Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-02-20 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 20, 1974 I . CALL TO ORDER. The Regular Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to orde r at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Martin. Members present: Anderson; Martin; Smith; Tanguma; Wade Members absent: Br own ; Jorgenson; Lentsch; Weist Also present: Assistant Director Romans; Assistant City Attorney George Lee 9 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Martin stated that Minutes of -February 5th and January 29th are to be conside red for approval~ Mr. Supinger noted that the Minutes of Feb~uary 5th should be amended ; page 14, Item 3 on the approval of the Subdivision Waiver for Windermere Warehouses should read "subject to the approval of the CITY ATTORNEY" rath er than the City Engineer. Anderson moved: Tanguma seconded: The motion carried. The Minutes of January 29, 1974, be approved as written; the Minutes of February 5, 1974, be approved as amended on Page 14. III. T. W. ANDERSON Hilton Inn Off-street Parking CASE #8-74 I Mrs. Romans stated that the application has been filed by T. W. Anderson Mortgage Company for approval of an off-str~~t parking lot. A hotel/office use is proposed for the block boun4ed by Inca, U.S . 285, Jason and Ithaca Avenue. Mrs. Romans stated that the Comprehensive Zoning Or dinance requires approval by the ·Planning Commission for a,11 off-street parking lots with more than 50 spaces; the plans submitted show 509 off-street parking spaces. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has deter- mined that a total of 549 spaces are required for the combined uses of hotel-restaurant-office-retail; however, it is felt that capacity use of all the facilities will not occur at the same time. Therefore, t~e staff re commends approval of joint -1- • • • use of 40 spaces in the parking structure. Mrs. Romans stated that if the j o int use of the 40 parking stalls is approved, the plan does meet the requirements of the Compre- hensive Zo ning Ordinance. There is n o conflict with the Com- prehensive Pla n. Mrs. Rom ans discussed the traffic circulation to and from the pa r king area; there will be no curb cuts on U.S. 285 ~,and the a re a will be signed to avoid left-turn move- ments onto the highway at unsignalized inters ections. Mrs. Roma ns gave some background on the development. In 1968, Mr . Goorman, p r operty o wner, submitted a request to the City to vacate the alley in Block 6, Englewood; the Planning Com- mission approved the vacation an d r ecommended it to City Council. At the meet ing it was to be considered by Council, the applicant's legal counsel was not present, and the matter was dropped. The alley was finally vacated in 1973. The property is zoned I-1 , Light Industrial. The Planning Commission, in 1973, dete r mi ned that a hotel and motel use was comparable, and a hotel was determi ne d to be a conditi o nal use in the Light Indust rial Zone District. Mrs. Roma ns stated that the staff does suggest the elimination of four stalls on the surface lot, which stalls are immediately next to the south property line. The adjoining ownership is developed right to the pr o perty line also, and it was felt for maneuve r abi lity it would be better that these stalls were removed. Mr. Heister, archite ct for T. W. Anderson, presented the plans for the pa rking structure and the development. Mr. Heister presented the elevat ion for the parking structure. He stated that 265 of the 509 parking stalls will be "hidden". Mr. Heiste r stated that there will be attendant parking on the lower level; the upper level will be self-pa r k. Mr. Anderson asked what type o f lighting would be on the lower level pa rking area? Mr. Heiste r stated that this would be attendant parking for hotel patrons; the re would be florescent lighting in the area. Mr. Heister stated that all parking stalls will have wheel stops. Mr. Heister discussed devel opment of the survace parking area ; they pla n to install a 5 ft. to 6 ft. gravel strip bet ween the pa rking r ows t o aid in drainage, etc. He stated that snow could be purshed into this area , and with the prope r sl opi ng o f the pa r king areas, all drainage would run to this graveled strip. Mr . Heister stated that he did not feel landscaping should be re q uired on the parking lot; he stated that it would not be maintained , and it wo u ld be worse to have dead landscaping than n o ne at all. There will -2- • • • be landscaping around the hotel and office structures. Mr. Anderson asked what would be on the top of the parking structure? Mr. Heister stated there would be a covered swimming pool and two tennis courts. Mr. Martin stated that the last time the Commission corsidered the matter of the hotel itself, it was to determine that it was a conditional use in the Light Industrial Zone District; he asked if the Commission would have the full authority of following through and making su re ce r tain requirements were carried out befor e further construction? Mr. Supinger stated yes, and noted that the plans submitted with that application acted upon by the Commission are a specific part of the approval. Mr. Anderson stated this was "the first I have heard of a proposal to build a hotel in the City", and stated that he was very excited about it. Mr. Supinger asked if there was a time schedule on the con- struction? Mr. He ister stated that they planned to begin by the first of August, and hope to have it "closed in" by Octobe r. He stated that it would be about a 14 month project. Tanguma moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission approve the off-street parking plan submitted by T. W. Anderson Mortgage Compa ny for the Hilton Inn-Office Complex to be lo- cated at 950 West Hampden Avenue. The motion carried. IV. REX T. GARRET T Nassau Vacation CASE #7-74 Mrs. Roma ns stated that Mr. Rex T. Garrett has requested the vacation of West Nassau Street between the 3900 and 4000 blocks from South Kalamath Street east to the Jason/Kalamath alley. Mrs. Romans stated that two documents had been pre- sented to the Commission this evening; one a memorandum from City Engineer Sagrillo, and the second a map of the proposed vacation draw n by the Public Works Department. Mrs. Romans stated that to the east of the Jason/Kalamath alley is single-family residential development; west of the alley is industrial developme nt. Mrs. Romans stated that a little over a year ago, the City was requested to vacate a 16' easement that ran to the east of the alley; when the easement was vacated, the City requested the prope rty owner to dedicate sufficient land to provide a proper turning strip. Mr. Garrett owns the land immediately to the south of the proposed street vacation. -3- • • • Mrs. Romans stated that the City Engineer has prepared two legal descriptions for the areas to be vacated; they also want a condition placed on the vacation that there shall be no structures placed in the front 25 feet. Mrs. Romans stated that it appears most of the people have access to their garages from South Jason, and the alley and street provide traffic circulation for the industrial area. She stated that the staff sees no reason to retain the full 60 ft. dedication on West Nassau from Kalamath east to the alley. Mr. Supinger stated that the request of the City Engineer's Office "seems to be not within the realm of your authority to place restrictions on building setback within the area pro- posed for vacation " He noted that "this is an industrial district and no setbacks are required; you would be modifying the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance without going through the proper procedures." Mr. Supinger stated that he did not think the setback restriction should be included in the Commission r ecommendation to City Council, if, indeed, the Commission determined the vacation should be recommended. Discussion followed . Anderson moved: Wade seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the following right-of-way vacations and the retaining of an easement described as follows: #1: Beginning at the southwest corner of Block 30, Logandale? also being the southwest corner of Lot 24 and the north-' east corner of Kalamath Street and West Nassau Avenue intersection ; thence east along the south line of said Lot 24 a distance of 125.00 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 24 and the southeast corner of Block 30 as platted ; thence on an exterior angle to the right and to the southwest of 135°00', a distance of 25.46 feet, to a point 18 feet south of the south line of Lot 24; thence west and parallel to the south line of Lot 24 a distance of 107.00 feet to a point on the east line of South Kalamath Street extended; thence north along said east line extended 18.00 feet to the point of beginning, retaining an easement in the triangular area formed by a line being drawn between points located 18 feet north and 25 feet east of the southwest corner of Vacation No.l. Said tract contains 2088 sq~ ft • -4 - • • • #2: Commencing at the southwest corner of Block 30, Logandale; thence south 42.00 feet along the east line of South Kalamath Street extended to the true point of beginning; thence east and parallel to the south line of said Block 30 a distance of 125.00 f eet; thence south and parallel to the east line of South Kalamath Street extended 18.00 feet to a point on the south line of West Nassau as it now exists, also being the north line of vacated Block 37, Logandale ; thence west along said north line of vacated Block 37, Logandale, 125.00 feet to its point of inter- section with the east line of South Kalamath Street; thence north 18.00 feet along the extended east line of South Kalamath Street to the true point of beginning, retaining an easement in the triangular area formed by a line being drawn between points located 18 feet south and 25 feet east of the northwest corner of Vacation No. 2. Said tract contains 2250 sq. ft. The motion carried. V. DIRECTOR '~ CHOICE A .. Mr. Supinger stated that at the last meeting of the Planni n g Commission, they approved a Subdivision Waiver, with conditions, for Mr. J. B. Armstrong for property at 1300 West Radcliff. Mr. Supinger stated that the staff wanted clarification of the Commission action. He stated that the survey required by the Commission is substantially completed; there are problems pro- viding the turn-arounds required on West Radcliff and West Stanford. The area to be used for the turn- around o n West Radcliff Avenue is not part of the Sub- division Waive r under consideration, and Mr. Supinger stated that he did not feel the City could require M~ Armstrong to provide the turn-around at this point in time. The City is still protected, stated Mr. Supinger, in the fact that Mr. Armstrong will have to obtain a Subdivision Waiver in order to get a Building Permit fo r the parcel south of Radcliff; the City will require that the tur n -around be provided at that time, but not now. Mr. Supinger stated that the clarification is needed on the provision that the City Attorney give approval of the matter of easement or dedication of the South Navajo St r eet extension. Mr. Supinger stated that Mr. Armstrong feels he has complied with what the Commission -5- • • • wanted; Mr. Lee stated that for the City's interest to be pro- tected, something more should be required. Mr. Brown entered and took his place with the Commission. Mr. Lee stated that one must consider who owns the land; is there a mortgage on the land ; and the matter of easement vs. dedication for roadway purposes. Mr. Lee stated that Mr. Armstrong has a Corporation, which is listed as owner of the property . An easement for roadway purposes was presented which "was reported to be similar to one that was accepted at one time" by the City ; however, Mr. Lee stated "it seemed to infer that the City, by accepting the right-of-way ease- ment, would become responsible for construction, maintenance, etc. of any roadway." Mr. Lee stated that there were other reasons that particular instrument was unacceptable. Mr. Lee stated that if there is a mortgage on the property, and if the City accepts a dedication, easement, deed, warranty deed or whatever, the owne r can convey his interest, but the action is subject to a deed of trust from the mortgage holder. Mr. Lee stated that an easement would not destroy the ability of the mortgage holder to foreclose on the property, including the property deeded to the City of Englewood by the easement • Mr. Lee stated that "if the City takes the property free and clear, there is no problem ; that a release may be gotten from the mortgage holder on the p r operty to be dedicated for roadway purposes." Mr. Lee stated that the question of placing money in escrow for bond had been raised; he stated this was a matter for the Commission to decide. Mr. Lee stated that "anything less tha n a partial release from the mortgage holder is less than perfect in conveyance free and clear." Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Armstrong wished to speak to the point. Mr. Armstrong stated that the plat is being prepared by Mr. Nicholl, and will be prepared to the satisfaction of Public Works Director Waggoner. Mr . Armstrong stated that he had spoken to Mr. Waggoner on two occasions earlier in this afternoon regarding Radcliff, and one property to the east; there is a precedent in the City that dead-end properties have been issued Building Permits with easements for roadway to the property line; he stated Mr. Waggon~r "does not consider it important whether a cul-de-sac was provided or not." Mr. Armstrong stated that he applied for a building permit on January 18th, and returned the application to the office on January 21st; at that time he discussed the matter with Mr. Waggoner, and was told about the Navajo Street extension. Mr. Armstrong stated tha~ ~r. Waggoner told him in his opinion -6- • • • if Navajo Street were to be extended, most of the properties would have to be condemned; most of them run east to west for approximately 600 ft. He stated that it isn't to the advantage of any one property owner to dedicate to the City of Englewood, and that Mr. Waggoner indicated it would be three to five years before the Navajo Street extension became a reality. Mr. Armstrong stated that he remortgaged the subject property in December, 1973. Mr. Armstrong stated that he would like to solve the problem; the City could have two buildings and an easement for roadway purposes, or no buildings and no easement. Mr. Armstrong stated that First Denver Mortgage Company is the mortgage holder; they are willing to grant the easement at the present time, and will give dedication at such time as Engle- wood acquires right -of-way for the South Navajo Street extension to the north and south of the subject property. Mr. Armstrong stated that unless E n glewood does acquire property to the north and south of the subject p r operty for street purposes, there will be no conveyance and n o road through the subject site. Mr. Armstrong stated that he had placed a five year time element on the matter of conveyance and dedication, inasmuch as Mr. Waggoner had indicated to him that it would be three to five years before Navajo Street would be extended. Mr. Armstrong stated that he was willing to "quit claim" his interests in the proposed 60 ft. right -of-way. Mr. Armstrong reiterated that so long as the legal documents were properly drawn, he felt the easement granted by the mortgage holder for five years with conversion to a dedicated roadway at the end of that time should satisfy the City's requirements. Mr. Lee stated that a mortgage holder cannot grant an easement; they can grant a release. Mr. Lee reiterated that it requires a "deed of trust" to convey the land when it is mortgaged. Mr. Lee stated that he felt the Planning Commission must under- stand there is a risk involved if they contemplate accepting the proposal as outiined by Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Lee pointed out that "if someone decided withi n that five year period they aren't going to dedicate, the City cannot force it." Mr. Lee stated that if a street has been put in and there is a fore- closure by default, the City may be faced with an "inverse condemnation", whereby the City has taken land and used it for a purpose subject to the interest of someone else. The City may be asked to pay the "reasonable value" of the land used for street purposes. Mr. Armstrong stated that if First Denver Mortgage tells him they will grant the easement for five years, with conveyance at that time, he feels they are acting in good faith . -7 - • • • Discussion followed. Mr. Lee stated that a partial release with the descript ion of the land be ing released is signed by the mortgage holder, which states that the previously described land is being released a nd is no longer security under the original deed of trust. Mr. Lee n oted that the mortgage holder initiates foreclosure thro ugh the public trustee. Furthe r discussion followed. Mr. Lee stated that the Stanfor d Corporati o n is the regi ste red owner of the land ; the Corporation has the ability t o convey the property to the City of Englewood for street purposes because they ow n it. But, to convey it subject to encumbrance --unless the mortgage holder releas es a port i o n of the land fr om the mortgage the City takes it sub- ject to the mortgage rights . Further discussion followed. Mr . Armst r o ng reviewed the proposal of Fi rst Denver Mortgage, and asked if this would n ot p r otect the City interest. Mr. Lee stated it would n ot. Mr. Lee emphasized that the City will take the p roperty subject to the foreclosure rights on the prope rty . Mr . Lee reiterated that the mortgage holder has no interest to convey because they have nothing to convey; they can and do have interest to releas e. Mr. Lee stated that the Commission does have authority to im- pose reasonable conditions on the waiver, but they should unde rst a nd that the City Attorney's Office is of the opinio n that anything less than a partial release of deed of trust of that strip of land for r o adway purposes is a risk factor for foreclosure at a future time . Fu rther discussion followed. Mr. Armst r ong stated that he applied for a building permit in November ; had he known Navajo extension was proposed, he could have made othe r plans. As it was, the entire parcel was re- mortgaged in De cember . Mr. Armstrong stated that he felt i t was a "pretty stark statement to say it is this or nothing~ but it has gotten to that point", ref erring to the easement- dedication from First De nver Mortgage in five years. Mr. Lee pointed o ut that "it won't be an automatic dedication", and agai n stated that the mortgage holder had no easement to grant. Further discussion followed. Mr. Smith asked if the City had the authority t o build a stree t without a free and clear ded ication? Mr. Lee stated that the City would be taking a risk; it did not matter whether the land is left raw o r improved, it would be subject to the mo rtgage . Discussion followed. Mr. Armstrong stated that he offe red to construct the street, and Mr. Waggoner stated that he could n ot, as they don't know what the final grades will be in the a rea . Mr. Armst rong stated he was t old the street extension would affect 10 -12 properties, and that an improvement dist rict -8- • • • would be formed to impose the tax levies necess ary for street construction to city specifications. Mr. Armstro ng asked the Planning Commission to consider accepting what he is able to convey, and allow him to proceed with the construction of the bu ilding. The build ing alignment does not interfere with the proposed street alignment. Discussion followed. Mr. Lee commented that the easement sub- mitted by Mr. Armstrong had some wording that was "harmful" to the City. Mr. Lee stated he would have to review any document submitted by Mr. Armstrong, prior to giving his approval. Further discussion followed. Mr. Armstrong reiterated he cannot give the land free and clear. The plat ting of the land in accordance with Subdivision Regula- tions was discussed. Mr. Armstrong stated there would be "no subdivision plat". He stated there are three buildings on four sites, and if required to file a plat, "it would mean no buildi ng". Mr. Armstrong reviewed his ow ners hip and develop- ment of the land, and n oted "it has n ot been a homogenous developme nt." He stated that all three buildings existing are occupied. Mr. Martin asked "what kind of direction is wanted" by the staff? Mr. Supinge r asked should he issue a Building Permit based upon land that is free and clear, o r should a Permit be issued based on land that is not free a nd clear. Discussion followed. Mr. Tanguma asked about development of the area north and south of Mr. Armstrong's property; he n oted that if it was 60% develop- ed, it wasn't logical to insist on a platted street. Anderson moved: Smith seconded: The Planning Commission ins truct the Director of Community Development that it is the feeling of the Planning Commission that with Mr. Armstrong granting his interest in the street right-of -way to the City, the conditions previously stipulated would be met. Mr. Tanguma stated it seems we should ~tart some place in platting this whole area. Discussi o n followed. The vote was called. The motion carried • -9 ~ • • • B. Mr. Supinger stated there is presently a deadline of two weeks prior to a Planning Commission meeting for submission of all matters to be considered by the Planning Commission. However, this does not give sufficient time to get all in- formation needed for the Planning Commission consideration. The staff is requesting a 30 day lead time on all matters for Planning Commission consideration. Mr. Martin suggested this provision be included in the Planning Commission Hand- book under "Powers, Duties, and Procedures." Discussion followed. Anderson moved: Tanguma seconded: All items to come before the Planning Com- mission for consideration shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development 30 days prior to the date of such Planning Commission consideration. If all informa- tion the staff requires is available at the time of submission of the application, the matter may be submitted for Planning Commission consideration prior to the 30 day deadline. Discussion followed. The vote was called; motion carried . C. Mr. Supinger stated that copies of the SRI Community Attitude Survey questions had been placed before members of the Planning Commission. Members were asked to rate the questions in order of importance. VI. COMMISSION'S CHOICE Mr. Martin inquired about progress on scheduling a special meeting of the Planning Commission with property owners in the area south of Union and east of South Decatur to discuss access. No meeting had been scheduled to this time. Meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. M,~L~ /Gertrude G. Weity Recording Secretar; -10- • • • MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: February 20, 1974 SUBJECT : Right-of-way Vacation -Easement Retention: West Nassau at South Kalamath Street. RECOMMENDATION: Anderson moved: Wade seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the following right-of-way vacations and the retaining of an easement described as follows: #1: Beginning at the southwest corner of Block 30, Logandale, also being the southwest corner of Lot 24 and the north- east corner of Kalamath Street and West Nassau Avenue intersecti on ; thence east along the south line of said Lot 24 a distance of 125.00 feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 24 and the southeast corner of Block 30 as platted; thence on an exterior angle to the right and to the southwest of 135°00', a distance of 25.46 feet, to a point 18 feet south of the south line of Lot 24; thence west and parallel to the south line of Lot 24 a distance of 107.00 feet to a point on the east line of South Kalamath Street extended; thence north along said east line ex.tended 18.00 feet to the point of beginning, retaining an easement in the triangular ar~a formed by . a line being drawn between points located 18 feet north and 25 feet east of the southwest corner of Vacation No. 1. Said tract contains 2088 sq. ft. #2. Commencing at the southwest corner of Block 30, Logandale; thence south 42.00 feet along the east line of South Kalamath Street extended to the true point of beginning; thence east and parallel to the south line of said Block 30 a distance of 125.00 feet; thence south and parallel to the east line of South Kalamath Street extended 18.00 feet to a point on the south line of West Nassau as it now exists, also being the north line of vacated Block 37, Logandale; thence west along said north line of vacated Block 37, Logandale, 125.00 feet to its point of inter- section with the east line of South Kalamath Street; • • • thence north 18.00 feet along the extended east line of South Kalamath Street to the true point of beginning, retaining an easement in the triangular area formed by a line being drawn between points located 18 feet south and 25 feet east of the northwest corner of Vacation No. 2. Said tract con- tains 2250 sq. ft. The motion carried. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. LY,-n~_:/-~ ~/~elty ~(7" Recording Secretary 1...- - .,, !! - -~ -~1 20 2!5' 60° so' I LOFFREOA I SUBDIVISION -~1 I 9 L BLOCI< 3 ..... I I 0 ~ I I 22 i.J~ ..... i.J 10 I ~~ I c( i.J >- ~ I 24 RECOMMENDED BLDG. ~. SETBACK FROM KALAMATH " 25 1 ---===::z.Z.......::::::==~ . .,,~ SCALE 1• • 501 58 .18° 58.18° FIL1vG 58.18 ° OXFORD 11£GHTS 2 NO. ~ ~ II I 10 I 9 --___ J __ ----------~-A··~:~~~:- 28.18° '-lltl PA¥ I --------75:------- UNP4ATTED (VACATED BLOCK I 37) ( LOGANDALE) NOTE -EXISTING CONCRETE RETURNS EXTEND FROM KALAMATH INTO THE PROPOSED VACATION AREAS OF NASSAU. ANY CONCRETE WORK TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION WILL BE AT EXPENSE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS; WILL INCLUDE A STANDARD ALLEY PAN,· WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE CITY ENGINEER .. ----- -~ SOUTH KALAMA---1---STREET -----.--