Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-07-22 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 22, 1980 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was ca~led to order by Chairman Judith B. Pierson at 7:00 P. M. Present: Senti, Tanguma, Williams, Barbre, Becker, Carson , Draper, McBrayer, Pierson Romans, Ex-officio Absent: None Also present: Associate Planner Alice L. Fessenden Planning Intern Jed Goldstein II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Pierson stated that the Minutes of the June 17, 1980, and June 24, 1980, meetings were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Minutes of June 17, 1980, be approved as written. AYES: Tanguma, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Senti NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Williams, Draper, Pierson The motion carried. Tanguma moved: Barbre seconded: The Minutes of June 24, 1980, be approved as written. AYES: McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Draper, Williams The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson stated for the benefit of the members of the audience, that the Planning Commission is a volunteer Commission and that anyone wishing to serve on the Planning Commission or any other City Board or Commission should submit a letter to the City Manager's office making application to be consid~red . III. M· •. COOPER/E. J. CRABBE 4700 Block South Bannock R-1-C to R-2 Mrs. Pierson asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. CASE 1119-80 -2- Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #19-80 be opened. AYES: Williams, Barbre, Becker, Carson , Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma Nays: None The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson then asked for the staff report, which Mrs. Romans stated would be given by Associate Planner Alice L. Fessenden. Miss Fessenden was sworn in, and testified that the case before the Com- mission is concerned with a request to rezone the 4700 block of South Bannock Street from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2, Medium Density Residence. Miss Fessenden stated that the R-1-C, Single-family Residence District, allows a single-family residence to be constructed on a lot with a minimum frontage of 50 feet, and a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. The R-2, Medium-Density District, would allow a single-family or a two- family use on a 50 foot frontage, with a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet; a triplex on 75 foot frontage with 9,000 square feet of lot area; and a four-plex on a site with 100 foot frontage, and 12,000 square feet of lot area, and so on. Development of four or more units would have to be accomplished under the Planned Development method which would come before the Planning Commission in a Public Hearing, and would also have to be approved by the City Council. Miss Fessenden stated that the action required by the Planning Commission on this case is to hold the Public Hearing and to make a recommendation tp City Council on the approval of the request, or to recommend that the request be denied. The application is signed by approximately 65% of the property owners in the block; these property owners have indicated they feel that the requested rezoning, if granted, would assist in improving and up-grading the block. This block was annexed to the City of Englewood in 1950, and is developed with single-family dwelling units which were constructed while the area was in Arapahoe County. The area to the north and west is zoned R-1-C, Single-family Residence; to the south of the subject block on the east side of South Bannock Street, the property is zoned R-3, High Density Residence, and on the west side of South Bannock Street in the 4800 block the property is zoned R-4, Residential-Professional. There has not been a previous formal request for rezoning on this block; however, it was designated as a "Target Area" by the City in 1977 f6r the Rehabilitation Loan Program. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject area as a low-density residential "incentive" area. This designation was designed to allow up-grading of substandard property without creating an over-all increase in the zoning density. The "incentive" program would allow a "bonus" development for improvemen.t, or some similar method to encourage re- development. -3- Miss Fessenden stated that in considering a change of zoning, the Com- mission must consider the effect on the public necessity, health, safety, morals or general welfare, and the rezoning must be good zoning practice. The Commission should weigh whether there was an error in the original zoning of the subject area, whether there have been changes in th~ area which preclude the use of the land under the present zone classification, whether the area is an extension of, or adjacent to the same or a compatible zone district, and whether or not the proposed change will implement the Comprehensive Plan. This particular request would be an extension of a similar area, inasmuch as the R-2 zoning along South Acoma Street extends over to the Acoma/Bannock alley. It has not yet been established that the original zoning was in error, and the request does not specifically implement the goals of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the tool most often used on matters that have a long-range effect on the development of an area. Miss Fessenden stated that the staff does not recommend approval of the request for a change of zoning from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2, Medium-Density Residence. Mr. Tanguma inquired whether the units identified with one address and in care of another address are in fact owner/occupied? Miss Fessenden stated that she felt the applicant could better answer that question. Mr. Tanguma then asked if the other property owners that are not listed as being part of the application were .asked to sign? Miss Fessenden stated that she did not know, that the applicant could best answer that. Mr. Carson asked who determined that the applicants were in fact 65% of the property owners in the block? Miss Fessenden stated that the staff computed this figure from the signatures included with the application. Mr. McBrayer asked if the staff's recommendation was based on the relation- ship to the Comprehensive Plan alone, or were peripheral factors taken into consideration? Miss Fessenden stated that the primary reason was the relationship to the Comprehensive Plan, but that other factors were considered. Mr. Draper asked that in the event that this request is denied, could the owners then go back and construct a duplex or other multi-family structure on the site? Is this the way the intent is going --to allow such increased density as each unit is replaced? Miss Fess~nden stated that the present zoning would not permit this to occur, but that this is the trend toward which the Comprehensive Plan is heading. Mr. McBrayer asked if this request were to be denied this evening, did he understand correctly that the applicants could put in a duplex on their property? Miss Fessenden stated that right now, the process would be to appeal to the Board of Adjustment on a site-by-site basis. Mrs. Dorothy Romans was sworn in. She testified that she is the Acting Director of Community Development, and that such appeals to the Board of Adjustment should be discouraged, although this has been done at least once in the past, citing property in the 4000 block of South Bannoc~ Street. In that particular instance, the staff did recommend that the property -4- owner apply to the Board of Adjustment because there was a problem peculiar to that particular site, and it was felt that the Board could more properly handle that situation. Mrs. Romans stated that the incentive program was discussed when the Comprehensive Plan was under review, and there was some concern expressed on the part of some of the members of the Planning Com- mission about introducing a two-family use or three-family use into an area that is basically single-family. This would have to be considered very carefully by the Planning Commission and City Council before implementa- tion. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the staff report does suggest that if the applicant in this particular case had applied for R-2-C, the staff might have reached a different recommendation. Mrs. Romans noted that it is easier to integrate a duplex into a single-family neighborhood than it is to integrate the larger three-unit or four-unit structure. Mrs. Romans stated that she would like the record to reflect that legal notice of the Public Hearing did appear in the official City newspaper, and that the property was properly posted the required length of time. Mr. McBrayer stated that in other words, if this request were to be denied this evening, it would be very difficult to build anything but a single- family structure; is this correct? Miss Fessenden stated that this is correct. Mrs. Pierson asked if the applicant would address the Commission? Mr. Donald Hanneman was sworn in, as wer e applicants Mike Cooper, and E. J. Crabbe. Mr. Hanneman stated that he is an attorney representing Messrs. Cooper and Crabbe, who have owned pro perty in the subject block of South Bannock Street for the past seven years. Th ere are two s mall dwellings on the 100 foot frontage owned by these gentlemen, that are qµite old and badly deteriorated, and would not meet the current codes of the City . Mr. Hanneman pointed out that there is a mixture of uses along the length of South Bannock Street, pointing out the fact that there a r e a partment houses in the 4000 and 4100 block o f South Bannock Street, a triplex in the 4000 block of South Bannock, and other mixed uses throughout. It is Mr. Cooper's intent, and that of Mr. Crabbe, to construct two duplexes on the 100 feet that they own in the 4700 block of South Bannock Street. The application was initially prepared requesting the R-2-C classification, but was changed to request the R-2 classification. Mr. Hanneman stated that he would like to keep the option of R-2-C zoning open if at all possible. Mr. Hanneman stated that the applicants went to the Arapahoe County Assessor's office to obtain the names of the property owners in the 4700 block of South Bannock Street, and the persons who signed the petition for rezoning are indeed the property owners, though some of them may reside elsewhere. Some of these property owners said they did want to up-grade their properties and the area in general, and felt the rezoning would be of benefit to Englewood. Mr. Cooper has in mind to construct two duplexes; he has explored the possibility of a town-house type development. By constructing the duplexes , this may make homes available for sale or rent that wold be competitive in today's market. Mr •. Hanneman stated that the applicants tried to avoid "spot zoning" which would occur if they had applied for only their property. He stated that he understood that it is bad zoning practice to try to get ~ a "variance" for one particular site, particularly when the other home W owners in the block wanted to up-grade their property also. His clients want to eliminate the older deteriorated, units on t heir prop erty, but cannot afford to tear the existing units down and construct a new single- family struc ure in that area on today's market. -5- Mr. Hanneman stated that he understands there was a petition signed in opposition to the proposed rezoning, that was initiated by a Mr. Cook. Mr. Hanneman stated that a number of people who signed this petition in opposition are renters, and not property owners. Mr. Hanneman stated that the petition also contains the signatures of some people who signed the application for rezoning and he has not had an opportunity to dis - cuss this with these people who signed both documents. Mr. Hanneman stated that the petition in opposition seems to be directed against renters and not the rezoning specifically. He stated that he would like to ex- plore more fully the reasons the applicants changed the application from R-2-C to the R-2 classification. Mr. Hanneman discussed further the attitude toward renters and stated that there are people who rent who pay more than homeowners do on their mortgage payment; he stated that renters do take care of their homes, and any problems that have allegedly occurred in this neighborhood because of renters may well be because of the deteriorating character of the block. Mr. Carson stated that while the application may have been signed by 65% of the property owners, only two people are present in favor of .the request at this meeting. Mr. Hanneman said that he would concede that point. Mrs. Romans pointed out that under the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, one property owner can make application for rezoning in an area. The fact that they signed the application indicates that they were asking for the rezoning, but they do not necessarily all have to be in attendance at this meeting. Mr. Carson asked how Mr. Hanneman could account for persons signing the application and the petition in opposition? Mr. Hanneman reiterated that he has not had an opportunity to discuss this with a couple of the persons, a Mr. Henry and Mr. Ayers; others that have signed the petition in opposi- tion are renters --not the property owner. Mrs. Romans stated that she has the petition in opposition to the rezoning that Mr. Hanneman has made reference to, and that it was hand delivered to her last evening. Mrs. Romans stated that she had planned to present the petition to the Connnission at the time the opponents were asked to speak. Mr. McBrayer asked if the 35% of the people in the block who did not sign the application were, in fact, opposed? Mr. Hanneman stated that every- one on the east side of South Bannock Street was in favor of the applica- tion with the exception of Mr. Cook, who did not reply to attempts to con- tact him. On the west side of the block, the majority said they had no objection to the request for rezoning, although three or four had stated they would prefer not to have their side of the street rezoned; no ob- jection was voiced to the proposed duplexes. Mr. Carson asked if the names on the applications are indeed those of home owners, and not renters? Mr. Hanneman stated that those persons signing the application for rezoning are home owners in that block. Mr. Mike Cooper stated that their initial application was for the R-2-C, Medium-density District, but in talking to several home owners, they dis- covered that some of the sites were 75 foot ownerships, and that these persons could not redevelop with more than a single-family or duplex on -6- the 75 feet; therefore, they switched the application to the R-2, which · would allow those ownerships with 75 foot frontage the option of constructing a triplex if they so wished. Mr. Tanguma asked if Mr. Cooper and Mr. Crabbe owned a 75 foot-frontage or a 100-foot frontage? Mr. Crabbe stated that they have two sites, or 100 feet. Mr. Draper asked if the applicants had made application for financing of a single-family dwelling on this site? Mr. Cooper stated that they had not. Mr. Tanguma stated that on the two building sites, they could build four units; he asked if the applicants would have to come back to the Planning Connnission on that? Mrs. Romans stated that under the R-2 Zone District they could construct four units under one roof; however, they would have to file a Planned Development, and there would have to be a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Cooper stated that the cost of razing the existing structures would be high, and they could not build a single-family house that would be comparable to those within that neighborhood and come out on it. Mr. Cooper stated that he and Mr. Crabbe have discussed the possibility of building the duplexes as condominium units or townhouse units; he pointed out that construction costs can be reduced by constructing units with connnon walls, etc. Ms. Pierson asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Com- mission in favor of the rezoning request. No one addressed the Connnission. Mrs. Pierson then asked that the opposition present their case. Mrs. Romans stated that she would like the petition received from Mr. Robert Cook entered into the record. The petition was presented to the Connnission for their perusal. Mrs. Becker asked if it was required that petitions submitted by an applicant or by opposition be notarized? Mrs. Romans stated that normally it is re- quired. Mrs. Becker asked if there is any legal reason, because it is not notarized, that it would be considered as anything but a matter of informa- tion to the Connnission? She asked what would have to be done to make it a part of the Hearing? Mrs. Romans stated that she felt this would be at the discretion of the Commission; without the person who circulated the petition swearing before a notary it may not have the legal implications it should. Mr. McBrayer stated that it is his personal feeling that "what is good for the applicant should also be good for the protest petitioners"; the Connnission should not consider something such as this as anything more than information. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Pierson ruled that the Commission would accept the protest petition "for what it's worth --an unnotarized, un substantiated petition." She d i d not feel that the petition should be completely disre- garded. Mrs. Pierson asked that anyone opposed to the rezoning request address the Connnission. -7- Mr. Allan Fritz 4861 South Cherokee Street -was sworn in, and had a question on the designation of the 4700 block as a Target Area eligible for Rehabilitation Loan assistance. He asked if this loan assistance applied only to single-family homes, or if it could be obtained for duplex units? Miss Fessenden emphasized that the Loan Program is not for new construction; it is for the rehabilitation of existing units. The primary loan applicants a~e owner/occupants of single-family residential units; however, there are provisions for assistance to investors also. Mr. Fritz asked if there would be funds available under this program to upgrade the houses without resorting to rezoning that block? Miss Fessenden stated that there would be, provided that the applicants met the qualifica- tions of the program. She emphasized that the fact that this block is designated as a Target Area does not automatically substantiate rezoning. Mr. Fritz stated that he is opposed to the proposed change; he stated that they have enough apartment houses in that neighborhood, and have sufficient land zoned to permit apartment construction. This is a single- farnily neighborhood, and he stated it bothered him to see the Commission rezone this because it would open the door to further rezoning and "speculative development." Mr. Fritz asked how many people who own this property actually live on the premises? He said that he is very much against an increase in the permitted density and population in that area, and reiterated that there are enough apartment structures in that neighborhood. He stated that a rezoning would lead to an increase in traffic; he has two small children, and does not want to have to worry about increased traffic for them. Mr. Fritz stated that he did not know whether residents of duplexes had small children or not, so didn't know whether it would increase the school population at all. Mr. Fritz said he would like to stay in this neighborhood for a long time, but if this rezoning is approved, he probably will not. Mr. Draper asked if Mr. Fritz would object to a duplex development? Mr. Fritz stated that he would; he objects to any encroachment of a higher- density zoning into this neighborhood. Mr. Fritz acknowledged that some of the housing is in need of up-grading, but asked if the property owners want to upgrade it to live there, or to make a greater income from it? Mr. George Noffsinger - 4795 South Cherokee -was sworn in, and stated that he is not opposed to up-grading the neighborhood; that he has done every- thing he can do to upgrade it. When he moved into his house, the property was still in Arapahoe County jurisdiction; he stated there are a lot of renters in the neighborhood. He stated there are no problems in this neighborhood, that they have a "beautiful, friendly, neighborhood", and it has gotten better all the time as a single-family neighborhood. Mr. Noffsinger stated that there are many things the City should be doing for the neighborhood --for instance, increased water pressure. He said that the water pressure in this area is extremely poor; the City hasn't done anything for those residents since the area was annexed toward improving the water pressure. There is supposed to be a four-inch line in the street, but, to his knowledge, the City hasn't dug into the street to verify that the line is four-inch since he has been there. He noted that if he .has -8- a hose on and the toilet is flushed, the hose stops because of insufficient water pressure. Mr. Noffsinger stated that he did not feel the density should be increased until the water pressure is improved. Mr. Draper asked if the water pressure were improved, would Mr. Noffsinger object to duplex development on South Bannock Street? Mr. Noffsinger stated he didn't feel he would object if "it's brought in as a single unit"; he doesn't want to see the entire area rezoned, but if they went to the Board of Adjustments for one site, it would be all right. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that if the block were to be rezoned, not every property would be redeveloped with a duplex. Mr. Russell Reem 220 West Layton Avenue -was sworn in, and testified that he had appeared before the City Council on the matter of the frozen water lines; the only time they have any water pressure is when the street freezes. Mr. Reem stated that he is not opposed to an increase in population. The only thing Englewood has done to help them with the matter of water pressure has ended in a law suit. Mr. Reem stated that he did not feel that the area was equipped to handle a higher-density zoning; if the population is increased, and the traffic is increased as a result, there will be problems of injuries to children. He noted that the city has plans to move the fire station to Acoma and Layton; if the rezoning should go through and redevelopment of the block ensue, he questioned how the Fire Department could operate with such low water pressure. Mr. Carson stated that if more units are developed in this area, there would be a need for more water taps. Mrs. Romans pointed out that each unit would require a water tap. Mr. Reem stated that it is very difficult for the property owners in this area to get water; he doesn't think there should be more water taps issued until the water pressure is improved. Mrs. Romans emphasized that the matter of the water tower is in Court, and that City staff members and Commission members have been requested not to discuss this matter until a decision has been rendered. Mr. Wm. Burnhart 4796 South Cherokee -was sworn in, and stated that he agrees with Messrs. Noffsinger and Reem on the matter of water pressure. He stated that he bought his home one year ago, and that the water pressure is very poor, but the area is nice and quiet. He acknowledged that there is room for improvement, and is happy to learn that the 4700 block qualifies for low-interest loans for rehabilitation. Mr. Burnhart stated that there isn't a lot of off-street parking in the area, and questioned that there would be much room for increased traffic. Mr. Burnhart stated he felt that if the zoning in that block is changed, it would help only those property owners who do not live in the block; he felt that those property owners who live in the block will want to improve their own property with- out the rezoning, and that these were the ones that the City should "watch out for." Mrs. Pierson asked if Mr. Hanneman if he would like an opportunity for brief rebuttal? • -9- Mr. Hanneman reviewed the staff report, which lists the names of the applicants; he cited those that reside on the block, and those who rent their property and reside elsewhere. Mr. Hanneman pointed out that the fact a structure is single-family does not mean that it will not be occupied by renters. He reiterated that the first choice of his client would be to construct townhouse units. The cost of removing the older single-family structures and replacing them with a single-family unit would be prohibitive. His clients want to up-grade the area; it is a target area for the rehabilita- tion loan program, and has also been designated as an "incentive" area in t~e 1979 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hanneman stated that he felt the "incentive" procedure as discussed this evening would be "slip shod", and that the block should be taken as a whole. He emphasized that they are not trying to construct "apartments"; they are saying that the new development they have proposed will improve the neighborhood and will not damage the compatibility. He reiterated that his clients do not intend to construct an apartment house. Mr. Hanneman apologized for the change of zone classification from R-2-C to R-2. Mr. Hanneman stated that he understood the Planning Commission had the power to approve the "lesser" zone classification, which is this case would be the R-2-C. He noted that the staff report does indicate that had the application been for the R-2-C classification, the recommendation might have been different. He stated that he did not know what weight would be given to the petition submitted in opposition to the rezoning request. He stated that it appeared the majority of signers of the petition in protest are renters and not property owners. He again pointed out that it is not fair to say that persons who rent property do not take good care of it. He acknowledged that there is a problem with the water pressure, and he would feel it was a legitimate argument if they were proposing a large apartment complex, but this is not the case. He questioned that one or two duplexes would compound the problem to the degree that has been indicated by the opponents. Mr. Hanneman emphasized that the matter of poor water pressure is a comprehensive problem that will have to be addressed by the City. Mrs. Pierson asked Mrs. Romans to address whether or not the Commission could in fact recommend the R-2-C zone classification when the application was for R-2? Mrs. Romans stated that she wanted to clarify that the statement in the Staff Report is that the staff MIGHT have reached a different recommenda- tion had the application been for R-2-C rather than R-2. The staff did not analyze the R-2-C Zone District as it might apply to the subject block. Mrs. Romans stated that the possibility of the Commission recom- mending the R-2-C to City Council rather than the R-2 requested on the application has been discussed with Mr. Berardini, the City Attorney, and she understood his position to be that the Planning Commission could recommend the less intense R-2 District to the City Council, and that the zoning could be recommended either in whole or in part. Mrs. Romans stated that this does give the Commission some flexibility in their considerations prior to making the recommendation to City Council. Mr. Hanneman asked for further clarification on the possible incentives that might be considered for this area? Mrs. Romans stated that some of the suggestions considered by the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee to encourage redevelopment of substandard units were that the City provide the funds to clear the lot; or that a "bonus" in density might be permitted those individuals who do demolish substandard units and redevelop the site. -10- Mr. Tanguma stated that he would prefer to leave the zoning as it presently exists and to work with the property owner to clear the lot and redevelop it; he pointed out that the 4700 block of South Acoma Street has an inter- mix of single-family, two-family and triplex units, and noted ·that one cannot tell that there are duplexes or t r iplexes in this block it is so well integrated. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the 4700 block of South Acoma Street had a high concentration of s ubstandard units until it was rezoned to an R-2-B Zone District several years ago. The former R-2-B District was not as restrictive as the present R-2-C Zone District. Mr. Allan Fritz addressed the Connnission again, and asked where Mr. Mike Cooper lived? Mr. Cooper stated that he resided at 3597 South Bannock Street, Englewood, Colorado. Mr. Fritz stated that he is opposed to the rezoning. Mrs. Becker asked for clarification on the rezoning of the 4700 block South Acoma Street; she asked if the former R-2-B Zone District permitted triplexes? Mrs. Romans stated that the first triplex was built in this block by virtue of a variance from the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. Mrs. Helen Reem 220 West Layton Avenue -was sworn in, and asked how a person who does not reside in a given block could have a "vote" on something such as this? She asked why the majority of the property owners who signed the application for the rezoning were not in attendance. Mrs. Pierson explained that the address of residency or the length of residency is not a prerequisite in applying for rezoning, and that this is not like a national election where they are given an opportunity to vote. If they are property owners in a given area, they can sign petitions requesting the rezoning. Mrs. Reem again asked why those property owners who signed for the rezoning were not in attendance? Mrs. Pierson stated that they may have felt they were represented by Mr. Hanneman and Messrs. Cooper and Crabbe. Mrs. Reem stated that "if she wanted something, she would get it herself, and not ask somebody else to get it for her." Mr. Crabbe addressed the Commission and noted that testimony has indicated that the property on South Acoma Street in the 4700 block did not up-grade until it was rezoned. He stated t h at he felt this would be the case on South Bannock Street; the block will not be up-graded until they are given some sort of incentive to do so. Mr. Crabbe stated that he and Mr. Cooper have owned this property for seven years, and it will not be changed unless they have some sort of "stimulus" to do so. He emphasized that the single- family residential units that are "nice" won't be changed with the rezoning; only those units that are substandard will be removed and redeveloped. Mr. Carson asked Mr. Crabbe what kind of structures were planned to be constructed by the applicants? Mr. Crabbe stated that they plan to con- struct two duplexe s, which would be up/down units, and will not be of brick construction. There will be off-street parking spaces in the rear of the • lot, with carports or garages. He stated that he and Mr. Cooper have done other similar developments in the metro area. • -11- Mr. Tanguma asked what kind of incentive Mr. Crabbe was looking for to permit them to remove the existing substandard structure and replace them with a single-family unit other than a rezoning request such as is before the Connnission this evening. Mr. Crabbe stated that the rezoning was the only thought they had to improve the property. Mr. Tanguma asked, in view of the discussion this evening on "incentives", what they might ask the city to do: lower taxes for a number of years, give financial assistance in the removal of the structures, or allow the construction of larger structures? Mr. Crabbe stated that he and Mr. Cooper want to keep this p~operty as investment property if possible, but want to upgrade the site; rather than two three-hundred square foot houses, they would construct a livable 1800 square foot structure. Mr. Crabbe stated that they estimate the monthly rental and/or or mortgage payments would be around $300 per month, and that this would not attract the "transient" tenants. Mr. Tanguma further discussed the incentive possibilities. He stated that he felt it should definitely be explored. Mr. Draper stated that he felt it is unfair to ask the applicant what sort of incentives he would ask for, when under the present Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance there is no program set out for the "incentives". At the present time, it is designated as a "target area" for the Rehabilitation Loan Program, but he felt the implementa- tion of an incentive program would be a matter of policy for the City Council to determine. Mrs. Becker stated that she also felt it was unfair to ask the applicant regarding the incentives at this time. Mrs. Becker stated that she knows of at least one instance where a duplex which was constructed was felt to be an improvement to the neighborhood. Mrs. Becker stated that she feels a considerable amount of reservation about making a decision on this matter this evening. Mrs. Pierson asked if anyone else wished to make comments to the Commission? No one spoke further to the Commission. Draper moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #19-80 be closed. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Williams NAYS: None The motion carried. Mrs. Becker reiterated that she does not feel a decision should be made at this meeting. McBrayer moved: Becker seconded: The Planning Commission table Case #19-80 until the next regular meeting of August 5, 1980, for the following reasons: 1. To give the applicant an opportunity to reconsider the merits of the R-2-C Zone classification versus the R-2 Zone District. -12- 2. To give the staff an opportunity to make a recommenda- tion on the R-2-C Zone District as it might apply to this particular block. 3. To give the opponents an opportunity to have the petition they submitted to the Commission properly notarized. 4. To give the applicants an opportunity to determine why there are duplicate signatures on both the applica- tion and the petition in opposition. 5. To further consider the potential effect a rezoning of this block would have on the water pressure problem. Mrs. Pierson pointed out that the Director has indicated that the Planning Commission may consider the R-2-C Zone bistrict, which is of less intensity than the R-2 District which the applicant requested. Mrs. Pierson further pointed out that the Public Hearing has been closed; no further testimony or information may be presented. The City is trying to improve the water pressure in the area, and she questioned that the duplexes proposed would have that much effect on the problems that this area is experiencing. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt there was sufficient information before the Commission to enable them to reach a decision, and for this reason, she would vote against the motion to table. Mr. Tanguma pointed out that the matter of the water tank to increase the water pressure is under litigation now, and should not be discussed. He pointed out that Mrs. Romans has stated that she is not sure that the staff would have recommended in favor of the R-2-C Zone Classification, only that they MIGHT have done so. He stated that the Commission must look at the overall impact of the rezoning on the neighborhood. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Pierson asked if the Public Hearing could be re- opened? Mrs. Romans stated that it probably could be reopened, and then contin.ued until August 5, 1980, if the Commission so desired. Mrs. Pierson called for the vote on the motion to table Case #19-80. AYES: McBrayer, Becker, Carson NAYS: Draper, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Williams, Barbre The motion failed. Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the rezoning request from R-1-C Single-family Residence, to R-2, Medium Density Residence, for the 4700 block of South Bannock Street, not be approved, and that the applicants work with the City staff on other ways to upgrade the block. Mrs. Pierson stated that she is opposed to this motion; to deny the application completely would be of no benefit to the City or to the neighborhood. • • -13- Mr. McBrayer agreed that it would be a poor move to deny the request out- right; if rezoning it to R-2 or R-2-C is the only way to upgrade the block, he strongly urged that the request not be denied. The vote was called on the motion to recommend denial. AYES: Tanguma, Carson NAYS: McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Williams, Barbre, Becker, Draper T9e motion failed. Pierson moved: Draper seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the rezoning request from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2-C, Medium-Density Residence, in the 4700 block of South Bannock Street be approved. Mr. Tanguma stated that he is opposed to the R-2-C on the basis that this would open up the area, with the exception of maybe six or seven lots, for development with duplexes and triplexes without coming back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Tanguma stated that it has been made very clear that the people of Englewood want to retain the single-family character of the City, and are opposed to the encroachment of higher density uses into the single- f amily areas. He felt that by rezoning this block, it would add encourage- ment for further rezonings in this area one block at a time. Mrs. Romans pointed out that a triplex would not be permitted under the R-2-C Zone classification. Mr. McBrayer stated that he had understood Mrs. Romans to state that the 4700 block of South Acoma had redeveloped with duplexes and triplexes after being rezoned to R-2-B, which was comparable to the present R-2-C District. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would hate to see the entire block developed with duplexes, but with the variety of owners in the block, he did not feel this would happen and he would be in favor of recommending the R-2-C zoning. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt it has been shown that there have been changes in the area; it has deteriorated and there are people who want to improve the block but cannot afford to do so under the present zone classi- fication with today's market. The request does encompass one complete city block, and is contiguous to like zoning, being an extension of the R-2 zoning on South Acoma Street. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt a need had been shown for additional R-2-C zoning in this area, and that the development permitted in this zone district can be integrated into a low- density area. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt it would be a better looking neighborhood if incentives were given to property owners to enable them to redevelop the property with single-family uses rather than having an intermix of two- family and single-family structures. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt the R-2-C ~one District would "take away from the neighborhood", and reiterated that "the people have told us they want to maintain the city as a place of single-family homes." He felt that the Commission and City Council should try to preserve it. -14- Mr. Draper stated that he felt one of the most valid points of the opponents was the matter of water pressure, and cautioned that water taps might not be forthcoming for new units; he stated that it would be fool-hardy to build if proper service could not be provided. Mrs. Becker asked what would happen to the rest of the incentive areas so designated by the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that she has not seen any real attempt to use the incentive program to upgrade properties. She noted that Mr. Crabbe apparently did not know about the incentive program before this evening. She stated that she would like to know what incentive program has been tried before approving rezoning. The vote on the motion to approve R-2-C zoning was called: AYES: Pierson, Senti, Williams, Barbre, Draper, McBrayer NAYS: Tanguma, Carson, Becker The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson asked when City Council would receive this recommendation? Mrs. Romans stated that the recommendation will be sent to City Council and will be received by that body on August 4th, 1980. She estimated that a Hearing before City Council could not be scheduled before mid to late September. She pointed out that the property will have to be reposted, and public notice of the Hearing will have to be published in the official City newspaper. Mrs. Pierson declared a recess of the Commission at 9:05 P. M. The meeting ~ reconvened with the following members in attendance: Senti, Tanguma, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson. Mr. Williams was absent. IV. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT South Slope Condominiums 333 West Lehow Avenue Carson moved: CASE #20-80 Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #20-80 be opened. AYES: Becker, Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. Mrs. Romans appeared before the Planning Commission and stated tha~ this Public Hearing is concerned with an amendment of a Planned Development that was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and by City Council in 1973. The subject property is on the north side of West Lehow Avenue and immediately to the west of the K-Mart store. The subject property is zoned R-3, High Density Residence; the K-Mart property to the east is zoned B-2, Business, with a 50 foot wide strip of R-4, Residential-Professional zoning on the extreme western boundary of the K-Mart property. There is R-3 Zone classification on properties to the north and west of the sub- ject site; the land to the south across West Lehow Avenue is also zoned R-3, High Density Residence. • • -15- The property has been posted the required length of time, and public notice of the Public Hearing did appear in the official City newspaper. Mrs. Romans stated that this area was annexed to the City of Englewood in 1964. The previous Planned Development was designed by Donald Roark as DRB Associates, and encompassed 4.356 acres. The proposed Planned De- velopment which was approved in 1964 was for 120 dwelling units that would be in six building clusters. At that time, the zone classification on the site was R-3-B, which permitted individual units with a minimum floor area of 450 square feet. In 1975, everything that was zoned R-3-A and R~3-B was zoned to R-3, High Density Residence, and minimum floor area requirements were increased to 650 square feet for a one-bedroom unit, and minimum floor area requirements were increased with each additional bedroom per unit. Mrs. Romans stated that she was contacted by Mr. Bill Belong some time ago, regarding this property at 333 West Lehow Avenue; Mr. Belong is the architect for the present property owners, M. D. Properties 1979-1 Ltd. They were interested in developing the property under the approved Planned Development with some minor changes. The proposal was discussed with the Engineering Department, and it was determined that the grade on the site would have to be modified; sewer lines would have to be relocated to run through the middle of the site rather than on the periphery, and the size of the units would have to be increased to meet the present minimum standards of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. These were felt to be minor changes which could be approved by the Director of Community Development as per §22.4A-8 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, which reads: "Except as provided hereafter, no changes may be made in the approved Planned Development during its implementation: (a) Minor changes in the location, setting, height or character of buildings and structures may be authorized by the Director of Community Development if required by engineering or other circumstances not foreseen at the time the development program was approved. No change authorized by the Director of Community Development under this Section may increase the size of any building or structure by more than five (5) percent, nor change the location of any building or structure by more than ten (10) feet in any direction; and provided that the Director of Community Development may not approve the relocation of any building or structure so that the building or structure is closer to any side or front property line than was approved on the Development Plan. (b) All other changes in the Planned Development Plan, including changes in the site plan and in the development schedule, must be made under the procedures that are applicable to the initial approval of a Planned Development." The applicants were informed by their lending agent that covered parking would have to be provided for these units. They came in with plans for carports rather than sub-surface parking and some of the carports were adjacent to the west property line. It was determined that the covered parking would be a structure closer to the property line, and it would be necessary to bring the proposal before the Planning Commission. There is a drainage pond in the southwest corner of the site, and it was deter- mined by the City Engineer that it would not be advisable to have covered -16- parking in this particular location because of the grade and the fact that it would freeze over in the winter time. The applicant then eliminated the covered parking in this location, thus eliminating one of the reasons it was being brought to the Planning Commission; this was after the Notice was published in the Englewood Herald Sentinel and after the property had been posted. Mrs. Romans stated that the covered carports on other areas of the site would not be considered as lot coverage. Mrs. Romans stated that her question now, is whether or not the Planning Commission can ap- prove these changes that have been made in the site plan to meet the recommendations of the City without having to refer the amended Planned Development to City Council. This would mean additional time lost for the developers who are anxious to get started. Mr. Bill Belong was sworn in, and stated that he is speaking on behalf of the owners, the principal partner being Mr. Mark Dusheff. Mr. Belong presented a letter to the Commission which gave Mr. Belong the authoriza- tion to speak for Mr. Dusheff. Mr. Belong also submitted the Certification of Posting pertaining to the subject site. Mr. Belong stated that most of the changes made have been made to comply with requirements of the Engineering Services Department, the Utilities Department and the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Belong pointed out that the buildings in the proposed amendment are not aligned strictly east/west, but are slanted slightly to conform with the grading of the site. Mr. Belong stated that he felt the primary change in the Develop- ment Plan is the increase in the minimum floor area size from 450 sq. ft. to the present required minimum of 650 sq. ft. for a one-bedroom apartment and the effect on the size of the buildings to accommodate the larger units. T.he addition of the carports is also a major change, and Mr. Belong made reference to an architectural rendering of the site with the covered carports. Mrs. Becker asked how many units would be developed on the site under the proposed amended Plan? Mr. Belong stated that the number of units has been reduced from 120 units approved in 1973 to 105 living units; there will be three units that will be used for storage and laundry facilities to give a total of 108 units in this development. Mr. Belong stated that the parking ratio has been maintained even though the density has decreased to give more open space. The upper levels will have balconies, and the lower units will have concrete patio areas. It was asked if this development would be seen from Belleview Avenue. Mrs. Romans pointed out that there is over 50 foot difference in elevation from the north of this site to the south, and that very little of this site would be seen from West Belleview Avenue. Mr. McBrayer inquired about the use of the word "rip rap" in the recommenda- tion contained in the staff report. He noted that "rip rap" can mean any- thing, and asked if the applicant would object to the requirement being changed to require crushed rock? Mr. Belong stated that there would be no objection; as a rule they use river rock, or crushed rock, on slopes of 2:1. In this instance, they would use 4" to 6" diameter rock. • -17- Mrs. Becker asked if there would be a fence on the north side? Mr. Belong stated they proposed a six foot fence on three sides of the site, the east, north and west sides. Mrs. Becker asked if landscaping was included as a part of the original Planned Development? Mr. Belong stated that it was approved as part of the DRB Investment Company Planned Development in 1973. Mr. Tanguma asked what school district this site was in? Mrs. Romans stated that it is in the Littleton School District. Mr~. Pierson asked if any member of the audience wished to address the Com- mission? No one addressed the Commission on the amended Planned Development. McBrayer moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #20-80 be closed. AYES: Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. McBrayer moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission approve the amendments to the Planned Development previously approved at 333 West Lehow Avenue, now known as South Slope Condominiums. The Planning Commission would request that the applicant comply with the following conditions: 1. Documentation must be provided from the property owner to the west for a drainage easement. 2. All slopes greater than 2:1 must have retaining walls, natural stone, crushed rock or river rock, or appropriate planting to hold the storm runoff. AYES: Tanguma, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. Mrs. Romans asked if it was the Commission's determination that these changes fell within the scope of §22.4A-8, and would not have to be referred to City Couqcil? Mrs. Pierson stated that this was the intent of the Commission. V. SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER Parking structure Alley Vacation Case #21-80 Case #22-80 Mrs. Romans stated that these two cases before the Commission are closely interr~lated; if the alley is not vacated, the parking structure cannot be built as proposed. The subject site is on the south side of East Hampden Avenue between South Pearl Street and South Washington Street. The zoning on the subject site is B-2 Business for the first 100 feet south of East Hampden Avenue, and the remainder is R-3, High Density Residence; both of these zone classifications not only permit off-street parking lots, but -18- require parking to be provided for new development. To the north of East Hampden Avenue is the Swedish Medical Office Building which is under con- struction, and which will be served by this parking structure. Mrs. Romans stated that the parking structure will be constructed with one -sub-level parking area, and one surface parking level; it will also be constructed so that additional levels may be added in the future. The possibility of constructing the parking structure below the surface alley was discussed with the City Attorney, and it was determined that the alley should be vacated. The Medical Center could obtain an encroachment agreement from the City, but an encroachment agreement would have to be revocable. Such an encroachment agreement would not meet with the approval of the financing agencies, and it was therefore determined that the alley should be vacated. An alternate east/west alley from South Washington Street to the existing alley would be dedicated to provide access for those residents of the area who use the alley for access to the parking lots for the apartment structures at the south end of this block. The parking lot for this apart- ment house is striped to indicate that those parking in the lot must enter the lot from the north. The alternate accessway to South Washington Street would be signed for one-way traffic westbound from South Washington Street; people would exit the alley to the south onto U. S. 285. Mrs. Romans made reference to the parking plan proposed by the Medical Center, noting that the parking plan does indicate landscaped areas. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff does not yet have a legal description for that portion of the alley that must be vacated, nor for that alternate access that will have to be dedicated from South Washington Street. Mrs. Romans stated that there must be a 45 foot turning radius for the fire equipment entering the alley from South Washington Street. The legal description must be presented, and the design of the alley must also be presented before this matter can be forwarded to City Council for action. Mrs. Romans stated that the applicant is asking that the alley be vacated for the portion that extends through the proposed parking structure, and that the City accept an alternate alley dedication to South Washington Street. Mrs. Romans stated that she could forsee problems in providing access to the apartment house residents during the period of construction, because even that area that will serve as the alternate access will be excavated during the construction period of the underground parking level. Mrs. Romans stated that she understood Mr. Johnson of the Medical Center has tried to contact the owner of the Scandia Apartment house to see if he could work out a temporary access through their parking lot to South Pearl Street. However, the property owner is out of the country at the present time, and this has not been worked out. The owner of the nursing home has indicated he would let some of the tenants of the Scandia Apart- ment House park in their lot on a temporary basis during construction. The staff does suggest that until such time as the matters of the Lemporary access during construction, the legal description and design of the alley to be dedicated to South Washington Street, and the legal description of the portion of the north/south alley to be vacated are worked out, that any approval be conditional. Mrs. Romans stated that the parking is required for the medical office building that is under construction on the north side of East Hampden Avenue. ~ The Planning Commission has previously approved two off-street parking lots which will also serve this medical office building. Swedish Medical Center is meeting the off-street parking requirements of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The parking structure will not conflict with the Comprehensive • • -19- Plan. Mrs. Romans reiterated that it would be "very difficult" to build the parking structure without the vacation of the portion of the north/south alley which would bisect the parking structure and the dedication of the alternate access way. Mrs. Romans noted that Mr. Cliff Johnson and a member of his staff were present representing the Swedish Medical Center. She suggested that possibly they might want to address the Commission on the matter of the proposed parking structure . . Mr. Tanguma noted that those persons using the alley can exit to both the north and south at the present time; he felt that if it was made one-way south bound there might be problems in exiting onto U. S. 285. Mrs. Becker asked why the pedestrian walkway was located in mid-block rather than at an intersection? Mrs. Romans stated that Traffic Engineer Plizga has suggested that the mid-block crosswalk for pedestrians is easier to control; there are not the turning movements to conflict with the pedestrians. Also, if additional levels are added to the parking structure, the construction of a mid-block overpass for pedestrians would be considered, and the mid- block location would give direct access into the medical office building. Mrs. Romans stated that Police Chief Holmes has also expressed concern about the underground level of the parking structure being used by employees; he stated that he felt there could be traffic jams created by the employees arriving and leaving at one time. He has suggested that the lower level be designated for visitor parking so the traffic will be spasmodic, and not concentrated. Mr. McBrayer asked about the elevations for the structure, and asked why they were not available to the Commission? Mrs. Romans stated that the matter of the alley vacation was not really addressed until this last week, and there were time constraints. She did display an elevation plan of the proposed structure prior to the revision of the plan indicating the vaca- tion of the alley. Mr. Draper asked if he understood there could be additional levels of parking added in the future? Mrs. Romans stated that this is correct; the parking structure is being designed to accommodate the additional levels. Mr. Barbre asked about the two spaces that the staff suggested should be eliminated? Mrs. Romans indicated these two parallel parking spaces, which were on the north side of the access way to South Washington Street. Mr. Cliff Johnson of Swedish Medical Center, addressed the .Commission and stated he would answer questions that the members might have pertaining to the proposed parking structure. Mr. Johnson stated that he has discussed the proposal with the owner of the Nursing Home, and doesn't forsee any problems that cannot be worked out with him. Mr. Johnson emphasized that at the present time, the consideration is only on the underground level . and the surf ace level of parking; the building is being designed to accommodate up to five levels of parking or a combination of offices and parking. Mr. Johnson stated that he had contacted CDI, who indicated that there would be no p~oblem with trash removal during construction. Mr. Johnson stated that regarding the elevations, the ground level will be slightly lower than it is presently. He stated that whatever is necessary to give a 45° turning radius for the fire equipment will be provided. -20- Mrs. Becker noted that it has been stated that there will either be add~- tional parking levels or additional medical of fice space constructed above • this ground level of parking. She asked where the parking for any addi- tional medical office space would be? Mr. Johnson stated that· this is not known at this time; it is not known at this time whether more medical office space will be needed or constructed on this site. He stated that no additional medical office space would be built without meeting the applicable codes. Mrs. Becker stated that if additional medical office space is constructed, and it is determined that additional parking space is needed, she felt this should be considered at this time, and added that there must be some plan as to where these cars will be parked. She felt that if parking lots and parking structures are being built, they should be built to provide sufficient parking for some time. The landscaping of the parking structure was discussed. Mr. Johnson stated that they proposed moving the sidewalk closer to East Hampden Avenue to provide additional space for plantings; much of the landscaping will be trees which will eventually help to screen the ground level parking. Mr. Barbre asked about building part of the ramps to the underground parking under the portion of the proposed alternate access that will be dedicated; is this permissible? Mrs. Romans stated that the instrument which will give the dedication to the City will give the City only the surface rights and not underground rights. Mr. Johnson stated that entrance to the ground level parking lot will be from South Washington Street, and the entrance to the lower level of the parking structure will be from South Pearl Street. Mr. Draper asked why the Fire Department would need access to fight fires ~rom the alley, when they would have street access on both South Pearl Street and South Washington Street? Mrs. Romans stated that the Fire Department requires two points of access for fire fighting and other uses in the block would need the alley for emergency access. McBrayer moved: Carson· seconded: The Planning Commission conditionally approve the off- street parking structure with the following conditions: 1. That a 25-foot right-of-way across the property con- necting the alley to South Washington Street be dedicated for public access through the upper (ground floor) level of the parking structure. This will be in exchange for the City vacation of the a _lley adjacent to Lots 1 thru 7 and Lots 43 thru 50 of Block 2, Higgins Englewood Gardens Subdivision, Arapahoe County, Colorado. 2. The alley should be designated for one-way traffic southbound south of the parking structure toward U. S. Highway 285. "Do Not Enter" and "Right Turn Only" signs should also be installed at the south end of the alley. 3. A pedestrian crossing should be designated and properly signed across East Hampden Avenue from the parking structure at mid-block to the medical office building entrance. • • -21- 4. The Medical Center must make accommodations for continuing use of the alley during the construction period to allow access to the apartment house parking areas and for trash removal for the uses in the block. 5. Landscaping must be provided and an automatic sprinkling system installed to maintain the plant material. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tangtnna NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. McBrayer moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the north 200 feet of the alley in Block 2, Higgins Englewood Gardens, be vacated with the following .con- ditions: 1. Right-of-way across the ground level of the parking struGture be dedicated to the City to replace that portion of the alley being vacated in order that other uses in the block may continue to use the alley . 2 . The Medical Center shall arrange for alternate access to the alley during the construction of the parking structure. Until written assurance of the alternate access is filed with the City, no Building Permit or Foundation Permit shall be issued. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. Mrs. Pierson noted that there was no audience in attendance. VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans introduced Mr. Jed Goldstein, who is a Planning Intern in the Department of Community Development this summer. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Goldstein is working on his Masters Degree in City Planning, and that the staff is very pleased with Mr. Goldstein's work. Mrs. Romans stated that for the past couple of years, the members of the Commission have chosen not to meet during the month of August; she questioned that the entire month should be eliminated from the meeting calendar, but noted that there was nothing on the agenda for the meeting of August 5, 1980. Discussion ensued. It was determined that the Commission would not meet on August 5, 1980, but would keep the scheduled August 19th meeting on.the docket. -22- Mrs. Romnans stated that Miss Alice Fessenden, Associate Planner in the · Department of Community Development, has resigned to accept a position • with Summit County, and will be moving to Dillon to begin her new job on August 18th. Mrs. Romans commended Miss Fessenden for her ability and ambition in her chosen career, and stated that she knew the Commission also wished Miss Fessenden success. Mrs. Romans discussed the other changes that have occurred in the Depart- ment of Community Development in recent months, namely the resignation of the Assistant Director for Housing and Rehabilitation, the transfer of a secretary in Code Enforcement to Employee Relations, and the transfer of Planning Assistant Mark Barber to the Code Enforcement Division. Mrs. Romans stated that these positions will be filled as soon as possible. VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. There was nothing discussed under Commission's Choice. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 P. M. rtrude G. Welty ~cording Secretary / I /~~ • DATE: MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. July 22, 1980 SUBJECT: Rezoning Request -4700 Block South Bannock Street RECOMMENDATION: Pierson moved: -23- Draper seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the rezoning request from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2-C, Meditnn-Density Residence, in the 4700 block of South Bannock Street be approved. AYES: NAYS: Pierson, Senti, Williams, Barbre, Draper, McBrayer Tanguma, Carson, Becker The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning & Zoning Commission -24- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: July 22, 1980 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: McBrayer moved Barbre seconded: Alley Vacation -Block 2, Higgins Englewood Gardens The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the north 200 feet of the alley in Block 2, Higgins Englewood Gardens, be vacated with the following conditions: 1. Right-of-way across the ground level of the parking structure be dedicated to the City to replace that portion of the alley being vacated in order that other uses in the block may con- tinue to use the alley. 2. The Medical Center shall arrange for alternate access to the alley during the construction of the parking structure. Until written assurance of the alternate access is filed with the City, no Building Permit or Foundation Permit shall be issued. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning & Zoning Commission •