Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-04-17 PZC MINUTESI 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 \ Page 1554 III. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Amendment to Master Street Plan Section Martin moved: CASE #17-73A March 20, 1973 Weist seconded: The Public Hearing on amendment of the Master Street Plan be opened. AYES: Lentsch; Weist; Tanguma; Stan~ey; Martin NAYS: None ABSENT: Henning; Brown; Vobejda The motion carried. Mrs. Vobejda entered and took her place with the Commission. Mrs. Romans ,stated that notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Herald Sentinel on March 29, 1973. Mrs. Romans stated that the Comprehensive Plan was adopted by Resolution #28, Series of 1969. At .the time of adoption, it was the opinion of the City Attorney that the Plan should be "general" in nature. Mrs. Romans stated that the Master Street Plan Section of the Comprehensive Plan identifies six areas in the City where additional right-of-way is needed; five of these areas are in the industrial segment of the City. These areas are: (1) Yale to Harvard, Tejon to Pecos. (2) South of Dartmouth Avenue, west of South Platte River Drive. (3) Dartmouth Avenue to Yale Avenue, east of South Platte River Drive. (4) Oxford to Stanford Avenue west of South Lipan Street. (5) South of Union Avenue from South Decatur Street east to the South Platte River. (6) The Larwin site (former KLZ tower site). Mrs. Romans stated that it was brought to the attention of City Council at a meeting late in 1972 that there were certain areas where right-of-way needs should be identified. Mrs. Romans noted that the Commission has information sent to them for the March 20th meeting, plus an addendum to that information submitted to the Commission prior to this meeting. Mrs. Romans then reviewed the identified right-of-way needs, which 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 40' 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) (5) 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.) 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 on 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 required on the east side.) (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 xequired 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.) (13) East Bates Avenue between South Clarkson Street and South Emerson Street: 50 foot minimum right-of-way. (366' x 30' additional right-of-way required on the north side.) Mr. Tanguma asked why needed right-of-way is sometimes listed as coming from just one side of the street? Mrs. Romans explained that where this is done, the right~of-way has been given from the property on the other side of the street. Mr. Martin asked why the total of 80 ft. right-of-way for Yale and only a 60 ft. r~ght-of­ way for the other streets listed? Mrs. Romans stated that it is anticipated that Yale Avenue will become a major arterial; therefore, the 80 foot right-of-way requirement. I I I I I I \ \ \ Page 1555 Mr. Tanguma asked the minimum distance a building could be from the right-of-way? Mrs. Romans stated there ~as no required front set-back in an industrial zone district. Mr. Supinger pointed out that this did not mean that the building would necessarily be up against the curb and side-walk. Mrs. Romans pointed out that in a 60 ft. right-of-way, there would probably be a 44 ft. roadway; in an 80 ft. right-of-way, there would probably be a 64 ft. roadway. Mrs. Romans stated that the portion of South Navajo Street between Oxford and Princeton Avenu~s, there is existing a 20 ft. utility easement. The entire 60 ft. right-of-way would be from one property for this stretch of Navajo. Mrs. Romans stated that on the portion of South Navajo Strek t between Princeton and Quincy . Avenues, it is the opinion of the Director of Public Works and City Engineer that the City does have the required 60 ft. right-of-way at the present time. It is felt that the "acquisi- tion'' portion of this requ~st sbould be eliminated, but that the projected street should be shown on the Master Street Plan. \ On East Bates Avenue between South ciarkson and South Emerson streets, it would be necessary to purchase a house to meet the right-of-way needs. The Director of Parks and Recreation has called attention to the fact that there will be a "mini-park" on the property west of Emerson just south of Bates Avenue, and it is .his feeling that traffic should not be increased in this area. He has, therefore, suggested that perhaps one-way traffic within the existing right-of-way (20 ft.) be instituted to give access to the area for fire and police equipment, and the public. I Mrs. Romans stated that it is the recommendation of the staff that Items #1 thru #11 be recommended to City Council; Item #12 be excluded, and Item #13 be excluded. Mr. Lentsch asked that any members of the audience who wished to speak to this matter before the Commission come forth and give their name and address. Mr. John McMurtry 2890 S. Clarkson -stated that he was speaking for Mr. and Mrs. Moody, 2900 South Clarkson , as well as for himself. He stated that they did not want to see East Bates Avenue put thru. Mr. McMurtry stated that some years ago, an attempt was made to close Bates Avenue for this portion, but the Fire Department determined that access must be maintained. Mr. McMurtry discussed the widening of C~arkson and the resultant motorcyclists using the street until 2 A.M. Mr. McMurtry stated that he approved of the proposed "mini-:-park" in that location, and discussed the problems of flooding that have occurred in the area. The drainage program will soon eliminate this problem, and he felt that it made sense to have a small park with restricted traffic in the area. Mr. McMurtry stated that speaking for the Moody's and his family, they would be in favor of the 20 ft. one-way street and the .mini-park. He felt this would be a very attractive addition to the City. Mr. Douglass Auer, attorney for Sam Chavez, stated that they .had several questions. Mr. Auer asked if the matter of South Navajo Street were discussed at this time as part of the Master Street Plan, what affect would this have on the next item on the Agenda, which is the request for extension of South Navajo Street from Quincy to Oxford? Mr. Lentsch pointed out that discussion of South Navajo Street was .tabled at the last meeting, and he would assume that it could not be discussed again until it has been raised from the table. Mr. Supinger suggested that the two .items are inter-related, and that the Commission might want to "continue the public hearing until after .discussion of the South Navajo .extension, Item #4, on the Agenda. Discussion followed. Vobejda moved: Martin seconded: The Public Hearing be continued until after discussion o f Item #4 on the Agenda. AYES: Martin; Lentsch; Weist; Vobejda; Tanguma; Stanley NAYS: None ABSENT: Henning; Brown The motion carried. IV. SOUTH NAVAJO STREET West O~ford to West Quincy Avenue Weist moved: l . \ \ - -- - f 1 \ \ l CASE #15-73A March 20, 1973 Vobejda seconded: . Case #15-73, proposed extension of South Navajo Street from West Oxford Avenue to Wes~ Quincy Avenue, be moved f~om the table. AYES: Martin; L~ntsch; Weist; Vobejda; Tangum~; Stanley NAYS: None . ABSENT: Henning; Brown The motion carried. Mrs. Romans stated that at the meeting of March 20th, the request submitted by Mr. William Holthaus to open South Navajo Street between West Quincy Avenue and West oxford Avenue was considered. Several questions were raised, and the matter was tabled to enable the staff to do further research. Mrs. Romans stated that one question was whether. or not the City did, in fact, have a 60 ft. dedication for right-of-way on ~outh Navajo Street between West Quincy Avenue and West Princeton Avenue. It is. the opinion of the Director of. Public Works and the City Engineer that the City of Englewood does have a 60 ft. dedication between Quincy and Princeton for South Navajo Street. l l l l \ Page 1556 Mrs. Romans stated that a second question was on the possible loss of dedicated right-of-way. that has not been used for street purposes after a certain number of years. Mrs. Romans stated that the City Attorney has rendered a written opinion that once right-of-way is dedicated to the City, it is not. lost just because it has not been put to use. Mrs. Romans stated that a third question is whether or not Mr. Chavez' building would be damaged by extending a 60 foot right-of-way for Navajo between West Princeton Avenue and West Oxford Avenue. Mrs. Romans stated that the Public Works Department has assured her that the building will .not be damaged by the extension of the 60 foot right-of-way. Mr,s. Romans emphasized that we are talking about "right-of-way, and not roadway." Mrs. Romans referred to an aerial photograph of this area, and noted that to develop the Windermere alignment from West Quincy Avenue to West Oxford Avenue would entail removal of several buildings; there would also be the problem of railroad spurs if this route were to be used. The economics involved would render this route unfeasible. Mrs. Romans pointed out that at this time, trucks and other industrial traffic is forced to use South Lipan Street, which street is residential. Mrs. Romans emphasized that good planning principles do not impose industrial traffic .on a residential street. Mrs. Romans reiterated that the City does have the 60 ft. right-of-way for South Navajo be- tween West Quincy A venue and West Princeton A venue; there can be a 60 ft. right-of-way, 44 ft • roadway on South Navajo Street between West Princeton Avenue and West Oxfo~d Avenue without damaging buildings on Mr. Chavez' property; it is economically unfeasible to ex~end Windermere on the present alignment between West Quincy and West Oxford. Mr. Tanguma asked if anyone had made a study of the number of trucks using South Lipan Street? Mrs. Romans stated that there is no traffic count; however, South Lipan Street is posted to prohibit truck traffic, but a truck may use any given street enroute to a destination point~ Mrs. Romans emphasized that "this is a very intensive industrial area with insufficient access." Mr. Lentsch stated that he would now hear the proponents if they had additional information they wished to present. No one indicated additional information. Mr. Lentsch then asked that the opposition be given an opportunity to speak. Mr. Douglass Auer, attorney for Mr. Sam Chavez, stated that he wanted to protect the business of his client, and that if land is taken from .Mr. Chavez, that a fair market value is paid to Mr. Chavez. Mr. Auer stated that in the deeds to Mr. Chavez' property, there is only an ex- clusion for a 20 ft. utility easement between West Princeton and West Oxford Avenue. There is no other exclusion whatsoever. Mr. Auer stated that Mr. Chavez had measured from the corner of his building to the building just west of his property; there is a distance of 59' between these two buildings. Mr. Auer emphasized that this is an "approximation". Mr. Auer stated that while the roadway may be only 44 ft., "how much land taking is there going to be?" Mr. Auer stated that there would be interference of business as a result of traffic using South Navajo Street if it were to be extended. Mr. Auer stated that "some of the building may be in the .way" of the required 60 ft. right-of-way. Mr. Auer further discussed the matter of the easement vs. right-of-way which exists along South Navajo Street extended, from Princeton to Oxford Avenu~. Mr. Supinger interjected that the City is saying that the right-of-way is existing on South Navajo from West Quincy to West Princeton; no right-of-way exists along Navajo Street extended from Princeton to Oxford. This right-of-way is still to be obtained. Discussion followed. Mr. Auer asked how much right-of-way the City wanted? Mrs. Romans stated that a 60 ft. width x 610 ft. length right-of-way is needed. Mr. Auer stated that "we are talking about a new building that was very expensive; there will be a business interruption while the building is moved." Mr. Supinger stated that relocation of the building is not proposed. Mr. Auer stated that he felt there should be a survey of the property the City proposes to take, how much the City appraisers think it would cost the City, how much his client's appraisers think it would cost the City. Mr. Auer stated that "it may be less expensive to take the Windermere route rather than extending Navajo Street. Windermere does seem to be more logical." Mr. Auer pointed out t~ere is no indication how much the street ex-tension will cost the City of Englewood. Mr. Supinger reiterated that the Navajo Street extension as proposed could be accomplished without taking a part of any building; if the Windermere route were to be taken, it would necessitate the taking of parts of at least three buildings. Mr. Supinger stated that be- cause of these improvements on the Windermere alignment, it is felt that it would be more desirable to go on the Navajo alignment. -Mr. Weist stated that as he understood, Mr. Chavez built his building with a 30 ft. right- of-way thru his property planned for some time in the future; however, the City had a 60 ft. right-of-way from Princeton to Quincy; Mr. Chavez states that he worked very closely with the City in locating the structure to provide for the required ,right-of-way. Mr. Weist asked how the misunderstanding of 30 ft. right-of-way versus 60 ft. right-of-way came about? Discussion followed. Mr. Weist noted that it is the position of the City there will be no interference with the operation of the business. Further discussion followed. Mr. Supinger noted that if interruption of the business occurred, it would have to be taken into account in the appraisal. Mr. Auer stated that he felt his client should receive "fair compensation" f-or any property that would be taken for the street extension. Mr. Auer further stated that he did not feel industrial traffic would be diverted from South Lipan Street to South Navajo Street if Navajo Street were to be extended. Discussion followed. Mr. Martin suggested that perhaps a little more investigation into the actual cost figures would be in order; he did state that he didn't completely agree that a constructive taking would require co~plete removal of the building. Mr. Martin stated that he did not feel Windermere extension was a good alternative; in fact, stated Mr. Martin~ Navajo Street ex- tension is the only alternative we have." Further discussion followed. I I I I I I \ \ I Page 1557 Mrs. Romans stated that .the Public Works Department has stated that the amount of land needed for the right-of-way is 610' x 60', all of which will come from Mr. Chavez' property. Mr. Supinger noted that the Engineering Division could provide an estimate of the land cost; this is not the same as an appraisal. Mr. Supinger noted that an appraisal would take more time to complete and more cost involved. Mr. Martin asked "if we were to agree to the designation of the right-of-way and at some later date it was determined there was a constructive taking of the building, would the City be prepared to reimburse Mr. Chavez for damages?" Mr. Supinger stated that the City would have to do so. Mr. Lentsch stated that "our concern is not the cost, but whether the proposal is good or bad for the City." Mr. Supinger pointed out that "the action as is proposed does not obligate the City to buy the right-of-way." If the request were to be approved by City Council to establish a 60 ft. right-of-way for Navajo from Princeton to oxford, it would mean that Mr. Chavez would have to locate further improvements in an area other than the 60 ft. right-of-way. Purchase of the property by the City would be a separate action from the designation of the right-of-way as is proposed. Mr. Tanguma discussed the RTD and PRT, which, in his opinion, "will affect the area quite a bit." Mr. Tanguma stated that RTD and/or PRT will definitely affect Windermere Street and he "really didn't see where this little bit of street (Navajo) will serve the City that well." Mr. Tanguma stated that he does "not think there can be that much traffic on Lipan when you have Santa Fe Drive and Broadway, both heavy traffic carriers." Mr. Tanguma stated that he did not know how far away the RTD proposals are, but that they would affect the industrial area to a great extent; he stated that he could not see spending a possible $200,000 to ex- tend Navajo Street for one or two blocks. Mr. Lentsch asked if Mr. Chavez could continue business in this location if the land was taken for street purposes? Mr. Auer stated that inasmuch as the Engineer has determined that an area 610' x 60' must be designated for street purposes, "this will remove any question of constructive taking, and will take a good 20' of the western portion of the building." It would require removal of the entire building to another location. Mr. Auer pointed out that there is a paint spray operation on the western end of the building, and that the western side of the building is 35' to 40' from the property line. Mr. Auer stated that the building is steel on a concrete pad; the equipment within the building can be salvaged, as can the building itself, but the concrete pad would be a total loss. Mr. Auer reiterated his .charge of "business interruption." Mrs. Romans stated that the City Engineer has said he worked very closely with Mr. Chavez on the location of the building, and that if Mr. Chavez did indeed locate the building where it was indicated at that time by the City Engineer, there is sufficient land area for the 60 ft. right-of-way designation without damage to the building. Discussion followed. Mr. Chavez stated that if a 60 ft. right-of-way were taken he didn't think any of the building would have to be taken. Mr. Chavez stated that he had measured 60' from the corner of his building to his property line; there is 4' between the ·property line and the building to the west. Mr. Chic Smith, President of Martin Shippers & Supply, verified Mr. Chavez statements; he stated that they had just recently had a survey made, and there is 64' between the two buildings. A 60' right-of-way extension of Navajo Street would be "clear" from Quincy to Oxford Avenue. Mr. Chavez stated that he felt the extension of Navajo Street was "piece-meal", and further discussed the possibility of the Columbine Freeway on the Santa Fe Drive alignment. Mr. Chavez stated "if you pass on this you will satisfy Mr. Holthaus; do you satisfy one man or do you satisfy the entire City?" Mr. Chavez pointed out that he bought his land to enable him to park a stock of automobiles until he can work on them; he now is parking cars on rental property because he has insufficient space. Mr. Wm. Holthaus stated that he owned four acres along Windermere and Navajo Street. Mr. Holthaus stated that he did not care if both Windermere and Navajo Streets were cut thru, that it is only logical and common sense to get traffic away from the residential area on Lipan Street. Mr. Holthaus stated that he cannot at the present time get sewage service or water service to his property --he noted that one employee brings drinking water to work. Mr. Chic Smith, Martin Shippers & Supply, 1366 West Oxford, discussed the traffic problems when employees from their establishment and Mr. Chavez' establishment leave work --·inasmuch as Navajo Street is not opened, they must all use Oxford Avenue. Mr. Smith stated that they wanted to develop their property further and the "only real access to it would be to the east from South Navajo Street." If Navajo Street were to be extended and opened, "this will give direct access to both Quincy and Oxford Avenue for commercial and industrial traffic." Mr. Smith stated that he felt the improvements that could be made and the resultant increased tax base would off-set any investment that the City might have in the street improvements it- self. Mr. Smith noted there would be increased property value; traffic patterns would be improved, and industrial traffic would be removed from residential streets. Mr. Smith stated that their MIA appraisal was available to the City at any time for no charge. Mr. Smith stated that he and his company are very much i ~ favor of the Navajo Street extension. Mr. Ken Vancil West Quincy Corporation -stated that he .does not think the City does have the right-of-way for Navajo St~eet from Princeton to Quincy. Mr. Vancil stated that the opponents were promised a report at least 10 days in advance of the next meeting, but this was not the case. Mr. Vancil stated that "there is very little truck traffic using Lipan." Mr. Vancil stated that he wanted to see a survey and a traffic count of the area before a decision was made. Mr. Vancil reiterated that it is his opinion that the City does not have any right-of-way for South Navajo Street. \ \ \ \ Page 1558 Mr. Tanguma again discussed the RTD proposal and the PRT proposal. Mr. Tanguma stated that 11 the PRT will come thru Littleton into Denver, and will cover the entire area", and he sees this happening within the next 10 years. Mr. Tanguma stated that he did not feel Englewood could justify spending "that kind of money" to improve and extend South Navajo Street for two blocks. Mr. Tanguma stated that he does "not see whe~e Navajo Street will buy a lot for the next 10 years." Mr. Tanguma stated that he wanted .a study of traffic on Lipan Street and an official survey of the property lines in the subject area from Quincy to Oxford. Mr. Weist stated that it has been demonstrated there is a reasonable need for this right-of- way to be opened for the development of the street. Mr. Weist stated that he felt the 60 ft. right-of-way was feasible from OXford to Princeton, and that the Planning Commission should go ahead with whatever steps it takes to obtain this right-of-way. Further discussion followed. Tanguma moved: Vobejda seconded: That a study of industrial traffic on South Lipan Street between OXford. and Quincy be instituted, and an official survey of the proposed street from Quincy to Oxford be obtained. Mr. Martin stated that he was in agreement with Mr. Weist's sentiments on the need for the street extension. Mr. Martin stated that he did not feel that it has been proved a hard- ship on Mr. Chavez if the property is designated for right-of-way and he receives compensation for same. Mr. Martin stated he felt the Planning Commisqion should proceed with steps to assure the designation of the right-of-way. Mr. Tanguma stated "it appears that my colleagues have taken my opinion as a stand with Mr •. Chaves." Mr. Tanguma stated that he "is concerned with the cost to the City of Englewood." Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch stated that he too was concerned about the cost. He noted that some of the property owners in the area have been there for some time, and asked why they were just now doing something about access? Mr. Smith stated that until very recently, he did not have a vested right in the property, but only leased. He is now a property owner and wants to see improved access. Mr. Holthaus stated that he wished the access had been improved eight years ago; he stated that he had purchased additional property in the area about that time, and until now didn't feel he had the proper finances to see if he could "push it thru." Mr. Holthaus again dis- cussed the need fo~ utilities on his property. Mr. Chavez noted there was a utility ease- ment thru his property at the present time, and asked if this couldn't be used to solve Mr. Holthaus problem without opening the street. Mr. Holthaus agreed there was a water line there, but that he could not get across to the line. Mr. Smith reiterated the need for an improved traffic pattern in the area, and improved access for his particular business. The vote was called: AYES: Lentsch; Vobejda; Tanguma NAYS: Stanley; Martin; Weist ABSENT: Henning; Brown The motion failed. Mr. Martin moved: Tanguma seconded: The matter be tabled until the next regular meeting. AYES: .Tanguma; Stanley; Martin; Lentsch; Vobejda NAYS: Weist; ABSENT: Henning; Brown The motion carried. ---- - ---- - -- ------ - - - - - -- --- III. MASTER STREET PLAN CASE #17-73A Tanguma moved: Vobejda seconded: The Public Hearing on amendment of the Master Street Plan be closed. AYES: Vobejda; Tanguma; Stanley; Martin; Lentsch; Weist NAYS: None ABSENT: Henning; Brown ~he motion carried. Martin moved: Vobejda seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the Master Street Plan be amended to show the following designated rights-of-way: (1) West Baker Avenue between South Tejon Street and South Raritan Street: 60 foot minimum right-of-way. (589.5' x 30' additiona~ 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 40' additional right-of- way required on the north side.) (3) South Wyandot Street bet~een 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-o.f-way. required on the east side.) (4) South Vallejo Street between West Bates Avenue and West Cornell I I I I I I Page 1559 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-o f -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.) (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 required on the east side.) (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.) AYES: Weist; Vobejda; Tanguma; Stanley; Lentsch; Martin NAYS: None ABSENT: Henning; Brown The motion carried. I - ----------- --- - - ----- - V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Supinger stated that in view of the presentation from the Denver Regional Council of Governments, he would like to suggest that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that they go on record as agreeing with the Housing Goals established by the Council of Governments , and with the Regional Allocation Plan. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff feels the City should take affirmative action and support the Housing Goals and Allocation Plan. Mr. Weist asked if this was under the Urban Renewal Authority and Housing Authority? Mr. Weist also asked what the thinking is of the Planning Department on the allocation for Englewood: 194 low-income units, and 192 moderate-income units; also, what is the thinking on the location of these units? Mr. Supinger stated there has been no determination made on the matter of location; he noted that City Council did, on April 16th, approve an $80,000 Revolving Loan Fund. Mr. Tanguma stated that he understood the low-income and moderate income housing is to be dispersed all over the City. Mr. Tanguma also noted that when they talk about "new" units, they also include renovated units that are to be used for low and moderate income housing. Mr. Lentsch stated that he has not been too impressed with some of the low-income housing developments that he has seen; he stated that if they were "properly planned", they were rather nice, but these seem to be very few. Mr. Tanguma stated that it was ,his opinion "they aren't saying you have to build this type of housing, they are saying the metro area has this problem and our share is "X" amount of housing to alleviate this problem." Tanguma moved: Vobejda seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the City of Englewood support the Housing Goals and Housing Allocation Plan as presented by the Denver Regional Council of Governments. AYES: Weist; Lentsch; Martin; Stanley ; Tanguma; Vobejda NAYS: None ABSENT: Henning; Brown The motion carried. Mr. Supinger stated that he would defer his report on the Los Ang ~les ASPO Conference at this time. VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Martin stated that he had written a report on his attendance at the ASPO Conference. This report was submitted to the staff for duplication and submission to the Commission at a later date. Mr. Lentsch stated that some o f the high-lights of the Conference were: (1) Planning is to protect the citizens and not the developer. l \ l l I Page 1560 (2) The Planning Commission should work with the developer because the developer is a planner in his own right. (3) The developer should prove the development is good for the community, and not the people prove it is not good for the community. (4) Look at the over-all picture of the developer's plans. (5) Should consider increase of visitations because it might be a hardship on the community if you don't. (6) In a study in Los Angeles, the City gave $250,000 toward the study, and the business- men gave $400,000. (7) A housing project which has failed (cluster development). (8) All parking spaces were marked throughout the City, and curbing is painted red where parking is restricted. Mr. Lentsch stated that on Friday following the end of the Conference, he visited LaHabra; within a six block area, .they have a community development of apartment houses, shopping center, residential uses from $50,000 to $75,000 homes, mobile home parks. Mr. Lentsch stated that they were "restricted" mobile home parks, but that they were very attractively designed, and "were beautiful mobile home parks." Mr. Lentsch also discussed the "dial-a-bus" system; he stated that there was a 20 to 30 minute wait on the day he used the system. They pick you up at your door in a mini-bus and take you to wherever you want to go for $.50 a person. Mr. Lentsch stated that there was a lot of under-ground parking in California. He felt there needed to be more under- ground parking in Englewood. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATlON OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: April 17, 1973 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: Martin moved: Vobejda seconded: Amendment of Master Street Plan The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the Master Street Plan be amended to show the following designated rights-of-way: (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 40' additional right-of- way required on the south 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: 60 foot minimum right-of-way. right-of-way required on the west side, right-of-way required on the east side. Avenue and West Cornell (482.8' x 15' additional and 630' x 15' additional (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 on the west side and 630 1 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.) I I I I I I Page 1561 (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 required .on the east side.) (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.) AYES: Weist; Vobejda; Tanguma; Stanley; Lentsch; Martin NAYS: None ABSENT: Henning; Brown The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: April 17, 1973 SUBJECT: Council of Governments Programs. RECOMMENDATION: Tanguma moved: Vobejda seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the City of Englewood support the Housing Goals and Housing .Allocation Plan as presented by the Denver Regional Council of Governments. AYES: Weist; Lentsch; Martin; Stanley; Tanguma; Vobejda NAYS: None ABSENT: Henning; Brown 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. MAY 8, 1973 I. CALL TO ORDER. The Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P. M. by Chairman Leo Lentsch. Members present: Henning; Martin; Stanley; Tanguma; Lentsch; Vobejda Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Jorgenson; Brown; Weist II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Lentsch stated that Minutes of April 17, 1973, were to be considered for approval. Vobejda moved: Stanley seconded: The Minutes of April 17, 1973, be approved as written. AYES: Vobejda; Tanguma; Stanley; Lentsch; Martin NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Henning ABSENT: Weist; Brown; Jorgenson The motion carried. -- --- -- --------- ---- - - - - --