Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/25/1972 MINUTES May 25, 1972 The one hundred sixtieth regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge City Council was called to order at 7 30 P m. at 7390 West 38 Avenue by Mayor glbert E. Anderson. Aldermen attending were Dr. Paul Abramson, Jack W Donaldson Robert Howard, Calvin Hulsey, and Ray C Bramble, Joseph Pepe Others attending were Treasurer James Malone, interested citizens. Mayor Anderson, City Clerk Louise Turner, City City gttorney Maurice Fox, staff personnel and Citizen's Comments were made bv. Donald Roos 8lo1 West 46 Avenue, Advisor to the Key Club of Jefferson High School, who presented to Council petitions with 2600 signatures of students and adults, who asked that the Ctiy expand its greenbelt program, increase its parkland acquisition and that specifically the Walt Flanagan and Schmidt Construction Company properties North of Clear Creek at Johnson Park, and the guto Junkyard at approximately Clear Creek and Marshall be acquired by the City and converted into naturalistic parks Bob McDermott, 2685 Fenton, Key Club member, who stated petitioning had been an ecological project and people who signed had not appeared con- cerned about an increase in taxes Brian Hegartv of 129o Otis in Lakewood, Key Club member, who said they had become interested when the Johnson Park suit was filed and that there are two kinds of parks - those that are paved and mowed and naturalistic parks like Johnson Don Frazier, 2010 Gray Street in Edgewater, who cited the need for parks in this area and pollution offenses of Flanagan and Schmidt Companies. Rav Davis of 7873 West 46 Avenue, who favored the concept of a greenbelt on both sides of Clear Creek but felt the City was not able to properly maintain Johnson Park to say nothing of a greenbelt He referred to a one day clean up of Johnson Park by the Jaycees with use of a City truck and driver (Council explained its hopes regarding the Greenbelt, some of the problems and mentioned that one or two members might be interested in the possibility of an additional l% Sales Tax for parks) Dick Wilson, 7995 West 47 gvenue, who was concerned with pollution charges against the two companies Darrell Sk.alton, 6575 West 26 Avenue, Chairman of the State Recreational Trails Commission and also attorney for the Flanagan and Schmidt Companies He said Wheat Ridge is considered as an outstanding example, state wide for what it is doing in regard to trails and greenbelt program. He said at present no pollution is coming from either Flanagan or Schmidt and that as their attorney he has been working with the Wheat Ridge Park Superintendent in working out a 25 car parking lot on the north side of Clear Creek for foot access to Johnson Park A Preliminarv Hearing for a Drug Store Package Liquor License for Wadsworth Drugstore, 7397 West 44 gvenue was held. gttorney Benjamin Loye represented tne applicants Motion by Alderman Hulsey "I move that a Public Hearing be set for July 13 at 8 p.m for a Liquor License for Wadsworth Drug Store and that the neighborhood be set at one mile from the premises which can be increased or decreased in accordance with evidence presented at the hearing." Motion was seconded by glderman Donaldson and passed 6-0 < I ) -2- WZ-72-07 rezoning case came up for consideration Applicants Calvin Bacon and W. A McGaugh~and Lee Hartz, representing himself and others in his family were present. Request is for a change from Residential Two to ~R D. at 4551-61-65-71-81 Kipling Street. Paul Walker, Planning Director, stated the P R.D request for 90 units had been heard by the Planning Commission and 3 days later a letter from Mr. Bacon had been received saying he would reduce the number of units to 73 In answer to question, Mr. Bacon sa~d he would like the case heard as requesting 73 units Attornev Fox stated that Council has heard cases where there has been a change to a lower density requested after the Planning Commission hearing but that when the case is a Planned Development a change in the plan is involved and the planners should advise Mr. Walker recommended that the case go back to the Planning Commission. Motion by Alderman Abramson: "I move that case WZ-72-o7 requesting a change from Residential Two to P.R D., but for 73 units be returned to the Planning Commission for consideration as a new case." Motion was seconded by Alderman Pepe Alderman Abramson amended the Motion to read "as an amended case" and Council voted 6-0 to amend the Motion and Motion passed 6-0. WZ-72-11 rezoning case was heard. Applicants Mr. and Mrs. Roxy Vendena had requested a change from Residential One and Residential Two to Residential Two at 29 and Upham Street Paul Walker, Planni.~irector said 1. The LanDuse Plan shows low density residential 2. Amendment requested is for density of 6.96 units per acre 3 No additional R.O W. is required 4. Parcel is not in Flood Plain 5. Planning Department recommends approval. 6. Property was properly posted. 7. Majority of zoning is Residential Two. 8. Major use is single family houses. The Planning Commission recommended denial because I. The integrity of the neighborhood was originally single family residences. 2 This would constitute a spot rezoning 3 This won't deny the applicant use of the land for a residence. RoxV Vendena, Skelton, 4380 stated 1 2 3. 2885 Depew was present and was represented by Attorney Darrell Harlan Street, and in answer to questions from Mr. Skelton He was associated with members of his family in Ridge Valley Poultry. He had 2 children and had lived in the area for 29 years. He would live in the duplex and would have a personal interest in who would live in the other side Mr. Skelton stated 1 He didn't understand the Planning Commissions designation of spot zoning. 2. There is Residential Two on the South and on the East and West and only Residential One is to the North. 3. Part of the property in question is Residential two 4 There are other doubles in the area and 2 doubles exist on the North side of 29th between Upham and Teller. 5. Petitions were signed by people on Vance, on Teller, and on 29th which is a high traffic street and it was difficult to see how one more family on Upham could affect these people. 6. That Mr. Vendena had attEmpted to buy the whole tract. 7. Most of the area is well developed so it couldn't set a precedent. B. The Residential one-A to the West is more dense than much of the Residential Two. 9. Only 75'would be changed. MINUTES - May 25, 1972 - Continued -3- The size of the lots on 29 Avenue was brought up by Alderman Howard and it was determined that the proper size remained even after the piece was subtracted for the subject property. Speaking in opposition were Leonard Perlmutter of 2965 Upham Street, who acted as a spokesman for his neighbors, who said 1. They welcomed Mr. Vendena to the neighborhood but by himself. 2. That the neighborhood is clearly a Residential-one-A neighborhood. 3. That the houses on Residential-Two on Teller have been there 22 to 25 years. 4. That the zoning was put in after the houses. 5. There are one or two doubles on Teller and some on 29 Avenue, but virtually no others. 6. The people on the west side of Upham have a rough petition and are prepared to file a formal petition to rezone to Residential-One because they all qualify. 7 That 8 people had attended the Planning Commission meeting in opposition. 8. That this would be spot zoning on a defacto basis. 9. That 29 Avenue is treated differently. 10. That the people are concerned with this particular site and don't want it rezoned. 11. That Mr. Vendena was aware of the zoning when he purchased the property so it would not be a hardship on him if he built a single. Mr. Perlmutter submitted petitions with 55 names of persons in opposition including adjacent property owners to the West and North. He said they could have obtained 155 names, but that these were those closest. He said the adjacent owner to the west had written a letter to Council. Lewis J. Van Dvke of 3000 Upham, who said he was concerned that his new neighborhood might turn into the type of neighborhood he moved out of. He was concerned about Human Ecology and the precedent of doubling up Kathervn Murphv of 2960 Upham who stated 1. The smallest lot on the street is 104 X 130 feet. 2. That lot sizes are allover 100 feet. 3. That land use is for singles. 4 When property on 29 Avenue was zoned Residential-One to Residential- Two 2 years ago, no one objected, but now residents wonder where it will end. 5. The east side of Teller is zoned Residential-Two with Residential- One-A use. 6. That Council should be considering a rezoning to go with the present use, rather than rezoning for a use that is not in keeping with the general use of the neighborhood. In response to a request, 8 hands Were raised in opposition. Motion by Alderman Donaldson "I move that Case WZ-72-11 be tabled one week for decision." Motion was seconded by Alderman Abramson and passed 6-0. WF-72-o2 (formerlv WF-71-05) Flood Plain special request came up for consideration. A written finding of fact was present by the Planning Director and the opinion portion of the Finding of Fact read, indicating that filling of all 4 lots should not be approved and that an alternative would be filling the 2 southerly lots only. Motion by Alderman Abramson by the Planning Director be Hulsey and passed 6-0. "I move that the Finding of Fact presented accepted." Motion was seconded by Alderman -4- Motion by Alderman Abram50n "I mOVB that caSB WF-72-o2, Flood Plain special exception request be denied because placing of dirt on lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 would eliminate 50% of the channel and would significantly increase the effects of the flood on other residents and because the Planning Director recommended that it not be approved." Motion was seconded by Alderman Hulsey Alderman Howard stated it appeared from the testimony that no more than 1300 C.F 5 could go through the culvert at Kipling Alderman Abramson said, "the opinion was based on the 1300 C F S. figure' Alderman Bramble stated Council should abide by the opinion of the Planning Director. Council was polled and Motion to deny the request passed 5-1 with the negative vote cast by Alderman Howard WF-72-o1 Flood Plain Special Exception Request came up for consideration. A written finding of fact was presented to Council and the opinion portion of that Finding of Fact was read. Motion by Alderman Pepe "I move we accept the Finding of Fact submitted to us on WF-72-o1 by the Planning Director." Motion was seconded by Alderman Howard and passed 5-0. Alderman Bramble abstained because he had not been present at the hearing. Motion by Alderman Pepe "I move that WF-72-o1 be approved." Motion was seconded by Alderman Howard. Ald. Abramson stated that he thought caution would be in order in approving requests each of which had a small effect but the eventual cummulative effect of which would be large and that he would vote against the motion. Aiderman Pepe stated that if Council denied this request, it should deny all requests evon those h8v~~g a small effect. Question was called and motion to approve the request passed 3-2 Alder- man Bramble abstained and the negative votes were cast by aldermen Abram- son and Hulsey Alderman Abramson suggested that in regard to case WF-72-o2 Council order that the fill dirt already placed be removed. Mayor Anderson stated that a motion was not necessary and that this would be done. Alderman Abram- son also recommended that erosion protection measures be followed on the Blevins property Treasurer's Report for the month of April was given by James Malone Report indicated that 37.23% of the anticipated revenue had been received and that 33.7% of the appropriations had been expended. ordinanc~ #llo pertaining to a vacation of a portion of Lamar Street north of 44th Avenue was introduced by Alderman Pepe and read. All departments consulted recommended approval except Police. Chief Pinson stated the street should be there for traffic use. Public Service chose to reserve the right to service overhead lines. Speaking for the vacation was Gladys Peters who said that if the vaca- tion were approved her land could be sold to a buyer who would replace the present small building with a larger structure which would furnish more taxes. Also that Mr. Heathcoat, an adjoining owner to the east would give a fifty foot street width to the city which would go almost to Kendall Street and then only a small piece would be needed to Jay. Mrs Peters said she owned 42.2' of restricted commercial frontage Ordinance #llo Motion by Alderman Howard "I move that Ordinance #110 as introduced by -5- Alderman Pepe be approved on first reading and be publiShed and posted." Motion was seconded by Alderman Pepe and passed 5-0. Alderman Bramble was not present. The Clerk was directed to notify Mrs Peters and Mr. Heathcoat as to when the second reading of Ordinance #110 would take place Meeting was adjourned at II 20 p.m. I .-' .---:"" ----..-' ~.,,)' ~ ;:"~:..J_<-- -"< ~"."r-<,1 _,-" :,1".-~ Louise F. Turner, City Clerk Approved /, ~- 1.1" ',_l ?"7 -