Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-08-11 (Special) Meeting Minutes [1]SPECIAL MEETING: COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO August 11, 1980 The City Council of the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in special session on August 11, 1980, at 6:30 p.m. Mayor Otis, presiding, called the meeting to order. The invocation was f iven by Council Member Thomas Fitzpatrick. The pledge of a legiance was led by Mayor Otis. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent: Council Member Higday. The Mayor declared a quorum present. * * * * * * Also present were: City Manager Mccown Assistant City Manager Wanush City Attorney Berardini Acting Director of Conmunity Development Romans Director of Engineering Services Diede Deputy City Clerk Watkins * * * * * * Mayor Otis stated the purpose of the meeting concerned creating a parking assessment district in downtown Englewood. * * * * * * City Manager Mccown gave the history of the project thus far as it concerned Alternatives A and B. Mr. Mccown stated the resolutions sent in the Council packet for this meeting were Al- ternatives 3-Ca and 3-Cb. The change in both of these resolutions concerned the walkway and beautification area. The changes take the cost of the acquisition of the land for the walkway and make it part of the cost that will be assessed for the parking improve- ments. The basis being in order to properly utilize the parking August 11, 1980 Page 2 lot there would be a need for acceaa onto Broadway; and therefore, the acquisition of property to provide access should not be charged to beautification but charged aa part of the parking improvements. I Staff took the diatrict that waa before and based upon a primary zone and a secondary zone charged 601 to the primary and 401o to the secondary with the beautification coats being spread out on the basis of square footage, the parking coats being spread out on the basis of coat per parking stall which in turn was based upon the lack of adequate parking that a business may provide. If the zoning requires that a business provide five parking spaces and they have two they are lacking three spaces and they would be charged for three spaces in this assessment. The reason for two proposals was because it became evident late in the hearing that because the parking lot changed and the Stoal and Sachter pro- perties were not included, the boundaries of the district have changed. Resolution C-3a describes the boundaries exactly as they were before using the primary zone and the secondary zone. The beautification was charged on square footage 60/40; parking to be assessed according to parking needs 60/40. Resolution C-3b describes the change in boundaries to comply with the fact that the Stoal and Sachter properties have been removed. The beauti- fication costs which do not include the coat of the walkway or property for the walkway are assessed out on a square footage basis on a 60/40 and assessment of parking needs 60/40. Mr. Mccown stated another public hearing would have to be held. Council Member Neal asked the City Attorney in passing some assessment district and assuming physical construction of the parking and walkthrough, etc., based upon the method of assess- ment that accounts for deficiencies, if those within this dis- trict were then somehow in compliance with our zoning ordinance relating to parking. If someone were to redevelop a piece of ground in three spots deficient now and whatever new use they had were then still three spots deficient even though they were deficient according to the existing ordinance would they be in compliance because of this assessment district. City Attorney Berardini stated assuming the use was un- changed; they could argue that they did comply if the district was created and the assessment was made because the 400 foot area, which was the primary district, conformed with the comprehensive I zoning ordinance and allowed the owner of the property to pro- vide parking for that particular usage within 400 feet of his property. Council Member Neal asked if it would be proper at the time of preparing the ordinance to include some specification in- dicating that it would amend an ordinance to provide satisfaction of those claims. August 11, 1980 Page 3 City Attorney Berardini asked if he could research the question to determine if the zoning ordinance would have to be amended. Mr. Neal stated in terms of providing a substantial benefit to property owners within the assessment district, would that not be a justifiable benefit for the purpose of assessment. Mr. Berardini stated it was reasonable to say the pro- perties were being benefited by providing parking and this was the premise upon which the district was being considered. Assum- ing the district was created and parking provided, the property owners may be able to claim that they were conforming because they have received the benefit and they have the parking. Mr. Neal stated his inclinations were to go with the whole district as originally proposed with the full properties. Council Member Fitzpatrick asked if Council were to go with the original boundaries if it was legal in making the bound- aries as an assessment district. City Attorney Berardini stated it seemed consistent and rational to establish the 400 foot as corresponding with the re- quirement in the comprehensive zoning ordinance. Director of Engineering Services Gary Diede appeared before Council. Mr. Diede stated the project did not provide adequate parking for each business only some parklng for all of the businesses. Council Member Neal stated if Council used the 400 foot and then moved the point of origin back by eliminating the Sachter and Stoal properties, by maintaining the same original boundary Council was in fact conferring a benefit by not a zoning exemption but some sort of the present parking requirements; and that a benefit transferred to the owner and therefore was defensible in terms of that district as opposed to any other district. Mr. Neal stated the efficiencies of providing 140 parking spaces even for the 400 required, was more efficent than providing 400 spaces alot of which would not be used at a given time. Mr. Berardini stated the benefit is the economical benefit and could be an indirect benefit in compliance with the code. It should somehow give value to the property and adjoin- ing properties whether partially or fully complying with the parking regulations. Mr. Neal stated the property is worth money because if that property were to be redeveloped it would then have to August 11, 1980 Page 4 come into compliance with the existing parking requirement which it is now deficient in. Someone who needed five spaces now would upon redevelopment not have to make room for five new spaces. In response to Council Member Fitzpatrick's question, City Attorney Berardini stated using the 400 foot boundary was lawful. If the Stole and Sachter properties were removed the bound- aries should change with the 400 foot. The 400 foot boundary should be honored for the reasons that they were established in the first place and that a property owner may provide parking for that particular use within a 400 foot radius of that property. Mr. Berardini stated it would be more rational that if a boundary changes by removal of property you still use the 400 foot measurement from the parking area. Council Member Keena asked if as long as the 400 foot was based on legitimate reasons then was it still legitimate; and therefore, when the property shrunk the 400 maintained its legi- timacy. City Attorney Berardini answered affirmatively. Council Member Bilo asked if the City property would be assessed also. City Attorney Berardini answered it would not assessed because the City has already contributed a substantial amount. The housing authority was not subject to assessment by law for special improvements. Mayor Otis asked the director of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority to appear and co11111ent on the 400 foot boundary. James T. Keller, Executive Director of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority, came forward. Mr. Keller stated it was his personal opinion that Council should preserve the in- tegrity of the 400 foot limitation. That was what the district was designed upon from the very beginning; and though it did raise the assessment cost because the money values had not been diminished, there was fewer square feet and fewer property owners to share the cost of the assessment. Mr. Keller also stated that when the development authority was having meetings with the people involved on both sides of Broad- way, it was very emphatic that the people on the west side of Broad- way were concerned that they should not have to pay in the same re- lationship as the people adjacent to the parking lot for their assess- ment. He stated since the primary area in this plan include all the properties on the west side of Broadway in the 3400 block, Council would see opposition from the people on the west side of Broadway in strong form. August 11, 1980 Page 5 COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL K>VED TO RECESS THE MEETING UNTIL AFTER THE CODE REVIEW HEARING WHICH WAS SCHEDULED NEXT FOR 7:00 P.M. Council Member Bilo seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Member Higday. The Mayor declared the motion carried and recessed the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Council reconvened at 8:05 p.m. Mayor Otis asked for roll call. Upon a call of the roll, the following were present: Council Members Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. Absent: Council Member Higday. The Mayor declared a quor\DD present. RESOLUTION NO. 37 SERIES OF 1980 * * * * * * C-3b A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 26, SERIES OF 1980, PASSED AND AOOPTED ON JUNE 16, 1980, CORCERNING THE PROPOSED DOWNTOWN IMPROVEMENT DISTRtcr MO. 1980-1, ARD A CHANGE IN THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROPOSED DISTRicr, THE KIRD OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, THE ESTIMATE OF COST ARD THE METHOD OF ASSESSMENT, AND PROVIDING FOR A FURTHER HEARING OR THE CREATIOR OF THE DISTRicr. COUNCIL MEMBER MEAL ll>VED TO PASS RESOLUTION NO. 37, SERIES OF 1980. Council Member Bradahaw seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote reaulted as follows: Ayea: Nays: Absent: Council Members Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Member Higday. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * August 11, 1980 Page 6 COUNCIL MEMBER NEAL K>VED TO SET SEPTEMBER 8, 1980, AT 7:30 P.M. AS THE FIRST OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS OR RESOLUTION RO. 37, SERIES OF 1980. Council Member Keena seconded the motion. Upon a call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows: 8:12 p.m. Ayes: Nays: Absent: Council Members Neal, Fitzpatrick, Keena, Bilo, Bradshaw, Otis. None. Council Member Higday. The Mayor declared the motion carried. * * * * * * There was no further business to be discussed. * * * * * * COUNCIL MEMBER KEENA MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. Mayor Otis adjourned the meeting without a vote at