Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-03-16 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1976 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Tanguma. Members present: Jones, Jorgenson, Parker, Tanguma, Williams Members absent: Pierson, Don Smith, Ed Smith, Wade Also present: Associate Planner Steve House Assistant City Attorney DeWitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Tanguma stated that Minutes of March 2, 1976, were to be considered for approval. Parker moved: Jones seconded: The Minutes of March 2, 1976, be approved as written. Mrs. Pierson entered and took her place with the Commission. AYES: Williams, Jones, Parker, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Jorgenson, Pierson ABSENT: Don Smith, Ed Smith, Wade The motion carried. III. STREET VACATION REQUEST 2700 Block South Elati S 1 /2 450-500 Block of West Yale Avenue. CASE #9-76 Mr. Tanguma asked Associate Planner House for a background of the request. Mr. House stated a request has been received for the vacation of the 2700 block of South Elati Street, and the south one-half of Yale Avenue from the Delaware/Elati alley west to the west line of South Elati Street. The applicant is Stearns-Roger and General Iron Works; they own the land on both sides of South Elati Street adjacent to the right-of-way for which the vacation is sought. Having their land divided by the public right-of-way is inconvenient, and General Iron feels that in- creased access is needed to the storage area on the east side of South Elati Street in the 2700 block. South Elati Street in that block is an unpaved 60 ft. right-of-way. The land on the east side of South Elati Street in the 2700 block is zoned I-1, Light Industrial; the General Iron Works land to the west of South Elati Street is zoned I-2, General Industrial. -2- Property east of the Elati/Delaware alley is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residence. The 2700 block of South Delaware is developed ~ residentially, most of which are single-family homes. Notice ~ of the request to vacate was sent to all property owners in the 2700 block of South Delaware Street. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that this area be used industrially. The staff has recommended against the requested vacation because it is felt that future traffic patterns will depend on South Elati Street and West Yale Avenue being open. There was strong opposition to the request voiced by the Department of Public Works. That Department pointed out that West Yale Avenue is designated as a Collector Street in the Master Street Plan, and therefore should not be vacated. South Elati Street is proposed as a truck route by the Department of Public Works, and the Departmental staff felt that South Elati Street should remain open. The Utilities Department had no objection to the vacation, but requested that easements be retained in both Elati Street and Yale Avenue for maintenance of the lines in those streets. Neither the Fire nor Police Departments objected to the vacation. The Denver Planning Office recommended against the requested vacation; Yale Avenue is designated as an Arterial in the Denver Master Street Plan. Mr. House stated that a meeting was held with the applicant, representatives of the Denver Planning Office, the Englewood Fire Department, Police Department, Public Works Department, Utilities Department and the Department of Community Development to discuss the request and the problems involved. The applicant was made aware of the problems forseen by the various depart- ments at that meeting, and several alternatives were considered. One alternative that was proposed by the staff is the dedication of right-of-way adjoining the west side of the Delaware/Elati alley, which with the 16 foot alley, would become an alternate street. This would provide for a traffic flow pattern in the area. Mr. House stated that a call was received from a Mr. Brown, who owns property at 2775 South Delaware Street; Mr. Brown indicated he didn't care whether the vacation was approved, he did express concern about the storm drainage on West Amherst Avenue and what the vacation would do to the drainage flow pattern. Mr. House noted there were representatives of General Iron in the audience. Mr. Jones asked what General Iron proposed for the property? Mr. Stephens, President of General Iron Works, stated that the land to the east of South Elati Street in the 2700 block is zoned I-1; they propose to use the land for "low-profile" storage of materials. Mr. Stephens stated that contrary to the staff report, General Iron has not had possession or use of the land prior to now; the land was leased and the equipment -3- that was stored there is now moved. Mr. Stephens stated that no manufacturing or fabrication process is contemplated for this property at this time. Mr. Jones asked if General Iron needed more yard room because of their recent expansion, or if the yard room was needed to facilitate further expansion? Mr. Stephens stated that the facility has been expanded in the past few years and they need more yard space. The yard space is needed to handle matters they have in operation now, and items that will be used in future operations. The present yard area is too com- pact to work efficiently, and does not provide for adequate maneuveratibility for fire equipment; therefore, there is not adequate fire protection around the site. Mrs. Pierson asked if General Iron owned all the property be- tween Amherst Avenue and Bates Avenue? Mr. Stephens stated that General Iron did not. Mr. Stephens noted that in the pictures of the General Iron site, previously mailed to members of the Commission, properties owned by General Iron are in- dicated in red. Mr. Jones asked if the proposed dedication for a street on the extreme east property line of the General Iron ownership east of South Elati Street had been discussed with the applicant, and if it could be considered as an alternative? Mr. Stephens stated that this alternate does have some major problems; he understood the proposal to require a 60 ft. dedication plus the 16 ft. alley that is in existance. An easement would have to be maintained were South Elati Street, as it exists, to be vacated; this would seriously restrict the useability of the property between South Elati Street and the Delaware/Elati alley. Mr. Stephens stated that he felt the designation of South Elati Street as a truck route would be impractical; the street would have to be greatly improved, and the trucks don't seem to use Elati anyway, but use Amherst, Broadway and Dartmouth. Mr. Stephens stated he felt the residents on the west side of South Delaware Street would have objections to a street on both sides of their homes. Mr. Tanguma asked how much traffic used the 2700 block of South Elati? Mr. Stephens stated there is very little traffic on South Elati; it is a dirt street right now. Drivers from Bob's Auto sometimes use this block of South Elati but over- all, it is very lightly used. Mr. Jones noted that South Delaware Street is posted for a 7,000 lb. limit south of Yale Avenue; the truck traffic was restricted on this block because of the residential develop- ment. Mr. Jones noted that Elati Street has been suggested as as a truck route; would there be an alternative that could be considered to handle the truck traffic rather than putting it on Delaware in the event South Elati Street is vacated? Mr. Jones noted that he lives in the 2700 block of South Cherokee Street, and has noticed the problems General Iron has experienced in delivery and shipment of large items, such as the large -4- cylinders which were moved in recently. Mr. Jones noted that to get the cylinders onto the General Iron property took a e great deal of maneuvering and turning radius; he stated he is concerned about access for this large equipment and whether or not the operation could function. He stated he felt additional room to maneuver was needed on the site. Mr. Jones asked what underground utilities were in South Elati Street? Mr. House stated there is a 4" water line; in Yale there is an 18" sewer line plus a relief line, and a 6" water line. Mr. Stephens noted there would be no problem in providing easements. Mr. Stephens stated that the large cylinders that came in recently which Mr. Jones referred to, were brought down Amherst Avenue through the east gate into the General Iron property; however, the grade did cause problems and they had to use cranes to move the cylinder. Mr. Stephens stated that it is very important they be able to bring these large items in and out of the site; he noted there will be 14 truck loads shipped to Texas very shortly. Mr. Stephens stated that it cost General Iron $1,000 to move the large cylinder from Amherst Avenue onto their property because of the grade and inaccessability to the site. Mr. Stephens stated that Fire Chief Hamilton has stated he cannot now get the large fire equipment onto the site because of the grade. Mr. Stephens presented pictures to the Commission members of the delivery of the large cylinder, showing the problems with grade and the use of the crane to maneuver the cylinder. Mr. Stephens indicated on a map the proposed "angled" access and a A ramp that would be created for easier access for deliveries of ~ large items. Mr. Stephens stated that he had met with representa- tives of the Denver Planning Office earlier in the day to dis- cuss Yale Avenue. Denver officials agreed to consider an alterna- tive to the extension of Yale Avenue through General Iron property. Mr. Stephens stated that a grade crossing at the tracks would be the only type crossing that could be justified on Yale, according to Denver representatives. Mr. Stephens traced an alternate routing of West Yale Avenue to Santa Fe that would eliminate the need for cutting across General Iron property. Mr. Stephens noted that no agreement has been reached at this point, but Denver has agreed to consider the alternative. Mr. Stephens again stated that he did not feel Elati would be a good truck route; he stated he had never seen a semi use South Elati Street, and all their large equipment comes in from Amherst Avenue. Other traffic to their business comes in the front gate and circulates within their property. Mr. Jones asked if Mr. Stephens felt improvement of the crossing at Dartmouth and the tracks would improve the use of Dartmouth for these large deliveries? Mr. Stephens stated that an improved crossing would help; however, the heavy equipment entrance is from West Amherst Avenue. Mr. Stephens stated that Denver has no plans to extend Yale Avenue west of Santa Fe Drive. On the A Denver Street Plan, Dartmouth Avenue isn't shown as a major ~ intersection with Santa Fe. Mr. Stephens stated that the street patterns and vacation of South Elati Street is quite important to the company; they have 700 employees,.and they must have a -5- safe, efficient operation to remain competitive. He noted that they cannot afford to spend $1,000 to bring material into the shop to be worked on. Mr. Stephens stated that the access to the site results in poor fire protection. The livelihood and security of 700 people will be affected by the decision of the Commission on the request for vacation. If General Iron cannot stay in business, it will have a very real impact on the City. Mr. Jones asked why the vessels being sent to Texas are going by truck and not by rail? Mr. Stephens stated they came from an area of north Denver where rail wasn't accessible. The 14 loads cannot be shipped by rail; therefore, it must be trans- ported by truck. Mr. Stephens stated that General Iron depends on truck traffic to transport items from their plant, as well as rail service. Mr. Stephens emphasized that the manufacture and transportation of very large products is vital to General Iron Works. Mr •. Stephens again discussed truck traffic on South Elati Street; he emphasized the fact that very little traffic of any kind uses Elati, and that one did not see trucks using South Elati in the 2700 block. He stated he did not see what would change to encourage trucks to use that block of South Elati .. Mr. Jones inquired about drainage in the area; he asked if the run-off water didn't flow north from Amherst on Elati to a catch basin on Elati at Yale? Mr. Stephens stated there was a small storm in-let at Elati and Yale; General Iron has plan for culverts to carry the water from Amherst to Yale if South Elati Street is vacated . He stated that General Iron sees no problem with drainage, and they would accept the present flow across their property. Mr. Jones noted that the 2700 block of South Elati was deleted from the last Paving District at the request of General Iron. He further stated that .there is a high-pressure gas line in Yale Avenue. Mr. Stephens stated there is also a gas line in South Elati, but again emphasized that easements would be given for the maintenance of these lines. Mrs. Pierson asked why General Iron property couldn't be lowered at this point of access to eliminate the grade problem? Mr. Stephens pointed out that the rail spur is in this immediate area and that this would require a change of the entire profile of the parcel. Mrs. Pierson asked about the possibility of raising the grade of Elati at this point? Mr. Stephens pointed out that the 2800 block of South Elati was paved last year, and a small "hill" that had existed was leveled at that time; to raise the grade of South Elati now would be a major undertaking and would be very expensive. Mrs. Pierson then asked Mr. Stephens if he -6- had an estimated value of the 2700 block of South Elati Street if it were to be vacated. Mr. Stephens stated he did not know what the estimated value would be. Mrs. Pierson stated that a very rough estimate would, in her opinion, be approximately $100,000, Mr. Stephens stated that if access is no longer needed, the street should be given back to the property owners; the land originally belonged to the property owners, and it was deeded to the City for access. Mrs. Pierson pointed out that we are talking about $100,000 worth of land; she stated that possibly a few thousand dollars should be spent to solve the problem on South Elati Street rather than vacating the street and then having to spend more thousands of dollars to purchase the land back if access is needed. She stated that she is of the opinion "you are asking for too much in the way of a solution when there are less expensive ways to solve your problem." Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt there was a possibility of need for South Elati Street in the future. She stated that she felt Yale should not be vacated and should be developed as a through street. Mr. Stephens stated that in his op1n1on, Yale Avenue will never go through General Iron property, it might go through properties to the north and intersect with Santa Fe Drive. Mr. Stephens emphasized that the area would be used for storage of materials in conformance with the light industrial zoning classification. If South Elati Street were not to be vacated, to use the property east of South Elati would require gates, and would require fork-lift and personnel crossing the street to and from the storage area. Mr. Stephens stated he feels this would be a safety hazard, but it would cone to this to stay in business. Mr. Williams suggested that this matter be set aside until a later meeting inasmuch as the Commission needs more informa- tion on the matter. He stated he felt it is very important to General Iron that the correct decision is made. Mr. Tanguma asked if there were anyone else in the audience who wished to speak to the matter? Mr. Jackson 2797 South Delaware -stated that he received a letter notifying the property owners of the request and the meeting date; he asked what the property would be used for if it was "rezoned"? How would this effect property owners on South Delaware? Mr. Tanguma stated that the question is not a matter of rezoning; the request is for the vacation of South Elati Street in the 2700 block. Mr. Jackson asked if this would make it inconvenient to the property owners on South Delaware? Mr. Tanguma stated that the property would be used for storage purposes. Mr. Stephens stated that it will be used for "low profile storage"; no huge materials will be stored on the site; the storage will be of pipe, castings, plates, etc., and will be low in total height. There will be no fabrication on the lot; it will only be storage of slow-moving items. -7- Mr. Parker asked if there were any possibility of ra1s1ng the grade on Amherst Avenue and not on Elati, but raise it just for that portion used as access to the General Iron property? Mr. Stephens stated that a ramp on Amherst to the gateway into the General Iron property could be constructed, but it would not be feasible to continue to use South Elati at that point. Mr. Parker asked what the difference was in grade? Mr. Stephens stated approximately two to three feet. Mr . Parker asked if traffic on South Elati would be impaired by an elevation of no more than two or three feet at that point? Mr. Jackson asked if the vacation of the street would affect the property values in the area? Mr. Tanguma stated that he did not think the property values would be affected. Mr. Jones asked if an opaque screen would be required between the industrial use and the residential area on South Delaware? Mr. House stated that any new use would be required to provide screening. He stated that there is a possibility the City could require the installation of an opaque fence. Mr. Stephens stated he felt discussion had zeroed in on the truck traffic problem; he stated if they didn't have the trucking operations, they would still be asking for the vacation for the reasons of efficiency of operation, safety to employees, etc. Williams moved: Pierson seconded: Consideration of the request be tabled until April 20th, for further information and dis- cussion. AYES: Williams, Jones, Parker, Pierson, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Jorgenson ABSENT: Wade, Don Smith, Ed Smith The motion carried. Mr. Jorgenson stated he wished to abstain from all discussion and consideration of this request; he pointed out that he was retired from Stearns-Roger, and that he wished to avoid any possible conflict of interest. IV. ALLEY VACATION West leg of the Downing/Marion Alley, 3500 Blk. CASE #10-76A March 2, 1976 Mr. House stated that this request was tabled at the last meeting. The staff has met with the applicant and various City Departments that would be involved. Mr. House presented a group of pictures of the alley involved in the request. He stated that the applicant is Mr. Lambros, and he has requested the vacation of the west leg of the 11 T" shaped alley just south of Hampden Avenue between South Downing and South Marion Street. -~ The alley adjoins property at 3540-42 South Downing Street on the south, and to the north abuts Fratelli's Pizza Parlor and Dr. Makens' Veterinary Clinic. Persons attending the meeting of March 10th, were Mr. Diamond, Mr. Lambros, Dr. Makens and City of Englewood personnel. The possibility of vacating the west portion of the alley back to the property owners was dis- cussed; Mr. Lambros indicated he felt he could meet the drainage requirements as set forth by the Department of Public Works. If the alley were to be vacated, Mr. Lambros would put a fence or some such barrier in the alley to direct the flow of water to South Downing Street. However, the suggestion of a radius to be dedicated from property at 3515 South Marion to facilitate turning movements of large equipment was felt to be unfair by Mr. Lambros. The property at 3515 South Marion Street is owned by Mr. Lambros, as is the property at 3540-42 South Downing Street. Dr. Makens suggested at this meeting the possibility of extending his retaining wall /flower box across the width of his property and possibly across the width of Fratelli's Pizza property. This would obstruct traffic from coming up the alley and going through the parking lot of these two businesses to get to Hampden Avenue. Mr. House stated that Dr. Makens had indicated he would discuss the matter with Mr. Plummer of Fratelli's. Mr . House stated that he had discussed this with Mr. Plummer earlier in the day, and that Mr. Plummer indicated he would be agreeable with some type of barrier across his rear property line --a chain, or bumper stops, or something similar. Mr. Jones discussed the drainage problem. He asked if the drainage problem would be aggrivated by restricting the flow of water? Mr. House stated this is a possibility. He stated that the barrier would be to keep the flow of water from Mr. Lambros' property, and that he felt Mr. Lambros would be agreeable to placing the barrier where it would do the most good. Mr. House pointed out that at the time Mr. Lambros pur- chased the property in July, Fratelli's had not begun their extensive expansion and remodeling project. Mr. Tanguma asked if Mr. Diamond or Mr. Lambros wished to say anything? Mr. Diamond stated that he was representing Mr. Lambros in this matter, and attended the meeting Mr. House mentioned. He stated that Fire Chief Hamilton was at the meeting, and voiced no basic objection to the vacation request as long as there was ingress and egress to the property for the fire equipment. It was pointed out there is access to the properties from Hampden Avenue for those fronting on Hampden. Mr. Diamond pointed out that Fratelli's has planned to have a curb cut onto South Downing as another point of access, as well as the access from East Hampden Avenue. Mr. Diamond stated there is a natural flow of drainage from the east to the west, and from the north to the south; the topography is such that drainage flows to the west and south, and runs a- cross Mr. Lambros' property at 3540-42 South Downing. When the Pizza Parlor had the parking area blacktopped, it increased ~ the flow of water onto properties to the south. Mr. Diamond stated that Dr . Makens had mentioned the possibility of erecting a fence along the length of his property which would channel -9- the water from the east to the west to South Downing Street; this would alleviate the drainage onto Mr. Lambros' property. This would also eliminate the speeding traffic cutting through the property from the alley to East Hampden Avenue, and might also curtail traffic using the west leg of the alley. Mr. Diamond stated that Mr. Sagrillo, City Engineer, had said at that meeting that if this were to be done, he would guarantee the City would have grading in the alley that would carry any run off and would eliminate the hazards of kicking up loose materials and throwing it against Mr. Lambros' house. Mr. Diamond stated that Mr. Lambros could not get involved in whether the fence is actually constructed as proposed by Dr. Makens. Mr. Lambros did take exception to the 45 ft. radius required from the property at 3515 South Marion Street. Mr. Diamond stated that he had asked, at the meeting of March 10th, how large grading equipment was maneuvered in the alley now without a turning radius? Mr. Sagrillo reportedly stated that the graders and other large equipment are "backed in" and grade out to the street on the north/south alley, and grades straight through from east to west on the alley in question. Mr. Diamond stated that he feels if the graders are "backed in" to grade the north/south alley, they could be backed in to grade the east leg of the east/west alley, and that the require- ment of a 45 ft. radius is inequitable in light of the way the City has been maintaining the north/south alley up to the present time. Mr. Lambros has proposed, if Dr. Makens and Mr. Plummer do not erect a fence on their rear property lines, and if the alley were to be vacated, that he would erect a retaining wall to channel the water flowing from north to south. Mr. Diamond pointed out that only the Department of Public Works has indicated the vacation would present problems for their grading equipment, and Mr . Diamond questioned the need for the radius only if the west leg of the alley is vacated. Mr. House noted that the north/south alley is an 18 ft. dedica- tion; there are some fences set into the alley right-of-way. There is in existance a small radius off the corners of lots 13 and 28, but this radius is not annotated on the Subdivision Plat. Mr. House discussed the drainage flow from north to south; he noted there would have to be 1-1/2 to 2 feet of water collecting in .the alley before it would flow onto Mr. Lambros' property. Mr. Diamond noted that the water flowing north to south and from east to west seems to converge on Mr. Lambros' property. Mr. Jones asked if Mr. Lambros and Mr. Diamond felt there had been any changes in the conditions that were existing at the time Mr. Lambros brought the property? Mr. Diamond stated he did not know of any changes. Mr. Diamond stated that Mr . Lambros was unaware of the problems the alley has caused at the time he purchased the property, and that he had purchased the property on South Downing Street in good faith. Mor.e and more persons are beginning to use the west leg of the east- west alley because the Pizza Parlor has expanded. Mr. Diamond -10- emphasized that the house at 3540-42 South Downing Street is only five feet from the alley line, and the heavy use of the alley and resultant damage to the structure has cost Mr. Lambros tenants. Mr. Lambros has provided a concrete parking slab in the rear for the tenants; a motorist recently narrowly missed a parked car when they sped down the alley and tried to cut through into the Pizza Parlor parking lot. The alley is used as a "race track" for persons cutting through to and from East Hampden Avenue. Mr. Diamond stated that Mr. Lambros would be satisfied if Dr. Makens and Mr. Plummer did indeed install the fence and if the City Engineer would indeed see that the grade of the alley was correct. Mr. Jones discussed the problem of ice build-up in the alley, particularly were a fence or retaining wall to be erected if the alley were to be vacated. Mr. Jones stated he felt it would be difficult for the City to maintain a drainage-way if it is imposed over private property. Mr. Jones stated that he is most concerned about drainage in this area in the winter time. He stated that he felt the right-of-way might be needed for drainage control, and that paving the alley would eliminate the problem of gravel being thrown against the house. Mr. Diamond stated that if a retaining wall were to be erected in the vacated alley, it might create an ice problem, but it wouldn't change what is there today. He noted that some of Mr. Lambros' property is being washed away by the drainage running across his property. Mr. Parker stated he felt an error was made when the black- topping was allowed of the pizzeria parking area at a grade above the alley, thus allowing more run-off into the alley. Mr. Jones stated he didn't think the grade was changed when the parking area was blacktopped. The alley is there to provide a drainage way. Mr. House stated that Mr. Plummer of Fratelli's Pizza Parlor is considering installation of bumper stops along the boundary of his property, not necessarily the erection of a retaining wall or fence; he stated he did not want Mr. Diamond to mis- understand this point. Mr. Plummer's intent is to stop the through traffic from cutting across his property, and is not necessarily considering installation of a retaining wall. Mr. Tanguma stated that he could easily understand the concern with the ice build-up; there is still snow on the north side of Mr. Lambros' property, and he feels that a retaining wall just might compound the problem that exists. -11- Parker moved: Jones seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the requested alley vacation of the west leg of the "T" shaped alley in the 3500 block between South Downing Street and South Marion Street be denied on the grounds it is felt there is a strong possibility more problems would be created than would be solved. AYES: Tanguma, Williams, Jones, Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Wade, Don Smith, Ed Smith The motion carried. Mr. Diamond was asked to contact the staff to discuss the appeal procedure to City Council. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. House stated that City Council has accepted a petition for annexation of Lot 6, Bell Isle Gardens, owned by Mr. and Mrs. Leon E. Mardesen. The petition for annexation was referred to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendationo Mr. House indicated the parcel which is the subject of the annexation petition on a map of the area; the parcel is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of West Tufts Avenue and South Windermere Street. The parcel was previously included in the area known as the Santa Fe /Union annexation area, which was declared invalid in an earlier Court decision. Mr. House noted that the applicant, Mr. Mardesen, and his counsel, Mr. Eitel, are in the audience. Mr. Eitel stated that he is an Attorney-at-Law, with offices in Suite 1016, First National Bank Building of Englewood; he stated that he represents Mr. and Mrs. Leon Mardesen in their petition to annex to the City of Englewood. This area was involved in an annexation action which was ruled invalid approximately one year ago; Mr. and Mrs. Mardesen supported the move to annex the area to Englewood at that time, and were also supportive of the zoning which was applied to the area during the time it was under Englewood jurisdiction. Mr. Mardesen had applied for a Building Permit in Englewood about the time the Court had invalidated the annexation and, of course, was denied. Under the County zoning restrictions for an industrial district, Mr. Mardesen must provide a 50 ft. setback; this leaves 30 ft. of the property to build on. Mr. Mardesen tried to go Planned Development on his site, but he was told he would have to form a Water District to provide service 1o the site. Mr. Mardesen is now petitioning for annexation to the City of Englewood. The annexation map be- fore the Commission was prepared by Mr. Nicholl, a licensed surveyor. The property is contiguous to Englewood for 212.3 feet, or 31,4%, and does meet the contiguity requirements. Mr. Eitel stated there is water service in West Tufts Avenue, and Mr. Mardesen has been told by the City there would be no problem with water service if his property was annexed to Englewood. -12- There is one rental unit on Mr. Mardesen's property at this time; the plans for development are for a light industrial business. Mr. Mardesen does have a lessee ·for the property, who wants to have the property by June. Mr. Mardesen must have the property annexed and zoned as soon as possible or he will lose the lessee. Mr. Eitel stated that Mr. Mardesen would hope to be granted 1-1 zoning, and the proposed use of his land is an auto-body shop. Mr. Eitel pointed out there is industrial zoning to the south and on the part of the east boundary of Mr. Mardesen's property which abuts the City limits. There is also industrial zoning to the north and west, and there is residential zoning on part of the east boundary. Mr. Eitel pointed out that this annexation petition is a 11 100% annexation petition"; it is for one ownership, and therefore, the City may approve the annexation without having to hold a Public Hearing on the request. Mr. Eitel stated that lE understood the City would require an additional 20 ft. dedication from the north of Mr. Mardesen's property for West Tufts Avenue; Mr. Mardesen is willing to dedicate this land to the City upon annexat~on. Zoning of the surrounding areas was discussed. Mr. Parker asked if there was a sewer line in Thomas Avenue? Mr. Mardesen stated there was an 8 11 line; he has sewer service on three sides, and water service in Tufts .Avenue. Mr. Tanguma asked what action the Commission was to take? Mr. House stated that a decision could be made this evening as to whether or not to recommend approval of the request, or the matter could be referred to the staff for preparation of a staff report and consideration at a later date. Mr. House stated he knew of no reason the staff would object to the annexation. Mr. Jones noted there would have to be action on the annexation and on the zoning; he asked if this could be handled in one action? Mr. DeWitt stated that it would have to be two separate actions. Mr. Tanguma asked if the annexation would encompass 1/2 of South Windermere Street, or if it would be only to the west boundary of Lot 6, Bell Isle Gardens? Mr. House stated this point would have to be clarified with the City Engineer. Mr. Eitel stated that the petition does not encompass one-half of South Windermere Street; one-half of the street was not in- cluded in the legal description on the annexation plat, and it might, in fact, affect the contiguity of the parcel if one-half of the street were to be included. Jones moved: Williams seconded: The matter of the Mardesen Annexation Petition be referred to the Community Development staff for further information and recommendation to the Planning Commission for action; the staff report is requested for the meeting on April 6, 1976. -13- Mr. Mardesen noted that time is of the essence to him. Mrs. Pierson asked if the zoning could run concurrently with the annexation petition? Mr. Eitel stated that they could be considered concurrently; however, consideration and approval of the annexation must precede approval of the zoning. The vote was called: AYES: Tanguma, Williams, Jones, .brgenson, Parker, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Ed Smith, Wade, Don Smith The motion carried. Mr. House stated that the Denver Regional Council of Governments is sponsoring a Planning Commissioners Seminar which will be held on April 8, April 15, April 22, and April 29. Members were asked if they would want to participate. Messrs. Jones, Tanguma, Williams and Jorgenson indicated they would like to participate, and Mrs. Pierson stated that she understood Ed Smith would also like to participate. VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE Mr. Tanguma noted that the DRCOG Annual Dinner Meeting is scheduled for the evening of March 17th, 6:00 p.m., at the Holiday Inn Southeast, at I-25 and East Arapahoe Road. Mrs. Romans had a reservation to attend the dinner, but is ill and will not be able to do so; members were asked if they would be interested in attending the dinner meeting in Mrs. Romans stead? Brief discussion ensued; Mr. House was designated to attend the DRCOG Annual Dinner Meeting in Mrs. Romans stead, and Mr. Tanguma would attend from the Commission o Mr. Jones asked if it would be possible for the Commission to have an opportunity to meet in a study session before every meeting to go over the matters on the agenda? He suggested possibly meeting at 7 P.M. for a study session, and opening the public meeting at 8 P.M. Discussion followed. The Secretary was asked to review the Minutes to determine if the meeting time was formally changed by vote. Brief discussion followed. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. / (' / . -r /,~:--( :,~/I . /,. /~ .. Gel?trlldeG'.. iwe1 t'f"{t~ /Recording .,s·ecretary -14- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION o DATE: March 16, 1976 SUBJECT: Alley Vacation RECOMMENDATION: Parker moved: Jones seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the requested alley vacation of the west leg of the "T" shaped alley in the 3500 block between South Downing Street and South Marion Street be denied on the grounds it is felt there is a strong possibility more problems would be created than would be solved. AYES: Tanguma, Williams, Jones, Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson ·NAYS: None ABSENT: Wade, Don Smith, Ed Smith The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission.