Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-03-20 PZC MINUTESPage 1546 I. CALL TO ORDER. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 20, 1973 The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:05 P.M. by Chairman Lentsch. Members present: Lentsch; Tanguma; Ross; Martin; Brown; Vobejda; Henning; Weist Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Stanley Also present: Assistant Director Romans; Planning Assistant Young ------ - ----- ------------ --- - II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Lentsch stated that Minutes of February 21, 1973, were to be considered for approval. It was moved and seconded that the Minutes of February 21, 1973, be approved as presented. The motion carried. III. RONALD BRINKHOFF CASE #10-73A Portion of Plot 1, Rafferty Gardens February 21, 1973 Mr. Supinger stated that the Commission has in hand copies of the "Findings" prepared by the staff; if these "Findings" are approved, they will be referred to the City Council. Mr. Supinger stated that the "Findings" were prepared from testimony at the public hearing on February 21st, and research by the staff. Mrs. Henning asked if the City had determined that the "Findings" must be in this particular form? It was stated that City Attorney Berardini has stated that the form in which they are presented to the Commission is the proper form to use. Mrs. Henning stated that she wished to register a protest; she felt it is unnecessarily complicated by using this format. Martin moved: Vobejda seconded: The Planning Commission approve and adopt the Findings for the Brinkhoff Rezoning Request, Case #10-73, as presented, and that said Findings be referred to the City Council. Mr. Ross discussed the reasons behind the writing of "Findings" on cases before the Planning Commission, and referred to a Court decision on a case in which the City of Aurora was a party. Further discussion followed. The vote was called. AYES: Lentsch; Martin; Ross; Tanguma; Vobejda; Weist; Brown; Henning NAYS: None ABSENT: Stanley The motion carried. IV. P. ARTHUR TAGUE S. 163' of Lots 6 thru 10, Block 14, Evans Park Estates CASE #5-73C February 21, 1973 January 16, 1973 January 3, 1973 Mr. Supinger stated that the Findings for this Case have been prepared by the staff, and the Commission does have them in hand. Martin moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission approve and adopt the Findings for the P. Arthur Tague Rezoning Request, Case #5-73, as presented, and that said Findings be forwarded to the City Council. Mrs. Henning stated that she felt it might be wise at this time to point out that the Com- mission acted on this matter in the absence of concrete evidence and knowledge of what was taking place before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. The Planning Commission turned the request down because of the length of time the matter had been continued. Mrs. Henning stated that she felt a study should be instituted on the possibility of initiating rezoning for the entire block rather than just one or two parcels. The vote was called: AYES: Martin; Ross; Tanguma; Vobejda; Weist; Brown; Henning; Lentsch NAYS: None ABSENT: Stanley The motion carried. I I I I I I V. INTERPRETATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE Hotel in I-1 Zone District \ I \ \ Page 1547 CASE #14-73 Mr. Lentsch asked the staff for background on this matter. Mrs. Romans, Assistant Director, stated that a request has been submitted to the Department of Community Development for an interpretation of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which Ordinance permits Motels in an I-1 Light Industrial District as a Conditional Use, but excludes Hotels in this Zone District. The request was submitted by T. W. Anderson Company. Mrs. Romans stated that research by the staff has shown that the Motel vs. Hotel use differs basically in the location o il parking facilities. It is the staff recommendation that the Commission find that it was the intent of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance NOT to exclude Hotels as a conditional use in the I-1 Light Industrial District. Mrs. Romans pointed out that there is not at this time an application before the Commission for approval of a Con- ditional Use; only an interpretation of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Henning stated that when City Council was considering a tax rate for motels and hotels there was no discrimination in the amount to be paid by each use; she did not see any reason for discrimination in this instance either. Mr. Ross asked where hotels were permitted as a permitted use in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance? Mrs. Romans stated they are listed as a permitted use in the B-1 Business Dis- trict ; they are permitted by inclusion in the B-2 Business District, and in the R-3-A and R-3-B Districts by definition interpretation. Mr. Ross asked why hotels were not included in the I-1 Zone District? Mrs. Romans stated that as far as could be determined, it is just that the Ordinance was not expanded as far as it could have been. Mr. Tanguma discussed the parking requirements for motels vs. that for hotels; motels are required to have one space per unit. Hotels were required to have one space per each two guest rooms. Mr. Tanguma suggested that parking requirements be increased for the hotels to that presently required for motels. Further brief -discussion followed. Henning moved: Vobejda seconded: The term "motel" shall be expanded to include "hotel" in the I-1 Zone District. AYES: Tanguma ; Vobejda; Weist ; Brown; Henning; Lentsch; Martin NAYS: Ross ABSE_NT: Stanley The motion carried. VI. INTERPRETATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE Automotive Repair -4242 /4252 So. Broadway B-2 Zone District I ,----- CASE #13-73 Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Richard Baty has requested an interpretation of the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance to allow an automotive repair shop in the B-2 Zone District as it pertains to 4242 /4252 South Broadway. Mr. Baty has removed the house at 4252 Souxh Broadway, the location of his proposed automotive repair garage. Mr. Baty wishes to retain the house at 4242 South Broadway as rental property; he does, however, plan to remove the garage at the rear of 4242 South Broadway to provide additional parking and maneuvering space for the use at 4252 South Broadway. Mrs. Romans noted that this request is similar to a request considered a year or so ago on East Hampden Avenue, in which the .Commission felt that an automotive repair garage was not compatible with a residential use on the same property, and required that the house be removed as a condition to approval of the request. Mr. Richard Baty 4301 South Kalamath -stated that he did not know exactly when he could remove the house at 4242 South Broadway. He stated he would have it done as soon as possible, but that right now he does not have the finances to do so. Mr. Brown asked Mr. Baty if he had received any complaints from any of the neighbors on this type of business or proposed use? Mr. Baty stated that he had not. Mr. Lentsch asked if there were members of the audience who wished to speak in opposition to this matter? No one spoke in opposition. Mr. Martin asked what chances would be with a use as is proposed of cars being accumulated and parked on the lot so that they would be an "eyesore" or junk yard type appearance? Mr. Martin stated that he has noticed several garages throughout the City, and "they aren't very pleasant to see." Mr. Baty stated that he wanted to do only "light" work --tune-ups, etc. He would not have a number of cars parked waiting to be worked on. Mr. Tanguma asked Mr. Baty "in the lot you have cleared, do you h,ave enough room for maneuvering and parking?" Mr. Baty stated that he thinks so, and pointed out that he does plan to remove the garage at 4242 South Broadway to give additio~al parking and maneuvering space. Mr. Martin stated that he felt the removal of the non-conforming residence should be made a part of the approval. Mr. Lentsch stated that he felt it would be a good idea. Mr. Martin further stated that he felt some firm date for removal of the residence should be established before the Commission acts on the request. Mr. Baty stated that it cost him $1,000 to tear the house at 4252 South Broadway down; he has sufficient money to have the proposed garage constructed now, but would have to wait until he could "get things squared away'-' before removing the residence at 4242 Sou th Broadway. Mr. Brown asked Mr. Baty if he felt he could get the house removed in one year? Two years? Mr. Baty stated that he felt it could be accomplished within one year. Mr. Brown then stated that if one year time period was satisfactory to the Commission, he saw no problem in granting the approval. \ \ \ \ Page 1548 Mrs. Henning asked what the removal of a garage for a residence means as far as providing off-street parking spaces for all residential uses? She asked if it was legal to remove the garage? Mr. Supinger stated that he felt it was a matter of removing the "covered parking" only; the parking spaces will still remain on the property. Tanguma moved: Martin seconded: The Commission find that an automotive repair garage is a use similar to other uses permitted in the B-2 Zone District, and that the request of Mr. Richard Baty, to locate an automotive repair garage at 4242/4252 South Broadway be approved. The residence at 4242 South Broadway shall be removed within one year .from the date of this approva 1. AYES: Tanguma; Vobejda; Weist; Brown; Henning; Lentsch; Ross; Martin NAYS: None ABSENT: Stanley The motion carried. VII. STREET EXTENSION CASE #15-73 South Navajo between Princeton and Oxford. Mrs. Romans stated that a request has been submitted by Mr. William Holthaus to have South Navajo Street extended from West Princeton Avenue to West Oxford Avenue. There is a dedica- tion for South Navajo Street ~rom West Quincy to West Princeton Avenue, but there is a question on the amount of dedication. Mrs. Romans then discussed the confusion existing in regard to the dedication of Navajo from Quincy to Princeton. Mr. Holthaus has requested that the right-of-way be obtained for extension of South N~vajo Street north to West Oxford Avenue. Mrs. Romans noted that this request ties into the Master Street Plan, which is to be considered later in the meeting. Mrs. Romans stated that this industrial area has not been able to develop to its full potential because of the lack of access. It is intended that South Windermere Street will be extended north to Kenyon Avenue; however, there is extensive development between West Quincy Avenue and West Oxford Avenue that would preclude the development of South Windermere through this area. There is the dedication for South Navajo existing between West Quincy and West Princeton Avenue, and it appears that it would be feasible to "jog" from South Windermere at Quincy Avenue to South Navajo Street at Quincy, north on South Navajo Street to West Oxford Avenue, and back to South Windermere Street at West Oxford, then north to West Kenyon Avenue. If this route could be developed, it would alleviate industrial traffic using South Lipan Street, which is a residential street. Mrs. Romans stated that it is the staff recommendation that the Planning Commission look favorably upon taking the proper steps to extend South Navajo Street from West Princeton Avenue to West Oxford Avenue. Mr. William Holthaus stated that he owned property at 4201 /4259 South Navajo. Mr. Holthaus stated that the tenants of his buildings are represented by several persons at this meeting. Mr. Holthaus stated that access in this area is extremely poor, and the dedication on South Navajo between West Quincy and West Princeton "goes no where". Mr. Holthaus stated that the extension of South Navajo Street to West Oxford Avenue "seems to be the only logical move to make." Mr. Martin referred to the staff report, in which it was stated that "sewer service could be provided if there were sufficient demand." Mr. Martin then noted that in Mr. Holthaus' letter of February 28, 1973, it is stated that "there is no sewer available to any of my buildings at the present time. If Navajo were cut through to Oxford, I could avail myself of it's use." Mr. Martin asked for clarification of this matter. Mr. Holthaus stated that there is a sanitary sewer line in West Quincy Avenue and one in West Oxford Avenue. The line in West Quincy to the south of his property is on the other side of a 100" water line that runs down Quincy. There is no way to get a line from his buildings to the sewer line except by possibly using "lift stations". Mr. Holthaus stated that . his buildings are on leach fields. Mr. Chic Smith, President Martin Shippers & Supply 1366 West Oxford Avenue - Bill Parchen Ajax Warehouse 4250 South Santa Fe Lane - Joe Barber stated that they are in favor of the extension of South Navajo Street. Mr. Smith stated that they wanted to develop their property further, but the lack of access has stymied further development. Mr. Smith stated that Martin Shippers & Supply owns four acres in this site. stated that there are increasing traffic problems in the are~. Mr. Parchen stated that the Warehouse has between 200 to 400 people coming there per day. Mr. Parchen stated that the ex-. tension of the street should be "m~ndatory." Rocky Mountain Distributing Company -stated that his firm also has problems with traffic. President Steel Structures of Colorado 4201 South Navajo Street - Mr. Barber discussed the congestion at the railroad crossing. Mr. Barber stated .that .his trucks use the South Lipan route to avoid the congestion at the Quincy railroad crossing. stated that his building was built 18 years ago, and is at the end of Navajo Street. He stated that the parking lot for his business has been a "quagmire" --drainage runs from Quincy down Navajo into his parking lot. He stated that he has complained to the City administration about the drainage problem, b~t nothing has been done. He stated that the only answer as far as they were concerned was to extend the street north to West Oxford. He also discussed the traffic hazard existing and the rail crossing at West Quincy Avenue. I I I I I I \ I Page 154~ Mr. Brown stated that he would like to point out that the City has begun a 5-year drainage program to try to solve the worst drainage problems. Mr. Brown stated that he hoped eventually the City could eliminate all the drainage problems, but again pointed out that the City has made a start. Mr. Brown then asked for clarification on the matter of right- of-way ~xisting on South Navajo. Mrs. Romans stated that the Engineering Division of Public Works is doing field work on the matter at the present time to determine the exact amount of dedication that exists. A report will be made to the Community Development office at such time as the field work is completed. Mr. Supinger pointed out that whether or not the 60 foot right-of-way exists on South Navajo Street between West Quincy Avenue and West Princeton Avenue, the staff feels it is desirable that South Navajo Street be extended for a 60 ft. right~of-way between West Quincy Avenue and West Oxford Avenue. Mr. Lentsch asked if there were other persons present who wished to speak in favor of the request? No one else spoke in favor. Mr. Lentsch stated the Commission would now hear those present in opposition to the request. Mr. Douglass Auer stated he was representing Mr. Sam Chavez and asked that the Commission hear Mr. Chavez at this time. Mr. Sam Chavez stated that he owns property at 1314 West Oxford Avenue, and that his property is between Oxford and Quincy, encompassing 7-1/2 or 8 acres. Mr. Chavez stated that he understood the problems of the tenants and owners to the south of his property, but pointed out that just about a year ago, he invested $100,000 in his n r w building. If the street extension were to be put through, it would take 5 to 10 ft. of that building along the western side. Mr. Chavez stated that when -he put the building up he knew there was an ease- ment thru the area and he worked with City officials in locating the structure to accommodate the easement. However, Mr. Holthaus is now asking for a 60 ft. right-of-way, which is more than was considered by Mr. Chavez in the situation of the buil·ding on his site. Mr. Chavez emphasized that this structure was built one-year ago, and was approved by the City. He stated that he would want to be reimbursed for any damages that would occur to this building and property. Mrs. Romans stated that in discussing the matter w~th the City Engineer, it is felt that the building could be missed by "jogging" to the west for a few feet. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger asked Mr. Chavez if his structure was about 55 ft. from his property line? It appeared that it might be necessary to jog the street about 5 ft. to by-pass the building. Discussion foLlowed. Mr. Chavez stated that the proposed street extension is of no advantage to him, and that he is opposed to the request. Upon questioning, Mr. Chavez stated that he did not know if it would be of any advantage to him in the future. Mr. Chavez stated that he had received notification of the request on Monday, March 19th, and he considered this very short notic€. Mr. Martin noted that Mr. Chavez is of ~he opinion the street extension would be to his dis- advantage; but, if he were to be paid for the right-of-way by the City, would it be to his disadvantage to jog the street around the building? Mr. Chavez stated "No, I don't think it would, as long as you don't touch the building itself." Mr. Chavez noted that this extension of the street would take a lot of land on which he can park cars to be worked on. He stated that he keeps an inventory of about 2,000 cars all the time, and does not have enough room on this ~roperty to park them at the present time; he has to rent additional property for 300, 400 or 500 cars. Mr. Ross asked Mr. ChaNez if he owned all the property which the right-of-way would be from? Mr. Chavez stated he owned the property from the end of South Navajo Street to West Oxford Avenue. Mr. Auer stated that the drainage problems also affect Mr. Chavez property. Mr. Auer stated that his client is concerned at this point, even if the building does .not have to be removed, that the nearness of traffic to the structure would present a hazard. Mr. Auer stated that Mr. Chavez is in the business o f restoring automobiles, and that there are "ovens" within the building which are used in the process. Mr. Auer stated that when the building was con- structed his client was aware of a 30 ft. easement and provided for extension of same. How- ever, the request is now for a 60 ft. right-of-way, 44 ft. roadway. Mr. Auer asked "what kind of tra f fic will be using that right-of-way?" He stated that he did not see the need for the street extension to accommodate the traffic; he asked if there had been a traffic study done to determine the need for the street? Mr. Auer stated that he did not see how putting this roadway through would help alleviate congestion at Quincy and Santa Fe, and asked if it would be appropriate to wait for an engineers .study on the feasibility of "jogging" around the building prior to making a decision. Mr. Auer stated that there should be an accurate engineering survey of the proposal; and noted that it could turn out to be an expensive benefit to the land owners only, and not to the public. Mr. Auer noted that South Lipan Street is a 50' street, and is "some-what .residential." He asked "how many people using Lipan Street would switch to using Navajo if it were extended?" Mr. Auer stated that Mr. Chavez property is completely fenced --it is needed for security. This would have to be r:eplaced. Mr. Weist referred to Mr. Chavez statements on discussion with City officials on the location of the building; he asked if it was indicated at any time that a 60 ft. right-of-way was needed in this area? Mr. Weist asked why the figure of 30 ft. was considered and not the figure of 60 ft. for right-of-way? Mr. Supinger stated that he understood the intention was to set back for a full roadway width through the area. He stated this is why the matter is being field-checked now. Mr. Ken Vancil West Quincy Corporation -stated that he owns property at 1325 West Quincy Avenue, directly across from Mr. Holthaus' tenants. He stated that he sees no reason for the street to be put thru. He asked how many trucks to and from the industrial area are using South Lipan Street. Mr. Vancil agreed that a drainage system is needed. He noted that most of the businesses have docks on the street side of the buildings; or fences are built right up to the street. Mr. Vancil stated that he felt there was no traffic problem, and that there weren't many of the industrial trucks going thru the res~dential area. Page 1550 Mr. Frank Vasko 1441 West Quincy -stated tba t be bad no opposition to the street going tbru; "however, tre property is fully fenced, and if you do want to cut the street tbru, you will have to pay for moving the fence." Mr. Vasko stated be questioned whether or not there is indeed a 60 f.oot de..dication on South Navajo, and referred to bis survey which is dated 1957. If the additional 15' foot does have to be taken from bis property, he would lose considerable out- door storage area. Mr. Vasko stated that there is a roof extension from the building that would have to be removed also, and this would be an added expense. Mr. Vasko stated there will be "damage" to bis property if Navajo Street is "widened" to the 60 foot right-of-way. Mr. Vasko again stated that he questioned whether there are in face dedications for a 60 foot right-of-way. Mrs. Romans stated that the City does have documents that show it was the intent of Mr. Goorman to dedicate the east 30' of bis property for .rigbt.-of-way for Navajo Street and documents to show that it was the intent of the Taylor family to dedicate the west 30 ft. of their property for right-of-way. It is the position of the City of Englewood that there is indeed a 60 ft. right-of-way for South Navajp Street between West Quincy Avenue and West Princeton. If fences have been placed in this existing rigbt-of-w.ay by property owners, it is not the responsibility of the City to move those fences. Mr. Vasko commented tba t "we a .11 ba.ve good intentions; the fact of dedication is questionable." Mr. Smith stated that Navajo Street could be extended; if this does become reality, bis company plans to improve their prop~rty further --about 1.5 million dollars worth of new construction in warehouses and industrial buildings. Mr. Auer stated that at the tim~ Mr. Chavez bought bis property Trans-America Title Company shows only .one grant of easement. Mr. Vancil stated that he has two surveys on his property; be asked if there was a time period on dedications whereby if the dedication has not been used for street purpQses after a given number of years the dedication is null and void? Mr. Supinger stated that be was unaware of such a limitation on dedications. Mrs. Henning stated that she didn't feel the questions of whether or not there is 60 foot right-of-way on South Navajo Str.eet at this time is germaine to the request. Mrs. Henning questioned why the staff recommendation differs from that of the Voorhees Report, which shows an extension of South Windermere or Santa Fe Lane to the west of this area. Mr. Supinger stated that it is the feeling of the staff that it would be more feasible and far less expensive to "jog" from Windermere south of West Quincy over to Navajo Street up to Wes.t Oxford than it would be to purchase right-of-w.ay wba tsoever along Sou.th Santa Fe Lane from Quincy Avenue to West Oxford Avenue; furthermore, there is considerable development in this area. Mr. Lentsch asked how the City would go about buying Mr. Chavez property? Mr. Supinger stated there would have to be appraisals of the property, and negotiations with Mr. Chavez and the City would follow. If the nego.tia tions are not satisfactory, the City may exercise its power of eminent domain, and the price will be determined by the courts. Mr. Tanguma asked if extending South Navajo wouldn't be just a "stop gap" procedure; the Windermere /Santa Fe Lane route would extend straight thru to Kenyon Avenue. Mr. Supinger stated that be did not feel it was a "stop gap" measure at all; he again pointed out to Mr. Tanguma the extensive development that exists along the western route, and the fact that the City does not have any right-of-way whatsoever along this route. In view of these facts, he stated that he felttbe Navajo Street extension would have to be a long-range measure. Mr. Ross stated that he felt some issues had been raised which required further study befor~ a decision could be made. 1. Determination by an engineering study whether it is practical to "jog" around Mr. Chavez' building. 2. Whether or not the City .of Englewood does have an easement and even if such were dedicated, whether or not the dedication is still valid in view of its not having been used. Mr. Supinger pointed out that the Commission is only studying this matter in order to make a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Brown stated that he felt the Commission does need more information on this particular matter; be would like to see the Planning Commission know more of what they are recommending to City Council before they ~ecommend it. Brown moved: Ross & Martin seconded: This matter be tabled for further study and consideration. AYES: Tanguma; Vobejda; Weist; Brown; Henning; Lentsch; Ross ; Martin NAYS: None ABSENT: Stanley The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma stated that he wanted a study done on Windermere; for long-range planning, the extension 'of Windermere should be considered. Mr. Auer stated that he and his client wanted to be provided with the sta f f report "at least one week before it's put on the ag~nda." Mrs. Henning stated that City Council will be having a seminar on the traffic matter, and thought that it might be wise to sound them out on whether or not the Windermere alignment should be pursued. · ---- ------ ------------ I I I I I I VIII. STREET NAME CHANGE W. Tu!ts Avenue E. of Federal Boulevard \ \ \ \ Page 1551 CASE #16-73 Mrs. Romans stated that the matter of the street naming of West Tufts Avenue in the Centennial Acres area came up at the last Council meeting at which time the installation of a signal at "West Tufts" and South Federal Boulevard was .considered. On the east side of South Federal Boulevard, West Tufts Avenue intersects mid-way between West Stanford Avenue and West Stanford Drive. On the west side of South Federal Boulevard, West Tufts Avenue intersects south of West Stanford Drive. This has created confusion for persons .unfamiliar with the area, and also created confusion at the City Council meeting in trying to determi~e at which "West Tufts Avenue" and South Federal Boulevard the signal was to be installed. At the time the subdivision of the Cente~nial Industrial Park was considered, the City Engineer recommended that the east /west street be designated as West Tufts Avenue. The north /south street through the subdivision was designated "South Decatur Street." The City of Englewood vacated the portion of West Tufts Avenue which extended east of South Decatur Street upon a request from the Parks and Recreation Department. The staff now recommends that the portion of West Tufts Avenu~ east of South Federal Boulevard be designated "South Decatur Street"; this would tie into the north-south street designated at the present time as South Decatur Street. Mr. Ross asked if there had been comments received from any residents of the area? Mrs. Romans stated that residents of the area do feel it desirable that the street name be changed to South Decatur; there are no buildings abutting this particular street, which would have a "West Tufts" address. Henning moved: Vobejda seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the entire street extending from South Federal Boulevard to Union Avenue, a portion of which is presently designated ~s West Tufts Avenue, be designated as South Decatur Street. AYES: Vobejda; Weist; Brown; Henning; Lentsch; Martin; Ross; Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Stanley The motion carried. IX. MASTER STREET PLAN CASE #17-73 Mrs. Romans stated that on November 21, 1972, a letter was sent to the Planning Commission from City Manager Dial stating that the City Council had discussed the need for additional rights-of-way along certain streets, and asking that the Planning Commission consider this matter. The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance provides that before building permits can be issued on q piece of land that abuts designated streets in the Master Street Plan, the person who owns the property would have to dedicate his portio~n of the required right-of-way if the street were not dedicated to that width as required in the Master Street Plan. All building sites are required to abut upon a dedicated street. rs. Romans noted that in the past when land was being subdivided, the City required that right-of-way be dedicated on the plat. The City Attorney has stated that the City cannot require additional right-of-way in an approved .Subdivision. Mrs. Romans stated that at the time the Comprehensive Plan was written, it was the feeling of the City Attorney that it should not be in such detail that if, for instance, the re- quired right-of-way were to be changed it would not require a public hearing. There were also several undeveloped areas, which areas were indicated on the map accompanying the Master Street Plan section of the Comprehensive Plan, as needing rights-of-way but no specific streets were designated. Mrs. Romans then reviewed streets that need additional right-of-way. These streets are as follows: 1. West Baker Avenue between South Tejon Street and South Raritan Street:. 60 foot minimum right-of-way. (589.5' x 30' additional right-of-way required on the south side.) 2. West Yale Avenue between South Zuni Street and South Tejon Street: 80 foot minimum right-of-way. (1263.5' x 50' additional right-of-way required on the : north side.) 3. South Wyandot Street between West Bates Avenue and West Cornell Avenue: 60 foot minimum right-of-way. (630' x 15' additional right-of-way required on the west side and 630' x 15' additional right-of-way required on the east side.) 4. South Vallejo Street between West Bates Avenue and West Cornell Avenue: 60 foot minimum right-of-way. (482.8' x 15' additional right-of-way required on the .west side, and 630' ·X 15' additional right~of~way required on the east .side.) 5. South Umatilla Street between West Bates Avenue and West Cornell Avenue: 60 foot minimum right-of-way. (630' x 15' additional right-of-way required on the west side, and 630' x 15' additional right-of-way required on the east side.) 6. South Shoshone Street between West Bates Avenue and West Cornell Avenue: 60 foot minimum .right-of-way. (630' x 15' additional right-of-way required ori the west side and .630' x 15' additional right-of-way required on the east side.) 7. South Wyandot Street between West Cornell Avenue and West Dartmouth Avenue: 60 foot minimum right-of-way. (598.6' x 15' additional right-of-way required on the west side and 598.6' x 15' additional right-of-way required on the east side.) 8. South Vallejo Street between West Cornell Avenue and West Dartmouth Avenue: 60 foot minimum right-of-way. (598.6' x 15' additional right-of-way required on the west side and 598.6' x 15' additional right-of-way required on the east side.) 9. South Umatilla Street between West Cornell Avenue and West Dartmouth Avenue: 60 foot minimum right-of-way. (598.6' x 15' additional right-of-way required on the west side and 598.6' x 15' additional right-of-way on the east side.) Page 1552 10. South Galapago Street between West Bates Avenue and West Cornell Avenue: 60 foot minimum right-of-way. (660' x 30' additional right-of-way required on the west side.) 11. South Navajo Street between West Oxford Avenue and West Princeton Avenue extended: 60 foot minimum right-of-way. (610' x 30' right-of-way required on the west side and 610' x 30' right-of-way required on the east side.) 12. South Navajo Street between West Princeton Avenue, extended, and West Quincy Avenue:. 60 foot minimum right-of-way. (631.8' x 15' additional right-of-way required on the west side and 631.8' x 15' additional right-of-way required on the east side.) Mrs. Romans stated that the staff recommendation would be to amend the Master Street Plan; a suggested date for the Public Hearing is April 17th. These streets would then be included in the Comprehensive Plan, and would be recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder. The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance would preclude building until the right-of-way is given, or the City can purchase the right-of-way. Mrs. Romans noted that there was one street that was previously included that the staff omitted: East Bates Avenue between Clarkson and Emerson. If it is the desire of the Planning Commission, East Bates can also be included on the list, and the determination made at the Public Hearing whether or not Bates should be vacated or additional right-of-way required. Martin moved: Ross seconded: The Planning Commission hold a Public Hearing on April 17, 1973, to consider amendment of the Master Street Plan Section of the Comprehensive Plan. This amendment is to establish rights-of-ways on streets as set forth in the staff report, with the addition of East Bates Avenue between South Clarkson Street and South Emerson Street. Mr.Tanguma expressed concern that the Hearing date of April 17th would not be sufficient time for notification of persons concerned. Mrs. Henning pointed out that there would be two Public Hearings on this matter; one before the Planning Commission, and one before the City Council. Mr. Lentsch asked if Council had appropriated monies for the purchase of rights-of-way? Mrs. Henning stated that there was no money appropriated for specific purchase of right-of-way; however, there will not be a paving district this year, and the funds usually used for paving district may be used for rights-of-ways. The vote was called: AYES: Weist; Brown; Lentsch; Martin; Ross; Tanguma; Vobejda NAYS: Henning ABSENT: Stanley The motion carried. Mrs. Henning stated that she did not feel that East Bates Avenue should be included. X. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr.Supinger stated that relative to the rezoning request of P. Arthur Tague, Mr. John Criswell, counsel for Mr. Tague, has stated that attempts are being made to consolidate ownerships on the north 1 /2 of the block. In light of this, Mr. Criswell has suggested that any action by the Commission to initiate rezoning of the total block might be delayed until it can be deter- mined whether the ownership consolidation is feasible. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt Mr. Criswell's suggestion was proper, but that if the Commission does not have any information on this matter after some length of time that he felt initiation of rezoning procedures would then be proper. Mr. Supinger stated that Mrs. Stanley has stated that her illness will preclude her attendance at the DRCOG dinner meeting the evening of March 21 at the Brown Palace. He asked if another member of the Commission would like to go, or if a member of the staff could go. It was determined that Mrs. Dorothy Romans, Assistant Director, should go to the COG dinner meeting. Mr. Supinger reminded Commission members of the March 29th meeting of the Core Area Citizen's Committee. This meeting is the "kick-off" meeting for the Core Area study. Mr. Supinger . asked if the office could assume that all members who have not contacted the office specifically are planning to participate on this committee? Mr. Weist asked "what is the specific charge of this group?" Mr. Supinger stated that the consultant hopes to provide a plan for redevelopment of the core area, and wants to have citizen in-put, understanding and support. Mr. Lentsch stated that it was pointed out several years ago that such a program would have to have the participation of citizens and service organizations. Mr. Supinger stated that the entire consulting team will be in attendance at the meeting on March .29th, which will be at 7:30 P.M., in the Community Room. Mr.Weist asked if the entire 13-month program would be completed before any action is taken, or would action be taken when possible as the program progresses? Mr. Supinger stated that he hoped some of the recommendations could be implemented prior to completion of the 13-month program. Mr. Supinger stated there will be a meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission on April 2nd. Those planning to attend should contact Dolores Long, City Manage~'s Secretary. Mrs. Vobejda, Mr. Tanguma, Mrs. Henning, Mr. Lentsch, Mr. Martin, Mr. Weist, and Mr. Brown stated that they did plan to attend the Council /Planning Commission meeting on April 2nd. Mr.Supinger reminded Commission members of a meeting set for March 27th with the Planning Commission, Housing Action Force, Housing Authority and Urban Renewal Authority for the pre- sentation by the Council of Governments of the "HOUSING ALLOCATION PLAN" for the metro area •. Members were urged to attend this meeting. I I I I I I XI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. I \ \ \ \ Page 1553 Mr. Ross stated that he would like it noted that he does agree with Mrs. Henning on the matter of compensation for Planning Commission members. Mr. Ross stated that he feels citizens have a duty to serve on boards and commissions when so appointed if it is at all possible for them to do so. Mr. Ross stated that had he been able to be present at the meeting when this matter was considered by the Commission, he would have voted in opposition to the recommendation. Mr. Lentsch stated that he agreed with Mr. Ross' statements; however, if one board is to be paid, he felt that it was only fair to compensate members of the other boards at the same rate. Mr. Lentsch stated that it must be determined at this meeting who is to attend the ASPO Conference in Los Angeles April 7 -12. He stated that Mrs. Stanley , Mrs. Henning, Mr. Martin and he have all indicated an interest in attending. Mr.. Lentsch then suggested that perhaps a vote could be taken to determine those attending. Mr. Lentsch and Mr. Martin will attend the ASPO Conference. The meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording .Secretary \ \ \ \ \ \ -\_ MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: March 20, 1973 SUBJECT: Street Name Change RECOMMENDATION: Henning moved : \ \ \ \ \ \ Vobejda seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the entire street extending from South Federal Boulevard to Union Avenue, a portion of which is presently designated as West Tufts Avenue, be designated as South Decatur Street. AYES: Vobejda; Weist; Brown; Henning; Lentsch; Martin; Ross; Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Stanley The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 17, 1973 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P.M., Chairman Lentsch presiding. Members present: Weist; Tanguma; Stanley; Martin; Lentsch Supinger, Ex-officio Members absept: Brown; Vobejda; Henning Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director \ \ \ I - - -- -- - ---- -- ---- - --- --- --- II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Lentsch stated that Minutes of the meeting of March 20, 1973, were to be considered for approval. Weist moved: Tanguma & Martin seconded: The Minutes of March 20, 1973, be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: Weist; Tanguma; Stanley; Martin; Lentsch None ABSENT: Henning; Brown; Vobejda ---- -- ------ - - - - - - - - ----- - - - \ \ \ \ l \