Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-01-28 (Special) Meeting MinutesSPECIAL MEETING: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO January 28, 1980 The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in special session on January 28, 1980, at 7:00 p.m. Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Council Member Fitzpatrick. The pledge of allegiance was led by Mayor Otis. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent: None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. Also present were: City Manager Mccown Assistant City Manager Curnes City Attorney Berardini Director of Community Development Wanush Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * Mayor Otis stated it had come to the attention of Coun- cil a certain discrepancy in the area that was to be considered which could possibly make it inappropriate to conduct the public hearing. Mayor Otis asked the Director of Community Development to elaborate. Director of Conmunity Development Richard Wanush appear-I ed before Council and stated there had been some significant changes in the area. Director Wanush stated the request was heard originally by the Planning and Zoning Conwnission on September 20, 1977 and re- connended to Council that the rezoning be denied. The Council con- curred with the Conniasion and did not hold the hearing. The matter was taken to court and the court remanded the case to the Council for public hearing. It has become known that one of the owners of the parcels sold two pieces of ground to the adjoining single family properties. Therefore, what Council would be considering at this January 28, 1980 Page 2 meeting would be a rezoning that cuts across someone's property and splits it into R-1-C and R-2-C. Mr. Wanush recomnended that Council not open the hearing but refer the entire matter back to the Planning and Zoning Comnission for rehearing and new recommendation. In response to Council Member Fitzpatrick's question, City Attorney Berardini explained the legality of the court order. Mr. Berardini stated since the facts previously presented to the Planning and Zoning Comniss i on and Council have been altered, Coun- cil would be entitled and could order a new reconmendation on the situation as it exists now. Mr. Berardini agreed with Director Wanush's recommendation. Mr . John Littlehorn, 4530 South Broadway, applicant in the rezoning case, appeared before Council. Mr. Littlehorn stated Council should not have posted the hearing notice if plans were not to hold it. Mr. Littlehorn stated his property had been af- fected in a minor way. Mr. Littlehorn asked that Council hear the matter and then make a reco111Dendation. In response to Council Member Keena's question, Mr. Little- horn stated he did not know when the transference of deeds for the land parcels were made known to the City. Mr. Wanush stated the information was not received in the normal course of preparing for the public hearing. Upon a check of the property, the conveyances were discovered. Mr. Berardini advised Council to refer the matter to Plan- ning and Zoning Co11111ission for review and for the benefit of receiv- ing a new recomnendation for a public hearing later on. Mr. Berardini stated such action would not be violating the court order since the new facts would be heard at a later date. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY }il)VED TO DELETE AGENDA ITEM lA- RE ZONING REQUEST FOR A CHANGE FROM R-1-C, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO R-2-C, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENCE, FOR PROPERTY IN AN AREA SOUTH OF WEST QUINCY AVENUE AND WEST OF SOUTH LIPAN STREET -AND REFER IT BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COtlfiSSION FOR THEIR RECOMMENDA- TIONS. Council Member Keena seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. '111e Mayor declared the motion carried. January 28, 1980 Page 3 Director Wanush stated this matter would probably go before the Planning and Zoning Comnission the second week in February, 1980. * * * * * * Mayor Otis declared a recess at 7:20 p.m. Council re- convened at 8:00 p.m. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent: None. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER FITZPATRICK MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEAR- ING CONCERNING HARRY G. WISE'S REZONING REQUEST OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN SANDRA'S SUBDIVISION FROM R-1-C, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, TO R-2, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENCE. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Richard Wanush, 5165 South Elati Drive, Director of Com- munity Development for the City of Englewood, appeared before Coun- cil. Mr. Wanush gave testimony concerning the purpose of the pub- lic hearing -Case 126-79. Mr. Wanush stated this case was refer- red to Council by the Planning and Zoning Comnission following a hearing on December 4, 1979. Mr. Wanush submitted the certificate of posting for the property and stated the notice of public hearing was published in the Englewood Herald Sentinel on January 2, 1980. Mr. Wanush submitted into evidence the following: 1. Planning and Zoning Comnission's resolution recom- mending to Council that the rezoning of Lots 4 and 5, Sandra's Subdivision from R-1-C, Single-Family Residence, to R-2, Mediwn Density Residence, be denied. January 28, 1980 Page 4 2. Staff report prepared for the public hearing. Mr. Wanush stated the applicant was Harry G. Wise, contractor buy- er of subject property located on the southwest corner of South Clarkson Street and East Jefferson Drive. The property was presently owned by Robert A. and Gloria S. Berkeley. The request was to re- zone the property from R-1-C to R-2. Mr. Wanush noted the property was within the flood plain district. Mr. Wanush stated the applicant had requested the rezon- ing because he felt the property cannot be expected to develop under the existing zone classification for the following reasons: 1. The uses to the north and northwest were, multi- family and offices. 2. Since the property was within the flood plain, it would entail additional expense to develop the pro- perty. Mr. Wanush explained that the Planning and Zoning Conmission considers certain criteria in evaluating rezoning requests and for the following reasons reconmended denial of the application: 1. In terms of a possible mistake in the original zoning, the Connnission did not think there was a mistake. 2. There had been no significant changes over the five or ten years to necessitate a change the present zoning. 3. The owner was not being denied the use of the land. The land could be developed under R-1-C, Single Family. 4. The area is not a City block, nor a buffer between one use and another. 5. The rezoning was not in conformance with the City Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wanush submitted a copy of the adopted general land use plan. In response to Mr. John Criswell's question, Mr. Wanush stated he had not checked with any appraiser, banker, or realtor to determine whether or not the property can be developed under it present zoning. At the request of City Attorney Berardini, Mr. Wanush submitted the zoning map indicating the applicant's property. Mr. January 28, 1980 Page 5 Berardini stated the zoning map as well as the material submitted by Mr. Wanush earlier in the hearing should be made part of the record. Mayor Otis asked for the applicant's presentation. Mr. John Criswell, 3780 South Broadway, attorney appear- ed on behalf the applicant, Mr. Harry Wise. Mr. Criswell stated Mr. Wise had a contract to purchase the property from the Berkeleys. Mr. Criswell submitted the following evidence: 1. Applicant's Exhibit 1 -Survey of property. Mr. Criswell stated the area was approximately 16,000 square feet, undeveloped and in a flood plain. Mr. Criswell stated certain construction methods could be used in order to build in the flood plain. 2. Applicant's Exhibit 2 -Copy of Section 22.4-4 (R-1-C District), Englewood Zoning Code. Mr. Criswell stated the R-1-C District had less re- quirements than any of the other two single family residences in Englewood. Mr. Criswell stated two single family dwellings could be placed on this property fronting either Jefferson Drive or South Clarkson and still have square footage left over. 3. Applicant's Exhibit 3 -Copy of Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1975 (R-2 District). Mr. Criswell stated this zoning would allow a structure of five units. Mr. Criswell stated if the area was rezoned and the owner wanted four units, he (the owner) would have to come before the Planning Coumission with a Planned Development. Mr. Criswell stated Council could authorize the rezoning request on the following basis: 1) evidence proved that the property was improperly zoned in the first place; and 2) that the present zoning deprives the owner from realistically using his property. Mr. Criswell stated he planned to produce evidence to Council to prove that since the property was zoned R-1, it had not developed as R-1; and the conditions of the neighborhood have changed subsequently necessitating a change in zoning. Mr. Criswell stated a possibility existed that there will be some development of a holding pond for storm drainage control purposes in the athletic area which is nearby subject January 28, 1980 Page 6 property. Mr. Criswell stated if the property was needed, it would be necessary for the City or School District to acquire it. Council could refuse the rezoning on the grounds that the City or School District might want to purchase it at a later date. Mr. Criswell stated the property was orginally annexed by the City in 1946 and zoned R-1. In the late 1950's or early 1960's, the area to the north of the creek was also zoned R-1; but later rezoned R-3 and developed for a medical clinic. The develop- ment necessitated the relocation of three single-family residential homes. Mr. Criswell stated subject property with the exception of Lot 3 is the only piece of singly, privately-owned property that was zoned R-1 at any point along East Jefferson Drive. Mr. Criswell added there was only one property from Sherman to Clarkson on Jeffer- son Drive that was used for R-1 and it was located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of East Jefferson Drive and South Clark- son. Mr. Criswell stated the creek did not form a natural barrier. Mr. Criswell submitted the following exhibits for the applicants: 1. Applicant's Exhibit 14 (A) -(U) -Photographs of the subject property and surrounding area. 2. Applicant's Exhibit 5 -letter from W. D. Jorgensen & Associates, Inc. Insurance stating subject property was not suitable for single family residential use. 3. Applicant's Exhibit 6 -letter from Robert E. Thomas, Real Estate Broker stating subject property was neither desirable nor acceptable for single-family residential use. 4. Applicant'• Exhibit 7 -letter from Royce L. Smith, President, A. HeliRoy Corporation, stating develop- ment of single-family residence in subject area was not feasible. Applicant'• Exhibit 8 -letter from James T. Keller, II, discussing developing good quality, multiple housing close to the downtown area. 6. Applicant'• Exhibit 9 -letter from Nick L. Panetta Senior Vice President, Republic National Bank, stat- ing the bank would not consider mrking a realbestate loan as requested by Mr. Don D. F nley, 3700 lock of South Clarkson. January 28, 1980 Page 7 7. 8. Applicant's Exhibit 10 -letter from Jo Clements, Broker, LandMark Realty, Inc., stating the land lo- cated at 3700 South Clarkson was undesirable for single family residences and should be rezoned from the present R-1-C. Applicant's Exhibit 11 -letter from Robert D. Johnson Broker-Owner of Arapahoe Real Estate Agency, recom- mending that the subject property be rezoned from the current R-1-C to a higher density R-2-B for the en- hancement of the area and best utilization of the pro- perty. 9. Applicant's Exhibit 12 -letter from Colbert E. Cushing, Assistant Executive Director, Colorado Association of School Executives, favorable to the rezoning of subject property. 10. Applicant's Exhibit 13 -letter from Harold R. Rust, 3811 South Clarkson Street, stating he had no ob- jection to the rezoning of subject property to R-2. Mr. Criswell stated the abovementioned exhibits were evi- dence that rezoning would be good planning and the subject property could not be developed otherwise. In response to Council's questions, Mr. Criswell stated Mr. Wise solicited the letters. In regard to the letter from Re- public National Bank, Mr. Finley was told that the bank would not loan money for a single-family residence for that property. In response to questions from City Attorney Berardini, Mr. Criswell stated the uses for which the school was making of nearby property would have leas impact on multiple dwellings than single family residences. The exhibit letters indicated that de- velopers and realtora felt the property could be moved and market- ed faster if rezoned to R-2. Mr. Criswell stated it was his con- clusion that the property under no circ\Dllstances could be developed single family. Mr. Criswell stated financing should not be a pro- blem if it was for a suitable use. In response to Council Member Higday's question, Mr. Criswell stated Mr. Wise co11111ented that he would be interested in Lot 3 if it were available. In response to Council Member Higday's question, Mr. Wanush stated if the applicant were to purchase Lots 4 and 5 and subsequently Lot 3, the applicant could return to Council and ask for another rezoning to R-3, however, the total land would not be enough to develop under R-3. January 28, 1980 Page 8 Mr. Criswell called Mr. Harry Wise to testify. Mr. Harry Wi•e, 4333 Ea•t Peak View Avenue, Littleton, employee of Englewood High School, appeared before Council and gave testimony relative to his application for rezoning. Mr. Wise stated he had entered into an agreement to purchase Lots 4 and 5 subject to rezoning. He had no intere•t in Lot 6 nor in Lot 3, however, if he were to obtain Lot 3 he would use it for parking space. Mr. Wise stated the •chool property next to subject pro- perty was used for storing dirt, gravel, grass clippings, and equip- ment. Mr. Wise stated hi• plan• were to build two duplexs, one on each site facing each other. He would live in one unit and rent out the other three. He under•tood the area to be in the flood plain and spoke to the City about the restrictions for building in a flood plain. Mr. Wi•e •tated he understood he would have to submit a Planned Development if he were to build four-plexs. Under que•tioning from City Attorney Berardini, Mr. Wise stated his contract was contingent on rezoning. Mr. Wise stated he had not attempted to get financing for two single family residences because he was not interested in doing so. Mr. Wise stated he could get financing for multiple family homes. In response to Council Member Keena's question, Mr. Wise stated he had contracted for the property in the summer of 1979. In response to Council Member Neal's question, Mr. Criswell stated a real estate broker, Mr. Finley, had the property listed for one and one-half years but was unable to sell it. Mr. Criswell stated Mr. Finley had contracted to sell the property with the Berkeley's in the middle of 1978. Mayor Otis asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposi- tion of the application. Mr. Selwyn Hewitt, 4915 South Pearl, President of the Board of Education, appeared before Council and gave testimony in opposition. The Board supported the recomnendation from the Planning and Zoning Connission to deny the rezoning request. Mr. Hewitt stated the application did not maintain the comprehensive plan integrity nor the philosophy of continuing the growth of single family reaidenc••· Mr. Hewitt stated multiple family re- sidences tend to diminish the enrollment in schools. In response to Council Member Neal's question, Mr. Hewitt stated he was also appearing as a citizen in opposition to rezoning. January 28, 1980 Page 9 In response to Council Member Bilo's question, Mr. Wanush stated the general land use for subject property was to use Little Dry Creek as the boundary between single family and multiple family dwellings with in-fill and single family areas not to increase the density of the area. This meant every effort should be made to develop vacant lots as single family residences. Under cross-examination from Mr. Criswell, Mr. Hewitt stated he was not aware of any staff report made by the school district on the feasibility of buffering, fencing or screen- ing the school district property. Mr. Criswell submitted Applicant's Exhibit 17, letter from Jim Phillipe to Dr. R. L. Davidson on the feasibility and advisability of rezoning. Mr. Hewitt stated the letter was an opinion of a staff member not shared with the Board of Education. Mr. Criswell submitted Applicant's Exhibit 15, a copy of School Board minutes authorizing Mr. Hewitt's appear- ance and the grounds set forth for opposition. Under cross- examination, Mr. Hewitt stated the section made no coDlllents to the master plan; however, the deviation from the master plan was a part of the discussion and the principal reason for his appearance. Mr. Criswell stated Applicant's Exhibit 15 request- ed that the Superintendent write a letter to the City Manager expressing the Board's position. Mr. Criswell submitted Appli- cant's Exhibit 16 which Mr. Hewitt stated was the letter from the Board. Mr. Criswell stated Superintendent's letter related the Board's concern on allowing any development on this ground because of the possibility of the City having to buy it at a later date. Mr. Hewitt stated the Board was concerned as stated in the letter that there was some question as to the advis- ability of any kind of construction on the property in view of the pending ciec l8 lort of. clt.!velopment of a detention pond for flood c ritr.ol of t l.i.t l: loc:'"tl~ tori. Hr. He~itt stated this was the 1irute-rsta11dl11g •JF ")r. na....,lcls fr 111 ~u o tLA.tLorts that had p r ,c 1°!1 t '1l"' ;c ~·l rl.113. John Littlehorn, 4530 South Broadway, appeared be- fore Couincil and gave testimony that he would construct multi- January 28, 1980 Page 10 ple family units on the property rather than single family be- cause of the school property, creek and high rise apartments across the street. Mr. Littlehorn stated there was ·a serious flooding problem in Cherry Hills across the street; and Coun- cil should consider the action on the detention pond as one of the alternatives. Mr. Littlehorn stated a lawsuit was pending by the people in Cherry Hills concerning the flood- ing problem. In response to City Attorney Berardini's questions, Mr. Littlehorn stated he was a sheet metal worker by trade and a builder. Mr. Littlehorn stated he doubted that a banker would loan money for single family residence for this area; however, he had no personal knowledge of it. Carl Werner, 3787 South Clarkson, appeared before Council and gave testimony in opposition to the rezoning re- quest. Mr. Werner stated being a resident of the neighbor- hood he would not like to see multiple family dwellings con- structed in the area. Mr. Werner stated he did not consider the school property to be a liability to the area in regard to building single family residences. Mr. Werner stated he agreed with the Planning and Zoning Co111Dission and requested Council to deny the request. In response to Council Member Neal's questions, Mr. Werner stated he felt the rezoning would change the quality of the neighborhood and his residence would be threatened by other development. In response to Mr. Criswell's questioning, Mr. Werner stated he knew several people in the neighborhood who owned property. Mrs. Hannah Warren, 3770 South Clarkson, Cherry Hills, appeared before Council. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO NOT RECEIVE TESTI- MONY FROM MRS. WARREN SINCE SHE WAS A RESIDENT OF CHERRY HILLS. Motion died for lack of a second. Mrs. Warren gave testimony in opposition to the rezoning request on the basis that the rezoning would cause an increase of traffic at the area intersection which is also the route several children took to school. Mrs. Warren stated she favored maintaining the present character of the area. Robert Berkeley 2601 South Jackson, Devner, appeared before Council and gave testimony. Mr. Berkley stated he was January 28, 1980 Page 11 the present owner of Lots 4, 5, and 6 in subject area. Mr. Berkeley stated he purchased in 1977 for the purpose of remodel- ing the house and building a branch of his business in it. Mr. Berkeley stated he could not get a loan from the bank to do so. Mr. Berkeley stated he was trying to sell all three lots as one piece but could not get an offer. City Attorney Berardini requested the Planning and Zoning Comnission minutes of the hearing concerning the sub- ject property be made part of the record as well as any ex- hibits, documents or other material presented to the Planning and Zoning CoD111ission. Mr. Criswell had no objections to Mr. Berardini's request. Mr. Criswell stated there were additional photo- graphs. There was no further testimony to be received. Mr. Criswell gave closing remarks. He stated he felt the land could not be developed as single family re- sidence. He could not imagine there being a traffic pro- blem at the intersection in the area nor a change in the neighborhood if the area was rezoned. Mr. Criswell stated he was not aware of any evidence proved the area should be remain R-1; and the school district was looking at the situ- ation from a tax base standpoint from what they were going to have to pay or the City was going to have pay in tax dol- lars for the property. Mayor Otis stated Council would make a decision on this request within the next 30 days. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Bradshaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. The Mayor declared the motion carried and adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m.