldine A. Hankle Mr. & Mrs. George A. Ducker Goodrich Walton Dorothy M. Walton Marvin L. Covert Louise Covert Janet L. Luck James E. Finn Jarmilla Finn William R. Icks Patricia A. Icks Marlene C. Thompson Keith Thompson Ruth R. Kelley James E. Kelley Sincerely, The Citizens for Better Community Development Rudolph R. Deyle John J. Leonard Sybil P. Bashor Charles R. Richards Barbara J. Richards Richard W. Hawkins Muriel A. Hawkins Ruth Jacobson Loren Jacobson Besse Jacobson Maynard Jacobson Barbara Friend Margaret A. Clarke: John F. Clarke, Jr. Dorothy G. Bashor William H. Bashor Margaret Mary Unrein" Mr. Bashor asked if the City of Littleton had been notified of Mr. Brinkhoff 's rezoning request, and if there had been a reply from the City of Littleton? Mr. Supinger stated that the City of Littleton was, indeed, notified of the request, and that a reply had been received and submitted to the Commission members previously. Mr. Supinger stated that the City of Littleton is oppesed to the rezoning request. Mrs. Henning outlined some of the reasons she is opposed to recommending the rezoning request: 1. There has been a letter submitted from the City of Littleton stating opposition on their part to the request by Mr. Brinkhoff. It is Mrs. Henning's feeling that the cooperation of both cities on this area is very vital. The letter from the City of Littleton does state the present zoning as applied to the area is not in error, as was alleged in the staff report submitted to Commission members by the Englewood Department of Community Development. The City of Littleton cites that the fact that the Public Service Company easement was in existance at the time the R-3~B zoning was imposed, and had to be of consideration at that time precludes the supposition of "error on original zoning". 2. There is no hard-and-fast information available on the flood plain area along Big Dry Creek. Mr. Henning questioned the advisability of channeling Big Dry Creek and Bridging the Creek at Lehow and Crossings below during flood. Henning moved: Vobejda seconded: Th~application for rezoning of Lots 2 and 3, Rafferty Gardens Sub- division, for change of zoning from R-3-B (Multi-family Residential) to B-2 (Business) be denied for the following reasons: 1. There is no information available on the designated flood plain along Big Dry Creek. 2. The City of Littleton has voiced opposition to the rezoning request. 3. There is sufficient land presently zoned for commercial use within the City of Englewood. 4. There is no demonstrated need for this type of zoning. Mr. Robins stated that the Corps of Engineers would only designate ,25 feet from the Creek bank as a flood plain; he didn't feel the high water would have anything to do with this particular building. Mr. Brown stated the future of this property was indefinite, and pointed to the lack of information that was available on the flood plain designation etc. Mr. Brown stated he could not vote in favor of rezoning this property for the reasons already cited, and also because there is inadequate information available to warrant rezoning at this time. Mr. Robins asked of Mr. Brinkhoff if the work as proposed on mobile homes etc., would be done inside a building? Mr. Lentsch stated there was a motion before the Commissions, and he would have to object to Mr. Robins' questioning of the applicant. Mr. Brinkhoff replied in the affirmative to Mr. Robins' question. The vote on the motion was called: AYES: Weist; Vobejda; Lentsch; Stanley; Brown; Henning NAYS: Robins, Carlson ABSENT: Ross ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. Page 1472 Mr. Lentsch thanked the audience for their attendance. Mr. Carlson discussed the "junk" on the north side of the Creek bank, and suggested that the owner be contacted and that it be cleaned up. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger commented that there have been problems with unauthorized filling being done in the area. Mr. Carlson stated that he felt something should be done about this "junk", and stated in his opinion it looked worse than the development proposed by Mr. Brinkhoff. IV. HAWKEYE MANAGEMENT 675 -711 E. Kenyon CASE #25-72A Sept. 6, 1972 Mr. Lentsch stated that this matter was tabled at the meeting of September 6, 1972. Vobej d:;i moved: Henning seconded: The matter of the parking lot approval requested by Hawkeye Management Company for 675 -711 East Kenyon Avenue be raised from the Table. The motion carried. Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Supinger to review this matter. Mr. Supinger stated that the matter was tabled at the last meeting because, in an effort to provide adequate access for fire equipment, two parking spaces had been eliminated and the development, as then designed, was two spaces short of the required minimum of 190 parking spaces for 112 dwelling units. The applicants have redesigned the plan for the parking, and the latest revision is before the Commission this evening. This revision shows a total of 194 parking spaces, 9 ft. x 2Q ft., which complies with the minimum requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and in fact, gives four spaces extra. Mr. Supinger stated that it has been determined that Little Dry Creek cuts through a corner of this property, and caused modification of the plan over and above the redesign of the parking layout. Mr. Supinger stated that the plan dated September 19, 1972, does indicate a fire lane, and it is the recommendation of the staff that this plan be approved. Mr. Lentsch asked if the Fire Department had approved the Fire Lane? Mr. Supinger stated that they did so. Henning moved: Brown & Vobejda seconded: The Planning Commission approve the parking layout for Hawkeye Management Company for 675 -711 East Kenyon Avenue, said parking layout dated September 19, 1972, subject to the following conditions as outlined in Staff Report #25-72: 1. The site being filled to a flood protection elevation of no less than 5,335 feet; such fill to be approved by the City Engineer; 2. The drainage of the site is to be approved by the City Engineer: 3. The surfacing of the parking lot and the installation of all entrances and exits thereto, is to conform with City specificatons; 4. A utility easement is to be gratned to the City across, over and under the west eight (8) feet of the property known as 675 East Kenyon Avenue. (The West eight (8) feet of the southeast one-quarter of Block 7, Higgins Englewood Gardens). 5. The provisions of §22.4B, Flood Plain District, and all other applicable ordinances shall be complied with in relation to this site. 6. The aisle shall be designated as a fire-lane as shown on the parking lay-out. The motion carried. V. WILMARK CINEMA, INC. CASE #26-72 Subdivision Waiver Mr. Supinger stated t~at the request is for a subdivision waiver on two acres on the southwest corner of the GEM property. The applicant proposes to construct a "twin" theater, with a total seating capacity of 598. Mr. Supinger stated that it is the feeling of the staff that no benefit would be gained by requiring a subdivision plat to be filed for the property, and suggests the approval of the request for a waiver subject to taking care of certain traffic problems relative to this site to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Mr. Lentsch asked who owned the land? Mr. Oppeneer stated he was an att~rney for and office of Grastoke, Inc., owner of the property on which the QEM store is located. Mr. Oppeneer introduced Mr. Frank Weaver, President of Wilmark Cinema, Inc. Mr. Supinger noted that the parking plan for the theater development would require the approval of the Commission under present Ordinances. Mr. Lentsch inquired as to the capacity of the theater? Mr. Weaver stated that they propose a total of 598 seats. Mr. Weaver stated that the national average is 37% occupancy on theater use; he stated if they could run 30% to 4Q% occupancy he felt the development . would be successful. Mr. Weaver stated that this would be operated under a franchise from Jerry Lewis theaters, and no~ed there were 152 .of these theaters throughout the country a month ago, and it is their idea to put 3,000 of these theaters throughout the country which will show nothing but pictures for "family entertainment". Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Weaver if he could give any information on the parking planned for this operation? Mr. Weaver stated that the City requires a ratio of 1:4 (one parking space I I I I I I PAGE 1473 for each four seats); the requirements of Wilmark Cinema, however, are a ratio of 1:3 (one parking space for each three seats). Mr. Weaver noted that the total site is appromimately two acres, and the amount of parking provided for the venture will equal 56,000 square feet. Mr. Weaver further noted that these would be "more than adequate parking in the area we are talking about" and noted the 14 acres of parking around GEM in addition to what they are providing. Mr. Weaver discussed the topografhY of the site, and noted that the Wilmark Cinema~. Inc., hopes to encourage most o their patrons to park on the higher elevation around the proposed theater. Mr. Robbins discussed the access pattern at the Cooper Theater on Colorado Boulevard, and asked Mr. Weaver if an approach on this order might be feasible at the proposed site? Mr. Weaver stated he had discussed the proposal with Mr. Shepherd of the State Highway Department, and was told that when the median was removed from this portion of Broadway, and the street was widened, tha~ left-turn lanes were provided, and also an accel-decel lane right next to the curb line on the east side of Broadway; all it needs is to be painted as an accel-decel lane. Mr. Weaver stated that this arrangement would give two flow lanes north, two flow lanes south, left-turn pockets, and the decel lane in front of the GEM property. Mr. Carlson discussed the point of access to the site, and to the GEM property, which will cut through the site .to be used for the theater development. He asked if it would be more practical to relocate the point of access so that it did not divide the site? Mr. Weaver stated that he felt it was a good arrangement as it was, and stated that he didn't feel there would be much congestion in the present ~ccess pattern. Mr. Carlson questioned the effect a one-way eastbound designation for this point of access would have on the proposed dev~lopment? Mr. Weaver pointed out that there are three entrances into the total GEM property; he felt that a one-way system worked out on the entrances and extts would work for their porposes. Mr. Weaver stated that they are open to suggestions on the matter of entrance and exit from the property. Mrs. Henning stated she felt the condition for the approval of the waiver ~s suggested by the staff should be expanded to state: "The waiver should be conditioned upon the owner takein whatever remedial steps are required by the Director of Public Works to alleviate the traffic problem on South Broadway adjacent to this site, and upon advice of the State Highway Department". Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Weaver when construction was to begin? Also, when could the Commissions expect to review the Parking Plans for the project? Mr. Weaver stated that they hoped to begin construction as soon as possible, and that the parking plans could be submitted as soon as the Commission wanted to see them. Mr. Brown complimented Mr. Weaver and Wilmark Cinema,.Inc. for their desire to provide good family entertainment; he stated he felt this would be a real asset to the City, and stated he was very much in favor of it. Henning moved: Vobejda seconded: The Commission approve the application for a Subdivision Waiver for Wilmark Cinema, Inc., for the following described property, such approval to be conditioned upon the owners taking remedial steps as requested by the Director of Public Works and State Highway Department to alleviate the traffic problem on South Broad- way adjacent to this site: "Beginning at a point on the South line of the NE 1 /4 of Section 15, Township 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M., Arapahoe County, Colorado, .A 50 feet East of the Southwest corner of said NE lf4; thence northerly and parallel to the West line of said NE 1 /4 a distance of 300 feet; thence easterly and parallel to the South line of said NE 1/4 a distance of 300 feet; thence southerly and parallel to the West line of said NE 1/4 a distance of 300 feet; thence westerly along the south line of said NE 1 /4 a distance of 300 feet; thence westerly along the south line of said NE 1/4 a distance of 300 feet to the point of beginning". The motion carried. VI. FIRST NATIONAL BANK Parking Lot Pla~s CASE #28-72 Mr. Supinger stated that members of the Commission were, this evening, given copies of a request for approval of parking plans on two lots at the First National Bank of Englewood. These plans are a modification of the existing parking lots, one on the 'east side of the Bank building itself, and one lot across Hampden Place to the north between Cherokee Circle, South Cherokee Street and Hampden Place. A letter from Mr. Emmett Curry, dated September 18, 1972, was also submitted requesting the approval of the parking lot north of Hampden place, the total number of parking spaces to be 95. A letter from Mr. David K Pipkin, Property Manager for Frederick R. Ross Company, requests the approval of the redesign of the parking lot adjacent ~tothe First National Bank building at 333 West Hampden Avenue; this change is from 90 ° parking to angle parking. Mr. Supinger stated that the change to angle parking in the lot east of the bank building will result in a reduction of spaces from 172 to 140; however, this should be more convenient for the customers of the bank. The proposal for modification on the lot to the north of Hampden Place is to provide permanent parking; this lot was previousiy approved for temporary parking for a period of two years on April 6, 1971, for a total of 85 spaces. They propose to increase the capacity in this particular lot from the 85 spaces previously approved to 95 spaces; they would also close off one curb cut, the one on the north side of Hampden Place. There would be a final total of 450 parking spaces provided under these two proposals; the required off-street parking would be 383 .parking spaces. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff s~ggests that the curb 9ut on the north side of Hampden Place that is to be closed by the new parking layout, be removed and be replaced to match the adjacent concrete. PAGE 1474 Mr. Emmett Curry, President of the First National Bank, stated that they feel there might, eventually, be need for more than one entrance/exit to the lot north of Hampden Pl~ce; and while they do not object to closing the entrance from Hampden Place, they are not in favor of completely eliminating it and replacing the concrete walk. Mr. Curry noted that the curb cut would be effectually closed by placement of bumper stops for the parking spaces at that point and could not be used. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning aske~ if the Commission is being given a recommendation .that the curb cut be closed? Mr. Supinger stated that the Public Works Department has recommended that the curb cut be closed and the adjacent concrete be matched if it is not to be used under the revised parking plan. Mr. Curry stated that he didn't understand the situation; he pointed out that the curb cut does exist; they plan to install bumper stops so that it will be closed and will not be used; but, if there are problems and they determine a need for the additional curb cut, it would make sense not to have to replace the cut. Mr. Pitkin, Property Manager for Frederick R. Ross, stated that it is planned that the parking lot north of Hampden Place will be used for "reserved" parking for the building, and spaces would be assigned to tenants. Mr. Pitkin stated that they plan to purchase an airport control gate, which would restrict parking in the lot north of Hampden Place to those for whom it is reserved. Mr. Pitkin stated that while there might not be a need for this additional curb cut, it does cost approzimately $700 for a new cut, and they would prefer to retain the cut itself even tho~gh it is to be closed off. Mr. Lentsch asked if approval was urgent? Mr. Curry stated that they have occupied the building for two years, and stated he was sure members of the Commission have noted some of the problems that have occurred. Mr. Curry stated that they do have a "dire problem",. and pointed out that many of the customers are elderly and experience difficulty finding parking and maneuvering space under the present plan. Mr. Lentsch asked if the plans for the parking lots meet the requirement of the City? Mr. Supinger stated that they do. Mr. Supinger stated that as far as the closing of the curb cut was concerned, he felt with the installation of bumper stops to prevent usage of the cut, that the problem would be alleviated and that the replacement of the curbing would not be required. Brown moved: Vobejda seconded: The parking plan revisions, dated September 19, 1972, for the parking lot adjacent to the First National Bank at 333 West Hampden Avenue, and for the parking lot bounded by South Cherokee Circle, South Cherokee Street _and West Hampden Place, be accepted as presented. The curb cut to the lot on West Hampden Place shall be closed as suggested by the First National Bank, with bumper stops, but the curbing shall ...D not be replaced. Mrs. Henning asked that this matter be reviewed in one years time to see how the revisions are working out. The vote was called; the motion carried. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Supinger stated that revised copies of the proposed parking restrictions have been submitted to members of the Commission this evening. Mr. Supinger suggested that members might -want to review these revised restrictions prior to in-depth discussion. Mr. Lentsch · concurred in the suggestion. VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Carlson for a report on the Boulder Conference. Mr. Carlson stated that he had been unable to attend all sessions, but he was concerned that the speakers were given so little time that they had to be quite general in their comments. He slso noted that there was very poor attendance this year. Mr Supinger stated that he felt this might be due in part to the extreme tardiness of the final agenda and notice to planning agencies and commissions. Mr. Carlson stated that most of the discussion was done in "panels" and commented that they "had some good people" on these panels. He felt that the "brain-storming" sessions were gery good. Mrs. Vobejda asked if he would suggest that the conference be "condensed" and not run for three days or so? Mr. Carlson stated that he felt many of the speakers could be eliminated, and again referred to the number of speakers who were given such a limited time. Mrs. Henning noted that she had attended a session at which Mr. John Rahenkamp had made a very good presentation on planning in general, and a procedure his firm has developed on "impact zoning". Mrs. Henning stated that Mr. Rajenkamp had stated that some eastern states are attempting to "set a pattern of housing distribution on a quota basis in cities so that you can sort of even out this development". Mr. Weist stated he had some questions on flood plain zoning. He asked if the Brinkhoff property was actually in a flood plain? Mr. Supinger stated he waild have to say that the staff considers it so because no flood plain has been defined in this particular drainage way. He pointed out that Englewood does have flood plain zoning restrictions. Mr. Weist stated that Mr. Brinkhoff does have a permanent building on part of his property now, and asked if additional buildings would be subject to requirements of the flood plain zoning? Mr. Supinger stated they would be. Mr. Robins stated that he felt there was "only one house north of the property that could even see the property and it's about two blocks away"; he "just ean't see the reason for the opposition". Mr. Carlson discussed the zoning surrounding the property owners on West Rafferty Gardens, and stated that he didn't feel the City of Littleton had tried to protect this area by their zoning. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning noted that the area south of Belleview is pretty much land-locked; she stated that she felt until there is a definite pattern for access, that possibly there should be no rezoning ·until that time. I I I I I I Page 1475 Mr. Brown suggested that maybe the City could buy this land of Mr. Brinkhoff 's for open space. Mr. Carlson interposed that there wasn't enough land to do any good. Mrs. Henning concurred with Mr .. Brown's suggestion, and stated that it could be developed with a green- belt. Further discussion followed. Mrs. Romans noted that the R-3-B Zone District permits professional type office buildings in addition to multi-family units. Mr. Lentsch stated that there will be a special meeting on September 26th at 8:00 P.M. for discussion of the proposed development on the KLZ Site by the Larwin Corporation. Mr. Lentsch asked that signs be posted on the property notifying area residents of the public meeting, and suggested that some sort of flyer be delivered to the area residents also. Mr. Supinger discussed the staff time required to prepare the mailings. Mr. Lentsch sug- gested using the aqresso-graph as is done for mailing water bills. Mr. Supinger stated it was, again, a matter of time for the personnel involved. Mr. Lentsch then suggested that perhaps some member of the Northeast Englewood Citizens' Committee could be contacted, and that perhaps members of that Committee would .deliver the flyers. Mr. Supinger stated that City Council did approve the creation of a Local Housing Authority and Urban Renewal Authori~y at their meeting of September 18th. The meeting adjourned. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26, 1972 SPECIAL MEETING 8:30 P. M. The special meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:30 P. M. by Chairman Lentsch. Members present: Carlson; Lentsch; St~nley; Vobejda; Brown; Henning Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Weist; Robins; Ross Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director for Plan~ing; B. Young, Planning Assistant; B. Berardini, City Attorney; E. P. Romans, Director of Parks & Recreation; K. ~aggoner, Director of Public Works Chairman Lentsch announced that this special meeting has been called to discuss the develop- ment plans by Larwin Multihousing Corporation for the former KLZ Site at U.S. 285 and South Lafayette Street. Mr. Lentsch stated that this was an informational meeting, and would be open to comments from the public after the review of the request by Mr. Supinger, and the presentation by representatives of the Larwin Multihousing Corporation. ~ ---- -- II. SUBDIVISION WAIVER Larwin Multihousing Corporation CASE #20-72B August 9, 1972 August 22, 1972 Mr. Supinger stated that the request by Larwin Multihousing Corporation, 9100 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, is for a waiver to the subdivision regulations for the entire site. Mr. Supinger stated that the zoning on the site by the City has been up- held by the Colorado Supreme Court as R-3-A, Multi-family Residential, with the exception of an area 150 feet in depth from Floyd South, and 1,202 feet east and west, running from approximately South Franklin Street to the east boundary line of the site, which area is zoned R-1-A, Single-family Residential. Mr. Supinger emphasized that the zoning of the site is not a matter of question before the Commission, and that the proposal before the Commission at the present time does me~t the requirements of the zone district in which it is located. Mr. Supinger stated that the request is for a waiver to the Sµbdivision Regulations, as pro- vided ~or in §12-3-3b(l) of the Municipal Code, which section reads: "Whenever a tract of land is of such unusual size or shape, or its location and relation- ship to presently existing streets, alleys, utility rights-of-way and other neighboring de- velopment is such that no substantial benefits are to be gained by the City or by the public. from requiring a subdivision plat to be prepared, approved and filed therefor by the owner or owners thereof accompanied by a survey plat and a sketch plan of the proposed development, waive the necessity for the owner or owners of complying with the provisions of this Chapter.; provided, however, that the Comµiission may impose reasonable conditions upon any such waiver; and provided further, any such waiver, and the terms thereof, shall be reduced to writing and recorded at the landowner's expense, and a $10.00 waiver fee paid to the City before such waiver shall become effec~ive. (Ord. No. 17, §21.3-4, Series 1967)." Mr. Supinger stated that he felt the term "subdivision waiver" is a misnomer, because the applicant must still meet the requirements of providing for access, drainage, etc.; the waiver is only to eliminate the necessity for filing a "plat" map of the property. Mr. Supinger stated that it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to determine whether or not there is anything to be gained by the City or by the public if a subdivision plat were to be filed.