Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-11-16 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 16, 1993 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Lloyd Covens at 7:00 P .M. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall. Members present: Clemens, Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick, Mason, Shoop, Covens Merkel, Ex-officio Members absent: Also present: Tobin Planning Administrator Harold J. Stitt City Attorney DeWitt II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 2 , 1993 Chairman Covens stated that the Minutes of the November 2, 1993 meeting were to be consid- ered for approval. Garrett moved: Clemens seconded: The Minutes of November 2, 1993 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Clemens, Garrett, Gerlick, Shoop, Covens None Dummer, Mason Tobin The motion carried. III. ALLEY VA CATION Block 77, Sheridan Heights Subdivision CASE #12-93 Mr. Covens stated that this request for vacation of the alley in Block 77, Sheridan Heights Subdivision , was considered at the meeting of November 2, and continued to this date to give staff an opportunity to clarify some of the concerns raised by property owners. Mr. Covens inquired whether any of the members of the Commission had an opportunity to view the alley. Mr. Clemens stated that he visited the site; he drove into the alley from South Tejon Street, and almost got stuck trying to back out; the grade at Tejon and the alley makes it difficult to use from the west end of the alley. Mr. Shoop agreed that the alley is very hard to get out of, and the visibility is greatly impaired because of the grade of Tejon and the grade of the alley. Mr. Covens commented on the location of the utility poles in the alley, which make it difficult to use, also. Mr. Covens discussed the history of the block, which dates back to 1888 when the original plat was approved and recorded. The confusion regarding the correct property lines was also re- viewed by Mr. Covens, as was the construction of a garage by Mr. Walt Radovich which ga- rage accesses from the alley. Mr. Radovich expanded on his problems with the alley, noting that the east end has been fenced and is not open for through traffic. If this obstruction were to be removed, vehicles could access from the west, unload at his garage, and drive through to South Raritan Street on the east. Mr. Radovich stated that he had to tow one of his suppliers out of the alley yester- day; they got stuck and couldn't back out onto Tejon. Mr. Radovich emphasized that he was told prior to purchase of the property, and prior to construction of the garage, that the alley was "open". He stated that he called Paul Kapaun of the Public Works Department on No- vember 8, 1993, and that Mr. Kapaun stated that he does remember talking to Mr. Radovich previously regarding the status of the alley. Mr. Kapaun stated that he would give the infor- mation regarding the alley to Mr. Rick Kahm, Engineering Manager in Public Works, and to give staff a couple of days to investigate the matter. Mr. Radovich stated that he has not heard back. Mr. Radovich stated that he understands it is Mr. Kapaun' s understanding that the alley is "open" because it is platted; he feels that he is being "left in the dark" as to what is going on, and has constructed a $25,000 garage that is basically unusable because of poor access. Mr. Stitt also reviewed the history of the block and the immediate area. The Block is zoned I- 1, Light Industrial, and has been zoned for industrial development since annexation to the City of Englewood in 1957. The Subdivision was, indeed, platted in 1888. Mr. Stitt stated he is not sure when actual development of the block began. An error in the platting of the block was discovered in 1975 when the City did street improvements in the area, which error would result in a shifting of property lines to the south and west if it were to be corrected. Mr. Stitt reviewed a meeting held earlier on this date, the participants being Mr. Kapaun, Mr. Kahm, City Attorney DeWitt, and himself, to discuss the alley in this block, the request for vacation from Mr. Garcia, and the concerns and opposition expressed by Mr. Radovich. Mr. Kapaun related to this group his recollection of conversations with Mr. Radovich to the effect that he stated to Mr. Radovich "the plat shows a dedicated alley", which statement does not mean that the alley is improved and usable. Mr. Stitt stated it is the conclusion of the participants in the meeting that the City does have a responsibility to provide "adequate access" to people who have access from the alley. Mr. Stitt discussed the topography of the Tejon/alley intersection, noting the grades of both Tejon and of the alley at the intersection. Mr. Stitt stated that it is his understanding from the meeting that the City has a "prescriptive right" to the travel lane (alley) even though the corrected property lines would extend south into the alley shown on the recorded plat. Mr. Stitt stated that in light of the information that has been developed in the past two weeks, staff is retracting support of the requested alley vacation, and opposes the request. Mr. Stitt 2 reiterated the obligation and responsibility of the City to provide adequate access to those property owners relying upon alley access for their businesses. Mr. Stitt discussed the fence erected at the east end of the alley; action can be taken to have it removed and the alley "opened" (improved) for use. This is not within the purview of the Planning Commission, and the determination of the correct location of property lines is also not within the purview of the Commission. Mr. Garrett asked if the City's responsibility to provide access requires that the alley be paved. Mr. Stitt stated that it does not require pavement; very few alleys in the City are paved, but if the adjoining property owners wanted it paved, it would have to be put in a Paving District. Mr. Garcia noted that the zoning of the block is I-1; his deed indicates a 125 foot depth, but if he tries to sell the property on a square footage basis, he will lose the 8 feet that is in contention at the rear of the property. Mr. Garcia stated that he wants to know where his rear property line is, and what he can sell. Mr. Stitt stated that he could not address this issue at this time; we will have to research remedies that may be available to Mr. Garcia through the City. Mr. Garcia pointed out that Mr. Radovich is the only property owner in the block who has a need to use the alley, and it has been closed off for at least five years. Mr. Radovich stated that he purchased his property because of the industrial zoning, and be- cause it was supposed to have access from the alley. Mr. Radovich suggested that perhaps Mr. Garcia's property might be more valuable were the alley to be improved and usable for the full length of the block, so that the property would have access from both the street and the alley. Mr. Radovich stated that businesses with storage, warehousing and loading docks could make use of alley access. Mr. Clemens asked if it was correct that Paul Kapaun remembers discussion of this issue from several years ago. Mr. Stitt stated that Mr. Kapaun's recollection is that he spoke to someone, and remembers stating that the plat shows dedicated right-of-way for the alley. Discussion en- sued. Mr. Covens asked what the City's role is in correcting the plats, property lines, etc. City At- torney DeWitt stated that there is no authority to cure the property line errors without the agreement of all parties, and this would have to be adjudicated in Court. Mr. DeWitt then discussed legal rights, liabilities, and ramifications of this issue at length, and answered ques- tions posed by members of the Commission and members of the audience. Mr. DeWitt stated that he understood from the meeting earlier on this date, that the City is ready to grade and improve the alley for use; this will not include paving, but would include gravel and grading. Mr. Covens asked Mr. Radovich whether he would be willing to file a complaint to force the removal of the fence at the east end of the alley. Mr. Radovich replied in the affirmative. Mr. Garcia noted that the block to the east of South Raritan and the block to the west of South Tejon do not contain alleys. He asked for assurance that if the alley in Block 77 were to be 3 opened up again, the City will assume responsibility for maintenance. Mr. DeWitt reiterated that it is his understanding the City will maintain the alley. Ms. Jesse spoke to the Commission, and stated that the alley was not there when she bought her property in 1947. She "think[s] people measured from the street and put their fence there". Mr. DeWitt reiterated that no one can determine where the property line actually is; this can only be done by a Court of Law and the agreement of the property owners. Mr. DeWitt noted that regarding the fence on the east end of the alley, if the property owner re- fuses to remove the fence after contact from the City, this would have to be determined in Court. Mr. Garrett asked whether the property owner with the fence on the "perceived correct prop- erty line", with a depth of 125 feet in his ownership, is paying taxes on the 8 feet that is in contention? Jack Terry, 3181 West Bails Place, Denver, presented a survey of his ownership to the Com- mission for their review and discussion. Mr. Radovich discussed the construction of his garage, which is supposed to be constructed 10 feet back from his property line; his fence is in common with everyone else's. Mr. Radovich discussed the location of the pins when he had his property surveyed at the time of the garage construction. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Covens apologized on behalf of the City for the confusion that has arisen on this issue. Garrett moved: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the alley in Block 77, Sheridan Heights Subdivision, be vacated with the exception of the western 175 feet; and that utility easements be retained. There was no second to Mr. Garrett's motion; the Chair declared the motion dead. Mr. Covens stated that he understood staff position to be the pursuit of removal of the ob- struction at the east end of the alley, and improvement of the alley to provide access; is this correct. Mr. Stitt replied in the affirmative, and stated that staff will continue to research the date of the fence installation. Mr. DeWitt stated that he would like to get more information on surveying to determine the proper location of property lines, and determine the proper place- ment of pins. Mr. Stitt pointed out that there may be several other blocks within this particu- lar Subdivision that are affected by erroneous survey lines. Mr. Radovich stated that he understood one and one-half years ago that something was going to be done regarding the alley; how can he be sure it will be followed up on this time. Mr. Stitt stated that staff will attempt to schedule a meeting to review the problem in depth, and will do so in the near future. He offered to call Mr. Radovich to relay the results of this meeting. Mr. Covens suggested the attorney for Mr. Radovich assist the City in the issue of obstruction removal. Discussion ensued. Mr. DeWitt stated that he would like to pursue the 4 improvement of the alley, and take care of the title work on the alley; he cautioned this will not be done quickly. He suggested that the best course of action regarding the fence is to file suit asking that it be removed. Mr. Clemens asked whether a court issue would be stronger if the Commission voted on the issue rather than just letting it "die" with no action at this meeting. Mr. DeWitt indicated it would not affect the court decision; if the Commission were to vote to recommend the vaca- tion, the alley is "gone" if Council approves the recommendation. If the determination is to retain the alley, he is prepared to work with the property owners and staff to reach an amiable resolution. Mr. Garcia again expressed concern over what his deed says, and what may actually be the square footage that he can offer for sale. Mr. Stitt reiterated that staff will work to try to de- termine where the actual property lines are, and will call Mr. Garcia to tell him the results of this work. Mr. Covens thanked members of the audience for their attendance, and declared a brief recess of the Commission. ********** The meeting reconvened; all members present except for Mrs. Tobin. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Home Occupations CASE #4-93 Mr. Covens stated that the Public Hearing is still open, having been continued from November 2, 1993. Mr. Covens asked that staff present the information. Mr. Stitt discussed the information he . had obtained from State Social Services pertaining to adult daycare. Basically, there are no state regulations governing adult daycare; there are Fed- eral guidelines which the State has to follow pertaining to Medicaid recipients. There are very few "homes" that provide adult daycare for one or two individuals on a less than 24-hour ba- sis; there are daycare facilities for adults which are sponsored by churches and hospitals, but these are not "home occupation" type operations. Mr. Stitt stated that when he spoke to repre- sentatives of the State Social Services Division, they indicated they were investigating the pos- sibility of developing regulations to provide for adult daycare, but these regulations would not be in place for at least another year. Mr. Stitt stated that his recommendation at this time is to exclude reference to adult daycare from the Home Occupation section, to continue to monitor the State regulations, and to amend the Ordinance in the future if such regulations are, indeed, adopted. Discussion ensued. Mr. Covens asked if there was other discussion on the Home Occupation section. He sug- gested that one amendment he would like to see made pertains to the square footage that may 5 be devoted to the home occupation use; the present regulations restrict it to "not more than 300 square feet". Mr. Covens suggested that a percentage figure, such as 35 % of the interior square footage, or not more than 300 square feet be allowed. Mr. Stitt pointed out that the in- tent of "home occupation" is that it be secondary and incidental to the primary use of the struc- ture for residential purposes. He stated that he would have to disagree with the percentage ci- tation. Mr. Covens pointed out that the present restriction of no more than 300 square feet provides no "ratio" between the size of the structure and that area which may be used for home occupation purposes. Mr. Covens stated that in his opinion, the 300 square foot restriction is arbitrary. Mr. Stitt stated that he knows of no complaints regarding the square footage re- striction for home occupations. Discussion ensued. Mr. Merkel stated that he feels staff is sympathetic to encouragement of home occupations, and feels that we are taking positive steps to allow such businesses via the proposed amend- ments , which would allow home occupations in the R-1-A District; all home occupations are now prohibited in the R-1-A District. Mr. Merkel pointed out that there may be some resis- tance to allowance of home occupations in the R-1-A District at the City Council hearing. Further discussion ensued. Garrett moved: Shoop seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #4-93 be closed. AYES: NAYS: Gerlick, Mason, Shoop, Clemens, Dummer, Garrett, Covens None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Tobin The motion carried. Mr. Covens asked the pleasure of the Commission. Gerlick moved: Mason seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance amendments pertaining to Home Occupations in all residential zone districts be approved. AYES: NAYS: Garrett, Gerlick Mason, Shoop, Clemens, Dummer, Covens None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Tobin The motion carried. 6 v. FINDINGS OF FACT Englewood Housing Authority Rezoning West Dartmouth Avenue CASE #11-93 Mr. Covens stated that the Findings of Fact on Case #11-93, the rezoning on West Dartmouth A venue requested by the Englewood Housing Authority, were to be considered for approval. Garrett moved: Clemens seconded: The Findings of Fact on Case #11-93 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: Shoop, Clemens, Dummer, Garrett, Gerlick, Covens None ABSTAIN: Mason ABSENT: Tobin The motion carried. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Commission. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Merkel discussed the issue of "name tags" which had been raised at the City Coun- cil /Planning Commission meeting. Discussion ensued. It was the consensus of the Commis- sion that funds could be better spent elsewhere, and that individual name tags are not a neces- sary item. Mr. Merkel reported on the City Council meeting of November 15; Sheri Gulley was elected Mayor, and Alex Habenicht was elected Mayor Pro-Tern. Mr. Covens inquired about the three improvement districts which were defeated in the elec- tion. Mr. Merkel stated that the impact will be on the adjacent property owners if the work is done; no bonds can be sold to finance the improvements, so the entire burden will be placed on the property owners, and it cannot be financed over a IO-year period. Mr. Covens inquired about the agenda for December 7. Mr. Stitt stated that a public hearing has been scheduled on a Planned Development for Walgreens' proposed development on South Broadway. Mr. Covens inquired about the adult use ordinance. Discussion has been scheduled for some- time in December. 7 vm. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE There were no issues raised under Commissioner's Choice . The meeting was declared adjourned at 9:25 P. M . xfe J d ~uLA ~~Y4 - Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secretary 8