Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-02-07 PZC MINUTES. - CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7, 1984 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Marjorie L. Becker. Members present: Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Magnuson Romans, Assistant Director of Community Development Members absent: Tanguma Also present: Senior Planner Susan T. King Planner I Harold J. Stitt Mrs. Becker welcomed Mr. Randy Magnuson to the Commission. Mr. Magnuson was appointed to a four-year term on the Commission by the City Council. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. January 17, 1984 Mrs. Becker stated that the Mintues of January 17, 1984 were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Minutes of January 17, 1984 be approved as written. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma ABSTAIN: Venard, Magnuson The motion carried. III. REORGANIZATION OF COMMISSION. Chairman Becker stated that it is the time to elect a Chairman and Vice- Chairman for the ensuing year. Mrs. Becker stated that the Chair would entertain nominations for Chairman. Mr. Barbre nominated Mr. McBrayer as Chairman. Mr. Carson seconded the nomination. Mr. Allen nominated Mrs. Becker as Chairman. MF. ,Stoel seconded the nomination. Stoel moved: Allen seconded: The nominations for Chairman be closed. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Venard, Allen, Magnuson NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma -2- The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma entered the meeting during the written ballot; he was apprised of the names placed in nomination, and voted by written ballot also. Mr. McBrayer was elected Chairman of the Planning Conunission, and assumed the Chair. Mr. McBrayer thanked members for their vote, and called for nominations for Vice-Chairman. Mr. Carson nominated Mr. Venard as Vice-Chairman. Mr. Allen seconded the nomination. Mr. Stoel nominated Mrs. Becker as Vice-Chairman. Mr. Barbre seconded the nomination. Stoel moved: Venard seconded: The nominations for Vice-Chairman be closed. AYES: Becker Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Magnuson NAYS: None The motion carried. Mrs. Becker was elected Vice-Chairman of the Commission by written ballot. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE I-1 Zone District Amendments CASE #9-84 Chairman McBrayer stated that the matter before the Conunission is a public hearing regarding proposed amendments to the I-1 Zone District. Mr. McBrayer asked for verification that notice was published in the official newspaper. The secretary stated that public notice of this hearing was published in the Englewood Sentinel on January 18, 1984. Mr. McBrayer reviewed the action the Commission may take on the proposed amendments: 1. Forward the amendments as proposed to the City Council. 2. Further modification of the proposed amendments before forwarding to City Council. Mr. McBrayer asked that anyone wishing to address the Cormnission on the ordinance amendments give their name and address, and be sworn in. Mr. McBrayer noted that members of the Commission were furnished copies of the proposed I-1 Zone District amendments, and asked if there were any questions of the staff. Mrs. Becker questioned Page 9, #5 regarding the size of auto wrecking yards and the expansion onto abutting property. Mrs. Romans pointed out that this particular section is not being changed, and stated that some of the smaller yards may find it necessary to merge with adjoining yards, and it w:ts felt at -3- the time this provision was enacted, that this could be handled in an orderly way and the provision to expand was incorporated into the regulations. Mrs. Becker asked for clarification of Page 14, Item k. Mr. McBrayer asked why Page 6, #14, made no reference to "noise level". Mrs. Romans stated that there is a separate noise control ordinance and that this provision was copied from the B-1 and B-2 Districts. She stated that the term "noise" could be added to assure it is covered. Mr. McBrayer discussed Page 14 "l", and suggested that the present statement, "See the Landscaping Ordinance", be changed to "Landscaping shall be in ac- cordance with the landscaping ordinance." Mr. McBrayer asked if there were further questions from the Commission members, or if the staff had anything to add. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff did have information they wanted to add. In the packets delivered to the Commission, there was material published by a group designated as WHERE, (We'll Have Equitable RElocation), regarding the mobile home parks along South Santa Fe Drive. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has been working with the members of WHERE in an effort to reach a solution to the question of what will ultimately happen to the mobile home parks with the improvement to South Santa Fe Drive. This area is zoned I-1, Light Industrial, and mobile home parks are not a permitted use in that zone district or any other, within the City. Mrs. Romans pointed out that several years ago, the staff drafted regulations/standards for a Mobile Home Park Planned Development District, which regulations/standards were ultimately considered and approved by the Commission at that time, but not forwarded to the City Council. Mrs. Romans suggested that there were several ways a possible solution to the problems WHERE is concerned about could be reached. 1. Amend the I-1 Light Industrial District to allow mobile home parks as a permitted use, and adopt the mobile home park regulations/standards as development standards. 2. Create a third industrial zone district to allow mobile home parks, and apply that district to the subject area. 3. Adopt the Mobile Home Park Planned Development District regulations/stan- dards as a new zone district, and apply it to this area. Mrs. Romans stated that members of WHERE were invited to attend the meeting this evening to make a presentation to the Commission, and if it is the pleasure of the Commission they can make the presentation at this time during the public hearing of the I-1 amendments, or the Commission may choose to hear the WHERE representatives under the Public Forum section of the agenda. Mrs. Romans stated that she felt the presentation could be done within a short period of time. Mr. Carson asked if the parks under discussion were located in Englewood, or were to be developed in Englewood. Mrs. Romans stated that there are several mobile home parks in this particular area of Englewood, which are the subject of the discussion. Mr. McBrayer, after consultation with members of the Planning Commission, -4- announced that WHERE would be given 10 minutes to address the Commission on their proposal. Mrs. Barbara Laube, 3075 South Santa Fe Drive, was sworn in. Mrs. Laube displayed a map they have received from the State Highway Department on which the proposed alignment of South Santa Fe Drive has been depicted. Mrs. Laube pointed out that the improvement plans of South Santa Fe Drive have changed from those originally proposed: The interchange at Dartmouth and Santa Fe has been elimianted, and the interchange at U. S. 285 and Santa Fe is to be upgraded. The widening of Santa Fe Drive has been moved to the east, and a sound barrier and access roads have been proposed as shown on the map displayed to the Connnission. Mrs. Laube stated that these changes will leave the mobile home park residents/owners facing the impact of the highway improvements, but with no relocation benefits payable to the resi- dents. Mrs. Laube stated that WHERE is trying to obtain land in Douglas County for a mobile home community; the area they are interested in would accommodate 240 mobile home sites, and there are 190 sites in the mobile home parks in this immediate area along Santa Fe Drive and Dartmouth Avenue. Mrs. Laube discussed the isolation of the mobile home community from the rest of the City with the installation of the sound barricade and the access roads. Mrs. Laube pointed out that this area is zoned for industrial use, and most of the mobile home residents do not own the land that is used for the mobile home parks; the property owners could sell this land at any time for industrial purposes, and the mobile home residents would have to relocate. Mrs. Laube discussed the difficulty in locating areas to which a mobile home can be moved, and pointed out that this could mean that quite a few of these residents could lose their homes. WHERE would like to be of assistance to the residents who are in danger of displacement, and hope to form a "co-op" in order to purchase the land. Mrs. Laube discussed the redevelopment and redesign of the mobile home community if the purchase of the land can be achieved. Mrs. Laube dis- cussed the State Highway plans for the area along South Santa Fe, noting that a sidewalk area within the sound barrier is a proposal; the residents of the mobile home park are proposing that a bicycle trail be developed in this area. Mrs. Laube stated that WHERE is interested in upgrading the entire area, achieving a stabilization of land values, and making this a decent place to live and work. Mrs. Laube stated that one proposal WHERE would like to see developed is a pedestrian overpass to connect the mobile home community with Cinderella City; this would help alleviate the isolation from the rest of the City. Mr. McBrayer asked if the request of WHERE is to have mobile home parks made a permitted use in the I-1 Zone District. Mrs. Laube stated that if mobile home parks were a permitted use, funding would be more readily available to purchase the property. If a use is "nonconforming", as the mobile home parks are now, lenders do not want to get involved. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allen asked what steps WHERE planned to take to up- grade the area. Mrs. Laube reiterated that WHERE wants to purchase the land, both that which is developed, and a piece of vacant ground to the north and west; once this land is purchased, and sites appropriately laid out, some of the units from the presently over-developed/crowded parks could be re- located to this area, and the present mobile home parks redesigned and im- proved. Mrs. Laube stated that they would also want to upgrade the utility services and have maintenance standards for the mobile home community. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff would suggest, if the Commission deter- mines that the mobile home parks should be included as a permitted use in • -5- the I-1 Zone District, that the proposed mobile home park ordinance be adopted as development standards for mobile home parks, and be included in toto as development standards. Mrs. Romans suggested that it would be ad- visable to redraft the I-1 Zone District with the proposed changes, and to re- set a public hearing date after the new draft has been viewed by the Commission. She suggested the second hearing would be advisable in her opinion, because the addition of mobile homes as a permitted use is a substantive change to the regulations. Mr. McBrayer asked how many residents were in the mobile home parks WHERE is concerned with. Mrs. Laube stated that there are 190 units; one study stated an average of 2.5 people per unit, but she questioned that the actual population is that high. Mr. McBrayer asked if anyone else wished to speak on this matter. Mr. Tanguma asked how many units were anticipated in the redeveloped and re- designed mobile home parks if WHERE can achieve their goals. Mrs. Laube stated that this is not worked out at this point in time, and there is still a question of the amount of land required by the State Highway Department; she estimated that there would be between 130 and 150 units. Mr. McBrayer asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to ask questions about the proposed amendments to the I-1 Zone District regula- tions or to speak either for or against the proposed amendments to the I-1 Zone District. There were no persons present who wished to address the Commission. Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #9-84 be closed. AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson NAYS: None The motion carried. Mr. McB.rayer asked the pleasure of the Commission. Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission take no action relative to the I-1 Zone District amendments, and direct the staff to add to the I-1 regulations a mobile home park as a per- mitted use, and to include the standards set forth for development. The staff is requested to bring the re- vised I-1 District back to the Commission for further study and review at the meeting of February 22, 1984. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Magnuson NAYS: None The motion carried. V. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE I-2 Zone District Tanguma moved: -6- Allen seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #10-84 be opened. CASE #10-84 AYES: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: None The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer stated that public notice of the public hearing was published in the Englewood Sentinel on January 18, 1984. Mr. McBrayer again reviewed the courses of action available to the Commission members following the Public Hearing. He stated that the staff report had been distributed earlier, and asked if Commission members had any questions of the staff regarding the proposed amendments. Mrs. Becker stated that she was pleased to note the changes that had been made regarding reclamation of gravel pits. Mr. McBrayer suggested that Page 9 j be reworded to state that "landscaping shall be in accordance with the landscaping ordinance" or whatever wording the staff comes up with for the I-1 Zone District. Mr. McBrayer asked if the staff had any comments they wished to add. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff had nothing further to add. Mr. McBrayer asked if anyone in the audience wished to ask questions about the proposed amendments to the I-2 Zone District regulations, or wanted to address the Commission either in favor of or opposition to the proposed amend- ments to the I-2 Zone District. No one indicated they wanted to speak re- garding the I-2 Zone District. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #10-84 be closed. AYES: Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Magnuson NAYS: None The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer asked the pleasure of the Commission regarding the I-2 amendments. Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend the proposed amendments to the I-2 Zone District, including the revised statement on the landscaping, be forwarded to City Council for approval. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard NAYS: None The motion carried. • -7- VI. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Sign Code Amendments Tanguma moved: Venard seconded: The Public Hearing on Case 1111-84 be opened. CASE 1111-84 AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen NAYS: None The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer stated that the public notice for this Public Hearing was published in the Sentinel on January 18, 1984. Mr. McBrayer reviewed the courses of action open to the Commission regarding the proposed amendments to the Sign Code following the public hearing. Mr. McBrayer stated that the members had received the staff report relative to this matter, and asked if Commissioners had any questions regarding the proposed amendments, or if the staff had anything to add. Mr. Stoel stated that he would be interested in hearing Mr. Stitt discuss the problems that have been experienced in the enforcement of the Sign Code. Mr. Harold J. Stitt, Planner I, was sworn in and testified that a majority of the problems that have been experienced are a matter of interpretation of the provisions in the Sign Code, or a vaguely written section of the Code. Mr. Stitt emphasized that there is no major change, only clarification of the provisions. Mr. McBrayer stated that on Page 20, he noted a sentence regarding determination of a "sign" has been suggested for deletion. He asked what the process would be to determine what a sign is if this sentence is deleted. Mr. Stitt made reference back to the definition of a "Sign", and stated that this sentence only "muddied the water." Mrs. Becker asked how many requests for variances to the Sign Code had been made, and how many were actually granted. Mr. Stitt stated that he did not recall the exact number, but estimated no more than six requests for variances had been received, and the approval/denial was split about 50-50. In response to a request from Mrs. Becker, Mr. Stitt cited four criteria the Board uses in consideration of a variance request to the Sign Code. Mr. Allen asked how hazardous and abandoned signs are enforced. Mr. Stitt stated that if the owner or lessee does not remove the hazardous or abandoned sign, the City will cause it to be removed, and that the Department is in the process of advertising for a firm to provide sign removal services at this time. Mr. McBrayer asked if there was anyone present who had questions about the proposed amendments or who wanted to speak in favor of or opposition to the proposed amendments to the Sign Code. No one spoke regarding the Sign Code amendments. Becker moved: Venard seconded: The Public Hearing on Case 1111-84 be closed. -8- AYES: Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None The motion carried. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the proposed amendments to the Sign Code section of the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance be approved and adopted. AYES: Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None The motion carried. VII. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Design Guidelines §22.4 C Barbre moved: Magnuson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case 1112-84 be opened. CASE 1112-84 AYES: Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None The motion carried. Mr. McBrayer stated that the notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Sentinel on January 18, 1984. Mr. McBrayer reviewed the courses of action available to the Planning Commission following the Public Hearing. He stated that this case concerns amendments to the Design Guidelines for the South Broadway Incentive Area, and asked if Commission members had any questions concerning the staff report regarding the proposed amendments. Mr. Stoel cited Page 5, 3b of the regulations, and asked why concrete was not permitted because the cost of asphalt is greater than the cost of con- crete. Ms. King stated that the intent was to provide for different paved entryways, but did not feel it would be a problem to add concrete to the statement. Mr. McBrayer noted on Page 3, (2)(a)2, the statement is "The renovation shall be avoided" and asked if this could not be reworded to reflect a positive statement. Mrs. Romans stated that it could be. Mr. McBrayer questioned Page 2, b, and asked if there is a "designee" and the proper criteria to determine compliance with the guidelines. Ms. King stated that there is a design review committee that reviews all plans. Mr. Stitt discussed the amendments proposed to the Design Guidelines contained on page 4 of the ordinance, and discussed an expansion of section (e) Signage, which is proposed. Mr. Stitt noted that in administering the Design Guidelines, it was noted that signs within this South Broadway Incentive Area would be dealt with differently than the Sign Code permits in other areas of the City. Mr. Stitt stated that the staff is suggesting that those signs installed prior • • -9- to the enactment of the Design Guidelines which conform to the restrictions of the Sign Code, but which do not conform to the restrictions contained in the Design Guidelines, should be made nonconforming and brought into con- formance whenever one of five suggested conditions occurs. Mr. Stitt re- viewed the proposed conditions as set forth in the suggested amendment. Mr. McBrayer asked if anyone in the audience had questions about the proposed amendments or wanted to address the Commission on the amendments to the Design Guidelines. No one wished to address the Commission regarding the amendments. Carson moved: Magnuson seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, ·venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson NAYS: None The motion carried. Carson moved: Magnuson seconded: That the amended wording discussed at this hearing be incorporated into the Design Guidelines, and that the Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the amendments of the Design Guidelines sections be approved. AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer NAYS: None The motion carried. VIII. SAFEWAY STORES, INC. Case 117-84 Parking Lot Layout Mr. McBrayer stated that the request before the Commission is the parking lot layout for the new Safeway Store at South Logan Street and U. S. 285. Mr. McBrayer asked if the Commission members had any questions of the staff regarding the staff report. Mrs. Becker stated that she did not know whether her questions were more properly directed to the staff, or to the representatives of Safeway. Mr. Russ Norfleet introduced himself, and stated that he is the real estate representative for Safeway Stores, and is handling this project for Safeway. Mrs. Becker discussed her concern with the intersection of South Grant Street extended with U. S. 285, and the turning movements at this intersection. Mr. Norfleet stated that left turns in to the parking lot would be permitted at this point; left turns from the parking lot onto east bound U. S. 285 would not be permitted. He pointed out that this intersection will not be signalized because of the proximity to signalized intersections at U. S. 285 and South Sherman Street and U. S. 285 and South Logan Street. Mrs. Becker then discussed her concerns with the exit/entrance onto South Logan Street, and the traffic congestion that will be compounded by the motorists attempting to turn across traffic lanes to and from Logan. Mr. -10- Norfleet stated that Safeway does not want to close this point of access, and is trying to work ·something out regarding the possible widening of South Logan Street. Mrs. Becker pointed out that it is indicated on the map for the rights-of- way vacation requested by Safeway, that there is an area owned by Safeway Stores that is not being included in the consideration for the off-street parking layout. She asked what use would be made of this particular site; will it be a part of the Safeway parking lot. Mr. Norfleet stated that this property is available for sale, and will not be used in conjunction with the Safeway development. Mrs. Becker pointed out that if this site is eventually developed by another property owner, there may be a parking lot on this site with another point of access, and the Conunission will not have the opportunity to view the layout or the proposed landscaping. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allen pointed out that the plan presented by Safeway does indicate the closure of one curb cut onto South Logan Street, with the point of access being further north away from the Logan/U.S. 285 intersection; he felt this was a better location for a point of access. Mr. Carson asked for clarification of the Safeway ownership on South Grant Street. Mr. Norfleet stated that all of the houses along South Grant Street owned by Safeway would be removed. There is an office building at the north end of the block which Safeway does not own. Mr. McBrayer asked who would determine whether additional traffic signalization would be needed. Mrs. Romans stated that this would be the responsibility of the Traffic Engineer of the City in conjunction with the State Highway Depart- ment. Discussion ensued. Mr. Norfleet stated that some of the points raised by Traffic Engineer Plizga and quoted in the staff report need further consideration and a solution needs to be reached. Mr. McBrayer stated that in his opinion, it is premature to bring consideration of the parking lot layout to the Commission for approval when there are so many factors that have not been resolved. Mr. Norfleet stated that a traffic study has been done regarding South Sherman Street, and that this study indicated only 10% of the traffic from Safeway would be exiting out onto Sherman. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the Commission did have to take into consideration the suggestions made by City staff. Mr. Norfleet stated that he is continuing to work with Traffic Engineer Plizga regarding the traffic on South Logan Street. Mr. Barbre asked about the suggested reversal of the parking stall layout; has this been considered by Safeway. Mr. Norfleet stated that this was considered, but that they feel the original plan as submitted makes for the best flow of traffic into the site. He stated that their concern was to get traffic off of Logan and U. S. 285 as quickly as possible. Safeway feels that the plan as submitted accomplishes this traffic movement better than the plan of reversing the parking stall layout suggested by the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Norfleet discussed the traffic circulation pattern within the parking lot, and why the plan as presented is more functional. The plan proposed by the Traffic Engineer could cause traffic to be backed up across two driving aisles •• Mr. Becker stated that once the motorist is on the Safeway premises, she felt the turning movements in the present layout will create a bottleneck in several areas. Mr. Norfleet reiterated the opinion of Safeway that this will be less problem than having people slow down immediately after entering the curb cut to determine in which area they wish to park. Mr. Norfleet stated that Safeway supports the parking lot layout as they presented it. • -11- Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the applicant and Mr. Plizga should get together to try to reach a solution to some of the traffic problems. He stated that he did not feel that the Commission should try to second-guess the Traffic Engineer. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the problems should be worked out before action by the Commission, or both Mr. Norfleet and Mr. Plizga should be invited to the next meeting to discuss resolution of the problems. Mrs. Romans stated that she felt it would be possible to get a written statement from Mr. Plizga for the next meeting, or that he might be able to attend the Commission meeting. Mr. McBrayer reiterated that if an agreement was not reached before the date of the next meeting, he would like to see both parties present to discuss the matter with the Commission. Mrs. Becker stated that she is still very concerned about the egress onto South Logan Street. She stated that this will be adding more traffic to an already congested street. Mr. Carson stated that there is an agreement between Safeway and the City Council regarding the landscaping along Little Dry Creek; he asked if this would have any affect on the parking lot, or if the development of the park- ing lot would have any affect on the agreement with the City. Mr. Norfleet stated that the agreement will have no affect on the parking plan. He stated that he understood work will be beginning on Little Dry Creek in the near future, and is proposed to be done by the time the Safeway Store is opened. Mr. Norfleet stated that Safeway would not be putting the landscaping in; that this area would be deeded to the City. Mr. Tang~ma inquired about the transformer indicated on the northwest side of the Plan. Mr. Norfleet stated that this is in conjunction with the lighting plan, and that the transformer would be enclosed in some manner. Mr. Barbre stated that he would agree the applicant needs to meet with the Traffic Engineer to resolve the issues raised by Mr. Plizga. Mr. Barbre questioned that the Commission could take any action on this request at this time. Mr. Carson stated that he did not think the resolution of these issues had anything to do with the request before the Commission for approval of the parking lot layout. Discussion ensued. Mr. Norfleet asked that the Commission grant approval subject to the applicant reaching an agreement with the Traffic Engineer on the issues raised. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would be in favor of an op- posite approach --no approval granted until the agreement has been reached, and then come back to the Planning Commission. Discussion followed. Mr. Stoel pointed out that the staff recommendation states that "all requirements of the City Traffic Engineer, the Code Administrator and the Director of Engineering Services, shall be complied with before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued." He stated that even if the Commission gave tentative approval at this time, the requirements of the Traffic Engineer would still have to be met. Mr. Allen stated that when the applicant gets the approval of the Traffic Engineer, he would be "happy with it." Allen moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission approve the request of Safeway Stores, Inc. for the parking lot layout for the new store proposed for U. S. 285 and South Logan Street, subject to the following conditions: -12- 1. All existing curb cuts not used in the new plan must be closed. 2. The layout of the parking stalls must be redesigned to blend with major traffic plans and two-foot wide overhangs should be provided where cars park against the curb to properly maintain sod. This means the angled parking will be opposite the angle indicated on the plans. 3. The north drive lane off of South Grant Street shall be posted as a fire lane on the building side of the lane. 4. All requirements of the City Traffic Engineer, the. Code Administrator, and the Director of Engineering Services, shall be complied with before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. AYES: Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: None The motion carried. IX. SAFEWAY STORES, INC. Vacation of Street, Easements, and Alley rights-of-way. CASE #8-84 Mr. McBrayer stated that the request before the Planning Commission is the vacation of the following rights-of-way in the 3500 block: 1. South Grant Street -the south 125 feet and the full 60 foot width; 2. Grant/Logan alley -approximately the south 175 feet, and the full 16 foot width. 3. Easement -the full 25 foot width and 185 foot length of the existing easement granted to connect the Grant/Logan alley and South Grant Street. A new easement will be granted connecting the alley and South Grant Street to eliminate the need for a cul-de-sac at the end of each right-of-way. Mr. Carson asked if Mr. Norfleet had read the staff report and the recommenda- tions of the Department of Community Development, and if he agreed with the recommendation. Mr. Norfleet stated that he had read the staff report, and did agree with the recommendation. Mr. McBrayer questioned the four foot difference between the required 16 foot easement to provide access between the Logan/Grant alley and South Grant Street, and the 20 foot wide fire lane to be designated to connect South Grant Street and the Grant/Logan alley. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the 16 foot easement will be dedicated and that the 20 foot fire lane would be a matter of signing that area and the additional four feet in the parking lot for emergency access purposes. Mrs. Romans stated that easements will be retained in the street and alley for maintenance of utilities. Mr. Nor- fleet stated that Safeway is still working with the Public Service Company and Mountain Bell on the location of the utility lines; they know where the water and sewer lines will be placed. • • -13- Mr. McBrayer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the Commission regarding the right-of-way vacation request. No one addressed the Commission on this issue. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following rights-of-way be vacated in the 3500 block: 1. South Grant Street -the South 125 feet and the full 60 foot width. 2. Grant/Logan alley -approximately the South 175 feet, and the full 16 foot width. 3. Easement -the full 25 foot width and 185 foot length of the easement granted to connect the alley and South Grant Street. This vacation is recommended to be approved with the following conditions: 1. An easement is to be retained in the vacated right-of- way in both South Grant Street and the Grant/Logan alley for Public Service Company to maintain the existing gas main and for the continued maintenance and operations of other facilities located within these rights-of-way. 2. An easement shall be provided for Mountain Bell to maintain the existing plant, and to provide service to the existing customers. 3. A 16-foot easement shall be given to the City which will provide an access drive to connect the Grant-Logan alley and South Grant Street. 4. Drainage shall not be blocked for South Grant Street or the alley and shall be approved by the Department of Engineering Services. 5. A 20-foot wide fire lane shall be designated across the parking lot to connect South Grant Street and the Grant/Logan alley. Mrs. Becker stated that the potential development of the parcel north of the parking lot is still of concern to her. Mr. Norfleet stated that the parking area would probably not contain more than 50 spaces if it is developed, and there would not be a curb cut onto South Logan Street because of the proximity of the northern point of access to the Safeway Store. He stated that whoever purchases this parcel would have to negotiate access rights with Safeway. The vote was called: AYES: Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Magnuson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None The motion carried. -14- Mr. Norfleet stated that bids will be coming in on this project on February 15. In response to a question, he stated that he did not know what would happen with the present Safeway building at Sherman and Hampden Avenue. x. FINDINGS OF FACT. R-2-C SPS Case 112-84 R-3 Case 113-84 R-4 Case 114-84 B-1 Case 115-84 B-2 Case 1/6-84 Mr. McBrayer stated that the Findings of Fact for the amendments to the Com- prehensive Zoning Ordinance, R-3, R-4, B-1, B-2, and the designation of a new district to be known as R-2-C SPS were to be considered by the Commission. Becker moved: Tanguma seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case 112-84, R-2-C SPS, be approved as written. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Magnuson The motion carried. Carson moved: Allen seconded: The Findings of Fact of Case 113-84, R-3 High Density Residence District, be approved as written. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Magnuson The motion carried. Allen moved: Venard seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case 114-84, R-4 Residential- Professional District, be approved as written. AYES: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Magnuson The motion carried. Barbre moved: Carson seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case 115-84, B-1, Business District, be approved as written. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Magnuson The motion carried. • • -15- Venard moved: Carson seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #6-84, B-2 Business District, be approved as written. AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Magnuson The motion carried. XI. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. XII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Powers, Director of Community Development, gave the Commission an up-date on the Downtown Redevelopment Project. Items discussed in the up-date included the construction of a new King Soopers store on the City-owned Parking Lot, construction of a Civic Center Boulevard, and the improvements to Little Dry Creek in the downtown area. XIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mrs. Becker stated that the Commission has gone through a lot of the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and stated ·that she felt the Commission needed to realize the amount of staff time and work these amend- ments have involved. Mrs. Becker stated that she was very glad to see that the adult book store on South Broadway has vacated the premises. Mrs. Recker suggested that the Commission is in need of some "planning time" to set direction for the Commission for the coming year. She suggested possibly an extra Tuesday evening might be devoted to setting up the work program. Mr. McBrayer suggested possibly February 28th. A couple of the members indicated they would be out of town. Mrs. Romans pointed out that there is nothing scheduled for the March 6th agenda. Mr. McBrayer stated that the meeting March 6th would be reserved to develop the work program, and asked that members spend the next few weeks jotting down ideas to be discussed at that time. Mr. McBrayer stat~d that he would like to approach the City Council about possibly meeting with the Commission earlier than in May, or have another session with the City Council, to go over these work goals. Mrs. Becker pointed out that some time will be needed to refine the goals. Discussion ensued. Ms. Powers stated that the City Council has annexed the second portion of the Arapahoe County Fairgrounds property, and enacted an emergency ordinance, which was approved earlier this evening • Mr. Tanguma asked about the brochure on Englewood. Ms. Powers stated that it is at the printers. Mr. Stoel and Mrs. Becker suggested a tour of the City to up-date members as to what is going on. Mrs. Romans suggested inviting members of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, also. -16- The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P. M. Welty cording Secretary •