Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-03-17 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MARCH 17, 1981 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Connnission was called to order at 7:05 P. M. by Chairman Judith B. Pierson. Members present: Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer, Draper, Carson, Becker Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: None Also present: Assistant Director D. A. Romans Associate Planner Barbara Young II . APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Pierson stated that the Minutes of March 3, 1981, were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Minutes of March 3, 1981, be approved as written. AYES: Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer, Draper, Carson NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Becker ABSENT: None The motion carried. III. GEORGE B. ADAMS Lots 10 -11, Block 1 Centennial Industrial Park CASE #2-81 Mrs. Pierson stated that this case is a rezoning request for Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park. Tanguma moved : Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #2-81 be opened. AYES: Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer, Draper NAYS: None The motion carried. -2- Mrs. Barbara Young was sworn in, and testified that she is the Associate Planner in the Department of Community Develop-• ment. Mrs. Young stated that public notice of the Public Hearing was given in the Englewood Herald Sentinel on February 25, 1981, and presented a Certification of Posting to the Secretary for the record. Mrs. Young also presented a list of the property owners in the immediate area who have signed a statement indicating they do not object to the rezoning re- quest filed by Mr. George B. Adams. Also presented by Mrs. Young was a letter from the contract purchaser of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park, Mr. Anton Barcewski, indicating the development he proposes to construct on this site if the rezoning is approved. Mrs. Young testified that the rezoning request filed by Mr. Adams is to change the zone classification of Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park Subdivision, from R-1-B, Single-family residence, to I-1, Light Industrial. These two lots are undeveloped, and are part of an area owned by Mr. Adams which was annexed to the City of Englewood in 1960. At the time of annexation, the subject site was zoned R-1-A, Single-family Residential, because of two residential units on the lots immediately to the east of the subject site. The remainder of the area annexed by Ordinance #24 of 1960 was zoned "M-1, Manufacturing", which designation was changed to I-1, Light Industrial, in 1963. The single-family designation on the subject lots was changed from R-1-A, Single-family Residence, to R-1-B, Single-family Residence in 1963, also. Mr. Adams sold the east portion of his property to the City of Englewood in 1969, and this property has been developed as the Centennial Park by the City. Mrs. Young testified that the zoning to the west of South Federal Boulevard is R-1-A, Single-family Residence; there is R-1-B, Single-family Residence zoning immediately to the south of West Union Avenue across the street from the subject site. To the south and east, the property along West Union Avenue is zoned R-2, Medium-Density Residence, and is now being developed as such. There is R-1-C, Single-family Residence zoning to the south of the R-2 development at West Union Avenue and South Decatur Street. Property im- mediately to the north of the subject site was rezoned to R-3, High Density Residence, in 1971, and the remainder of the property to the north and west is zoned I-1, Light Industrial. There is commercial development immediately to the west of the subject site. Mrs. Young stated that the staff recommends that the rezoning request filed by Mr. Adams be denied for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that the original zoning was in error. 2. No significant changes have occurred in the area since the original zoning that would preclude development un- der the present zoning and render the subject property more suitable for industrial use. • • • -3- 3. The character of the neighborhood to the south and immediate east is low-density residential, and the extension of the industrial district would not be compatible with this de- velopment . 4. Other lots in Centennial Industrial Park are zoned for industrial use and are undeveloped. No proof has been presented indicating that there is a need to expand the industrial zoning onto the subject site. Mrs. Pierson asked if there were any questions of Mrs. Young. Mr . Tanguma noted that there is land to the west of South Federal Boulevard which is in Denver, and is zoned for resi- dential purposes . Mrs. Young stated that this was correct. Mrs. Pierson asked if the applicant was present? Mr. H. E. Barrett was sworn in and testified that he represented Mr. George B. Adams, property owner, and the Jim Barrett Realty company which is handling the subject property Mr . Adams has offered for sale. Mr. Barrett stated he felt that the flood of 1965 clearly indicated that this area should have been de- veloped other than residentially. He noted that there have been changes in the area, notably the increase of traffic on West Union Avenue and the installation of two traffic lights in this area. Mr. Barrett testified that he felt that the South Federal Boulevard/West Union Avenue corner lends itself to commercial development, and further testified that he un- derstood people across West Union Avenue to the south are contemplating requesting a business zoning because of the in- creased traffic. Mr . Barrett stated that the two lots to the north of the subject site which are zoned R-3, High Density Residence, were purchased by a group that eventually went bankrupt, and that this site is not desirable for high-rise development . Mr. Barrett pointed out that the property presently zoned for R-3 had been zoned for industrial develop- ment at one time . Mr. Barrett testified that Mr. Anton Barcewski, who has Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park, under contract to purchase, is proposing construction of an office/warehouse development on the eastern portion of the site. Mr. Barrett submitted two pictures he had taken of the site and surrounding deve l opment. Mr. Barrett stated that when he contacted the indi viduals who have signed the petition in support of the rezoning request, most of them who were home signed in favor of the rezoning, and voiced no objections. Mr . McBrayer asked Mr . Barrett the reason for the rezoning request? Mr . Barrett stated that the contract purchaser wants to build an office/warehouse on the site. This will be a con- struction materials warehouse, and . the buyers would come to this location to make their selections of the materials. Mr. McBrayer asked if Mr. Adams also owned the vacant sites -4- on South Federal Boulevard which are zoned for industrial de- velopment. Mr. Barrett stated that Mr. Adams does own those • sites; however, they are not desirable to the contract pur- chaser for his type of business. Mr. McBrayer asked if there would be a storage yard in connection with the office/warehouse operation? Mr. Barrett stated that there would be storage to the west of the office/warehouse de- velopment. Mr. McBrayer asked if the contract purchaser had developed his plans to the point where he had plans for the exterior of the building? Mr. Barrett stated that the plans are not final at this point, and he would not want to represent any plans as being exactly what is proposed to be constructed. Mr. Barrett stated that when the area was originally zoned about 20 years ago, this land should have been included in the I-1, Light Industrial Zone District. Mr. McBrayer asked about the height restriction in an I-1 Zone District? Mrs. Romans stated that the entire property can be covered with a structure one story in height; one-half of the site can be covered with a two-story structure, etc. Parking and loading must be provided by the developers, of course. Mr. Barrett stated that part of the building will be two stories, and would probably be of concrete block with a mansard type roof. Mrs. Pierson asked if Mr. Barrett was familiar with the staff report. Mr. Barrett indicated that he is. Mrs. Pierson stated that the Planning Commission does have criteria to follow in considering requests for rezoning, one of which is whether or not an error was made in the original zoning. She asked if Mr. Barrett is contending that an error was made in the zoning of this site? Mr. Barrett stated that he does contend an error was made in the zoning of the site. Mrs. Pierson stated that another point of the criteria to be considered by the Commission is whether there have been sig- nificant changes in the area to warrant a rezoning. She noted that the staff analysis points out that the only changes that have occurred would lessen the applicability of additional in- dustrial zoning; there is further residential development oc- curring in the area at the present time. Mr. Barrett pointed out the fact of the Colorado Disposal development and the storage of their large trucks to the east of this area, as well as other industrial uses of considerable intensity. Mrs. Pierson stated that a third point that must be considered by the Commission is whether the property owner is denied the use of his property by the existing zone classification. Mr. • Barrett stated that the property could not be used for the purpose which the contract purchaser wants under the existing zoning. • • • -5- Mr. Draper asked if he had understood correctly that the in- dustrially zoned property on South Federal Boulevard was un- acceptable because of the volume of traffic? Mr. Barrett stated that the contract purchaser did not want the property on South Federal Boulevard because of the volume of traffic. Mr. Draper pointed out that if the rezoning were to be approved and the industrial development allowed on the north side of West Union Avenue, this would impose industrial traffic on West Union Avenue right across from the residential development on the south side of West Union Avenue. Mrs. Pierson asked if there was any reason the property could not be developed under the existing zoning? Mr. Barrett stated that he did not believe that it would be developed. Mrs. Pierson pointed out that there are five undeveloped lots along South Federal Boulevard; she asked why the applicant felt there is a need and demand to enlarge the industrial area. Mr. Barrett reiterated that Mr. Barcewski did not want any of the lots along South Federal Boulevard; he does have a contract to purchase Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park and he felt that if the zoning is approved, these lots would be developed. Mrs. Pierson asked if anyone else in the audience wanted to ask questions of Mr . Barrett, or to address the Coilllilission? Dr. Fred Schrader 2911 South Franklin Street -asked what is directly to the east of the site proposed for rezoning at the present time, and where the individuals lived who supported the request. Dr. Schrader stated that he wanted "hard figures"; what number of people along Union Avenue were in support of the rezoning request? Mr. Barrett stated that iilllilediately to the east of Lots 10 and 11 are two houses that are owned by Mr. George Adams; the Centennial Park is to the east and north of this. Mrs. Pierson asked Dr. Schrader if he had an interest in this matter before the Coilllilission. Dr. Schrader stated that he is neutral, but would tend to regard this request negatively; he stated that it looks like a residential area is being threatened by the encroachment of industrial zoning and development. He asked what type of industrial development is proposed, and what impact the traffic would have? Mrs. Pierson stated that it would be difficult to "blend" the traffic from the industrial development into the residential neighborhood. Dr. Schrader asked why the application wasn't extended to the east to tie into the industrial zoning to the east? Mrs. Pierson stated that the applicant had applied for rezoning for only Lots 10 and 11 of Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park Sub- division. Mrs . Pierson asked if anyone else wished to address the Com- mission ? No one else addressed the Coilllilission regarding the rezoning. -6- Mrs. Pierson asked if there were further questions from the Corrnnission? Mr. McBrayer asked the timing of development in the event the rezoning were to be approved? Mr. Barrett stated that develop- ment would begin as soon as the zoning was approved. Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #2-81 be closed. AYES: Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson, McBrayer NAYS: None The motion carried. Discussion followed. Becker moved: Carson seconded: That the request filed by Mr. George B. Adams to rezone Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park Subdivision from R-1-B, Single-family Residence, to I-1, Light Industrial, not be referred to City Council with a favorable recorrnnendation for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that the original zoning was in error. 2. No significant changes have occurred in the area since the original zoning that would preclude development un- der the present zoning and render the subject property more suitable for industrial use. 3. The character of the neighborhood to the south and im- mediate east is low-density residential, and the extension of the industrial district would not be compatible with this development. 4. Other lots in Centennial Industrial Park are zoned for industrial use and are undeveloped. No proof has been presented indicating that there is a need to expand the industrial zoning onto the subject site. Mrs. Becker stated that this request does not comprise a full city block nor does it complete a full city block, which is one of the criteria the Corrnnission must consider. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt this request for industrial zoning, if granted, would infringe on the residential area, and she would vote to deny the request. Mr. Tanguma stated that he also would vote to deny the request. Mr. Tanguma stated that he had received some telephone calls from people who live in the area to the south, asking that he consider denial of the request because they were afraid of the industrial encroachment into the residential area. Mr. Tanguma stated that upon reading the petition circulated by Mr. Barrett, ' • • • • -7- it does not really set forth what was proposed for develop- ment on this site; he stated that had this been done, he did not feel there would have been as much support for the request. Mrs. Pierson stated that she would also vote for denial of the request. In reviewing the criteria that the Commission must consider, she did not feel that the testimony of the ap- plicant was compelling on any one point, even though he did address the points . Mrs. Pierson asked that the Department of Community Development analysis be made a part of the record of this Hearing. Mr. McBrayer stated that the existing zone classification on the north side of West Union Avenue does not comprise an en- tire block, so he didn't feel that this was a basis on which to recommend denial. The site is contiguous to I-1 zoning which is one of the criteria the Commission must consider. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the proposed development is of very "light" industrial nature, and would have the appearance of a light office building from the street. Mr. McBrayer stated that from the pictures he saw of the site, he would pref er to look into a nice office/warehouse building than the dirt lot if he lived across the street. He stated that he felt the R-1 development on this site is very unlikely, with the filling station on the West Union Avenue/South Federal Boulevard corner, and the industrial zoned lots along South Federal Boulevard. The vote on the motion was called: AYES: NAYS: Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson McBrayer The motion carried. Mr. Draper stated that he felt one point that might be con- sidered further is the possibility that the industrially zoned lots along South Federal Boulevard were incorrectly zoned and should be reclassified . IV. DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PLAN Mrs. Pierson stated that Mr. Don Ensign of Design Workshop, Inc., was present. She stated that members of the Parks and Recreation Commission were invited to attend this meeting to hear Mr. Ensign 's presentation of the progress on the downtown plan. Mr. Ensign stated that he would be making a "progress" report at this point in time. He stated that Design Workshop began discussions on this project approximately eight months ago, and that a great deal of community effort, time and money has been spent in trying to determine the proper course to follow in the downtown area. Mr. Ensign stated that there is a three party agreement between the City of Englewood, the Downtown Development Authority and Brady Enterprises to fund the study of the downtown area, and to execute the plan. Mr. Ensign out- lined the study area boundaries, and noted that with the ex- -8- ception of the City Hall property on South Elati Street, the area is all zoned B-1, Business. Mr . Ensign then reviewed the phases of the study, which are the Physical Inventory, or gathering of information; the Market Analysis, which is under- way, and the Objectives, which is an on-going process. Mr . Ensign stated that the consultants are to present a progress report to the City Council at a study session on March 30th. Following completion of the first phase of the plan, they are to prepare several alternate plans for the entire area. Mr. Ensign stated that he is presently talking to the property owners and businessmen in the downtown area so that they are not sur- prised by the alternatives that the consultants come up with. Mr. Ensign stated that numerous projects have been identified, and that a memorandum will be prepared addressing each of those projects. Some of the matters which they will be dealing with include: the Broadway corridor, City Hall, Little Dry Creek Floodway, the Transit Station for RTD, Phase I of office building (Brady), a hotel, the Skerritt Park at Hampden and Broadway, a pedestrian mall, parking for entire downtown area; Phase II of the office building, road and intersection improve- ments, the Continental National Bank property, Holthaus' property, Equitable property, and the Graham property, the connection between the downtown area and Cinderella City, and whatever other projects are considered in the course of dis- cussions. Mr. Ensign emphasized that the program alternatives are to be prepared by June 1st. Mr. Ensign discussed the transportation study; this is based on very preliminary figures of 1.5 to 2 million square feet of floor area in the entire development area. Mr. Ensign stated that there is approximately 300,000 to 400,000 square feet of floor area in the downtown development area at the present time. The impact on the roads and transportation system of this increase in floor area would be enormous, and they need to know what will happen with Hampden, Broadway, and other main corridors. Mr. Ensign stated that the consultants will, following collection of all of the preliminary data, develop an action strategy, and refine and enlarge the program. Dr. Schrader asked if th.ere was one developer who will manage this whole development? Mr. Ensign stated that there is one developer who had agreed to help fund this study, and has an agreement with the First National Bank to develop a large part of their property. Dr. Schrader asked who would be the coordinator on this project? Mr. Ensign stated that the Downtown Development Authority, which Board is appointed by the City Council, would act in that capacity. Mr. Ensign stated that there will be public projects as well as private projects, and the intent is to achieve a combination of public/private efforts in the overall program. Dr. Schrader asked who would be in charge of this? Mrs. Pierson pointed out that final determination on any project will have to come before the City Planning and Zoning Com- mission and the City Council. • • • • -9- Mr. Ensign displayed several schematics of the downtown de- velopment program elements. Mr. Ensign stated that one of the objectives is to find a way to connect the Broadway down- town business district with the Cinderella City area; a pedestrian mall along West Girard Avenue has been considered. Mr. Ensign stated that he did not know whether vehicles could be eliminated along Girard Avenue or not, but the intent is that this would be basically a pedestrian-oriented mall. He stated that it is apparent that people want to keep the "small town" atmosphere along Broadway; they are considering lower- profile buildings along the mall, with higher buildings back from the mall and access to parking areas on the periphery. Discussion ensued . Mr. Tanguma asked why the study does not encompass that area down to Ithaca Avenue? Mr. Ensign stated that he understood one of the problems experienced in a previous study of this area was concern that residential neighborhoods would be eliminated; he stated they have tried to stay away from that aspect, but did acknowledge that development of a one-way couplet on U.S. 285/West Ithaca Avenue may be necessary. He stated that the consultants may have to look beyond the bounds of the study area on some of the projects. Mr. Ensign displayed a cross-section of the proposed Girard Avenue Mall; he stated they would propose commercial use on the ground floor level, with offices on the second stories and above. There would be service corridors from the peripheral parking areas to the mall. Mrs. Becker stated that it appears from these plans that most of the parking proposed is above-ground . Mr. Ensign stated that unless there are flood control measures on Little Dry Creek , there may not be any parking underground. Discussion ensued. Mr . Ensign discussed the proposed walk-through in the 3400 block of South Broadway; he stated that he felt the walk- through must be developed to provide access from the businesses to the east of South Broadway to those businesses on Broadway and to the west. Mr . Ensign displayed a schematic plan with potential locations of a new City Hall superimposed. Mr. Ensign stated that one proposal is to retain the existing location, and increase the height of the existing structure; another proposal is to re- locate the City Hall to an area to the east of South Broadway. Mr. Ensign stated that other possibilities are to build a new City Hall and either lease out office space for the area not needed by the City , or to condominiumize the structure and sell space, or if the building would be developed privately, purchase the space for City Hall . Mrs. Pierson asked that the Planning Commission be notified of the confirmed date and time of the meeting with City Council, EDDA, and the consultants. -10- Mr. Ensign discussed the impact that Cinderella City has had • on the Broadway colillllercial area; he stated that until the present time, possibly there was not the market to support both the Broadway business area and Cinderella City center. Mr. Ensign stated that the present trend is for increased density, and in fact the entire Denver metro area has increased in population. Access to properties has improved or is pro- posed to be improved; he stated that he felt there is potential in this downtown area to support the type of development that is proposed. Mr. Ensign pointed out that what is being pro- posed will not appeal just to the local Englewood resident , but will be of regional appeal. Mr. Ensign stated that he felt one of the good indicators of a vital business area in the Englewood downtown area is the price of land; he stated that land costs have continually risen. Mr. Tanguma asked how this concept would be marketed to de- velopers? Mr. Ensign stated that there were a couple of ways to do projects like this; an Urban Renewal Authority could buy up land and install the water, sewer and other public pro- jects, and offer the land for sale to private developers. Mr. Ensign stated that there are clearly public projects and private projects; the hope is that the redevelopment will be a cooperative effort between the public and private sectors. Dr. Schrader asked if the Downtown Development Authority could condemn land? Ms. Powers stated that it cannot. Mr. Ensign stated that he did not think there would be condemnation of property on this project. Dr. Schrader asked if the city would have an Urban Renewal Authority? Ms. Powers stated that the City does have an Urban Renewal agency but there was no discussion of using this agency; rather the Downtown Development Authority is involved. She stated that the Downtown Development Authority was appointed by the City Council; the members are downtown businessmen and property owners. Ms. Powers stated that the EDDA must come back to the City Council for approval on projects. Ms. Powers pointed out that there has been a private developer involved in the Downtown Plan from the beginning; Mr. Bud Brady of Brady Enterprises does represent a large land owner; and possibly other landowners as well. This close working relationship of this developer to other members of the EDDA and Management Team will help in his development of the properties he has an interest in; he will also have a voice in determining the direction of the redevelopment proposals for the downtown area. He will be able to give input from the viewpoint of the private developer. Mr. Ensign stated that the Downtown Development Authority has the power to buy land, plan projects, develop projects, and • to manage those projects; they do not have the power of condemna- tion. The EDDA is funded by a special assessment district, with a 5 mill levy. • • -11- Ms. Powers emphasized that any plan that comes out of this planning process must go through the Planning Commission and City Council for approval. Mr. Tanguma asked what plans are being developed to sell the phases of the development plan to different developers? Ms. Powers pointed out that Brady Enterprises is working closely with the Management Team now, and that Mr. Brady is moving ahead on the designs for development of the property in which he has an interest. Ms. Powers reiterated that other private developers will be encouraged to become involved, but they will have to obtain their own financing. Ms. Powers stated that the Team must sell the need for the public improvements to support the private developments. Mrs. Frances Howard asked where public input into this program was solicited? Mr. Ensign stated that several public meetings have been scheduled for presentations of the plan. Ms. Powers stated that the alternatives which will be developed will be discussed in early June. Mr. Ensign stated there will be a series of four meetings after that and the alternatives will be refined from the input received in these four meetings. The need for a good on-going public relations campaign was discussed. Ms. Powers stated that press releases will be issued periodically, and that one was sent out last week; there will be a speakers bureau formed, and there is a list of several organizations where presentations will be made once the Plan is defined. Further discussion ensued. Mrs. Pierson again asked that the Commission be notified of the confirmed date for the meeting with City Council so that as many members of the Planning Commission can attend as possible. Ms. Powers stated that the Commission would be called, and that the meeting would probably be on March 30th. V. PUBLIC FORUM . Mrs. Pierson acknowledged Mrs. Frances Howard of the Parks and Recreation Commission, and Dr. and Mrs . Schrader, who were in attendance. Mrs. Pierson stated that she had met with Ms. Powers, Mrs . Howard and Mrs. Allen of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Packy Romans of the Parks and Recreation Department, and Dorothy Romans regarding the need for a closer liaison between the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning and Zoning Commission. She asked Mrs. Howard to report on the meeting . Mrs . Howard stated that there is a strong need for better coordination between the Parks & Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission, and the possibility of having a joint representative who would sit.on both Commissions was suggested at this meeting. Mrs. Howard stated that there are many items which are of interest to both Commissions, such as the recent bicycle trail system study done by the Planning Commission. She suggested that at the very least, agendas -12- of the meetings should be exchanged . Mrs. Pierson stated that the possibility of a Charter change or an Ordinance to allow for an individual to sit on both Commissions was dis- cussed. The possibility of a meeting between the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission was also dis- cussed, and a tentative date of April 28th at 5:00 P.M . was scheduled. Alternative dates of May 5th and May 19th were suggested; Mrs. Howard stated that she would discuss these three dates with other members of the Parks Commission and report back to Mrs. Pierson. Mr. McBrayer stated that he had also discussed this with Mrs. Howard, and felt that the Planning Commission also needed a liaison member on the Board of Adjustment and Appeals . The possibility of having a "non-voting ex-officio" representative sit in on the meetings was considered. Mrs. Howard stated that unless someone has a great interest in a particular item on the agenda, they would be apt not to show up if they were a non- voting member. Further discussion ensued. Mrs . Howard stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission and Department are in the process of revamping the ordinance creating the Parks and Recreation Commission to bring it up-to-date. The Ordinance will have to be approved by the City Council, but this will not require a charter change. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt the meetings of one Commission with another and with the City Council are very useful; she suggested that the possibility of having one member sit on both the Parks and Recreation Commission and on the Planning Commission be an item on the agenda for the meeting between these two commissions. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Ms. Powers reported that Prowswood did obtain a foundation permit, and that she anticipated they would begin construction shortly. Ms. Powers reported that Planning Assistant Susan King was sent to Colorado Springs to sit in on the Court Hearing on the Colorado Springs case regarding the adult entertainment businesses. The Hearing was cancelled and reset for sometime in May. Ms. Powers stated that the City Attorney is still working towards the six-month time deadline to have a per- manent ordinance enacted. Ms. Powers reported that a Neighborhood Attitude Survey will be taken in a couple of areas of the City by the Planning Division. It is hoped that information on the impact of commercial uses on the adjacent residential neighborhood may be determined from these surveys. • Ms. Powers stated that the closing on the elderly mid-rise • project occurred last Monda y; they hope to begin construction by late April on these 100 units. • • • -13- VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE . Mrs. Pierson stated that she has received a communication from the City Council that the request of the Planning Commission for approval to send two Commission members to Boston for the APA Conference was denied. Mr. Tanguma stated that he would not be present at a special meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission if it is scheduled for April 28th, because he will be in Boston at the APA Conference . Mrs. Pierson stated that she had received a notice of the Second Annual Main Street Conference which is to be held March 26th and 27th in Manitou Springs. Ms. Powers stated that she plans to attend this conference. Discussion ensued. Ms. Powers stated that she understood a number of members of the Downtown Development Authority would be attending this conference. It was suggested that perhaps the staff could poll the Com- mission members to determine who wanted to attend. Mrs. Becker stated that she would not be able to go; Messrs. Tanguma, Draper, and Senti also indicated they could not attend. Mr. McBrayer noted that he saw a sod and nursery stock truck and asked that the staff contact Swedish Medical Center re- garding the landscaping on their parking lots inasmuch as landscaping work is being done at this time. He expressed the opinion that the landscaping work could have been done at any time during this past winter because of the weather. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would like to thank everyone on the staff who worked on the bicycle trail system . He noted that the first phase of the bicycle trail system was passed by City Council at their meeting of March 16, 1981. Mr. Draper excused himself from the meeting. Mrs . Becker expressed her disappointment that Eco-Cycle has ceased operation. She stated that she felt Englewood and Littleton needed this use, and that if there was a way to get another recycling plant into operation, every effort should be made to support such a plant. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 P. M . -14- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: March 17, 1981 SUBJECT: ACTION: Becker moved: Rezoning Request on Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park Subdivision. Carson seconded: That the request filed by Mr. George B. Adams to rezone Lots 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park Subdivision from R-1-B, Single-family Residence, to I-1, Light Industrial, not be referred to City Council with a favorable reconnnendation for the following reasons: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated that the original zoning was in error. 2. No significant changes have occurred in the area since the original zoning that would preclude development un- der the present zoning and render the subject property more suitable for industrial use. 3. The character of the neighborhood to the south and im- mediate east is low-density residential, and the extension of the industrial district would not be compatible with this development. 4. Other lots in Centennial Industrial Park are zoned for industrial use and are undeveloped. No proof has been presented indicating that there is a need to expand the industrial zoning onto the subject site. AYES: Draper, Carson, Becker, Barbre, Tanguma, Senti, Pierson NAYS: McBrayer The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Connnission. • •