Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-05-08 PZC MINUTES/ • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 8, 1979 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:15 P. M. by Chairman Tanguma. Members present: Lathrop , Smith, Tanguma, Williams, Becker, Bilo, Carson Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: Pierson, Draper Also present: Assistant Director Romans; Associate Planner Fessenden. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Mr. Tanguma stated that the Minutes of April 17, 1979, and April 24 , 1979, were to be considered for approval. Lathrop moved: Carson seconded: The Minutes of April 17, 1979, be approved as written. AYES: Lathrop, Smith, Tanguma, Williams, Becker, Bilo, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Draper, Pierson The motion carried. Carson moved: Lathrop seconded: The Minutes of April 24, 1979, be approved as written. AYES: Carson, Lathrop, Tanguma, Becker, Bilo NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Smith, Williams ABSENT: Draper, Pierson The motion carried. III. RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION 3500 Block South Marion CASE #10-79 Mr. Tanguma asked for the staff report. Mrs. Romans stated that the Department of Community has received a request to vacate the West 37.9 feet South Marion Street right-of-way in the 3500 block. requesting the vacation was submitted by a Mr. Curt Development +/-of the The letter Kuhl, who • . -2- is a Broker-Associate with Realty World-Senti, and represents the property owner, South Marion Street Venture. The principals in the South Marion Street Venture are physicians who office at 3535 South Lafayette Street. Mr. Tanguma stated at this point that he would like to excuse himself from considering this case, inasmuch as he and Mr. Kuhl are business associates in Realty World-Senti, and asked Mr. Lathrop to preside during consideration of this case. Mr. Tanguma stepped down from his chair with the Commissio n and was seated in the audience. Mrs. Romans stated that the 3500 block of South Marion Street has a 75 foot right-of-way in the block between East Hampden Avenue and U. S. 285, and is designated as a 11 local 11 street. The street has been included in a paving district and there are no plans to designate the block as a Collector or Arterial, or to widen the roadway further, using the full 75 foot right -of- way. Mrs. Romans stated that the request for vacation of the West 37.9 feet of the right-of-way was referred to other City Departments. It is the opinion of the Director of Public Works, Kells Waggoner, and the Director of Engineering Services, Gary Diede, that there are between 14.2 feet and 15.7 feet of excess right-of-way which could be vacated; but that the re- quested 37.9 feet of right-of-way should not be vacated. The vacation of the 14.2 feet to 15.7 feet would result in a 60- foot right-of-way, corresponding to the right-of-way in the blocks to the north of East Hampden Avenue. Mrs. Romans pointed out that the request submitted by Mr. Kuhl also requested the vacation on only the south 272.5 feet of the 3500 block, and the staff is of the opinion that if the vacation is approved, it should be uniform throughout the block. Mrs. Romans s tated that apparently the request has been misun- derstood by property owners in the block, and that some of them are under the impression that the request is to vacate the alley. She emphasized that this is not the case, and discussed the platting of this block in detail. The block was platted with four alleys: a north/south alley, and three east/west alleys. The east/west alley at mid-block and the one at the southern end of the block have b een vacated, leaving a "T"- shaped alley in the block ·at the present time. Mrs. Romans emphasized that the question before the Commission is whether or not there is a public purpose to be served by retaining the 14.2 to 15.7 feet of right-of-way on the west side of the block that is in excess of the 60 foot right-of- way, inasmuch as the 60 foot right-of-way has been determined to be adequate for present and future use. Mrs. Romans stated that the proposed vacation of the right-of-way would have no perceivable effect on the property owners in the block, al- though those on the west side of the street would gain at least 14 feet of additional property. She emphasized that the matter -3- before the Commission has nothing to do with rezoning or the use of the land, but only whether or not there is a public purpose to be served by retaining the 14o2 to 15 07 feet of right-of-way that is deemed to be in excess of the required 60 foot right-of-wayo Mr. Smith noted that the request was for vacation of the west 37o9 feet of the south 27205 feet of the block, but the staff is only recommending the vacation of the 14.2 to 15.7 feet for the length of the entire block. He also noted that the staff report indicates that a legal opinion be obtained before the vacation is accomplishedo Mrs. Romans said that the reference to a legal opinion pertains only to the disposition of the excess right-of-way if it is vacated, and not to the question of whether or not the right-of-way should be retainedo Mrs. Romans explained that the deeds on this right-of-way do not indicate that the land was acquired specifically for right- of-way purposes. Therefore, Mr. Waggoner and Mr. Diede posed the question as to whether the land should be given to the ad- joining property owners, or whether the City should be reimbursed by the property owners for the land that would be "vacated". Mrs. Romans stated that she did not feel that the matter of reimbursement, and whether or not the right-of-way was acquired for street purposes or just purchased, is something that should be addressed by the Commission. The matter before the Com- mission is whether or not there is a public purpose served by the excess 14.2 to 15.7 feet of right-of-wayo She stated that she did not feel that it is up to the Planning staff to recommend whether or not the City should be reimbursed for this lando Mr. Wanush agreed with Mrs. Romans that this is not a determina- tion to be made by the Planning staff. Mr. Williams asked if it would be proper to request the staff to get a legal opinion on whether or not the City should be paid for the right-of-way? Mrso Romans stated that the Com- mission is addressing the question of whether or not the right - of-way is needed for public purposes; the method of its dis- posal, if it is vacated, would be a matter for City Council determinationo Mr. Lathrop asked Mr. Kuhl if he wished to address the Com- mission? Mr. Curt Kuhl stated that he is a Broker-Associate with Realty World-Senti, and is acting on behalf of the property owners, South Marion Street Ventureo Their original request was for the vacation of the west 37.9 feet of the south 272.5 feet of the block, in an attempt to gain more land to allow more units on the siteo He stated that while the 14o2 to 15o7 feet of right-of-way in excess of the 60 foot right-of-way is probably not of "value" to the property, it is important in developing the property because the lots are only 112 feet deep rather than the usual 125 feet. It would enhance the property for new development. The reasoning behind the request for the 37.9 foot vacation, was to give more setback and additional square footage for more units on the site. '-4- Mr.Lathrop asked if there were any questions of Mr. Kuhl? No questions were asked of Mr. Kuhl. Mr. Lathrop then asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the vacation? No one indicated they wished to speak in favor. Mr. Lathrop then asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in opposition to the vacation request? Mr. Tony Monte 3527 South Marion -stated that he is purchasing this properzy from his mother, and that the vacation of the excess right-of-way will not mean anything to his property. He noted that the clients of the medical office building on South Lafayette Street fill that parking lot, and then people park along South Marion Street. There is not sufficient parking for the duplexes that are constructed on the area, and people park on the vacant lot and on the excess right-of-way. He stated that he felt the excess right-of-way does serve a purpose, and he is opposed to the vacation. Mr. Smith questioned that parking would be allowed on this right-of-way. Mr. Monte pointed out that it is public property, and does still serve a public purpos e. Dr. Guard, one of the partners in South Marion Street Venture, stated that there are a couple of junk cars and a boat which have been parked on their lot; he stated that he did not know who they belong to, but assumed they might be Mr. Monte's. Dr. Guard stated that the people from the medical building on South Lafayette do not park on South Marion Street, and that the street is clear at almost any time. He stated that he and his associates who own this lot have a hard time trying to keep the property cleaned of debris --tree limbs, etc., and would like to develop it and put it to use. He asked that the vacation of the excess right-of-way be approved. Mr. Smith asked if this property were to be developed with residential units, would they not have to provide off-street parking? Mrs. Romans stated that this is correct; they would have to provide the required off-street parking. Mr. Kuhl stated that he believed the ratio for parking for the type of units they have in mind is 1-1/2:1; he emphasized that new parking lots would not be created on this site for more medical facilities. The owners are contemplating a residential-type development. Mrs. Doris Preston 3527 South Marion -stated that she is the present owner of this property. She stated that people from the medical office building park on South Marion Street, and have told her that as employees of the medical center, they have been instructed not to park in the medical center parking lot. She stated that one of the women used to park right in front of her place until she asked her to move, and this woman informed her that the employees were not to park in the medical complex parking lot. Mrs. Ida Resley 3540 South Marion -stated that she is home all day, and are at least five or six people that on South Marion Street who work at the medical building. stated that at least two doctor s park on the street, and four to five others, also. Discussion ensued. -5- there park She from Mr. Kuhl reiterated that the proposed development may not solve the parking problem existing in this block, but it will not complicate the problem. He pointed out that the units would be constructed according to code, and would provide the required off-street parking. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt the issue before the Commission is the vacation of the right-of-way, and not the matter of parking. She stated that in her opinion, the parking problem should be taken care of elsewhere. Williams moved: Bilo seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following right-of-way be vacated in the 3500 Block of South Marion Street, as requested in Case #10-79 : (1) The East 5 feet of Lot 2 and the West 10.7 feet of Lot 1, and the West 15.·7 feet of the East 30 feet of Lots 27 and 28 and the East 5 feet of ~ot 25 and the West 9.2 feet of Lot 26 all in Block 1, Yeager's Subdivision of Block 4, Verona Place. Contains 4269.75 square feet. (2) The East 5 feet of Lot 2 and the West 9.2 feet of Lot 1 and the West 15.7 feet of the East 30 feet of Lots 27 & 28 all in Block 2, Yeager's Subdivision of Block 4, Verona Place. Contains 2543.25 square feet. (3) Beginning at a point 5 feet West of the Southeast corner Lot 25, Block 1, Yeager's Subdivision of Block 4, Verona Place; thence South 30 feet to a point 5 feet West of the Northeast corner Lot 2, Block 2, Yeager's Subdivision of Block 4, Verona Place; thence East 14.2 feet along the NOrth line of Lots 2 and l; thence North 30 feet to the South line of Lot 26, Block 1, Yeager's Subdivision of Block 4, Verona Place; thence along the South line Lots 26 and 25 14.2 feet to point of beginning. Contains 426.00 square feet. (4) That portion of a 15 foot alley which is adjacent to the Wes t 15.7 feet of the East 30 feet of Lot 27, Block 2, Yeager's Subd i vi - sion of Block 4, Verona Place, City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado. Contains 235.5 square feet. • . -6- The vacation of this right-of-way is favorably recommended for the following reasons: 1. The 3500 block of South Marion Street is classified as a Local Street and no more than sixty feet of right-of-way is needed for the present and projected use of the land in that block. 2. The roadway in this block was constructed in Paving District No. 7 of 1957, utilizing only the eastern sixty feet of the right-of-way, and there are no plans to redesign or recon- struct the roadway. 3. By vacating the land in excess of the 60-foot right-of-way along the west side of the entire block, it will create a uniform right-of-way width in this block and the width will be comparable to other Local Streets within the City. Mr. Smith stated that there is a parking problem in this block, but it has nothing to do with the request before the Commission. He also pointed out that opponents to the vacation would have an opportunity to appear before City Council when this matter is considered by that body. He emphasized to the members of the audience that under the Zoning Ordinance and Building Codes, new developments must provide off-street parking. He stated that it appeared from discussion this evening that Dr. Guard is willing to cooperate with the residents of the area, and suggested that they work together to reach a solution to the parking situation. Mr. Bilo stated that he felt the job of the Planning Commission is to determine whether or not the right-of-way is used for public purposes; he does not feel that it is, and that there will be no need for this right-of-way in the future. He stated he would vote in favor of the motion. Mr. Lathrop stated that he felt Mr. Smith and Mr. Bilo had covered the points of consideration by the Commission, and asked for the vote: AYES: Bilo, Carson, Lathrop, Smith, Williams, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Draper, Pierson, ·Tanguma The motion carried. IV. SUBDIVISION WAIVER CASE #11-79 4691 South Mariposa Drive Mrs. Romans recalled that Mr. Oakley had annexed his land to the City of Englewood in 1978, and indicated the location of the property on the map. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Oakley is in the process of constructing a single-family house on this • -7- property, which was zoned R-1-C, Single-family Residenceo There is sufficient land area for a second building site on the north end of the parcel, which would have frontage on South Mariposa Drive, and utilities are available to the site 0 The City Ditch runs across the front of the property. The staff is of the opinion that nothing would be gained by requiring the filing of a Subdivision Plat, and Mr. Oakley has asked a waiver to the requirement of filing a subdivision plat in order to divide his property into two building sites. Mr. Carson stated that there is no reference made to the 6 11 water line running across the rear of the property, which is used to water properties to the north. Mrs. Romans stated that there is no evidence of an easement for such a water line in the survey. Mr. Carson stated that he asked, because if this is private property, how could the person owning those water rights have access to turn the water on and off? He stated that he understood the pipe had been broken during con- struction on Mr. Oakley's site. Mrs. Romans suggested that Mr. Oakley is present, and could perhaps answer the questions posed by Mr. Carson. Mr. Oakley stated that there is an irrigation pipe that does run down the back of his property, and that there is no ease- ment for this water line. It appears that when the reservoir was built in 1948, the water line ran across this property, which was under one ownership at that time. The property was subsequently divided, with no easement for this water line ever being designated. Mr. Oakley stated that it is not his intention to cause anyone problems over the water rights, and in fact has made arrangements to replace that portion of the pipe that was broken during constructiono He stated that he was not aware the pipe was on his property until they were well into the construction, and broke the pipe. Smith moved: Williams seconded: The Subdivision Waiver requested by Mr. Wayne Oakley for the following described property be approvedo Beginning at a point 579.14' Southeasterly along the Westerly line from the Northwest corner of Plot 13; thence continuing along said Westerly line 275 feet to the Southernmost corner of Plot 13; thence South 89° 08' East 9.47 feet to the Westerly R.O.W. of the City Ditch; thence North 5° 16' East along said R. o. w. 20.29 feet; thence North 16° 52' East along said R.o.w. 150.54'; thence North 12° 14' 30" East along said R.O.W. 55.55 feet; thence North 4° 10' East along said R.O.W. 49031 feet; thence North 88° 45' West and leaving the Westerly R.O.W. of the City Ditch 32.18 feet to a point on the Easterly line Plot 13; thence South 89° 47' West and parallel to the North line Plot 13 99.6 feet more or less to the point of beginning, Bell Isle Gardens, Arapahoe County, Colorado, containing .458 acres, more or less. -8- The Commission makes this recommendation for the following reasons: lo The division of the subject parcel, as proposed, will result in two single-family building sites of adequate size and frontage to meet the requirements of the R-1-C Zone District regulations 0 2. No substantial benefits would be gained by the City or by the public from requiring a Subdivision Plat to be prepared, approved and filed for this parcel 0 AYES: Becker, Bilo, Carson, Lathrop, Smith, Tanguma, Williams 0 NAYS: None ABSENT: Draper, Pierson The motion carriedo V. COUNTRY CLUB JOINT VENTURE CASE #21-78 Mr. Wanush stated that this is a progress report on the Country Club Joint Venture project. He stated that the staff was informed earlier in the day that Mr. Regan has hired a project manager for the site, and the architect is getting into '~orking drawings''. The engineer hired by the Utilities Department has been doing some work on the extension of the sewer line from the site to the Plant, but no final report has been made at this timeo Mr. Smith asked if the staff had heard of any legal action regarding this proposal? Mr. Wanush stated that he has heard nothing further than the letter from Mr. Criswell which questioned the procedure followed by the Planning Commission. He noted that there are continuing complaints from residents of the area regarding the existing development on parking and the fence along Romans Park. Mr. Smith inquired if there had been any progress in getting the fence along Romans Park repaired? Mr. Wanush stated that there has been, and that he did, in fact, receive a proposed design for the fencing earlier in the day. The proposal will contain three gates in the fence: one on the eastern end, one mid-way in the Park, and one by the Tot Lot. He noted that there are a few residents north of East Floyd Avenue who are opposed to the gates. He stated that the residents north of East Floyd Avenue have been surveyed --19 people in all, 13 of whom had no objections. He stated that there is no reason the gates cannot be permitted; they would not be in violation of the conditions of the Waiver which was approved in 1972. Mr. Bilo asked if there had ever been discussion about a wall rather than a fence along the south side of .the Park. Mr. Wanush stated that he could not recall any discussion of a wall being installed instead of the fence. Further discussion ensued. -9- VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Wanush stated that at the time the Hampden Hills Baptist Church Subdivision Waiver was approved in Februa r y of this year, one of the conditions imposed at the request of the Utilities Department was that any development on the new site, Parcel "B", must connect to Englewood water and sewer. Since that time, the owner of the new site, who hopes to relocate the Brown House on to it, has been told that Denver is serving the house now, and can continue to serve the house at its new location. The owner has discussed this with the Englewood Utilities Department, and Mr. Fonda has reconsidered his position on this matter, and sees no problem allowing Denver to continue its service to this structure. Mr. Wanush suggested that the Subdivision Waiver should be amended to delete this condition. Smith moved: Bilo seconded: That the Subdivision Waiver granted to the Hampden Hills Baptist Church in Case #3-79, approved February 6, 1979, be amended by deleting Condition #6. AYES: Williams, Becker, Bilo, Carson, Lathrop, Smith, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Draper, Pierson The motion carried. Mr. Wanush stated that at the meeting on May 22nd, there will be a presentation on the Public Housing application. By that date, the Housing Authority will have had time to look at several pieces of property for the elderly units and also for the family units, and this information will be brought to the Commission. The matter would be a "support of the Housing Authority" situation. He stated that there is a possibility of needing interpretation by the Commission if one particular site for the high-rise is chosen, to determine whether the elderly housing units would be a "public use", and therefore, permitted in a specific zone district. Mr. Wanush stated that the intent is to have the land optioned and the development proposal together by June 1st. The Housing Authority hopes to bid the project in August, and to approve the developer in October with construction scheduled to begin in the Spring of 1980. Mr. Wanush stated that the elderly units and the family units will be bid as a single project; although they had initially discussed bidding them separately. The determination to bid them together was made after discussing the procedure with HUD. Mr. Smith asked if the site approval would go to City Council? Mr. Wanush stated that it would not. He stated that at least 15 sites have been considered for the elderly units, and this has been narrowed down to three. Discussion ensued. Mr. Lathrop stated that he had received several calls regarding . -10- the new housing units; people have this confused with the Target Areas, and are concerned that this means the Target Areas will be cleared and low-income housing develo ped in these areas . He stated that he had explained to th e se callers that these are two separate matters . Mr. Lathrop inquired about the rental policy for the new elderly units --whether it would be on the .same basis as for the Simon Center? Mr. Wanush stated that it would be for low-income, but there must be a distribution of income levels within the l ow-income range. Mr. Wanush stated that the City Council did approve the Com- munity Development Block Grant application at their meeting of May 7, 1979. The Housing Authority has received a $35,000 grant from the State of Colorado for use in the Rehabilitation Loan Program. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Carson stated that he would like to commend Mr. Tanguma for removing himself from consideration on the right-of-way vacation case earlier in the evening. Mr. Williams indicated the calendar in the Council Chambers and asked what means could be instituted to bring about the up-dating of this calendar. Discussion ensued. Becker moved: Smith seconded: The Calendar in the City Council Chambers be up-dated, and that a day-by-day calendar be used. AYES: Williams, Becker, Bilo, Carson, Lathrop, Smith NAYS : Tanguma ABSENT: Draper, Pierson The motion carried. Mrs. Becker stated that there has been a pot luck get-together for Commission she offered to host such a gathering. was determined that the second Sunday would be scheduled for the pot -luck. some discussion about members and staff, and Discussion ensued. It in June at 2:00 P. M. Mr. Bilo inquired about the progress on the Comprehensi v e Plan? Mrs. Romans stated that the staff ho ped to get it completed in June. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M. /1~~1Y4 Recording Secretary -11- MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: May 8, 1979 SUBJECT: Vacation of Right-of-Way -3500 Block South Marion RECOMMENDATION: Williams moved: Bilo seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the following right-of-way be vacated in the 3500 block of South Marion Street, as re- quested in Case #10-79: (1) The East 5 feet of Lot 2 and the West 10.7 feet of Lot 1, and the West 15.·7 feet of the East 30 feet of Lots 27 and 28 and the East 5 feet of Lot 25 and the West 9.2 feet of Lot 26 all in Block 1, Yeager's Subdivision of Block 4, Verona Place. Contains 4269.75 square feet. (2) The East 5 feet of Lot 2 and the West 9.2 feet of Lot 1 and the West 15.7 feet of the East 30 feet of Lots 27 & 28 all in Block 2, Yeager's Subdivision of Block 4, Verona Place. Contains 2543.25 square feet. (3) Beginning at a point 5 feet West of the Southeast corner Lot 25, Block 1, Yeager's Subdivision of Block 4, Verona Place; thence South 30 feet to a point 5 feet West of the Northeast corner Lot 2, Block 2, Yeager's Subdivision of Block 4, Verona Place; thence East 14.2 feet along the North line of Lots 2 and l; thence North 30 feet to the South line of Lot 26, Block 1, Yeager's Subdivision of Block 4, Verona Place; thence along the South line Lots 26 and 25 14.2 feet to point of beginning. Contains 426.00 square feet. (4) That portion of a 15 foot alley which is adjacent to the West 15.7 feet of the East 30 feet of Lot 27, Block 2, Yeager's Subdivi- sion of Block 4, Verona Place, City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado. Contains 235.5 square feet. The vacation of this right-of-way is favorably recommended for the following reasons: 1. The 3500 block of South Marion Street is classified as a local street and no more than sixty feet of right-of-way is needed for the present and projected use of the land in that block. • . -12- 2. The roadway in this block was constructed in Paving District Noo 7 of 1957, utilizing only the eastern sixty feet of the right-of-way, and there are no plans to redesign or recon- struct the roadway. 3. By vacating the land in excess of the 60-foot right-of-way along the west side of the entire block, it will create a uniform right-of-way width in this block and the width will be comparable to other Local Streets within the City. AYES: Bilo, Carson, Lathrop, Smith, Williams, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Draper, Pierson, Tanguma The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission .