Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-02-05 PZC MINUTES. ' •• • • CITY OF ENGLEWPOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 5, 1974 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Lentsch at 8:00 p.m. Members Present: Wade; Anderson; Jorgenson; Lentsch ; Martin ; Smith; Tanguma Supinger, Ex-officio Members Absent: Weist; Brown Also Present: Assistant Director Romans II. RE-ORGANIZATION OF COMMISSION. Chairman Lentsch stated that he would turn the Chair over to Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson called for nominations for Chairman of the Commission • Mr. Lentsch nominated Mr. Arthur Martin, Jr. as Chairman of the Planning Commission. Jorgenson moved: Smith seconded: The nominations cease r and Mr . Arthur Martin be elected Chairman of tre Commission. The motion carried. Mr. Anderson called for nominations for Vice-Chairman of the Commission. Mr. Martin nominated Mr. Ed Smith for Vice-Chairman of the Commission. Tanguma moved: Martin seconded: The nominations cease, and Mr. Smith be elected Vice-Chairman of the Commission. The motion carried, Mr. Smith abstaining. Mr. Martin assumed the Chair, and expressed his appreciation for the honor of being elected Chairman. He stated that he hoped the Commission would accomplish many things in the year to come . Mr. Martin then extended a welcome to Mrs . Mae Wade,who was appointed to the Planning Commission to fill the vacancy created by Mrs. Stanley's resignation. •• • • III. ADVANCED CONSTRUCTION, INC. 1845 West Union Avenue CASE #4-74 Mrs. Romans stated the application for a Waiver to the Sub- division Regulations was submitted by Advanced Construction, Inc., who will be builders of a warehouse proposed on property at 1845 West Union Avenue owned by Mr. Cockerham. Mr. Weist entered and took his chair with the Commission. Mrs. Romans pointed out the area with which the application deals on the map; the request is to divide the tract of land into four parcels, two of which would front on West Union Avenue, two of which would front on West Stanford Avenue. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff recommends the request for Waiver be approved, with the following two conditions: 1. A 16-foot utility easement from West Union Avenue north to or through Parcels "C" and "D" be provided between Parcels "A" and "B", as suggested by the Utilities Director in order that water service can be assured to the development on said Parcels "C" and "D" • 2. That the necessary right-of-way for West Stanford Avenue be dedicated before a Building Permit is issued on either Parcel "C" or Parcel "D". Mrs. Romans stated that the staff anticipates development on the north one-half of the tract, and feels that the right-of -way for West Stanford should be secured prior to issuance of Building Permit~. Mrs. Romans stated that the Director of Utilities feels it would be to the advantage of the property owner to provide a 16-foot utility easement extending from West Union Avenue through Parcels "A" and "B" to assure water service for development on Parcels "C" and "D". Mrs. Romans stated that the staff is of the opinion there would be no benefit to the public were a subdivision plat to be required . Mrs. Romans stated that the proposed warehouse would be a per- mitted use in the I-1, I-2, or I-3 Industrial Districts, whichever District is imposed on the land which was recently annexed to the City. Mr. George Owens of Advanced Comtruction, Inc. stated that time is of the essence because of the Public Service Company ruling on gas service. Those who have a building completed and ready for occupancy by July 1, 1974, will be assured gas service; those buildings completed after July 1, 1974, have no guarantee if there will be gas service or not. Mr. Owens stated -2- •• • • that he has a commitment for this particular building from Public Service Company. He stated that he felt Mr. Cockerham would dedicate 20 ft. for Stanford Avenue right-of-way, and that he felt there would be no problem with the easement through Parcels "A" and "B". Mr. Martin questioned whether sewer service would be a problem or not. Mr. Owens stated that they may bave to go to a lift station or put in a holding tank and pump for the time being until other facilities are available. Lentsch moved: The Planning Commission approve the request for Subdivision Waiver for property at 1845 West Union Avenue as requested by George Owens and Mr. Cockerham provided the following conditions are met: 1. A 16-foot utility easement from West Union Avenue north to or through Parcels "C" and "D" be provided between Parcels "A" and "B", as suggested by the Utilities Director in order that water service can be assured to the development on said Parcels "C" and "D". 2. That the necessary right-of-way for West Stanford Avenue be dedicated before a Building Permit is issued on either Parcel "C" or Parcel "D". This action is based on the following reasons: 1. No substantial benefits would be gained by the public from requiring a Subdivision Plat to be prepared, approved and filed for the subject property, inasmuch as the provision for the necessary utility easement and right-of-way can be stipulated as a condition to the approval of the request for a Waiver as set forth in §12-3-3(b) (1) of the Englewood Municipal Code. 2. The proposed division would permit development compatible with the development in that area at this time and pro- jected for that area under the provisions of the generalized Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. To this time, it has not been finally determined whether the subject area will be zoned I-1, Light Industrial, I-2, General Industrial, or the proposed I-3, Heavy Industrial. The proposed development would be permitted unde r any of the three Industrial Districts. Mr. Anderson noted that Mr. Owens had stated Mr. Cocke r ham would approve a 20 ft. dedication; he asked if a 40 ft . street -3- . /'" ··- • was being considered in that area~ Mr. Owens stated that there is some right-of-way dedicated at the present time. Mrs. Romans stated that the amount of dedication has not been determined, but that the ·Director of Public Works in- dicated that his Department would be investigating this matter ·in the near ·future. Mr. Owens stated that if there is nothing dedicated now, it would be to ·Mr. Cockerham's advantage to have the right-of-way, and he felt that Mr. Cockerham would not object to a 30 ft •. dedication in that event. -. Mr. Anderson asked about the status of Building Permit issue in this area? Mr. Supinger stated that he understood this matter was dis- cussed at · the Council meeting of February 4th. Mr. Supinger stated 'that the City Attorney stated that anyone in the annexa- tion -area who meets all of the other City requirements may ~ply for a Building Permit; the Department of Community Deveiep- ·ment would refuse to issue the Permit, and the -property owner would have to 1 apply to the ·Board of Adjustment and .. Appeals • . Mr •. Supinger stated that the decision of the Board would be based on the ·merits of the individual application. Discussion ·followed. ... ;Tanguma seconded Mr •. Len ts ch' s motion. The .>roll was called; the motion carried. V. TEJON INDUSTRIAL PARK Lot 7, Block 2, Tejon Industrial Park. CASE #5-74 Mrs. Romans indicated the area to be considered on the map. This site was platted in 1973. At that time, a 24 ft. easement was shown on the east line of Lot 7, Block 2,. which should not have been shown. The person who is buying Lot 7 also owns adjoining land to the east in Denver and the incorrectly shown easement divides his ownership. Mrs. Romans stated Mr. Garrett represents the persons who ·platted the land, and is present this evening to answer questions the Commission might have • . Mrs •. Romans noted there seemed to be a discrepancy on the book and page .number of an area that is to be excepted from the re- quested vacation. Discussion followed •. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff recommends ·approval of the ·requested easement vacation. Mr •. Garrett stated that the ·area the Tejon Development Company had platted in 1973 was all under· one ownership for the last 10-12 years •. The 24 ft. easement ·under consideration is a recorded easement in the City and County of Denver that extends -4- ., •• • • along the Colorado & Southern Railroad tracks. Mr. Garrett stated that the 24 ft. easement does cut across the south- eastern-most portion of Lot 7, and should not be vacated at that point. Mr. Anderson asked about the 8 ft. drainage easement which is indicated to exist in the 24 ft. easement, and across the north boundary of Lot 7. Mr. Garrett and hlrs. Romans stated that the 8 ft. drainage easement acro ss the north portion of Lot 7 is needed; the easement existing within the 24 ft. easement is not needed. Lentsch moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the vacation of the 24 ft. easeme~ through Lo~ 7, Block 2, Tejon Industrial Park, excepting the North 8 ft. of the East 24 ft. of said Lot 7, Block 2, Tejon Industrial Park, and except that land deeded and recorded in Book 1098, Page 158 in Arapahoe County Records, State of Colorado. The motion carried. V. JOHN VANDERHORST Block 6, Alta Vista CASE #2~74 Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. VanderHcrst has requested vacation of an easement existing on the north and south sides of Lots 1 thru 10, Block 6, Alta Vista. The pToperty is zoned I-1, Light Industrial. ~lrs. Romans stated that the staff recom- mends vacation of the easement; it is not needed for any reason the staff has been able to find. Mrs. Romans stated the subject property is vacant except for one portion which fronts on West Warren Avenue; this is used for parking for the NEI Technical School. hlrs. Romans stated that if the block is used for some other use, she assumed the school would have to provide other ground for their parking area. It was stated that the 7 ft. easement on both north and south sides o f the block was platted at the time of the Subdivision of the area in the year 1939. Mr. Ralph VanderHorst stated that he and his brother had owned the property f o r 20 -25 years. Mr. VanderHorst stated that the easement has no relevance now. He stated that the school has a lea se on the land they use for parking for another seven years o r so • -5- ., •• • • Lentsch moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Co~mission recommend to City Council that the 7 ft. easement on Lots 1 thru 10, Block 6, Alta Vista, be vacated for the following reasons: 1. The easement is not now being used for any utilities and will not be needed for any in the forseeable future. 2. The original purposes for which the easement was given are no longer valid for retaining this dedication. Adequate provision for traffic and utilities are available from the existing streets surrounding the property. The need for irrigation ditches no longer exists. The motion carried. VI. WINDERMERE WAREHOUSES, INC. 1300 West Radcliff Avenue CASE #6-74 Mrs. Romans stated that she would go through the staff report inasmuch as it had .not been available for delivery to the Commission on Friday. Mrs. Romans stated that the applica- tion is concerned with an area north of West Stanford Avenue and east of South Windermere Street and west of the City Ditch. Mrs. Romans stated that the area of concern is zoned I-1, Light Industrial; the area to the east of the City Ditch is zoned R-1-A, Single-family. There is a considerable drop in grade to the west of the Ditch, and the industrial develop- ment is much lower than the residential development. Mrs. Romans stated that the Commission did grant a Subdivision Waiver to Windermere Warehouses, Inc., on pr-0perty directly to the north of the subject site in late 1972. Mrs. Romans stated that the proposal of Mr. Armstrong,President of Winder- mere Warehouses, Inc., is to divide the tract into four parcels for development with warehouses. Three warehouses have already been constructed;the fourth is proposed for Tract 3. Mrs.Romans stated that the staff has been working quite closely with the Director of Public Works and Director of Utilities, and are concerned about approval of the request at this time. Mrs. Romans stated that there is information that is still needed; there are discrepancies in records and legal descriptions. Mrs. Romans also noted that the City Council has referred to the Commission for their consideration a proposed street plan of the industrial area which includes the subject property. She stated that it was the feeling of the staff that this matter of the street plan should be addressed before a final decision should be made on the application for Subdivision Waiver. -6~ •• • • Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Armstrong has proposed an easement of 60 ft. right-of-way for roadway purposes through the property. Tile Assistant City Attorney notified the staff at 4:00 p.m. this day that the easement is not acceptable for roadway pur- poses; it must be accomplished by dedication. Even if there is a mortgage on the property, ~ release may be obtained, and the right-of-way would have to be dedicated. Mrs. Romans stated that the Director of Public Works feels that a Subdivision Plat should be filed for this development rather than a waiver. For these above listed reasons, the staff is not at a point to make a recommendation for approval or denial. Mrs. Romans reviewed the background of the subject area. The area was annexed to the City of Englewood in 1955; following annexation to the City, the area to the west of Mariposa was zoned M-1. In 1963, the zoning was changed to I-1, Light Industrial by virtue of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The land to the east of Mariposa was zoned R-1-D, Single-family. Park-Elitch owned the property; they asked for industrial zoning on the entire parcel, rather than the split zoning they initially had. Tile zone change was approved, and the entire parcel was zoned for light industrial development. The Com- mission Minutes of November 8, 1962, show that Mr. Shivers, representing the property owners, said there would be additional access and an east/west street would be given. There was also discussion of north/south access, but no action was taken.· Shortly after this time, the property was purchased by Tool- Armstrong, and a 30 ft. dedication for one-half of West Stanford Avenue was indeed given. Again~ reference was made to a north/south access, and it was noted that it would be dis w cussed further in the future. Mrs. Romans stated that in the mid-sixties, Mr. Armstrong lost the property; he has been buying it back piece-meal since that time. According to the County Assessor's records, there are now four different tracts listed in four different ownerships; whether or not all four ownerships are one and the same person is unknown at this time. Mrs. Romans stated that the request for a Subdivision Waiver had been referred to all Utilities Companies; Public Service Company has no objection to the request. Mountain Bell has an easement for their facilities and wants that to continue. The City Departments do, however, have problems with the pro- posed waiver. Tile Fire Department stated that until the water lines are looped in the area they could not provide fi r e pro- tection to the development, and didn't want to give approval to the application. The Utilities Department did not have easements previously committed in hand; Mr. Armstrong has since -7- / •• • • made every effort to provide the easements to the Utilities Department, and this matter now appears to be satisfactory. Mrs. Romans stated that these easements have been checked out and appear to be in order. Mrs. Romans stated that the proposed easement for roadway purposes has been reviewed by the City Attorney's office and has been ruled to be unacceptable. The roadway must be accom- plished by dedication to the City. Mrs. Romans stated that the Director of Public Works is con- cerned about right-of-ways within the area. She stated that the Commission has been asked to look at a street plan for the entire area. This plan to be presented is to develop a circulation pattern within the industrial area. Mr. Waggoner displayed a map of the proposed circulation pattern. This map showed development of South Windermere Street and South Navajo Street, which would tie into streets as proposed by an amendment of the Master Street Plan which was considered by the Commission some time back. Mr. Waggoner stated that ~. appeared that both Windermere and Navajo might be needed to serve the area from Quincy south to Tufts. Mr. Waggoner the n discussed other proposed rights-of-way 6n the proposed drawing • Mr. Waggoner noted that the drawing was a schematic, and was not taken from actual field wor~~ but from aerial photos. He stated that a more accurate location of the warehouses is needed. Mr. Waggoner then discussed draill.3ge'"'provisions made by Mr. Armstrong, and those proposed by Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Waggoner noted that if the property is split into several ownerships with no overall drainage plan, there could be problems in the area .. Mr. Armstrong stated that he had always tried to be a good citizen of Englewood, and he didn't want to be on differen t side of the fence from the administration. He stated he did buy the land in 1962, and he did dedicate the 30 ft. fo r West Stanford Avenue. Mr. Armstrong stated that he did lose the property in 1966; he was able to buy back Parcel 2 in 1968. The rest of the property was not developed until 1972. He stated that he bought Parcel 1 back in the name of another corporation. In 1972, Wesley Black bought Parcels 3 and 4 . He stated that he built the warehouse on Parcel 1, and was the contr~tor for Mr. Black on Parcer~·· He stated that he a n d Mr. Black planned a joint venture on Parcel 3. Mr. Armstron g stated that he did not realize the development was in confl i ct -8-, ~ •• • • with the Codes of the City of Englewood. Mr . Armstrong pointed out that he lost the property in 1966, and the present Sub- division Regulations were adopted in 1967. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the provisions for requiring a subdivision have been in effect since 1957, five years prior to Mr. Armstrong 's initial purchase of the property in 1962. Mr. Armstrong discussed the matter of the easement for roadway purposes ; he stated that he "can't tell the bank what to do with the property". Mr. Armstrong stated that he has worked closely with Mr. Waggone r, Mr. Carroll, and Mr . Supinger. He stated that he was "remiss" in not applying for a waiver and permit at the time the proposed building was imminent. Mr. Armstrong stated that he tried t o make the development as "inoffensive as possible" with paint and type of construction. He stated that the people ca n o nly see the roofs from the street. Mr. Armstrong stated that he has contracted to purchase the building from Pre-stress. Mr. Armstrong stated that there is a problem of gas service from P u bl ic Service Company. Dis- cussion followed. Mr. Armstrong stated that "if the rec ommendation and decision is to require subdivision procedures then it n egates a building, because there is n o way the time requireme nt can be met and the building be ready for July l." Mr. Armstrong stated that the survey wo rk for this property has been done by either John Nicholl or David Nicholl. He stated that he cannot and will n ot abide by the request to dedicate street right-of -way. He stated that the building on Parcel 2 was constructed in 1962; since that time the Building Division has required maintenance and repair to keep the structure up-to-code, and he cannot financially dedicate the street. He stated that he had spent $80,000 to i mprove the 1962 structure. He stated that a new mortgage had been placed on the buildin g in November, 1973; he also stated that he did call the mortgage-holder to discuss the dedication of 60 ft. for right-of-way. He stated that the mortgage-holder had indicated "if they can be paid for it, it's OK." He reiterated that "it isn't possible to dedicate the roadway that Kells Waggoner wants." He stated that he "has given 1100' x 30' dedication o n the south side of this property". Mr. Ar mstron g pointed out that at the time a waiver was obtain ed for Pa r cel 4, the Comm issio n requested a 25 ft. easement o n the west side of the Ci ty Ditch right~of -way for screening. I n add itio n, they were requested to dedicate 30 ft. o n the west side of the prope rty for South Windermere • -9 ...., •• • • Mr. Armstrong reiterated that he is prepared to grant an easement for roadway purposes which he, as property owner, can do without violating the mortgage-holder's rights. He stated that Mr. Lee's statement the easement is unacceptable is entirely different from the City's position when they accepted an easement from Public Service Company for roadway purposes on West Radcliff. This was granted in October, 1972, at the time of Mr. Armstrong's previous Subdivision Waiver. He stated that he would like to make the development one that would be an asset to the City of Englewood. Mr. Armstrong discussed the water service to the area. He stated there was an 8" water line in Stanford, and an 8" line in Windermere. He stated that Mr. Carroll wants to extEnd the line on Stanford across the City Ditch and loop Stanford and Radcliff. He stated that he has given an easement that this might be accomplished. . Mr. Tanguma excused himself from the meeting. Mr. Armstrong requested that the discrepancies be defined "so that I can solve them" • Mr. Martin asked if the possibility of accepting roadway easement now and setting a future date for full dedication had been discussed, and would this meet the requirements of the City Attorney's office? Mr. Armstrong stated that this provision would require an instrument stating that in certain circumstances they would grant a dedication of the land; they would have to confo r m to those circumstances, and he questioned whether the mortgage-holder would agree to this. He pointed out that a new mortgage was placed on the property only three months ago. He stated that he could not understand the City Attorney's statement that the easement was not acceptable. Discussion followed. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the need for north -south roadway was discussed as late as 1972 at the time Mr. Armstrong obtained a subdivision waiver on property to the north of this site. Mrs. Romans also pointed out that the Planning Commission had asked for a dedication from Public Service Company of the roadway to Mr. Armstrong's property on the north, but City Council accepted the easement. Mr. Armstrong noted that the granting of an easement }?y Public Service Company was "done with all municipalitiesP . Mr. Waggoner stated that the overall street plan was submitted to City Council on January 21st. The Council requested that •• • • the plan be referred to the Planning Commission for comments. Mr. Waggoner stated that on the overall street plan, a roadway is shown through Mr. Armstrong's property. Mr. Waggoner dis- cussed the effect of the -dedicated roadway on Mr. Armstrong's proposal; he noted that this would not allow any parking on the west side of the structure. Mr. Waggoner statedtthat the access and grade must be considered. He stated that if a Plat is filed, he felt grade differences could be resolved. Mr. Waggoner commented that he felt possibly Assistant City Attorney Lee was referring to the "sufficiency of the instru- ment" when he -stated it was unacceptable. Mrs. Romans stated that t'his was not the case; Mr. Lee stated flatly that the easement "was not acceptable." Mr. Armstrong asked why the City would accept an easement from Public Service Company and not from him? He stated that he "can't do any more". He stated that the building is bought and leased, and if he cannot build it, there would be some problems. He stated tha't from the time the development was first discussed, it was determined there should be separation between the residential and industrial areas. He stated that he feels the connection of Radcliff as proposed in the overall street plan would be in direct opposition to this determination. He stated that he feels "the Navajo extension wouldn't serve the industrial area, but if the City thinks it's necessary •••.• "; he further stated that he "has given all I can give" in the way of street rights-of-way. Further discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch asked what streets were dedicated in the area? Mr. Waggoner stated that the City has a 30 ft. dedication for West Stanford Avenue, 40 ft. on Windermere from ~ufts to West Stanford, then 60 ft. to Quincy; there is Thomas Avenue, Garden Avenue, Beverly Drive, Quincy and Radcliff through to the pro- posed cul-de-sac. There is a dedication on Navajo of 30 ft. from Quincy Avenue to Oxford Avenue. Discussion followed. Mr. Lentsch asked if additional north/south right-of-way was considered when the Commission discussed the property Mr. Arm- strong owns to the north of the subject site? Mrs. Romans stated that the staff and Commission did ask about a north/south street, and Mr. Armstrong stated he did not own the property and he had no further connection with the street. Mr. Armstrong stated that he had not owned Parcels 3 and 4 since 1966; he is the builder, and the loans have been granted in his name. He stated that the subject site was deeded to Windermere Warehouses recently to expedite the loan, etc. He stated that he was not aware the City proposed this roadway, and stated that he has offered the best solution he can • ....11- •• • • Mrs. Wade stated that it seemed to her that the matter of Mr. Armstrong's request would have to be by-passed temporarily to work out the traffic pattern in the area. She stated that if the area is developed with warehouses, more access is needed than that afforded by West Stanford Avenue. Discussion followed. Mr. Waggoner stated that he felt "need" should be determined. Mr. Armstrong stated that he would pe glad to provide dedication for a "turn around" on both the other properties. This would be on Radcliff and Stanford. Mr. Waggoner stated that the city needs a plat of the area; one that would show building locations, distances, etc. Mr. Armstrong stated that the building is 14 ft. from the property line, and he does have a survey. He will have the information put on one document. Mr. Lentsch stated he would rather see the cul-de-sacs on Radcliff and Stanford rather than the 60 ft. street dedications. He stated that he doesn't think the area really has that much traffic to warrant opening those two streets, and he does not want to see the industrial traffic extended through the resi- dential area • Further discussion followed. Mr. Armstrong stated that "if the Commission feels the proposed building with the turn around is compatible, he would appreciate approval subject to accept- ance by the City Attorney of easement for right-of-way." Mr. Armstrong stated again that he could not release the 60 ft. from the mortgage for the right-of-way. Mrs. Wade noted that when the area developed, there would be additional tra f fic and that both Navajo and Windermere would be used. Mr. Armstrong stated that he had "offered the easement which is Navajo; the City will have to condemn property from the mortgage-holder" if the street was to be dedicated. Further discussion followed. Mr. Supinger pointed out that the Planning Commission has final authority on granting of a Subdivision Waiver; the City Council has final authority on whether to accept an easement or a dedication for the right-of-way. Mr. Supinger stated that it was required by the Subdivision Regulations that a plat be filed, or a waiver to the require- ment be granted by the City. Mr. Armstrong chose to ask that a waive r to the requirement of filing a plat be presented to the Commission. Mr c Supinger stated that he felt the matter was down to one question: whether or not the easement is acceptable • -. • • Mr .. Waggoner stated that the proposed street plan map is "just a beginning". If the Commission wanted to recommend changes to Council they could do so. Mr. Waggoner stated that he felt the turn-aroun ds on Radcliff and Stanford are necessary in lieu of street extensions; the Navajo extension is necessary. Mr. Waggoner stated that he felt the City does need an accurate plat of Mr. Armstrong's property with legal descriptions and building locations indicated. Discussion followed. Mr. Anderson asked if a subdivision plat was the only way to clarify the discrepancies which exist in the request? Mr. Supinger stated that he felt it could be clarified through conditions on the g r a n ting of a Subdivision Waiver if the Commission so desired. He stated that he felt they should require a survey fo r the entire property. Mr. Waggoner stated that the survey should show easements? water lines, and everything pertaining to the development. Locations af the buildings should also be shown; all dedicated areas should be shown; it should be tied to a legal subdivision corner. Discussion followed. Mr. Armstrong stated that gas, water, etc., are installed to serve the building& Lentsch moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission approve the applica- tion for Subdivision Waiver filed by Mr. J.B. Armstrong, President of Windermere Warehouses , for the following described property: Tract 1: That part of the South 1 /2 of the South 1/2 of the North 1 /2 of the North 1 /2 of Section 9, T.5 S., R. 68W of the 6th P.M. described as follows: Beginnin g at a point 30 feet North of the SW corn e r of the NW 1 /4 of the NE 1 /4 of Section 9, T.5S., R 68 W. of the 6th P.M., then ce West 50.36 feet to ·f the Easterly right of way line of dedicated roadway, thence Northerly along said Easterly ri g ht of way line 306078 feet to a point on the North line of the South 1 /2 of the South 1 /2 of the North 1 /2 of the No r th 1 /2 of said Section 9, thence East along said North li n e 329 .03 feet~ thence South parallel to the West line of the NE 1 /4 of said Section 9 300.48 feet, thence West and parallel to the South Li n e of the NW 1 /4 of the NE 1 /4 of said Section 9 339.41 feet to the point of beginning. Tract 2: The East 275.0 feet of the West 679.41 feet of the S 1/2 S 1 /2 N 1 /2 NE 1/4 of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 68 West, except the South 30.0 feet thereof, Arapahoe County, Colorado . -13- • • • Tract 3: The East 328.63 feet of the West 943.04 feet of the South 1 /2 of the South 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Section 9, T.5 S., R. 68 W. Except the South 30.0 feet. Tract 4: The South 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Section 9, T. 5 ~., R 68 W. of the 6th Principal Meridian lying West of the City Ditch except the West 943.04 feet. The approval of the waiver is · based on the following conditions: 1. A survey of the entire site shall be filed, said survey shall show all roadways , easements, building improvements and shall be tied to a legal Subdivision corner. 2. Turn-arounds are to be provided on Radcliff Avenue and Stanford Avenue to the approval of the City Engineer. 3. Subject to the Approval of the City Attorney on the easement or dedication of roadway for South Navajo Street. The motion carried. SECRETARY'S NOTE: It should be noted that there is a dis- crepancy in the legal description of Tract 2: The legal sub- mitted with the application for said Tract 2 reads: The East 275.0 feet of the West 679.41 feet .•... Colorado. The legal description in the Arapahoe County Assessor's records and in the Policy of Title Insurance reads: The East 275.0 feet of the West 614.41 feet ...•. Colorado. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Supinger suggested that a study session might be in order to more fully consider the street pattern in the industrial area which was referred to the Planning Commission. Mr. Supinger stated he felt that possibly the Commission might also want to discuss other areas where additional access is needed. Dis- cussion followed. It was determined that the Commission would meet February 12th, at 7:30 p.m. in study session on the matter of the traffic pattern. Mr. Waggoner agreed to meet with the Commission. Mr. Supinger referred to a memorandum from Assistant Director Romans regarding submission deadline on items to be considered by the Commission. The present two weeks prior to the date to be considered just does not give sufficient time for referrals and to give the utilities companies adequate time to check it out in the field and get the reply back to the staff. A sub- -14- •• • • mission time of one month prior to the meeting is suggested. No action was taken on the above mattero Mro Supinger stated that the staff was attempting to set up a tour for the members of the Planning Commission, and asked if they had a time preference? Mro James Keller, who was in the audience, stated that the Chamber of Commerce is also attempting to set up a tour of the City fo r their board members and com- mittee people; he suggested that possibly the groups could be combined. Discussion follo.vedo It was determined that the tour would be held on March 2, 1974, fr om 8 Ao Mo to noon. Mro Supinger stated that he attended the last meeting of the R.ToD. which was held at the Police/Fi r e Centero He stated that he was disappointed at the response. Mr. Supinger stated that this meeting was the first meeting of the Citizens' Action Committee. He stated that the n ext meeting is scheduled to be February 14, 1974 at the Police/Fire Center. He encouraged all members of the Commission to attend this very important meeting . Mr. Supinger stated that the next meeti ng of the Core Area Citizens' Committee will be Februa r y 21st, in the Community Room of City Hallo Meeting time will be 7:30 P.M. Mr • Supinger stated that the purpose of the meeting is to continue discussion of any or all aspects of the Plan presented to date. It will be a session where questions may be asked and answers and explanations given. Mr. Supinger stated that he hoped there was a good turn out for the meeting. He asked that if anyone of the Commission knew of any groups interested in having a presentation of the Core Area Study to please contact him and he would schedule such a presentation. He stated that the staff is developing such a schedule fo r presentation of the Plan to various local groups. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m • -15- •• • • MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: February 5, 1974 SUBJECT: Easement Vacation -Lot 7, Block 2, Tejon Industrial Park RECOMMENDATION: Lentsch moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the vacation of the 24 ft . easement through Lot 7, Block 2, Tejon Industrial Park, excepting the North 8 ft. of the EPst 24 ft. of said Lot 1, Block 2, Tejon Industrial Park, and except that land deeded and recorded in Book 1098, Page 158 in Arapahoe County Records, State of Colorado. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission ~i·d4-G~ Welty Recording Secretary -16- •• •• • • MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: February 5, 1974 SUBJECT: Easement Vacation -Block 6, Alta Vista RECOMMENDATION: Lentsch moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the 7 ft. easement on Lots 1 thru 10~ Block 6$ Alta Vista, be vacated for the following reasons: 1. The easement is not now being used for any utilities and will not be needed for any in the forseeable future. 2. The original purposes for which the easement was given are no longer valid for retaining this dedication. Adequate provision for traffic and utilities are available from the existing streets surrounding the property. The need for irrigation ditches no longer exists • The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission -17-.