Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-01-04 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PL ANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 4, 1977 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to orde r at 7:05 P .M. by Chairman Tanguma. Members present: Tanguma, J ones, Jorgenson, Parker , Pierson, D. Smith Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: Wade, Williams, Ed Smith Also present: Assistant City Attorney DeWitt Assistant Director Romans II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Tanguma stated that Minutes of December 21, 1976, were to be considered for approval. Parker moved: Jones seconded: The Minute s o f December 21, 1976, be approved as written. AYES: Tanguma, Jones, Parker, Don Smith NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Jorgenson, Pierson ABSENT: Ed Smith, Wade, Williams The motion carried. III. SUBDIVISION PLAT Hampden Professional Park -Final Plat Parker moved: CASE #31-76A October 19, 1976 Jones seconded: The Public Hearing on the Final Plat of the proposed Hampden Prof essional Park Subdivision be opened. AYES: Don Smith, Tanguma, Jones, Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Ed Smith, Wade, Williams The motion carried. Mrs. Romans stated that the Public Hearing is on the final plat of the proposed Hampden Professional Park Subdivision , located on the northeast corner of the Lafayette/U.S. 285 intersection, and in the southwest corner of the site commonly known as the Larwin or KLZ Site. Noti ce of the Public Hearing was given by Certified Mail to all adjacent property owners as is required by Ordinance. Mrs. Romans cited the Subdivision -2- Regulations, which state that it is unlawful to divide any land in the City of Englewood unless and until a subdivision plat is prepared, approved and recorded for that parcel of land. Mrs. Romans stated that the land to be subdivided by this plat is part of the original 57 acre tract formerly used for the KLZ towers, which was eventually purchased by the Larwin Multi.- Housing Corporation. A Subdivision Waiver was granted to Larwin in October of 1972, waiving the requirement ior platting the land inasmuch as a Planneq Development was to be imposed on the land. A Planned Development may serve in lieu of a plat being filed. The 57 acre tract was divided into nine phases for development, and a site plan was recorded together with the Subdivision Waiver following withdrawal of the request for approval of a Planned Development. The proposed subdivision plat would encompass Phases 8 and 9 of the Subdivision Waiver granted to the Larwin Multi-Housing Corporation. Mrs. Romans noted that under the development plan proposed by Larwin, Phase 8 would be developed with 240 low-rise residential units. Phase 9 was to have been developed with 116 mid-rise residential units. The proposed Hampden Professional Park Subdivision contains approximately 12 acres which is to be subdivided into two blocks with a total of 15 lots. The proposed Final Plat is very similar to the Preliminary Plan, which was previously appro ved by the Commission; however, one change has been made in Block 2. The Denver Water Board has a drainage easement running through Block 2, which easement may not be built upon; therefore, the lots abutting this easement have been enlarged to accommodate the easement and still give ample accommodation for construction. As a result, there are seven rather than eight lots shown in Block 2 on the Final Plat. The minimum lot area proposed on the Plat is 24,000 square feet, which minimum does meet the requirements of the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance. This property is zoned R-3, High Density Residence, and under this zone classification, pro- fessional office developments must have a minimum lot area of 24,000 sq. ft., and mult i-f ami ly developments must have a min i mum lot area of 42,000 sq. ft. The proposed subdivision is designed to accommod ate either a professional office building development, or a multi-fam ily development, if two or more of the lots are combined. Mrs. Romans discussed the surrounding area; to the north is part of the Larwin develop- ment, with 232 residential units. To the east is vacant land owned by Larwin. To the south is U.S. 285 and land in Cherry Hills Village. To the west, is the Bullock Mortuary, a rest home, and residential units. The zoning to the west, north and east is R-3, High Density Residence. There is some commercial zoning to the southwest on South Lafayette Street and a strip of commercial zoning along Hampden Avenue, and across U.S. 285 in Cherry Hills Village, is a single-fami ly classific a tion. p • • -3- Mrs. Romans stated that the utility companies have waived the requirement for specific easements to be shown on the Plat, with th ~ understanding that the easements will be provided at the time of development. Mrs. Romans stated that the site is not in a flood plain; the drainage will be similar to that proposed for the original development by Larwin; there will be an additional drainage inle t installed at Floyd and Lafayette as required by the Public Works Department. The drainage plan ha s been approved by the C}ty Engineer. /,,,._,,,. l1fr$;/Romans stated that the staff is concerned about some of //the information that has been submitted by the applicant, and // does feel that there should be clarification of this informa- /. tion before approval of the Plat. One of the items to be // clarified is that of the ownership of East Girard Avenue, which /./ is presently a private street with a 40 ft. width. The Commission has met with Larwin representatives several times and has in- formed these representatives of the need for a full dedication on East Girard Avenue; Larwin has made no effort to comply with the Commission's request, and recent attempts on the part of the City to contact Larwin have been ignored. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Regan, the applicant, has attempted to bring Larwin along as a party to the subdivision, in order to get East Girard Avenue platted to a 60 ft. right-of-way width. However, Larwin has apparently sold off the north 20 ft. of the private roadway, and Mr. Regan must now attempt to get a quit claim deed from Continental Assurance Company, or bring this company in as a party to the subdivision also. The staff also has questions on the legal description which is given on the Plat. The matter is apparently being corrected by the Engineer who prepared the Plat. Another matter for further consideration is the matter of street improvements which are to be made prior to construction of any buildings in the pro- posed subdivision. One of the questions raised by the City Engineer is t he matter of the improvement of East Girard Avenue as it exists; at the time these improvements were installed, there was no way to determine if the installation was made to city standards, inasmuch as Girard Avenue was a "private" road- way. The City Engineer is now asking for cores to be taken at intervals to determine the standards of the installation and if the improvements are not to City standards, they will have to be corrected or money placed in escrow before the right-of- way will be finally accepted. Mr. Jones questioned wither the storm drainage facilities in East Girard Avenue would be available to carry part of the waste water from this site? Mr. Jones asked if the normal drainage flow is to the west and north? Would the surface drainage from Girard Place put a burden on the drainage system in South Lafayette? Mrs. Romans stated that the Engineers have said the storm drainage system could accommodate this additional drainage. -4- Don Smith asked how much of the run-off would be taken care of before exiting the site itself? Mr. Jones discussed the retention ponds in Romans Park and stated that he understood part of the drainage from the area was to be moved to the retention ponds under the original Larwin drainage plan. Mr. Jones stated that under this proposal, it appears most of the drainage will be surf ace drainage on Lafayette Street to the inlet at Floyd Avenue. Mr. Tanguma asked the proponents to give their presentation. Mr. Tom Regan RPR Brothers, Inc. -stated that he felt Mrs. Romans had given a very complete presentation, and he would attempt to answer questions that members of the Commission might have. Mr. Parker asked how Mr. Regan was proceeding with the dedica- tion of South Gilpin Way and East Girard Avenue from Larwin? Mr. Regan stated that he had the signatures agreeing to the dedication of this right-of-way. Mr. Regan discussed his attempts to settle the matter of right-of-way with Continental Assurance Company. The matter of storm water runoff was again discussed. Mrs. Romans stated that the Public Works Department has approved the drainage plan. Mr. Parker stated that he didn't feel the system as proposed would handle the runoff. Mr. Jones inquired as to the size of the storm sewers in Girard Avenue, and where that line terminated? Mr. Regan consulted with his architect and determined that the storm sewer in Girard Avenue was an 18 11 -24" oval, and that the storm sewer in Floyd Avenue would be an 18 11 round. Discussion ensued. Mr. Jones stated that he would like the staff to check with the Public Works Director on the matter of drainage to verify that the Floyd storm sewer won't be over-loaded by this additional runoff. Mr. Tanguma asked if there were further proponents who would like to speak? No one indicated a desire to speak. Mr. Tanguma then asked for opponents to present their case. John Well es 3602 Sout h Gilpin -stated that he had several questions he wanted answered: 1. What is the height of the buildings that are planned for this development; what is the height allowed for professional off ice use? 2. The number of offices that are planned? The square footage of these off ices? • l 11 f t e ij '! 'i " ! -5- 3. Has there been a study of the traffic generation capabilities of this development; was a traffic study made? How does this tra ff ic generation compare with the original development c oncept --the apartment development? 4. What is the time table for development? 5. What is allowed by the term "Professional Offices"? 6. What are the consequenc es for zoning in the area? How does it impact the area to have this s i te developed for commercial use rather than residential use? Wil l it change the character of the area? 7. What signs are contemplated? 8. What lighting is contemplated for the development? 9. How will employees who work in this development be serviced? Will restaurants and other support uses be permitted? Will there be an application for commercial zoning on this site at a later date? Mr. Tanguma asked Mr. Welles if he had any comments regarding the proposed Subdivision? Mr. Welles stated that he did not have enough information at this time to state whether he is for or against the proposal. In response to Mr. Welles questions, Mrs. Romans stated that she does not have the information on the height of any structures proposed for the development. The R-3 Zone District, which zone classification is applied to the subject site, does permit a height of five stories or 60 foot maximum. Mrs. Romans stated that the land is proposed to be divided into 15 lots; one could assume there will be a professional office building on each of these lots though there is a possibility of combination of two or more lots into one development. Mrs. Romans stated that she knew of no traffic study that has been done in conjunction with the proposed subdivision. The original proposal of Larwin was to construct 356 apartment units on Phases 8 and 9; we are now considering the possible construction of 15 professional office structures. Mrs. Romans stated that it could be assumed the overall traffic generated by the professional off ice develop- ment would be less than that generated by 356 apartment units. Mrs. Romans stated that uses permitted under "Professional Offices" would be offices for lawyers, doctors, engineers, dentists and other professional people. The R-3 Zone District i tself permits multi-family uses, medical clinics, nursing homes and professional offices. The R-3 Zone District was revised in 1975 to increase the minimum lot area required for construction of these uses; the minimum lot area for an apart- ment structure was increased to 42,000 sq. ft., and for uses such as professional offices, the minimum floor area is now 24,000 sq. ft. Planned Development approval is required for -6- construction of an apartment structure. There is now a require- ment for useable open space, for landscaping as well as off-street parking. These requirements give the City more control over the developments than was previously had. Mrs. Romans stated that the City does have a sign code, and that any signing on the pro- posed development would have to conform to the Sign Code. Lighting standards would be determined at the time of develop- ment. The R-3 Zone District does recognize that in large multi- family developments, there will be a need for support uses -- accessory uses --of coffee shops, etc. This is permitted but must meet the requirements for the Accessory Use in the R-3 Zone District. Mrs. Romans noted that any property owner in the City of Englewood may apply for rezoning at any time. She noted that the primary question before the Commission this evening is the division of the land under option by Mr. Regan. Mrs. Romans pointed out there will be no additional curb cuts onto U.S. 285 permitted. Mr. Regan stated that he has been contacted by several doctors and dentists in this area, who want to build their own medical office buildings. Whether or not all the doctors will each construct an individual building, or whether they will form a corporation to construct one large building, Mr. Regan did not know. Mr. Regan stated that he would hope to begin on improve- ments as soon as he has approval of the subdivision. He stated that he would begin to advertise the lots for sale. Mr. Re gan stated that he has no plans for rezoning the land; the people he has spoken to are happy with the present zoning which would allow professional office buildings. Mr. Regan stated th at he had not had a traffic study done; the traffic to a development of this type would be day-time traffic but he did not know what volume could be expected. Mr. DeWitt noted that part of Mr. Welles' questions deal in the future --what will happen "if" --and pointed out that this is impossible to answer. Mr. DeWitt stated that he under- stood one of the questions to be what effect this platting would have on inducing future commercial zoning in this area. Mr. DeWitt noted that the corner of this property abuts com- mercially zoned property now. He stated that he felt a vigorous economic climate did not lend itself to a great deal of change, but this would depend on business trends. Mr. DeWitt noted that Gilpin Way is not a through street, another factor he felt would not be conducive to further business zoning. Mr. Wanush noted that if some property owner were to apply for rezoning, the matter would have to be heard before the Commission. Mr. Wanush noted that this matter before the Commission concerns the platting or subdivision of land, and has nothing to do with zoning. Mr. Tanguma again asked Mr. Welles if he had a statement he wanted to make on the proposed subdivision? Mr. Welle s statErl he was concerned about the legal aspects of the matter --when I I: jl I I I !I 1; ,. e -7- this proper t y was zoned, it was zoned for "multi-family use." Mr. Welle s st ated that if the Commission approved this "change of int e n t and character" of the site, it would lead to commercial zoning a n d use "jumping" Hampden Avenue. Don Smith pointed out that the subdivision of the land would not lead to a "change in use"; the professional offices are permitted uses in the R-3 High Density District now, and have been for some time. Mr. Smith s ta ted that a professional office use is totally different from a commercial use. Mr. Smith emphasized that professional offices are permitted uses now in the R-3 Zone District. Mr. Wanush reiterated that the question before the Commission is that of platting of the property, not of commercial development. Mr. Welles stated that professional office buildings with the in/out traffic is a business use, which would change the character of the neighborhood. It is definitely a business use as opposed to the residential character of the apartment units that were to be constructed on the site. He pointed out that the Commission, if they approve the proposed plat, could be setting in motion a development "without any real idea of where it's going to go." He pointed out there could be five story professional office buildings on all fifteen lots. This would be "a lot of offices"; would there be underground or surface parking? He stated "we don't know what we are getting into traffic wise." Don Smith pointed out that there is a 30% maximum lot coverage; he noted that a small doctor's office will encompass 6,000 sq. ft., and larger doctor's offices may contain as much as 17,000 sq. ft. This could give approximately four offices per floor, and if the structure was five stories, this would mean approxi- mately 20 offices per building. Mr. Tom Hudgins 43 Sunset Drive -noted that the Council Chambers has approxi- mately 1,200 square feet in it; a 6,000 square foot doctors off ice would be five times the size of this roo~. He noted that his pediatrician has an office approximately half the size of the Council Chambers, and he sees 100 patients per day. He stated he is opposed to the Subdivision; he felt the traffic would be a serious problem, and that there could be as many as 1,000 offices in this development. Terry Ryan 1400 East Jefferson -stated that he was neither in favor nor opposed to the proposed plat. He stated that he does feel Mr. Welle s rai sed some very basic questions, and he feels that more information on the matter of traffic; more information is needed on the project itself, whether there will be a lot of high-rise office buildings or whether the de- velopment will be low-or mid-rise, is needed. Mr. Ryan pointed out there were medical clinics in the area --one across the street on South Lafayette, an d one at U.S. 285 and South Clarkson -8- Street. Mr. Ryan stated that he felt Mro Welles' questions should be answered before a determination is made on the Pla~ Mr. Wanush stated that he can understand the comments and con- cerns of the residents; however, the issue before the Commission is the subdivision of the land, which could be developed with apartment houses as well as professional off ice buildings following the approval of the proposed plat. Mr. Ryan stated that the Commission has the responsibility to assure the proposed development is in the best interest of the neighborhood; will the development be good even if it is within the restrictions of the Code. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans pointed out that all multi-family developments must have a Planned Development approval; a pro- fessional office development would not have to have approval ·of a Planned Development, although they could ask for such approval. Mr. Welles stated he felt there could be a legal question on whether 15 lots in an area that was zoned for high-density residence could be developed with something other than residential use. Mr. Welles stated that he "thinks the Courts would say it is not the proper intent." Mr. Welles also urged that a traffic study be madeo Mr. Hudgins asked the difference between the R-3 Zone District and the R-4, Residential-Professional Zone District? Mrs. Romans discussed the two zone districts and summarized the uses permitted in each zone district. Mrs. Romans pointed out the fact that Watson and Eugene Bowes had initially designed the now repealed R-3-A Zone District after which the present R-3 Zone District is patterned, to accommodate the area around Swedish Medical Center. Jones moved: Parker seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: Pierson, Don Smith, Tanguma, Jones, Jorgenson, Parker NAYS: None ABSENT: Ed Smith, Wade, Williams The mot ion carried. Mr. Jone s sugg ested tha t fur ther action on this matter not be taken until some of the questions posed to the Commission have been answered. He asked of the staff when the Commission could expect to receive this information? Mrso Romans suggested that this would depend on when the applicant could submit the additional information; she also suggested that Public Works Director Waggoner might be invited to the next meeting to further discuss the drainage matter. • i 'I· -9- Jones moved: D. Smit h seconded: Further consideration be postponed until January 18, 1977. AYES: Parker, Pierson, D. Smith, Tanguma, Jones, Jorgenson NAYS: None ABSENT: Ed Smith, Wade, Williams The motion carried. Don Smith stated that he felt the Commission needed an e sv imate on the average estimated square footage of the offices th at would be contemplated for the development, and an estimate of the maximum number of offices that could be realize d on the property. He stated that he did not feel that the property would be developed totally with five -story office buildings. Mr. Smith further stated that he does believe the land is being platted legally, and that all lots contained in the pro- posed subdivision do meet the minimum standards for that zone district. Mr. Jones suggested that information also be sub- mitted on traffic projections and the impact this projected traffic would have on the area. Mr. Tanguma declared a five minute recess. The meeting was reconvened with the following members present: Jorgenson, Parker, Pierson, D. Smith, Tanguma, Jones. Absent were: Ed Smith, Wade, Williams IV. HOUSE MOVING & WRECKING ORDINANCE CASE #1-77 Mr. Wanush stated that the proposed amendment suggests elimina- tion of the requirement to hold a Public Hearing on the movement of a single-family house into a single-family zone district. Mrs. Romans briefly discussed the proposed amendme nt. It was noted that this would apply only to single-family structures. Mr. Jones stated that he felt the neighbors must be made aware of the proposed relocation of a structure. He agreed that it seemed logical to require posting of the property to which the structure is to be moved. Discussion ensued. Mr. Jones noted that the requirement that the foundation be in place prior to the :relocation of the structure would still apply, and he felt it would be a simple matter for the mover to notify the adjacent property owners what was proposed for the site, by posting or by a verbal contact. He stated that he felt the Ordinance is proper, but agreed that the requirement for a Public Hearing as to single-family houses being moved onto a site in the City may be redundant, but he does feel the neighbors have the right to know what is going on. Mr. Jones asked Mr. DeWitt if he ,foresaw any problems with the posting of the property but not following through with a Public Hearing? Mr. DeWitt stated it would be an "informal" notice that would apply only to a single- family zone district. -10- Mr. Del Francis stated that he moves multi-family houses • more than one unit. He would like to see the amendment extende d to apply to small multi-family structures. He stated that he felt every structure he has moved has added to the neighborhood. Mr. Francis stat e d he is an Englewood resident, and would like to be able to bring sm a ll mu lt i-family dwelling units into Englewood; he feels th e re is a demand for this type of structu re. The requirement for a Public Hearing makes it impossible to move a structure into Englewood, and cited the time element. He felt that 11 compatability" of a structure with the neighborhood to which it is to be moved could be determined by the Building Department at the time of the preliminary inspection of the unit. Mr. Francis reiterated his request that the requirement for Public Hearing be eliminated on small multi-family units that are moved into the City. Mr. Tanguma noted that the Ordinance came about in the first Place because of problems with moves of multi-family structures-- incompatibility with the neighborhood and/or incompletion of the move. Discussion ensued •. Mr. Wanush pointed out that this matter will have to be considered at a Public Hearing and if the Commission determines the amendment should be ex- tended to cover small multi-family units, it can be addressed at that time. Mr. Parker inquired if the amendment would result in the Building Inspector having the responsibility to make the decision on compatibility, structural soundness and posting the property for the move? Don Smith stated that the Building Inspectors would have that responsibility for single-family structures under the proposed amendment. Discussion ensued. Mr. Parker cited a day care center approved on South Logan Street in which one of the stipulations was that the basemen t could not be used because of improper space between floor and ceiling; he noted that this structure is occupied already. He stated he felt there were instances where codes might not be equally enforced, and he hesitated to give any one Depart- ment such authority. Mr. Jones noted that "once you grant a deviation in an o r d i nance it tempts further inquiries such as we have had tonight." He stated that he would agree we have to be very careful in allowing exceptions. He stated that he felt if multi-family units were inc luded in the amendment, i t would defeat the purpose of the Ordinance : Mr. Parke r asked if i t is the time e lement t hat c auses problems for the movers? Mr. Francis stated that the time element re- quired for posting, etc. does ca~se problems. Sometimes the houses must be moved almost immediately, which would not give time for posting the property etc. after the mover is assure d he has the house to move. Further discussion ensued. -11- It was determined that this amendment t o the Moving and Demolition Ordinance would be set for Public Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission on February 23, 1977 V. AUTO WRECKING YARD ORDINANCE CASE #33-76 Mr. Wanush stated that the latest draft of the proposed amend- ment to the Auto Wrecking Yard Ordinance had been given the Commission at their last meeting. He stated that unless the Commission had further changes they wanted made , this proposed amendment should be ready for Public Hearing al so. Mr. Tanguma asked if Mr. DeWitt foresaw any leg al problems? Mro DeWitt stated that he felt there were lega l imp l ications in this ordinance that those auto wr ecking yards in the 1-1 Zone District would not be allowed to im p rove or expand within their current physical boundaries. He stated that he felt the idea is acceptable, but questioned that the wording was proper. Discussion ensued. Mro Wanush stated that he was under the impression this draft of the proposed amendment deleted any reference to a zone district location of the auto wrecking yards. Mr. DeWitt stated that he felt the "implication" is there. Mr. Parker stated that the intent of the Commission is that the auto wrecking yard owners and opera tors be allowed to warehouse and improve within their physical boundaries in either zone districto Don Smith noted that the auto wrecking yards were to remain non-conforming uses, but still be allowed to expand and improve; no new auto wrecking ya rds were to be allowed. Discussion ensued. It was determined that further r~view of the proposed amendment would be undertaken by the s it a ff and Mr. DeWitt, and a tentative Public Hearing date of March 22, 1977, be set. If there are changes in this draft, the Commission would like to see these changes at their study session of March 8, 1977. VI. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Mr. Wanush discussed the procedure f or review and revision of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated tha t he would like to deter- mine the procedure the Commission wa nts to carry out in their review. Mr. Wanush stated that he has determined that the staff would gather data on each subjec t for the Commission; he suggested that each subject be considered separately --such as housing, transportation, parks, etco rather than trying to review the total plan. Mr. Wanush further suggested that a member of the Commission "chair" each study committee for the specific topic assigned to that committee. Mr. Wanush noted that there is a Housing Autho ri ty, a Parks and Recreation Com- mission, and a Water and Sewer Board; there could be representa- tion from these boards on this committee, as well as citizens uninvolved at the present time with governmental business. Don Smith stated that this seemed to be a reasonable way to approach the revision. He noted there is already a downtown committee in existance of which he is a member. Discussion ensued. -12- Mr. Wanush stated that his breakdown of topics included Housing, Downtown Development, Commercial Development, Industrial Develop- ment, Parks and Recreation, Transportation, Public Facilities and Drainage. He suggested that members of the Commission might want to indicate a topic preference they would like to work on. After further discussion, the following members indicated their preference to work on these matters: Mrs. Pierson --Commercial Development Don Smith --Downtown Development Eddie Tanguma --Housing and/or Transportation Mr. Jones noted that he has not asked for reappointment to the Commission; however, he would be happy to serve as a private citizen on the downtown committee. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Wanush stated that there had been a public hearing on a rezoning request in the 3500 block of South Marion Street in September; the applicants had requested a delay of 120 days in further consideration by the Commission to enable the applicants to arrive at a firm decision on the use of the property. The applicants have now asked for a further extension of the tim~ There will be at least one change in membership of the Commission the first of February, and possibly two new members. There were some members of the Commission who were not in attendance at the Public Hearing and would not be eligible to vote on the matter. The staff felt there could be problems drawing out action on the matter as long as has been requested, and asked Commission determination on whether they wished to continue the matter, make a decision on January 18, or advise the applicant to withdraw at this time. Discussion ensued. Assistant Attorney DeWitt stated that he felt the best procedure would be to ~sk the applicant to withdraw this application, or to deny the matter because of insufficient evidence to support the request. The Commission could also let the matter "die" on its own. Further discussion ensued. It was determined the staff should ask the applicant to withdraw his application at this time, with the understanding that they could reapply at a reasonable time in the future and the application fee would be waived. Mr. Wanush stated that he had checked on the matter of the non-conforming use survey being sent by regular mail rather than by certified mail. Mr. Wanush's findings were that all such notices are sent by Certified Mail. He asked if Mr. Parker had a sample of the inquiry sent by regular mail? Mr . Parker stated he did not. Mr. Wanush stated that he hoped to have information on U.S. 285 for discussion at the next meeting of January 18th. Mr. Wanush stated that City Council asked for a report on the Floyd Avenue/Elati Street traffic island. He stated that he understood that on several occasions the Planning Commission has considered the matter, and has determined on each occasio n / ,. •• I,, ' . 'I I ')> / ,/' / -13- to uphold the "Floyd Avenue Agreement" with the property owners north of Floyd Avenue --that there shall be no through traffic on s.uth Elati Streeto The Department of Community Development i$ c harge d with the development of this report. He asked for . ."omments that the Commission might have. Don Smith stated that he "understood that 10 years ago 'some- body' made a promise" that there would be no through traffic on South Elati Street. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt the City should honor its commitments; there have been no changes which would warrant removal of the island, and she felt the Commission has to recommend retention of the island. Mr. Tanguma agreed that if the City made a promise to the property owners north of Floyd Avenue regarding the traffic island, the City must honor its commitment. Mr. Parker stated as he re- called the last time the Commission considered the matter it was determined the island should remain so long as it did not present a fire hazardo Mr. Wanush which will February. ports, and presented copies of a report on Little Dry Creek, be considered at public meetings in January and Commission members were urged to review these re- to attend the meetings. Mr. Wanush reminded Commission members of a breakfast meeting scheduled January 11th, 7:30 A.M. at Swedish Medical Center. Those members indicating they would attend were Mr. Tanguma, Don Smith, Chalmerse Parker, Judith Pierson, George Jorgenson. The staff was asked to check with those members who were absent to see if they planned to attend. VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE There was nothing to be discussed under Commission's Choice. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. -