Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-04-27 (Special) Meeting Minutes [1]SPECIAL MEETING: COURCIL CHAMBERS CITY or ERCLEWOOD, COLORADO April 27, 1981 The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in apecial ••••ion on April 27, 1981 1, at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Otis, preaiding, called the meeting to order. The invocation waa given by Council Member Thomas Fitzpatrick. The pledge of allegiance wae led by Boy Scout Troop 192. Mayor Otis aaked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were preaent: Council Member• Hifday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena ', Bilo, Bradshaw, Ot •· Absent: None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were: City Manager Mccown Assistant City Manager Wanush City Attorney DeWitt Assistant City Attorney Holland Director of Comnunity Development Powers Assistant Director of Community Development Romans Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING AN APPEAL FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COM- MISSION DECISION ON REZONING REQUEST -CASE 12-81 -MR. GEORGE B. ADAMS. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted ae follows: Ayes: Haye: Council Member• Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick1, Keena, Bilo, Brade&aw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. April 27, 1981 Page 2 Aaaiatant Director of Conaunity Development Dorothy Romana, 3600 South Bannock, Apt. 204, appeared before Council and provided testimony to the case. Ma. Romana submitted the certification of posting and publisher's affidavit of the no- tice publiahed in the newspaper. Ma. Romana further submitted docWDenta which provided background information for the rezoning request of Lota 10 and 11, Block 1, Centennial Industrial Park fr011 R-1-B, Single-family Residence, to I-1 Light Industrial. The application was filed by Mr. George B. Adams, owner of the property. Ma. Romana submitted the original petition that was submitted to the Planning Co1111iaaion. The petition was signed by property owners in the area in favor of rezoning subject property. Ma. Romana reported the Planninf Co1111ission decided not reco1111end the rezoning to City Counci because of the fol- lowing reasons: 1. No evidence waa preaented that proved the origi- nal zoning was in error. 2. No evidence was preaented that there had been chant•• in the area which precluded the use of the and under the present zoning. 3. No evidence waa presented that the property owner was being denied the uae of his property under the present zoning. * * * * * * Mr. Harold Barrett, attorney representing the applicant George B. Adame, appeared before Council and offered testimon~ re- levant to the hearing. Mr. Barrett stated this case was similar to a previous caae of Mr. Rex Garrett's, Case No. 6-77 of 1415 West Tufte. The similarity being a rezoning request from resi- dential to light industrial. Mr. Barrett stated the difference between the two caaea was that an industrial area already existed acroaa the atreet in Mr. Adama'a caae and there was no objection by reaidenta. Mr. Barrett submitted a rendering of the structure planned for the area and noted a correction from what was said at the Planning Co1111iaaion hearing. Mr. Barrett stated there would not be outaide atorage. Mr. Barrett'• counter reasons for the Co1111ission's denial reco1m1endationa were: April 27, 1981 Page 3 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The area is above the 100 foot plain and not subject to diaaater from a flood. The original zoning was an educated guess. The change in living and econo- mics point• up that from time to time further change in zoning is necessary. Change• have taken place on the south side of Union both co11111ercially and industrially. Banks are not interested in loaning money for construction of houaes in thia area. Mr. Barrett aubmitted a letter from Mr. Michael F. Everett, Real Eatate Department, Littleton Rational Bank, recomaending that some type of co11111ercial development be considered for subject area. Mr. Barrett aubmitted a letter from J. D. Myers~ Senior Vice Preaident, United Bank of Littleton', reco .. ending that the beat uae of subject pro- perty would be light induatrial. Mr. Barrett stated the present zoning will pre- clude an orderly development of the property and no houaing of any kind would be conaidered. The property waa not an aaaet to the City sitting idle. Mr. Barrett atated the change in traffic and the altering attitude of houaing units tend to favor a co-ercial nature of induatrial development', e.g. inaurance office, doctor•, dentists, etc. The houaea on the eaat belong to Mr. Adams, the applicant, who doe• not thini the change would adveraely affect the area. The aurrounding lot• are induatrial; therefore', compatible to the propoaed rezoning. Lota 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the north through which the Brown Ditch run• are not of much use for construction until the ditch i• vacated. Thia area would not be conducive to houaing development. 10. Induatrial development would strengthen the tax baae. * * * * * * April 27, 1981 Page 4 Council Member Neal diecueeed the Rex Garrett case not- ing the land wae never develofed. Mr. Neal asked what assurance could be given that Mr. Adame • land would be developed. Mr. Barrett aeked Mr. Anton Barchesky, to appear before Council. Anton Barcheeky, 5124 W. Fair Avenue, Littleton, appeared and teetified that he waa propoaing to build on subject property. Mr. Barcheeky atated he would atart conatruction within six months and had hie own financing. In reeponae to Council Member Neal'• question, Ms. Romans stated there wae nothing in the Code which required development of the land if the change were made. Ma. Romana stated Mr. Adame had a firm contract with plane to proceed; however, it would not be anything that the City could control. In reaponae to Council Member Keena'• queetion, Mr. Barrett etated the homea to the eouth of eubJect property were reeidencee. In reaponae to Council Member Bilo'• queetion, Mr. Barrett atated Mr. Adame haa inveatigated other poaeible areas in Englewood for thia kind of development. The only other land belonged to Mr. Rex Garrett. The property was not platted 1, and needed to have a atreet cut through it. The area was so large, Mr. Adame diacounted thia poeeibility. City Manager Mccown aaked Mr. Barrett if the petition eignere knew exactly what they were eigning. That they were being given a choice aa to whether or not they were for I-1 zoning or were they being given a choice ae to the particular development as propoaed. Mr. Barrett etated the property owners were ·given the underetanding that there would be an office warehouae built on the property with induatrial zoning. George B. Adame, applicant, appeared before Council and provided testimony. Mr. Adame atated he went personally to each property owner, ahowed them a picture of the structure and told them what waa being planned. In reeponae to Council Member Higday'a question, Mr. Adame etated he did not care that warehouee office space would be built aero•• from hie houae. Council Member Neal aaked Mr. Adame if the bill of aale provided for a contingency that the buyer• have to build a particular building. April 27, 1981 Page 5 Mr. Adame stated the buyer two lots and put down earnest money. a signed contract with Mr. Barcheaky ject to zoning. had already bought the Mr. Adame stated he had to purchase the land sub- * * * * * * Mr. Barrett fave closing remarks in that housing was aging throughout the d strict. The area had changed to a more functional zoning; and in the new aubdiviaiona, none of the houses faced a busy thoroughfare. The traffic control lights placed on South Santa Fe had enhanced it a great deal for cir- culation of traffic and encouraged the area to grow in a more coanercial and industrial nature. Mr. Barrett asked that Coun- cil grant this rezoning request. * * * * * * Mayor Otis asked if there was anyone in the audience wishing to speak either in favor or against the rezoning request. No one responded. * * * * * * Council Member Keena asked for an opinion from the City Attorney concerning any possibility of conflict of interests on her part since ahe was related to the property owners of Lot 13 and part of Lot 14. She stated ahe had not spoken to her rela- tives about this case. City Attorney DeWitt stated there should not be a legal problem. * * * * * * In response to Council Member Higday'a question, Ms. Romane provided information in regard to the staff report. Ms. Romana stated baaed upon the information with the two present houaea, it waa the staff's opinion that detached houaea could be built to the west or some type of housing that would be a buffer between the present houses and the development on Federal Boulevard. The position vaa to protect the present two houses. Council Member Higday diacuaaed rezoning the area R-3 and noted that Council could initiate rezoning on its own. * * * * * * There were no further comnents. * * * * * * April 27, 1981 Page 6 COUNCIL MEMBER BILO ll>VED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Neal aeconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote reeulted •• follow•: Ayea: Nays: Council Member• Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick', Keena, Bilo, Bradehaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * Mayor Otis stated Council would discuss the matter further in a study session prior to making a decision on the request. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting at 8:13 p.m.