Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-21 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING 'A.ND ZONING COMMISSION January 21, 1986 I. CALL TO QRDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Walter Stoel. Members present: Stoel, 'Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, Gourdin, Magnuson, Mulhern Members absent: 'Also present: Mesa Assistant Director D. A. Romans Senior Planner S. T. King I~. APPROVAL OF HINUTEa. December 17, 1875 Chairman Stoel stated that the Minutes of December 17, 1985 were to be considered for approval . Mr. Beier noted that his name had been omitted in the initial roll call, and that he was present at the meeting. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Minutes of December 17, 1985 as amended. 'A.YES: Stoel, Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson, Gourdin, Magnuson, Mulhern NAYS: None ABSENT: Mesa ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. Ill. SUBDIVISION waIVER Ramon Jacquez 'A.gent CASE #1-86 Mrs. Romans stated that the applicants are still meeting in the hallway to try to resolve some of the problems with the proposed subdivision waiver, and suggested that the Commission might want to proceed with the remainder of the agenda. IV. FINDINGS OF racT Shiv Jee Jha casE #37-85 Hr . Stoel stated that the Findings of Fact for Case #37-85 were to be considered for approval. Mr. Beier noted that his name was also omitted from the att endance role listed in the Findings of Fact; also that the case citation was given as #37-75 rather than #37-85. -2- Carson moved: Allen seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Findings of Fact for Case #37-85 as amended. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Beier, Carson~ Gourdin, Magnuson, Mulhern, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Mesa ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. v. aLLEY VACATION. Hr. Stoel asked that the staff discuss this request. CASE 6-86 Mrs. Romans stated that the Commission has recommended vacation of the west leg of the "T" alley in Block 4 of Higgins South Broadway Heights, on two different occasions finding that there is no reason to retain the right-of-way. Mrs. Romans reviewed the previous requests for vacation of the right-of-way, and noted that a 50 foot turning radius has been provided to connect the north/south alley with South Emerson Street via the east leg of the "T" alley. When the City Council approved the vacation of the alley, a provision was added to the ordinance that if a building permit was not issued within 180 days, the alley vacation was void. A building permit was not issued within that time frame, and the property owner now has to reapply for the alley vacation before he can pursue development plans for the site. Mrs. Romans noted that the architect, Mr. Art Swords, is present. Mr. Stoel asked why the 180 day stipulation was included in the vacating ordinance. Hrs. Romans stated that this was done by the former City Attorney at the request of a member of the City Council. Discussion ensued. Mr. Swords displayed working drawings of the proposed development, which is an out-patient surgery facility and will be u~ed in conjunction with Swedish Medical Center. Mr. Swords stated that they hope to break ground by the end of April, 1986. Mr. Swords discussed the access to and from the development, and demonstrated with the d~awings the adaptation of the building to fit the topography of the site. Hr. Allen asked what the Fire Chief felt about access for emergency equipment to the site. Mr. Swords stated that the developers had met with Mr. Groditski, Fire Marshal, approximately three years ago,. and at that time the 50 foot radius was acceptable; they do want the alley to be paved. • • • • • • -3- Mr. Stoel asked if the Commission members had any questions, or if the staff had anything to add. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has previously met with all concerned departments, and no objections were received. Mr. Beier asked if the 180 day stipulation should be included in the recommendation. Mr. Stoel stated that he did not see any need to include such a provision; the right-of-way is not needed, and should be vacated. Carson moved: Beier seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following right-of-way be vacated: The alley right-of-way which adjoins Lot 20 on the South, Block 4 1 Higgins South Broadway Heights, Arapahoe County, Colorado, extending East from South Clarkson Street to connect with the east and north/so~th portion of the Clarkson/Emerson alley in the 3500 block South. This recommendation is based on the following findings: 1. That the alley right-of-way adjoining the south side of Lot 20 1 Block 4 1 Higgins South Broadway Heights, is the west leg of a "T" alley which bisects property owned by the applicant. 2. That persons using the north/south portion of the alley off of East Hampden Avenue have access to South Emerson Street via the east leg of the "T" alley and that this pattern has been established for many years as the principal means of ingress/egress to the alley. 3. That the vacation of this west leg of the alley right-of-way has been approved by the City Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council on two other occasions; but, in both instances the vacation action was not carr i ed to completion solely because an 180 -day deadline to obtain a Building Permit was attached to the vacation action, and that deadline could not be met. 4. That the aforedescribed alley is no longer necessary and serves no public purpose . 5. That the applicant is denied the use of his property in the R-3 High Density Residence Zone District because it is bisected by the alley right-of-way. -4- AYES: Barbre, Beier, Carson, Gourdin, Magnuson, Mulhern, Stoel, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Mesa ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. III(B). SUBDIVISION WAIVER Ramon Jacquez, Agent CASE #1-86 Hr. Stoel asked that the applicants present their case. Mr. Bill Graveley stated that he is an attorney representing Mrs. Chongae Jennings and Hr. Ki Chul Choi, current owners of Tract B . They purchased the property from Hr. Jacquez one year ago, not realizing that this purchase was in violation of the Municipal Code. The individual holding the Deed of Trust from Mr. Jacquez on the total parcel has instituted foreclosure proceedings against Mr. Jacquez because he sold part of the holdings without paying the agreed upon sum to Hr. Klockner (holder of the Deed of Trust). Hr. Jay Hamburg wants to purchase Tract B from Mrs. Jennings and Hr. Choi, but has asked that the illegal purchase of the property by Jennings/Choi be corrected prior to his purchase of the property. Hr. Graveley said that the interested parties have been meeting earlier this evening in an effort to reach a solution to some of the problems involved on this site. Hr. Graveley stated that he feels they have arrived at a consensus that will allow the waiver to be approved by the Commission. Points 1. 2. 3. 4 . outlined by Mr. Graveley include: Mr. Hamburg is willing to purchase Tract B as shown. Hontura De Plata Corporation (Mr. Jacquez) agrees to sell to Hamburg "Parcel C". The plat will be modified to show only the east and west parcels. Hontura De Plata has agreed to vacate easements that are shown across Tract B. Hr. Graveley stated that they are asking the Planning Commission to consider granting the waiver under the conditions outlined, namely that the property will be divided into two parcels: east and west parcel. Parcel "C" will be eliminated and combined with Parcel "B". All easements existing across Tract B will be vacated. Mr. Allen asked the purpose of the easements across Tract B. Mr. Graveley stated that the easements were granted by Mr . Jacquez as additional means of access. Discussion ensued. Mr. Carson asked about the easements in Parcel "C". Mr. Graveley stated that the easements on Parcel "C" were recorded years ago, but are not used. These easements are not under consideration for vacation by the applicants; only those easements across Pa r cel "B". • • • • • • -5- Mr. Jacquez addressed the Commission and stated that he did not know what the easement along Parcel "C" is for, that it has never been used. Mr. Carson pointed out that if the easement is for utility purposes, the city should not relinquish the easement. Hrs. Romans stated that it is the suggestion of the staff that the applicant bring to the Commission a new plat showing the proposed division of the parcel with appropriate legal descriptions for each parcel. Hr. Graveley stated that the legal descriptions are on the current plat; Tract "A" would remain the same, and that Tract "B" and Tract "C" would be combined. Hrs. Romans pointed out that following approval of any subdivision waiver by the Commission, the plats must be recorded with the Arapahoe County Clerk and Recorder; it is necessary that the plat be clear as to what is proposed. Hrs. Romans pointed out that there are buildings on the southwest corner of Parcel "A" which appear to be served by an access easement outside the subject property from Santa Fe Drive. These buildings are leased to another party by Hr. Jacquez. Hrs. Romans pointed out that according to the Subdivision Regulations any act of leasing or building is a "division" of the property, and that by leasing those buildings, Parcel"A" has been divided. Mr. Jacquez stated that these properties have been used and leased in this manner for 25 years. New easements were created across Parcel "B" to give further access to those properties. Discussion ensued. Hr. Allen asked where the proposed access from West Union Avenue is to be located. Hr. Jacquez indicated the approximate location of a driveway from West Union Avenue which serves an existing house. Hr. Stoel asked if the staff had further comments . Hrs. Romans stated that she wanted to reiterate the need for a clean, concise plat for recording purposes; this plat should reflect the proper legal descriptions for the parcels as shown on the plat. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff has not been given a plat showing the locations of improvements that are in existence, and there is at present no way to determine whether the proposed division of the parcels into an east/west configuration is a logical division of the property. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stoel pointed out to Mr. Graveley and Mr. Jacquez that the plan they have discussed with the Commission has changed considerably from that which was presented with the staff report. He stated that he, personally, would like to see a new plotting of the division, elimination of the easements, and the location of the structures shown to determine the feasibility of the proposed division . -6- Hr. Graveley pointed out that foreclosure proceedings have begun, and that time is of importance to Hr. Jacquez and his clients in reaching a solution to this problem. Hr. Jacquez stated that he has invested approximately $5 1 500 to prepare the plats before the Commission; the legals are accurate for Parcel "A", and that the legals for Parcel "B" and Parcel "C" would be combined into a Parcel "B". He stated that this is very clear to him, and he felt the Commission should approve the request as presented to them at this meeting. Further discussion ensued. Allen moved: The Planning Commission table Case #1-86 for further consideration and ask that the applicant submit an amended plat, to scale, showing location of existing improvements, the location of any perpetual easements, and the proposed division of the property. Hr. Jacquez stated that the proposed division will not isolate any of the existing structures that are being leased. The Commission is asking that he spend additional funds to prepare an amended plat. If additional property were to be sold off, approval of a future division would have to be acquired. Hr. Magnuson stated that there is nothing in front of the Commission for them to determine where the access is from West Union Avenue, and how it will affect the buildings on the southwest corner of the parcel. The easements that are on the site "B" may not comply with City standards, and it is the responsibility of the Commission to assure that the City standards are met. Further brief discussion ensued. Hr. Carson stated that he would second Hr. Allen's motion. Hs. Romans pointed out that Senior Planner King has asked the applicant for an improvement survey, but the applicant has not submitted such a document. The motion was called: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Beier, Carson, Gourdin, Magnuson, Mulhern, Stoel, Allen, Barbre None Mesa ABSTAIN: None The motion carried. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one who wished to address the Commission under Public Forum. • • • • • • -7- VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that the City Council did approve the Planned Development at 300 West Belleview Avenue at their meeting on January 20, 1986. Hr. Gourdin asked if this development would have fire places. Hrs. Romans stated that fire places are proposed, and the staff would discuss the design of the fire places with the applicant. VIII. COHHISSIONEB'S CHOICE. Mr. Carson stated that with the cooperation of the City and the State Highway Department, sidewalk will be installed along Belleview Avenue east of South Broadway. The meeting adjourned at 7:55 P. M .