Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/31/1973 MINUTES May 31, 1973 The two hundred and fourth regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge City Council was called to order at 7 50 p.m. at 7390 West 38 Avenue by Mayor Albert E. Anderson Aldermen present were Dr. Paul Abramson, Mary Jo Cavarra, Joseph Donaldson, Robert Howard, Calvin Hulsey and Ray Pepe. Others present were Mayor Anderson, City Clerk Louise Turner, City Attorney Maurice Fox and interested citizens. Motion by Alderman Donaldson "I move that the Clerk dispense with reading of the Minutes and th"t they be approved as presented" Motion was seconded by Alderman Pepe and approved 6-0. Citizen Comments were made by Leland Stewart, chairman of the Planning Commission who stated that six applicants for Planning Director had been interviewed and that he would like authorization from Council to proceed with negotiations for the most qualified man at a salary above the top amount allowed by the pay ordinance. It was determined that the amount should be considered at an executive session. Alderman Donaldson questioned whether or not this would result in having to raise other directors' salaries. Motion by Alderman Hulsey, seconded by Alderman Donaldson and passed 6-0 "That we have an executive session (pertaining to Mr. Stewart's request) after this meeting and reconvene for action." Glen Taylor, Director of Public Works who asked that a Resolution be passed authorizing the Mayor to sign a TOPICS agreement. Resolution No. 229 (pertaining to authorizing the Mayor to sign TOPICS Projects) was introduced by Alderman Donaldson and read. Motion by Alderman Pepe "I move that Resolution No 229 be adopted." Motion was seconded by Alderman Cavarra and passed 6-0. Nancy Snow of 11155 West 40 Avenue who stated 1. She was surprised to learn that the City was facing a gas crisis because she had understood the City had a contract and would receive the same amount of gas as last year. 2 That she was shocked when Mayor Anderson had explained to her that the City had a 70% increase in use over a year ago 3. That some increase was reasonable, but 70% was too much, and perhaps some attempt should be made to cut down since this was a nation-wide crisis 4. That such things as sending more than the necessary number of cars to take seven staff members to the Dillon meeting and the sending of officers to her house when a phone call would have handled the matter were indicative that there are places where the City could cut down without sacrificing services. 5 She asked that 2 or 3 Aldermen be appointed to look into ways to conserve and take suggestions from the public. Motion by Alderman Cavarra that each liaison meet with at the study session." The "I move we do his department Motion was not as Mrs. Snow suggested and and the matter be taken up acknowledged. Mayor Anderson stated 1 The City had taken steps to insure there would be no crisis. 2. That such comments were "interfering without knowing the reasons " MINUTES - May 31, 1973 - Continued -2- 3. That for the first time the City had "decent police coverage", - that last year there were not enough cars. 4. That the City had doubled the number of diesel trucks for street patching and that bulldozers which would be needed to develop the greenbelt would need additional fuel. 5. That this had happened at a time when the City was expanding its use. Alderman Abramson said he was confident the City would make every effort to cut its use. Louis~ Bruno, attorney who asked to be allowed to present new and different evidence under Item No. 10 (Ordinance No 129 - Annexation No.3). Mayor Anderson said some issues had already been resolved and there would be no more testimony on matters that had already been resolved. Alderman Abramson stated second reading of an ordinance was a public hearing. Duaine Richter stated he objected to reopening the matter and taking additional testimony on the grounds that the Public Hearing was closed. Mayor Anderson said this would be taken up under Item No. 10 when it came up A 3-Way Liquor License for Pavilion East Inc. came up for decision. Motion by Alderman Donaldson "I move that the 3-way liquor license for Pavilion East Inc. at 1-70 and Kipling be denied as evidence at the hearing showed that there are sufficient licenses in existence to meet the needs of the neighborhood." Motion was seconded by Alderman Howard, and was defeated by a vote of 3-2. Aldermen Abramson, Cavarra, and Hulsey voted "nay." Alderman Pepe abstained on this and other Motions because he had not been present at the May 24, 1973 hearings. Motion by Alderman Abramson "I move that a 3-way liquor license for Pavilion East Inc. at 47 Avenue and Kipling be approved for the following reasons 1. Evidence was presented that a new neighborhood was established. 2 Petitions were presented with 819 in favor. 3. The City survey indicated 80% in favor." Motion was seconded by Alderman Cavarra and passed 3-2. Aldermen Howard and Donaldson voted "nay" and Alderman Pepe abstained. Alderman Howard stated that the American Family Lodge in selling property to Pavilion East Inc. had not complied with the City's subdivision regula- tions and made the follOWing Motion "I move that the City Attorney file a lawsuit against the American Family Lodge in the matter of conveyance in violation of the Subdivision Regulations." Motion was seconded by Alderman Donaldson and passed 6-0. Minor Subdivision No. 9 at 36 Avenue and Holland was brought up for decision. Motion by Alderman Howard "I move th~ Minor Subdivision No 9 at 36 Avenue and Holland be denied for the following reasons 1. There was no drainage plan submitted, and 2. Lot B of the subdivision appears to have insufficient frontage under the subdivision regulations." Motion was seconded by Alderman Donaldson and passed 4-1. Alderman Abramson voted "nay" and Alderman Pepe abstained. Minor Subdivision No. 10 came up for decision. MINUTES - May 31, 1973 - Continued -3- Motion by Alderman Cavarra "I move that Minor Subdivision No 10 be tabled until a drainage plan is approved by the Public Works Director and funds are put in escrow for storm drain." Motion was seconded by Alderman Donaldson and passed 4-1. Alderman Abramson voted "nay" and Alderman Pepe abstained. City Attorney Fox added that easements along the rear need correction. Rezoning Case WZ-73-07 came up for decision. Motion by Alderman Cavarra "I move that Case WZ-73-07 requesting rezoning from Residential-One-A to Residential-Two-A at 4242 Jellison be denied for the following reasons 1 The Land Use Plan shows public service use. 2. There was insufficient evidence for change, and 3 The proposed Residential-Two-A would not be in conformance with adjacent land use or zoning" Motion was seconded by Alderman Howard and passed 4-1. Alderman Hulsey voted "nay" and Alderman Pepe abstained Motion by Alderman Abramson "I move that Harry Meerdink and Dora Piccoli be appointed to the Personnel Committee." Mayor Anderson requested a Motion which allowed the individuals to be voted on separately. Motion by Alderman Abramson "I move that Dora Piccoli be appointed to fill the vacancy on the Personnel Committee." Motion was seconded by Alderman Donaldson and passed 5-1. Alderman Pepe voted "nay" and said he felt the person appointed should be someone who had lived in the City at least a year. Motion by Alderman Abramson (to the Personnel Commi ttee .)" and passed 6-0 "I move that Harry Meerdink be reappointed Motion was seconded by Alderman Cavarra Alderman Donaldson asked that an expression of appreciation be given to Mr Gioso, former chairman of the Personnel Committee who had given many hours of volunteer service to the City prior to his resignation Ordinance No. 129 (pertaining to Annexation No.3) was brought up for second consideration and the title read. Motion by Alderman Pepe, seconded by Alderman Donaldson and passed 6-0 "That the title having been read, the Clerk dispense with reading the balance of the Ordinance." Alderman Abramson stated citizens should be allowed to speak, that second reading of an ordinance is a Public Hearing. Mavor Anderson stated that the zoning had been completed and that at this point this was a "housekeeping ordinance" and that the Chair would rule that no testimony on zoning would be taken at this time Alderman Abramson stated that the City Attorney had stated on several occasions that the zoning and annexation issues must be considered sim- ultaneously, and that the two matters could not be divorced, that the majority of the text of the Ordinance pertained to the zoning and he did not see how the Mayor could refuse to hear evidence on one part and not another. Attorney Bruno asked for clarification of the ruling and stated he would like to present evidence under Statute 139-60-5 and file formal protest on behalf of adjacent property owners. " MINUTES - May 31, 1973 - Continued -4- Duaine Richter, applicant stated that he objected to additional evi- dence at this time, that he had submitted a proposal on this same property a year ago, that he had brought witnesses and that no test- imony was allowed at the second reading. Mayor Anderson repeated the Chair would rule that no testimony pertain- ing to zoning would be taken at this time. Alderman Hulsey said the reason for a second reading is for a Public Hearing and asked if Council were going to stop having hearings on second reading of ordinances? Alderman Pepe said he understood the zoning was settled, and asked how it could be brought up again? Mayor Anderson said the Chair would rule comments on the zoning portion of the Ordinance out of order. The question of whether or not testimony could be presented on second reading was directed to City Attorney Fox who recommended a break for an executive session. Motion by Alderman Abramson, seconded by Alderman Pepe and passed 6-0 "That we call a break." Upon resumption of the meeting, Mayor Anderson stated both sides would be allowed five minutes to be heard. Attorney Bruno in answer to a question said he had not represented the Applewood Homeowners at the hearing but had been asked to carry forth from the last time He stated 1 Based on Statute 139-60-5, which provides that if 20% of the adjacent property owners formally object, a 3/4 vote is necessary 2. That at this point he was filing a formal protest under this statute. 3. That he 4. That he Council would have to had 20% of those would prove what pass by 3/4 vote adjacent both by number and perimeter constituted front or rear and then and not by simple majority. He called Arthur Brunton of 13167 West 33 Avenue who was sworn in by Mayor Anderson. Mr. Brunton stated he was adjacent to the property on lots 4 and 5 of Block 4 of Applewood Gardens Subdivision. He presented four petitions marked "Protestants Exhibits No.2,3,4 and 5" which he, Mr. Brunton, had circulated and on which he had obtained signatures of residents along the~st side on Lots 2,3,4,5,6 and 7 of Block 1, Applewood Gardens Subdivision, Lots 1 and 2, second filing Applewood Gardens Sub- division and Lot 1,2,3 and 4 in Block 4 of Applewood Gardens Subdivision. Mr. Bruno submitted a drawing marked Protestant Exhibit No.1 which Mr Brunton said was a "schematic drawing" by a registered engineer. . 3543.22 Mr. Bruno said the total perlmeter was feet and Mr Brunton gave the calculated linear feet contiguous to those objecting as 1034.46 feet as being greater than the 20% required. Mayor Anderson said the five minutes had expired. Mr. Bruno, for the record, expressed his opposition to the ruling and stated further testimony under a second statute was critical. He asked to be given a reason for being cut off and was told the time allotted to him had expired and upon repeating his question was ruled out of order MINUTES - May 31, 1973 - Continued -5- Alderman Abramson stated the Mayor was being "arbitrary, caprlclous and dictatorial" and that Council was a judicial body and made a Motion "That Mr. Bruno be given the time needed." He added both sides should have sufficient time The Motion was not accepted. On request of Mr. Bruno, Protestants Exhibits 1_6 (No 6 being a transcript of a portion of the tape of the April 26, 1973 Hearing) were accepted and entered into the record. Duaine Richter, applicant stated 1. That he objected to the matter being reopened, that the matter of the 20% had been discussed and it had been determined that it did not apply 2. That frontage is oriented to 32 Avenue, and former proposals a year ago and in 1970 had also been oriented to frontage on 32 Avenue and 32 Avenue was given as the address. 3. The service road at this location had no name and no identity, therefore, it would be impossible to call it the front or to give a frontage address other than 32 Avenue. 4. That all traffic into project would come from and originate from 32 Avenue 5 That 32 Avenue was the front and the north end was the rear 6. He asked that Council make a determination of the front and rear. Alderman Abramson questioned the fact that Mr. Richter had said the matter of the 20% had been discussed and that the Council Motion said that no evidence in that regard had been submitted. In answer to a question from Akerman Pepe, Mr Richter stated his attorney was not able to be present and that he (the attorney) was under the impression that the Public Hearing was closed and there would be no more testimony Following an executive session, Alderman Howard read the following Finding of Fact "I move that the City Council find as follows in relation to the question of whether Chapter 139, Article 60, Section 5, C.R S. 1963, as amended, applies in the zoning case before us in which Mr Richter is the applicant 1. The frontage of this tract before us is West 32 Avenue 2. No protests or protesters appeared who were owners of land in the rear of said tract. 3 No protests or protesters appeared who were owners of land in the front of said tract. 4. The map, Exhibit 1 of the protesters, as presented by Attorney Bruno confirms the fact that none of the protesters owned land in the front or rear of said property. 5. The rear of said property is that area immediately north and directly opposite West 32 Avenue. 6 Attorney Bruno stated that Chapter 139, Article 60, Section 5 provides that the 20% protesters must come from the front or rear of said property Thus we are making a finding based on his interpretation of the statute above referred to, and I move this Finding of Fact be accepted " Motion was seconded by Alderman Donaldson. Alderman Abramson read Section 139-60-5, CRS 1963, as amended. He stated that this section didn't refer to front and consequently the Motion was in error. Question was called and Motion passed 4-2. Aldermen Abramson and Cavarra voted "nay." Alderman Abramson stated he felt the Council had misinter- preted the Statute, that it was intended to allow adjacent homeowners to protest a rezoning proposal Motion by Alderman Pepe "I move that Ordinance No. 129 introduced by Alderman Donaldson be adopted on second reading and be ordered published and posted." Motion was seconded by Alderman Donaldson and passed 4-2. Aldermen Abramson and Cavarra voted "nay " MINUTES - May 31, 1973 - Continued -6- Motion was made by Alderman Abramson, seconded by Alderman Hulsey and passed 6-0 "That Council recess." Following recess, Ordinance No. 132, amending Ordinance No. 117 - Directors' pay portion - was introduced by Alderman Donaldson and read. Leland Stewart said the Ordinance would meet with the approval of the Planning Commission. Motion by Alderman Abramson "I move that Ordinance No. 132 (amending Ordinance No 117) be passed on first reading and be ordered published and posted." Motion was seconded by Alderman Donaldson and passed 6-0. Motion by Alderman Pepe, seconded by Alderman Abramson and passed 6-0 "That Mr. Stewart and the Planning Commission proceed in obtaining the services of the top candidate for Planning Director." Meeting was adjourned at 10 15 p.m. ~ .:.. ~ :"l. :l-c ~,--'// ,-...z~ i.- Louise F. Turner City Clerk /V/-~.-;oA:;>': E.":)