Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-06-19 PZC MINUTES' CI TY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMM ISSION June 19, 1979 I. CA LL TO ORDER. 5 B The regu l ar meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was cal led to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Tanguma . Member s present: Tanguma, Carson, Draper, Becker, Lathrop, Bilo, Pierson Membe rs absent: Smith, Williams Also pr esent: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chair man Tanguma stated that the Minutes of June 5 , 1 9 79, were to be considered for approval. Lathrop moved: Carso n seconded: The Minutes of June 5, 1979 be ap p r oved as written. AYES : Pierson, Tanguma, Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop NAYS : None ABSEN T: Smith, Williams The mo tion carried. II I. CENTENNIAL SOUTH SUBDIVISION Decatur and West Union Avenue CASE #14-79A June 5, 1979 Mr. Tanguma stated that this Public Hearing was cont inued f rom the June 5, 1979 meeting. Pierson moved: Bilo seconded: The Planning Commission continue wi th t he pro- ceedings of the Public Hearing on Ca se #14-79. AYES : Lathrop, Pierson; Tanguma, Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper NAYS: None ABSE NT: Smith, Williams The motion carried. Mr . Tanguma asked for the presentation by the staff . -2- Mrs. Dorothy Romans was sworn in, and testified that she is the Assistant Director of Community Development for the • Planning Division. Mrs. Romans stated that this Public Hearing is concerned with the division of a parcel of land that is bounded by West Union Avenue on the north, South Decatur Street on the west, South Clay Street extended on the east, and by the R-2, Medium Density Zone District boundary line on the south. The subject parcel is zoned R-2, Medium Density, which zone district would allow a single-family use or a duplex on 6,000 square feet of lot area, or a triplex on 9,000 square feet of lot area. To the south of the subject ·site, the property is zoned R-1-C, Single-family; to the west the land is zoned R-1-B, Single-family; and I-1, Light Industrial zoning is on land to the north and east of the subject site. Centennial Park is on the land to the north of West Union Avenue. The subject property is in two parcels which are owned by Mrs. Maye M. Ferguson and by Mr . and Mrs. B. L. Weaver. Mr. Don Schaffer has a contract to purchase both the Weaver and Ferguson properties and is pursuing the platting of the land into building sites. Mrs. Romans stated that there are two single-family homes on the property at the present time, residences of Mrs. Ferguson and Mr. and Mrs. Weaver. Mrs. Romans pointed out that this is a Preliminary Plat that is before the Commission, and that the Commission should con- sider the following matters when reviewing the Plat: 1. Does the division of the land comply with the require- ments of the Zoning Ordinance? Mrs. Romans stated that the proposal is to divide the land in- to building sites large enough to accommodate two and three family structures. The staff has determined that the proposed subdivision plat does meet the requirements of the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance on lot area. 2. Is the proposed development of the site in compliance with the projected use shown in the Comprehensive Plan? Mrs. Romans stated that the proposed division and ultimate development of the site is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Will the traffic flow created by the development be un- duly disruptive to adjacent property owners? Mrs. Romans stated that the prospective purchasers were in- vited to a meeting with representatives of the Fire Department, Utilities, Engineering, Public Works, Planning and Building Departments, and matters such as traffic, drainage, etc. were discussed. The Fire Department wanted to see an "L"-shaped street in this proposed development, which "L"-shaped street • -3- would have access from West Union Avenue to South Decatur Street. However, the point of access on South Decatur Street would be off-set from West Tanforan Drive, and would exit approximately mid-block between West Tanforan Drive and West Layton Avenue. It was agreed by most of the department repre- sentatives that a cul-de-sac would have the least effect on the adjacent properties to the west of South Decatur Street. The only traffic that will be introduced onto South Decatur Street from this proposed development will be from the eight lots which have frontage on South Decatur Street. 4. Storm Drainage. Mrs. Romans noted that the site is basically flat, with a three foot drop southwest to northeast. Drainage waters will flow to the northeast corner of the site, and will be piped west on West Union Avenue to the intersection of West Union Avenue and South Decatur Street where it will flow into a 66 inch out-fall line. None of the drainage will flow onto the adjacent properties. Mrs. Romans stated that this property was annexed to the City of Englewood in 1961, and is 4.7 acres in area. The site was zoned R-2, Medium Density Residence, in 1976. Mrs. Romans stated that the proposed Subdivision Plat has been referred to the various Departments for their study and comments, and no particular problems are seen by any of these depart- ments. Mrs. Romans stated that she has talked to Mrs. Bonnie Brown, Secretary of the Valley Sanitation District, and it has been indicated by Mrs. Brown that there is no reason this property cannot be served by the Valley Sanitation District. Mrs. Romans stated that she has also talked to Ms. Tessa Dorsey, attorney for the Valley Sanitation District, and to Mr. Cassens, Engineer for the Valley Sanitation District, and both have said that they cannot forsee any problem in providing service to this proposed development. The Public Works Department has indicated there is no problem on storm drainage, but will require the storm runoff to be piped from the northeast corner of the site to the inlet at Union and Decatur. They will also require a vertical curb and gutter to be installed along West Union and South Decatur. South Clay Court, the interior cul-de-sac, will be developed with a Hollywood-type curb and gutter. The Department is re- questing a 25 foot easement from the cul-de-sac west to South Decatur Street to accommodate the water and sewer lines rather than the 20 foot easement as shown on the Preliminary Plat. Mrs. Romans stated that it is the feeling of the staff of the Department of Community Development that every property owner has the right to develop their property as long as it conforms to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan requirements. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the proposed de- velopment of this site does conform to the Zoning Ordinance -4- and the Comprehensive Plan, and will have minimal effect on adjacent or adjoining property. The staff does recommend that the Preliminary Plat be approved and that the developer be given the authority to proceed with the Final Plat of the proposed Subdivision. Mrs. Romans stated that there is a 16-foot right-of-way on South Clay Street, which came from the property presently owned by Mr. and Mrs. Weaver. The staff is requesting that the developer dedicate an additional 14 feet from the east side of the property for the rest of the west half of South Clay Street, assuming that South Clay Street would have a 60 foot right-of-way. Mr. Bilo and Mr. Carson questioned the fact that the proposed Plat shows that the filtered water line will tie into the 14" raw water line. Mrs. Romans stated that this point will have to be clarified; how .ever, the Utilities Department has stated that there will be no problem in providing service to the de- velopment. Mr. Carson asked about fire protection? Mrs. Romans stated that two fire hydrants will be installed on South Clay Court; one at approximately West Union Avenue, and the other at the "bulb" of the cul-de-sac. These installations and locations have met the approval of the Fire Department. Mr. Bilo noted that the Fire Marshall is quoted as stating that fire suppression is reduced with a cul-de-sac. Mrs. Romans stated that the Fire Marshall would prefer that there be no curvilinear streets or cul-de-sacs in the City. She noted that the cul- de-sac proposed for South Clay Court has a 90-foot turning radius, which will accommodate the snorkel. Mr. Lathrop asked if there would be another meeting on this matter? Mrs. Romans stated that there would not be another Public Hearing; if the Commission approves the Preliminary Plat, the applicant will prepare the Final Plat which will be reviewed by the Commission. When the Final Plat is approved by the Commission, it will be referred to City Council. Mr. Tanguma asked if the applicant wished to add anything to Mrs. Romans' comments? Mr. Roger Guertner -was sworn in and stated that he is a consultant on the project, and that Mr. Schaffer, the contract buyer, and Mr. Strong, the project engineer, were both present. He stated that Mrs. Romans had covered the request very adequately, and that he would be happy to answer questions posed to him. Mr. Carson asked what type of development was proposed for the area? Mr. Guertner stated that they propose the develop- ment to be for duplexes and triplexes; with most of the sites to be sold and developers would construct custom built homes for the property owners. Mr. Lathrop asked if the development -5- stated would be brick or frame construction? Mr. Guertner that he could not say, but probably a combination. asked if there would be any restrictions imposed on of the structures? Mr. Guertner stated there would Mr. Tanguma the style not be. Mr. Tanguma asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in re ference to the proposal? Mr. Phil Whitby 2722 West Union -was sworn in and stated that he lives just to the south of the subject site, and he did not see that there would be a fire hydrant that would be accessi- ble to those properties to the south of the proposed Subdivision. He then asked about water and sewage service to those properties to the south of the subject site? Mrs. Romans stated that fire protection and water and sewer service woul d have to be provided those properties to the south by those property owners at such time as they determine they want further development; they will not be provided by the developer of this site. Mrs. Romans emphasized that pro- vision of such services to the property to the south of the subject site would be the responsibility of those property owners. Mr. Whitby asked about the improvement of South Clay Street, and whether some of the properties to be developed in the proposed Subdivision would face onto South Clay Street? Mrs. Romans stated that these properties would face South Clay Court. Mr. Whitby stated that his property is "fenced in"; he asked if his property would be provided access by the dedication of the additional 14 feet on South Clay Street. Mrs. Romans said it would not. She stated that the 14 foot dedication for South Clay Street will end at Mr. Schaffer's south property line, where the 16 foot dedication presently ends, and added that Mr. Schaffer will not be required to provide paving or improvement of that one-half of South Clay Street at this time. Mr. Whitby asked about the total number of units that would be developed on the site? Mr. Guertner stated that there would be 22 structures, or a total of 49 families living in this development. Mr. Whitby stated that that seemed to be a number of people for a site of this size. He asked how long it was anticipated it would take to develop the site? Mr. Guertne r stated that they would like to proceed as quickly as possible. Mr. Whitby stated that the additional 14 foot dedication on South Clay Street, if extended to the south, would cut through his front yard. He asked if there were plans to continue South Clay from West Belleview Avenue to West Union Avenue. Mrs. Romans stated that there were not. She pointed out that no Building Permits would be issued south of the subject site without proper access being provided. -6- Mr. Tanguma asked if others had comments they wished to make regarding the Subdivision Plat? Mrs. Mae Wade 2903 West Layton Avenue -was sworn in, and stated that she had some questions for the developers; she asked if Mr. Schaffer had a contract to purchase the property with Mr. and Mrs. Weaver and Mrs. Ferguson at this time? Mr. Schaffer stated that he did. Mrs. Wade asked if she understood correctly that Mr. Schaffer was only subdividing the property, and.that other developers would build? Mr. Schaffer stated that it would probably be a combination; some sites would be sold for construction by other developers, and they would probably develop some of the sites themselves. Mrs. Wade stated that it "looks like a good plan as long as it meets the zoning requirements." Mr. Ti.dwell 2720 West Union Avenue -was sworn in, and testified that his property abuts the subject site on the entire south boundary. He stated that he does not see that any fire protection has been provided for any of the industrial property. He would have to object to the additional 14-foot right-of-way on South Clay Street if it is continued south be- cause it would take 14 feet of his property. He stated that a few years ago a Master Street Plan was proposed for the area, and was defeated by the residents. He pointed out that if South Clay Street were to be extended, it could remove three residential structures, and part of his frontage as well. Mr. Tidwell stated that he did not think the 90-foot cul-de-sac was adequate turning radius for the fire trucks, and that they could not maneuver in this space, particularly if parking were permitted in the cul-de-sac. Mr. Tidwell stated that he had attempted to get sewer service from South Decatur Street some time ago, and was told provisions would have to be made to pump the sewage up to the grade to tie into the line on South Decatur Street. He stated that in his opinion, the grades in South Decatur Street are erroneous. Mr. Tidwell then stated that he feels any additional right-of-way for South Clay Street should come from the industrial property rather than the resi- dential land. Mr. Tidwell stated that, in his opinion, all the drainage from the proposed development will flow onto Mr. Blomberg's property to the east. He stated that the storm sewer system stops at South Decatur, and he doesn't feel that this has been researched sufficiently for approval. He pointed out that there will be no benefit to the Englewood School System from any families that would be buying in this area, inasmuch as it is part of the Sheridan School District. Mr. Tidwell stated that he felt the Fire Marshall has a legitimate concern about the cul-de-sac, in that the snorkel cannot be turned in the 90-foot radius. He stated that he would also rather see an "L"-shaped street in this development; it would eliminate two properties, and cut down on the pro- -7- jected density. Mr. Tidwell stated that he felt there should be further investigation into the matter of water, sanitary sewer service, fire and police protection; he noted that this area has "never had any police protection", and that the Fire Department "can never find them" when they are called. Mr. Draper asked Mr. Tidwell the depth of his property from north to south? Mr. Tidwell stated that it is 93 feet north to south, and runs to South Decatur Street; he stated that he does have access from South Decatur Street. He stated that there is no maintenance of any of the "streets" in the area, and that in fact several of them are in need of grading again following the recent rains. He pointed out that South Decatur is used as a "drag strip", and he questioned whether they could expect the same with the additional 14-foot dedication on South Clay Street? Mr. Carson asked how deep the sewer line was when Mr. Tidwell attempted to tap onto the line? Mr. Tidwell stated that he was not sure on the depth; just that he was told he would have to have a pumping system installed. Mr. Guertner stated that the manhole in South Decatur is 11 feet deep. He stated that on the north end of the site, some of the structures may not have basements , but there should be no problem on the south end. He stated that they have conducted studies on the matter of drainage systems and sewer service, and their proposals will work. Mrs. Pierson asked why South Clay Court was proposed with a cul-de-sac rather than running south to the property line? Mrs. Romans stated that it was felt it would have less impact on the proper ty owners to the south with the proposed design. She acknowledged that at one time, the proposal was to extend the street south and west along the south property line. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt it would be better to have a "straight" street extension to facilitate future development for those properties to the south. Mrs. Romans stated that those property owners to the south of Mr. ·schaffer's site would have to join together and present a development plan; to this time, there has been no indication that these people want to do so. Mrs. Romans repeated that the Fire Department has stated that the 90-foot radius on the cul-de-sac will accommodate the turning_movements of the snorkel. Mrs. Maye M. Ferguson 2740 West Union Avenue -was sworn in, and stated that when the drainage system was constructed, it was designed to cross West Union Avenue and to go into the line in the Park. Mrs. Ferguson stated that she has lived in the area for 32 years, and that the drainage system does take care of this area. She stated that she did not think there would be any flooding on South Clay Court. Mrs. Ferguson stated that she and her husband built their home about 15 years ago, and at that time, they were required to connect to the sewer line. Mrs. Ferguson stated that she does have a well -8- for water. She stated that they did apply for service from the Valley Sanitation District in 1964, and were accepted by that District in 1964; she stated that there are 50 taps available on West Union Avenue which have not been used. Mrs. Ferguson stated that she would like to sell her land; it is too much for her to keep up, and is not bringing in any revenue to her. Mr. Carson asked if Mr. Schaffer and Mr. Guertner agreed to the 25 foot easement from the cul-de-sac to South Decatur Street rather than the 20 foot easement as proposed? Mr. Guertner stated that they do agree to this requirement. Mr. Guertner further clarified the matter of drainage; he stated that the City Engineering Division is requiring them to pipe the drainage west along West Union Avenue to South Decatur Street, and into the 66 inch line. Mr. Bilo asked if Mr. Guertner felt there would be any problem getting the sewage into the line on the south end of the property? Mr. Guertner stated that he did not. Mr. Blomberg pointed out that there is an existing storm drainage inlet at Union and South Clay Street. Carson moved: Pierson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #14-79 be closed. AYES: Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Tanguma, Becker, Bilo, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith, Williams The motion carried. Carson moved: Pierson seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Plat of Centennial South Subdivision; the applicant to include the designation of a 25-foot water and sewer easement from the cul-de-sac west to South Decatur Street on the Final Plat, as well as incorporating suggestions and changes submitted by the various departments. AYES: Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Tanguma, Becker, Bilo NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith, Williams The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma declared a five minute recess of the Commission. The Commission reconvened, with the following members present: Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Tanguma, Becker Absent: Smith, Williams -9- IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE CASE #13-79 §22.7-7 Sign Code Carson moved: Bilo seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #13-79 be opened. AYES: Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith, Williams The motion carried. Mrs. Romans stated that this Hearing is concerned with the amendment of §22.7-7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which is the Sign Code. This amendment was initiated by the City of Englewood at the request of the Election Com- mission. Under the present regulations, political signs may be displayed only in commercia l and industrial zone districts. Mrs. Romans stated that she personally feels that the lack of interest in the local elections is dP.plorable, and if the proposed amendment which would allow political signs in the residential zone districts would encourage people to vote, she felt this would be a step in the right direction. The staff does recommend that §22.7-7 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be amended to permit political signs in the R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C, Single-family Residence Districts; in the R-2 and R-2-C, Medium-Density Districts; in the R-3, High Density Residence District, and in the R-4, Residential/Pro- fessional Distr ict. Mrs. Romans pointed out that political signs may be posted for 90 days prior to an election in the commercial and industrial zone districts. The proposed amendment allowing political signs in the residential zone districts will allow the posting of the political signs for 45 days prior to the election, and they must be removed within 15 days following the election. Mrs. Becker asked what happens in the event the signs are not removed within the 15 days following the election? Mrs. Romans stated that they would be removed by the City. Mr. Bilo inquired why there is a prohibition of paper and cloth banners? Mrs. Romans stated that such banners are pro- hibited in all zone districts. Mr. Draper stated that he would have to disagree that interest in elections could be generated by permitting political signs in the residential areas. He stated that this will result in the front lawns being "cluttered" with home-made signs. Mrs. Pierson questioned that people could be told they could not erect a sign on their front lawns because it would be an in- fringement on their right of freedom of speech. Mr. Lathrop stated that he would have to agree with Mr. Draper that this amendment would lead to more trash, junk and a general -10- deterioration in the up-keep of the City. He stated that he would have to vote "no" on this matter, and further stated that he feels this amendment was "instigated and brought about by people who are considering running for election or re-election." Mrs. Becker stated that she drives Denver streets constantly, and is not disturbed by viewing election signs posted on the lawns. She stated that she felt if people are interested enough in their community and are willing to put their politics on the line, she did not feel this was a bad thing. She further noted that if the signs are posted on the front lawns, the property owners are going to remove them. Mrs. Becker stated that she would also hope that this amendment would en- courage people to participate in the political process. Mr. Tanguma stated that he believes that anyone has the right to advertise their ideas, wares, etc., and that by posting signs during an election, they are advertising their political beliefs, and are attempting to sell their ideas to the people. He stated that he did not see anything wrong with people putting political signs in their front yard. He stated that he did not feel this has anything to do with whether a person was running for office or not. Mr. Lathrop stated that when a candidate for office does not remove election signs, he feels there should be a charge for the City to remove such signs, and that the candidate should be billed. Mr. Bilo asked for clarification on the initiation of the amendment? Mrs. Romans stated that it was initiated at the request of the Election Commission. Mr. Draper stated that he felt the signs could block views at intersections, and could create a problem for motorists. Mr. Lathrop agreed that the signs could create visual problems. Discussion ensued. Mr. Lathrop predicted that if this amend- ment is approved, there will be a "garden" of signs in front yards all over town. Pierson moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #13-79 be closed. AYES: Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Smith The motion carried. Pierson moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance §22.7-7, Sign Code, be amended as follows: 22.7.7 Signs Permitted in Enumerated Zone Districts. a. Low-Density Residential Districts: R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C, JbfixA; Jbfix~ R-2, R-2-C, and R-4. 11. POLITICAL SIGNS 0 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, POLITICAL SIGNS MAY BE ERECTED AND MAINTAINED; PROVIDED THAT SUCH SIGNS SHALL NOT BE A BANNER OF PAPER OR CLOTH, SHALL NOT BE POSTED MORE THAN FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION TO WHICH THE SIGN RELATES, AND SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS FOLLOWING THE ELECTION TO WHICU THE SIGN RELATES. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) PERMITTED TYPES OF POLITICAL SIG~S. WALL, WINDOW AND~ROUND. PERMITTED MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POLITICAL SIGNS. - TWO ~NE ~i* (2) SIGNS FOR EACH ~X ~xNE ~~ %KE XQNE LOT. PERMITTED MAXIMUM AREA OF POLITICAL SIGNS. ~ - NOT TO EXCEED TWELVE (12) SQUARE FEET tiR ti£E TOTAL SIGN AREA. PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE. SIX (6) FEET. PERMITTED LOCATION. SHALL BE WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE LOT ON WHICH THE SIGN IS LOCATED. (1) SIGNS ON PUBLIC UTILITY POLES ARE PROHIBITED. (2) SIGNS CANNOT INTERFERE WITH THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. (f) PERMITTED ILLUMINATION. SHALL NOT BE ILLUMINATED. (g) ANIMATION. SHALL NOT BE ANIMATED. -12- b. High Density Residential Districts: R.MiM~ a:md RMidMZ. R-3 • 11. POLITICAL SIGNS 0 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, POLITICAL SIGNS MAY BE ERECTED ANP MAINTAINED; PROVIDED THAT SUCH SIGNS SHALL NOT BE A BANNER OF PAPER OR CLOTH, SHALL NOT BE POSTED MORE THAN FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION TO WHICH THE SIGN RELATES, AND SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS FOLLOWING 'l;'HE ELECTION TO WHICH THE SIGN RELATES. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) PERMITTED TYPES OF POLITICAL SIGNS. WALL, WINDOW AND GROUND. PERMITTED MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POLITICAL SIGNS. TWO (2) ~xx ~x* SIGNS FOR EACH ~ ~:IR ti !'.'KX X0MX LOT. PERMITTED MAXIMUM AREA OF POLITICAL SIGNS. NOT TO EXCEED TWELVE (12) SQUARE FEET fiR X'l\:~X TOTAL SIGN AREA. PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE. SIX (6) FEET. PERMITTED LOCATION. SHALL BE WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE LOT ON WHICH THE SIGN IS LOCATED. (1) SIGNS ON PUBLIC UTILITY POLES ARE PROHIBITED. (2) SIGNS CANNOT INTERFERE WITH THE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. (f) PERMITTED ILLUMINATION. SHALL NOT BE , ILLUMINATED. (g) ANIMATION. SHALL NOT BE ANIMATED. AYES: Tanguma, Becker, Carson, Pierson NAYS: Draper, Lathrop ABSTAIN: Bilo ABSENT: Williams, Smith The motion carried. -13- Mr. Bilo stated that he abstained on the voting because he is considering the possibility of running for City Council and determined during the discussion that this might be a conflict of interest. V. PUBLIC FORUM Mr. Donald Carson, son of Mr. Thad Carson, was introduced to the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff is in the process of pre- paring the Co~prehensive Plan for publication; estimated cost figures are that 500 copies will cost $2,500 +/-. It is hoped that the Plan will be to the printer no later than Wednesday, June 27th, and that the finished product will be ready for presentation to the Commission on July 10th. Mrs. Romans stated that there would be a block meeting in Scenic View to discuss West Hillside Avenue on June 27th, 7:00 P. M., the meeting to be held at the Scenic View Elementary School. Mrs. Romans stated that approximately 50% of the right-of-way for West Hillside Avenue has been dedicated to this time. West Hillside Avenue would extend between South Zuni and South Tejon Streets, between West Harvard and West Vassar Avenues. Mrs. Romans stated that she understood Mr. Elmer Ausfahl has a contract to purchase the former Miller Grocery Store in the 4100 block of South Broadway. Mr. Draper stated that as of this date, this proposal has fallen through. Mrs. Romans referred to the Planning Commissioner's Handbook, Page 18 and 19, which state that rezoning hearings shall be held on a quarterly basis. Mrs. Romans stated that this was a ruling the Commission adopted after it was determined that too much time was spent on matters such as rezoning hearings and little else was being accomplished. Mrs. Romans stated that this ruling has been questioned by one applicant who submitted his application for rezoning and paid the fee earlier on this date, but had previously questioned the ruling. She asked the Commission's feeling on the matter. -14- Mrs. Pierson stated that she hated for the Conunission to be "obstructionist", and asked about the possibility of hearings every second month. Mr. Tanguma pointed out that once the Comprehensive Plan is wrapped up, the Commission will begin review of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and he felt this would be very time consuming. Discussion ensued. Pierson moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commissioner's Handbook, Page 18, (4) a, and Page 19, (6) be amended to state that rezoning hearings may be held prior to the regular quarterly date, provided at the discretion of· the staff, if the ap- plicant has shown compelling good cause to have the Hearing date advanced. AYES: Tanguma, Becker, Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson NAYS: Bilo ABSENT: Smith, Williams The motion carried. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mrs. Becker stated that at one time, the Conunission had dis- cussed the possibility of meeting with other boards and com- missions in the City. She noted that such a meeting was held with the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, and asked if another such meeting with another board or commission has been con- sidered? Discussion ensued. The possibility of a dinner meeting with City Council to present and discuss the Comprehensive Plan was discussed, and it was suggested that the staff determine if the City Council could meet with the Planning Commission on July 17th, at 5:30 P. M. for a dinner meeting. Mr. Tanguma announced that the meeting would continue in Conference Room "A", to consider the Capital Improvement Pro- gram. VIII. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1980 -1984 Mrs. Romans noted that Capital Improvement projects are in- dicated on the boards displayed before the Commission, and explained which projects are in the Capital Improvement Pro- gram and the Six-Quarter Budget, which projects have been reconunended in the Capital Improvement Program but not funded, and which projects have not been included in the Capital Im- provement Program, even though all but two of these projects have been requested previously. -15- Discussion of the projects ensued. Mrs. Romans noted that the two new requests are for storage space at the Police Department, and for Program Space to be developed at the Simon Center. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff questioned this last CIP request, and felt that the Parks Department should discuss this matter with the Housing Authority. Mr. Bilo stated that a project that possibly should be con- sidered in the next year or so is the renovation of the animal control shelter to take care of cats. He stated that the structure will have to be enlarged, and some other renovation done to accomplish this. Mrs. Romans stated that the Police Department has requested that funding for the Pistol Range be moved to 1980; they are working on an agreement for a pistol range with the Littleton Police Department and the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Depart- ment, and have requested funding from LEAA. Also, the Parks Department has indicated that the present pistol range will no longer be available for the officers to use because of the expansion of the golf course. Mr. Lathrop discussed the lighting of softball fields, and felt that a 1980 budgeting for this project should be recom- mended. Mr. Bilo inquired about inclusion of funding for the roadway from Cinderella City north to Dartmouth at Santa Fe. He noted that no mention is made of this project. Mr. Bilo also inquired about a possible fire station in Northeast Englewood, and sug- gested funding in possibly 1983 or 1984 . Mr. Lathrop discussed the cul-de-sac in the 3300 block of South Lincoln Street. Pierson moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Manager the following projects for the Capital Improvements Program 1980 -1984: 1980 Projects which are in the Six-Quarter Budget: Central Drainage Basin Little Dry Creek City Survey Street Overlay/Road & Bridge Program River Development Paving and Sidewalk Program Projects the Commission recommends be included for funding in 1980 are: Police Pistol Range Storage Room -Police Department Community Building -land acquisition -16- Fire Pumper Right-of-way Acquisition Cushing Park -Land acquisition Cherokee/Girard Right Turn Beautification of Englewood City Hall Parking Centennial Park land acquisiticn Centennial Park Shore Development Malley Center -land acquisition for parking Projects to be included in budgeting for 1981: Central Drainage Basin Little Dry Creek City Survey Street Overlay River Development Paving and Sidewalk Program Broadway Beautification Community Building -Construction Right-of-way Acquisition Cul-de-sac: 3300 block South Lincoln Beautification of Englewood Renovation of Animal Control Building Centennial Park: Pave Parking. Projects to be included in budgeting for 1982: Little Dry Creek City Survey Street Overlay Program Paving and Sidewalk Program Right-of-way Acquisition Greenway/Little Dry Creek Miller Field Lighting Projects to be included in budgeting for 1983: Little Dry Creek Street Overlay Program Paving and Sidewalk Program Traffic Improvement Fire Station in Northeast Englewood Mountain Park Projects to be included in budgeting for 1984: Little Dry Creek Street Overlay Program Widen Broadway/Yale to Floyd South Platte River Bridge Replacement McLellan Shore Development Light High School Ball fields Ice Rink • -17- AYES: Pierson, Tanguma, Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith, Williams The motion carried. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 P. M. -18- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: June 19, 1979 SUBJECT: Amendment of Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance §22.7-7 Sign Code RECOMMENDATION: Pierson moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordi- nance, §22.7-7, Sign Code, be amended as follows: 22.7.7 Signs Permitted in Enumerated Zone Districts. a. Low-Density Residential Districts: R-1-A, R-1-B, R-1-C, RJf2x~~ RJf2x1q R-2, R-2-C, and R-4. 11. POLITICAL SIGNS 0 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, POLITICAL SIGNS MAY BE ERECTED AND MAINTAINED; PROVIDED THAT SUCH SIGNS SHALL NOT BE A BANNER OF PAPER OR CLOTH, SHALL NOT BE POSTED MORE THAN FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION TO WHICH THE SIGN RELATES, AND SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS FOLLOWING THE ELECTION TO WHICU THE SIGN RELATES. (a) PERMITTED TYPES OF POLITICAL SIGNS. WALL, WINDOW AND GROUND. (b) PERMITTED MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POLITICAL SIGNS. ~ TWO ~ME ~i* (2) SIGNS FOR EACH ~% ~xMX ~~~ME ~~x LOT. (c) PERMITTED MAXIMUM AREA OF POLITICAL SIGNS. NOT TO EXCEED TWELVE (12) SQUARE FEET :imR li'l\£X TOTAL SIGN AREA. (d) PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE. SIX (6) FEET. (e) PERMITTED LOCATION. SHALL BE WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE LOT ON WHICH THE SIGN IS LOCATED. (1) SIGNS ON PUBLIC UTILITY POLES ARE PROHIBITED. (2) SIGNS CANNOT INTERFERE WITH THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. • -19- (f) PERMITTED ILLUMINATION. SHALL NOT BE ILLUMINATED. (g) ANIMATION. SHALL NOT BE ANIMATED. b. High Density Residential Districts: R.Mix* xmd R.Mixm. R-3. 11. POLITICAL SIGNS 0 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS HEREINAFTER SET FORTH, POLITICAL SIGNS MAY BE ERECTED ANp MAINTAINED; PROVIDED THAT SUCH SIGNS SHALL NOT BE A BANNER OF PAPER OR CLOTH, SHALL NOT BE POSTED MORE THAN FORTY-FIVE (45) DAYS PRIOR TO THE ELECTION TO WHICH THE SIGN RELATES, AND SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS FOLLOWING 'PJE ELECTION TO WHICH THE SIGN RELATES. (a) PERMITTED TYPES OF POLITICAL SIGNS. WALL, WINDOW AND GROUND. (b) PERMITTED MAXIMUM NUMBER OF POLITICAL SIGNS. - TWO (2) ~xx ~XJ SIGNS FOR EACH ~ Jafi mt ~HX X@IE LOT. (c) PERMITTED MAXIMUM AREA OF POLITICAL SIGNS. NOT TO EXCEED TWELVE (12) SQUARE FEET fiR ft~ TOTAL SIGN AREA. (d) PERMITTED MAXIMUM HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE. SIX (6) FEET. (e) PERMITTED LOCATION. SHALL BE WITHIN THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE LOT ON WHICH THE SIGN IS LOCATED. (1) SIGNS ON PUBLIC UTILITY POLES ARE PROHIBITED. (2) SIGNS CANNOT INTERFERE WITH THE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. (f) PERMITTED ILLUMINATION. SHALL NOT BE ILLUMINATED. (g) ANIMATION. SHALL NOT BE ANIMATED. -20- AYES: Tanguma, Becker, Carson, Pierson NAYS: Draper, Lathrop ABSTAIN: Bilo ABSENT: Williams, Smith The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. ertrude y ecording Sec etary -21- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY MANAGER REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: June 19, 1979 SUBJECT: Capital Improvement Program: 1980 -1984 RECOMMENDATION: Pierson moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Manager the following projects for the Capital Improvements Program 1980 -1984: 1980 Projects which are in the Six-Quarter Budget: Central Drainage Basin Little Dry Creek City Survey Street Overlay/Road and Bridge Program River Development Paving and Sidewalk Program Projects the Commission recommends be included for funding in 1980 are: Police Pistol Range Storage Room -Police Department Community Building -land acquisition Fire Pumper Right-of-way Acquisition Cushing Park -Land Acquisition Cherokee/Girard Right Turn Beautification of Englewood City Hall Parking Centennial Park Land Acquisition Centennial Park Shore Development Malley Center -land acquisition for parking Projects to be included in budgeting for 1981: Central Drainage Basin Little Dry Creek City Survey Street Overlay River Development Paving and Sidewalk Program Broadway Beautification Community Building -Construction Right-of-way Acquisition Cul-de-sac: 3300 block South Lincoln Beautification of Englewood Renovation of Animal Control Building Centennial Park: Pave Parking -22- Projects to be included in budgeting for 1982: Little Dry Creek City Survey Street Overlay Program Right-of-way Acquisition Greenway/Litt le Dry Creek Miller Field Lighting Projects to be included in budgeting for 1983: Little Dry Creek Street Overlay Program Paving and Sidewalk Program Traffic Improvement Fire Station in Northeast Englewood Mountain Park Projects to be included in budgeting for 1984: Little Dry Creek Street Overlay Program Widen Broadway/Yale to Floyd South Platte River Bridge Replacement McLellan Shore Development Light High School Ball Fields Ice Rink AYES: Pierson, Tanguma, Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop NAYS: None ABSENT: Smith, Williams The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission.