HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/08/1972
MINUTES
June 8, 1972
The one hundred and sixty-second
City Council was called to order
C. Pepe at 7390 West 38 Avenue.
regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge
at 7 40 p.m. by Mayor pro tern Ray
Other Aldermen attending Were
Robert Howard and Calvin Hulsey.
Dr Paul Abramson, Joseph Donaldson,
Alderman Jack Bramble arrived later
Also attending were City Clerk Louise Turner, City Attorney Maurice
Fox, staff personnel and interested citizens
WZ-72-12 Rezoning Case was heard. Applicants Richard and Joanne 31assman
requested a change from Residential-Two to Restricted-Commercial-One
on .29 acres at 4495 Vance Street for professional offices.
Robert Barr of the Planning Department stated that the Planning Commission
had recommended denial on the basis "that the traffic problem that
would be created would be a detriment to the area and that the Residential-
Two Zoninq there now is the best buffer between the commercial to the
west and Residential-Two Zoning to the east."
He added that land to the north and east is Residential-Two Zoning with
single family USe and west and south is Residential-Two and vacant, and
that the Planning Commission's feeling was that Residential-Two with
duplex use as a buffer would be preferable to the Restricted-Commercial-
One proposed He said 3 people appeared at the Planning Commission
meeting in favor and 8 appeared against.
Applicant Richard Glassman of 4495 Vance stated
1. That he had moved to his location 1 year ago and lik~ it
as a residence
2. That now he found he WQuld be 85 feet from the new Safeway.
He had not been aware of this at the time of purchase
3 That he didn't want to live that close to the store, to the
exhaust fumes of the parking area and the litter.
4 That he assumed no one else would either and that consequently
no one would invest much in that location in a home
5 That there was another Residential-Two lot of about 85 feet
west of his.
6 That he wouldn't want his house torn down and replaced with
a large office building but that the offer he had had for a CPA to buy
and use the existing building for a CPA office would serve as a buffer.
Also speaking in favor was
Spens Schroder, realtor, of 3763 South Pierce who discussed limits
of the commercial property to the west
Speaking in opposition were
Emerv Nielson of 4611 Upham who presented petitions with 71 names
of people living to the east who requested denial. He gave as their
ressons
1. That it would have an adverse effect upon the neighborhood.
2. That the increase in already heavy traffic and congestion
would increase the danger to children as well as to travelers on
44 Avenue and on Wadsworth.
3 That Residential-Two was needed as a buffer
4. That there were 25-30 acres of commercially zoned land in
the neighborhood, not being used
He said the County plan had called for commercial for 200 feet east from
Wadsworth, and also, that a person's being allowed to purchase land without
his being advised on pending zoning changes was contrary to the rules
of the Real Estate Commission.
Issac Kaiser, attorney representing the Samsons and Irvins who were opposed
stated the following
1. That a person couldn't come in after a zoning had taken place
and say he had been hurt and USe it as an argument.
/ - /,/ 7 l
///~/ / -
MINUTES - June 8, 1972 - Continued
-2-
z. That in the previou5 rezoning ca5e in which the commercial
was granted it wa5 brought out that thE zoning was propEr b~caus~ of
the buffer and that the Residential-Two would remain, con5equently
the Planning Commission was being consistent it its recommendation of
denial That if Council, denied the rezoning it too, would be consistent.
3. That the Planning Commission and the Court had ruled
that there was no damage to the homes because of this buffer.
4. That many covenants had been agreed to by all parties at
that time and that no party was to sell until such covenants had been
recorded. He referred to
1. 100 foot setback from 45 Avenue.
2. Nothing to be built along the east line of the rezoned
land.
3. Lights not to shine toward residences.
4 Limited curb breaks, and
5. Trees to be planted as a sound barrier.
He said the only building Glassman's would be Mr. McVickers office
building, not Safeway.
Francis Jacques, of 4541 Upham who said
1. That the area already has traffic problems which would be
aggravated, especially Saturday, Sunday P.M. and rush hours.
2. That it is almost impossible to turn left onto Wadsworth
or 44 Avenue and that waiting cars can't turn right.
3. That it is difficult to leave the area, one must weave to
Pierce or to 48 Avenue, increasing traffic in a residential area.
4. That lights cant be placed on Wadsworth or 44 Avenue or 45 Avenue.
5. That a duplex would be acceptable.
6. That the applicant feels he has been hurt by a rezoning, and
that others would be further hurt by a change on his property.
Pat Samson of 7451 West 45 Avenue who said
1. An accounting office would require black topping which would
contribute to the drainage problem.
2 Residents can understand that the applicant feels he's been
hurt and this is why they wanted the commercial limited to Wadsworth.
3. The area needs a safely used buffer.
4. Depreciation has occured on residential property and further
rezoning will cause others to suffer.
Bob Irvin West 45 Avenue who said the expressway on Wadsworth and 44 Avenue
will do away with the left turn lanes, and if this rezoning is granted,
there will be no way to turn down later requests on the remaining
Residential-Two land.
Motion by Alderman Donaldson "I move that WZ-72-12 be taken under
advisement for one week and a decision be rendered on June 15, 1972
in these chambers." Motion was seconded by Alderman Hulsey and passed 6-0.
Ordinance No. 111 pertaining to dog control was introduced by Alderman
Pepe and read.
Alderman Donaldson stated that Ordinance No. 100 is a good Ordinance, that
it encompasses everything that is in the proposed Ordinance, that if
Council wants control to go to the Police Department it could do so
by amendment rather than by adopting this proposed law which didn't
provide for protection of animals, which put back in a license fee just
recently dropped, that didn't cover guard dogs, kennels, variances,
cruelty, injured animals or bite animals other than dogs, and that
didn't include an Animal Commission. He felt the Court had enough to
do without each impoundment going to Court and each release being approved
by the Court.
Alderman Bramble said in comparing the two laws, the new one didn't provide
for the fencing of livestock and had nothing to protect dogs and he
felt these were needed and that the Animal Control Commission was also needed
(/, ,,;L
MINUTES - June 8, 1972 - Continued
-3-
Alderman Hulsey said if the object is to put it under the Police Depart-
ment, this could be done by amending Ordinance No. 100 and that he hated
to see a citizen1s commission eliminated.
Alderman Pepe said he was not opposed to the Animal Commission. He
felt the City had a problem with loose dogs and he had requested a law
from Mayor Anderson, who had taken the proposed law from the basic code
of model ordinances, and that with this law variances would not be
necessary He said Lakewood has five Wardens who impound 6 to B dogs
a piece per day, Golden with a new man impounds 3 dogs per day, Wheat
Ridge impounds 1 and 1/3 dogs per man per day and compared with what
other cities are doing this in not enough and something should be done.
Alderman Donaldson said his figures were different
impounds 100-150 dogs per month, that Wheat Ridge
$16,000.00 budget, Lakewood has 5 men and 5 trucks
budget and the County has a $50,000.00 budget.
He said the Wheat Ridge Police Department recorded 835 calls
in the month of April and the Animal Warden 100 calls and that if this
were not enough perhaps additional help was needed in the dog department.
He added that the proposed law was not in the best interest of
the citizens and he would vote against it.
That the County
has 1~ Wardens on a
on a $70,000.00
Alderman Abramson said it was being presented as though the Police Department
would do a better job, but that the activity report figures indicated
that 67 plus calls per man in the animal department was higher than the
police department calls per man, that 9+ tickets per man was higher than
7+ in the Police Department and that there were 22 impoundments per man
for which there was no comparable item in the Police Department. He
said he was in no way criticizing the Police Department, that he felt
it had enough without the added overload of dog calls. Also, that
transferring the authority to the Police Department would effectively
increase the budget. He asked for comments from Dr. Trefz of the
Animal Commission
Dr. William Trefz, veterinarian and chairman of the Animal Control Com-
mission said
1. That the volunteer citizens commission had met monthly for
a year and a half and had had 8 meetings dedicated to revising the original
animal law.
2. That this revision was adopted in Ordinance No. 100 in December,
and that the Commission was "non-plussed" at learning another law was
being presented It had hoped the law might be tested a year or so
without change.
3. That the Commission had wondered if it should resign and
step aside.
4. That he was surprised that communications which should have
been the concern only of the Commission were going to the Council first,
and wondered if Council received letters on each chuck hole complaint etc.
5. He felt the proposed Ordinance was geared better for 1922
than 1972, and said there was no mention of control of exotics nor a
limit on the number of dogs. He cited recent bear and lion incidents
in neighboring cities and an example where 52 dogs had lived in one
house in Denver before there was a law.
6. He said the basic item in animal control is citizen compliance
and that no program can cope with annonymous calls, or a person who records
each dog that comes by, and that loose dogs cannot be caught in the dark
and that if barking dog cases went to court, it would still be necessary
to have people to testify He said the Commission felt it was easier to
work under one head, and in a department that was not going to be called
to a greater priority as might happen in the Police Department.
In answer to a question from Alderman Howard regarding license fees,
Dr. Trefz reestablished the Commission's feeling that this amounted to
a tax not a license, because no privilege was involved, that it could
have a negative effect on the vaccination program etc., and that it
spreads the tax to the law-abiding citizens instead of the law-breakers etc
MINUTES - June B, 1972 - Continued
-4-
In answer to a question from Alderman Pepe "Should'nt thErE bE morE
impoundments?", Dr. Trefz said Wheat RidgE is not a dumping ground as
Golden and some other areas are and that the Commi55ion had put a
higher value on contacting owners. He emphasized that Wheat Ridge
was fortunate in having a Warden who was capable, experienced and
intelligent.
Alderman Bramble commented that the Commission had done a good job
that the proposed law had not been properly presented and that it
should have been taken to the Commission for comments first, before
coming to Council.
Citizens making comments were
William Joseph of 2701 Reed who said that "barking dogs" should
be included in the Ordinance in effect and that he favored the proposed
Ordinance.
Barbara Joseph of 2701 Reed who has had a problem with barking dog for
6 years and could get nothing done. She said she was shocked to learn
that barking dog cases have been thrown out of Court, that complaint
calls had been refused by the police in Golden and that a dog impounded
for a bite had been later released to the owner
Alderman Hulsey asked that the Commission look into an amendment to
Ordinance No. 100 to cover barking dogs.
Pamela Manning of 3501 Hoyt who stated
1. That the present Ordinance was very good.
2 That the Commission, Clerk and Warden had done a good job.
3. That she didn't see that there would be improvement under
the Police Department.
4. That she had received prompt attention in a bite case.
5. That she didn't like the proposed ordinance.
6. That barking dogs are the result of forced confinement.
7. That judges had enough to do without becoming involved in
every impoundment.
8. That the present law was passed 6-0 and it was too soon to
pass another.
William Dutcher of 4150 Lamar who said
1. He had had the opportunity of meeting with the Commission
and wanted to thank them and felt they were very professional.
2. That the Commission, the Clerk and the Wardens were doing
a fine job.
3
4.
5.
That
That
What
it was not right to turn it over to the Police Department.
perhaps greater penalties would result in better control.
is needed is citizen involvement.
In answer to questions from Alder~an Howard and Alderman Donaldson he
said that one sees alot of dogs loose or without tags, that he is in
neighboring cities a good deal on business and he didn't think Wheat
Ridge had any more than other cities in the area.
Ivan Hawn of 4900 Robb who said
1. That the present law covers much more territory than the
proposed one and the proposed law has terms that are vague and debatable.
2. If additions are to be made, it would be helpful for a
person to know what rights he has as far as protecting his sheep and
other animals from an attacking dog on his own property.
Alderman Bramble stated unless someone moved to adopte the proposed law,
it should be disregarded at the present time.
Alderman Abramson said he felt Council owed the Commission a vote and
asked that someone move for adoption in order to make publicly known
how each feels about this Ordinance.
f /
MINUTES - June 8, 1972 - Continued
-5-
Motion by Alderman Howard "I move that Ordinance No. 111 introduced
by Alderman Pepe, be passed on first reading and be published and posted."
Motion was seconded by Alderman Pepe who stated
1. It was not his intent to remove the Animal Commission.
2. That he wanted animal control out of a department headed
by an elected official.
3. That Council cannot control an elected official, but that
another department head such as the Police Department would have to
listen because if something were not done properly Council could make
a change
Question was called and Motion to pass Ordinance No. 111 on first reading
was defeated by a vote of 4-2 with Aldermen Howard and Pepe voting "aye"
and Aldermen Abramson, Bramble, Donaldson and Hulsey voting "nay."
Meeting was adjourned at 11 05 p.m.
-xf;,l. '-7'" J
/ ,U<.A./ -I ~~;~'-
t'f:ouise F. Turner
City Clerk
,V -,r 7'
Of /'J
.
r:;.;~5 ;/ ~