Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-04-05 PZC MINUTESf • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APRIL 5, 1983 I. CALL TO ORDER. 5 A The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Milton E. Senti. Members present: Senti, Stoel, Venard, Barbre, Becker, Carson Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: Tanguma, Allen, McBrayer Also present: Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland D. A. Romans, Assistant Director for Planning Susan T. King, Senior Planner II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. March 22, 1983 Chairman Senti stated that the Minutes of March 22, 1983, were to be con- sidered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of March 22, 1983, be approved as written • AYES: Stoel, Becker, Carson, Senti NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Venard, Barbre ABSENT: Tanguma, Allen, McBrayer The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE B-DD District §22.4-12 CASE 119-83 Mr. Senti noted that the Public Hearing on this matter had been continued from March 22, 1983. He asked if the staff had further information they wanted to present to the Commission? Mrs. Romans stated that following the meeting of March 22nd, the staff re- vi.ewed s.ome of the comments that were made by members of the Commission and audience. As a result of considering some of the issues that were raised, some changes have been made in the proposed regulations for the B-DD Dis- trict. Mr. Tanguma entered the meeting at 7:05 P. M. and took his place with the Commission. Mrs. Romans stated that Printing and Copying with restrictions on equipment sizes has been included as a permitted use in the B-DD District. Mrs. Romans stated that an issue raised by Mr. McBrayer was whether or not a "locksmith" would be a permitted use in this district; it is the opinion of the staff that a locksmith would be included in the general classification of "hardware". Mrs. Roman~ pointed out that the staff has attempted to designate "general · -2- classifications" rather than a specific use as permitted uses in the B-DD District. Mrs. Romans stated that another issue raised at the meeting of March 22nd was the height of a story or floor-to-floor in multi-story buildings, when an architect suggested that the proposed 12.5 feet was insufficient. The staff has done further research and would recommend that the floor-to-floor distance be increased to 13-1/2 feet, which would bring the total overall height to 190 feet. Mrs. Romans noted that the same number of stories -- 14 maximum --would remain, but by adding the additional foot per floor the total overall height would be increased. Mrs. Romans stated that she believed this covered the major points raised at the meeting of March 22nd, and that unless the Commission had further questions the staff had no additional comments. Mr. Stoel asked about the shadowing of the high-rise buildings; what effect would the increased height have? Mrs. Romans stated that those buildings to the south of West Floyd Avenue would have to set back an additional 15 feet from the property line; the 45° "tent" would still apply to those structures. Mrs. Romans pointed out that mechanical equipment atop roofs is not counted in height restrictions. Mrs. Becker asked if the change in floor-to-floor height would apply to de- velopment in the Commons and the Periphery as well as the Center? Mrs. Romans stated that four stories had been considered as the maximum height in the Commons; this would add only another six feet to the total height of the structures permitted in this area. Ms. Powers questioned the increase of height and the resultant shadows that might be created along the Mall inasmuch as a setback is not required in these areas. She suggested the maximum height in the Commons and the Periphery remain as it is presently proposed. Mr. Venard noted that a question had been raised about the building bulk; he asked if the staff had considered this matter. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has looked at this further, and suggests no change; she pointed out that this is "maximum" size. Mr. Venard asked what provision is made for a use that would be acceptable but is not listed as a permitted use? Mrs. Romans stated that the Ordinance could be amended, an interpretation made, or an appeal made to the Board of Adjustment. Mrs. Romans noted that in the B-1 and B-2 Business Zone Dis- tricts, there is the provision that a use may be allowed if the Commission determines that it is not hazardous or objectionable to nearby property and the surrounding area. Mrs. Romans acknowledged that this "catch-all" is not presently included in the B-DD District. Mr. Venard suggested that this statement should be included. Mrs. Romans asked if the Commission would want the interpretation to be made by the Planning Commission or by the Director of Community Development? Mr. Venard stated that he felt it should be con- sistent with the existing policy. Ms. Powers quoted the exact wording on this provision from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance; she stated that the only concern she would have with in- cluding this provision is that the use would be compatible with the intent of the District. Mrs. Romans suggested that the wording be modified to state that the use should be consistent with the intent of the District and the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. ' • • f • • • -3- Mr. Senti asked if there were further comments or questions from the Com- mission. It was noted that there was no audience present. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #9-83 be closed . . ·AYES: Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Senti, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer The motion carried. Mrs. Becker asked if a special motion was needed to incorporate the change in floor-to-floor height and the statement on uses that are not included as per- mitted into the proposed regulations, or could the Commission recommend it with the suggested changes to be incorporated by staff prior to submission to City Council? It was the consensus that the proposed regulations could be recommended with the changes suggested to be incorporated by the staff, Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend the amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by repealing §22.4-12, B-3, Business, and by adding in place thereof a new §12.4-12, B-DD, Business-Downtown Development District regulations. Mrs. Romans suggested that the "catch-all" statement be worded "Any similar lawful use which, in the opinion of the Commission, would be consistent with the general purpose of this district and with the Downtown Redevleopment Plan." The vote was called: AYES: Venard, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer The motion carried. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING MAP Rezoning from B-1, Business to B-DD, District Becker moved: Barbre seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #8-83 be opened. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Venard NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer The motion carried. CASE #8-83 Mrs. Romans entered into the record the public notice as it appeared in the Englewood Herald Sentinel, and Certification of Posting for all 42 signs which were posted in the downtown area giving notice of the public hearing on the rezoning. -4- Mrs. Becker asked if the purpose of this hearing was to apply the B-DD Dis- trict regulations to a specific area of the Downtown? Mrs. Romans stated that this is the purpose of the Hearing. It was noted that there was no audience present for this Hearing. Becker moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, Stoel, Senti, Tanguma, Venard NAYS: None ABSENT: McBrayer, Allen The motion carried. Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recorrnnend that the Comprehensive Zoning Map be amended by rezoning the following area from B-1, Business, to B-DD District: That portion of the southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 4 South, Range 68 West, and the north half of Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th P. M., of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of the Southwest quarter of said Section 34, said point also being the centerline of South Broadway and Hampden Avenue; thence west along the center- line of West Hampden Avenue to the centerline of the alley east of South Acoma Street extended; thence north along the said centerline of said alley to the centerline of West Floyd Avenue; thence west along the said centerline to the centerline of South Bannock Street; thence north along said centerline to a point on the extended south line of Lot 14, Abbott's Subdivision, Second Filing; thence west along the south line of said Lot 14 and Lot 14 ex- tended to the intersection of the centerline of West Floyd Avenue and the centerline of South Elati Street; thence south along said centerline of South Elati Street to the centerline of U.S. Highway 285; thence east and southeasterly along said centerline to the centerline of South Lincoln Street; thence north along said centerline to its inter- section with the north bank of Little Dry Creek; thence northwesterly along said north bank of Little Dry Creek to the centerline of South Broadway; thence north along said centerline of South Broadway to the point of beginning. Mr. Holland stated that he would like to ask the staff one or two questions. Mr. Holland then asked "is the purpose of this hearing simply to amend the zoning map to, in fact, reflect the Downtown District regulations as shown on the map included in the packets given to Commission members?" Mrs. Romans stated this is correct. Mr. Holland asked if the purpose of the hearing is to change the area now zoned B-1, Business, to B-DD? Mrs. Romans stated • • that a portion of the area presently zoned B-1, Business would be rezoned to B-DD District. Mr. Holland asked if the area to be changed is outlined ~ on the map before the Commission? Mrs. Romans stated that the area is outlined on the map before the Commission. f • • -5- The vote on the motion was called: AYES: Becker, Carson, Stoel, Senti, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: McBrayer, Allen The motion carried. V. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Landscaping Regulations, §22.4D Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #8-82 be opened. AYES: Carson, Stoel, Senti, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: McBrayer, Allen The motion carried. CASE 118-82 Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has a full presentation prepared if the Commission would like to hear it; this proposed ordinance has been reviewed with the Commission on several previous occasions, and if it is the deter- mination of the Commission, only minor changes that have been made will be pointed out. It was noted that there was no audience present for this Hearing. Mr. Senti suggested that only the changes be pointed out and discussed. Mrs. Romans. stated that Mr. McBrayer had expressed concern that the B-DD District was not being addressed in detail in the proposed landscaping ordinance. It has also been the determination of the Commission that the landscaping requirements would not apply to the R-1-A, R-1-B, and R-1-C Districts. In response to these two matters, Mrs. Romans stated that she understood the Landscaping Ordinance would not apply to the construction of new single-family homes, but questioned whether it should apply to the con- struction of churches, schools, and other public buildings in the single- family areas. Mrs. Romans suggested that at the end of §b(l) on page 2, a statement be added that "the minimum landscaping for public buildings, churches, shall comply with the minimum requirements of the R-3 Zone District, §22.4 C2 §§2, and §22.4 d, Parking design requirements. Mrs. Romans noted that the construction of public buildings, churches and/or schools would have an im- pact on a single-family neighborhood and that the landscaping controls should apply to such development. Relative to Mr. McBrayer's concern, Mrs. Romans stated that on Page 3 of the proposed landscaping requirements, B-DD would be added to subsect ion (b). Page 6 (e) was discussed. Mrs. Romans noted that this provision pertaining to screening is contained elsewhere in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and the staff felt that it might be confusing if these regulations are also covered in this ordinance. Mrs. Romans suggested that section (3) on Page 6 be eliminated. -6- On Page 6, (5), the B-DD was eliminated from this section. Mrs. Romans noted that Page 7 of the proposed regulations, §d(3)(c) requires a street tree every 20 linear feet; it is suggested that this ratio be in- creased to one street tree per every 40 linear feet. Mr. Stoel inquired if Page 3 (d) should not be amended by eliminating the Downtown Redevelopment District from this section, inasmuch as it is pro- posed to be added under §(b) of the same page. It was agreed that this change should be made. Mr. Holland stated that he recalled the Commission wanted further clarifica- tion on the proposed Landscape and Fine Art Fund. Mrs. Romans stated that this was correct, and cited changes that have been proposed in this section of the proposed regulations. Mrs. Becker stated that she also recalled the suggestion was made that this fund be administered by the Parks and Recre- ation Department. Mrs. Romans stated that this has been discussed with Parks & Recreation Director Romans. Mr. Holland stated that the administration of the Fund would be better addressed in some other place than in the pro- posed landscaping regulations. Mrs. Romans entered into the record a copy of the public notice of the Public Hearing. Mr. Venard stated that he had problems accepting the concept of the Art Fund and suggested possibly modifying this paragraph to allow the property owner to use the suggested 1% of the value of the construction for art work in his establishment if he so chose. Mr. Venard questioned requiring a property owner to deposit this money into a fund that he cannot control, and felt that possibly the purchase of the art work would satisfy the requirement. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt the funds should be paid into a fund ad- ministered by the City. She felt this would be a more consistent way to deal with the matter, and pointed out that if art work were to be purchased by an individual, the business could be sold and renovated, and the art work removed or changed. Mr. Tanguma stated that if the property owner should renovate property, he would still have to comply with the 1% factor to purchase art of some type. This art work would go with property when it is sold. Any new owner would have to comply with the requirements, also. Mr. Hoiland stated that he understood that a Landscaping and Fine Art Fund is used in other cities, and that the theory is that those who cannot pro- vide required landscaping on their own site are required to contribute to a fund to provide landscaping for the City as a whole. Mr. Stoel stated it was the intent of the ad hoc committee working on the landscaping regulations to make it apply as fairly as possible for new con- struction and those who are doing extensive remodeling. Mr. Stoel stated that he feels the proposed Fund is fair to all. • Mr. Venard stated that he can appreciate the spirit of the proposal, and ~ can agree that a property owner has some responsibility under this ordinance, but does feel that property owners should be given the option of using that 1 % for art work or into improvement of store facades. Mr. Venard stated that he felt this "option" might encourage some of the merchants to go a step further . • f • • -7- Mr. Senti asked if there were further comments? He noted that this matter has been discussed at considerable length on several pervious occasions; this was the solution that we arrived at, and he feels it is the best solu- tion. Tanguma moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: Stoel, Senti, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: McBrayer, Venard The motion carried. Mr. Stoel asked what the procedure is now; is this proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to be recommended to City Council? Mr. Senti stated that the Commission would make a recommendation to City Council. Stoel moved: Becker seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance §22.4D, Landscaping Regulations, including modifications suggested by the staff at this meeting, be approved. Mr. Carson stated that he would vote in opposition to this motion; he does not believe developers coming into the City should be burdened with these regulations, and further it does not apply to all zone districts. Mrs. Becker stated that she is saddened because the proposed regulations do not apply to single-family dwelling units, but would vote in favor of the proposed regulations. She felt this is needed, and would give "teeth" to landscaping requirements that the staff is attempting to enforce. Mr. Stoel stated that he understood Mr. Carson and Mrs. Becker's concerns, but pointed out that there are very few sites that could be developed for single-family units, and he could not see that this was a critical point. He stated that he felt someone trying to build a home should not be burdened with meeting specific requirements. The vote on the motion was called: AYES: Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Barbre, Becker NAYS: Venard, Carson ABSENT: McBrayer, Allen The motion carried. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. It was noted that there was no audience present • VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE. Mr. Hollan4 stated that the legal department is working on a proposed settle-. ment of all cases on the adult book store. This would include the case in -8- the District Court, and the case before the Federal Court. Mr. Holland stated that he could not elaborate on the terms of settlement, but felt they would be favorable to the City. Mr. Holland stated that the case on the Water Tower is proceeding in the Supreme Court; briefs on this case are due on April 21st. Mr. Holland stated that he did not anticipate a decision on this matter before another year and commented that it could be longer before a decision is rendered. VIII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Powers stated that she had reviewed progress of the Commission over the last year, and was pleased to see how many of the "goals" established by the Commission had been completed or were underway. She noted that it really did focus the work program to have deadlines set on the projects, also. Progress on the brochure was discussed. Ms. Powers stated that she under- stood that the City Council was concerned that it might appear the City was endorsing a particular business or agency if the pocket for advertising was included; also, the inclusion of the pocket would have been approximately $5,000 over and above the projected cost of $21,000. Ms. Becker asked if a disclaimer had been considered for inclusion with the "pocket". Ms. Powers stated that she did not know if this had been considered. Ms. Powers stated that the recommended Condominium Conversion Ordinance was transmitted to City Council. There had been some discussion at the Depart- ment Head staff meeting, and concerns were raised about specific elements of the proposed ordinance. Ms. Powers stated that she, also, had some concerns on some of the provisions of the proposed Ordinance, and that she had pre- pared a report to the City Manager covering some of these concerns. Ms. Powers stated that the City Council indicated a willingness to sit down with the Commission in .a study session to discuss the concerns with the proposed Ordinance. Ms. Powers then addressed some of the specific concerns, among them the matter of the $500 application fee, of which $250 would be refunded if the application was not approved. Ms. Powers noted that it is not the policy to refund any application fee or any portion of an application fee if the application is denied; this is not done on rezoning, subdivision or anything else that requires an application fee. She noted that the staff experiences the same work on the application whether it is approved or denied. Mr. Stoel stated that the Commission had initially discussed a $250 application fee; it was felt that it might be better to increase the initial application fee and refund part of it if the application was not approved. Mr. Stoel stated that this "sounded good at the time." Ms. Powers pointed out that some municipalities who do control conversion to condominium units have a fee per unit, which seems that it might be more equitable for the smaller property owner who wants to convert his units. She stated that the staff has no recommendation on a fee per unit at this time, but that the Commission might want to consider this proposal. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt it made sense to not refund any part of the application fee; she also felt it was logical to have a fee based on a per unit rate. Mrs. Becker reiterated that she did not feel any part of the application should be refunded. Mr. Stoel asked if a minimum fee would be recommended if the cost per unit t • • ' ' • • -9- approach was used? Ms, Powers stated that the staff has not had time to research this matter. Mr. Stoel suggested that the charge per unit might be broken down into "ranges" --such as one to ten units, etc. Ms. Powers stated that another concern is the requirement of complying with current codes and not the codes that were in effect at the time the building was constructed. A further matter of concern was the require- ment that the City staff would be responsible for making the inspections to determine compliance with the codes. Ms. Powers stated that the initial proposal was that an outside engineer would be hired to do the inspections and prepare a report on the compliance with the codes. Ms. Powers questioned that City staff would have sufficient time to do this. Mr. Stoel stated that this matter was discussed with the staff regarding this point. Ms. Becker pointed out that Fire Marshal Groditski was the only staff member in attendance at the meeting when this was discussed; Building Department personnel were not in attendance. Ms. Powers stated that Fire Marshal Groditski does not feel that his inspections would be that extensive, and that the Fire Department could do them, Ms. Powers pointed out that inspec- tions for electrical, mechanical and structural would be much more extensive and time consuming. Ms. Powers stated that the staff would suggest that an engineer be hired to do these inspections; the developer would be expected to stand the cost of the inspections. The City inspectors would "spot check" inspections. Mr. Carson stated that fire insurance agencies will do their own inspections. Ms. Powers questioned that they would inspect the same things that the Fire Marshal and the engineer would inspect. Ms. Powers pointed out that City Attorney DeWitt had expressed concern on the liability of the City if the City inspectors were directed to do these inspections. Ms. Powers stated that Mr. DeWitt had cited two recent court cases pertaining to liability due to inspections, and one case was decided in favor of the city, the other decided in favor of the complainant. Dis- cussion ensued. Ms. Powers asked if the Commission wanted a study session with City Council. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt a study session would be helpful. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt the Commission could review these problems so long as the Commission is made aware of the City Council concerns. Mr. Senti agreed with Mr. Stoel. Ms. Powers stated that she would communicate to the City Manager and City Council that the Commission will consider these concerns further, and ask Council to delay consideration until the Commission has completed its delib- erations. Ms. Romans presented Chairman Senti and members with copies of a letter from City Forester Coleen Stowell extending an invitation to attend the Arbor Day presentation of the Tree City USA award to the City of Eng l ewood. Ms. Romans reminded members of the tour of the Waterford Development which i s scheduled for 5:00 P. M. on April 12, 1983. Members of the City Coun cil, Board of Adjustment, and Englewood Housing Authority have also been invited on this tour. Members going on the tour would meet at the marketing of fi c e on the Waterford Site. Mrs. Romans gave the Commission members a copy of a Council resolution wh i ch was presented to Mr. Senti in tribute to his having received the John Christensen award from the Denver Regional Council of Governments. -10- IX. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Carson stated that he and Mrs. Becker had attended the DRCOG Annual Dinner Meeting, and asked that Mrs. Becker make the report on the meeting. Mrs. Becker stated that it was an interesting evening, and that the cities of Englewood and Littleton received an award for upgrading the Bi-City Wastewater Treatment Plant. The speaker for the evening spoke on future trends for the metro area. Mrs. Becker stated that it was very gratifying to see Chairman Senti receive his award. Mrs. Becker reported that she and her husband have contracted for solar water heating to be installed on their home, and stated that she has had an offer from a young man who speaks to groups regarding ordinances for solar access, requirements, etc. to make information on different solar systems available to the Commission. She stated that with the permission of the Commission, she would like to ask the staff to set an evening for the presentation by this gentleman. Mrs. Becker stated that she is looking forward to attending the APA Conference in Seattle, Washington. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt the Commission acted on some really important matters this evening --amending the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to in- corporate the B-DD regulations and amending the Zoning Map to designate part of the B-1 Zone District to the B-DD District, and amending the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to incorporate the Landscaping Regulations. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt all of these matters are really critical. She stated that she has been looking for landscaping regulations for a long time, and is very glad to see this step taken. Mr. Stoel noted that Ms. Powers had mentioned earlier the Commission's goals and how well they have been met; he stated that he felt a lot of credit is due Mrs. Becker and her organization in developing the goals for the Com- mission's concentrated efforts. Mr. Stoel expressed concern that perhaps the Minutes of March 22nd had been approved erroneously. He noted that it is stated in those minutes that Hearing on Case #8-83 was continued; however, the Hearing was opened this evening. He questioned whether the Hearing could be continued with- out being opened, and stated that he felt the Minutes of March 22nd were wrong. Mr. Holland stated that the Minutes were correct, and that he had stated on March 22nd that the Hearing could be continued without being opened at that time. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 P. M. ertrude G •. Welty Recording Secreta y ' ' • • .. -11- ~ MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. • • DATE: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: Becker moved: Carson seconded: April 5, 19 83 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment The Planning Commission recommend the amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by repealing §22.4-12, B-3, Business, and by adding in place thereof a new §12.4-12, B-DD, Business-Downtown Development District regulations. AYES: Venard, Barbre, Carson, Senti, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen, McBrayer The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission -12- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: April 5, 1983 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Zoning Map Amendment RECOMMENDATION: Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission recommend that the Comprehensive Zoning Map be amended by rezoning the following area from B-1, Business, to B-DD District: That portion of the southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 4 South, Range 68 West, and the north half of Section 3, Township 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th P. M., of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of the Southwest quarter of said Section 34, said point also being the centerline of South Broadway and Hampden Avenue; thence west along the center- line of West Hampden Avenue to the centerline of the alley east of South Acoma Street extended; thence north along the said centerline of said alley to the centerline of West Floyd Avenue; thence west along the said centerline to the centerline of South Bannock Street; thence north along said centerline to a point on the extended south line of Lot 14, Abbott's Subdivision, Second Filing; thence west along the south line of said Lot 14 and Lot 14 ex- tended to the intersection of the centerline of West Floyd Avenue and the centerline of South Elati Street; thence south along said centerline of South Elati Street to the centerline of U. S. Highway 285; thence east and south- easterly along said centerline to the centerline of South Lincoln Street; thence north along said centerline to its intersection with the north bank of Little Dry Creek; thence Northwesterly along said north bank of Little Dry Creek to the centerline of South Broadway; thence north along said centerline of South Broadway to the point of beginning. AYES: Becker, Carson, Stoel, Senti, Tanguma, Venard, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: McBrayer, Allen The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. rtrude G. Welty ecording Secretary ' , • • • . ' ' • • -13- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: Stoel moved: Beckej:" seconded: April 5, 1983 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Amendment The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.4D, Landscaping Regulations, be approved. AYES: Senti, Stoel, Tanguma, Barbre, Becker NAYS: Venard, Carson ABSENT: McBrayer, Allen The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission • G, trude G. Welty ecording Secretary