Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-09-14 (Special) Meeting MinutesSPECIAL MEETING: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OP EMGLIWOOD, COLORADO Sept .. ber 14, 1981 The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in special aeaaion on September 14, 1981, at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order. The invocation waa fiven by Council Member Fitzpatrick. The pledge of allegiance waa ed by Mayor Otis. Mayor Otia aaked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Me•bera Hifday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradahaw, Ot •· Absent: None. The Mayor declared a quortm preaent. * * * * * * Aleo preaent were: City Manager Mccown Aaaiatant City Manager Wanuah City Attorney DeWitt Director of Community Development Power a Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Me•ber Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote reaulted as follows: Ayea: Naya: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. nie Mayor declared the motion carried. Mayor Otis stated the purpose of the public hearing was to allow the owners of the aaaeaaed properties to speak to Council about the propoaed aaaeaaments. * * * * * * Sept .. ber 14, 1981 Page 2 Suaan Powere, Director of eo .. unity Development, ap- peared before Council and pre•ented the special i•provement dis- trict incluaive of hiatorical background. Me. Power• atated the I preaent plan include• a parking lot to acco .. odate 134 apacea and a walk-through over to South Broadway. The coat of project is to be funded by contribution• fro• the City, the Englewood Down- town Development Authority, and asseas•enta of properties within the defined district. * * * * * * Rick Kalua, Office Engineer, appeared before Council and explained the •ethod of co•puting the assesa•enta. Mr. tcahm stated the information wa• duplicated in written form in packets which were available at the front of the room. Mr. Kahm stated the dis- trict waa divided into a two zone• -pri•ary and secondary. The project conaiated of a parking lot to be aaeesaed on a parking deficiency ba•i• and a walk-through to be assessed on a square footage baaia of land owned. Mr. Kahm presented the project coats for both the parking lot and the walk-through as $675,427.31 of which the City would contribute $219,559.54, the Englewood Down- town Development would contribute $96,000.00, and the property aaaea .. enta would contribute $359,867.77. Mr. tcahm stated the City and EDDA picked up the property aaaeasments of those assess- •enta in exc••• of $40,000, in other words no assessment would exceed $40,000. Mr. Kalua noted an error that was made in one aaaea .. ent for which the City picked up the difference. * * * * * * Ma. Power• appeared before Council. She defined a deficient parkinl apace aa the difference between what would be required if the nflevood Zoning Ordinance standards were applied and what waa actua ly provided on the site right now when the property i• owned by the aame owner as the building. Parking apace• were only counted if they were on the same property or were within 400 feet of the property and owned by the same per- aon. lo credit• were given to a property owner who was leasing •pace for parking ••inly because that was a situation that could be ended at any ti••· Property owners were given credit for umaarked lot• if a lot waa properly graded and approved by the I City lngineer. Ma. Power• stated in buildings with more than one uae auch aa ahared office apace, the aquare footage of the C09llOll area waa not counted into the total square footage when the parking require•ent waa figured becauae this benefited more than one buainess and it waa felt to be unfair to apply the atandard to all the buainessea within it. * * * * * * September 14, 1981 Page 3 Mayor Oti• noted the receipt of aeven letters of pro- teat. COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO ENTER INTO THE RE- CORD THE LETl"EllS OF PROTEST. Council Member Bilo seconded the •otion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted aa follows: Ayes: Maya: Council Member• Higday, Heal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Rone. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * Mayor Otis aaked for ce>1111enta from the audience. Mayor Otis stated any queationa that could be anawered would be; other- wise a letter of reply would be sent out later. David Peters, 7878 Wadaworth, Arvada, appeared before Council. Mr. Peters stated he was a co .. ercial real estate broker appearing on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Scott, owners of 3458 -70 South Lincoln. Mr. Peter• atated the Scotts were protesting the aaaea .. ent becauae their property would not benefit from the park- ing lot. Their property waa on the east side of Lincoln Street. They owned and operated an apartment building and the tenants were between 61 and 62 years of age. Lesa than half of the ten- ants owned care and would uae the parking lot behind on private property. The walk-through would not benefit the property owner either because moat of the tenants would walk to the corner leas than 40 feet away. Mr. Peters stated 1 1/2 spaces did not seem necessary. The coats would have been better served if paid out of general monies rather than special aaaeaamenta. Mr. Peters stated it vaa unusual to him that an aaaeaaaent is computed before project co•pletion. Mr. Peters stated there was apace available to juatify additional care (compact care) which would reduce the deficient parking aaaeaament for the Scotts. * * * * * * Jon F. Sanda, attorney for ·Tracy Laignelot, appeared before Council. Mr. Sanda stated Tracy Laignelot was the owner of 7-9-11 West Hampden. Mr. Sanda asked hie first witness to come forward. Jack Fruran, 6475 Brentwood, Arvada, appeared before Council. Mr. Fruran atated he was Chief Appraiser for Capital September 14, 1981 Page 4 Federal Savings. Under questioning from Mr. Sanda, Mr. Fruran testified that he was familiar with the property. He identified a letter dated November 19, 1980 addre••ed to Pat Gill who waa I a joint tenant with Ma. Laignelot. Mr. Fruran •tated the letter e•timatea the market value of 11 West Hampden aa $232,000 as of November 19, 1980. Mr. Fruran stated baaed upon hie experience aa a real e•tate appraiser, it wa• hie opinion that Ma. Laignelot's property would not be more valuable after the development of the parking lot. Mr. Sands called his next witness. Glenn Novinger, 728 York Street, Denver, appeared be- fore Council. Under questioning from Mr. Sanda, Mr. Novinger te•tified he wa• familiar with the subject area. Mr. Novinger •tated he ha• been working on the sale of property at 11 West Hampden. Mr. Novinger stated it waa hie opinion that the loca- tion value did not appear to have increased with the improve- ments proposed. Mr. Novinger stated M•. Laignelot leaaed park- ing acroaa the street. Under que•tioning from City Attorney DeWitt, Mr. Novinger an•wered affirmatively that a neighborhood in which a property is located haa a significant effect on property value. Mr. DeWitt a•ked if an increa•e in the foot traffic in this area would in- crea•e the value of the property. Mr. Novinger replied that foot traffic ha• an effect on the value of property. Mr. Sands called hie next witness. Tracy Laignelot, 3275 South Marion, appeared before Council. Under questioning from Mr. Sanda, Ma. Laignelot stated her qualification• aa a profeaaional real eatate agent. She stated abe waa the sole owner of 7 -11 West Hampden. Ma. Laignelot •tated the property is of mixed uae -office and residential. She had not received complaints about not enough parking in the area. Most of her tenants do not have cars. M•. Laignelot stated ahe currently rent• four parking spaces from Key Savings. She stated the improvement• to the parking lot would not in- crea•e the value of her property. Mr. Sand• gave closing remarks. Mr. Sanda stated the aaaeaamenta were made on zoning lava and were unconstitutional. 'lbe Colorado Supreme Court baa stated aaseaamenta can be upheld if they are baaed upon a direct benefit -a special benefit of the property being aaae•sed. Mr. Sanda stated Ma. Laignelot'• aaaeaament waa not baaed on direct benefit. • • • • • • Sept .. ber 14, 1981 Page 5 Fred Kaufman, 2800 South Broadway, appeared before Council. Mr. Kaufman teatified he waa the owner of Kaufman's Men'• Wear, 3395 South Broadway. Mr. Kaufman stated he was a former chairman of the Englewood Downtown Development Dis- trict and was instrumental in setting up the parking lot. Mr. Kaufman stated the community waa surveyed on what was moat needed in downtown Englewood. 'lbe co11111Unity'• reply was park- ing. * * * * * * Fred Dransfeldt, Box 16, Parker, appeared before Council. Mr. Dranafeldt stated his assessment was excessive and unreasonable. Mr. Dransfeldt stated the only fair method would be to aaaeas square footage of the property owned dia- regard ing the parking lot. Mr. Dranafeldt stated the building waa built in 1922 and parking waa not a problem then. He felt Council could not enforce an ordinance that would 1et parking atandarda which were not in effect when the building was built. * * * * * * J. J. Petrock, attorney for the owners of the Odd Fellows Building -the lOOF Building Investment Company, ap- peared before Council. Mr. Petrock stated the highest and best uae of the building waa not taken into consideration. 'lbe aaaeaamenta are unequitable and there were other uaea which would vaatly generate more parking apace requirement• than the Odd Fellows Building. 'lbe benefits are not in accordance with the a•••••••nta for the properties located on the west aide of South Broadway. Mr. Petrock called his first witness. Lee Laffoon, real eatate appraiser, appeared before Council. Mr. Laffoon stated he has fiven testimony on behalf of the City in the paat concerning: ) the highest and beat uae of real property in the City of F.nglewood; and 2) the fair •arket value of real property in the City of F.nglewood. Under queetioning from Mr. Petrock, Mr. Laffoon testified he had occaeion to make a cursory inspection of the subject area of the apecial i11prov .. ent diatrict. Mr. Laffoon stated he was f .. iliar with the zoning in the area which was mostly B-1 zon- ing. Mr. Laffoon stated he had diacuaeed the method of asaeaa- ••nt• with City staff ... bera of the Co111111nity Development De- part••nt. He stated had aleo exa•ined the zoning ordinance which has been used to determine the parking apace deficiency for the Odd Fellows Building. Mr. Laffoon stated it was his underatanding that these private parking standards with some Septe•ber 14, 1981 Page 6 li•itation• were the one• being applied to the Odd Fellows Build- ina. Mr. Laffoon atated he exa•ined the building across the atreet at 3400 South Broadway which waa on the east side and I which waa aaaeaaed the •a•• a110unt a• the Odd Fellows Building at $40,000. Mr. Laffoon atated the highest and beat use of the building would take extenaive re110deling. Mr. Laffoon stated in hia opinion the Odd Fellow• Building would not be benefited equal to the 3400 South Broadway buildi~g. * * * * * * Mayor Otis declared a receaa at 8:25 p.m. Council reconvened at 8:40 p.m. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Me•bera Hifday, Real, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Ot •· Absent: None. Mayor Otis declared a quorwn present. * * * * * * At the request of City Attorney DeWitt, Mr. Laffoon appeared again for further questioning. Under questioning, Mr. Laffoon stated he had not prepared a written report con- cerning the property only a abort letter to Mr. Petrock stat- ing the problems with some limited opinions. Mr. Laffoon stated it waa difficult to tell if the property waa being used to its beat uae now because it might coat 110re to put it at its high- est and beat uae than it would be worth. Mr. Laffoon stated appraising waa not an exact science only a aupported opinion. Mr. Laffoon stated he had not done an appraisal of the property. Mr. Petrock called hie next witness. Altha Williamson, 2728 South Bannock, appeared before Council. She stated ahe waa affiliated with the Odd Fellows In- vestment Building Co11pany aa Secretary/Treasurer. She was affili- ated with the Odd Fellow and Rebecca organization who meet at the I Odd Fellows Building. 'l'he •••tinge are held at 8:00 p.m. twice a month. Her husband attended the Odd Fellows organization twice a month also. 'l'here were other organizations that used the build- ing and which were affiliated with the Odd Fellows order. Mrs. Williamson stated neither ahe nor the other members would use the parking lot at night. Karl Kerzic, 4790 South Lipan, appeared before Council. Mr. Kerzic testified he waa a tenant of the Odd Fellows Building September 14, 1981 Page 7 and operated Houae of Upholatery. Mr. Kerzic stated Englewood needed additional parking but he did not and did not want to be aaseased for it. Mr. Petrock gave cloaing remarks. He stated there has been a lack of information in calculating the assessment. As far a• the Odd Fellow• bnildinf vaa concerned joint use of the park- ing lot vaa not given cone deration. The uae of the building is at night and the vol\9e vaa minimal. There was no relationship to parkinf apace deficiency. The aaaessment was inequitable as far a• th s particµlar property related to another property across the atreet. There are no comparable benefits on the west side of Broadway to the east aide of Broadway. Lodge members never use the parking lot. Mr. Petrock aaked for the opportunity to cross examine the staff who were involved in processing the assessments. City Attorney DeWitt stated there would be time later in the meeting. * * * * * * Bill Pendleton, 5745 South Monaco, Greenwood Village, appeared before Council. Mr. Pendleton testified he was employed with the First National Bank of Englewood. During hie employment, he ha• notice a decline in certain Englewood areas. He stated he waa a board member of the Enflewood Downtown Development Au- thority, and aupported the park ng lot development. He stated the development aolvea one of the problem• that is a constant complaint of people on Broadway. Mr. Pendleton stated the tangi- ble reaults may not be seen i .. ediately; however, over the years the benefit will be a proven inveatment. City Attorney DeWitt aaked Mr. Pendleton on the tangible reaults to which he referred. Mr. Pendleton atated the bank was not far from Broadway and he frequently walked downtown because parking was difficult. He atated he talked to aeveral buaineaamen and one of the things that ha• been a problem in getting potential buaineaaea to locate on Broadway waa the parking situation. * • * * * • Maurice Lubow, repreaenting Jerry Feather who owns a buain••• at 3460 South Broadway, appeared before Council. Mr. Lubow atated Mr. Feather'• attorney, Keith Vandeburg, was also preaent. Mr. Lubow adopted the teati11<>ny relative to that given September 14, 1981 Page 8 by other witneaaea. He atated Mr. Feather's business would re- ceive no direct benefit from the proposed development. Mr. Lubow requeated a letter from the City staff regarding why the method I of aaaeaa•ent waa uaed and why the boundariea were drawn. Mr. Lubow argued the power• and proviaiona of aetting up the district. Mr. Lubow atated he felt Council did not have the authority to issue bond• or levy the aaseaa•ent. * * * * * * Gordon Cloae, 2607 South Depew Place, Lakewood, ap- peared before Council. Mr. Cloae teatified he operated a busi- neas at 3451 South Acoma. He atated he waa president of dba/ Englewood who aupported the parking lot project and offered con- tinued aupport in improving the downtown area. In response to a queation fro• City Attorney DeWitt, Mr. Close stated several merchants feel reatricted because of no parking. Mr. Close believed the walk-through would assist businesses and hoped that aafety would not be a factor. In response to Council Member Higday'a queation, Mr. Cloae stated the dba/Englewood repre- aented about 501 of the buaineases. * * * * * * Steve Erhart, attorney for Saleem Diwan owner of 3400 South Broadway, appeared before Council. Mr. Erhart suggested eli•inating the walk-through and looking for other ways to finance the project. Mr. Erhart called Mr. Diwan forward aa a witness. Salee• Diwan, 15708 Eaat Grand Avenue, Aurora, appeared. Mr. Diwan teatified there waa a need for parking; however, most people do not want to park behind buildings. Parking would be •ore appropriate in the front or on the aide. Mr. Diwan stated the parking lot did not have an effect on the success of his busi- neaa. * * * * * * Barbara Holthaua, 3483 South Acoma, appeared before I Council. Ma. Holthaua atated ahe vaa the current Chairperson of the Englewood Downtown Develop11ent Authority. Ms. Holthaus stated ahe aupported the parking lot and walk-through project and wanted to create a permanent lot before loaing the property to a pri- vate company. Ma. Holthaua atated the walk-through waa designed to go with the parking lot and vaa to give acceaa to senior citizen parking and provide green openapace that would benefit the entire area. Ma. Holthaua atated everyone ahould pay part of the cost. * * * * * * Sept .. ber 14, 1981 Page 9 Mor•• Clayton, 3·200 Weat Bowles, Littleton, appeared before Council. Ma. Clayton atated ahe waa co-owner of 3484 - 3486 South Broadway. Ma. Clayton stated ahe had questions on the accuracy of the mea1urement of her building. She requested an appointment with ataff to diacuaa thia matter. Me. Clayton atated the profect waa needed but waa concerned about the fair- neaa in aaaeaa ng the coata. Arrangement• were made for Ma. Clayton to meet with Mr. Kahm and Ma. Powera on the following day. * * * * * * Mike Haviland, 2104 Dartmouth Circle, Director of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority appeared before Council. Mr. Haviland testified the EDDA purchaaed property from the Public Service Company for the parking lot. He stated the proximity of the parking lot and becauae it ace••••• the buaineaa area increases the value of property. Mr. Haviland atated the funding of the project ae .. ed lofical. 'ftle development provided benefit to resi- dential areaa. P ana are to make the walk-through aafe and will be well lighted. Mr. Haviland noted moat of the proteata have been on the aaaeaamenta and not the project itaelf. * * * •· * * City Attorney DeWitt aaked questions of Ma. Powers. She reaponded to the benefits received by both the eaat and west sides of South Broadway. Ma. Powers atated any downtown without park- ing will fail. Ma. Power• atated the improv .. ent plan will beauti- fy the downtown area and attract more people to ahop downtown. Mr. Petrock aaked queationa of Ma. Powers. In reaponae Ma. Power• atated staff m .. bera measured the Odd Fellows building and the parking requirement waa baaed on the count. Ma. Powers atated ataff m .. bera were aware of the building's uae. Aleo, the owner of a building would have acceaa to the parking lot but not control over it• uaea. Multiple-use aa applied to parking apace would not apply in this caae and would not apply in any others becauae there la a atipulation that the uses can not conflict. A joint uae haa to be made by contract and approved by the Plan- ning co .. iaaion and doea not apply in this case. Mr. DeWitt objected to additional queationinf from Mr. Petrock on joint use of the building as being irre evant. In reaponae to additional queationa from Mr. Petrock, Ma. Powers stated the City did not make studies as to the amount Sept .. ber 14, 1981 Paa• 10 of parking •pace required at night as opposed to daytime use. Mr. Petrock •tated th• parking lot had 122 vacancies at 6:30 p.m. on thi• night. * * * * * * Steve Erhart appeared again to ask questions of staff. Mr. Erhart a1ked where legal title of the land purchased by the City from th• Public Service Company wa• held. Ma. Powers re- 1ponded that legal title wa• held by the City. Mr. Erhart a1ked Mr. Kahm about the 61 increase that was picked by 1taff in relationehip to original e1timates. Mr. Kahm re1ponded the original a••••••ents given out a year ago were based on data put together by 1taff for comparison purposes. 'lbe 61 figure i1 controled by 1tate law which i1 the maximum that can be assessed over original e1timate. In re•pon•• to City Attorney De~ltt's question, Mr. Kah• 1tated there are nuaeroue a11e11ments where errors were found and a••••••ent• were increa•ed by 61 with the City pick- ing up the balance. Mr. Kah• •tated no one was increased more than 61 permitted by •tatute. * * * * * * Maurice Lubow appeared to a•k question• of Ma. Powers. Mr. Lubow a1ked why credit wae given for parking spaces owned and not lea1ed. M•. Power• •tated there existed a po•sibility that lea••d •pace• could be terminated quickly and the business would not have u1e of the epace. Mr. Lubow argued the ownership of the building could terminate juet a• quickly. M•. Powers stated it •• .. •d more logical that a property owned today would stay owned tomorrow. Mr. Lubow a1ked how many lot• were owned by the per1on that owned the buein••• for which the City gave credit and how •any were lea•ed. M•. Power• •tated •he did not have the information but would let Mr. Lubow know. Mr. Lubow directed qu••tion• to Mr. Kahm as to how many buein••••• were effected by the over $40,000 assessment. Mr. Kahm anevered there were two buain•••••· 'lbere no further co .. ent• at this time. 'Dle hearing wa1 left open. Mayor Otis adjourned the •••ting without a vote at 9:55 p.m. . ~ / ~tf'tf&y e~