Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-05-20 PZC MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 20, 1975 I . CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Martin . Members present: Jorgenson; Wade; Brown; Smith; Pierson; Martin; Parker Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Tanguma; Jones Also present: Public Works Director Waggoner; Assistant City Attorney Lee; Assistant Director Romans. Mr. Tanguma entere d and took his place with the Commission. II. AMENDMENT TO MASTER STREET PLAN Santa Fe/Union Annexation Area CASE #16-75 Mr. Martin stated that the public hearing scheduled f or this evening was to consider an amendment to the Master Street Plan. Mr. Martin noted that copies of the staff report and maps have been sent to property owners in the area commonly known as the Santa Fe/Union annexation area, concerning a proposed street plan for the territory. Mr. Martin stated that the purpose of the Hearing is to get the views of the persons who live in the area or do business or own property in the area, to help the Commission make a recommendation to Council that will, hopefully, be satisfactory to a majority. Mr. Martin stated that he was reasonably certain that no decision would be made at this meeting; this project will take considerable consideration and deliberation by the Commission and staff. Mr. Martin stated that the procedure would be to hear all persons who wished to speak in favor of the proposed street plan; opponents of the proposed plan would then be heard. Mr. R. G. Cummings 1500 West Tufts -demanded that the persons opposed to the plan be given the opportunity to speak first; he stated that he had lived at the above address for 20 years and still owns the property even thou gh he no longer resides there. Assistant City Attorney Lee asked that the Planning Commission proceed as they normally do; Mr. Lee also asked that the issue of whether or not the area is annexed be by-passed for the purposes of this Hearing. -2- Mr. Martin stressed that as far as the City of Englewood is concerned, the Santa Fe/Union Annexation is fact, and is accomplished. Mr. Martin acknowledged there is opposition to the fact of the annexation and that it is being contested in Court; but the purpose of the meeting this evening is to con- sider amendment of the Master Street Plan to include the area covered by the annexation and some area adjacent to the annexed land o Mr. Cummings again demanded that those persons in opposition to the street plan be allowed to speak first. Mr. Martin stated that the opposition could not speak firsto Mr. Soule 2045 West Union -stated "you are telling us that we have no rights", and that they should go home. "You are saying it's already settled; you are saying this is going to happen, and you people sit up there as though you were God." Mr. Brown asked that the meeting proceed with consideration of the matter at hand, and if it does not proceed, he stated that he would make a motion that might w~ste time for a lot of people. He stated the Commission wants to have a fair meeting, and wants to listen to the people; he emphasized the Commission was appointed to make decisions for the people of Englewood. Tanguma moved: Brown seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. AYES: Brown; Jorgenson; Martin; Parker; Pierson; Smith; Wade; Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Jones The motion carried. Mr. Martin stated that the Public Hearing is now officially open; the Commission will hear those persons who wish to speak in favor of the Master Street Plan. No one indicated a desire to speak in favor of the proposed plan. Mr. Martin then asked for those who wished to speak in opposition to the proposed plan. Mr. Lester Hunter 2101 West Quincy Avenue -stated that he assumed the Commission or City hired people to design the proposed street plan as is being considered by the Commission this eveningo Mr. Hunter stated that some of the proposed streets go through buildings that were just recently constructed. Mr. Martin stated that several proposed street plans had been devised by the Public Works Department and presented to the .. • • -3- Commi'ssion; this plan was felt to give adequate access and to split fewer properties than other~which were devised, and the Commission chose to hold a Public I Hearing on this proposed plan. \ Mr. R. G. Cummings 1500 West Tufts Avenue -stated he had lived at this addres s for 20 years; he now rents the proper t y. Mr. Thomas DeMarino -asked if it would be possible for the . speakers to refer to the map facing the audience? Mr. Cummings discussed the proposed extension of West Union Avenue across the railroad tracks. He asked if this extension would go under the tracks or over the tracks, and if so, would there be an over-pass constructed or would it be a surface crossing. Mr. Cummings noted the location of Big Dry Cree k and stated that the flooding from Big Dry Creek causes many problems for the flood plain area. Mr. Cummings then discussed the residential districts which would abut the proposed street pattern; he noted that there is one residence which will have a fence within a few feet of it if this street is put through. Mr. Cummings noted that the proposed street will curve to the north and then dead-ends --it doesn't go any place. Mr. Cummings stated that it would be impossible to fill in the flood plain. Mr. Supinger stated that the existing Master Street Plan was adopted by the City of Eng lewood in 1969 as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the meeting this evening is to consider an amendment to that Master Street Plan to in- clude the recently annexed area. Mr. Supinger stated that this is not the only amendment to the Master Street Plan that has been proposed; a Public Hearing date has been set for June 17th to consider other amendments to the Master Street Plan. Mr. Supinger stated that the reason some of the proposed streets shown on the maps appear to dead-end is that this reflects only a portion of the entire City street plan . Mr . Supinger stated there has been a specific request made to the City of Englewood, by the attorney for some o f the property owners in the annexa- tion area, for water and sewer service; the City must have right-of-way within which to put the utility lines. Mr. Supinger stated that it i s impractical to purchase rights-of-way for utilities and rights-of-way for streets when the two uses can be combined in one right-of-way. This is what the City is attempting to do. Mr. Supinger stated that another point that should be emphasized is that the Master Street Plan is a "policy guide line". The proposed streets are shown on the maps in a skematic way; there has not been afiy decision made as to whether the Union Avenue crossing would be an over-pass or an under-pass; Mr . Supinger stated he feels there should be a connection of Union Avenue across Santa Fe to further the continuity o f the street system. Mr. Supinger stated that this is all the pro p osal is trying to indicate . Later on, if some plan is approved, the Ci t y would proceed with obtaining the rights-of-way and putting in improvements. -4- Mr. Soule not ed that his copy of the staff report was mailed to him on May 16th, and he received it on May 19th. Mr.Soule • stated that he understood that the Master Plan is recorded, and that the Amendment would be recorded if approved. Mr. Supinger stated that State Law requires that once a Comprehen- sive Plan is adopted, that it must be recorded with the County Clerk and Recorder. Mr . Supinger stated that the existing Comprehensive Plan has been recorded and was recorded upon adoption. Mr. Supinger stated that should the proposed amend- ment be approved by City Council, it would have to be recorded as per State Law. Mr. Cummings asked, in the event there are changes made from t hat which is proposed, if there would be legal publications and notice given? Mr . Supinger stated there would be. He stated there are procedures through which the Commission must go. Legal publication would have to be given in the newspaper. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff has tried to notify the property owners in this area by mail becaus~ the staff knows of the property owners' concerns --we have tried to keep them informed. Mr. Supinger stated this is one of several proposals developed by the staff; there is no reason the Planning Commission or City Council cannot make changes; indeed, the Commission and Council do not have to adopt any of the proposals the staff has developed. However, it is the duty of the Planning Commission and City Council to adopt a Master Street Plan for this area. Mr. Martin stated that the maps depicting the proposal are not ~ definite or binding; they are recommendations or proposals the Commission hopes, with the consideration and help of the property owners, to develop into something to serve the needs of the people in the area. Mr. Cummings asked in the event changes are made from what is proposed tonight, if there would be another hearing to show what has been substituted or changed? It was stated there would be another hearing if changes are made in the proposed plan. Mr. Norman Sample 3625 W. Chemayo Road -stated that one of the proposed north/ south streets runs through the middle of his business. Mr. Sample indicated his property and property that he leases for his business on the map. Mr. Sample stated that if the street were in fact constructed as is indicated on the map, he would have buildings on either side of the road . Mr. Sample noted there are other businesses in the area besides his own that would be "completely destroyed" by the proposed street plan. Mrs. Wade asked if Mr. Sample had suggestions on location of the streets, or a street pattern for the area? Mr. Sample stated that any suggestion he would have would en- compass areas outside the City limits; he suggested that • -5- possibly West Quincy could be extended west to tie into the western-most north/south proposed street. Mr. Sample stated there were water lines serving his property and he does not need the utility service. Mr. Lee pointed out that if the Planning Commission so desires, it is proper to take into consideration rights-of-way outside the City limits for streets that might be compatible with the City street system. Mr. Soule stated that he owns property on the north side of . West Union Avenue, and is a heavy power line contractor. He asked how wide the proposed road through his property would be? Mr. Supinger stated that it would require a 60 ft. right-of~way. Mr. Soule stated there are five land-owners affiliated with this property; he pointed out there is access by way of a 42' x 573' easement with cul-de-sac at the north end. Mr. Soule stated that he had attempted to dedicate this roadway to Arapahoe County,but this was during the time the annexat i on proceedings were going on, and Arapahoe County did not accept the dedication. Mr. Soule stated that if the 60 ft . right-of- way is required, he will lose one office building tha t sits 8 ft. off his property line. Mr. Soule stated that he has over $150,000 investment in the property, and with the proposed street system his business would be ruined. Mr. Bob Koons 2025 West Union Avenue -stated that his property is located at the north end of the easement through Mr. Soule's property. He stated that the cul-de-sac is large enough to turn semi trucks around without backing out. Mr. Koons stated that his business is the manufacture of "tendons" to put in pre-stress concrete. Mr. Koons stated that he ships to points all over the United States. The proposed street system would take approximately 15 ft. off of his building. Mr. Koons stated that he had an area large enough to accommodate use of a crane in loading and unloading; the proposed street system would leave him a 10 ft. wide strip in front of the shop for loading and unloading purposes. Mr. Koons stated that he needed all of his property to be able to continue his business, and that Mr . Soule could not operate his business on less than 25 acres. Mr. Koons suggested that possibly access cou l d be extended from Union Avenue northward following the course of the South Platte River . Mr. Martin reminded Mr . Koons of the need for water and sewer line rights-of-way through the area also . Mr. Koons stated that they have their own water line, a 4" main. Mr . Koo ns further stated that the placement of water lines and streets in the same rights-of-way isn't good in practice . He then discussed the changes in topography in the area and noted a 12 ft. grade difference in his property and the surrounding properties. Mr . Koons again stated he felt it would be better if the rights-of-way followed the line of the Platte River ; he noted there are some existing rights-of-way that run east and -6- west. Mr. Koons stated that the property owners and business- men of the area would prefer that nothing be done r egarding designation of rights-of-way. Mro Mark Hannen Attorney First National Bank -stated that he represents Mr o Ray Koch who owns about 15 acres in the subject area. The proposed streets are an acute problem inasmuch as they would divide Mr. Koch's property both north and south, and east and west. Mr. Hannen stated that the existing road goes t o Mr o Koch's property line. Mr. Koch has three buildings whic h would be in the right-of-way for the proposed street, the most i mportant of which is a motorcycle shop, with a $55,000 replace- ment value. Mr. Hannen stated that the way Mr. Koch's land is l aid out, and the manner in which the proposed rights-of-way bisect the land, Mr. Koch will have to discontinue busine s s . Mr. Hannen stated that the present access from Stanford is adequate for police/fire accesso Mr o Hannen emphasized that Mr. Koch's land cannot be used if the proposed street system goes through as proposed o He pointed out that Mr. Koc h pays over $3,000 in property taxes per yearo Mr. Koch uses well water on his property, and has a leaching field for the sewage. There is no need for either the water or sewer lines from the •• City of Englewood. Mr. Hannen stated that a great deal of this recently annexed area is zoned I-3, Heavy Industrial ; the business- men need large tracts of land which are not cut up by streets to carry on their heavy industrial businesses. Mr. Hannen ~ questioned the extension of a proposed street to end in a cul- de-sac at the Platte River ; he asked if this street were really considered necessary? Mr. Hannen reiterated there is adequate access for police and fire services to Mr. Koch's property; he asked that this be taken into consideration by the Commission. Mr. Hannen stated he feels there should be very substantial public need to justify the bisect~ng of properties as is proposed. Mr. Hannen sta t ed that the proposal by the City will cause substantial dislocation and disruption of existing businesses. Mr. Martin stated that he is concerned by statements there is no immediate need for water and sewer service; he pointed out that this is one of the things the Commission has to plan for. Mr o Hannen stated that the Koch property isn't going to be used f or a n yth i ng but what is there now, and the proposed extension of st r eets has no justification, particularly the extens i on o f the street which would end in a cul-de-sac at the Platte River. Mr . Hannen reiterated he could see no need for further streets or widening of existing streets . Mr. Martin asked if a member of the staff could give some in- sight on the basic reasons for the proposed alignment o f the streets. Kells Waggoner , Director of Public Works, stated that the staff h ad proceeded on the assumption that someday the land in thi s -7- area will dev e lop; if it does develop, there will be need for streets and access in the area. Mr. Waggoner noted that the ownerships are very irregular in this area, and it is extremely difficult to work a street plan into the vicinity. Mr. Waggoner stated that one reason for the proposed street layout is a need to have the water lines "looped" for increased water pressure, and the north/south proposed streets provide a way to loop the lines. Mr. Waggoner stated that the street extension which ends in a cul-de-sac was proposed on the assumption that the Kiewit property will develop and will need access. Mr. Waggoner stated that the staff did try to follow property lines where they could in designing the proposed street plan; he noted that West Radcliff is the only dedicated right-of-way in the area; the remainder are private roadways. Mr. Waggoner stated that the Fire Department has had considerable concern about access to this area, and have indicated they cannot get into some areas to fight a fire if they had to. Mr. Waggoner again pointed out that the staff had attempted to follow property lines or section lines in designing the street plan. Mr. Waggoner stated that the staff is using this proposal as a starting point, and there is no reason the proposal cannot be changed. Mr. Waggoner stated that if the entire area would develop as a unit, there might be no need for such a street proposal, and that South Santa Fe would give enough access. Mr. Martin noted that at some time in the future well water serving these properties could be found to be inadequate or unsanitary, and there will be a need for water and sewer service from the City. Mr. Supinger stated that he feels this is a situation where the Planning Commission is asked to "bite the bullet", and determine whether the community is going to "plan" or "react". Mr. Supinger stated that what the staff has proposed is one method of trying to anticipate what they think will occur in the future; the staff is not saying the Commission or property owners have to agree with the proposal. · Mr. Supinger stated that he thinks it is in the best interest of the City of Englewood to plan for what is anticipated to happen in the future. Mr. Supinger stated he felt the staff has to try to anticipate and cause things to happen, and should not sit back and "react" to problems when they are right on our doorstep. Mr. Waggoner pointed out that the street plan, as proposed, does not signify definite locations. Mr. Waggoner again pointed out the problems caused by split ownerships and unplatted land. Mr. Koons again spoke to the matter. He stated that he felt a compromise could be worked out, and again mentioned an extension of Union along the reservoir to follow the South Platte River. Mr. Koons reiterated that a majority of the property owners don't need water, don't need sewer service, and furthermore that Englewood water is "pretty bad". Mr. Koons suggested that the "cross streets" be omitted from the plan. He stated there is no need for street lines to follow the section lines. Mr. Koons stated that some of the businessmen don't really want -8- access to thei r businesses; they have many problems with theft as it is now. Mr. Koons stated that the businesses ~ located in the area are very necessary types of industry, and need large tracts of land to operate efficiently. He estimated it would be 20 years before any right-of-way might be needed through the area. Mr. Koons stated that he felt the area "needs to be left as it is now if possible." Mr. Tanguma asked, if the street plan were approved, how long it would be before the streets would be developed? Mr. Waggoner pointed out that designation in the Master Street Plan does not get the right-of-way for the City; it only says that some day t h ere will be a street in this general location. The right-of- wa y will have to be obtained through platting of the area, or as it develops. Mr. Waggoner stated that he did not think the Ci ty would proceed immediately to purchase the rights-of-way, and if there is a demand for water or sewer service, the Ci t y would have to buy an easement or right-of-way to put in the water line. Mr . Waggoner stated that if right-of-way is needed before the area is platted, he would guess one is talking about purchasing the right-of-way; if you wait until development is contemplated, the City could ge t the right-of-way before issuing a Building Permit. Mr. Martin announced a ten minute recess. The meeting was called to order at 9:15 p.m. Mr. Martin asked for roll call: Present: Jorgenson; Martin; Parker ; Pierson; Smith; Wade; Brown Absent: Jones; Tanguma Mr. Martin declared a quorum present. Mr. Tanguma entered and took his place with the Commission . Mr. Martin called on Mr . DeMarino to speak. Mr . DeMarino stated that he realized a lot of work had gone into the proposal, and that it is difficult to balance the interests of the City of Englewood with the interests of the people whose property and businesses would be affected. Mr. DeMarino stated that he gathered from comments made , that the City is trying to consider the interests of the people who have the property and businesses. Mr. Waggoner stated that the City is trying to project what could de v elop in this area. Mr. DeMarino asked if it would be of value for the property owners and City staff to get together informa~ly and kick around ideas regarding a street plan and development of the area? Mr. Waggoner stated that he felt this is one reason for the Hearing b e f ore the Commission this evening --to elicit information f rom the property owners on what they would want and could live with. Mr. Waggoner emphasized that fire access to the property a n d t h e looping of water lines must be considered. -9- Mr. DeMarino asked if Mr. Sample, Mr. Koch, and Mr. Koons and other property owners would be willing to sit down with the City staff and discuss a street plan for the area? A member of the audience stated that "everyone is against it." Mr. DeMarino stated that if there were a manner in which the businesses could be saved, and still have water and sewer ser- vice, he felt it would be a good approach to the problem to have an informal session between staff and property owners. Mr . Svigel 4393 South Santa Fe -stated that "you want 650 ft. through my property; you want 350 ft. off of Santa Fe", and asked how much ground would he have left if this were giv en. He stated that he had been in this location for 45 years, and "have been getting along pretty good". Mr. Svigel stated that the majority of the property owners in the are a do not want annexation to the City of Englewood, but the City went ahead and tried to take them in --the property owners have no rights and no say in the matter. Mr. Lester Hunter 2101 West Quincy -stated that he understands Mr. DeMarino is suggesting that the two sides sit down and try to figure out a possible plan for the area, and forget this proposal completely . Mr. Hunter stated that he felt the Com- missi on was here tonight to find out what the feelings of the property owners are on the matter and to attempt to get some- thing that the property owners could live with and to accomplish what the City needs to do regarding water lines and access. Mr. Hunter stated that he felt it can be done. Mr. Lee pointed out that any meeting which might take place would have no bearing on the annexation issue as such; the fact the owners may or may not agree with the proposed street plan would be irrelevant to the annexation issue. Mr. Lee stated that whatever the decision on the annexation suit is, it would have nothing to do with the agreement or non-agreement of the property owners in the area to a proposed street plan. Mr. Soule stated he would like to request the City delay doing anything until the annexation issue is settled, because "we are spending a lot of money fighting you and you are spending a lot of ou r tax money fighting us back." Mr. Lee pointed out that a demand on behalf of the plaintiffs in the annexation suit had been received from Mr. Gollub, the demand being for water and sewer service from the City. Mr. Lee stated that this demand from the plaintiffs puts the responsibility on the City of Englewood to take steps to pro- vide water and sewer service, and other benefits of th~ City, to this area known as the Santa Fe/Union annexation area. Mr. Lee stated that, on the one hand, we have a number of people who are saying they don't want the City doing anything in their area, and on the other hand, the City has an official request from the attorney for the plaintiffs saying they demand water and sewer and other services. -10- Mr. Supinger s t ated that the Commission and staff have indicated a willingness to work with the people of the annexation area, whether we come to the place where everybody agrees or not; he noted that the staff and the property owners have worked to- gether in the past in determining the zoning classifications and districts for the area. He stated that the staff would be most willing to sit down with any and all of the property owners in the area to try to work out a Master Street Plan. Mr. Royce 4345 S. Santa Fe -stated that his property is not affected by the proposed street plan. He stated that "what Mr. Svigel is getting at is that when you get right down to it, we don't trust government." Mr. Royce stated that if the property owners of the area agreed to "one little thing -- water lines or something --next thing we know it will be some- thing else." Mr. Royce stated that the property owners of the area are content --if they have a fire and a building burns down, they will call it their responsibility. He emphasized that the existing roadways are adequate for them. Mr. Royce stated that through history, "every misdeed against people has been done for the 'good' of the r -:-~ople" --it is always the people who pay the price. He stated "they don't want to be part of the City, and want Englewood out of there." Mr. Martin noted that one of the prime functions of any govern- mental entity is consideration of public health,safety and wel- fare. Mr. Royce stated that the property owners of the area earn their living, and they are not on welfare; they have made it on their own and in their own way; they want to develop the land in their own way, and do not want the City telling them how to develop it. If one land owner says they want water or sewer service it doesn't mean the rest of the property owners have to sacr i fice for that one land owner. Mr. Supinger noted there are many property owners who are a party to the suit against the annexation, and the attorney filed the demand for services on their behalf. Mr. Lee stated that with the statement and request that has been made, the City is in no position to "go behind the attorney and ask the land owners if this is what they want"; he stated that t he City had to accept the demand for services at face value. Mr. Supinger stated that State Law and the City Charter of the City of Englewood impose on the Planning Commission the duty of developing a Master Plan, or Comprehensive-Plan, for this community. Mr. Soule interjected that Mr. Supinger "said we had no rights and to go to the legislature." Mr. Supinger stated 1h at he believes he "has indicated that State Law and the Englewood City Charter requires the Planning -11- Commission to d evelop and submit to Council for review and consideration a Master Plan for the Community. This is what we are here about --we are talking about the future of a portion of the City of Englewood, and if you did. not do this, as has been proposed this evening, you would be shirking your duties under the Charter, and your oath of office as a Planning Commissioner of this Community." Mr.Goldberg 4676 South Windermere -stated there were two different areas involved in the consideration this · evening, and two different objectives. Mr. Goldberg stated t hat it seemed a great number of people are affected by the proposal, and a great number of buildings would have to be re- moved if this particular proposal were to be adopted. Mr. Goldberg suggested an alternate route for the area east of South Santa Fe, in that the proposed street would turn north directly east of the tracks to Tufts and east to Navajo. Mr. Goldberg stated that this would use primarily vacant land, and realize the same objective. Mr. Goldberg stated that he felt the property owners west of South Santa Fe could come up with an alternative proposal and present it to the Commission for their consideration. Mr. Manning 1540 W. Tufts Avenue -stated that he lived on the east side of South Santa Fe Drive. Mr. Manning stated that as he interpreted the proposal, it would take 1/2 of his front lawn with no compensation. He asked how this could be done? Mr. Manning stated that there are water and sewer lines which serve his property, and he did not feel there was a need for additional right-of-way on West Tufts Avenue, so therefore, why take the 20 ft. from his front yard? He stated this would put the street right up to the front of his home. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff has indicated the proposed amendment of the Master Street Plan which is under consideration at this meeting, would be, if adopted, a policy guide ; it does not take property. Mr. Supinger stressed that the Master Street Plan is only a guideline for development of future streets; if property were to be taken there would have to be compensation for that property. Mr. Manning stated that the staff report states there will be an additiona l 20 ft . needed along the south side of West Tufts Avenue. Mr. Supinger emphasized that by the adoption o f a Master Street Plan , or an amendment to that Plan, the City is not taking any right-of-way. Mr. Supinger st~ted that Tufts Avenue is designated as a collector street in the Master Street Pl a n, and this would require an additional right-of-way through thi s particular area. However, approval of a Master Street Plan does not take right-of-way. Mr . Noyes stated that it is not true the City takes property but gives compensation; he ~ated they took his property for -12- street purpose s , and gave no compensation. He had to give the right-of-way before he could obtain a Building Perm i t. Marcel Dransfeldt 2151 West Radcliff -stated that he has attended all the meetings pertaining to the matter of annexation, zoning and now the street plan for this area. Mr. Dransfeldt presented the Commission with a petition signed by property owners in the area, the petition reading as follows: Chairman of the P lanning Commission NOTICE May 20, 1975 We the undersigned property owners and members of the Sante Fe [sic] Union Annexation refuse to be annexed i nto Englewood. Your letter of May 15 concerning the "Master Plan" is out of order and refused. You have refused our demands. Further manuvering [sic] on your part is a farce and can only be regarded as subterfuge. We as property owners, declare that we shall stand on our constitutional rights and so will defend them. Marcel Dransfeldt C. Leonard Forbes Roy Bumpus Josephine Roberts Cl yde Roberts Vern Sheets Mr . & Mrs. Donald W. Garman Ed n a Ca r lton Mr. & Mrs . Dave Tousley Wil l iam F. Manning Merie K. Manning Mr . & Mrs. Jerry (Illegible) Mr . & Mrs. Robert E. Royce Robert Koons Joe Svigel Sr. Wal ter A. Soule, Jr. K. R . S t ohn T i mothy A . Soule N. E. Sample Mr . & Mrs . Verne Porter Lester W. Hunter Ra y Koch Robert G. Cummings Lois E. Cummings 2150 w. Radcliff 1865 w. Union 1909 West Stanford Ave. 1800 W. Radcliff 1800 W. Radcliff 4283 So. Santa Fe 6344 s. Logan Ct. 1510 w. Tufts 1540 w. Tufts Ave . 1540 w. Tufts Ave. 4335 So. Santa Fe 4345 s. Santa Fe 2025 w. Union 4393 So. Santa Fe 2045 w. Union 1530 w. Tufts Ave. 2045 w. Union Ave. 2151 w. Radcliff 1460 w. Tufts 2101 w. Quincy 2020 West Stanford 10846 E. Berry Ave., Englewood, 13214 E.Linvale Pl., Denver Mr. Hannen stated that regarding Mr. Koch's property, some statements were made concerning proposed development in this Colo M Hannen S tated that he would suggest that any develop-area. r. -13- ment of the area might be considered under the Planned Develo p- ment regulations. Mr. Hannen stated that he does agree that the Master Street Plan is "just a plan", but it is his experience that it becomes a "guiding beacon" upo n adoption. Mr. Hannen stated that regarding the need for uti lity lines, they would like to discuss this with the City; as an alternative to having a road put through buildi ngs, he stated he felt the property owners would willingly give easements for the utility lines. Mr. Hannen reiterated that Mr. Koch doesn't need water or sewer service, nor has he requested such service, and suggested that possibly the attorney for the plaintiffs who requested the utility service exceeded his authority. Mr. Hannen state d he would like to sit down with Fire and Police Department staf f and discuss access problems within the area. Mr. DeMarino stated he would like to ask that Mr. Waggoner and Mr. Supinger contact at least the property owners of the bus inesses which would be destroyed by the proposed street plan, and see if a proposed plan can be worked out, that would avoid ruining the businesses, and still give the property owners streets and utility rights-of-way. Mr. DeMarino stated he felt that some- thing could be accompl ished. Mr. DeMarino stated he was not making a suggestion f o r those p ersons living and owning prope rty east of South Santa Fe; but did ask that steps be taken to assure a meeting with theproperty owners west of South Santa Fe. Mr. Noyes 4590 South Windermere -reiterated that his property was take n from him without compensation when he applied for a Building Permit. Mr. Noyes stated that he deeded to the City a strip o f land 20' x 195' in order to get the Building Permit. Mr. Noyes stated that the Master Plan is being used now to get the street rights-of-way. Mr. Martin asked if there were other comments or opinions to be expressed by the audience? Pierson moved: Wade seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff will be setting up a meet ing with the property owne rs in the area to discuss options for the street system in the area; he asked if the Commission wanted to continue the hearing to a given date? Mr. Martin stated that he did not think it should be continued to a given date. The roll was called: AYES: Jorgenson; Martin; Parker; Pierson; Smith; Tanguma; Wade ; Brown NAYS: None ABSENT: Jones The motion carried. -14- Mr. Martin st a ted that he felt it was in the interest of all parties present at this meeting to try to arrive at a reasonable . solution to the problemo Mr. Martin stated that the Commission wanted input from the property owners to aid the Commission in making a recommendation to the City Council. Mro Martin thanked members of the audience for attending the meeting. III. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mro Supinger stated that Councilman Sovern has asked that Commission members be invited to a meeting on May 22nd, 3:00. p.m., in the Police/Fire Center Training Room; there will be a presentation by someone from the Denver Fire Department on fire protection for high-rise buildings. Mr. Supinger stated that the Commission has been provided with copies of Minutes and a Resolution adopted by the City Councft regarding the Core Area Plano IVo COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Martin stated he would like t.c propose that the Planning Commission request of City Council an interpretation of Resolution #21, Series of 19740 Mr. Martin stated he felt there were some questionable statements in this Resolution, and he isn't absolutely certain it does what the Council thinks it doeso Mro Martin stated that he is interested in trying to .im. develop Resolution #38, Series of 1973 in some manner; he ~ stated that he thinks the essence of Resolution #38 is excellent. Mrso Pierson asked if Council could properly consider such a resolution on something the Planning Commission had not con- sidered and recommended? She asked if the Commission could have a legal opinion on whether the Council action was proper? Mro Martin acknowledged this was a matter of question at the time of the Council actiono Mro Martin stated he wanted clarification on what the Resolution is speaking to; is it speaking to the Final Report under date of May 1, 1974; is it speaking to the eleven memorandum reports and supplemental reports which the Consultants filed with the Core Area Com- mittee; what is the scope of Resolution #21? Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated he felt there is no way to determine the opinion of the Council on the matter short of asking each member. Mrso Pierson asked if Council did have the authority to act on this matter? Mr. Tanguma stated that "they killed some- thing; they paid $165,000 for something." Further discussion followedo Mrs. Pierson stated that if the action is null and the Council didn't have the proper authority ~o act, the Com- mission could proceed to develop Resolution #38 as has been suggestedo Mro Brown asked that Mr. Supinger give a brief background of the Core Area Study. Mro Supinger stated that 2-1/2 years ago, the City Council authorized a core area study and a -15- consultant was engaged to c onduct a 13-month program to develop a plan for the Englewood core area. Key elements of the program were (1) citiz en participation, and (2) the development of a practical plan that could be imp lemented. Eleven reports were submitted to the Core Area Citiz ens Committee, which committee was formed by asking f or appointments f r om clubs, organizations, businesses , etc . The reports included market analysis, goals, development parameters , etc. Goals and a set of "gi v ens" were formulated i nto a "Design Program", which after publica t ion in the newspaper and a Public Hearing before the Planning Com- mission and City Co u nci l , was approved by both bodies. The ~on­ s ultants developed three alternative plans ; no one liked any o f the t hree plans completelyo The Citizens Committee had app r oved the Development Plan, in addition to approving a set of develop- ment standards under which development should occur. They were about to consider the proposed implementation program when the opposition became active; any further consideration wa s put in abeyance, the recall election was held and shortly after the new Council was seated, Resolution #21 was adopted. Mr. Tanguma stated that he feels that Resolution #38 of 1973 was killed by Resolution #21 of 1974, as well as whatever Plan was recommended by the Englewood City Center Development Com- mittee. Mrs. Pierson stated that if the action is a nullity, then Resolution #38 is not cancelled by Resolution #21. She again asked if it would be possible to get a legal opinion on whether Council had the authority to act on Resolution #21. Discussion followed . Mr. Martin stated that great care would have to be taken on any revision of Resolution #38 to make it relate to the entire City of Englewood, and not just one specific area. Mr. Martin stated he would like to see Resolution #38 in- corporated as part of the total Comprehensive Plan for the City of Englewood. Mr. Supinger noted that Resolution #38 and the Design Program were drafted for one limited area of the City. We would not want to declare the entire City of Englewood as a multi-use activity center . But , he stated he understood Mr. Martin to want a set of goals for the entire City. Mr. Smith stated that he felt at least half o f the goals set forth in the Design P r ogram apply to RTD at the present time. Mr.Supinger , upon a question from Mr. Parker, stated that the Design Program is the only thing from the Core Area Study that was ever officially adopted by either the Planning Commission or the City Council . Further discussion followed. Mr. Smith stated that Resolution #38 does apply to the business district area, and anything the Commission may come up with in the way of goals for the city will have to be "original", though he felt we could follow the theme of the Design Program. Mr. Martin stated he felt the Commission could take the Design Pro- gram concept that was used b y the Core Area Citizens Committee -16- and go th roug h it, and r ec omm end to City Council this type of program be adopted or incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan ~ of the City of Englewood . Mr. Martin acknowledged there are things included in the Design Program that should not be in- cluded in a recommendation to Co unc il, but there is a lot of information that is good and should be used . Discussion followed. Mr. Supinger stated that if the Commission is talking about goals for the entire City of Englewood, they are talking about an amendmen t of the Comprehensive Plan, and it most certainly must be consi dered by the City Council. Mr. Martin stated that perha ps the Commission could consider th is in a study session --take it apart and put it back to- g ether as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tanguma asked Mr. Supinger when the meeting would be set with the property owners on the street plan amendment? M ·. Supinger stated they would set the meeting as soon as possib le. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.