Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/28/1972 MINUTES December 28, 1972 fhe one hundred and eighty-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, Joseph DonaldsDi , Robert Howard and Flay Pepe. Aldermen Jack Bramble and Calvi" : ,ulsey were absent. Others attending were Mayor Anderson, City Clerk Louise Turner, City Attorney Maurice Fox, staff personnel and i.lterested citizens. Robert Audino of 3290 Harlan requested a transfer of ownersh~p of the 3 2% beer package license of the Hillcrest Country Markeu Bt 7685 West 44 Avenue from Paul Audino, present o~ ler, to Hillcrest Country Market Company, a Colorado Corporation formed on November 29, 1972. Officers of Hillcrest Country Market Company are Audino, Vice President - Robert Audino, Secretary Audino President - Paul Treasurer Joyce In the file were articles of incorporation, Certificate of Colorado Corporation, state and city applications with proper checks, police report clearing the applicants, and three letterG of reference each on the three officers of the corporation. Attornev Fox ruled it was proper for Robert Audino - Vice President as an officer of the corporation to appear on behalf of the ,pplicants. No one else appeared. Motion by Alderman Abramson "I move that the transfer of a 3.2% fermented malt beverage package license from Paul Audino dba Hillcrest Country Market to Hillcrest Country Market Company be approvdd to be effective January 1, 1973." Motion was seconded by Alderman Howard and passed 4-0. WZ-72-31 Rezoning Case was heard. Applicant Lee R. Kunz of 1840 Winfield Drive requested a change from Agricultural-One to I.ldustrial on 14.96 acres at 50 Avenue and Miller Street in Wheat Ridge. Robert Barr of the Planning Department stated 1, The property had been properly posted Jnd proper publication had been made. 2. The Planning Commission had recommended by a vote of 3-2 that the rezoning be approved because it met the requirements of the Land Use Plan, it conformed to uses in the adjacent districts, there was a need for rezoned industrial ground in the City to attract high type industries and water and sewer services were available. Discussion and a review of the Planning Commission Minutes brought out that at a previous Planning Commission Meeting, a Motion for denial had died for lack of a second, a Motion to approve W3S defeated ~nd was followed by a Motion to table which passed. Also, that on the night of the Planning Commission decision, there had been a tie vote and Dr. Bebber who was absent and had abstained on a vote in wri+ing, was contacted and voted "aye" to break the tie and p~ssed a recommendation for approval of the industrial rezoning. Also, that two people, Gerald Birney and Ivan Haun had raised questions in opposition at the Planning Commission Hearing. Mr. Barr added that this was a Planned Industrial District and an outline plan had been submitted, that plans are submitted three time3 - an outline plan, a preliminary plan and then a final plan, Jnd the zoni 19 change is approved the first time. He also stated that Mr. Kunz's plans though brief contained more than was required for an outline plan and if Jpproved, Council and Mr. Kunz would be held to the percentages and to the 244,000 square feet of buildings if not the actual plan presented at this hearing. ~Iore details including a drainage study, would be presented at the presentation of the preliminary plan, and that those things required in the outline plan were MINUTES - December 28, 1972 - Continued -2- maps with topograptlY shown in fiv~Agdntour intervals, owne:s~lp,. location of streets, general indication of the expected utlllzatlon of the land, landscaping, statement of manner of development and fees. Alderman Abramson requested that the Planning Department look into the Ordinance, that he felt a drainage plan and perhaps other items should be submitted at the outline presentation. Lee R. ~unz, applicant, stated 1. The initial step of the outline plan was necessary in order to secure the change of zoning to industrial. That individuals interested in the location would wait for approval of preliminary and final plans, but unless Industrial Zoning is assured would not consider the location. Also, that once the preliminary plan was approveJ there coul~ be no modification of the plan. 2. That he was the owner of the property. 3. That the area was 14.96 acres. 4. That the Land Use Plan designated industrial for the area. 5. The the Wheat Ridge Ordinance defined the kind of rlevelopment allowed. 6. That where a 30 foot street was shown, half would ue given to make a 60 foot street. 7. That there was industry on three sides, though not lbutting the property in all cases and everything in the 3rea was going industrial. S. There was one single family home on 49 Avenue and Miller and a cluster of 4-5 houses on agricultural property to the south. Otherwise, the ground was open all the way around. 9. The glass plant property was to the north and a holding pond lay 150 feet to 200 feet from his north property line. 10. That water and sanitation could be provided by exi~ting districts and that he had received letters so stating. 11. Seventy-two percent would be in buildings and paving with twenty- eight percent in open space. 12. That an area developed with the amount of open space that exists at the Denver Tech Center is not economic3lly feasible with present prices of land 13. That he felt some of the confusion on the Planning Commission level and the two dissenting votes had resulted from lack of complete understanding of the Ordinance. 14. That granting the zoning would be just that and full power of veto fo plans would be possible upon presentation of the preliminary and final plans. (Some of these comments were in answer to luestions from Aldermen Howard, Pepe and Abramson.) City Attorney Maurice Fox stated that in his oplnlon the lat~r plans would have to conform to the outline as presented at this time and approval meant approval of the outline as presented. No one but the applicants spoke and no one appeared in opposition. Motion by Alderman Pepe "I move that Case WZ-~2-31 be tabled one week with a decision to be rendered at that time in these chambers." Motion was seconded by Alderman Abramson and passed 4-0. WZ-72-33 Rezoning Case was heard. Request was for a change from Residential- Two and Residential-Three to Residential-Three at the southwest corner of 45 Avenue and Parfet for multiple units on 1.34 acres or 58, 99.4 sq. ft. Mr. Barr stated 1. The proper posting had besn done. 2. Proper publication had been made. 3. That the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended denial because it would not protect the value of adjacent property, the Land Use Plan showed low density residential or 0-7 units per acre, and the existing zoning didn't deny the owner the use of the property. 4. That there were singles on Parfet. MINUTES - December 28, 1972 - Continued -3- 5. The property was zoned in 1960. 6. The two tracts were under single ownership and tha" ownership was the same as in 1960. 7. The frontage on the Residential-Two parcel would allow a single house but not a double. 8. That parcel contained 11,796.4 square feet. 9. The piece currently zoned Residential-Three is 1.1 3cres and would support 23 units. 10. That one person had appeared in opposition to greater zoning at the Planning Commission hearing. George Daddis of 1575 Unita in Denver, the owner and applicant was present and was represented by Estelle Nies, realtor who stated 1. The property had been Residential-ThreE under the ~ounty. 2. The applicant had believed it still was until informed to the contrary upon applying for a building permit. 3. He had at that point been advised to ask for a new zoning, however, she felt the request should have been for correction of an error. 4. In 1960 Mr. Daddis had applied to the ~ounty Board of Adjustment to build 30 units on the ground zoned Residential-Three, where 29 would have been allowed. This was granted but expired because the building permit was not secured within 60 days. $he presented the action sheet of the Board of Adjustment to the Council and included on the page was reference to the Residential-Three Zoning.) 5. That the County Planning Department had said Wheat Ridge had agreed to a grandfather clause as it applies to zonings. Mayor Anderson stated that the City was not bound by action or comments of the County Planning Department or Board of Adjustment, nor by the County Map, that the City had rezoned this property several times since incorporation, that public hearings had been held and whatever showed on the City Zoning Map at this time was what the zoning was, whatever the City records said would stand. Motion by Alderman Pepe: "I move the matter be tabled for d3cision next week." There was no second and the Motion died. Mrs. Nies presented a drawing showing an easement for power lines crossing the Residential-Two property and stated this easement precluded building on the property and if it could be used jointly with the larger piece the area in question could be used for parking and for beautification. She asked that the rezoning be granted to correct the error and to allow use of the parcel shown as Residential-Two. She said she had presented the rezoning to the County on the basis it would upgrade the neighborhood and that the applicant had good apartments on other ground that were always rented, and the rezoning had been granted. Motion by Alderman Donaldson "I move that Case WZ-72-33 be tabled for one week for a decision to be rendered at that time." Motion was seconded by Alderman Abramson and passed 4-0. WL-72-35 Rezoning Case was heard. Applicants Ross and Lidia Kuzmych requested a change from Residential-Two to Restricted-Commercial-One on 9,375 square feet at 6320 West 44 Avenue. f'lr. Barr stated 1. The property had been posted and proper publication had been made. 2. That the Planning Commission had recommended approval because it will not create additional traffic, it is in agreement with the land use plan, it is a compatible use in the area, and Restricted-Commercial- One is the most restrictive commercial zoning. 3. There is a single family home to the east on 75 foot frontage and an antique shop to the west. Ross Kuzmych of 4286 Hooker said 1. He and his wife (who was also present) were joint owners. 2. There was a single family home on the property they intended to remodel it and use the building for offices. MINUTES - December 28, 1972 - Continued -4- 3 That 1-1 off-street parking was required and ther8 was 1300 square feet for parking with 1600 square feet in the building. 4. That if the area of the building chang8d the parking would be adjusted and curb cut would be adjusted. Mayor Anderson stated that Restricted-Commercial One at this location would add to strip zoning and that strip zoning is supposed Co be bad. He asked the applicatn why the City should grant a continuation of strip zoning. Mr. Kuzmych answered 1. Commercial was indicated on the master plan for the whole area. 2. His neighbor would probably be interested in it at a later time. 3. The zone requested was the most restrictive of the commercial zones. 4. It would not be easy to deny on the basis of strip zoning, that whether strip zoning was good or bad was a matter of opinion and that along 44 Avenue with 19,000 cars per day, residential WdS not the best use and was not desirable. No one other than the applicants appeared. Motion by Alderman Abramson "I move that WZ-72 35 a requested change from Residential-Two to Restricted-Commercial-One at 6320 We3t 44 Avenue be tabled one week for a decision to be rendered during the normal course of the meeting." Motion was seconded by Alderman Howard and passed 4-0. Harold Rust of the Public Service Company presented a check to Mayor Anderson for $32,000.00 for the fourth quarter of the estimated $128,000.00 franchise tax for 1972. He said if there were any difference an ad- justment would be made on the next quarter. In answer to a question from Alderman Abramson he said building is not permitted on Public Service Company easements for reasons of safety. Meeting was adjourned at 9 45 p.m. - -" --::X J)(~J-~ ~ /- "-A::" ;1 .l i:'" -'-.--- touise F. Turner City Clerk )f(/7J( 1- / / Z~