Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/13/1972 MINUTES July 13, 1972 The one hundred and sixty-sixth regular meeting of City Council was called to order by Mayor Albert E 7 40 p.m at 7390 West 38 Avenue. the Wheat Ridge Anderson at Aldermen attending were Dr. Paul Abramson, Joseph Donaldson, Robert Howard, Calvin Hulsey and Ray Pepe Alderman Jack W. Bramble was absent Also attending were Attorney Maurice Fox Mayor Anderson, Clerk Louise Turner, City staff personnel and interested citizens. Citizen Comments were made by requested that when No. 11 on was read, the people affected be allowed to ask questions. Ivan Hawn of 4900 Robb Street who the Agenda, the District Court ruling by it to afford better understanding Council agreed this would be allowed. Mayor Anderson stated he was returning Resolution No 176 to the Council, unsigned and with written comments. Whether or not the item would be put on the next week's Agenda or held an additional week until all Aldermen could be present was discussed. In answer to questions Attorney Maurice Fox stated that this was, in fact, a veto and that the Statutory language indicated it should be on the Agenda at the next meeting. He said that a previous unsigned Resolution became effective because there was no presentation of written objections from the Mayor. Motion by Alderman Hulsey placed on the July 20, 1972 Abramson and passed 5-0. "I move that Resolution No. 176 be Agenda." Motion was seconded by Alderman A Public Hearing was held on a Drug Store Liquor License for Wadsworth Drug Inc at 7397 West 44 Avenue. William J. and Vola M. Hartman were present and were represented by Attorney Benjamin Loye. Complete proceedings Were recorded by Court Reporter Harve Clements. Motion by Alderman Abramson "I move that the case of a Drug Store Liquor License for Wadsworth Drug be tabled one week for a decision and be brought up in the normal course of the meeting on the 20th of July 1972" Motion was seconded by Alderman Hulsey and passed 5-0. WZ-72-13 Rezoning Case was heard. Applicants Rosella and Alice Harvey requested a change from Residential-Three and Commercial-One to Restricted-Commercial-one at 3790 High Court for the purpose of a professional office building to be built. The area is 8,906 square feet. The applicants were present and were represented by Attorney Robert Sonheim. Robert Barr of the Planning Department stated that factors made available by the Planning Department to the Planning Commission included 1. That the Land Use Plan showed low density residential. 2. No additional ROW was needed. 3. Parcel was not in the Flood Plain. 4. Request was for less intensive use and parcel would be unified under one zone district. Planning Commission had recommended denial on the basis "that it would not conform to the surrounding area." Mr Barr also stated that no one had appeared in opposition at the Planning Commission Hearing, that approximately 25% of the property was Commercial-One, that commercial extends 200 feet south from 38 Avenue, and that a single family home exists there now. / ' / / MINUTES - July 13, 1972 - Continued -2- Robert 5onheim, attorney stated 1 3790 High Court is the first property south of the commercial zoning on 38 Avenue. 2. 200 feet had been set arbitrarily by the County and in some cases it split a piece of property. 3. This property was 30% commercial and 70% multiple family and neither amount was sufficient to be usable. 4. Changes in the neighborhood might require a change. 5. That the proposal was logical, the Commercial-One would be lowered and the Residential-Three raised, resulting a piece of pro- perty that would be usable. 6. That sequence of action by Planning Commission had been first a Motion to deny which had been defeated 2-1, then a Motion to approve which the Chairman felt he could not second but Motion was not withdrawn. Matter was continued to the following meeting in order that with another Chairman present, Mr. Hahn might be free to second the Motion, and at that meeting a Motion to recommend denial passed 2-1. 7. 8 9. That the proposed use would be a buffer. There were no objections from people to the south, and Use would be consolidated and a professional office building Mrs. Rosella Harvey stated 1. It was no longer possible to use the house as a residence because the property to the north was the A-1 Rental Agency and there was continual noise from the starting of machines and of the use of trucks going in and out, that chickens were raised to the east and there are flies, and a six unit apartment house was to the south 2 That she was presently living there and that it was not desirable as residence or rental property. 3. That a 8 foot fence was built by the A-1 Rental. 4. That the property was purchased by her with the intent of rezoning it. In answer to questions, Mr. Barr stated that 10% of the property would be landscaped and the remaining area would be ~ buildings and ~ parking. Mr Sonheim presented pictures of A-1 Rental and the Planning Commission file as exhibits. On his request the hearing had been recorded by Court Reporter Harve Clements who was present. Motion by Alderman Donaldson "I move that Case WZ-72-13 be tabled one week and a decision be rendered at that time" Motion was seconded by Alderman Hulsey and passed 5-0 bases WZ-72-14 and WZ-72-15 were heard. Applicants Herbert and Ilse Long were present and were represented by Attorney David Deubin. The two requests are side by side with WZ-72-14 lying to the north and being a request for Residential-Two for the purpose of a duplex. The Planning Commission recommended approval because "it would be in con- formance with the surrounding area, the Land Use Plan also shows mid-density, this parcel is not in the Flood Plain, additional right-of- way is being given on Hoyt and it is an upgrading of the zoning." Case WZ-72-15 requested Commercial-One for the property lying south of the area proposed for Residential-Two. Mr. Barr stated that the Planning Department had pointed out to the Planning Commission that the request was in conformance with the majority of adjacent commercial zoning and the Planning Commission had recommended approval because the Land Use Plan showed commercial and because it would be an improvement and would create no traffic or school hardships. Mr. Deubin stated 1. That the option purchases was purchasing the entire piece of property south to 44 Avenue, but that the south 200 feet were zoned Commercial-One already so were not included in the request 2. That the north south distance of the parcel to be rezoned was 230 feet. / ..J ,;.- 7 ) , MINUTES - July 13, 1972 - Continued -3- 3. That neighboring commercial uses included in addition to vacant land with commercial zoning - a filling station, a shopping center the L & H Garage, a tire shop and a used car lot. 4. That the contract purchasers and fee owners were present. 5 The intended use was a rental agency, now doing business as "Apache Rents" farther south. 6. That with the two requested changes the north lines of commercial zoning would balance out as wou~d the Residential-Two line to the north. Motion by Alderman Abramson "I move that Cases WZ-72-14 and WZ-72-15 be tabled for one week with decisions to be rendered within the normal course of the meeting on July 20, 1972." Motion was seconded by Alderman Pepe and passed 5-0. Mr. Barr reported that an Ordinance incorporating changes to the Sign Code portion of Ordinance No. 98 had been written by the Planning Commission but had not yet been distributed to Council. Two of the four changes involved allowing window signs covering up to 50% of display window or a maximum of 250 square feet and allowing portable or wheeled signs if they were licensed motorized vehicles and licensed trailers. There was discussion among Council and there were comments from Benjamin Loye and David Lynch of the Chamber of Commerce as to the possibility and/or advisability of including wording which would allow vehicles and trailers actually moved and used in business and prohibit the use of trailers such as a large tire trailer which was used for storage and appeared to serve the purpose of a billboard rather than a hauling vehicle. The Ordinance will be on the July 20, 1972 Agenda. Maurice Fox, city attorney reported to the Council that on July 7, 1972 Judge Pyle of the District Court had determined that the Council had been arbitrary and capricious in the decision denying approval of the Godwin-Bevers Planned Unit Development. under a He said the Case was consideredAwrit of certiorari or completely on records, which Were copies of the complete Planning Department file the case plus the minutes of the meetings pertaining to the case had been certified by the City Clerk and delivered to the Clerk of the District Court. the on These He said Godwin-Bevers had claimed damages of $350,000.00 but that it had been agreed in Chambers that the money was not available. Judge Pyle ordered that permits for the development be issued to Godwin- Bevers. He said that a Motion was not necessary but that the plans must be signed by Mr Buchanan and the Mayor and be recorded and then the permits issued. Matter was discussed by Council. It was agreed that Minutes (which record Council action) are not adequate for Court use and that in the future, tapes which are now being made of all Council meetings would be transcribed for such use. Citizen comments were made by Gerald Birney and Ivan Haun of the Fruitdale Civic Association. Ordinance No. 113 was brought up for second consideration and the title read. Motion was made by Alderman Pepe, seconded by Alderman Hulsey and passed 5-0 "that the reading of the balance of the Ordinance be dispensed with." Metion by Alderman Pepe "I move that Ordinance No. 113 (pertaining to the correcmn of a legal description of a street vacation by Ordinance No. 37) be approved on second reading and be published and posted." Motion was seconded by Alderman Abramson and passed 5-0 with Alderman Bramble absent. Meeting was adjourned at 11 30 p.m. ut ,," k./. /-->,,/ _~o-uxul tf--A),cY/C>' ,~< ., ~T ?:.':: .A: _- c-/..: "'-A r . , tbuise F. urner ~ Clerk