Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-06-18 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 18, 1974 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Martin at 8:00 P.M. Members present: Jones; Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin; Tanguma; Wade Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Brown; Smith; Weist Also present: Assistant Director Romans; Assistant City Attorney Lee; Planning Assistant House. Chairman Martin welcomed Mr. Jones as the new Council member of the Commission. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Martin stated that Minutes of May 28, 1974, and June 4, 1974, were to be considered for approval. Jorgenson moved: Wade seconded: The Minutes of May 28, 1974, and June 4, 1974, be approved as written . AYES: Jones; Wade; Tanguma; Martin; Lentsch; Jorgenson NAYS: None ABSENT: Brown; Weist; Smith The motion carried. Mr. Smith entered and took his place with the Commission. III. SANTA FE-UNION ANNEXATION AREA County Zoning to R-1-C CASE #15-74 Mr. Martin stated that after the hearings on the proposed zoning are opened, those in favor of the zoning will be asked to speak, followed by those in opposition to the proposed zoning. Mr. Martin asked that all persons wishing to speak come to the podium and give their name and address. Lentsch moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #15-74 be opened. AYES: Jorgenson; Jones; Wade; Tanguma; Smith; Martin; Lentsch NAYS: None ABSENT: Brown; Weist The motion carried. • • • -~- Mr. Manning 1540 West Tufts Avenue -stated that he had some questions on the proposed R-1-C zoning; he asked that any difference between the County R-1 zoning and the Englewood R-1-C zoning be explained. Mr. Supinger explained that there is no zoning on Mr. Manning's property at the present time; the R-1-C zoning is the least restrictive of the City's single-family zoning classifications; the R-1-C requires a minimum 50 ft. frontage, 6,000 sq. ft. lot area for a single-family residence. Mr. Manning asked if he was correct in the assumption the annexation was not official at this time? Mr. Lee stated that the annexation was effective on the date the ordinance was passed; there has been a challenge filed within the per- mitted 45 day time period, but the statutes state that until a court decision is rendered, the land is to be treated as a part of the City of Englewood. Mr. M~nning asked what the setback restrictions were between an R-1-C piece of property and an I-1 piece of property? Mr. Supinger stated that the setback is 10 ft. minimum; there are provisions that a solid wood fence or block wall would be constructed on the property line for screening purposes. Mr. Martin asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to speak in favor of the R-1-C zoning? No one indicated they wanted to speak. Mr. Martin asked that those persons in opposition to the R-1-C zoning present their case. Mr. Tom Eitel 4301 South Broadway -stated that he represented Mr. & Mrs. Leon Mardesen, who own property at 1590 West Tufts Avenue; they reside at 6875 South Bellaire Way, Englewood. Mr. Eitel stated that Mr. & Mrs. Mardesen own property abutting Mr. Manning's property, and this property is proposed as R-1-C. They have industrial zoning in the County, and protest the change of zoning on their property. Mr. Eitel noted that upon examination of the land and the development in the area, it is of industrial character, and should, as the staff report recommends, be zoned light industrial. Mr. Eitel stated that the Commission would "be creating an R-1-C island; it would stymie good industrial development and growth in this area," and would deprive property owners of the use of the land for future development. Mr. Eitel stated that the property has been zoned I-1 in the County for a number of years. Mr. Eitel noted that the County zoning did have a 50 ft. setback on industrial property abutting a residential property; he stated that he felt this provision was unreasonable, and has been modified . Mr. Brown entered and took his place with the Commission. • • • -3- Mr. Eitel stated that in changing zone classifications, one looks at the change in character of the neighborhood; there has not been a change in character of the subject neighborhood, and to change the zoning classifications would be acting contrary to sound zoning principles. Mr. Eitel stated that the Mardesen's could not build houses on this property, they could not get financing for such construction. Mr. J. F. Moore 1515 West Thomas -stated that his company owns the property to the south~ast of Mr. Mardesen's property. Mr. Moore stated that the zoning on their property had been changed from R-4 (Residential-Professional) to I-1 (Light Industrial), several years ago. It was the concensus of the Commission and City Council at that time that the area would develop with industrial uses. Mr. Moore stated that a change of zoning now would be contrary to the previous determination of the Commission and City Council, and would make the land less useable if some of the businesses should decide to expand. Mr. Manning stated that his property has been zoned residential since he purchased it 18 years ago. There was agricultural zoning on the north side of Tufts at that time. Mr. Manning stated that there is storage of forms for concrete, etc. on the property owned by the Mardesen's; he stated that this is not objectionable. Mr. Manning stated that "Mardesen can maintain their present status, but leave us alone" • Discussion followed. Mr. Eitel stated that under the pro- visions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Manning would not have to move if his property were to be zoned I-1, Light Industrial; he would be a legal non-conforming use. Lentsch moved: Wade seconded: The Public Hearing for Case #15-74 be closed. AYES: Lentsch; Jorgenson; Jones; Brown; Wade; Tanguma; Smith; Martin NAYS: None ABSENT: Weist The motion carried. IV. SANTA FE-UNION ANNEXATION AREA County Zoning to I-1 Brown moved: CASE #16-74 Jorgenson seconded : The Public Hearing on Case #16-74 be opened. AYES: Martin; Lentsch; Jorgenson; Jones; Brown; Wade; Tanguma; Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Weist The motion carried. • • • Mr. Martin asked that those persons in favor of the I-~ zoning speak. No one indicated a desire to speak in favor of the proposed l-1 zoning. Mr. Martin then asked that those persons in opposition to the proposed I-1 zoning speak. Mr. William Myrick stated that he represented some of the property owners on the west side of South Santa Fe Drive that are within the annexed area. Mr. Myrick stated that the zoning for the area had been I-2 in the County, but for a small strip of business zoning fronting on South Santa Fe Drive. Mr. Myrick reviewed the past discussions on zoning of this area since annexation to the City on December 8, 1973. Mr. Myrick stated he feels his clients are entitled to continue the l-2 use of the property ; that by not granting I-2 zoning to those areas proposed as I-1, the City is taking money out of his client's pockets. Mr. Myrick referred to a map indicating the three zone classifications which are proposed for the area, and noted that the zone district boundaries "don't make any sense." He stated that the "people didn't want to come into the City, and now the City is saying you can't use the property any longer." Mr. Myrick stated that the City is reducing the property values of the area; he stated that controls could be placed on the zoning that would not eliminate the businesses in the area. Mr. Myrick stated that there isn't much ground in the metro area that is zoned for I-2 development, and that such ground would increase in value. Undesirable uses would be forced to move because of economics. Mr. Myrick stated that he and his clients feel the ground proposed for I-1 should be zoned I-2, that there has been no good planning reason expressed by the staff or the Commission that would justify the change of zoning to I-1. Mr. Myrick stated that the I-3 Zone District which was drafted, was "special legislation", and that the City just added to the l-1 District "every complaint you received". Mr. Myrick stated that the I-3 District was designed specifically for property owners with auto wrecking yards; the only "proper way to do it, was to amend the I-2 Zone District to allow auto wrecking yards." Discussion of the permitted uses of the l-1 Zone District vs. I-2 Zone District ensued. Mr. William Webster 910 Fifteenth Street -stated that he represented Mr. Walter Soule, who owns property proposed for I-1 Zoning. Mr. Webster stated that Mr. Soule owns the Union Power Construction Company, which company builds high transmission lines. The Company has over $1,000,000 worth of rolling stock. Mr. Webster stated that Mr. Soule does a great deal of mechanical work on the trucks used in the business --in one regard, it is very similar to a salvage yard, in that pieces from one truck are used on another, etc. Mr. Webster stated that if the property is zoned I-1, his client will have to move. • • • -5- Mrs. Wade asked Mr. Webster if his client's use would be all right in an I-2 zoning? Mr. Webster stated that it would have to be an I-3 zoning to accommodate his client's use in full. Mr. Martin asked if there was any one else who wished to speak in opposition to the proposed I-1 Zone District? Mr. Norman Sample 2900 West Tanforan -asked if consideration had been given to the possibility that property owners in the proposed I-3 District would want to purchase additional land to expand their businesses? They would be surrounded by I-1 zoning, and would not be able to do so. Mr. Sample urged there be uniform zoning on the entire area to enable the property owners to remain and to expand. Mrs. Edna Carlton 6344 South Logan -stated that her property is proposed as I-1; she would be surrounded by I-3 zoning. Mrs. Carlton stated that she wanted heavy industrial zoning on her property as she had "always had". Mrs. Carlton stated that she had an opportunity to sell her property for a pre-stress concrete manufacturing; however , this use is not permitted in the pro- posed I-1 District. Mrs. Carlton stated that the proposed zoning has cut the value of the property in half; she wants zoning comparable to the County I-2 Zoning. Mrs. Carlton stated that she has approximately 5 acres of land ; the assessor has raised the tax valuation by $10,000 since the annexaticn to Englewood. Mrs. Carlton stated that she has lost two buyers for her property since the Englewood annexation~ and has been told that the pre-stress concrete use is not permitted in the pro- posed zone classificaticn; she stated that the annexation has cost her money. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that there would have to be amendments to the I-2 Zoning to make it comparable to the County I-2. Mrs. Carlton stated that if she could not have "comparable" zoning on her land, she wanted the "best" that Englewood could give her. Mr. Lentsch asked how deep the commercial zone had been along Santa Fe in the County? Mr. Supinger stated that he wasn't sure of the exact depth, but it was probably 200 -250 feet . Mr. Lentsch asked that persons in favor of the I-1 zoning indicate so by raising their hand. No one raised their hand in favor of the proposed I-1. Eight persons indicated opposition to the proposed I-1 zoning . • • • -v- Jorgenson moved: Wade seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #16-74 be closed . AYES: Smith; Martin; Lentsch; Jorgenson; Jones; Brown; Wade; Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Weist The motion carried. V. SANTA FE -UNION ANNEXATION County zoning to I-3. Wade moved: CASE #17-74 Jones seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #17-74 be opened. AYES: Tanguma; Smith; Martin ; Lentsch; Jorgenson; Jones; Brown; Wade NAYS: None ABSENT: Weist The motion carried. Mr. Martin asked those persons in favor of the proposed I-3 Zone District to speak. No one spoke in favor of the proposed I-3 Zone District . Mr. Martin asked that those opposed to the I-3 Zone District speak. Mr. William Myrick stated that he was speaking "on both sides of the coin on this matter." Mr. Myrick stated that he and his clients were most appreciative of the I-3 Classification; however, it is their feeling that the I-3 Zone District should permit any use permitted in the I-2 Zone District rather than any use permitted in the I-1 Zone District. Mr. Myrick pointed out that the annexation area is adjoined on the north and west boundaries by County I-2 zoning. He stated that he felt there should be "constant" zoning throughout the entire area. Mr. Myrick suggested that the Commission should zone the area proposed as I-1 to I-2, and amend the I-3 Zone District to permit any use permitted in the I-2 Zone District . . Mr. Lentsch noted that Mr. Myrick was discussing an amendment that the Commission could not make at this meeting; he asked Mr. Myrick's desire on the zoning as it is proposed. Mr. Myrick stated that the Commission should "impose the zoning in existance, or don't put any zoning on it.·~ Mr. Myrick stated that the Soule property should be zoned I-3 also. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Myrick "are you satisfied with the I-3 Zone District?" Mr. Myrick stated that it would not satisfy his clients. The clients would prefer that no zoning be placed on the property, and that the City amend the I-3 Zone District to permit the uses permitted in the I-2 Zone District. • • • Mr. Martin inquired as to the status of the law suit protesting the annexation? Mr. Myrick and Mr. Lee stated that there was a Hearing on June 25th. Discussion followed. Mro Bruce Lassman stated that he represented a property owner directly to the south of the annexation area. Mr. Lassman reviewed previous discussions with the Commission on the matter of the Santa Fe-Union annexation zoning, and stated that it was the concensus of the property owners that the resources available in the area warrant a percentage of the land being zoned I-2. Mr. Lassman stated that his client has applied for a change of zoning to permit a pre-stress concrete plant. They will ask for I-2 zoning. Mr. Lassman stated that it is his belief that the entire area is properly subject to I-2 zoning. He stated there were resources in the land which can only be used in I-2 zoning. Mr. Lassman discussed the channelization of the South Platte River; he stated that the I-2 zoning would give property owners the opportunity to use the land in uses that, even if they suffer flood damage, it would not put the land owner out of business. Mr. Lassman stated that the I-2 zoning would allow an industrial-park type development; he stated that he felt a lot of property owners in the area could forsee industrial park type development in the area. Mr. Lassman stated that he felt this would be compatible with the environmentalist's point of view . Mr. Ray Koch stated that he moved to Arapahoe County from Jefferson County because of "peaceful reasons" --Arapahoe County allowed I-2 zoning and auto wrecking yards, Jefferson County did not. He stated that he has a salvage yard and storage on his property. Mr. Edward White 2977 West Tanforan Drive-stated that he lived in the Centennial Acres area; there are many children in the area and he is concerned about more heavy industrial zoning. He noted that trucks from Rockwell Concrete Company use residential streets as short cuts, and he is fearful for safety of children. Mr. White noted that there is a very nice park in the area for the neighborhood children; he stated that he would favor I-1 zoning, but not I-3. Mr. Ross Clinger stated that he owned Rockwell Concrete Company. He stated that he would put a stop to Rockwell Concrete trucks using residential streets as short cuts. Mr. Clinger stated that he was opposed to the I-3 Zone District as it is presented at this time. Mr. Clinger stated that the best solution would be to amend the present I-2 Zone District to allow those uses permitted in the I-3 Zone District. Mr. Martin asked that those in favor of the I-3 District indicate so by raising their hand; no one indicated they favored the I-3 District. Twelve persons indicated opposition to the I-3 District. • • • Mr. Les Hunter stated that he owned Arapahoe Auto Salvage, and wants the I-2 zoning . -~- Mr. Martin asked who would favor the existing I-2 zoning amended to permit the auto salvage yards? Thirteen persons indicated they would favor this suggestion; no one opposed the suggestion. Mr. Lassman asked why the staff or Commission proposed the zoning as shown; he stated it was evident the property owners don't want it zoned as proposed. Mr. Supinger stated that the zoning as being considered at this meeting is not as the Department of Community Development would recommend. Mr. Supinger noted that the staff had recommended the entire area for light industrial previously, and still stand by that recommendation. However, the Commission determined that those properties being used for auto wrecking and salvage should be zoned I-3, with the remainder of the industrial area zoned for Light Industrial; the residential area was to be zoned R-1-C. Mr. Supinger stated that he would like to see a green belt along the South Platte River for the use of all citizens jurisdictions should jointly propose a bond issue to buy a park strip along the river. Mr. Supinger noted that the South Platte River has been a "dumping ground" and that it could be a beautiful feature through the metro area. Mr. Lassman stated that this is an industrial area; there are a lot of good minerals in this area, and the land must be put to the best use. He stated that to not put the land to the best use would be imposing on the constitutional rights of the citizens. Mr. Lentsch agreed that it was the Commission that determined the boundaries of the proposed zone districts. Mr. Supinger pointed out that when he discussed the green belt along the South Platte River, it would be financed by a bond issue, and would not be "just a strip designated along the River". Mr. Supinger stated that it was never his intention to imply that any one's land should be taken without due process of law and just compensation. Mr. Supinger stated that where it is possible to retrieve natural resources, he feels we should do so. Mr. Supinger noted that the RTD studies have shown the metro area development is in the wrong area; this adds to smog and pollution in general. Discussion followed. Lentsch moved: Wade seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #17-74 be closed. AYES: Wade; Tanguma; Smith; Martin; Lentsch; Jorgenson; Jones; Brown NAYS: None ABSENT: Weist Tile motion carried . • • • -9- Tanguma moved: Smith seconded: The Commission discuss each zoning case and bring to a conclusion. AYES: Wade; Tanguma; Smith; Martin; Lentsch; Jorgenson; Jones NAYS: Brown ABSENT: Weist The motion carried. Discussion of the proposed R-1-C zoning followed. Mr. Martin stated that he felt additional time and discussion among the Commission was warranted. Mr. Brown stated that he would like to explain his "no" vote on the previous motion; he stated he realized the zoning as proposed is not right, and he did not feel that justice could be done at this meeting, considering the lateness of the hour. Brown moved: Jorgenson seconded: Case #15-74, R-1-C Zoning of recently annexed land in the Santa Fe-Union area, be tabled, and a special work session be called. Discussion followed. The vote was called . AYES: Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin; Smith; Wade; Brown NAYS: Tanguma ABSTAIN: Jones ABSENT: Weist The motion carried. The matter of the I-1 zoning was then brought up. Mr. Martin stated that he felt more discussion on this matter was warranted. Lentsch moved: Jorgenson seconded: The matter of the I-1 zoning in the Union annexation area, Case #16-74, be tabled for further consideration. AYES: Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin; Smith; Tanguma; Wade; Brown NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Jones ABSENT: Weist The motion carried. The matter of the I-3 Zone designation was considered • • • • -10- Lentsch moved: Wade seconded: The matter of the I-3 Zone designation in the Santa Fe-Union annexation area, Case #17~74, be tabled for further consideration. AYES: Lentsch; Martin; Smith; Tanguma; Wade; Brown; Jorgenson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Jones ABSENT: Weist The motion carried. Discussion on a date for work session ensued; the date of July 23rd at 8:00 P.M. was determined to be satisfactory. VI. MRS. ETHEL COOK CASE #14-74 4350 South Delaware Street Mr. Martin stated that Mrs. Cook has a nursery school at her residence, 4350 South Delaware Street; a nursery school is a Conditional Use in the R-1-C Zone District, and must have approval of the Planning Commission. Mr. Supinger stated that everything appeared to be in order for the Commission approval, and the staff so recommends. I Mrs. Cook stated that her State license was for a "day care home", and asked why it was called a nursery school in Englewood? Mrs. Romans stated that the definition of a nursery school in / the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance is care for four or more children not related to the operator. Mrs. Cook stated that she had no objection to getting permission from the Commiss1on to run the day care center; she did object, however, to the way it was brought before the Commission. Mrs. Cook stated that Building Inspector Macrander informed her to remove a sign she had posted advertising her day care service, and then reported that she had a day care service in her home to the Planning Division. Mrs. Cook stated she had gotten a State license, and was unaware she had to get permission from the Planning Commission to have a day care operation. Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that it was entirely proper for Mr. Macrander, when a condition was called to his attention such as this facility being operated without proper approval, to call it to the attention of the Department. Discussion followed. Mrs. Cook stated she understood from the Welfare Department there were approximately 60 homes in Englewood doing day care work; she asked if all of these homes had obtained permission from the City? Mr. Martin stated that if the.City were able to police this type of operation closer, more would be brought before the Commission. He asked Mrs. Cook how many children she was caring for at the present time? Mrs. Cook replied six . Mr. Lentsch asked what size sign Mrs. Cook had been asked to remove? Mrs. Cook stated it was approximately 18" x 18". Mr. Supinger stated that a home occupation, such as the day care center, is allowed a 10" x 10" sign, and it must be affixed to the house. I I I • • • -11- Mr. Martin asked how long Mrs. Cook had taken care of children? Mrs. Cook stated that she had done day care work several years ago prior to going to work as a housekeeper o She stated that she renewed her State license in April of 1974. Discussion followed. Wade moved: Lentsch seconded: The Planning Commission approve the day care center or nursery school operated by Mrs. Ethel Cook at 4350 South Delaware Street. AYES: Martin; Smith; Tanguma; Wade; Brown; Jones; Jorgenson; Lentsch NAYS: None ABSENT: Weist The motion carried. VII. BIG DRY CREEK CASE #18-74 Mr. Supinger stated tllat a copy of the recommendation made by the Parks and Recreation Commission on the improvement of Big Dry Creek has previously been submitted to the Planning Commission. The staff recommends that the Commission make substantially the same recommendation to the City Council. Lentsch moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following provision be included in the Phase B of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Big Dry Creek Master Plan: "That the portion of Big Dry Creek within Englewood be treated as a combination of Plans 1 and 2 with modifications, more specifically as follows: 1. That the 100-year flood plain be outlined as in Plan 1 of Phase A. 2. That the dikes, as outlined in Plan 2 of Phase A, be mentioned in the final report with criteria as to con- struction, elevation of top, etc.; but that they not be incorporated into the design. The floodway should be outlined on the plan or in tabular form so that it could be maintained should the property owners wish to protect themselves with the dikes mentioned in Plan 2. 3. That structural criteria such as width, height, capacity, etc., be outlined on the Master Plan at W~ndermere, Belleview, Lehow, etc., so that when a structure is re- quired at those crossings, the data will be available • • • • -12- 4. That a low-flood channel of approximately the same size as exists at the present time be included through Belleview Park and that criteria be established as to bank protection on the curves. Such criteria should include back slopes, depth below floor of channel, distance back from top of slope, etc., for gabions, concrete walls, riprap, etc. AYES: Smith; Tanguma; Wade; Brown; Jones; Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin NAYS: None ABSENT: Weist The motion carried. VIII. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. Mr. Supinger stated that requests from the various departments for Capital Improvements have been submitted to the Commission. Mr. Supinger suggested that the Planning Commission may want to schedule a work session to discuss the requests with the department heads or board chairmen. Wade moved: Tanguma seconded: A study session for consideration of the Capital Improvement Program be set for June 25, 1974, at 7:30 P.M . AYES: Tanguma; Wade; Brown; Jones; Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin; Smith NAYS: None ABSENT: Weist The motion carried. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE (1) Mr. Supinger directed the attention of the Commission to a time schedule proposed for an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the multi-family districts. (2) Mr. Supinger directed the attention of the Commission to a copy of answers to questions on the City Center Development Plan, which answers had been requested by Councilman Brown. Mr. Brown commended Mr. Supinger on his efforts. X. COMMISSION'S CHOICE Mr. Brown referred to the work session called to discuss the zoning in the Santa Fe-Union Annexation are~, which date was July 23, 1974. He stated that he felt this was too far away, and that some discussion and action should be commenced before that date, if possible. Discussion followed. It was deter- mined that the work session for Santa Fe -Union Annexation zoning was to be rescheduled for July 2, 1974. • • • Ll3- Mr. Jorgenson inquired about the records kept at the damage- appraisal business approved on Mrs. Bussard's property on West Union? Mr. Martin stated that the Commission had asked that a report be submitted to them by the Code Enforcement Division. Mrs. Wade stated that no progress has been made on screening the front of the use. Mr. Supinger stated that such a report will be obtained for the Commission. Assistant City Attorney Lee noted that the Commission had requested a legal opinion from him at the last meeting on whether or not the subdivision waiver granted to the Larwin Corporation was "assignable ". Mr. Lee stated that the waiver and conditions made a part of the waiver are assignable, and the responsibility to meet those conditions will be conveyed to anyone who purchases the land. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 P.M • • • • -14- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION • DATE: June 18, 1974 SUBJECT: Big Dry Creek Master Plan -Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. RECOMMENDATION: Lentsch moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following provision be included in the Phase B of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District Big Dry Creek Master Plan: "That the portion of Big Dry Creek within Englewood be treated as a combination of Plans 1 and 2 with modifications, more specifically as follows: 1. That the 100-year flood plain be outlined as in Plan 1 of Phase A. 2. That the dikes, as outlined in Plan 2 of Phase A, be mentioned in the final report with criteria as to con- struction, elevation of top, etc.; but that they not be incorporated into the design. The floodway should be outlined on the plan or in tabular form so that it could be maintained should the property owners wish to protect themselves with the dikes mentioned in Plan 2. 3. That structural criteria such as width, height, capacity, etc., be outlined on the Master Plan at Windermere, Belleview, Lehow, etc., so that when a structure is re- quired at those crossings, the data will be available. 4. That a low-flood channel of approximately the same size as exists at the present time be included through Belleview Park and that criteria be established as to bank protection on the curves. Such criteria should include back slopes, depth below floor of channel, distance back from top of slope, etc., for gabions, concrete walls, riprap, etc.11 AYES: Smith; Tanguma; Wade; Brown; Jones; Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin NAYS: None ABSENT: Weist The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission.