Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-21 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 21, 1980 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Judith B. Pierson at 7:00 P. M. Members present: Becker, Barbre, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer, Draper, Carson Romans, Ex-officio Members absent: Tanguma, Williams Also present: Associate Planner Barbara Young Mrs. Romans reported that Mr. Williams had been injured at work and would not be present this evening. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Minutes of the meeting of September 16, 1980, were to be considered for approval. McBrayer moved: Barbre seconded: The Minutes of September 16, 1980, be approved as written. AYES: Carson, Becker, Barbre, McBrayer, Draper NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Senti, Pierson ABSENT: Williams, Tanguma The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Minutes of the meeting of September 23, 1980, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: McBrayer seconded: The Minutes of September 23, 1980, be approved as written. AYES: Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma, Williams The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE §22.4A -Planned Development §22.5-5 -Private Off-Street Parking Standards CASE #24-80 Mrs. Pierson stated that the matter before the Commission is a Public Hearing on proposed amendment of §22.4A and §22.5-5 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. -2- Barbre moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #24-80 be opened. AYES: McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Senti, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams, Tanguma The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson stated that the action required of the Connnission is to con- sider evidence presented at the Public Hearing, and to make a recommenda- tion to the City Council regarding the proposed amendment to the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Pierson asked for the staff report. Mrs. Barbara Young was sworn in and testified that she is the Associate Planner for the City of Englewood. It was noted that the notice of the Public Hearing appeared in the Englewood Herald Sentinel. Mrs. Young stated that the City of Englewood adopted Resolution #17 of 1979, which resolution supports the State Implementation Plan of the Clean Air Act, and requires that provisions for pedestrian and bicycle facilities be in- cluded in future planning regulations. The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance in §22.4A, Planned Development, and §22.5-5, Off-Street Parking Standards, would make provision for bicycle and pedestrian facilities to be provided in future developments, and set standards for bicycle parking facilities. Mr. Tanguma entered the meeting at 7:05 p. m. and assumed his place with the Commission. Mrs. Young stated that the provision of bicycle and pedestrian facilities would also be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Englewood. One of the courses of action set forth in the Comprehensive Plan was that the City "develop alternatives to the use of the automobile, including provisions for walkways and bikeways, in all future transporta- tion planning." Mrs. Young displayed a map of the Master Street Plan, which map had proposed bicycle trails superimposed on it. Mrs. Young stated that most of the parks within the City of Englewood have a bicycle system within the park, but the City does not have an on-street bicycle trail system. The Denver Regional Council of Governments has proposed a bicycle trail system along the South Platte River which will tie into the bicycle trail system in Denver and Littleton. A bicycle trail system in Englewood could tie into this proposed system along the South Platte River. Mrs. Young stated that the proposed amendment to the Planned Development provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance would require developers to identify bicycle and pedestrian paths within their proposed development. Mrs. Young stated that the proposed amendments to §22.5-5 set forth off- street parking standards for bicycles, and require that parking facilities be provided for bicycles in high density residence districts as well as in commercial districts. Mrs. Pierson asked for comments from the Commission. • Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt this might be an appropriate time to make • provisions for ramping at curbs and in lieu of or in addition to steps into some buildings; bicyclists and handicapped are denied access to some buildings because of no ramps, and it is extremely difficult to negotiate the curbs without the ramps. He felt there should be some type of accessibility statement written into the proposed amendments at this time. • • -3- Mrs. Young stated that she understood that new curbs at intersections had to be ramped at the present time . Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans suggested that possibly this provision to require ramping for bicycles and handicapped and curbs and entrances to buildings could be included as part of §22.4A-6(f)(3). Mr. McBrayer suggested that this section could be amended to read: " ...•. to be generated, AND ALL CURBS SHALL HAVE RAMPS FOR BICYCLES AND THE HANDICAPPED, AND AT ENTRANCES TO BUILDINGS." Further discussion followed. Mrs. Pierson suggested that the wording on this provision be: " to be generated, AND ALL CURBS AT ENTRANCES AND OTHER ACCESS POINTS SHALL HAVE RAMPS TO FACILITATE ACCESS FOR BICYCLES AND HANDICAPPED." Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt a similar provision should be included in the amendment of §22.5-5 regarding ramping of curbs and access points to buildings. It was suggested that this be included as a separate pro- vision in §22.5-5a(l5)(e)(5), with the wording to the effect that all designated bicycle parking areas shall be accessible by ramps. There were no persons present who wished to address the Commission relative to the amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. McBrayer moved: Barbre seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: Pierson, McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. Discussion ensued. McBrayer moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows: §22.4A --Planned Development (P.D.) District. §22.4A-4(a)(8) Areas which are to be conveyed, dedicated or reserved for public purposes, including, but not limited to: parks and recreational areas, BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES, schools, public buildings, or other public purposes; §22.4A-6(f)(3) If the area of the development is such that an internal street circulation system is necessary, such system shall be designed for the type of traffic to be generated, AND ALL CURBS AT ENTRANCES AND OTHER ACCESS POINTS SHALL HAVE RAMPS TO FACILITATE ACCESS FOR BICYCLES AND HANDI- CAPPED. All Planned Developments must have access to public streets. Private, internal streets may be per- mitted if they can be used by police and fire depart- ment vehicles for emergency purposes; -4- §22.4A-6(f)(4) Pedeserian ways mttst provide eonveniene and safe aeeess eo residene±e! btti!d±ng grottps, open spaee areas, ree~e-• ationa! areas, sehee!s and neighborheed shepping areas if ehey are a pare of ehe Planned Beve!epmene, end mttst be separated as mtteh as pess±b±e fFem vefiiett±aF tFaffie er ea~; BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAILS ARE TO BE PROVIDED WHERE THE CITY BICYCLE AND/OR TRAIL PLAN OR THE DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN SHOWS SUCH TRAIL OR TRAIL CORRIDOR. TRAIL OR WALKWAY SYSTEMS OR LANES ARE TO BE PROVIDED, WHERE FEASIBLE, TO SCHOOLS, SHOPPING AREAS, PARKS, GREENBELTS AND OTHER FACILITIES AS NECESSARY. TRAIL SYSTEMS AND WALKWAYS THROUGH OPEN SPACE AREAS ARE ENCOURAGED AS AN ALTERNATE TO PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS AND MAY BE USED UPON APPROVAL BY THE CITY PROVIDING THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA ARE MET: (a) THE SYSTEM PROVIDES AT LEAST THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE AS WOULD THE APPLICABLE SIDEWALK RE- QUIREMENT. (b) EASEMENTS OR OPEN WAYS ARE PLOTTED AND DEDICATED TO THE SYSTEM. (c) TRAILS AND WALKWAYS ARE EITHER PAVED, TREATED OR CONSTRUCTED FROM SELECTED MATERIAL TO PROVIDE A SUITABLE ALL-WEATHER SURFACE THAT IS EASILY MAINTAINED. THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ANTICIPATED USE. (d) A PERPETUAL ASSOCIATION OR CORPORATION OR OTHER SUITABLE MEANS IS ESTABLISHED FOR MAINTENANCE. (e) PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS AND BICYCLE TRAILS ARE NOT COMBINED. §22.5-5 Private Off-Street Parking Standards. §22.5-5a. §22.5-5a(l5). Minimum Standards. In consonance with the purpose of zoning regulations, as stated in this Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance, "to lessen congestion in the streets", the following are minimum standards for MOTOR VEHICLE AND BICYCLE parking spaces to be main- tained in connection with the buildings and uses in- dicated; however, nothing in these standards shall be deemed to deprive the owners or operators of said buildings or uses of the right to maintain control over all such land and structures or to make what- ever changes they deem appropriate for the use of such private off-street parking space. PARKIN G FOR BICYCLES SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: (a) BICYCLE FACILITIES SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ANY NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTED AND FOR ANY NEW USE • • • (b) (c) (d) -5- ESTABLISHED; FOR ANY ADDITION OR ENLARGEMENT OF AN EXISTING BUILDING OR USE; AND FOR ANY CHANGE IN THE OCCUPANCY OF ANY BUILDING OR THE MANNER IN WHICH ANY USE IS CONDUCTED THAT WOULD RESULT IN ADDITIONAL PARKING FACILITIES BEING REQUIRED, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE. NO EXISTING USE OR STRUCTURE SHALL BE DEEMED NON-CONFORMING SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF BICYCLE FACILITIES PRESCRIBED IN THIS CHAPTER, PROVIDED THAT BICYCLE FACILITIES EXISTING ON (EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE) SHALL NOT BE REDUCED IN CAPACITY, DESIGN, OR FUNCTION TO LESS THAN THE MINIMUM STANDARDS PRESCRIBED IN THIS ORDINANCE. BICYCLE PARKING FACILITIES SHALL INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR STORAGE AND LOCKING OF BICYCLES, EITHER IN LOCKERS OR SECURE RACKS OR EQUIVALENT INSTALLA- TION IN WHICH THE BICYCLE FRAME AND WHEELS MAY BE LOCKED BY THE USER. BICYCLE FACILITIES REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE USE RE- QUIRING SUCH FACILITIES, AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES. (e) LOCATION: BICYCLE FACILITIES (1) PARKING FOR BICYCLES SHALL BE PROVIDED ON- SITE OR ON A SITE WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE USE, MEASURED ALONG THE SHORTEST PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. (2) BICYCLE PARKING AREAS SHALL BE WELL LIGHTED AND LOCATED AS NEAR TO THE BUILDING OR FACILITY ENTRANCE AS POSSIBLE, WITHOUT INTER- FERING WITH PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. (3) IF POSSIBLE, BICYCLE PARKING AREAS SHOULD UTILIZE ALREADY EXISTING WEATHER PROTECTED AREAS SUCH AS BUILDING OVERHANGS. (4) IF BICYCLE AND AUTOMOBILE PARKING AREAS OR ACCESSWAYS ABUT EACH OTHER, THERE SHALL BE PROVIDED A PHYSICAL BARRIER BETWEEN THE BICYCLE AND AUTOMOBILE AREAS TO PREVENT THE POSSIBILITY OF A BICYCLE OR ITS OPERATOR FROM BEING HIT BY A MOTOR VEHICLE. (5) ALL DESIGNATED BICYCLE PARKING AREAS SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE BY RAMPS. (f) PARKING FOR BICYCLES SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE ..... ONE BICYCLE PARKING SPACE PER EACH TWO DWELLING UNITS: FACILITIES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THIS RE- QUIREMENT. -6- NON-RESIDENTIAL USES ..... ONE BICYCLE PARKING SPACE PER EACH TEN PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILES, BUT NOT LESS THAN TWO SPACES PER PREMISES, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED BELOW: (1) DRIVE-IN THEATRE, MORTUARY, AUTO SERVICE STATION, AUTOMOBILE SERVICES, DRIVE-UP WINDOWS PROVIDING SERVICES TO OCCUPANTS IN VEHICLES ..... NONE. (2) SCHOOL (GRADES K -8) ..... ONE BICYCLE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH 20 STUDENTS. (3) SCHOOL (GRADES 9 -12) ..•.. ONE BICYCLE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH 30 STUDENTS. (4) COMMERCIAL RECREATION ..... ONE BICYCLE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH 12 PERSONS CAPACITY. (5) COMMUNITY FACILITIES, INCLUDING SWIM CLUB, TENNIS CLUB, COMMUNITY CENTERS, NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS, AND SIMILAR ACTIVITIES ..... ONE BICYCLE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH 12 PERSONS CAPACITY. AYES: Senti, Pierson, McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. IV. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS Amendments to include provisions for bicycle/pedestrian trails CASE #25-80 Mrs. Pierson stated that this Public Hearing concerns proposed amendments of the Subdivision Regulations, which the Commission shall consider and make recommendation to City Council regarding approval or disapproval. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #25-80 be opened. AYES: Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson asked for the staff presentation. Mrs. Barbara Young appeared before the Commission, and stated that the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations include the definition of a Bicycle Lane, Bicycle Trail and Pedestrian Trail, in addition to modifications to §22.3-22, Contents of Preliminary Design; §12-3-23, Vicinity Sketch; and §12-3-25, Review of Design. Mrs. Young pointed out that these changes which are proposed in the Subdivision Regulations are • • • • -7- designed to implement Resolution #17, of 1979, which support both the State Implementation Plan and the goals of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan. It was noted that the Public Notice of the Hearing appeared in the Englewood Herald Sentinel. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the proposed definition of a Bicycle Lane was in error, and that it should have provision for a right-turn lane for vehicular traffic. Discussion ensued. He pointed out that on streets such as Montview Boulevard there is sufficient space for the designation of a bicycle lane as well as a right-tum lane for motorized vehicles and a parking lane. Mrs. Young pointed out that the City of Littleton has had problems with their on-street bicycle lanes, and she questioned that there is sufficient space on the Englewood streets to provide for parking, a right-turn lane and the bicycle lane in addition to two lanes of traffic. She suggested that possibly the definition could be amended to eliminate the word ONLY at the end of the definition. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would approve this amendment. Mrs. Pierson asked if there were any further comments from the Commission or from anyone in the audience? There were no further comments made re- garding the proposed amendments. Becker moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #25-80 be closed. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre None Williams The motion carried. Mr. Tanguma stated that he has a problem designat1ng bicycle lanes on- street along with motorized traffic; he felt that bicycle paths and lanes should be separated or kept on sidewalks where possible. He cited the problems experienced by the City of Littleton with their on-street bicycle lanes, and stated that it is a very dangerous situation. Mr. McBrayer stated that he feels one reason behind the proposed amendments is to encourage other modes of transportation besides the automobile. Bicycles are a pollution-free mode of transportation which provide good exercise, and he felt that the bicycle lanes should be integrated into the other vehicular traffic lanes wherever possible. Mr. Tanguma stated that he still felt it is unwise to mix bicycle traffic with motor vehicles, and that ways of separating the two types of traffic should be explored. Mrs. Becker stated that there would not be sufficient space to separate the two types of traffic without constructing an entirely new street system. Mrs. Pierson pointed out that the proposed amendments are setting forth definitions and regulations for bicycle lanes and paths; this is not a matter of "designing" the lanes and paths. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the proposed amendments would apply to new subdivisions, and would not apply to the existing street design . Discussion ensued. Mr. Draper suggested that possibly the installation of reflectors along the painted white line designating the bicycle lanes could be considered. Further discussion ensued. -8- McBrayer moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Subdivision Regulations be amended as follows: §12-3-4. Definitions. (b) "BICYCLE LANE" SHALL MEAN A PORTION OF A STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGNATED FOR THE USE OF BICYCLE TRAFFIC. (c) "BICYCLE TRAIL" SHALL MEAN A PAVED OR OTHERWISE SURFACED OFF- STREET LANE DESIGNATED FOR BICYCLE TRAFFIC. (m) "PEDESTRIAN TRAIL" SHALL MEAN A PAVED OR OTHERWISE SURFACED OFF-STREET LANE DESIGNATED FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. §.2-3-22. Contents of Preliminary Design. (2) Site Details: (F) Location, widths and, where appropriate, names of all existing and proposed rights-of-way for streets, alleys, BICYCLE TRAILS or other public ways and all existing and proposed easements, either public or private, for utilities, drainage, or other purposes, within the area proposed for subdivision and at least 100 feet immediately adjacent thereto. (K) Typical cross sections of proposed streets, show the widths of roadways and the location and dimensions of BICYCLE LANES, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and other structures to be located within the right-of-way. §12-3-23. Vicinity Sketch. (e) DESIGNATED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAILS WHICH HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD OR THE DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERN- MENTS, IF WITHIN 1300 FEET OF EACH BOUNDARY OF THE AREA. §12-3-25. Review of Design. (c) (6) ALL RIGHTS-OF-WAY TO BE DESIGNED AND LOCATED TO FACILITATE THE SAFE MOVEMENT OF PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS , AND AVOID OR ELIMINATE EXISTING OR POTENTIAL NATURAL OR MAN-MADE BARRIERS AND HAZARDS TO SUCH MOVEMENT. (7) ALL BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES SHALL BE SELECTED, LOCATED AND DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT CITY STANDARDS. AYES: Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. • • • • V. ZONING DESIGNATION Osage Street Annexation Area I-1, Light Industrial Tanguma moved: -9- CASE #29-80 Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #29-80 be opened. AYES: Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBraye r, Draper, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. Mrs. Pierson stated that the matter before the Commission is a Public Hearing on a zone designation for the Osage Annexation area. She asked for the staff report. Mrs. Romans was sworn in, and testified that she is the Acting Director of Community Development. Mrs. Romans testified that the Planning Com- mission had received a petition from Mr. and Mrs. McGirr and Mr. and Mrs. Vette asking for annexation to the City of Englewood, which petition was referred to the City Council for favorable action. A vicinity plan of the subject area was displayed; Mrs. Romans indicated several properties in this area which have been annexed to the City of Englewood. Mrs. Romans noted that properties at 1470, 1485 and 1600 West Tufts Avenue have all been annexed and zoned I-1, Light Industrial, by the City of Englewood. Two properties on South Mariposa Drive have also been annexed to the City, and these properties, owned by Mr. Anderson and by Mr. Wayne Oakley, were given an R-1-C, Single-family Residence, zone designation. Mrs. Romans stated that this entire area was part of the Santa Fe/Union Annexation area which the City attempted to annex during the early to mid 1970's, and the property was actually within the City jurisdiction for a short time prior to invalidation of the annexation by the Court. During the brief time the City had jurisdiction over this area, a Building Permit was issued to Mr. and Mrs. Vette at 4545 South Osage Street for an in- dustrial building on their property, and following the decision by the Court returning the jurisdiction over this area to Arapahoe County, the Building Permit was turned over to Arapahoe County. Mrs. Romans stated that the irregular boundaries in this area cause con- fusion for the emergency services, and brings response to calls from Englewood, Littleton, and Sheridan as well as from the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Department. This multiple response to a call is expensive, as well as creating a hazard should another emergency occur and these units not be available for response. Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council did approve the annexation of 1501 West Tufts Avenue and 4545 South Osage Street on final reading at their meeting of October 20, 1980, and the City is required by State Statute to place a zoning designation on newly annexed land within 90 days of the date the annexation is final. It is imperative that the zoning procedure be started prior to the completion of the annexation procedure to meet this time limitation. The staff does recommend that these properties at 1501 West Tufts Avenue and 4545 South Osage Street be designated I-1, Light Industrial. It has been the position of the City that there should be no new residential zoning designation in this area along West Tufts Avenue, and that the area annexed to the City should be -10- developed with light industrial uses. The staff is of the opinion that I-1, Light Industrial, is the proper zoning for this property, and does recommend that the Planning Commission refer the matter to City Council with a favorable recommendation. Mrs. Romans stated that the property has been posted the required length of time; public notice of the hearing did appear in the official City newspaper, and she asked that the staff report be made a part of the official record of the Hearing. Mr . Senti asked if this annexation would take care of all of the land in this area? Mrs. Romans pointed out properties that would still remain in the County, which total eight or nine ownerships east of South Santa Fe Drive. Mrs. Pierson asked if there were any members of the audience who wanted to speak regarding this matter? No member of the audience spoke on the zoning designation. Mrs. Becker asked if, following zoning to I-1, Light Industrial, the property owners wanted to improve a residential use on the property whether they would be able to do so. Mrs. Romans stated that if it is a matter of making the dwelling safe and habitable improvement is allowed. Expansion of a non-conforming residential use in an industrial area is not permitted. Mrs. Romans did point out, however, that a caretaker use is permitted in the industrial districts, and that there are no specific restrictions on this . Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #29-80 be closed. AYES: Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer, Draper NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. Mc Brayer moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following described property commonly known as 1501 West Tufts Avenue and 4545 South Osage Street, be given an I-1 Zone District designation upon annexation, for the following reasons: Part of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, Sec. 9, T 5 S, R 68 W, of the 6th P.M. described as beginning at a point 662.1 feet North and 87 feet East of the center of said Section 9, said point also being the centerline of West Tufts Avenue; thence North 220 feet +/-to a point on the Englewood city limits; thence East along said city limits 46.9 feet +/-; thence North along said city limits 220.9 feet +/-; thence East along said city limits 196.8 feet +/-; thence South along said city limits 440.9 feet +/- to the centerline of West Tufts Avenue; thence West along • said centerline 244 feet +/-to the point of beginning. • Said parcel contains 2.231 acres +/-. 1. The I-1, Light Industrial Zone District would be an extension of the I-1 Zone classification which has been applied to lands within the City of Englewood which adjoin or are adjacent to the subject area. • • -11- 2. Because of its proximity to existing industrial de- velopment, major railway lines and South Santa Fe Drive, the subject area does not lend itself to residential development. 3. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the properties are located as suitable for industrial development. AYES: Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. VI. SUBDIVISION WAIVER 1860/1864 West Dartmouth CASE #30-80 Mrs. Pierson asked for the staff report on this matter before the Commission. Mrs. Romans stated that the Department of Community Development received an application from a Mr. Bob Cooper, owner of property at 1860/1864 West Dartmouth Avenue, requesting a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Cooper proposes to divide his property into two parcels. There is access to both parcels of land from West Dartmouth Avenue, and there is no reason to require that a Subdivision Plat be prepared, approved and recorded in order to divide it as proposed. The subject property was indicated on a vicinity map, and Mrs. Romans again pointed out that there appears to be no reason to require that a Subdivision Plat be prepared, and no reason not to permit the division of the property as proposed by Mr. Cooper. Mrs. Romans pointed out that Mr. Cooper is present if the Commission had questions they wished answered by him. Mrs. Pierson asked if Mr. Cooper wished to address the Commission? Mr. Bob Cooper 6601 South Cedar Littleton, Colorado -stated that he wished to divide his property into two parcels; he pointed out that the Brinks Armored Car business owns the property immediately next to his, and that they are interested in future expansion. If he does not sell part of his property to them for expansion purposes, he will construct a building on this portion of the site himself. Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission approve a Subdivision Waiver as requested by Mr. Bob Cooper for properties at 1860- 1864 West Dartmouth Avenue, which parcels are described as follows: Parcel "A": That part of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 33, Township 4 South, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East and West centerline of Section 33, 1842.17 feet actual (1831.0 feet deeded) East of the Northwest corner of said Southwest quarter of said Section 33; thence South 145.2 feet; thence East 115.00 feet; thence North 145.2 feet to the East and West centerline of said Section 33; thence West along the East and West -12- centerline of said Section 33 a distance of 115.00 feet to the Point of Beginning, Except the North 30.00 feet thereof for roadway purposes. Con- taining 0.304 acres more or less. Parcel "B": That part of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 33, Township 4 South, Range 68 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East and West centerline of Section 33, 1957.17 feet actual (1946.0 feet deeded) East of the Northwest corner of said South- west quarter of said Section 33; thence South 145.2 feet; thence East 75.00 feet; thence North 145.2 feet to the East and West centerline of said Section 33; thence West along said East and West centerline of said Section 33 a distance of 75.00 feet to the point of beginning, Except the North 30.00 feet thereof for roadway purposes. Containing 0.198 acres more or less. AYES: McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. VII. DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Off-Street Parking Lot CASE //31-80 Mrs . Romans stated that the Planning Conunission reviewed the plans of the Downtown Development Authority several months ago, and while the concept of the plans was approved, the plans for this parking lot have not been specifically approved. The parking lot will be on the west side of South Lincoln Street in the 3400 block. The plans for a mini-park in the parking lot have been eliminated, and the walk-through to South Broadway has been enlarged and will feature large open areas, seating areas, a fountain, and landscaping. The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requires that the Planning Conunission approve the layout for any parking lot of fifty spaces or more. The proposed parking lot will have spaces for 75 compact cars and 78 standard sized vehicles. Mrs . Romans discussed the financing of the construction of this parking lot, part of which will be financed by the Assessment District, and the north 50 ft., which is owned by Mr. Litman Sachter, will be purchased and developed out of Downtown Development Authority funds. Mrs. Romans stated that there will be "pavers" along the west side of the parking lot for pedestrian traffic up to the walk-through. Mrs. Romans stated that landscaping is proposed on the north, east and south sides of the parking lot . Mrs. Romans stated that she knew the Development Authority was hoping to proceed with the improvement of the parking lot yet this fall; they feel very strongly that they need to do something to show people that they are seriously pursuing the implementation of their plans. Also, the cost of materials for use in the parking lot are going up, and they hope to complete this portion of the planned improvements prior to the cost increase. Mrs. Pierson stated that she saw regarding an automatic sprinkler landscaping. Mrs. Romans stated it is shown on the plans or not. nothing in the plans before the Conunission system for maintenance of the proposed that she knew this was planned whether Mr. Keller, Executive Director of the • • • • • -13- Downtown Development Authority, stated that it is not the plan of the Authority to put in the landscaping this Fall; there will be provision for water taps and meters and undergrounding of service lines to the planting areas so that next Spring they can install the landscaping. Mr. Keller stated there will be a seven foot planting area on the north and south ends of the parking lot. Mr. Keller further stated that the EDDA has a contract to purchase the property owned by Mr. Sachter, which will close the middle of November. Mr. Keller stated that the EDDA is committed to buying the Sachter property and to pay for the improvements to that property. Mr. Keller stated that the parking lot improvements would be billed in a lump sum for both the Sachter property and the parking area to be financed by the Assessment District, and the costs for each will be apportioned out. The underground lines will be put in prior to the completion of the paving of the parking areas. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt something should be stipulated in the approval of the parking lot that the service lines and sleeving for the underground lines should be required during the initial construction phase. Mr. Senti asked about the width of the walk-through? Mr. Keller stated that the walk-through would be 34 feet in width. Mr. Carson asked about provision of parking spaces and facilities for handicapped and bicyclists? Mr. Keller stated that while he did not believe any of the parking spaces were of an extra width to accommodate the vans belonging to handicapped motorists, there were specifically designated parking spaces for the handicapped along the west side of the parking lot • Mr. Keller stated that there will be ramping for handicapped and bicyclists at the intersection of South Lincoln Street and East Hampden Avenue. Mr. Tanguma asked about lighting in the parking lot? Mr. Keller stated that there are three poles of the Public Service Company "type" that will be removed, and three new decorative light standards will be going in. Mr. Keller stated that the electrical service lines to these units will also be underground. McBrayer moved: Tanguma seconded: Discussion ensued. The Planning Commission approve the parking lot layout for the Downtown Development Authority lot in the 3400 block of South Lincoln Street with the following conditions: 1. Landscaping must be maintained as an integral part of the parking lot design. The plan which has been submitted to the Planning Commission, includes the Sachter property directly north of the parking lot, which is not part of the assessment district which has been approved by the City Council. If it is necessary to build the parking lot in two stages, the lot in the assessment district first and the Sachter property later, the north boundary of the first stage must be landscaped pending construction on the Sachter property. Should the Sachter property be acquired immediately and the current plan implemented, landscaping will be incorporated as shown on the plan. -14- 2. The necessary land from that acquired from the Public Service Company at the south portion of the alley shall be dedicated to the City for right-of- way to make a complete 16-foot alley. 3. An automatic irrigation system for all planted areas shall be incorporated into these plans. 4. The flag notes of the plans shall be amended to indicate that decorative lighting standards shall be installed and used in lieu of the existing Public Service Company poles lighting the lot. AYES: Pierson, McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. Mr. Keller announced that bids would be opened at the Board meeting of October 22nd on the purchase of the Public Service Company Building, and invited any members of the Planning Commission who wanted to attend to do so. Mr. Keller further advised the Planning Commission that the Murphy Complex in the 3500 block of South Sherman Street has been sold; that he was asked to sign a document and lease with the new owner. VIII. PUBLIC FORUM. Mrs. Pierson noted that there was no one present to speak under this section of the agenda. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans announced that the City Manager had earlier on this date signed the Personnel Action for the promotion of Mrs. Barbara Young to the position of Associate Planner in the Department of Community Development. Mrs. Romans commended Mrs. Young on her abilities, and pointed out that she had worked with two of the Comprehensive Plan Review Committees, and that the artistic graphics work contained in the Comprehensive Plan and other similar reports that have been published by the Department have been done by Mrs. Young. The members of the Commission commended Mrs. Young for the work that she has done, and congratulated her on her new position. Mrs. Romans then announced that Mr. Mccown has hired a new Director of Community Development, a Miss Susan Powers of Reno, Nevada. Miss Powers is 29 years of age, and is presently the Director of Community Development for the City of Reno, and will be beginning her employment with the City of Englewood on November 24th. Mr. Mccown has stated that Miss Powers has a strong background in economic development which was a prerequisite for the position inasmuch as the Director will be working quite closely with the Downtown Development Authority. Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council has passed an emission control ordinance. • • • • • -15- X. COMMISSION'S CHOICE . Mrs. Pierson stated that the next meeting of the Planning Commission would be on November 5th, 1980, which is a Wednesday evening; this is in lieu of the meeting on November 4th, which is election day. She asked what would be on the agenda for that meeting. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff is working on a rev1s1on of the Bicycle Trails Study and a Design Review Ordinance, which will be available for that meeting, plus any other matters that may come in in time to make the agenda. Mr. Keller asked if there was any chance that the Commission and City Council could meet at this time to view the film called "Main Street?" Mrs. Romans stated that this would have to be cleared with the City Council. Mrs. Becker asked about the drainage of the parking lot at Girard and South Logan Street? She noted that everything slopes down to the southwest corner, and asked what provisions were made for drainage? Mrs. Romans stated that she would check this out with the Engineering Department; she did note that the Engineering Department has to approve all drainage plans for parking lots. Mr. Draper asked what the acreage was on the Prowswood Development? Mrs. Romans stated that it is approximately 37 acres. Mr. Draper asked if a major activity report had been made on the Prowswood Development and on the South Slopes Development? Mrs. Romans stated that this was done when the development was initially proposed for these sites several years ago. Mr. McBrayer stated that regarding the parking lots approved for the Swedish Medical Center at Logan and Girard and at Clarkson and Hampden, the Medical Center has completed the lots so that they may be used for parking, but they have not installed the landscaping, and it is evident they do not plan to do so until next Spring. He asked if there was any way the Medical Center could be persuaded to do some of the planting now. Mrs. Romans stated that she would discuss this with Mr. Cliff Johnson of the Medical Center. Mrs. Pierson suggested that Mr. Johnson might be informed that there has been considerable dissatisfaction expressed by members of the Planning Commission that the landscaping work has not been done. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Romans reiterated that she will talk to the Medical Center about the landscaping. Mrs. Pierson asked that Mrs. Romans report back to the Commission on this matter at the next meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 P.M. rtrude G. Welty ecording Secreta y -16- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: October 21, 1980 SUBJECT: Amendment of Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance §22.4A --Planned Development §22.5-5 -Private Off-Street Parking Standards RECOMMENDATION: McBrayer moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows: §22.4A --Planned Development (P.D.) District. §22.4A-4(a)(8) Areas which are to be conveyed, dedicated or reserved for public purposes, including, but not limited to: parks and recreational areas, BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES, schools, public buildings, or other public purposes; §22.4A-6(f)(3) If the area of the development is such that an internal street circulation system is necessary, such s y stem shall be designed for the type of traffic to be generated, AND ALL CURBS AT ENTRANCES AND OTHER ACCESS POINTS SHALL HAVE RAMPS TO FACILITATE ACCESS FOR BICYCLES AND HANDI- CAPPED. All Planned Developments must have access to public streets. Private, internal streets may be per- mitted if they can be used by police and fire department vehicles for emergency purposes; §22.4A-6(f)(4) Pedestrfsft wsys mttse ~revfde eeftveftfefte Bftd safe aeeess ee resfdeftefa± bttf±dfttg grett~s, e~ett s~aee areas, reere- efetts± areas, seHee±s sttd ttefgHberHeed sHe~~fttg sress ff eHey sre B ~sre ef tHe P±Bfttted Beve±e~mefte, aftd mttst be se~araeed as mtteH as ~essfb±e frem veHfett±ar ersfffe aresst BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAILS ARE TO BE PROVIDED WHERE THE CITY BICYCLE AND/OR TRAIL PLAN OR THE DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS REGIONAL BICYCLE PLAN SHOWS SUCH TRAIL OR TRAIL CORRIDOR. TRAIL OR WALKWAY SYSTEMS OR LANES ARE TO BE PROVIDED, WHERE FEASIBLE, TO SCHOOLS, SHOPPING AREAS, PARKS, GREENBELTS AND OTHER FACILITIES AS NECESSARY. TRAIL SYSTEMS AND WALKWAYS THROUGH OPEN SPACE AREAS ARE ENCOURAGED AS AN ALTERNATE TO PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS AND MAY BE USED UPON APPROVAL BY THE CITY PROVIDING THE FOLLOWING • CRITERIA ARE MET: ~ • • -17- (a) THE SYSTEM PROVIDES AT LEAST THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE AS WOULD THE APPLICABLE SIDEWALK REQUIRE- MENT. (b) EASEMENTS OR OPEN WAYS ARE PLOTTED AND DEDICATED TO THE SYSTEM. (c) TRAILS AND WALKWAYS ARE EITHER PAVED, TREATED OR CONSTRUCTED FROM SELECTED MATERIAL TO PROVIDE A SUITABLE ALL-WEATHER SURFACE THAT IS EASILY MAINTAINED. THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ANTICIPATED USE. (d) A PERPETUAL ASSOCIATION OR CORPORATION OR OTHER SUITABLE MEANS IS ESTABLISHED FOR MAINTENANCE. (e) PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS AND BICYCLE TRAILS ARE NOT COMBINED. §22.5-5 Private Off-Street Parking Standards. §22.5-Sa. Minimum Standards. In consonance with the purpose of zoning regulations, as stated in this Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, "to lessen congestion in the streets", the following are minimum standards for MOTOR VEHICLE AND BICYCLE parking spaces to be maintained in connection with the buildings and uses indicated; however, nothing in these standards shall be deemed to deprive the owners or operators of said buildings or uses of the right to maintain control over all such land and structures or to make whatever changes they deem appropriate for the use of such private off-street parking space. §22.5-Sa(lS). PARKING FOR BICYCLES SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: (a) BICYCLE FACILITIES SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ANY NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTED AND FOR ANY NEW USE ESTABLISHED; FOR ANY ADDITION OR ENLARGEMENT OF AN EXISTING BUILDING OR USE; AND FOR ANY CHANGE IN THE OCCUPANCY OF ANY BUILDING OR THE MANNER IN WHICH ANY USE IS CONDUCTED THAT WOULD RESULT IN ADDITIONAL PARKING FACILITIES BEING REQUIRED, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE. (b) NO EXISTING USE OR STRUCTURE SHALL BE DEEMED NON- CONFORMING SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF BICYCLE FACILITIES PRESCRIBED IN THIS CHAPTER, PROVIDED THAT BICYCLE FACILITIES EXISTING ON (EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE) SHALL NOT BE REDUCED IN CAPACITY, DESIGN, OR FUNCTION TO LESS THAN THE MINIMUM STANDARDS PRESCRIBED IN THIS ORDINANCE. (c) BICYCLE PARKING FACILITIES SHALL INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR STORAGE AND LOCKING OF BICYCLES, EITHER IN LOCKERS OR SECURE RACKS OR EQUIVALENT INSTALLATION IN WHICH THE BICYCLE FRAME AND WHEELS MAY BE LOCKED BY THE USER. -18- (d) BICYCLE FACILITIES REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE USE REQUIRING • SUCH FACILITIES, AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR OTHER PURPOSES. (e) LOCATION: BICYCLE FACILITIES (1) PARKING FOR BICYCLES SHALL BE PROVIDED ON- SITE OR ON A SITE WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE USE, MEASURED ALONG THE SHORTEST PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. (2) BICYCLE PARKING AREAS SHALL BE WELL LIGHTED AND LOCATED AS NEAR TO THE BUILDING OR FACILITY ENTRANCE AS POSSIBLE, WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. (3) IF POSSIBLE, BICYCLE PARKING AREAS SHOULD UTILIZE ALREADY EXISTING WEATHER PROTECTED AREAS SUCH AS BUILDING OVERHANGS. (4) IF BICYCLE AND AUTOMOBILE PARKING AREAS OR ACCESSWAYS ABUT EACH OTHER, THERE SHALL BE PROVIDED A PHYSICAL BARRIER BETWEEN THE BICYCLE AND AUTOMOBILE AREAS TO PREVENT THE POSSIBILITY OF A BICYCLE OR ITS OPERATOR FROM BEING HIT BY A MOTOR VEHICLE. (5) ALL DESIGNATED BICYCLE PARKING AREAS SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE BY RAMPS. (f) PARKING FOR BICYCLES SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS: MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE ....• ONE BICYCLE PARKING SPACE PER EACH TWO DWELLING UNITS: FACILITIES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THIS RE- QUIREMENT. NON-RESIDENTIAL USES ..... ONE BICYCLE PARKING SPACE PER EACH TEN PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR AUTOMOBILES, BUT NOT LESS THAN TWO SPACES PER PREMISES, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED BELOW: (1) DRIVE-IN THEATRE, MORTUARY, AUTO SERVICE STATION, AUTOMOBILE SERVICES, DRIVE-UP WINDOWS PROVIDING SERVICES TO OCCUPANTS IN VEHICLES ..... NONE. (2) SCHOOL (GRADES K -8) ..... ONE BICYCLE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH 20 STUDENTS. (3) SCHOOL (GRADES 9 -12) .•..• ONE BICYCLE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH 30 STUDENTS. (4) COMMERCIAL RECREATION ....• ONE BICYCLE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH 12 PERSONS CAPACITY. (5) COMMUNITY FACILITIES, INCLUDING SWIM CLUB, TENNIS CLUB, COMMUNITY CENTERS, NEIGHBORHOOD • • • -19- CENTERS, AND SIMILAR ACTIVITIES ...•. ONE BICYCLE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH 12 PERSONS CAPACITY . AYES: Senti, Pierson, McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission . -20- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: October 21, 1980 SUBJECT: Amendment of the Subdivision Regulations RECOMMENDATION: McBrayer moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Connnission reconnnend to City Council that the Subdivision Regulations be amended as follows: §12-3-4. Definitions. (b) "BICYCLE LANE" SHALL MEAN A PORTION OF A STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGNATED FOR THE USE OF BICYCLE TRAFFIC. (c) "BICYCLE TRAIL" SHALL MEAN A PAVED OR OTHERWISE SURFACED OFF- STREET LANE DESIGNATED FOR BICYCLE TRAFFIC. (m) "PEDESTRIAN TRAIL" SHALL MEAN A PAVED OR OTHERWISE SURFACED OFF- STREET LANE DESIGNATED FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. §12-3-22. Contents of Preliminary Design. (2) Site Details: (F) Location, widths and, where appropriate, names of all existing and proposed rights-of-way for streets, alleys, BICYCLE TRAILS or other public ways and all existing and proposed easements, either public or private, for utilities, drainage, or other purposes, within the area proposed for subdivision and at least 100 feet innnediately adjacent thereto. (K) Typical cross sections of proposed streets, show the widths of roadways and the location and dimensions of BICYCLE LANES, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and other structures to be located within the right-of-way. §12-3-23. Vicinity Sketch. (e) DESIGNATED BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAILS WHICH HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD OR THE DENVER REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERN- MENTS, IF WITHIN 1300 FEET OF EACH BOUNDARY OF THE AREA. §12-3-25. Review of Design. (c) (6) ALL RIGHTS-OF-WAY TO BE DESIGNED AND LOCATED TO FACILITATE THE SAFE MOVEMENT OF PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS, AND AVOID OR ELIMINATE EXISTING OR POTENTIAL NATURAL OR MAN-MADE BARRIERS AND HAZARDS TO SUCH MOVEMENT. (7) ALL BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES SHALL BE SELECTED, LOCATED AND DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT CITY STANDARDS. • • • • -21- AYES: Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. trude G. Welty cording Secretary -22- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: October 21, 1980 SUBJECT: Zoning Designation for Osage Street Annexation Area RECOMMENDATION: McBrayer moved Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following described property, commonly known as 1501 West Tufts Avenue and 4545 South Osage Street, be given an 1-1 Zone District designation upon annexation for the following reasons: Part of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, Sec. 9, T 5 S, R 68 W, of the 6th P.M. described as beginning at a point 662.1 feet North and 87 feet East of the center of said Section 9, said point also being the centerline of West Tufts Avenue; thence North 220 feet +/-to a point on the Englewood City limits; thence East along said city limits 46.9 feet +/-; thence North along said city limits 220.9 feet +/-; thence East along said city limits 196.8 feet +/-; thence South along said city limits 440.9 feet+/- to the centerline of West Tufts Avenue; thence West along said centerline 244 feet +/-to the point of beginning. Said parcel contains 2.231 acres +/-. 1. The I-1, Light Industrial Zone District would be an extension of the 1-1 Zone classification which has been applied to lands within the City of Englewood which adjoin or are adjacent to the subject area. 2. Because of its proximity to existing industrial de- velopment, major railway lines and South Santa Fe Drive, the subject area does not lend itself to residential development. 3. The Comprehensive Plan designates the area in which the properties are located as suitable for industrial development. AYES: Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Williams The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Comrnission. G. Welty cording Secretary • •