HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-03-19 PZC MINUTES•
•
•
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
March 19, 1974
I. CALL TO ORDER.
The regular meeting of the Ci ty Planning and Zoning Commission
was called to order by Chai r man Martin at 8:00 P.M.
Members p r esent:
Members absent:
Br own ; Jo r genson; Lentsch; Martin; Smith;
Wade; Weist; Anderson
Supinger, Ex-officio
Tanguma
Also present : D. A. Romans, Assistant Director; Planning
Assistant Stueven House
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Mr. Martin stated that Minutes of February 20, 1974, and March
5, 1974, were to be considered for approval.
Mr. Anderson questioned the legal description given for the
West Nassau vacation in the February 20th minutes. He stated
that he felt the motion had been worded to state that the
description should follow an angle from the current street
line back 25 feet, which a r ea within the "triangle" would not
be vacated. Discuss i on followed.
Mr. Tanguma entered and took his place with the Commission.
Lentsch moved:
Anderson seconded : The Minutes of February 20, 1974, be
approved as amended; the March 5, 1974,
Minutes be approved as written.
AYES: Anderson ; Brown ; Jorge n son ; Lentsch; Martin; Smith;
Tanguma; Wade ; Weist
Nays ; None
The motion carried.
III. WINDERMERE WAREHOUSES, INC.
1300 West Radcliff Avenue
CASE #9-74
Mr. Supinger stated that Mr . Ar mstrong is requesting amendment
of a Subdivision Waiver which was granted in October, 1972, on
I
•
•
•
property lying south of West Radcliff Avenue and west of the
City Ditch. Mr. Supinger stated that Mr. Armstrong wishes to
add property he purchased from Mr. Danks to the original sub-
division waiver. The staff report was discussed. Mr. Supinger
pointed out that landscaping requirements were contained in
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinan~e, and there is no need to
include screening requirements as a condition to approval.
Mr. Anderson asked if screening provisions were not included
as a condition to the waiver approval when initially granted
in 1972? He noted that the staff report indicates no screening
has been installed ~ and asked why this provision has not been
complied with? Mr. Supinger stated that he felt the provision
had been complied with --there is a roadway provided on the
north boundary, and he did not feel the property owner should
be expected to provide landscaping within the roadway.
Mr. Anderson stated that he felt there should be some sort
of fencing or screening to isolate the back yards of the homes
on Radcliff from the industrial area. Discussion followed.
Mr. Supinger stated that he questioned the applicability of
screening requirements on Parcel A; however, screening can
and will be required on Parcel B. Further discussion followed.
Mr. Supinger discussed screening provisions proposed in the
revised I-1, and I-2 Industrial District regulations.
Mr . Armstrong stated he had discussed the matter of fencing and
screening with some of the neighbors; it is his opinion "they
feel they would like to see not the shrubbery, but a 'grape
stake' fence along the property line"; he stated they were
opposed to the shrubbery because of maintenance. Mr. Armstrong
stated that along the eastern boundary he proposes to put in
a retaining wall along the City Ditch. Mr. Armstrong pointed
out there is a considerable difference in elevation of the
area east of the City Ditch and that west of the Ditch. He
stated that there would have to be some sort of fencing above
the retaining wall, and he felt that woven wire fencing would
give adequate protection. Mr. Armstrong stated that he would
probably plant pfitzers along the property line; he stated
there would be enough seepage from the Ditch to provide water
for these shrubs. Mr. Armstrong stated that if he is permitted~
he would put a solid fence of some sort along the north side;
he stated that he thinks a masonry fence is too "formidable",
but that a grape stake or cedar fence would be more in keeping
with the residential character of the abutting area. Discussion
f ollowed •
-2-
•
•
• /
Anderson moved:
Wade seconded: The Subdivision Waiver granted Mr. Armstrong
in October, 1972, (Resolution #7, Series of
1972) be amended by adding to Parcel B an adjoining parcel,
which legal description of Parcel B will now read: "That
part of the N 1 /2 of the NE 1 /4 of Section 9, T. 5 s.,R 68 W.
of the 6th Principal Meridian described as follows: Beginning
at a point 660' S. and 1162.43' E. of the NW corner of the NE
1 /4 of said Section 9, thence s. and parallel to the w. line
of the NE 1 /4 of said Section 9, 331.30' to the N. line of
the S. 1 /2 of the S. 1 /2 of the N. 1 /2 of the NE 1 /4 of said
Section 9, thence E. along said N. line 139.65' to the
Westerly R.O.W. line of the City Ditch, thence Northeasterly
along said R . O. W. line 515.35' to a point 660.0' S. of the
N. line of the NE 1 /4 of said Section 9, thence E. parallel to
said N. line 528.57' to the point of beginning. Containing
4.41 acres, more or less.
The Commission finds that
(1) No substantial benefit would be gained by the City or by
the public by requiring a subdivision plat to be prepared,
approved and filed therefor;
(2) The parcel o f land which is proposed to be combined with
and made a part of Parcel B, as described in Book 2096
at page 195 in the records of the Arapahoe County Clerk
and Recorder, to all intents and purposes is land-locked
and can best be developed by joining it with the adjoining
land to be developed as one site.
(3) The proposed development is compatible with the develop-
ment in that area at this time and projected for that
area under the provisions of the generalized land use
section of the Comprehensive Plan.
AYES: Anderson; Brown; Jorgenson; Lentsch; Martin; Smith;
Tanguma; Wade; Weist
Nays: None
The motion carried.
IV. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE
Mr. Supinger stated that the Council of Governments annual
dinne r meeting is March 20, 1974, at Stouffers Denver Inn.
Reservations have been made for Mr. and Mrs. Lentsch; Mr. and
Mrs. Jorgenson ; Mr. and Mrs. Weist; Mr. Martin and Mr. Tanguma •
-3-
•
•
A dinner meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission has
been scheduled for March 28th, 6:30 P.M. at Brocks Restaurant
in Littleton. Mr. Supinger stated that he and Mr. Romans would
work up an agenda for the meeting.
V. COMMISSION'S CHOICE.
A. ASPO Conference.
Mr. Supinger stated that the ASPO Conference will be in Chicago
May 11 -16. Mr. Supinger stated that this Conference is
heavily attended by Planning Commission members, and is open
to any one interested in planning. Mr. Supinger stated that
he has found it to be a good conference year after year, and
that the meetings and mobile work-shops are extremely good.
He stated that in the past, two commission members and one
staff member have attended. Mr. Supinger indicated that he
did not plan to attend the conference this year. Mr. Martin
asked if Mrs. Romans would be attending in Mr. Supinger's
behalf?
Mr. Martin stated that he would like to attend the conference
An informal poll of those interested in attending was taken;
Mr. Jorgenson stated that he would attend if no one else could
do so; Mrs. Wade stated that she would like to attend, and Mr.
Tanguma stated he would like to attend if his work permits.
Mr. Lentsch, Mr. Smith and Mr. Weist indicated they were not
interested in attending or could not go.
B. Citizen Meetings.
Mr. Martin asked if any meetings with citizen groups had been
scheduled; one that was under consideration was with residents
south of West Union and east of South Decatur Street. Mr.
Supinger stated that this would be scheduled shortly; he
felt this was one of the most critical areas as far as access
is concerned.
C. Miscellaneous.
Mr. Martin asked about progress on "Sonny's Flowers"? Mr.
Supinger stated that he would check on this and report back.
Mr. Anderson stated that Council has been concerned about the
lateness of minutes submitted to the Council. Upon investiga-
tion, it was determined that the Planning Commission is the
only commission or board with the rule that all minutes must
be approved by the Commission prior to release to the Council
and general public. He noted that the City Council feels it
-4-
•
•
•
•
is important to get the minutes on a timely basis, and asked
the reason for the Planning Commission policy? Discussion
followed. Mr. Supinger noted that every effort has been made
to send forth recommendations with minute excerpts prior to
the approval of the total minutes. Further discussion followed.
Mr. Lentsch asked about progress on the new parking regulations?
Mr. Supinger indicated that the staff is working on the regula-
tions at the present time.
Mr. Brown stated that City Council accepted the recommendations
of the Planning Commission on the proposed I-1 and I-2 Zone
District amendments, and the proposed I-3 Zone District. A
Public Hearing has been set for April 15th, and ordinances
have been passed on first reading.
Mr. Martin asked about the suit contesting the annexation
area? Mr . Supinger stated that the matter has been referred
back to the City Council for "findings". Discussion followed.
The City Center Redevelopment Plan was discussed. Mr. Brown
stated that the City Council was hoping for more citizen input
at the meetings before the Commission and Council than there
has been. Mr. Anderson stated that it is the intent of the
Council go have "more structured, better organized meetings"
on the CCRP. Brief discussion ensued.
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p .m •
-5-