Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-02-23 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 23, 1977 L CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Pierson at 7:00 P.M. Members present: Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Owens, Parker, Pierson, D. Smith Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: None Also present: Assistant City Attorney DeWitt Assistant Director Romans Associate Planner House II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Pierson stated that Minutes o f February 8, 1977, were to be considered for approval. Ed Smith noted that Page 9, the motion should be amended to read: "o o o •• Subdivision WAIVER ...• o " Tanguma moved: Williams seconded: The Minutes of February 8, 1977, be approved as amended. AYES: Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Owens Parker, Pierson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Don Smith The motion carried. Chairman Pierson announced to members of the audience that the Plannin g Commission is about to undertake a periodic review of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Englewood. Mrs. Pierson pointed out that this will entail a great deal of time and effort, and there are many aspects of the community that must be considered. The Planning Commission is looking for citizen participation in this review process, and asked that any member of the audience who would like to serve on one of the several advisory committees, please notify the Planning staff. III 0 HOUSE MOVING & DEMOLITION ORDINANCE Proposed Amendments CASE #1-77 Chairman Pierson asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. -2- Williams moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #1-77 be opened AYES: Pierson, D. Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Parker, Owens NAYS: None The motion carried . Mrs. Pierson set forth the general procedure followed for a Public Hearing, and asked that the staff present the case be- fore the Commission. Upon being sworn in, Mrs. Romans, Assistant Director of Com- munity Development, testified as to the amendments which are proposed. Mrs . Romans noted that copies of the proposed amendments have been previously submitted to members of the Commission, and have been mailed to persons who are active in the House Moving business. Mrs. Romans stated that the majority of the proposed amendments are housekeeping matters, and are proposed in the interest of clarification. Mrs. Romans discussed the changes proposed in the existing Ordinance, one of which would eliminate the need for a Public Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the re- location of a single-family structure to or within a single- family zone district. As proposed, the mover would still be required to post the property to which the structure is to be moved in the City for a period of seven days. This require- ment would have no legal affect, but would give adjoining property owners advance notice that a structure was to be moved to that site. Mrs. Romans then reviewed the proposed changes in the Ordinance page-by-page. Mrs. Romans noted that the penalty and nuisance clause has been deleted from the first section of the Ordinance because it is also in the second section, and does not need to be duplicated . Another change would make it unnecessary for an excavating contractor who is licensed by the City of Englewood, to pay a fee for a demolition license . There has also been an attempt made to give flexibility as to the amount of the Per- formance Bond that may be required in the case of a demolition. It is proposed that the amount of the Bond be determined by the Chief Building Official based upon the estimated cost of clearing the site . Mr. Williams referred to Page 9 of the proposed Ordinance, §3-8-12, which section would require written approval of the move from the Highway Department prior to the moving permit being issued . Mr . Williams noted that the State Highway Depart- ment will not issue a moving permit until the day of the move and that this section of the proposed ordinance conflicts with that policy and causes problems for the mover. He suggested that possibly the Traffic Engineer of the City of Englewood -3- could be made responsible for giving verbal notification to the State Highway Department of a pending move, and not require approval of the State Highway Department in writing prior to issuance of a Moving Permit by the City. Discussion ensued. Don Smith suggested that perhaps a policy could be adopted requiring notification of the State Highway Department of moves that would cross a State Highway or use a State Highway, but not require approval in writing, and not make such notification a requirement of the Ordinance. Duane Reynolds, house mover, stated that Denver will issue a Moving Permit whether the State approves the move or not. Mr. Williams questioned the 48 hour time period for the re- moval of a house from the City; he pointed out that this could present problems for the mover, also. Mrs. Romans pointed out that this Ordinance is concerned with the expedient grading and cleaning of the lot, and completion of the job within the City of Englewood. Mr. Tanguma suggested that §3-8-13 be reworded to require notification of another jurisdiction to be made only in writing. A member of the audience noted that one of the major problems in house moving is the time element. The house mover has only a certain period of time to get the structure off the property to begin with, and by the time they try to meet the posting re- quirements and the other requirements of the Ordinance, it results in their losing the house because they cannot get it moved soon enough. He asked if there was anything that could be done to speed up the process --at least reduce or eliminate the posting requirements? Mrs. Romans noted that this will be up to the Commission to determine. She acknowledged that the posting process for a public hearing before the Commission is a very time consuming process; but if the Commission wants to continue to approve all moves to and within the City, she felt the posting re- quirement would have to continue. Mr. Reynolds asked for an explanation of the reasoning behind the elimination of the public hearing for a single-family structure being moved onto a site in the City, and not for a two or three-unit structure? He stated that he didn't see sufficient different between these types of structures that one would require a public hearing, and another would not, when all the structures moved in are required to meet the requirements of the Code. Mrs. Romans stated that the Ordinance was drafted in response to complaints regarding units that were moved that did not seem to be comµttible with the neighborhood because of bulk. -4- Mrs. Pierson asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in opposition to the Ordinance? Duane Reynolds 2124 South Birch -Upon being sworn in, stated that he would like clarification on the "difference" be- tween moving a single-family unit and a two, three, or four- family unit and why the Commission would still want a Public Hearing on these structures o He noted that a duplex could be moved in, placed on a "garden level" foundation, and a four- plex could be constructed. He questioned how this could cause problems if the structure met the proper codes? Don Smith asked how difficult it would be to locate "temporary" parking sites for structures that need to be moved off of one location before the site to which it is to be moved is ready? Mr. Reynolds stated that he has already looked into this mat t er. Mr. Reynolds stated that in the City and County of Denver, the land must be zoned I-2, Heavy Industrial, and the property must be fenced to protect the site from vandalism. It would, however, require quite a large piece of land, and they would not use the property that often. Littleton will not allow such a use; Englewood requires that the property be zoned I-2, paved and fenced. Mr. Reynolds stated that he did not feel the "temporary" parking of these structures is the answer ; there must be some way to "speed up the process". He pointed out that in Denver the project can be completed -- "start to finish" --in seven days. Mr. Tanguma asked how long the Englewood Ordinance requires? Mr. Reynolds pointed out that property must be posted for the Public Hearing a minimum of 15 days; there must be notice in the City Newspaper, and all-in-all it requires the better part of 30 days to get to the Public Hearing. Even under the pro- posed amendment, there is a seven (7) day posting time for single-family structures. He stated that the seven (7) day time period is feasible, and he felt the housemovers could live with this requirement. Mr o Owens questioned the percentage of moves Mr o Reynolds had handled that were more than one-unit? Mr. Reynolds stated that in 1976, 40% of the moves were "multi-unit"; on an average year, probably 20% of the moves are "multi-unit". Mr o Owens asked how long it would take a housemover to get a permit to move in Denver? Mr o Reynolds stated that within 24- hours they could have the permit and be moving the structure. Discussion ensued. Mr o Wanush pointed out that the staff has made no recommendations limiting the proposed amendment to single-family o He pointed out that the initial Ordinance was drafted in response to problems that were experienced in the community by the relocation of multi-family units o He stated that if the Commission wants to expand the amendment to eliminate -5- the need for public hearing on two, three and four-unit structures being moved onto a site in the City, it is their decision. Further discussion ensued. Don Smith questioned the relevancy of posting the property in advance of moving a single-family house onto a site. He stated that he felt the entire matter depends on whether or not the structures proposed to be relocated meet the requirements of the Codes and Ordinances. lf the structures are in compliance with the Code, he questioned the need for posting and the resulting time problem caused the movers. Mr. Wanush stated that a new single-family structure can be built without coming before the Planning Commission. He stated that the Commission does have some control over the aesthetics of structures to be moved in under the present Ordinance; how- ever, if the Commission decides to eliminate the public hearing in regard to the location of two, three or four-unit structures on a site in the City, they would no longer have this control. The possibility of moving a multi-unit structure which is so large that it would have to be divided and moved in two or more trips was discussed. Ed Smith suggested the possibility of requiring a public hearing if more than one move is required to relocate the structure. Discussion ensued. Mr. Reynolds pointed out that all buildings being located on a site in the City have to meet the Code as to square footage of the lot, floor area, etc. Mr. Owens asked if there were any restrictions governing the construction of a four-plex? It was stated that a four-plex must be constructed under a Planned Development, and that this would require a Public Hearing by the Commission. Mr. Reynolds stated that if construction of a four-plex required a Public Hearing, then he would be agreeable to the require- ment of a Public Hearing on the relocation of a four-plex. Discussion ensued. Don Smith suggested that possibly Page 6, (a) could be amended to state that Commission approval would be required to relocate a structure having "four or more" dwelling units. Mr. Reynolds pointed out that the Englewood Traffic Engineer prefers that house movers not make the moves during the daytime hours; the State Highway Department will not write a permit to move at night. Mr. Reynolds discussed the requirement for written approval from one jurisdiction to enable them to ob- tain a permit from another jurisdiction. He pointed out that most of this could be taken care of with "telephone notification", and that this would simplify things considerably for the housemovers. -6- Mrs o Pierson asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak in opposition? No one else spoke on opposition. Mrs. Pierson then asked if some members of the audience wished to speak in support of the proposed amendment? No one spoke in support of the amendment. Discussion of §3-8-6 of the proposed amendment ensued. Mr. DeWitt stated that this posting is required only as a means of notification of the neighboring residents of the intended location of a structure on the site. He felt this section could be amended to include two, three or four-unit structures, if the Commission so desiredo Williams moved: Wade seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #1-77 be closed. AYES: Parker, Pierson, Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Owens, Jorgenson NAYS: None The motion carried. Discussion ensued . Mr. DeWitt suggested that perhaps the pro- posed amendment to the Ordinance should be revised and brought back to the Commission before a decision is reached on the matter. Discussion of the merits of §3-8-6 ensued. Mr. Williams stated he felt this restriction should be removed, and that posting of the property should not be required. Don Smith stated that he would agree that §3-8-6 does not have any legal purpose, and serves only as a means of notifying the ad- joining property owners of a pending relocation of a structure to that site. Mrs. Pierson pointed out that the policy has been that whenever a property is posted, it is to let the citizens know there will be a public hearing; this is not the case as proposed in §3-8-6, and she stated that, in her opinion, it is a superfluous requirement . Discussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma pointed out that by requiring the posting of the property prior to a move, the housemover is required to go beyond the requirements for new construction. Mr. Williams questioned the need for a plot plan to be sub- mitted for anything under four units. Mrs o Romans stated that these plans would be needed to determine the lot coverage and similar requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The discussion continued on the merits of posting the property when no Public Hearing is required. Mr. Owens stated that there would have to be a foundation in place prior to the move, and he felt persons who were interested would have an opportunity to check on what was proposed for the site. Mr. Don Smith pointed out there would also be a foundation con- structed for new construction. He felt that it is psychologically good to notify the neighborhood of what is proposed. He stated that he does not feel the seven (7) day time period is restrictive . A brief discussion ensued. -7- Williams moved: Tanguma seconded: That further consideration of Case #1-77 be postponed until 6:30 P oM. on March 8tho AYES: Owens, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson NAYS: None The motion carried. IV. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Sinclair Park Don Smith moved: CASE #2-77 Wade seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #2-77 be opened o AYES: Jorgenson, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams NAYS: None The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson asked for an indication from the audienc e on the number of persons interested in this matter. Five persons indicated an interest in the Sinclair Park Planned Develop- ment. Mrs. Pierson then asked that the staff present the case. Upon being sworn in, Mrs. Romans testified that the applicant, Mr. Gene Johnson, represented by Mr. Ray Koernig of Landaide, Inco has requested approval of the Sinclair Park Planned De- velopment. Mrs . Romans stated that the property is the north 410 feet of a parcel bounded on the north by West Grand Avenue, on the west by the Cherokee/Delaware alley extended, on the south by West Belleview Avenue, and on the east by South Cherokee Street extended. The property is zoned R-2, Medium Density Residence, which zone classification will permit a density of 14 units per acre. Properties to the north and west are zoned R-1-A, Single-family Residence; to the east the land is zoned R-3, High Density Residence, and to the south, the property is also zoned R-2, Medium Density Residence. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Gene Johnson has an option to purchase the north 410 feet of this site, and proposes to develop it with two structures containing 10 units each , or a total of 20 units. Mrs. Romans stated that the Carmel Park apartment development borders the property on the east, and the back yards of the single-family homes fronting on South Delaware Street are on the west of the siteo The site as a whole is 600 ft. x 165 ft. and has been of considerable concern to the City and to the neighborhood. -8- Access to the proposed development is from West Grand Avenue, and parking will be on the east side of the development adjacent ~ to the apartment complex. The units are proposed to front into the back yards of the single-family homes on South Delaware Street; however, the~e will be landscaping to screen these uses one from the other o Water and sewer is available to the site. The Fire Department has approved access for fire-fighting purposes. The drive-way will serve as a fire lane, and there will be sufficient space for the fire equipment to turn around in a parking area on the south end of the site. Fire plugs are available to the site at Grand and Delaware; Belleview and Delaware; Belleview and Bannock; and at Grand and Acoma streets. The Public Works Department has approved the storm drainage for the site. The State Highway Department has no objection to this proposed development; but has stated that no further curb cuts will be permitted onto West Belleview Avenue. No problems in serving the site have been indicated by Public Service Company or by Mountain Bell. There will be an easement provided on the east side of the site for utility lines, and a 5 ft. easement will be provided on the perimeter of the site. The staff suggests that the proposed development is compatible with the area, and does meet the intent of the Planned De- velopment District. Mrs. Romans stated that approval of the Planned Development is recommended, conditioned upon construction of the driveway to the proper width and specifications of the Department of Public Works and compaction requirements of the Fire Department and compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances. Mrs. Romans stated that the applicant is also requesting a Subdivision Waiver for the site, to divide the total site into three parcels; the Development Plan, however, encompasses only the north 410 feet of the property. There will be no access from the subject development to West Belleview Avenue o There will be a crash gate on the south end of the subject site, however, for emergency vehicle access. Mr. Ray Koernig Landaide, Inc. 609 West Littleton Boulevard -stated that Landaide, Inc. is a land-planning firm in Littleton o He was asked by Mr o Johnson, option purchaser, to look at the site and to design a development that would meet the codes and ordinances of the City. Mr. Koernig stated that their proposed plan does not extend traffic through to Belleview, nor does it impose traffic at the rear of the single-family homes on South Delaware Street. The proposed development will be two-story ·3 tructures, and the uni ts will be "off-set" --they will not be aligned in a straight line. Mr. Koernig stated that the applicant feels that the proposed development meets and "betters" all of the requirements of the R-2 Zone District and of the Planned Development Ordinance. Mr o Koernig pointed out that the proposed development will provide more parking than is -9- required and more open space will be provided than is requiredo He pointed out that the units will not be inexpensive rentals, but will probably rent for $285 to $300. They will be two and three-bedroom units. Don Smith asked if the fence which is shown to be on the eastern side of the site is on the subject property or on Carmel Park property, and would the fence remain? Mr. Koernig stated that the fence is on the Carmel Park property. Mrs. Romans stated that Carmel Park is required to have the fence to screen the apartment complex parking area from the adjoining property. Mr. Koernig reiterated that the fence is on the property line or within six inches of the property line. He also pointed out that the applicant plans to install a grape-stake fence on the south end of the property. Mrs. Wade asked if Mr. Koernig and/or the applicant had a definite commitment from Public Service Company on the gas service? Mr. Koernig stated that they have been in contact with Public Service Company and Mr. Johnson, the applicant, pointed out that he is on the waiting list for gas service for this development. Mrs. Wade asked if the utility service would be underground? Mr. Koernig stated that the service would be underground to the individual units. The existing power line was installed by Colorado Central Power Company, and will probably have to be relocated. Mrs. Wade referred to the floor plans, and noted that these plans do not indicate a basemento She asked if there will in fact be no basements? Mr. Koernig discussed the matter of sewer service to the units. Depending on the location of the service manhole there may or may not be basements to the unitso The manhole located at Delaware and Grand is very shallow, and if the tie-on is at that location, it is unlikely there will be basements. There is also a second manhole midway south on the Carmel Park property which they could use o Mr. Koernig stated that he has discussed the possibility of tying onto this line with Utilities Director Carroll and that this point of service would be preferable. If it can be used, there would be basements in the units. Mrs. Pierson asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak in favor? No one else spoke in favor of the application. Mrs. Pierson asked if there was any member of the audience who wished to speak in opposition to the application? Mr. Louis T. Cangilla 5000 South Delaware -discussed the events leading to the "status" of the property --being between two developed subdivision, and not sufficient width to have a dedicated street . Mr. Cangilla stated that in his opinion, the City of Englewood made an error at the time the Carmel Park Subdivision was approved, in that dedication for South -10- Cherokee Street was not assured at that time. The problems with access to the site have resulted in the land staying vacant for a number of years. Mr. Cangilla stated that when he first received the letter from Landaide, Inc. regarding the proposed development, he felt the proposal was "pretty good". However, the letter did not make clear that the Planned De- velopment proposal encompassed only the north 410 feet of the site. Mr. Cangilla stated that when he checked in the office of Community Development regarding the proposal, he found that the site was to be divided into three parcels. He asked why the application for a Planned Development does not encompass the entire 600 ft. site? He pointed out that the two sites on the south end will have access to West Belleview Avenue. He asked h ow through access from Belleview to Grand Avenues would be prevented? In reply, Mr. Koernig stated that a crash gate acceptable to the Fire Department would be installed. Mr. Cangilla asked what type of gate this would be? Mrs. Romans noted there is a similar crash gate installed on East Floyd Avenue at the Larwin Site; it can be a locked gate with keys available to the Fire Department, or it can be a break- away chain closure. Mr. Cangilla stated that the two residences that are on the south end of the subject site are not compatible with the neighborhood. He again asked why the entire site was not included in the Planned Development? He stated that he felt it is because the property owner will, at some time in the future, try to get commercial zoning on the property fronting on Belleview. He stated that he has lived in the area 16 years, and has been to many Planning Commission and City Council meetings concerning this property and property across West Belleview Avenue to the south . Mr. Cangilla reiterated that when he first received the letter from Landaide, Inc. and the plot plan of the proposed develop- ment, he was in favor of the proposal. He stated he does feel the neighborhood could live with the proposal as presented on the north 410 ft. Mr. Cangilla stated that he does appreciate the effort made by Landaide, Inc. to let the residents of the area know what is proposed for the land. Mr. Cangilla reminded members of the Commission that whatever decision they reach on this matter, they must consider the effect it will have on the existing neighborhood. He reiterated his fear of future plans f or the two parcels which front on West Belleview Avenue. He stated that he would be whole-heartedly in favor of the proposed Planned Development if it encompassed the entire site. Mr. Cangilla predicted a "fight against commercial zoning on Belleview" at some time in the future. Don Smith asked "do you like the proposed development, but feel it doesn't go far enough?" Mr. Cangilla replied in the affirmative . Mr . Tanguma asked if the entire site was owned by one person? Mr . Koernig stated that it is owned by Ms. Helen and Trece Caskey. Mr. Johnson, the applicant, has an option to purchase the north 410 feet of the site. -11- Mro Parker stated that he and Mro Tanguma had viewed the property and that he would have to agree with Mr. Cangilla; leaving the two parcels fronting on West Belleview Avenue could very likely lead to a request for commercial zoning at some time in the future. Mrs. Pierson stated that there have been several instances of requests for "spot" zoning of commercial before this Commission; she stated that she could make no promises on future commissions, but that if the rules and guidelines pertaining to zoning were followed, this property could not be zoned for commercial us~ Mro Cangilla stated that he was only pointing out the possibility of such an occurance; he asked why not develop the entire 600 ft. site as proposed for the north 410 fto? Why must it be divided into three parcels? Discussion ensued. Mrso Pierson asked if there else who wished to speak in opposition? No one opposition to the proposed Planned Development. then asked Mr. Koernig if he cared to rebut Mr. statements? was any one else spoke in Mrs. Pierson Cangilla's Mro Koernig stated that if, in the future, an application for commercial zoning were to be made for the parcels fronting on West Belleview Avenue, he would have to oppose such a request. He stated, however, that in his opinion, such an argument is not germane to the matters under consideration at the present time. Mr. Koernig stated that one point that must be considered is the matter of economics; the development can be financially feasible encompassing only the vacant land. If the two sites which front on West Belleview Avenue and which are developed were to be purchased for redevelopment, the cost of the property would be too high to develop it in the same way that is proposed in the subject application. Mr. Tanguma asked what possible development or redevelopment could take place on the two lots which front on West Belleview Avenue? Mr. Koernig noted that the western most parcel is very narrow and deep, and would not be a good commercial siteo He pointed out that the applicant for commercial zoning would have to show error in the origiml zoning, or change in the neighborhood, and questioned that the rezoning for commercial use could be justified. Discussion ensued. Mr. Koernig stated that he understood the two parcels fronting on West Belleview Avenue may be sold as rental property. Mr. Cangilla pointed out that it does not take a large piece of land for a small commercial developmento He stated that re appreciates what Mr. Johnson, the applicant for the Planned Development is trying to do. He reiterated that if the Planned Development were for the entire parcel of land, he would be in favor of it. -12- Don Smith stated that the Commission understands Mr. Cangilla' s concern regarding the entire parcel; however, he stated that he feels this is a good use for the northerly 410 ft. of the site. Don Smith moved: Ed Smith seconded: The Public Hearing be closed o AYES: Williams, Jorgenson, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade NAYS: None The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson declared a recess of the Commission. The meeting reconvened at 9:15 P.M. with the following members present: Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith, Ed Smith. Mrs. Pierson declared a quorum present. The matter of the Sinclair Park Planned Development was again considered. Don Smith moved: Owens seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Sinclair Park Planned De- velopment be approved, which Planned Development will apply to the following described property: Beginning at the South Quarter Corner of said Section 10; thence S. 89 °57'40 11 W. a distance of 1016,66 feet; thence N. 0 °37 1 53 11 E. a distance of 220.66 feet to the true point of beginning; thence N. 0 °37 1 53 11 E. a distance of 410.00 feet; thence S. 89 °58 1 14 11 W. a distance of 165,29 feet; thence S. 0 °37 1 48 11 W. a distance of 410000 feet; thence N o 89 °58 1 14 11 E. a distance of 165,29 feet to the true point of beginning, containing 1,556 acres more or less. This approval is conditioned upon1he construction of the drive- way and maneuvering area in the parking lot to the specifications of the Department of Public Works and the Fire Department, and compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances o Mr o DeWitt questioned whether the Commission wanted to make this decision prior to consideration o f the Subdivision Waiver request? Discussion ensued. Don Smith pointed out that the Planned Development is dependent upon approval of the Subdivision Waiver, and that the Subdivision Waiver is dependent on approval and acceptance of the Planned Development by City Council. Further brief discussion ensued. The roll was called: AYES: Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Owens, Parker, Pierson, D o Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None The motion carried. V. SUBDIVISION WAIVER Sinclair Park -13- CASE #3-77 Mrs. Pierson asked Mrs. Romans to present the staff report. Ms. Romans stated that the request before the Commission is for consideration of a proposed waiver to the requirement of the Subdivision Regulations that a subdivision plat be pre- pared, approved and recorded for that property bounded on the north by West Grand Avenue, on the east by South Cherokee Street extended, on the south by West Belleview Avenue, and on the west by the Cherokee/Delaware alley extended. The pro- posal is to divide the tract of land into three parcels. Site 1, the parcel which was previously considered for a Planned Development by the Commission, will measure 410 ft. x 165 ft. The other two parcels, Sites 2 and 3, which front on West Belleview Avenue, will be 114 ft. x 190 ft. in depth, and 51 ft. x 190 fto in deptho There are existing houses on Sites two and three, which are rental units. The Subdivision Regulations provide that if there is an un- platted piece of land within the City, and if there is nothing to be gained by the City or by the public by requiring the filing of a Subdivision Plat in relation to that land, the requirement for Platting may be waived. Mrs. Romans stated that a survey is required to be submitted with the application for a Subdivision Waiver, and that on this particular survey, an eight-foot easement is shown on the east line of the entire length of the parcel, and five-foot easements are shown around each of the perimeter boundaries of the three sites. All sites will have access to public streets. Utility services are available to the sites; drainage from Parcels 2 and 3 will be to West Belleview Avenue, storm drainage from Parcel 1 will be to West Grand Avenue. The site is zoned R-2,Medium-Densify Residence. The property to the east is zoned R-3, High-Density Residence, and to the north and west, the land is zoned R-1-A Single-family Residence. Mrs. Romans stated that it is the recommendation of the staff that the Subdivision Waiver be approved, conditioned on the approval by the City Council of the Planned Development requested for the north 410 ft. of the site. Don Smith moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Subdivision Waiver requested in Case #3-77 for the following described p ropert be aP-proved subject to the approval of the Si clair P ark Planned Development by City Council: The East 25 feet of the West one-half of the West one-half of the Southwest one-quarter of the Southeast one-quarter of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 10, Township 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Arapahoe County, Colorado, except that part described in Book 1513 at Page 407 and excert that part lying in West Belleview Avenue and the East one-half of the West one-half of the Southwest one-quarter of the Southeast -14- one-quarter of the Southwest one-quarter except the East 25 feet thereof and except that part described in Book 1513 at Page 407 and except that part lying in West Belleview Avenue, Section 10, Township 5 South, Range 68 West, containing 2 0279 acres. Discussion ensued. Mrso Romans pointed out that if parcels 2 and 3 were developed for residential use under the present zone classi ficat ion, seven units could be constructed on Lot 2 and three units could be constructed on Lot 3. Upon the call of the roll: AYES: Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Owens, Parker, Pier&>n, D. Smith, Ed Smith NAYS: None The motion carried. VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE Mrs. Pierson acknowledged a member of the audience who lives in the Kent Village area, and suggested discussing at this time, a letter from Mro John Criswell which was sent to all Commission members relative to the proposed subdivision of part of the Larwin Site. Don Smith stated that he felt the order of the agenda should be followed. Upon questioning by Mrs. Pierson, Assistant City Attorney DeWitt stated that he could see no problem in taking items out of order o Mrs. Pierson then determined that Mr. Criswell's letter would be discussed at this time o Mrs. Pierson stated that the basic question to be determined by the Commission is whether or not to re-open the Public Hearing on the Subdivision Plat submitted by Mr. Tom Regan of RPR Brothers, Ltd., which plat would subdivide some 12 acres in the southwest corner of the Larwin property o Mro Williams stated that he believed this would be in order, and recalled that he had attempted to reopen the hearing at the meeting of January 18th. Don Smith stated that he felt it should be noted that the Commission did notify those property owners to which notice is required by law to be sent, and that the testimony of the applicant and persons present at the Public Hearing was accepted by the Commission. There has been nothing done to change the zoning of the land, and the proposed development is within the permitted uses set forth in the R-3 Zone classi- ficat ion. He added that to have another Public Hearing is not going to change the fact that this construction, as pro- posed, is valid under the law in the R-3 Zone District. Mr. Smith stated that he did not see any point in having another Public Hearing. -1~ Discussion ensued. Mr. DeWitt stated that there is sufficient time to hold a Public Hearing on March 8th, the date to which consideration on the Plat was postponed. He noted that there may be new information the Commission has not received. Mr. Williams stated that he felt the property owners in the area should have an opportunity to be heard . Mr. Tanguma noted that at the meeting of January 18th, members of the audience were given the opportunity to present new information; he stated that it was his recollection that nothing new was pre- sented on January 18th that had not been brought out at the Public Hearing on January 4th. Mrs. Pierson stated that the meeting of January 18th was not a Public Hearing. Mr. Tanguma reiterated that members of the audience were allowed to speak, and cited former Senator Gordon Allott. Mr. Tanguma stated that there was nothing new presented by these speakers, only comments as to why the construction should not be allowed. He stated that he did not feel there should be another Hearing. Mr. Parker stated that he felt there should be another Public Hearing on this matter. He stated that he understands that the land is under one ownership, and the staff notified only those property owners which are contiguous to the portion of land to be subdivided. Mr. Parker stated that had he lived in the Kent Village area, he would have expected notification of the Public Hearing. Mrs. Wade pointed out that the zoning would remain the same whether the Subdivision Waiver granted in 1972 stands, or whether the Hampden Professional Park Subdivision Plat is approved. Mr. Wanush pointed out that a decision on this matter will have to be made on March 8th regardless of another Public Hearing. This date is the deadline on the time extension granted to the Commission by the applicant. Mr. Wanush stated that it is his opinion the Commission did act properly in the conducting of the Public Hearing and those persons notified. Ed Smith stated that he felt the Commission is obligated to respond to the request for another Public Hearing. Williams moved: Parker seconded: The Planning Commission re-open the Public Hearing on Hampden Professional Park Sub- division Plat on March 8th, at 7:00 P. M. AYES: Ed Smith, Tanguma, Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Owens, Parker, Pierson, Don Smith NAYS: None The motion carried. -16- Don Smith stated that he felt it should be made clear that it is not the Commission's interpretation of the law as it is written, that another Public Hearing is needed. He stated that under no circumstances should this action be allowed to set a precedent, and it should be reflected that the Commission does feel proper notification was given to all persons required to be notified by law. Mr o Parker asked that the record reflect that the views expressed by Mr . Don Smith are Mr. Smith's views, and not those of the entire Commission. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Wanush stated that the annual dinner meeting of the Denver Regional Council of Governments is scheduled for March 23, 1977, at the Pinehurst Country Club. Cost is $8.50 per person. Those members of the Commission interested in attending were asked to so notify the office . The review of the Comprehensive Plan was discussed. Mrs. Wade suggested that possibly each committee could be chaired by a member of the Commission, and that one or more additional mem- bers of the Commission should be members of these committees. Mr. Wanush suggested that the first meeting of each month could possibly be set aside as study sessions to go into this review. Mrs . Pierson asked if the advisory committees would be formed by March 8th? Mr. Wanush stated that the staff hoped to have suggested membership for these advisory committees by the 8th of March. Discussion of meeting times to consider the Comprehensive Plan ensued. It was determined that the Commission would meet on March 8th, at 5:00 P.M. to discuss the Comprehensive Plan, the procedure for the public hearing on the Hampden Professional Park Sub- division Plat, and the Moving and Demolition Ordinance o Mrs. Pierson reviewed the City Council minutes included in the Commission packets. She asked if it would be possible for the two Council representatives on the Commission to re- port anything of interest to the Commission that might occur at the City Council meetings. The meeting adjourned at 10:05 P.M. ;., . ' Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary • -17- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION • DATE: February 23, 1977 SUBJECT: Sinclair Park Planned Development ACTION: Don Smith moved: Mr. Owens seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to Ci t y Council approval of the Sinclair Park Planned Development, which Planned Development will apply to the following described property: Beginning at the South Quarter Corner of said Section 10 ; thence S. 89 °57 1 40 11 W. a distance of 1016 .66 feet ; thence N . 0 °37 1 53 11 E. a distance of 220.66 feet to the true point of beginning; thence N. 0 °37 1 53 11 E. a distance of 410.00 feet ; thence S . 89 °58' 14 11 W. a distance of 165.29 feet ; thence S. 0 °37 1 48 11 w. a distance of 410.00 feet; thence N. 89 °58 1 14 11 E. a distance of 165.29 feet to the true point of beginning, containing 1.556 acres more or less. This approval is conditioned upon the construction of the driveway and maneuvering area in the parking lot to the specifications of the Department of Public Works and Fire Department, and compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances . AYES: Wade, Williams, Jorgenson, Owens, Parker, Pierson, D. Smith, Ed Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G . Welty Recording Secretary