Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/12/1972 MINUTES October 12, 1972 The one hundred and seventy-seventh regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge City Council was called to order at 7 35 p.m. at 7390 West 38 Avenue by Mayor Albert E. Anderson. Aldermen attending were Dr. Paul Abramson, Jack Bramble, Joseph Donaldson, Calvin Hulsey, Robert Howard and Ray C. Pepe. Others attending were Mayor Anderson, City Clerk Louise Turner, City Attorney Maurice Fox, staff personnel and interested citizens. It was stated by Alderman Abramson that the comments pertaining to the Plan Jeffco half Percent sales tax were too brief in the Minutes of October 5, 1972 meeting and the Minutes were approved subject to the attachment to the Minutes of a typed transcript of that portion of the meeting. WZ-72-25 Rezoning Case was heard. Applicant Constance M. Koller, requested a change from Residential-Two to Restricted-Commercial-One at 7100 West 44 Avenue for interior design shop. The area was .61 acres or 26,400 square feet. Robert Barr of the Planning Department stated 1. The property had been properly posted and proper publication had been made. 2. That the zoning to the east, west and south was Residential- Two and to the north was Restricted-Commercial and Residential-Two. 3. That the proper zoning of the adjacent property to the east was Restricted-Commercial-One, this was done by the County, and is not shown on the city maps and this is a realty company. It was later pointed out that the correct zoning was that which appeared on the city zoning map regardless of county action. 4. The Planning Commission recommended approval. The applicant, Mrs. Koller stated 1. She wanted to have an interior design shop. 2. It would not be a sales outlet. 3. That she could not conduct a business from Residential-Two. 4 There is adequate off-street parking. 5. There is a realty company immediately adjacent. In answer to questions she agreed that the area is not conducive to residential use, the traffic is heavy for residential use, there is a good deal of commercial use and the use is tending to develop toward commercial. ,ik( ~ 1 :1 -/ ((uRIN.;U/ Alderman Abramson commented that the1zoning was in conformance with the Land Use Plan and asked Attorney Fox if Council needed to show caution in this kind of a change or if any supreme court ruling had been made in such a case. Attornev Fox stated that Council must consider all aspects and that the supreme court has said that cities have the right to adopt a Land Use Plan. Also speaking in favor of the rezoning was Frank Callahan, real estate broker from 7020 West 38 Avenue who stated the service would be useful to the area, the location is such as to be ideal for business and on a business street. No one appeared in opposition. Motion by Alderman Abramson "I move that WZ-72-25, a request for a change from Residential-Two to Restricted-Commercial at 7100 West 44 Avenue be continued for one week for a decision to be rendered during the normal course of the Meeting." Motion was seconded by Alderman Pepe and passed 6-0. MINUTES - October 12, 1972 - Continued -2- WZ-7Z-Z7 Rezoning Case was heard. Francisco and Charlotte 5uarez- Pella of 7671 West 32 Avenue requested a change from Residential-two to Residential-Three for multiple units on .95 acres or 41,221.7 square feet. Mr. and Mrs. Suarez-Pella were present. Robert Barr stated it had been properly published and posted and space would allow 20 units after five feet had been donated for ROW,that the Land Use Plan shows low density residential and that the Planning Commission had recommended denial because it was not an approved use for that area it would cause undue congestion and concentration of population on that parcel, it would cause undue traffic congestion on 32 Avenue and WOuld not conserve the value of the surrounding adjacent properties. He said present use is one single family house and garage, that south is the cemetery, east is Residential-Three with single family use, north and west are Residential-Two with doubles. Francisco Suarez-Pella read a petition signed by him and Mrs. Suarez- Pella requesting that the zoning amendment be to Residential-Two-A instead of Residential-Three. He stated that others had been present and had spoken at the Planning Commission hearing. The Planning CommiEion heard the case as a request for Residential-Three. City Attorney Maurice Fox said a precedent had been set in the Calvin Bacon case that a request be heard by the Planning Commission before it is heard by the Council. Motion by Alderman Donaldson "I move that Case WZ-72-27 be sent back to the Planning Commission to be heard as a request for Residential- Two-A" Motion was seconded by Alderman Abramson. A requested show of hands indicated 14 people interested were present besides the applicant. Council was polled and Motion passed 6-0. WZ-72-29 Rezoning Case was heard. Flora Dunlap and Don and Beulah Hawley requested a change from Agricultural-One to Residential-Two in order that two tracts might be added to and included in the resubdivision of an existing Residential-Two subdivision, area involved is 1.8 acres - one tract being 24,000 square feet being on Robb Street and the other 54,000 square feet on 46 Avenue. Mr. Barr stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval because it conformed with the Land Use Plan, the zoning and adjacent use and would cause no undue congestion of population. In answer to questions, Mr. Barr stated the two parcels are being heard in one rezoning case because both are currently excluded from an existing subdivision and would be with it for a resubdivision. He added that 6 feet would be needed for ROW. David Deubin, attorney of 4315 Wadsworth representing the applicants stated 1. That fee owners, Mr. and Mrs. Hawley of 5356 Allison Street and Mrs Dunlap of 4610 Logan were present. 2. That Frank Callahan, also present, had an option to buy and develop. 3. The area was adjacent to Karelin Subdivision on the north, to Agricultural-One land on the south and to Residential-Two to the west, and to the east some Residential-Two all the way to Miller. 4. The Land Use Plan recommended low density so, Residential- Two would comply. 5. That a parcel on the southwest corner and not included in the subdivision was under separate ownership. 6. That the subdivision would be known as Fruitdale Valley and would be developed by Frank Callahan. MINUTES - October 12, 1972 - Continued -3- 7. That the resubdivision would put in 46 Avenue which would keep the parcel on the south from being landlocked. B. The zoning would fit the Master Plan for low density and would be the highest and best use of the land. Frank Callahan stated 1. The subdivision would comprise 25 buildings or 51-52 units. 2. That a previous subdivision to the west had 7 school children in 34 units 3. That the parcel to the south added B units and the west parcel added 2 and contributed to a third. 4. That these would bring the total units to 51. 5. That the trend of the area is Residential-Two. 5. That the Planning Commission had said "that approval be recommended on Case No. WZ-72-29 because it conforms with the Land Use Plan, it is in conformance with the zoning and use of the adjacent area and it would not cause undue congestion of population." He stated he hoped Council would go along with it. Only the owners and applicant appeared, no one appeared in opposition. James Teliha of 11837 West 35 Avenue mentioned the difference in the Council's and realtor's maps and asked if Council "found it clear." He received an affirmative answer. Motion by Alderman Abramson "I move that WZ-72-29 be tabled one week for a decision to be rendered in the normal course of the meeting." Motion was seconded by Alderman Donaldson and passed 5-0. WV-72-01 Proposed vacation of Tract C, Applewood Ridge walkway was heard. The following letters were read 1. One from the City to R-1 School District asking if the district intended any condemnation in order to extend the walkway. 2. A second one from R-1 to the City saying it planned no condemnation, tha~ it still felt the need of access from the subdivision to the south but that it didn't have to be the southwest corner. Mr. Barr stated that the City, whether by policy or merely precedent, has not condemned for pedestrian purposes, that if the City were to continue the walkway it would go through property belonging to a Mr. Hatfield and interupt garden area and minor structures. Alderman Howard asked if the intent of the walkway had been for access to the south to Manning Jr. High and was told "yes." Mr. Barr said the same walkway had been proposed for vacation under a different case number in August of 1970. That there was an error in survey leading one property owner to believe the area was his and a later survey leading subdividers to believe the same area would be used and dedicated for a walkway. He said that at present a fence runs down the center of the walkway so there is no walkway, but that it was used prior to development. In answer to a question from Alderman Abramson as to whether or not the subdivision was far enough from Manning to use school buses, Mr. Barr said that it was. Also, that when the subdivider had applied previously for vacation of the walkway, no building had taken place, but at the present time it was built up and no walkway existed and that the northwest boundary of the applicant would be adjacent to the walkway, which was a separate tract and because it was a separate tract it would not actually show on anyone else's deed. Mr. William Knipp, the applicant stated 1. The walkway is useless as a walkway. 2. It is blocked by a fence. 3. That the north-south part of the walkway was platted on Mr. Hatfield's property. 4. That Mr. Hatfield bought his property 14 years ago. MINUTES - October 12, 1972 - Continued -4- 5. That the walkway is five feet from his bedroom window, and three feet from the edge of his house, and on the far side is two feet from the edge of his neighbors house. 6 That busing to Manning Jr. High, 1.6 miles away is possible. 7. That on Hatfield's property in the way of the walkway lie a well, shrubbery, trees, a complete irrigation system and two feet of driveway. He was asked by Alderman Hulsey if it is ever used and he replied that it can't be. He said also that a chain-link fence was put in the center of the walkway on the advice of the developer who had sold him the property and who had said "put in a fence and the City will vacate the walkway." Mr. Bar~~~sked what the setback requirements were and stated five feet minimum on one lot and thirteen feet between buildings. Willard Freeman, attorney for Mr. Hatfield stated 1. Therewas an injustice in having the walkway go to Mr. Hatfield's lot and end there, 2. That the subdivision plat is in error. 3. That the subdividers had tried to bluff in every way possible. 4. That Mr. Hatfield's position is solid because of an earlier survey. 5. The plat does him damage. 6. Comdemnation would cut off his double garage attached to his house and access to a rear lot valued at $50,000.00. 7. The school board had assured him that it had no intent for condemnation, and B. The issue is "Is there a public need for this access for public use?" Speaking in opposition to the vacation was Mr. James Teliha of 11B37 West 36 Avenue who said 1. Mr. Knipp knew of the problem when he bought the property. 2. There is only one access to the subdivision, and that is on 38 Avenue. 3. That the traffic is getting worse. 4. That there should be someway to get the children out to the south to play, to take advantage of the land, to slide on the hill etc. 5. That the Planning Commission had had four meetings and that at a meeting in June a petition had been presented with 19 signatures of residents who wanted egress from the subdivision to the south who expressed the opinion that they opposed the vacation and requested that the walkway be extended to 35 Avenue for school and other purposes. 6. That people in the subdivision had been told that Mr. Hatfield's fence was in error, and that Mr. Knipp had been told "fence it and the city will vacate it." 7. That Mr. Hatfield's property had been outlined according to an official survey, that subsequently there had been a section corner adjustment following re-surveying of the land, and the new survey was the basis for the subdivision. Also speaking in opposition was M~ Paul Gerhke of 112B6 Taft Court who said 1. The walkway had been used by the kids from 27 Avenue before Mr. Knipp's house was built, and after his house and before the fence was built. 2. That they went through Knipp's yard and that the parents had been told and thought it was a walkway. Mr. Knipp said 16 people out of 51 had signed the previously mentioned petition and that he had names on another petition of those who said had they known the true situation, they would not have signed. He submitted the second petition and both petitions are a part of the Planning Department file on WV-72-01. MINUTES - October 12, 1972 - Continued -5- ORDINANCE No. 118 was introduced by Alderman Abramson and read. Motion by Alderman Pepe "I move that Ordinance No. 118 (vacating tract C - Applewood Ridge Subdivision) be adopted on first reading and be published and posted." Motion was seconded by Alderman Bramble and passed 6-0. Deeds from James and Martha Spease for road purposes and from the Jefferson Avenue Methodist Church for greenbelt land were presented to Council by Mr. Barr. Motion by Alderman Howard "I move that the deeds from James and Martha Spease and from Jefferson Avenue United Methodist Church be acceptbd." Motion was seconded by Alderman Donaldson. Alderman Howard said he felt a plaque should be given to the church for its generosity. Alderman Hulsey said this should be done in the case of any donation. Council was polled and Motion to accept deeds passed 5-0. Alderman Pepe was not present. Meeting was adjourned at 10 25 p.m. ~'4<-_ -7~ Louise F. Turner City Clerk // ,'C /F7 7) '-_7-- ~ <./,,/ ,J~ , , ^