Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/11/1972 MINUTES May 11, 1972 The one hundred and fifty-eighth regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge City Council was called to order at 7 30 p.m at 7390 West 38 Avenue by Mayor Albert E. Anderson Aldermen attending were Dr Paul Abramson, Jack Bramble Joseph Donaldson Robert Howard, Calvin Hulsey and Ray Pepe. Also attending were Mayor Anderson, City Clerk Louise Turner, City Attorney Maurice Fox, staff personnel and interested citizens. Citizen's Comments were made by Attornev Benjamin Love who said that he and Attorney George Holley (who did not speak) represented a group called the Marshall Street Bridge Committee, approximately 30 of whom were present. Mr. Love stated 1. That the Committee represented both residents and business people 2 That the Marshall-Street Bridge served an area as important as any other area 3. That it was an "artery of life to the people who lived and worked in the area." 4. That they would have no objection if the bridge were truly unsafe, but they questioned that it was. 5 That Mr. How3rd Bunger, engineer with 50 years experience in examining bridges had examined the bridge in 1948, in 1960 and "again a few days ago." 6. That Mr. Bunger says the bridge is narrow and should be replaced, but that it is safe for its use 7. That another 7,000 cars are not needed on Wadsworth. 8. That Harlan Street is a residential area with a hill that is bad in the winter. 9. That a letter had been written to the Mayor which had recommended a 10 ton limit and had advised corrective steps, but which had said the bridge was safe for use. 10. That signs should be farther away so that trucks are advised in time to take an alternate route. 11. That corrective steps can still be made. 12 That the bridge can be safe so that it would have "no further problems " 13. 14. a study 15. That there had not been time sufficient for preparation in order to have attended the May 4, 1972 meeting. 16 That the County Commissioners at a hearing that day had expressed willingness to help 17. That the submission of the bridge for Topics aid a year ago, had been returned by the County because according to Leonard Less, County Attorney it should have gone directly to the State. 18 That several alternatives would be recommended in preference to "cutting the life line to the area." They were 1. Leave it open. 2. Examine it in detail. 3. Check to be sure load limit in enforced. 4. Do the necessary homework prior to stringent action of closing and then if this is necessary, put in a dike and culverts to maintain the flow of traffic. That conduits and dykes could be used while it was being repaired. That $4,000 00 would be better put toward a new bridge than into Mr Howard Bunger who said 1 He was a registered professional engineer in Colorado and had been since 1919 2 That the broken front of pier is seen in 90% of the bridges that do not have a roller under the steel beam. ~ MINUTES - May 11, 1972 - Continued -2- 3. That the bridge shows signs of age, but is safe to carry the IOQd on it now. 4. That the chipped off concrete looks bad, but is not harmful. That the bridge is structurally sound. 5 That it has a safety factor of 4 which is increased to 6 or B with the trucks taken off. Mr Heathcote, State Highway Department who said a letter, n8t a technical report had been sent and that his office will provide any help it can but that the bridge is not on a State Highway system and that he has tried every way possible to get this bridge into a Topics Project and its conclusions are the same as those of Mr. Bunger Glen Tavlor, Director of Public Works who said the information from Mr. Heathcote's letter had been included in his report to Council on May 4 1972. Also, that if the bridge is left open, a structural analysis should be begun at once. Tedo Spano of 5045 Marshall, Chairman of the Committee said the Committee would do everything in its power to help such as going to the State, County etc. Motion by Alderman Bramble "I move that the closing of the Marshall Street Bridge be changed to a date after a survey with the Marshall Street Committee and proper authorities who can properly evaluate its condition and recommend a course of action to be taken" Alderman Bramble also repeated his suggestion of the May 4, 1972 Meeting that culverts and cement could be a temporary measure. Motion was seconded by Alderman Pepe. Motion was amended by a vote of 6-0 to include the word "immediate" before 'survey" and Motion passed 5-1 with Alderman Howard voting "nay." Mrs. Emma Morgan commented on a demonstration intra-city bus route proposed Tor Wheat Ridge by the Jefferson County Advisory Committee which asked for support for the proposal from Regional Transportation District (RTD). Mrs. Morgan asked that Council place the matter on next week's Agenda. Complete comments are in the General File under RTD Alderman Hulsev directed that the matter be placed on the Agenda for May 18, 1972, and that the Mass Transit Committee recommendation rn given. Alderman Howard asked that Mrs. Morgan consider being a member of the Mass Transit Committee. BoVd Kraemer Parks Superintendent introduced James Kurtz to Council. He stated that Mr. Kurtz and Independent Lumber Company were donating to the City 3.3 acres of land near Field Park with an assessed valuation of over $30 000.00. Mr. Kurtz said Independent Lumber Company was happy to play a small part in the City's Green Belt Program. Alderman Hulsey expressed thanks on behalf of the Council and made the following Motion "I move that Mr. Kurtz and Independent Lumber Company be commended." Motion was seconded by Alderman Donaldson and passed 6-0. Consideration was given to a 3.2 malt beverage package license for Kiplinq Self Service at 4075 Kipling Street. Applicant Carolyn Carone and Attorney Michael Villano were present Request was that following a liquidation of the partnership of Mrs. Carone and Mrs. Pauline Deem that the license instead of being renewed in both names be issued to Mrs. Carone only. Motion by Alderman Pepe seconded by Alderman Hulsey and passed 6-0 "that the license for Kipling Self Service at 4075 Kipling be approved in the name of Carolyn Carone for one year " MINUTES - May 11, 1972 - Continued -3- Ren~wal of a 3.2 fermented malt Countrv Market was considered. manager were present. beverage package license for Hillcrest Paul Audino, owner and Homer Audino Motion by Alderman Pepe, seconded by Alderman Hulsey and passed 6-0 "That the 3.2 fermented malt beverage package license for Hillcrest Country Market at 7685 We~~ ~~erenewed." A Preliminarv Hearing for a 3-way liquor license for Jim P. Mola at 4700 Kipling Street was held. Attorney Jay G. Colby was present Motion by Alderman Pepe "I move that on June 15, 1972 a Public Hearing be held on a 3-way liquor license for Jim P. Mola and that a radius of one mile be set for the neighborhood, which can be subject to change greater or lesser depending on evidence presented at the hearing." Motion was seconded by Alderman Howard and passed 6-0. WZ-72-o4 Rezoning Case was heard. Applicants Michael and Roselia Mirabella had requested a change from Residential-Two to Residential-Three A at the northeast corner of 35 Avenue and Kline Street to convert a Double into a four-family unit. Robert Barr of the Planning Department stated 1. That Land Use Plan shows low density and that this is a reasonable use for the property. 2. That Residential-Three A allows 14.52 units per acre. 3. That additional ROW is not needed. 4. Property is not in the Flood Plain. 5. That it could easily be converted to a four-plex. 6. That extension of the Residential-Three A Zone would not be beneficial in this location. 7. And that the Planning Commission had recommended denial on the basis that the change would not "conserve the value of the surrounding neighborhood, it is not in harmony with the area, and it is a self- imposed hardship." Mr. Barr also said the property had been rezoned Residential-Two by the County (following a recommendation of approval by the City), that presently a largE double housing two families exists which because of the plan on two levels with separate garage doors on the lower level could easily be connected. Peter Mirabella speaking for the applicants said 1. Though it looks like a four-unit from the outside, the inside is laid out strictly for a double. 2. That an extension of Residential-Three A as it comes up the hill would conform to the area, with the street acting as a buffer zone between the Residential-Three A and the single homes to the south 3. That applicants had overbuilt on a very large double which had proved not to be a good investment because the rent needed is too high for that area. 4. That the lower level is vacant and two more units are needed in order for the structure to be economical. 5. Preliminary drawing had been for 860 feet on each side, but had leaped to 1500 feet. Speaking in opposition was Roger Sollenberger, attorney who spoke as a resident and property owner who stated 1. Applicant previously applied to the County for Residential- Three A Zoning. 2 That petitions with 144 names were submitted to the County and use change had been denied. 3. That he was presenting petitions with 137 names of people who opposed this rezoning because the present Residential-Two was a reasonable buffer that provided a stable breakpoint between the low and high densities and a change would be contrary to the land use plan adopted. Without the Residential-Two there would be no buffer. :f--- MINUTES - May 11, 1972 - Continued -4- 4. That residents opposed high density in a low density neighborhood. 5. That changing a zoning because one feels sorry for someone who has knowingly overbuilt can set a dangerous precedent. 6. The people east of Kipling Street do not want a density precedent set which can be used in their area. John Opie of 10235 West 33 Avenue who stated 1. When property north of subject property was up for rezoning, neighbors had not noticed until it was too late to organize. One person appeared and on the basis of his protests the request was amended from Residential-Three to Residential-Three A. As a result of this rezoning more was subsequently change to Residential- Three A. 2. One ( on 3. 4. indicate Subject property is surrounded the south, west and east.) Most neighbors went along with the A $60,000.00 home recently sold on the area might command high rent. on three sides by Residential- request for a double the corner, which would Two others were present in opposition. Motion by Alderman Pepe, was seconded by Alderman Abramson and passed 6-0 "that Case WZ-72-o4 be taken under advisement for one week and a decision rendered at 7 30 p.m. on the following Thursday." WZ-72-o7 Rezoning Case came up for hearing. The applicants Mr. Cal Bacon and Mr. W.A. McGaughey were present. Another property owner Rosa Hartz was not present and was not represented by an attorney. City Attorney Maurice Fox ruled case could not be heard unless property owned by Mrs. Hartz was excluded from the plan. Motion by Alderman Abramson "I move that WZ-72-o7 be continued for consideration on May 25, 1972 so that all owners may be present or represented." Motion was seconded by Alderman Howard and passed 6-0. WZ-72-o9 Rezoning Case was heard. Applicants Donald and Barbara Holliday and Alice Lawlor had requested a change of Residential-Three to Restricted-Commercial-one at 6505 West 44 Avenue for small professional offices Planning Commission recommended approval because it was in conformance with the land use plan, is in keeping with other businesses on 44 Avenue, it is no longer desirable as residential property and would create no burden for the schools or traffic Mr. Barr of the Planning Department stated the Department recommended approval because: 1. Land Use Plan shows commercial 2. No ROW is needed. 3. It is not in the Flood Plain. 4. Restricted-Commercial-One is the most restricted district, is in conformity with adjacent districts and would be a better use. r~r. and Mrs. Holliday were present, the third applicant - Mrs. Holliday's mother was not present. Attornev Fox ruled that since it was a matter of an undivided interest in a single tract of land that the case might be heard Mr Hollidav said 1. That the property was in a commercial area. 2. Loning is Residential-Three and present use is a preschool which is allowed under Residential-Three. Only two houses remain that are not commercial. 4 That the property would not sell last year because of the zoning, and would be better to sell if zoned commercial. ;-'0 one appeared in opposition J MINUTES - May 11, 1972 - Continued -5- Motion by Alderman Bramble wa5 5econded by Alderman Donaldson and pa55ed 6-0 "that Case WZ-7Z-09 be taken under advisement for one week and a decision be rendered at the next Council Meeting at 7 30 p.m. on May 18, 1972." WZ-71-32 Rezoning Case was heard. Applicant Karelin Investments re- quested a change from Residential-Two to Residential-Three A for eight four-unit structures south of 1-70 Service Road between Robb and Simms Streets on 2.76 acres The plan had gone twice to the Planning Commission. On first hearing the Planning Commission recommended denial on the basis that the density would be greater than the density of the surrounding area and the residents of the area are against it. On the second hearing, the Planning Commission in March recommended denial because it would cause undue congestion and doesn't preserve the value of the surrounding buildings. Mr Barr of the Planning Department stated 1 Land Use Plan shows low density. 2. Nearest multiples unit of this type is a distance of 1500- 2000 feet away. 3. No additional ROW is needed. 4. It is not in the Flood Plain 5. Residential-Three A allows 14.52 units per acre or 40 on this parcel. 6 The Department supports the concept but recommends that density be limited to seven units per acre in order to conform with the Land Use Plan. Applicants Frank Callahan, Jim Powell and Jerry Volafka were present. Mr. Callahan stated 1. That the request is amended from Residential-Three A to Residential-Two A to allow 3 and 4 unit structures on the platted portions of the subdivision. 2. There are two-family units being built to the south being developed one site at a time with people expressing a desire to be as far as possible from the freeway and those farthest lots ar~~~ve~oped ~~~/_~ first. /,,-./ ~c;.~ 3. This is a quality subdivision with one owner and one renter per bUilding in most cases. 4 People who won't buy a double near the highway will buy a multiple 5 That a "double is not profitable for an investor but three rentals and living quarters can be " 6 They would like to put multiples in in order to maintain the quality that is presently there. 7 That doubles would have to be economy buildings, and they would lower the quality of the area. 8. Residential-Two A would allow 10.89 units per acre which is what was desired 9. Request if for 28 to 30 units with 3 or 4 per bUilding. Jim Powell of 3605 Kline Street who said 1 That maximum coverage would allow 30 units but present plan would probably call for 28. 2. That a survey of adjacent owners did not show opposition 3. That this would introduce mid-density to Wheat Ridge. 4. That he would not want to put $18,000 to $21,000.00 singles on the property and preferred not to put cheaper doubles. He presented petitions in favor of the rezoning signed by 22 property owners, 7 of whom lived in the area Also speaking in favor were Dennis Morqan who said the development would raise land valued and that Residential-One would hurt the area, and Dee Glen who said a buffer was between the highway and doubles and that it would have to be higher density or lower quality MINUTES - May 11, 1972 - Continued -6- S~paking in Opposition was Gerald Birnev of 10650 West 48 Avenue who said that the proposal was difficult to follow because the request twice heard at the Planning Commission as Residential-Three A had been changed to Residential-Two A and number of units had not been determined, but if it is 28 units it is too high, and that the request is the same under Residential-Two A as it was under Residential-Three A He presented petitions signed by 199 people who opposed this development for the following reasons That it is not in conformance with the Land Use Plan, would be spot zoning, was denied by the Planning Commission, is not compatible with the desires of the residents, would unreasonably congest the limited access as well as place twice the load on schools, water lines and sewer lines. He stated sufficient high density already exists and this would change the character of the neighborhood to the "look of a higher density area." Mr. Birney said this is not a buffer but a precedent which will snowball and these same people will be back with additional requests and that a profit motive is not a proper motive for a City to rezone property. Ivan Hawn of 4900 Robb who said the doubles built have been high quality but that four-plexes are not in keeping with the area, nor With the Land Use Plan. ~e asked"if t~e area is too noisW for a well-insulated double, then why lS It not too nOlsy for apartments? He said the nature of a duplex is a family dwelling and this is never true of a four-plex. Gordon Kersell who had checked with Mr. Eckhardt from R-1 Schools and who gave school capacities and the student projections of this and other density developments proposed for the general area indicating a strain on present facilities. Tex Junker of 4615 Swadley who objected to the increase of traffic on his street and who said that those property owners who signed petition for rezoning were ones who could benefit by higher density on their own properties Motion by Alderman Donaldson, seconded by Alderman Abramson and passed 6-0 "that Case WZ-71-32 be tabled for one week for a decision at that time " Flood Plain Special Exception Permit Request WF-71-o5 was heard Applicant Franklin Streeter requested permission to place fill on 4 lots at the end of Hoyt Court in the Lena Gulch Flood Plain. Howard Lane registered engineer had prepared a drainage report which had been given to the Planning Staff and to Council. He stated 1. That 1300 CFS is given in the Corps of Engineers report as the amount of water where Lena Gulch enters Clear Creek in case of a regional storm. Since this is only 750 feet east of the subject property it is anticipated the 1300 CFS would need to be taken care of at this location. 2. In order to provide a building pad with an elevation which would comply with Ordinance No. 68, Series of 1970 to provide building space on Lots 4,5,6,and 7 of Fernwood Subdivision II - 50% of the channel area at Hoyt Court would be eliminated. 3 If fill is placed upon only Lots 4 and 7 and Lots 5 & 6 remain unimproved only about 10% of the channel area at Hoyt Court would be eliminated. 4. An intermediate regional flood is expected to yield 3800 CFS at Maple Grove Reservoir and this is reduced to 1300 CFS at Hoyt Court. Since there is not enough storage area for this amount of reduction, water must go northwest of the Reservoir. It would sheet out all through the area and could enter Clear Creek before reaching the subdivision. 5 One cannot say how far it will spread because there are many indefinite conditions but if the report is correct it will not go into the reservoir It is doubtful that restriction at this location would affect clear to Kipling. 6 Closing 50% of the channel would be an adverse affect The improvements, i e. houses to the west are in jeopardy now even without fill This would further put them in jeopardy. Also, the velocity increases. MINUTES - May 11, 1972 - Continued -7- 7. Cutting the channel by 50% is adverse, 10% is marginal. There are too many uncertainties to say it will raise the height but maybe only 2 of a foot, may be an infinitesimal amount. B. Restricting the area does not restrict the flow, it will rise enough so that all 1300 CFS still go through or around to the west of the pond. 9 Opening up the Kipling channel wouldn't do too much by itself. Perhaps the answer is to clear out the channel clear to Clear Creek. 10. Some protection from eroSbn should be required if all four lots are to be built upon. Case is borderline if two are built upon, 7 FPS would be expected and normal fill withstanffi 5 FPS Some of Mr. Lane's statements were in answer to questions from Council. The written portion of his report is attached to the Minutes. Complete report with maps and drawings is filed in the General File under Flood Plain Request WF-72-o2. Speakinq in opposition to the request was Mrs. Nancv Snow who said that it was a pleasure to hear an engineer who says if you fill in the channel there is an effect, that the signs had been posted but were both on top of the hill and none had been placed where it could be seen by the people who would be affected and that the following points she would give were from a report by Dr. David Snow who was to be out of town. 1 That fill placed on Lots 4 5 6 and 7 already hag a significant effect and added fill will increase the potential damage to 2B homes to the west. 2. That this fill is now 2 feet on all 4 lots and 2 feet is about the estimated water depth according to Mr. Lane's report. 3. That the line representing the limits of the 100 year flood on the map should be 30-50 feet farther south than shown on Mr. Lane's map and go through Lots 3 and B. This would mean that filling on lots 4 and 7 would result in more than a 10% reduction of the area of the channel. 4. Changes upstream have been extensive since the engineers report was written, namely fill and doubles on Haas Subdivision north of 38 Avenue on Parfet and fill west of the subdivision which was a large storage area that has been taken away. 5. With the reduction in storage upstream the figure of 1300 CFS would now be more. 6 That Clear Creek at Fernwood has been banked so that water may not go into the Creek but through Fernwood and the homes west of the pond. 7 In 1965 houses on the south side of 41 Avenue had water in their basements, houses on the north side had seepage from Clear Creek. B. That in a real flood or if the bottle necks filled, it would be worse. ~an McMillan of 2B29 Ames who stated 1 That the posting informs the wrong area. 2. That the material which has been used as fill is from the bottom of the settling pond and is impeDEable because of the nature of the material. 3. That the 100 year flood limit should be in the middle of Lots 3 and 8, about 429 feet north of 39 Avenue, about 20 feet south of the line drawn by Dr Snow. 4 That in 1965 water reached the top of the fron step and was 6 inches from flooding the living room of one resident. 5. That he qU8stioned the legal aspects if damage or increased damage results from action allowed by the City. Elmer McMillan of 3850 Garrison who said he was the owner of Fernwood Subdivision and the owner of the double where water reached Y2 inch of the front door. He said the bridge at Independence had caused problems and there has been no flooding since it was widened Also debris in the culvert needs to be cleared out. Motion by Alderman Abramson "I move that a Special Exception Permit Request WF-71-o5 be tabled for two weeks to May 25, 1972 to allow the Planning Director to come up with a Finding of Fact." Motion was seconded by Alderman Donaldson and passed 6-0. MINUTES - May 11, 1972 - Continued -8- Motion by Alderman Bramble "I move that LeRoy Cook be appointed to the Personnel Committee 11 Motion was seconded by Alderman Donaldson and passed 5-0 with Alderman Pepe not present. Meeting was adjourned at 1 10 a.m ---;'" --.y ~!.-(.IJ 1--- ;;L~ '-.-.-- Louise F. Turner City Clerk / / -") ,/ / ~ //) -- v""-, /'--.1