Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-04-08 PZC MINUTES' CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 8, 1980 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Judith Pierson. Members present: Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Williams Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: Becker, Draper, Tanguma Also present: Assistant Director D. A. Romans Mrs. Pierson welcomed Mr. Senti to the Commission. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Minutes of March 4, 1980, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: McBrayer seconded: The Minutes of March 4, 1980, be approved as written. AYES: Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Pierson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Williams, Senti ABSENT: Becker, Draper, Tanguma The motion carried. III. FINDINGS OF FACT John J. Littlehorn Rezoning R-1-C to R-2-C CASE #4-80 Mrs. Pierson stated that the Findings of Fact on the Littlehorn- Jackson Brothers rezoning request were to be considered. She asked if there was any discussion on the Findings of Fact which had been included in the packet which was delivered on the preceding Thursday? Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #4-80 be approved by the Planning Commission and referred to City Council. AYES: Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Pierson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Williams, Senti ABSENT: Tanguma, Becker, Draper The motion carried. -2- IV. ALLEY VACATION Canfield's Subdivision CASE #10-80 Mrs. Pierson stated that the request before the Planning Com- mission is for the vacation of an eight-foot alley right-of- way in the Canfield's Subdivision. Mrs. Pierson pointed out that a public hearing is not required on this matter, and that the decision of the Planning Commission will be based upon presentations by the staff, by the applicants and proponents, and by the opponents. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Commission must determine whether or not a public purpose is being served by retaining the alley right-of-way, and if there is no public purpose to be served, to recommend its vacation to the City Council. Mrs. Pierson then asked for the staff presentation. Mrs. Romans stated that the applicant, Mr. Warren Beattie, has asked that the alley on the north side of the Canfield's Subdivision be vacated. The Canfield's Subdivision is on the south one-half of the block between West Baker and West Wesley Avenues, and between South Raritan Street and South Tejon Street. The Subdivision was platted in 1948, with the right- of -way for the alley, but the alley has not been opened for use. The north half of the block has not been platted, and is used as an auto wrecking yard. Mrs. Romans stated that the request for vacation was referred to all concerned City departments and utility companies, and while no objection to the vacation was received, the retention of an eight-foot utility easement was requested. The alley vacation request was also referred to all adjoining property owners, the location of which Mrs. Romans indicated on the map; no objection to the vacation was received from these property owners. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Beattie, the majority owner of the property on the southeast corner of the block, was present and would address the Commission, also. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff recommends vacation of the alley in the Canfield's Subdivision, and that an eight-foot easement be retained for utility purposes. Mrs. Romans asked that the staff report be made a part of the record of this meeting. She asked if the Commission had any questions? Mrs. Pierson asked for clarification on which property was owned by Mr. Beattie? Mrs. Romans indicated this property on the map. Mrs. Pierson asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission? , -3- Mr. Beattie stated that he felt Mrs. Romans' report was very complete, and he would add only that from the development of the block, it would appear there was no intent to use the right-of-way as an alley. He added that he understood that the alley couldn't be used unless a full 16-foot dedication was obtained. Mr . Beattie stated that he will agree to pro- viding the eight-foot utility easement, but does want the alley to be vacated. Mr. Carson asked if Mr. Beattie had read the recommendation from the Department of Community Development, and if he was in agreement with this recommendation? Mr. Beattie stated that he did have a copy of the staff report, and he is in substantial agreement with the recommendation. Mrs. Pierson asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Commission on the matter of the alley vacation? No one in the audience asked to address the Commission on this matter. Williams moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the eight-foot alley on the north side of the Canfield's Subdivision be vacated; and that an eight-foot utility easement be retained. This recommenda- tion is made for the following reasons: 1. The subject alley dedication has never been used as an alley for either access or utility purposes. 2. The north eight feet of land which would be needed for an alley of standard width, has never been dedicated. The owners of the property on the north half of the block have never platted or subdivided their land, or indicated any need to do so. 3. The retention of an eight foot easement is adequate for utility service and for drainage purposes. 4. The vacation would not be in conflict with the Comprehen- sive Plan. AYES: Senti, Williams, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma, Becker, Draper The motion carried. V. FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM Lowell Elementary School CASE #11-80 Mrs. Romans stated that there is no action required of the Planning Commission on this matter; rather, it is more of an informational presentation. Mrs. Romans referred to an -4- article in the Englewood Herald Sentinel of March 19th, which indicated that an "eatery" was to be opened in the Lowell Elementary School. This is an R-1-C, Single-family Residential zone District, which does not allow restaurants or "eateries." Mrs. Romans stated that she placed a call to Dr. Davidson, Superintendent of Schools, who in turn put her in touch with Mr. Rouse, Assistant Director of the Area Vocational School. Mrs. Romans stated that this proposal is part of the school district program, and that Dr. Davidson feels it is a very important part of the vocational educational program. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Rouse was present to make the formal presentation. Mr. Rouse stated that on behalf of the Arapahoe County/Douglas County Vocational School, he welcomed the opportunity to appear before the Commission to discuss their Vocational Food Service Program. Mr. Rouse gave some background on the area Vocational School, which was begun in 1975, and is a cooperative effort be- tween the schools in Douglas and Arapahoe counties. The purpose of the Vocational School program is to provide a training pro- gram to the participating school districts, those being Engle- wood, Sheridan, Littleton, Cherry Creek, Douglas County, part of Aurora, and Arapahoe Community College. Mr. Rouse stated that there are 1100 students in the 18 secondary, post-secondary and adult Vocational School programs. Mr. Rouse stated that the Food Service Program is the final phase of implementation of the original plan; further Vocational School programs will be planned in the future. Mr. Rouse stated that the immediate goal is to get support from the community in developing a solid vocational program to meet the needs of the students and employers in the area. The long-range plan is to have facilities and programs that the community is proud of. Mr. Rouse stated that Lowell School was closed for elementary school purposes a couple of years ago, and is presently housing some of the programs for the High School. The Englewood School Board has approved the hiring of an architect to make the necessary changes for the Food Service Program which is also proposed to be located in the Lowell Elementary School building. The all-purpose room and kitchen comprise some 3300 square feet, and it is this area which will be devoted to the Food Ser- vice Program. Mr. Rouse then displayed a floor plan of the area to be used by the Food Service Program, and discussed the program more fully. He pointed out areas that will be used for dining rooms, fast food service, food preparation, etc. Mr. Rouse stated that there will be a private dining area that will accommodate 20 people, in addition to the larger dining area. There will be an area devoted to the training of those students who want to be cashiers, and there will be a teacher's office. The training program will be a two-year program, and will be for entry level and some secondary-level or technical/skilled placements. Mr. Rouse pointed out that the program is broken into three segments: the entry level, the technical/skilled, and supervisory capacities. Mr. Rouse stated that the intent is to get input from the employers in the community and provide the training that will make the students competitive in the job market upon completion of the two-year program. ' -5- Mr. Rouse stated that for any new vocational program to begin, there must be a demonstration of need, and justification for the program. He pointed out that there will be a great demand for skilled and semi-skilled people in the food service in- dustry in the near future. Mr. Rouse cited the following facts from the State Occupational Information Section of the Occupational Division: Public training will be provided for 4,310 students; 705 students will receive private training; other training will account for approximately 200 students, making a total of 5,215 trained individuals for the year 1979-1980. There is estimated to be 44,270 openings in the food service industry in Colorado, leaving a need of 39,055 people trained to fill these positions. Mr. Rouse then discussed a chart of the positions for which training would be provided, and the demand for these particular positions. Mr. Rouse stated that at the end of the two-year training program, the individuals in this program should be ready to go to work, and should be very competitive in the job market. Mr. Rouse stated that the programs are based on the needs of the employers in the community, and that the curriculum for the programs is based on this input. Mrs. Becker entered the meeting and assumed her place with the Commission. Mr. Rouse stated that he would like to request that the Planning Commission consider appointing a representative to serve on the advisory committee for the Vocational School Program. Mrs. Pierson asked if the members had any questions of Mr. Rouse? Mr. McBrayer asked the amount of the annual budget for the Vocational School? Mr. Wayne Ball, the Director of the Area Vocational School, stated that the budget is $1,000,000, which funds are from the local school districts, Arapahoe Community College, and the Colorado Vocational Act. He stated that no tuition is charged at the secondary level, and all materials are provided for the program. Mr. Wanush asked who would be the customers for this food ser- vice program? Mr. Rouse stated that most likely the customers would be school district personnel. Mr. Rouse indicated there were four other food service programs in the Denver area, and he understood that while their intent at the beginning was to serve the faculty and students, they have drawn customers from the community-at-large. Mr. Wanush asked if it was anticipated that this Food Service Program would be opened to the general public? Mr. Rouse stated that this is still being explored. Mr. Wanush stated that if this program does become a "restaurant type" of operation --open to the general public, the Planning Commission may have to make a determination on the use at that time. He noted that most of the existing programs in the metro ---~ -6- area do work for special functions and banquets ; this provides the opportunity for students to work under a "strain" and different job requirements than the everyday program. Mr. McBrayer inquired about the placement program; how would prospective employers find out about the prog ram? Mr. Rouse stated that part of the service of the vocational school is to have a full time job developer who goes into the community and works with prospective employers, making the prospective em- ployers aware of what the vocational program is attempting. He stated that the vocational job developer also works with the State Employment Agencies in placement of the students. Mr. Barbre asked if these classes would be during the day for a five-day week, or would there be evening classes as well? Mr. Rouse stated that the secondary students would have classes during the day; there might be a night program for the post- secondary students. Mr. Rouse pointed out that as an area vocational school, they have to provide adult educational ser- vices in the community. They will have an adult food service program as soon as facilities are available. Mrs. Becker asked if this program would be available to children whose parents live in Arapahoe County? She pointed out that she works with the children at Fort Logan, and is interested in such services for these students. Mr. Rouse stated that possibly the student could enroll through Arapahoe Community College to get the service. Mrs. Becker stated 1hat there is a great problem getting the children attending Fort Logan into the vocational education programs. Mr. Rouse and Mr. Bell expressed their appreciation to the Com- mission for listening to their presentation. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Commission was appreciative of Mr. Rouse and Mr. Bell taking of their time to give the presentation. Mrs. Becker stated that she would be very interested in working with the vocational training program, if possible. Mrs. Pierson stated that she would appoint Mrs. Marjorie Becker to the advisory committee of the Vocational Educational Board as the Planning Commission representative. Mrs. Pierson asked that the staff draft a letter notifying Mr. Rouse and Mr. Bell of Mrs. Becker's appointment. VI. COUNTRY CLUB JOINT VENTURE CASE #21-78 Mr. Wanush stated that the applicants came in early in March to apply for a foundation permit, which was refused because of insufficient information. The applicants then appeared be- fore the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for an extension on the variance they obtained on the height of the buildings, which was granted. Mr. Wanush stated that Mrs. Romans had a contact from the new owners, and they are checking out some of the matters on the approved plan. -7- VII. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to speak under public forum. VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Wanush made reference to an article citing attendance by Planning Commission members from the various municipalities at the San Francisco APA Conference. He noted that the article had cited that seven members from Arvada were to attend, and "only one from Englewood." Discussion ensued. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt there should be funds budgeted to allow more than one Planning Commission member to attend these Con- ferences; she noted that the conferences are most informative and would be of benefit to any member who attended. She stated that she felt at least two people should be allowed to attend. Mr. Wanush stated that this could be taken into con- sideration at the time of budget preparation. IX. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt there should be more emphasis on educational presentations to the Planning Commission, such as the presentation on the Vocational Educational Program this evening. She suggested the possibility of visiting lecturers on a regular basis, such as the last Saturday of the month. She asked if any other members were interested in such a pro- gram? Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the educational aspect would be of help to him. Mr. Williams stated that he felt we "could try it on for size." Mr. Wanush stated that he felt the staff could draw up a list of items for discussion and clear it with the Commission. The feasibility of setting aside the last Saturday of every month vs. a regular meeting evening was briefly discussed. It was determined that there would be time after the public hearing set for the next meeting to discuss the matters to be considered by the Commission. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt the Commission needed to get some ideas of what is possible in terms of redevelopment, etc. She cited the redevelopment that has occurred in Albuquerque, New Mexico; she stated that she felt slides of the results and information on what has been done would be most interesting. -8- Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt such matters as the Sign Ordinance, Landscaping, etc. would be of interest to the Com- mission, and suggested that an attempt be made to get members from other communities who have had experience with these matters to speak to the Commission. Discussion ensued. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 P. M. MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 0 DATE: April 8, 1980 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: Carson moved: Barbre seconded: Findings of Fact -Case #4-80 The Findings of Fact on Case #4-80 be approved by the Planning Commission and referred to City Council. AYES: Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Pierson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Williams, Senti ABSENT: Tanguma, Becker, Draper The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 4-80, ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, ) AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATING TO ) AN APPLICATION TO REZONE A CERTAIN ) AREA OF THE CITY FROM R-1-C, ) SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO R-2-C, ) MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENCE, PUR-) SUANT TO SECTION 22.3 OF THE ) COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE ) OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, ) COLORADO. ) A Public Hearing was held in connection with Case No. 4-80, on March 4, 1980, in the City Council Chambers at the Englewood City Hall at 7:00 P. M. The foll owing members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission were present: Mr. Barbre, Mrs. Becker, Mr. Carson, Mr. Draper, Mr. McBrayer, Mrs. Pierson, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Tanguma. The following mem- ber was absent: Mr. Williams. FINDINGS OF FACT Upon review of the evidence taken in the form of testimony, presentations, reports and filed documents, the Commission makes the following Findings of Fact: 1. That proper notice of the meeting to consider the requested rezoning was given by publishing and posting. 2. That the area in question is described as: Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Northwest one-quarter (1/4) of the Northeast one-quarter (1/4) of Section 9, Town- ship 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th P. M.; thence West along the North line of said Section 9, said North line also being the centerline of West Quincy Avenue, a distance of 99 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing Westerly along the North line of Section 9, a distance of 231.8 feet, to the North line of Jensen's Subdivision 2nd Filing, City of Englewood, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado; thence East along said North line of Jensen's Subdivision 2nd Filing a distance of 163.8 feet to the Southwest corner of the parcel of land de- scribed in Book 2951, Page 442 in the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder's Office; thence North along the West line of the parcels of land described in Book 2951, Pages 441 and 442, a distance of 120 feet to the Northwest corner of the parcel of land described in Book 2951 on Page 441; thence East along the North line of said parcel of land described in Book 2951, Page -2- 441 a distance of 68 feet; thence North a distance of 210 feet to the true point of beginning, said tract of land con- taining 1.56 acres more or less. 3. That the application was filed by: John J. Littlehorn 4530 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 and James W. and William R. Jackson Route 5, Box 4 Evergreen, Colorado 80439 4. That the records of the Arapahoe County Assessor show the owners of the property which is the subject of the application to be: Parcel 1) John J. Littlehorn 4530 South Broadway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Parcel 2) James W. and William R. Jackson Route 5, Box 4 Evergreen, Colorado 80439 Parcel 3) Midwest Real Estate Exchange, Inc. P. O. Box 1749 Evergreen, Colorado 80439 Parcel 4) Seventh Day Adventist Association of Colorado c/o Rosa Lee Banks 1296 West Quincy Avenue Englewood, Colorado 80110 5. That the area with which this application is concerned was annexed to the City by Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1955, and that the Planning Commission recommended that the area be zoned M-1, Manufacturing; however, it was zoned R-1-D, Single-family Residential by the City Council and was so zoned until 1963. In 1963, the subject property was zoned R-1-C, Single-family Residence, by Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1963, by which Ordinance the R-1-D Zone District was re- pealed. 6. That the land to the west of the subject site is zoned I-1, Light Industrial, and is used for industrial purposes. 7. Tha t the land to the north, east and south of the subject parcel is zoned R-1-C, Single-family Residence, and is developed for single-family residential use. -3- 8. That the City Planning and Zoning Commission, Board of Adjustment and Appeals, and/or the City Council has previously taken the following action in relation to all or a portion of the subject property: a. On April 22, 1975, the City Planning and Zoning Commission granted a Subdivision Waiver to John J. Littlehorn to divide property then in his ownership into six parcels, five of which were building lots fronting on South Lipan Street, and the sixth, a parcel 67' by 300', a portion of which parcel is being considered in the subject application. (Case No. 14-75). b. That in June of 1976, Mr. Littlehorn and the Messrs. Jackson sought the rezoning of the aforementioned 67' by 300' parcel owned by Mr. Littlehorn, as well as that identified as Parcels 2, 3, and 4 in the subject application, from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to I-1, Light Industrial, which request did not receive a favorable recommendation by the Planning Com- mission following a Public Hearing . (Case No. 17-76). c. That there is no record of an appeal by the applicants to the City Council from the Planning Commission's action. d. That in September of 1977, Mr. Littlehorn and the Messrs. Jackson again sought the rezoning of that same property; in this instance, from R-1-C, single-family Residence, to R-2-C, Medium-Density Residence, and that the Planning Commission, following a Public Hearing, voted not to recommend the requested R-2-C Zoning to the City Council and adopted Findings of Facts and Conclusions supporting that position, and that said Findings of Fact and Conclusions were received by the City Council. (Case No. 14-77). e. That on September 14, 1977, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals considered a request to re- duce the lot size on the 67' by 300' parcel owned by Mr. Littlehorn from 6,000 square feet to 5,100 square feet, and denied that request following a Public Hearing. (Board of Adjustment and Appeals Case No. 36-77). f. That the applicants appeared before the City Council on October 3, 1977, to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission and to request a Public Hearing before the City Council, and that on October 17, 1977, the City Council voted to adopt the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission and to deny the applicant's request for a further Hearing. • -4- g. That on March 8, 1979, Mr. Littlehorn divided the 67' by 300' parcel and sold the south 120 feet to adjoining property owners, retaining the north 180 feet, which property is identified as Parcel 1 in this application. h. That on October 12, 1979, the City of Englewood received the Findings, Conclusion and Judgement by the District Court in Arapahoe County (Civil Action No. 38297, Division 1), which action remanded the matter to the City Council in order that the petitioners might present evidence and arguments in support of the R-2-C application. i. That on January 28, 1980, the City Council held a Public Hearing pursuant to the Court Order and voted to refer the matter back to the City Planning and Zoning Commission. 9. That the property which is the subject of the rezoning application is unique in that: a. One of the parcels, Parcel 4, has no direct access on a public right-of-way other than by a 15 foot lane off of West Quincy Avenue; b. The subject property adjoins the rear property lines of the land to the east and south, an industrial area to the west and West Quincy Avenue, a designated Arterial and Truck Route on the north. 10. That the industrial development in the I-1, Light Industrial area to the west, northwest and southwest of the subject s i te has increased in both volume and intensity of use since the subject area was originally zoned for single- family use and indeed, since the application was considered in 1977. 11. That it is not good zoning practice to impose a single-family residential development on an abutting industrial area and that in the first instance of zoning following annexa- tion, a buffer should have been provided between the industrial and single-family residential area. 12. That because of the unique circumstances surrounding the subject property, i.e., the proximity to industrial develop- ment, the proximity to the railway lines, the restricted access to portions of the property and its size and configuration, the property which is t he subject of this application can be developed utilizing the flex ibility of the Planned Development District regulations to crea t e a desirable climate for those persons living within the area, while protecting the residents in the adjacent residential neighborhood. 13. Th at the development of the four parcels should be planned as a unit, not individually, and should be under- taken in a ·timely manner. -5- 14. That it is not economically feasible to construct single-family residential units on the subject property because of its proximity to the I-1, Light Industrial District. 15. That utility service is available to the subject property. 16. That the rezoning would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 17. That the City Planning and Zon i ng Commission received testimony from all of those persons present during the Public Hearing who wished to speak either in favor of or opposition to the subject rezoning application. CONCLUSIONS 1. That proper notice of the Public Hearing held on March 4, 1980, was given. 2. That the City Planning and Zoning Commission proceeded in this matter pursuant to §22.3 of the Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance. 3. That the procedural rights of both proponents and opponents were respected by the members of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. 4. That following annexation to the City of Englewood, the imposition of the single-family zone classification on this property, which abuts the I-1, Light Industrial Zone District, was in error and that accepted zoning practice should have dictated consideration of a zone classification which would have permitted economical development of the subject property while protecting the adjacent single-family residential area. 5. That the I-1, Light Industrial area which adjoins this property has increased in intensity of use, thus effecting a change in the circumstances of the development of the site. 6. That it would not be feasible to develop single- family residential units on the property which is the subject of this application because of tts proximity to the industrial development and its limited access. 7. That it would be feasible to develop the subject property as a unit under the Planned Development District regula- tions at the medium-density, creating a desirable environment for the persons living in the development, while protecting the adjacent single-family residential area. 8. That a medium-density residential development constructed on the property which is the subject of this applica- tion, would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. • RECOMMENDATION Therefore, it is the recommendation of the City Planning and Zoning CoJDJllission to the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, that the application of John -6- J. Littlehorn and James W. and William R. Jackson, Case No. 4-80, to rezone the property hereinafter described from R-1-C, Single-family Residence, to R-2-C, Medium-density Residence, be approved contingent upon the following conditions: 1. That the subject properties be developed as a single unit under the Planned Development District regulations. 2. That the matter be brought before the City Planning and Zoning Commission in twenty-four (24) months for review and if a Planned Development has not been approved and recorded and construction pursuant thereto undertaken, the Planning Commission shall reconsider the use and the develop- ment of the subject property. Beginning at the Northeast corner of the Northwest one-quarter (1/4) of the Northeast one-quarter (1/4) of Section 9, Town- ship 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M.; thence West along the North line of said Section 9, said North line also being the centerline of West Quincy Avenue, a distance of 99 feet to the true point of beginning; thence continuing Westerly along the North line of Section 9, a distance of 231.8 feet, to the North line of Jensen's Subdivision 2nd Filing, City of Englewood, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado; thence East along said North line of Jensen's Subdivision 2nd Filing a distance of 163.8 feet to the Southwest corner of the parcel of land de- scribed in Book 2951, Page 442 in the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder's Office ; thence North along the West line of the parcels of land described in Book 2951, Pages 441 and 442, a distance of 120 feet to the Northwest corner of the parcel of land described in Book 2951 on Page 441; thence East along the North line of said parcel of land described in Book 2951, Page 441 a distance of 68 feet; thence North a distance of 210 feet to the true point of beginning, said tract of land con- taining 1.56 acres more or less . Upon a vote taken at a meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission on March 4, 1980. Those members voting in favor of the rezoning: Mr. McBrayer, Mrs . Pierson, Mr. Smith, Mr. Tanguma, Mrs. Becker, Mr. Draper, and Mr. Barbre. Those me mbers voting in opposition to the rezoning: Mr. Carson. Mr. Williams was absent. BY ORDER OF THE CITY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION. MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: April 8, 1980 SUBJECT: Alley Vacation in Canfield's Addition Subdivision RECOMMENDATION: Williams moved: Carson seconded: north side of the and that an eight recommendation is The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the eight foot alley on the Canfield's Addition Subdivision be vacated; foot utility easement be retained. This made for the following reasons: 1. The subject alley dedication has never been used as an alley for either access or utility purposes. 2. The north eight feet of land which would be needed for an alley of standard width, has never been dedicated. The owners of the property on the north half of the block have never platted or subdivided their land, or indicated any need to do so. 3. The retention of an eight foot easement is adequate for utility service and for drainage purposes. 4. The vacation would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. AYES: Senti, Williams, Barbre, Carson, McBrayer, Pierson NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma, Becker, Draper The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. , trude G. Welty ecording Secretar