Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-03-31 (Special) Meeting MinutesCOUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO March 31, 1980 SPECIAL MEETING: The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in special session on March 31, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Bradshaw, presiding, called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Council Member Fitzpatrick. The pledge of allegiance was led by Mayor Pro Tem Bradshaw. Mayor Pro Tem Bradshaw asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw. Absent: Mayor Otis. Mayor Pro Tem Bradshaw declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were: City Manager Mccown Assistant City Manager Curnes City Attorney Berardini Director of Engineering Services Diede Director of Public Works Waggoner Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON PAVING DISTRICT NO. 27. Council Member Bilo seconded the mo- tion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw. None. Mayor Otis. The Mayor Pro Tem declared the motion carried. City Manager Mccown gave opening remarks on the back- ground, creation, method of payment and other basic points re- garding paving districts in the City of Englewood. March 31, 1980 Page 2 Director of Engineering Services Diede presented techni- cal information on paving sections, criteria for assessment, and type of construction reconnnended for various streets and alleys pro- posed for Paving District No. 27. Mayor Pro Tem Bradshaw explained the format for the pub- lic hearing was to receive public comnent in regard to the street and alleys proposed for this paving district. Decisions regard- ing the district would be made by Monday, April 7, at which time the ordinance would be presented on first reading. Second read- ing will be on April 21 following another public hearing. No in- dividual notices would be sent in regard to the second public hear- ing. It was the intent of the City to eventually bring all streets up to City standards; and once a street has been in a paving dis- trict the City takes on the responsibility for maintenance of the street. The four main areas considered in making a decision on this district were: 1. The need for the improvement. 2. 'nle kind or character of the improvement. 3. The cost of the improvement -is the cost justified? 4. 'nle method of assessment -is the property benefited as a result of the improvement? Mayor Pro Tem Bradshaw read the list of proposed improve- ment blocks -block by block -and asked for those people to speak who were in favor of the improvements and then for those opposed. 000 East Cornell Avenue In Favor -None In Opposition - M. s. Holland, 2969 South Lincoln, opposed no need for improvement. Mr. Holland of a storm sewer caused the damage to have been repaved correctly following on the basis there was stated the installation the street and should the construction. Isabella Knight, 3021 South Lincoln, opposed on the basis there was no need for improvement. Mrs. Ellenburger, 2968 South Lincoln, opposed on the basis there was no need. 100 East Cornell Avenue In Favor -None March 31, 1980 Page 3 In Opposition - Don Emis, 193 East Cornell Avenue, opposed on the basis there was no need. 200 East Cornell Avenue In Favor -None In Opposition - Richard Gallatin, 2980 South Sherman, opposed on the basis there was no need. Raymond Satter, 3001 South Grant, opposed on the basis there was no need for improvement, and the cost of improvement would be a financial hardship on many people. Mr. Satter also was against removing any trees in order to do the construction. John Segeser, 2961 South Grant, opposed on the basis there was no need for improvement. Mr. Segeser questioned how the sidewalk would be finished. Director Diede stated sidewalk construction would be whatever was appropriate for that block. 300 East Cornell Avenue In Favor -None In Opposition - R. L. Lunders, 3000 South Washington, asked if the ditch was going to be piped. Director Diede stated there was no requirement; however, the sidewalk would be so close it would necessitate pip- ing. Suzanne Stevens, 2965 South Logan, opposed on the basis it would create financial hardships for people and suggested if the street was paved, that the costs be kept to a minimum. 400 East Cornell Avenue In Favor -None March 31, 1980 Page 4 In Opposition - J. J. Van Stelten, 3008 South Logan, opposed on the basis there was no need to widen Cornell. Mr. Van Stelten agreed the street needed repaving but did not need curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Donald L. R. Smith, 3165 South Sherman, who owns property at 2975 South Pennsylvania, on the basis there was no need for widening Cornell since most of the traffic was local. Mr. Smith had no objection to repaving the street. Mr. Smith stated earth moving equipment destroyed the street when Bates-Logan Park was constructed and he asked that the City pay a high portion of the assessment cost as a result. Mary Jackson, 2998 South Logan, opposed on the basis there was no need for widening Cornell. Ms. Jackson stated the street needed to be paved. Tim Philibosian, 2985 South Pennsylvania, opposed on the basis there was no need to widen Cornell. Mr. Philibosian asked the Council reconsider the timing to do this project due to the state of the national economy. R. L. Lunders, 3000 South Washington, opposed on the basis there was no need to widen Cornell and the cost could not be justified. Mr. Lunders submitted a petition containing 158 signatures of residents who opposed the widening of Cornell. Mr. Lunders also submitted a protest letter from himself. Lynn Philibosian, 2985 South Pennsylvania, opposed on the on the basis there was no need to widen Cornell. She stated she would like to see the holes fixed. Sam Porter, 2996 South Logan, opposed on the basis there was no need to widen Cornell. Mr. Porter stated two years ago would have been a better time. 500 East Cornell Avenue In Favor -None In Opposition - Bill Sigler, 555 East Cornell Avenue, opposed on the basis there was no need for improvement until the storm sewers were installed and the heavy equipment used for construction caused the damage. Mr. Sigler stated the street did not need to widened. Mr. Sigler asked that Council review the policy for method of assessment and develop a different formula for assessment. March 31, 1980 Page 5 Mayor Pro Tem Bradshaw declared a recess at 9:35 p.m. Council reconvened at 9:45 p.m. Don Mowery, 3001 South Pearl, opposed on the basis there was no need to widen Cornell nor to put in sidewalks. Mr. Mowery stated the street did need repaving. Mrs. Moore, 603 East Cornell, opposed on the basis that it would create a financial hardship on her since she waa on a fixed income. Mrs. Moore stated the street did not need to be widened. Laverne Donaldson, 607 East Cornell, opposed on the basis there waa no to widen Cornell, resurfacing the street would be appropriate. Mr. Donaldson was opposed to on-street parking on one aide of the street. Earl Pfeufer, 3000 South Pearl, opposed on the basis there was no need to widen Cornell. Donald Hotopp, 615 Eaat Cornell Avenue, opposed on the basis there waa no need to widen Cornell. 600 East Cornell Avenue In Favor -None. In Opposition - Orlie Cooper, 2950 South Washington, opposed on the basis there was no need to improve this area at all. Mr. Cooper sug- gested that speed bumps be installed if the street was paved. He was also opposed to on-street parking. Eugene Michaud, 3046 South Washington, asked Council to monitor coats aa closely as possible if they decide to pave the street. 700 East Cornell Avenue In Favor -None In Opposition - Zoe Oberg, 705 Eaat Cornell Avenue, opposed on the basis there was no need for improvement and ahe opposed on-street parking. Lyn Nyquist, 729 Eaat Cornell Avenue, opppoaed on the basis there was no need to improve nor widen the street. March 31, 1980 Page 6 Bob Wilson, 2970 South Washington, opposed on the basis there .• as no to widen the street and he opposed on-street parking. 400 West Eastman Avenue In Favor -None In Opposition - Jerry De Hoff, 3195 South Delaware, opposed on the basis there was no naed to repair the street. Tim Jeffers, 3235 South Delaware, asked Council to delay the project because he had other assessments to pay. Fred Gassert, 3210 South Elati, opposed on the basis there was no need for improvement. 300 West Eastman Avenue In Favor -None In Opposition -None 200 West Eastman Avenue In Favor -None In Opposition ·· Deputy Clerk Watkins entered into the record a letter from Mrs. Lively, 3215 South Bannock, stating the street was in good condition prior to the installation of the main and that the City should pay fully for the street repair. 100 West Eastman Avenue In Favor -None. In Opposition - Juanita Collins, 3200 South Bannock, stated the curb in front of her property was broken but it was not her fault. Ms. Collins stated she did not think she should be responsi- ble for the curb repair. March 31, 1980 Page 7 Director Diede stated his department would check the curb to determine if it needed repair. Council Member Higday stated similar problems were ex- perienced by other citizens. Mr. Higday stated it was sometimes caused by the contractor and he cautioned staff members to oversee the project closely to make sure the contractor does neglect his construction re- sponsibilities. Michael Day, 126 West Eastman, stated he would pay for the assessment; however, he was distrubed at getting ticketed for parking on his street. Council Member Fitzpatrick advised Mr. Day to obtain a parking permit to allow on-street parking. 000 West Eastman Avenue In Favor -None In Opposition -None 000 East Eastman Avenue David Visser, 3201 South Lincoln, opposed on the basis the street was in good condition until the storm sewer was installed. Lawrence Willis, 3186 South Lincoln, opposed on the basis it would create a financial hardship for people on fixed income. Eugene Kottenstette, 3176 South Lincoln, opposed to the dis- trict as proposed. Mr. Kottenstette suggested using the money for another area such as Clarkson and patch Eastman. 100 East Eastman Avenue In Favor -None In Opposition - Donald L. R. Smith, 3165 South Sherman, reiterated his those colllDents made earlier in this hearing. 200 East Eastman Avenue In Favor -None March 31, 1980 Page 8 In Opposition - Jim Thomas, 3183 South Grant, opposed on the basis the street was in good condition and he did not want to loose the trees due to construction. Mr. Thomas asked Council to consider the timing in view of the state of the economy. 300 East Eastman Avenue In Favor -None In Opposition - Deputy Clerk Watkins entered into the record a letter in op- position from the First Christian Church, 3190 South Grant. The Trustees objected to the assessment as they would be affected by the property running from South Grant Street to South Lofan Street on Eastman and the majority of South Grant rom East Dartmouth to East Eastman. Donald L. R. Smith, 3165 South Sherman, spoke in opposi- tion on behalf of the church. Tom Townsend, 3201 South Logan, on the basis there was no need to widen the street. 3000 South Grant Street In Favor -None In Opposition - Deputy Clerk Watkins entered into the record a petition re- ceived in the City Clerk's office. The petition contained 69 signatures of residents objecting to the project in the 3000, 3100 and 3200 blocks of South Grant Street. Raymond Satter, 3001 South Grant, reiterated his coDIDents made earlier in this hearing. Sarah Morton, 3000 South Grant, opposed on the basis she thought the street was in good condition and she could not afford to pay the assessment. Pam Moore, 3096 South Grant, opposed on the basis there was no need for repair and it would create a financial hardship. March 31, 1980 Page 9 Al Renner, 3032 South Grant, opposed on the basis there was no need for improvement and it would create a financial hardship for people on fixed income. Marjorie Bell, 3040 South Grant, opposed on the basis there was no need for improvement. Richard Gallatin, 3048 South Grant, opposed on the basis there was no need for improvement. 3100 South Grant Street In Favor -None In Opposition - Don Chiras, 3127 South Grant, opposed on the basis there was no need for repair. Mr. Chiras stated he was not on a fixed income, but still had problems making ends meet. David Strohman, 3106 South Grant, opposed on the basis there was no need for repair but an overlay probably would work. Pauline Skidmore, 3111 South Grant, opposed on the basis there was no need for repair. 3200 South Grant Street In Favor -None In Opposition - Ralph White, 3150 South Grant, opposed on the basis there was no need. Pat Sullivan, 3211 South Grant, opposed the project in general. Walt Sanders, 3283 South Grant, asked if he could reset his present sidewalk and conform to the standards. Director Diede stated he baa that option but needed a permit. Mr. Diede stated the Engineering Services De- partment would have to inspect it when completed. John Woolley, 3284 South Grant, opposed on the basis there was no need for improvement and it would create a financial hardahip for him. Alley East of Corona Street In Favor -None March 31, 1980 Page 10 In Opposition - Myron Bott, 3101 South Downing, opposed on the basis he was on a fixed income and it would be difficult for him to pay the assessment. Mr. Bot submitted a petition con- taining 8 signatures of residents opposed to improving this alley. Laurence Guilford, 3150 South Corona, stated he was not op- posed to paving the alley, but queried whether it was a good time to do it due to the state of the economy. Mr. Guilford suggested installing speed bumps if the alley gets paved. Dominic Dreiling, 1125 East Eastman, stated he would like to see it paved but the coat was too high. Ray Barlow, 3120 South Corona, stated he would like to see it paved but the coat was too high. David Felgar, 3191 South Downing, stated he would like to see it paved but the coat was too high. Mrs. ~ike, 317l South Corona, stated she would like to see it paved but the coat was too high. Mrs. Pike stated she thought the alley belonged to the pro- perty owners anyway. Bruce Armstrong, 3215 South Grant, opposed on the basis there was no need for improvement. Bob Pritchard, 3100 South Downing, opposed on the basis the assessment was too high. Mr. Pritchard suggested laying gravel instead. Council Member Neal read into the record the following people who had contacted him either in favor or opposition to the paving of this alley: In Favor - In Opposition - (Council Member Neal stated these people were actually in favor of paving the alley but were in opposition to the nigh assessment) Robert Heater, 1199 East Eastman Wilfred Howard, 3130 South Corona Kathy Reynolds, 3142 South Corona , March 31, 1980 Page 11 Mrs. Kuhn, 3140 South Corona Linda Olson, 3160 South Corona George Gleason, 3168 South Corona Alley East of Galapago Street In Favor -None In Opposition -None No further statements were received. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY t«>VED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEAR- ING. Council Member Keena seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted aa followa: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw. None. Mayor Otis. '11te Mayor Pro Tem declared the motion carried and ad- journed the meeting at 11:30 p.m. . 1 ~ ) . Ji a '~'~zu~ puty~erk