Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, folks, it is 6.30. It is time for the June 16th meeting of the Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission. I'm calling this to order as of now.

Mr. Haggerty is absent. Ms. Austin? Here. Mr. Montiel?

Present.

Mr. Adams is absent. Ms. Hubka is absent. Mr. Renson?

Here.

Mr. Kaplan is absent. Ms. Cesario? Here. Mr. Ruddle?

Here, in person.

And Chair Martinez?

Present.

A quorum is present.

All right. First item on the agenda is approval of minutes from our June 2nd meeting. I hope everybody got a chance to review those minutes. Before I hear a motion to approve, is there any additions, corrections, amendments to those meeting minutes?

No? Can I get a motion to approve? I make a motion. Seconded.

Ms. Austin?

Yes. Mr. Montillo?

Yes.

Mr. Renson?

Yes.

Ms. Asario? Yes. Mr. Ruttle?

Yes.

And Chair Martinez?

Aye.

Motion passes.

All right. Next item is approval of the findings of fact from our last meeting around, or the public session around non-commercial and non-conforming uses in residential zones. That was included in the packet. Any additions, corrections, amendments to the findings of fact in the recommendation? No?

Can I get a motion to approve?

So moved.

Second.

Ms. Austin? Yes. Mr. Montiel?

Aye.

Mr. Renson?

Yes.

Ms. Cesario? Yes. Mr. Ruttle?

Yes.

And Chair Martinez?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda, public forum. This is for anybody present in the room or online tonight that wishes to address this body on issues not on the agenda. Do we have anybody online? Anybody in the room here? No? Okay. All right. So we will skip over public forum, and we will move to the public hearing for cases BAC 2025-001 and BAC 2025-002. Can I get a motion to open the public hearing?

So moved.

Second. Ms. Austin?

Yes. Mr. Montiel?

Aye.

Mr. Renson?

Yes.

Ms. Cesario? Yes. Mr. Ruttle?

Yes.

And Chair Martinez?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you. We have an open public hearing and a staff report. I invite staff to come for the presentation of these cases.

Who's first? Hi there. My name is Irina Hargoy.

I'm the Development Review Engineer in Public Works, and I'm presenting the case BAC-2025-001, and it's for a vacation of public.

I'm sorry. Could you just stand a little closer to the microphone? Oh, yeah. Sorry. I'm having trouble hearing. Thank you.

OK, well, my name is Irina Hergoy. I'm the development review engineer for Public Works, and I'm presenting the case BAC-2025-001, and it's for evocation of public right-of-way.

Oh, I'm sorry.

So, again, this request is for a vacation of public right-of-way, and it's located at 3021 South Gale Cago, and it's also known as the Sequel Apartments. The approximate area that's going to be vacated is about 8,155 square feet. So for some background on this project, this all started back in 1969, actually. And the city of Englewood created a master street plan. And this reserves specific right of ways throughout the city for public improvements. In 1973, this master plan was updated to include a section of Gallipago. The initial intent was to widen the street, and as you can see on the map over here, well, I can't really see, but the southern portion of Gallipago was widened, but the northern portion was never widened. In 1989, the city approached a property owner at the time because we needed additional right-of-way to widen and extend Cornell Avenue. As a result, the city and the property owner completed a land exchange. The property owner conveyed the land needed for the Cornell extension and in return received a portion of land that was also located within the 1973 right-of-way reservation. In 2021, a PUD took place, which combined nine parcels into one for the development of the Winslow Crane Apartments. Building permits were also pulled, but the title issue was not identified at the time. So the problem today is that on paper, it looks like part of this building is sitting within the right-of-way, even though the reservation was outdated and was never put to use.

So why is this vacation needed?

The land conveyance that took place in 1989, it overlaps with the reserved right-of-way area. The development approvals do not address the reservation. Why is city council action required? In 1973, the right-of-way reservation was established by ordinance, and per city code, it needs to be removed by ordinance. and invocation of the reservation requires council approval. The benefit to the city will remove the obsolete right-of-way reservation, clarifies ownership and title records, and aligns records with existing development. The recommendation staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission, by motion, recommend city council approve the proposed right-of-way.

Does anyone have any questions? Michelle.

How did you find this out just so recently out of curiosity?

I would say not so recently. This happened last year. Oh, okay. Last year around like August, so it's been in the works.

Oh, okay. Yeah. And this was identified through title?

Excuse me?

It was identified through title work?

The applicant actually reached out and, yeah, this appeared on their title and they wanted to do it.

Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Other questions? Any other impacts?

This seems like just a simple case of clearing up something that should have been done a long time ago. Is there any other sort of knock-on effects that you're aware of?

No. Once the right-of-way reservation is removed, the public right-of-way just goes back to the public, and the private land just stays as private land. Nothing else is going to be affected.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MS. HERGOY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

CAN YOU IDENTIFY WHO IS THE APPLICANT? IS THIS THE PROPERTY OWNER? BOTH OF US?

YOU'RE THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THOSE APARTMENT BUILDINGS?

PARTNERS, YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? NO? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SINCE WE'RE IN PUBLIC HEARING, ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION?

SEEING NONE. MOTION TO CLOSE, UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

NEW SPEAKER. THE ATTORNEYS, CITY ATTORNEYS HAVE LOOKED AT THIS AND ARE RECOMMENDING THIS, THE MOTION TO A VACATE.

THERE'S NO BENEFIT IN RETAINING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY CLEARS TITLE AND WE DON'T SEE A USE FOR THIS WITH THE BUILDING THE WAY IT IS. NO HESITANCY LEGALLY. THANK YOU. NEW SPEAKER YOU DON'T WANT ANY MONEY FOR THAT LAND, HUH?

NEW SPEAKER NO, THAT'S RIGHT.

NEW SPEAKER REMIND ME, NANCY, I'M LOOKING AT MY CHEAT SHEET HERE, DO WE STAY OPEN FOR THE NEXT CASE OR DO WE CLOSE THIS?

We need to close, but did the applicants want to address the commission?

Yeah, anything else that the applicants would like to present?

The only thing I wanted to add, I think Irina did a very good job explaining the issues there. There's one other development that we learned kind of in the last week or so as things came up but during that that transaction between the city of Englewood and the then property owner in 1989 there was an agreement signed before the land transaction occurred and it required that the city clear any encumbrances on the land that form a right-of-way within 90 days of the actual land sale occurring as it turns out we can't find evidence that that ever occurred but it was part of the agreement so I think it just was one of those cases where something was supposed to happen within a period of time and then it just never did. But we do have that agreement. If somebody wanted to read it, we have it available. Thank you. No, I think that makes sense.

I'm sorry. Could you state your name?

I apologize. I'm Alex Krasnick. I'm development manager for Dartmouth MFC LLC.

Thank you.

Are there any encumbrances that should have been removed but were not?

This is the only one that we're aware of. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you. No further questions. I'll take a motion to close the public hearing on this case.

I make the motion to close the public hearing in this case.

Second.

Ms. Austin? Yes. Mr. Monteal?

Aye.

Mr. Renson?

Yes.

Ms. Cesario? Yes. Mr. Ruddle?

Yes.

And Chair Martinez?

Aye.

Thank you. Motion passes.

Thank you. Anything that, I mean, our job here is to make a recommendation to council to approve this vacation as presented. Anything anybody else wants to talk about or add or anything to the recommendation? And I would love a recommendation.

I'll make a motion. WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

MOTION TO RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF CASE 20-2501, VACATION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AS DESCRIBED THEREIN.

PERFECTLY SAID. THANK YOU.

I SECOND. OKAY. MS. AUSTIN?

YES. MR. MONTILE?

AYE.

MR. RENSON?

YES.

MS. ASSARIO? YES. MR. RUTTLE?

YES.

CHAIR MARTINEZ? Motion passes.

Thank you. Thank you for your presentation this evening. We're moving on to case VAC 202502, a vacation of utility easement. Can I get a motion to open public hearing on that case?

So moved.

Second. Ms. Austin? Yes. Mr. Montillo?

Aye.

Mr. Renson?

Yes.

Ms. Cesario? Yes. Mr. Ruddle?

Yes.

And Chair Martinez?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Getting a lot of Robert's Rules practice this evening. All right. I'd like to invite staff up to talk about this case.

Okay, my name is Coach Stevens.

I'm engineering manager with utilities department. Just kind of piggybacks on the right-of-way vacation. At the same time that the Right-of-way was dedicated. We had a utility easement dedicated to us. It was kind of vague in what it was supposed to cover. During planning and development, we realized we didn't need that utility easement. All the utilities that they constructed with this property, they're installed, they're in service. We have easements on everything we need. So this was just a thing that was left hanging out there that probably should have been cleaned up many years ago. So that's what we're trying to do tonight. It was dedicated by ordinance, so that's why we're here. As I said, the utilities department is whole. We don't need this. They're getting service from our new, there was some old water lines and stuff in there that they abandoned and rebuilt the entire site. So this is the easement we're showing here. This clears the title for them. No fiscal impact on us at all. We took this to our water and sewer board on May 12th, unanimously approved. So from a utility standpoint, I guess it doesn't really matter to us.

Any questions around that? AND THIS IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, OTHER SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, ON THE WEST SIDE.

OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSION MEMBERS?

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPLICANT, WELCOME TO PRESENT ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE.

NEW SPEAKER AGAIN, ALEX KRASNICK, DEVELOPMENT MANAGER WITH DARTMOUTH MFPLLC. provide a little bit more color on this. So that easement that was shown in that exhibit was actually replaced. That was a 30-foot easement. We replaced it with a 50-foot easement. So really, they essentially overlap, with the exception of about eight feet. So it shifted. So additional 20-something feet was added. There is that ordinance, as mentioned, ordinance number nine from 2021. We've met all the conditions required in that ordinance. It spells out this vacation process. We're just going through the process at this point.

So that's all I have. Thank you. What prompted both of these vacations? Is this a refinance and things come up on title? You nailed it.

It was a refinance. And through the new lender and title search, they found a couple that weren't previously identified. And so we were mistakenly under the impression that we'd satisfied all the obligations of the requirements of the PUD in Ordinance 9. Understanding now that the ordinance requires us to go through the same formal process. They're in ordinance.

Yeah, eliminate it Okay, everything staying on schedule for your refinance or is this?

We were able to work with the lender to get around this but we do have a timeline that we have to meet In order for us to not get to lose that financing.

So yeah, we're We're still on track great Any other questions?

All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Anybody here from the public to speak in opposition to the vacation of this utility easement? Seeing none, I'll take a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved. Second. Ms. Austin?

Yes.

Mr. Montiel?

Aye.

Mr. Renson?

Yes.

Ms. Cesario? Yes. Mr. Ruddle?

Yes.

And Chair Martinez?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you. Any discussion or things that we want to consider in the recommendation of City Council?

Nope.

Can I get a motion?

Motion to approve the vacation of the utility easement.

We good with that?

I'll second.

Ms. Austin?

Yes.

Mr. Montiel?

Aye.

Mr. Renson?

Yes.

Ms. Cesario? Yes. Mr. Ruttle?

Yes.

And Chair Martinez?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Thank you, everybody. Thank you, everybody, for presenting this evening and giving us all the information. I appreciate it. We will move on to the next agenda item, which is staff's choice.

Brooke, you have anything for us? I actually don't have anything to add. That was one of the quickest meetings ever.

Efficient. Nancy, anything?

Just to let you know, and if you're not going to be available, please let me know, but on July 7th, you'll be having a study session regarding residential non-conforming uses. You've already heard the commercial. This will now be the residential. Okay? And then it will come back two weeks after that, I believe, for a public hearing. Okay?

Great. Thank you.

That's all I have.

All right. Thank you. Attorney's choice, Mr. Higgins. Nothing from the city attorney's office. Thank you.

Thank you. And Commissioner's Choice, let's start on the left side this time with Stephen.

Anything to share with us? Nothing from me.

I just have disappointment that Stephen didn't make a motion today since he's here. So that's my own Commissioner's Choice.

All right. Thank you. Very efficient meeting tonight. Thank you, everybody.

And with that, we adjourn.