Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-10-02 PZC MINUTES' • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 2, 1979 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Vice-Chairman Lathrop. Members present: Pierson, Williams, Becker, Bilo, Carson, Draper, Lathrop Wanush, Ex-officio Members absent: Smith, Tanguma Also present: Associate Planner Alice Fessenden II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Vice-Chairman Lathrop stated that Minutes of September 18, 1979, are to be considered for approval. Draper moved: Bilo seconded: The Minutes of September 18, 1979, be approved as written. Vice-Chairman Lathrop ruled that the Minutes stand approved as written. Mr. Smith entered and took his place with the Commission. III. WEST QUINCY PLACE Vacation of Right-of-way CASE #23-79 Mr. Lathrop asked for the staff presentation on this matter. Mr. Wanush stated that Associate Planner Fessenden will give the staff presentation. Miss Fessenden stated that the request to vacate the right-of- way on West Quincy Place was initiated by Mr. Jerald Hughes, the adjacent property owner at 4240 South Lipan Street. If the Planning Commission should determine that the right-of-way serves no public purpose and should be vacated, a recommenda- tion would be forwarded to the City Council. If the Planning Commission were to determine that the right-of-way should not be vacated, the applicant may appeal to City Council and a report would be made to City Council on the action taken by the Planning Commission . West Quincy Place is an unimproved street, approximately 60 feet in width by 132 feet in length, extending from South Lipan Street to the west side of Jason Park. This street was dedicated when the area was subdivided in the Hayes Sub- -2-, division in 1955, and provides access to the park for maintenance veh i cles and -pedestrians . It also provides access to the drive-• way and garage at 4240 South Lipan Street . There is a pedestrian g a t e and a g ateway for access by park maintenance vehicles ac r oss this right-of-way on the west side of the park . Since this access is used by the park maintenance crews and as a pedestrian access to the park, the staff recommends that 22 feet be vacated adjacent to the property at 4240 South Lipan Street, and 22 feet be vacated adjacent to 4260 South Lipan Street leaving a 16 foot right-of-way in the center to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the park. Miss Fessenden noted that both Mr. and Mrs. Hughes and Mr. and Mrs. Villnow were present in the audience if the Commission had questions of them. Mr. Lathrop asked if members of the Commission had questions? Mrs. Pierson stated that there have been discussions in the past regarding the paving of alleys; this 16 foot right-of-way could have heavier use than a typical alley, and she questioned whether there should be some reference to paving in the recom- mendation of the Planning Commission? Mr. Tanguma entered and took his place with the Commission. Mr . Smith stated that if this right-of-way were to be paved, it would have to be at the instigation of the adjacent property owners; they would be obligated to pay for the paving. Mr . Bilo stated that he would like to hear any comments that members of the audience might have pertaining to this matter. Mr. Lathrop asked if there were any member of the audience who wanted to speak in favor of the requested right-of-way vacation? Mr. Jerald Hughes 4240 South Lipan Street -stated that the Parks Department does not make use of this right-of- way very often, and does not feel that access needs to be maintained for the maintenance vehicles. He pointed out that the Parks crew has used this right-of-way and gate only twice this year. He pointed out that the east side of the Park is "wide open", and that they usually bring the lawn mowers, etc. in f rom the east . Mrs. Geraldine Hughes 4240 South Lipan Street -stated that they have nothing against people using the gate; they have had problems with people parking in this right-of-way and blocking their dr i ve . She stated that she has hit three vehicles that have parked along there when she has attempted to get out of their driveway . She verified that the Parks Department uses -3- this access and vehicle gate only two or three times a year. Mrs. Hughes stated that if the right-of-way is vacated, they would like to do something with the property, but if the City were to maintain the 16 foot access, they "wouldn't have any reason to do anything with this." Mrs. Hughes stated that they have problems now with people parking along this right- of-way, and if sidewalk, curb, and gutter were to be installed, the situation would not improve. Mr. Hughes stated that the City did put up no parking signs and it has helped some, but has not solved the problem of blocking the driveway. Mr. Smith asked if retaining the 16 foot right-of-way to serve as vehicle access to the park and as a "private drive - way", and prohibiting parking there, would solve the problem? Mr. Hughes stated that as far as the parking situation, it would solve the problem, but if the City maintains access for the park maintenance vehicles, they could do nothing with their property. Mr. Smith pointed out that the proposed vacation would provide an additional 22 feet to the adjacent property owners; if the full right-of-way would be vacated, this would only result in 30 feet reverting to the adjacent properties. Mrs. Hughes pointed out that their driveway extends out 10 feet beyond their property line at the present time, and if the 22 feet were to be vacated this would provide them with only an additional 12 feet. Mr. Smith emphasized that if the driveway to their garage does indeed extend out 10 feet, this is into the City right-of-way, and does not belong to the Hughes. Mr. Hughes emphasized that the Parks Department has used this point of access to the Park only two or three times this year, and that they could get their vehicles in from the east side, which is open. He questioned the need for maintaining an accessway for vehicles on the west side. Mr. Tanguma stated that he is familiar with this area, and that the "No Parking" signs have not had too much effect on the problem experienced by Mr. and Mrs. Hughes . He stated that the entire east side of the Park is open, as well as part of the south side; the park maintenance vehicles would have to go over the sidewalk, but they would have access from both the east and south sides. He stated that the parking lot on the east side of the Park is very rarely full, but people still park in front of the Hughes' property. He stated that the property owners have a legitimate request; they cannot get in and out of their driveway, and the Parks Department uses the accessway very rarely for their maintenance vehicles . Mr. Bilo asked if Mr . and Mrs. Hughes were objecting to pedestrian access in this right-of-way? Mr . Hughes stated that pedestrian traffic could continue to use the access as far as they are concerned . They do object to a vacation -4- that would still allow automobile parking along the right-of- way o Mro Hughes reiterated that he does not feel the City needs to maintain an easement or accessway for vehicles at this point. Mr. Bilo pointed out that if the entire right-of-way were to be vacated, it would no longer be public property, and the public would not have access to the park across the private propertyo Mrs. Hughes pointed out that it is only one-half block to the other end of the Park, and she felt people could easily walk that far to get to the Park. Mro Bilo asked if a Public Hearing would be required if the right-of-way were to be vacated? Mr. Wanush stated it would not require a public hearingo Discussion ensuedo Mrs. Becker asked about the possibility of retaining a pedestrian accessway that would not need to be 16 feet wide, and would eliminate the possibility of vehicular traffic at this pointo Mr. Wanush stated that he was not aware that such a thing has been done in the City of Englewood, but that there are "pedestrian easements" in other jurisdictions which would give access by foot-traffico Mrs. Becker stated that with access from two sides of the Park that the Parks Depart- ment would have no reason to retain a 16 foot wide vehicular access at this location. Mrs. Pierson stated that she was in sympathy with what Mr. and Mrs. Hughes want to do; however, if the City were to vacate the right-of-way, it must be verified that there is no need for this right-of-wayo Mro and Mrso Hughes have both stated that while there is not heavy use of this right-of-way, the Parks Depart- ment does in fact use it two or three times a year, and Mr. and Mrs. Hughes have both indicated that there is pedestrian traffic to the Park through this right-of-way. This use of the right-of-way would preclude vacation of the total right-of- way. If a 16 foot right-of-way were to be maintained by the City, the adjoining property owners could develop an additional 22 feet with landscaping or whatever; a 16 foot right-of-way would mean a lot less people parking in this area. Mrso Pierson stated that she did not feel, considering what has been stated by Mr. and Mrs. Hughes, that the Commission could recommend vacation of the entire right-of-way. Mro and Mrso Hughes could realize most of what they want with the 22 foot vacation on either side of the 16 foot easement or right-of- way to provide accesso Mr. Lathrop stated that now that Mr. Tanguma, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, had arrived, he would turn the meeting over to himo Mr. Tanguma asked if the members of the Commission had further questions of Mro and Mrso Hughes? No further questions were asked of Mro and Mrso Hugheso Mr. Tanguma asked if there were further comments in favor of the vacation? ,. -5- Mr. Villnow stated that he owns the property at 4260 South Lipan Street. He questioned Mrs. Pierson's statement regarding paving of the 16 foot right-of-way if the vacation were to be approved? Mrs. Pierson stated that her question was whether or not the Commission could recommend that the 16 foot right- of-way be paved if the vacation was recommended to City Council. She stated that she had not realized that it would be a financial obligation to the adjoining property owners when she raised the question, but it was not a recommendation. Mr. Bilo asked Mr. Villnow his feelings about the 16 foot right-of-way. Mr. Villnow stated that if the 16 foot right- of-way was needed, he would approve retention of such right- of-way. However, as far as actual usage of this right-of-way, the largest piece of equipment that he has seen go through this access gate is a lawn mower, and there are other access points on the east and south side. He stated that he would approve the idea of a pedestrian walkway easement if the right- of-way were to be vacated; he felt this would be good. Mrs. Pierson asked if Mr. Villnow used the right-of-way for access to his driveway? Mr. Villnow discussed the access to the carport on their property. Mr. Wanush reminded Mr. Tanguma that the City Council has continued the City Council meeting to 7:30 this evening, and suggested that should the Commission wish, they could recess the meeting and reconvene in Conference Room A. Mr. Smith suggested that possibly the Commission members would want to consider postponing further consideration of this matter until the next meeting to provide further opportunity to the staff to verify with the Parks Department the actual need for maintaining right-of-way for vehicles at this location. Mr. Smith stated that he felt right-of-way for the maintenance vehicles should be maintained unless it is determined that this is not, in fact, needed. Mr. Tanguma stated that the Planning Commission would recess at this time, and reconvene in Conference Room A upstairs in five minutes. The Planning Commission meeting was reconvened with the following members present: Carson, Draper, Lathrop, Pierson, Tanguma, Becker, Bilo. Absent: Smith, Williams Mrs. Becker asked why it would be "most inconvenient" to close the gate on the west side that has been provided for maintenance vehicles when it is used only two or three times a year. Mrs . Pierson pointed out there are a number of people who use the gate; even if vehicular traffic were closed off there must be provision for the pedestrian access. Mr. Bilo stated that if the gate for maintenance vehicles were to be closed, the gate -6- for pedestrian access would remain open. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt it would be logical to maintain a pedestrian easement but to restrict vehicular access from the west side of the park. Mr. Carson stated that if a 16 foot right-of-way were maintained, no one would park in the area anyway. Mrs. Hughes emphasized that the pedestrian access meets with their approval; while the Parks Department did make use of this vehicular accessway twice in the past week, they have used it only once previously this year. She did not feel the need for retaining vehicular access has been shown. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt there was adequate access for the parks equipment from the south and east. Mrs. Becker stated that Councilman Smith had indicated to her that there was some particular piece of lawn equipment that could be damaged by going over a curb. She felt that this should be verified by the Parks Department. Mr. Bilo stated that he would favor postponing this matter until someone from the Parks and Recreation staff could elaborate on the justification to maintain the vehicular access from the west. Bilo moved: Carson seconded: Consideration of vacation of West Quincy Place right-of-way be postponed until the next meeting, which is scheduled for October 16th. Mr. Lathrop stated that if a 16 foot right-of-way is maintained as maintenance vehicle access, this would be wide enough to accommodate passenger vehicles, which could still park along this area. To get out of this area, these vehicles would have to back out into the line of traffic on South Lipan Street. He felt if there is an easement maintained in this area, it should be narrow enough to keep vehicular traffic out. Mr. Bilo stated that it could be signed prohibiting vehicular traffic. Mrs. Pierson pointed out that comments from the Parks and Recreation Department were contained as part of the staff report, and that she felt it is a waste of time to postpone the matter to the next meeting. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt it is a matter of the Commission making a decision whether or not the Parks maintenance people can use the south and east sides of the park for maintenance vehicle access. Mr. Bilo stated that he felt the Commission should find out why the Parks Department needs this vehicle access from the west. Even if this point of access is used only once a year, there must be a reason for it, and this reason should be spelled out. -7- Mr. Tanguma asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the vacation of the right-of-way? No one indicated they wanted to speak in opposition. The vote on the motion was called: AYES: Draper, Lathrop, Becker, Bilo, Carson NAYS: Pierson, Tanguma ABSENT: Smith, Williams The motion carried. IV. TRAFFIC PATTERN IN VICINITY OF CINDERELLA CITY. Mr. Wanush suggested that inasmuch as Mr. Smith could not be present for this discussion this evening, that this matter be delayed to another meeting. Mr. Tanguma ruled that this would be postponed until the next meeting. V. PUBLIC FORUM. Mr. Tanguma welcomed Mr. Jim Keller, Executive Director of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority, to the meeting. Mr. Keller stated that he was present to read the following from the act authorizing Downtown Development Authorities, which pertains to how projects to be brought before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be handled: §31-25-807 (4) reads as follows: (a) An authority shall not actually undertake a development project for a plan of development area unless the governing body, by resolution, has first approved the plan of development which applies to such development project. (b) Prior to its approval of a plan of development, the governing body shall submit such plan to the planning board of the municipality, if any, for review and recommendations. The planning board shall submit its written recommendations with respect to the proposed plan of development to the governing body within thirty days after receipt of the plan for review . Upon receipt of the recommendations of the planning board or, if no recommendations are received within said thirty days, without such recommendations, the governing body may proceed with the hearing on the proposed plan of develop- ment prescribed by paragraph (c) of this subsection (4). (c) The governing body shall hold a public hearing on a plan of development or substantial modification of an approved plan of development after public notice thereof by publica- tion once by one publication during the week immediately -8- preceding the hearing in a newspaper having a general circulation in the municipality. The notice shall de- scribe the time, date, place and purpose of the hearing, shall generally identify the plan of development area covered by the plan, and shall outline the general scope of the development project under consideration. (d) Following such hearing, the governing body may approve a plan of development if it finds that there is a need to take corrective measures in order to halt and prevent deterioration of property values within the plan of de- velopment area and if it further finds that the plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs and plans of the municipality as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the plan of development area by private enterprise. Mro Keller stated that he and Mr. Wanush have discussed this matter; the normal procedure for a project approval is to apply to the Planning and Zoning Commission, a hearing is held by the Commission, and a recommendation is made to City Council which body holds a second public hearingo Mro Keller stated that he thinks the Hearing process is an obligation of the City Council, and not the Planning Commission. Mr . Keller stated that he feels he should submit the development program of the Downtown Development Authority to the City Council; the Planning Commission would be asked by City Council to re- view and comment on it, and the City Council would then hold a public hearing. If the Commission makes no comment within 30 days from receipt of the proposed Development Program, the City Council may proceed without comment from the Commission. Mr. Keller stated that the Downtown Development Authority Executive Committee met with the Public Service Company on the purchase of Public Service properties on Broadway and Lincoln. The EDDA has the first right of refusal on the purchase of these properties until December 31, 1979. He stated that he understood an offer has been made on the property the EDDA had hoped to acquire for the walk-through. With the limitation on the Public Service properties to the end of the year, and considering the possible loss of the property for the walk-through, Mr. Keller suggested that there was need to "move" on the Development Plan and avoid any unnecessary delays. Mr. Keller asked if it would be possible to set some dates and deadlines to work toward on the submission of the Development Program. He stated he felt the Development Authority would also want an opportunity to meet with the property owners and businessmen in the block that would be affected by the purchase of the parking lot. He felt they should also meet with the businesses that would be a f fected by the building of a mini-mall and park back of the stores. Mr. Keller emphasized that whenever the Authority can move forward, they should do so; Public Service Company is now in the mood to sell, and he did not feel this momentum should be lost . • -9- Mrs. Pierson asked if she understood the procedure, which would be that the Commission makes a recommendation to City Council, and the City Council holds a Public Hearing? Mr. Keller stated that the City Council would receive the proposed Development Program, and would have to refer it to the Commission for review and comments. Discussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma stated that it seemed time- consuming to him to have the Development Program submitted to City Council, for Council to have to refer it to the Planning Commission, and for the Planning Commission to then have to refer it back to City Council. He asked if both bodies could consider the development proposal at one time? Mr. Wanush stated that he would not recommend such a procedure; he feels City Council needs an independent review of the proposal by the Commission, but he did not see any problem in the 30 day time limit for the Commission's review and recommendation. Discussion ensued. It was suggested that Mr. Keller aim toward getting the Development Plan to City Council on November 5, to the Planning Commission on November 7, and that the Planning Commission have their formal review on November 20th. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Wanush stated that at the last meeting, Mr. Carson had registered concern about a burned shed on property on South Lipan; this has been removed. VII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mrs. Becker asked if the Minutes were formally approved? It was noted that the Minutes were approved on a ruling from the Chair. Mrs. Pierson discussed the relocation of the "Brown" house at University Boulevard and East Dartmouth Avenue. She stated that she has watched the progress on this relocation; it is the biggest building that has ever been moved, with 8,600 square feet, and weight of 400 tons. Mrs. Pierson stated she under- stood that arrangements are being made to have this structure placed on the historical register. Mrs. Pierson stated that she felt it would be appropriate for the Commission to write a letter of congratulations to the owner of this structure commending them for the restoration and preservation of this structure. Discussion ensued. Mr. Wanush stated that the staff would draft a letter of congratulations to the property owner. It was suggested that possibly the Commission could request a tour of the structure when the refurbishing was completed. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 P.M.