Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-06-30 (Special) Meeting MinutesCOUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO June 30, 1980 SPECIAL MEETING: The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe I County, Colorado, met in special session at 7:30 p.m. on June 30, 1980. Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Council Member Thomas 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, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent: Council Member Bilo. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were: City Manager Mccown Assistant City Manager Wanush City Attorney Berardini Acting Director of CoDlllUnity Development Romans Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * Mayor Otis stated the purose of the special meeting was to hold a public hearing on a request for rezoning by Little- horn and Jackson from R-1-C, single family residence, to R-2-C, medium density residence. COUNCIL MEMBER BRADSHAW MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEAR- ING. 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, Bradshaw, Otis. None. June 30, 1980 Page 2 Absent: Council Member Bilo. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Mayor Otis explained the format by which Council would conduct the hearing. The Mayor stated maps, documents, reports, and the Planning and Zoning Conniasion's reconnendation on this matter had been received by Council. Mayor Otis then asked for the staff report. Dorothy Romana, 3600 South Bannock, Acting Director of CoD111Unity Development, appeared before Council. Under oath, Acting Director Romana provided testimony relative to Case #4-80, applicants being John J. Littlehorn, and William R. and James W. Jackson. Ma. Romana stated the notice of public hearing was published on June 11, 1980, in the Englewood Herald Sentinel. She submitted the certification of posting. Ms. Romans stated the applicants previously requested the change in zoning for the following reasons: 1. Because of the increased intensity of the industrial development in the areas to the northwest, west and southwest of the subject site, it would be difficult to obtain financing to construct single-family resi- dences due to the proximity to the the industrial area. The applicants feel they could get financing for medium density district. 2. Under the R-2-C zone district, land costs would be reduced which would allow the applicants to build low maintenance, affordable housing. 3. The R-2-C would act as a buffer between the industrial area to the west and the residential area to the east. 4. Parcel 4 had no access to a public street other than a 15 foot lane which runs along the western side of the subject site. If someone came in and applied for a building permit on this site, they would not have access which was against the building regulations. By combin- ing the parcels, the land could be developed. Ms. Romans gave a brief history of this case and the events which lead the court to remand the case back to the City Council for re- hearing. Ms. Romans stated the Planning and Zoning Conmission heard the case on March 4, 1980, and reco111Dended approval under the follow- ing conditions: June 30, 1980 Page 3 1. That the subject properties be developed as a single unit under the Planned Development District regulations. 2. That the matter be brought before the City Planning and Zoning Co11111ission in twenty-four (24) months for review and if a Planned Development had not been approved and recorded and construction pursuant thereto undertaken, the Planning Co11111ission shall reconsider the use and the development of the subject property. Ms. Romans stated the Conmission made the reconmendation based on the following reasons: time. 1. It was the opinion of the staff that the original zone classification applied to the subject property could have been in error, and that the single-family designa- tion may not have been appropriate at this location. 2. Industrial development to the west, northwest and south- west had changed the character of the area. 3. The Comprehensive Plan showed the area to be on the border between the industrial development to the west and single-family development to the east; the requested zone classification would serve as a buffer between these unlike uses. There were no questions to ask of Ms. Romans at this Mayor Otis asked for statements from the applicants. John J. Littlehorn, 4530 South Broadway, appeared be- fore Council. Under oath, Mr. Littlehorn stated he could not develop the property as it was presently zoned. Mr. Littlehorn stated the medium density residence zoning would be a good buffer between the light industrial and single-family residential area. Mr. Littlehorn stated he would submit a PUD, cooporate with the City's Building Department and develop appropriate structures in the area. He stated there were no water or sewer problems in the area. He stated he had a working relationship with the Jackson I brothers and the project would only be a joint venture for the construction and maintenance of the road. The project wou l d not be a joint venture as far as building and financing would be concerned. Mr. Littlehorn stated the development would be done in a congruous manner and not piecemeal. Ms. Romans stated once a development plan was approved by the City Council and recorded at the county clerk's office, the June 30, 1980 Page 4 Building Department would not issue building permits for anything not in compliance with the plan. The only way a permit could be issued would be if the developer amended the plan. Once the plan- ned development was approved and recorded, that guaranteed that that was the way the land would be developed and such plan went with the ground and not the owner. Mr. Littlehorn stated he proposed to place nine duplexes on the property but the number depended on how the development pro- gressed. Mr. Littlehorn stated there was an existing structure on the property and whether or not it would be removed would be deter- mined by Mr. Jackson. 'nlere were no questions to ask of Mr. Littlehorn at this time. Bill Jackson, appeared before Council. Under oath, Mr. Jackson offered testimony relating to his application for rezoning. Mr. Jackson stated he and his brother owned parcels 2, 3, and 4 of subject property. He stated he was willing to work with Mr. Little- horn and the neighbors in developing subject property. He stated the existing structure would have to conform to the planned develop- ment; however, if the plane called for removing it, he would do so. Mr. Jackson also stated he would have to consult with the Planning and Zoning Comniaaion in order to construct an acceptable access road on subject property. There were no questions to ask of Mr. Jackson at this time. Mayor Otia asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in favor of the application. Mike Littlehorn, 4301 South Lipan, appeared before Coun- cil. Under oath, Mr. Littlehorn stated he lived next to subject property. He stated further he planned on living on South Lipan many years and wanted to see a buffer zone developed between his property and the light industrial area. Mr. Littlehorn stated he built his own home but did not intend to do any building on subject property. 'nlere were no questions to ask of Mr. Littlehorn at this time. James McArthur Littlehorn, 3940 South Jason, appeared before Council. Under oath, Mr. Littlehorn offered testimony in support of the application for rezoning. Mr. Littlehorn stated he was the brother of the applicant and asked Council and the Jackson brothers to give his brother a chance to develop the rest of subject property. June 30, 1980 Page 5 There were no questions to ask of Mr. Littlehorn at this time. There was no one else wishing to speak in favor of the rezoning. Mayor Otis asked if there was anyone wishing to speak against the rezoning. Steve Nyer, 4330 South Lipan, appeared before Council. Under oath, Mr. Nyer presented petitions containing 78 names of people who opposed the rezoning application. Mr. Nyer offered testimony concerning his personal reasons for opposing the re- zoning on the basis that the development would increase the popu- lation and traffic in the neighborhood. Mr. Nyer suggested that Mr. Littlehorn apply for a variance for smaller-sized lots and develop the area with single-family, small, starter homes and that the City use mortgage revenue money with it. Mr. Nyer stated single-family development would instill the pride of home ownership. Council Member Keena requested that Ms. Romans appear before Council for the purpose of explaining PUD so that citizens can understand the process before further testimony was given. Ms. Romana appeared before Council. Ms. Romans stated the planned development district overlayed the entire city so that any property owner of any piece of property in the City could file a development plan for a particular piece of property. The density and use were fixed; but the structure location on the property could be varied. The developer mu•t submit to the City a complete plan. The plan is reviewed by pertinent city departments and based on discussions with these departments, the site plan is prepared and the property posted. The plan is brought to a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Coaai•sion at which time people who live in the area are given an opportunity to review the plan and discuss it with the Connission. '11le Conniasion can either approve the plan or send it back to the developer asking for changes. The plan must be approved by the Connission before it is sent to Coun- cil. After the plan has been approved by Council, the plan is recorded in the County Clerk and Recorder's office. The City I would then be allowed to issue permits for any structure that was in conformance with the plan. The only way this could be changed would be for the applicant to come back and start all over with another plan before the Planning Connisaion. The only changes permitted by staff would be minor changes involv- ing drainage and topography. Proposed planned developments are usually available for viewing by interested parties prior to hearings. Ms. Romana stated staff encouraged the developer to get together with the neighborhood to get their ideas together before starting the planned development. June 30, 1980 Page 6 Mayor Otis aaked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak in opposition. George Stampadoa, 4325 South Lipan, appeared before Council. Under oath Mr. Stampados offered testimony in opposi- tion to the rezoning application. Mr. Stampados stated he owned the northern of the two larger lots borderinf subject property. Mr. Stampados stated nine duplexes would be 8 rental units with the possibility of 36 care occupying the subject property. Mr. Stampados stated he felt the area would be better if developed as single-family, smaller-sized lots. These houses could be affordable to the person who was now renting in Englewood. Mr. Stampados stated rentals bring in transient people who do not have co111DUnity pride. Mr. Stampados referred to a public hear- ing wherein a developer applied for a zoning change from single- family to medium density zoninf and it was denied by Council on the basis that the request vio ated the comprehensive plan and constituted spot zoning. Mr. Stampados stated he did not see any difference between the two cases. Council Member Keena stated the referenced case was considered to be spot zoning because the subject area was sur- rounded by residential areas; whereas, the spot zoning in this case was not as much a question because of the light industrial zoning on one side. Mr. Stampados stated he against having a planned develop- ment of rental duplexes. He stated he wanted a planned develop- ment of single-family starter homes or full homes that would give people a chance to buy into the co111DUnity and do something for it. In response to Council Member Bradshaw's question, Mr. Stampados stated a condominium-type approach usually turned into rental situations. In response to Council Member Neal's question, Mr. Stampados stated medium density residential development would damage his property and the surrounding property. Doyle Irwin, 1101 West Quincy, appeared before Council. Under oath, Mr. Irwin offered testimony in opposition to the rezon- ing application. Mr. Irwin stated high density housing would cause problems in the neighborhood as far as crowding in the local city park and increase the rate of vandalism. Charles LeBrash, 4305 South Lipan, appeared before Coun- cil. Under oath, Mr. LeBrash testified he agreed with the comnents made by Mr. Stampadoe. June 30, 1980 Page 7 Larry Thompson, 4335 South Lipan, appeared before Coun- cil. Under oath, Mr. Thompson stated he bought the last house on the corner from Mr. Littlehorn and the land in back of him. Mr. I Thompson stated when he bought the land the two houses on the south side were privately owned and now they were rentals. Grass was very high on the properties. Mr. Thompson stated he did not want to see any more rental unite in the area. Mr. Stampadoa reappeared before Council and made addi- tional conaente about the grass being high on subject property. Council Member Keena asked Assistant City Manager Wanush to check into the complaints made by Messrs. Thompson and Stampados. An unidentified lady requested permission from Council to ask questions. She stated she had no testimony to offer since she lived on Kalamath and was not being affected. Mayor Otis granted her permission to come forward and ask questions. The unidentified lady asked what 'Was the difference between a zone 2 next to a light industrial area compared to a zone 1. Ms. Romans replied a high density housing better pro- vided an environment for the area in total rather than have an isolated single-family house next door. By clustering the units one was better able to screen out the development of an industrial area. Mayor Otis asked for other conments from people who were in opposition. Raymond Congleton, 4310 South Lipan, appeared before Council. Under oath, Mr. Congleton stated it was better to raise children in single-family housing rather than high density housing. Mr. Congleton stated he moved to Englewood to get away from high density neighborhood and would leave the area if the property was rezoned to R-2-C. William Kline, 1231 W. Radcliff, appeared before Coun-I cil. Under oath, Mr. Kline stated he had signed the petition submitted by Mr. Nyer but wanted to make his opposition known verbally. Mr. Kline stated the proposed area for parking within the subject property would be adjacent to his garden and any de- velopment could become a potential problem for maintenance of the garden. June 30, 1980 Page 8 'lbere were no further co11111ents in opposition at this time. Mayor Otia aaked if there was any rebuttal from Messrs. Littlehorn and Jackaoa. John J. Littlehorn, re-appeared before Council. Mr. Littlehorn stated Meaara. Stampados and Thompson knew of the possible high denaity development when they bought their pro- perties. Mr. Littlehorn stated he was not aware of any guide- lines for lowering the aize of the lots in order to build single- family homes and it would still put the same number of people on the same amount of land. Jane Stampadoa, 4325 South Lipan, appeared before Coun- cil. Under oath, Mrs. Stampados testified that she circulated the petition submitted by Mr. Ryer. Mrs. Stampados stated in do- ing so, many people co11111ented to her that they did not want du- plexea to be built on aubject property. Mrs. Stampados stated thia indicated to her that it would not do the co11111Unity any good to develop subject property as high density. Bill Jackaon, re-appeared before Council. Mr. Jackson stated aome kind of development needed to be done on subject pro- perty and that he would work with the neighbors on an acceptable plan. 'ftlere were no further co11111ents made. COUNCIL MEMBER KEENA MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Council Member Higday aeconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote reaulted aa follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Higday, Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bradahaw, Otis. None. Council Member Bilo. The Mayor declared the motion carried. Mayor Otis stated Council would take all the evidence into consideration and make a decision that would be in the best interest of Englewood. COUNCIL MEMBER HIGDAY MOVED TO ADJOURN. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at 9:40 p.m. ~ . j/) )~ ~~ft{%eh