HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-0901 Staff AnalysisJanuary 30, 1990
Item No. B..-..Other Matters
NAME:
LOCATION:
Riggs Addition, Lot 4
University and West 32nd Street
REQUEST: That the Planning Commission
.Q...._....
approve the release of the
existing easement of the
property known as Town and
Country Apartments.
STAFF REPORT:
Mr. Paul D. Morris, the owner of Town and Country
Apartments, requests that the Planning Commission approve
the release of the easement because of traffic and security
problems for his clientele. He proposes to completely fence
the property.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
If. the easement to be released is the north/south drive
easement west of the apartment buildings, Engineering is
opposed. This drive has been used by the public as an
access to the Town and Country Shopping Center from West
32nd Street since the center was constructed. New easement
is needed for the existing 42" storm drain.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Engineering staffs oppose the proposal as
being inadequate for the surrounding neighborhood, creating
further traffic problems.
PLANNING COMMISSION_ ACTION: (December 12, 1989)
The Planning staff offered a brief comment on the staff
recommendation and pointed out that staff generally opposes
the easement release as a substantial traffic hazard.
Mr. Paul Morris, owner of Town and Country Apartments, felt
it would be beneficial for the safety and security of his
tenants to close the easement. He also presented a petition
from 99 residents of College Terrace Addition in favor of
the abandonment easement release.
1
January 30, 1990
Ite..... m No. .. B. (Continued)...
....... ........
Mr. C. Carpenter spoke in opposition. He stated that he
owns commercial property directly east of Town and Country
Apartments. He also spoke in behalf of the Dickson Flake
firm which manages his property. Mr. Carpenter indicated
that the 30 foot wide easement ties with the traffic signal
on West 32nd Street to turn north on University Avenue. He
also presented letters from tenants of his property.to
oppose the easement closure.
CommissionerMartha Miller asked Mr. Carpenter how would the
easement closure influence emergency vehicles. Ile stated
that emergency vehicles come from the south as a fire
station is located on South University.
Mr. Richard Wood of the Planning staff pointed out that this
easement has been granted by City Ordinance dated 15 years
ago creating public legal access to this property. He added
that a number of issues need to be resolved between the
owners before we can reach a decision. Staff would like to
know which end the owner wants to barricade and where the
traffic flow would be moved.
The Commission asked the Assistant City Attorney for input
on this matter. Mr. Giles agreed to review this issue. The
Planning staff suggested that this item be deferred to let
the City Attorney investigate the record for more
information.
A motion was made for the application as filed, the vote was
4 noes, 1 aye, 5 abstaining. A second motion was made to
defer this item to the January 30, 1990 meeting. This
motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent.
STAFF REPORT AND UPDATE:
The Planning staff met with a member of the City's legal
staff to discuss the legal issue. According to Steve Giles,
Assistant City Attorney, the easement cannot be released
without consent of the adjoining property owners.
The staff has not received any additional information from
the property owners concerning resolution of the easement
release. Therefore, staff recommends that this item be
deferred for a second cycle which would place the matter on
the Commission's agenda for March 13, 1990.
2
January 30, 1990
Item No. B. Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (January 30, 1990)
The applicant was not present, nor was he represented. The
Planning staff reported to the Commission that the principal
items of concerns had not been resolved. The staff
suggested the item be withdrawn from the agenda, that no
further action taken and no public hearing be set.
There were several objectors in attendance. Mr. Flake,
representing the adjoining property owners, was assured by
staff and the Commissioners that this is the final action on
this application. A motion was then made to withdraw the
application as requested by staff. The motion passed by a
vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
3