Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/06/2007AGENDA WHEAT RIDGE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY February 6, 2007 Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority on Tuesday, February 6, 2007 at 6:00 pm, in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building at 7500 West 291h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO. 1. Call the Meeting to Order 2. Roll Call of Members 3. Approval of Minutes - December 5, 2006 4. Public Forum (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda. Public comments may be limited to 3 minutes). 5. New Business A. Discussion with Rob Osborn/WR2020 B. Discussion about New Open Meeting Law Case C. Referral regarding proposed Special Use Permit at 7323 W. 382n Avenue 6. Adjournment MINUTESOF WHEAT RIDGE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY December 5, 2006 6:00 p.m. 2. 4. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting of the Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority was called to order by Chair Williams at 6:00 p.m. in the council chambers oFthe Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Authority members present: Commissioners absent: James Bahrenburg Teri Carver Larry Schulz Terrell Williams Pete Ziemke 5. Janet Leo Also attending: Alan White, WRURA Executive Director Corey Hoffrnann, Attomey for WRiTRA Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 17, 2006 It was moved by Pete Ziemke and seconded by James Bahrenburg to approve the minutes of October 17, 2006. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one to address the Authority. PUBLIC HEARING A. Resolution 04-2006 - Presentation and Approval of 2007 Budget The 2007 Budget for the Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority was presented by Alan White. He advised that proper noticing for this public hearing had taken place and there was jurisdiction for the Authority to conduct the hearing. Chair Williams invited members of the public to address the budget. Charles Durbin Alan White clarified a portion of the budget at Mr. Durbin's request. WRi.JRA December 5, 2006 - 1 - There were no other individuals present who wished to address the budgek Chair Williams closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. It was moved by Larry Schulz and seconded by Teri Carver to adopt Resolution 04-2006, a resolution enacting a budget and appropriation for 2007 with an amendment to Exhibit 3 that the $24,000 should go under Site Improvements rather than Acquisition and Relocation. The motion passed unanimously. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution 05-2006 - Approval of an Amendment to the 38th Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Plan and Transmitting t6e Same to the Wheat Ridge City Council This matter was presented by Chair Williams. The Second Amendment would correct some minor technical enors in the First Amendment and initiate tax increment financing for the Wheat Ridge Cyclery expansion project. It was moved by James Bahrenburg and seconded by Larry Schuiz to adopt Resolution 05-2006, a resolution approving a modification to the 38th Avenue Corridor Redevelopment Plan. The motiou passed unanimously. B. Review Agreement with Wheat Ridge Cyclery Regarding Sales Tax Increment This matter was introduced by Alan White. Authority members reviewed a proposed agreement with Wheat Ridge Cyclery that would reimburse the Cyclery for eligible costs incuned in expanding their business through tax increment financing. Ron Kiefel, owner of Wheat Ridge Cyclery described the improvements to their property including a new roof for the building, addition of art panels, landscaping, parking lot, curb and gutter. A tour of Wheat Ridge Cyclery was scheduled for 9:00 am., December 16. All Authority members were encouraged to attend. Pete Ziemke commented that he is in favor of tax increment financing to assist in improvements such as those presented by Wheat Ridge Cyclery that present a public benefit by being far and above the normal requirements. The agreement was presented for discussion only at this time. It will be brought back to the Authority for approval when all the details are finalized. C. Review of Land Use Case - WZ-06-1 l/Dinneen This case was presented by Alan White. The owner of property at the southwest WRiJRA December 5, 2006 - 2 " corner of 38th and Benton is seeking to rezone Lot 2 from Commercial One to Planned Residential Development in order to build a two-family dwelling. The Authority reviewed this land use case to determine whether the request conforms to the urban renewal plan. The Authority reached the following finding on this case: While the proposed use is not commercial as recommended for this area in the urban renewal plan, the proposed residential use is an improvement to the vacant lot and the overall appearance of the urban renewal area. D. Update on Lawsuit with Cornerstone Corey Hoffinann stated that there was nothing new to report regarding the court case. E. Discussion of Designating Additional Urban Renewal Areas This matter was presented by Chair Williams. Lakeside Mall is soon to be demolished. Since Lakeside is such a small community, he suggested that Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority meet with Rob Osborn and representatives from Lakeside in an effort to offer assistance in redevelopment of the azea. He discussed the possibility of extending the urban renewal designations to other areas of the city. Corey Hoffinann explained that adding to the existing urban renewal plan is the same as initiating a new plan in terms of blight studies, etc. He suggested conducting a workshop including WRi.JRA, City Council and Wheat Ridge 2020 to discuss and identify possible areas to be designated as urban renewal areas. F. Election of Chairperson for 2007 Terrell Williams was elected as Chair and Pete Ziexnlce as Vice Chair of the Authority for the year 2007. Executive Session under C.R.S. Section 24-6-402-(4)(e) for the purpose of determining matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations and/or instructing negotiators. It was determined there was no need to conduct an executive session at this time. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:33 p.m. Terrell Williams, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary WRi.7RA December 5, 2006 - 3 - HAYES, PHILLIPS, HOFFMANN & CARBERRY, P.C. Attorneys at Law Suite 450, The Market Center 1350 Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado 80202-1576 Telephone: (303) 825-6444 • Facsimile: (303) 825-1269 ~ D John E. Hayes Fairplay Office Hilary Mogue Graham Corey Y. Hoffmann 675 Main Sheet Jefferson H. Parker Kendra L. Carbeiry P.O. Box 1046 Gregory D. Graham Faicplay, CO 80440 Charissa A. Eckhout Of Counsel Telephone: (719) 836-9005 Herbert C. Phillips Facsimile: (719) 836-9010 WHEAT RIDGE URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY MEMORANDUM TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: COREY Y. HOFFMANN, ESQ. CHARISSA A. ECKHOUT, ESQ. Ge DATE: JANUARY 8, 2007 RE: NEW OPEN MEETINGS LAW CASE The purpose of this memorandum is to bring to your attention a recent Colorado Court of Appeals decision regarding the required contents of a public meeting notice under the Colorado Open Meetings Law (the "OML"), C.R.S. § 24-6-401, ei. seq. In Darien v. Town of Marble, 2006 WL 3316281 (Colo. App. Nov. 16, 2006), the Colorado Court of Appeals held that the Town of Marble failed to give proper notice under the OML by not including specific agenda information where the Board made a decision on a matter not properly noticed. Marble, 2006 WL 3316281 at *3. This decision directly impacts the notice requirements for all open meetings, including those meetings held by the Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority. Case Summary In pertinent part, the facts of Darien v. Town of Marble are as follows. Marble from the Yule Marble Quarry, near the Town of Marble, has been used for many well-known monuments, including the Tomb of the Unknowns in the Arlington National Cemetery. Id. at *1. Representatives from the Arlington National Cemetery contacted the owner of the quazry to obtain a replacement for the existing tomb. Id. The quarry owner submitted a proposal for two blocks of mazble to be quarried, one as a replacement for the Tomb and one as insurance against the possibility of damage to the first block. Id. It was suggested that, if transport of the first 118107 Q: I USERSI WR URA I CAEIMEET/NG AGENDA&MO1. DOC January 8, 2007 Page 2 block was successful, the second block could be retained and permanently displayed at the 1VIi11 Site Pazk' (the "Park"). The Town Board authorized the mayor to appoint members to a Mill Site Conunittee (the "Committee"). Id. The role of the Committee was to gather public opinion on the proposal, develop options, and present them to the Boazd. Id. Hal Sidenlinger, a member of the Boazd, and Dana Darien, a Plaintiff in this case, were both appointed to the committee. Id. The Committee was given until February 5, 2004 to report its findings. Id. The deed originally conveying the Park to the Town restricted the property to certain uses. Id. at *2. Accordingly, there was some concern as to whether the marble block could be displayed on the old mill site. Upon discovering this restriction, the Committee was granted additional time to research the issue. Id. The next Committee meeting was scheduled for January 15, 2004. Id. However, before the next Committee meeting, the Board was scheduled to hold its meeting on January 8, 2004. Included within the posted meeting notice was a fifteen minute time slot for a Mill Site Committee update, which read: 6. Mill Site Committee Update Hal Sidenlinger 730-7:45 PM Authorization for Mill Site Committee Survey expenditure(s) Endorse Replacement of MSC Member. Id. Below the agenda, there were also several additional notices that appeared, including one which stated "[t]he next Mill Site Committee meeting will be held Thursday, January 15 at 7:00 p.m. in the school." Id. During Hal Sidenlinger's update at the January 8, 2004 Boazd meeting, he read a portion of the Town's master plan which stated, "[t]he community does not want to host more visitors by promoting, exploiting or otherwise marketing the Mill Site as an attraction. The historic site should be left in its existing state." Id. Based on this language in the Town's master plan, Mr. Sidenlinger stated that he could not support the project. Id. Thereafter, in his capacity as a Board member, Mr. Sidenlinger made a motion that the Board not allow a permanent structure be built on the Mill Site, nor allow the second block of marble to be a permanent display there. Id. Despite the fact that the agenda for the meeting did not include any notice of any action on the mill site project, the Board approved and adopted the motion. Id. While several proponents of the project had attended previous meetings, none were present when the Board voted to reject it. Many proponents of the project were upset by the Boazd's decision and protested the Board's Januazy vote. Id. at *3. Plaintiffs argued that the Board should rescind its January 8`h vote to allow for a public hearing on the matter. Id. The ' The Mill Site Park is owned by the Town of Marble, and is the historic site of the mill at which Yule Marble was milled. Darien v. Town ofMarble, 2006 WL 3316281 at *1. l/8/07 Q: I USERSI WRURAI CAEIMEETINC AGENDAS-MOI.DOC Januazy 8, 2007 Page 3 Board declined to do so, and the plaintiffs filed suit, contending that the public notice for the January meeting did not comply with the OML. Id. The trial court ultimately held that the notice given was sufficient to satisfy the OML's requirements. Id. The plaintifFs appealed, and the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. Id. In ruling, the court of appeals examined the OML and reasoned that, "the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret. To this end, a govemmental body may hold a meeting at which it adopts, among other things, a policy or position only after `full and timely notice' to the public." Id. (citing C.R.S. § 24-6-402(2)(c)). The cour[ fixrther noted that, pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-6-402(2)(c), the notice must be posted in accordance with the statute and include "specific agenda information where possible." Id. The court also looked to Colorado Supreme Court precedent stating that the OML establishes a"flexible standazd aimed at providing fair notice to the public." Id. (citing Benson v. McCormick, 578 P.2d 653 (Colo. 1978)). The court then held that: When applying this flexible standard, we consider the nature of the governmental action, the importance of ensuring that the public has an opportunity to participate, and the extent to which giving notice would unduly interfere with the ability of public officials to perform their duties n a reasonable manner. * ~ * To ensure the public has an opportunity to participate, absence of a measure's proponent or of a witness who has important information may require that consideration of a measure be postponed to a later date. Darien v. Town ofMarble, 2006 WL 3316281 at *3. Ultimately, the court of appeals determined that the establishment of the committee process and the mayor's request for guidance on ways to obtain public opinion demonstrated that the community and the Board agreed that the public should be involved in the decision-making process. Id. at *4. Furtherxnore, given that the mayor extended the committee's report deadline, the court held that there was no urgency to make a decision, and thus giving notice of the Board's intention to make a final decision at a later meeting would not have unduly interfered with the Board's ability to conduct its business. Id. Finally, the court rejected the Town's argument that, because specific agenda information is only required "where possible," the Board had complied with the OML because the Board was unaware that there would be a vote that night: 1/8/07 Q: I USERSIWRUR9ICAEIMEET/NG AGENDAS-MOI.DOC January 8, 2007 Page 4 Given the Board's awareness of the extensive public interest, the absence of the projecYs proponents from the meeting, the lack of urgency, and the absence of evidence that postponement of the decision would have unduly interfered with the ability of the Boazd to perform its duties, the statutory phrase "where possible" as urged by the Town would be contrary to the OML's requirements of full notice. Id. at *5. Accardingly, the court concluded that the Board's notice was not full, adequate, or fair under the circumstances. Id. The court then invalidated the action taken by the Board. Id. The Decision's Implications Several questions and concems have been raised concerning the court's interpretation of the OML in the Mar61e case. Specifically, many commentators are concerned with the breadth of the decision. Under a strict reading, the agenda for a public meeting may not deviate from the precise business listed in the public notice. Accordingly, if a council or board member wishes to raise some "other business," no action may be taken on that matter until proper notice is given. The Marble decision is also problematic, because it creates an incentive for dissatisfied community activists to challenge the adequacy of an open meeting's notice after an otherwise valid vote. Addressing such challenges could prove to be burdensome on the councils, boards, and commissions that hold public meetings. Importantly, it seems that the Marble decision is limited to the un-noticed adoption of a policy or position. Accordingly, the mere discussion of an issue not included on a public meeting agenda would not violate the OML. As you are aware, it is often difficult to foresee what issues may arise or what action may be proposed during an open meeting. Accordingly, the Marble decision places a burden on those officials who manage open meetings to ensure that no policy or position is formally adopted if that policy or position was not outlined on the public notice's agenda. If a measure has not been properly noticed, any decision on that matter must be postponed until a later date. Importantly, OML notice violations can also be prevented by carefully drafting meeting agendas so that there is always the possibility of a formal action. For example, in the Marble case, had the public notice read "Mill Site Committee update: discussion and possible action," the case might have resulted in a different decision. By always leaving open the possibility of formal action, it seems that there could be no objection to the sufficiency of notice. Conclusion The Marble decision has significantly impacted the notice requirements of the OML. Specifically, formal action during open meetings must now be limited to the exact agenda items printed on the public meeting notice. Last-minute issues may not be added and action taken without notice being posted at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to a scheduled meeting. If a 1/8/07 Q:1 USERSIWRURAICAEIMEETMG AGENDAS-MOI.DOC January 8, 2007 Page 5 matter has not been properly noticed, consideration of the measure must be postponed until a later date. It is our understanding that the Town of Marble intends to file a petition for certiorari review with the Colorado Supreme Court, so it is possible that this decision may be overturned. We will update this memorandum as necessary. In the meantime, if you have any questions or concems, please do not hesitate to contact us. 1/8/07 Q:I USERSIWRURAICAEIMEETlNG AGENDAS-MOI.DOC Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Aufihority 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 303295-2846 3037352857 (Fan) TO: Urban Renewal Authority Members FROM: Alan White, Executive Director RE: SUP-07-02 DATE: January 31, 2007 The Community Development Department has received the attached request for a special use at 7323 W. 38th Avenue (northeast corner of 38"'/Upham). The special use is for a psychic advisement establishment within the Town Center Urban Renewal Area. The property is zoned R-C, Restricted Commercial. The City's Zoning and Development Code requires the review by WRURA of land use applications in an urban renewal area. The Code requires a recommendation from WRURA based on its review of the application "against the provisions of the urban renewal plan with respect to the land area, land use, design, building requirements, timing and procedure." You are not making a recommendation on whether the request should be approved or not. Your task is to determine if the request is in compliance with the applicable Redevelopment Plan. Your finding will be one factor to be considered in the approvalprocess. The Town Center Urban Renewal Plan references many of the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan in effect at the time the Urban Renewal Plan was adopted in 1981. These goals and policies can be characterized as creating a town center consisting of a balanced mix of commercial uses, but with a strong retail component to create a strong retail tax base. The area needed to be upgraded with new buildings, improved automobile circulation and parking, and improved landscaping and pedestrian amenities. The accompanying Master Plan adopted as part of the Urban Renewal Plan establishes the recommended uses for the Town Center. (See Figure 1.) This particular area is shown for office/retail uses. The psychic advisor will be using the existing building on the site. The applicant is not required to make any improvements to the site under the Zoning Code because there is not a change in use. The building has been used as an office building for a number of years. Recommended Findings: The proposed use is not in conformance with the Town Center Urban Renewal Plan in several areas, notably the future land use, improved parking, and improved landscaping. The proposed use essentially perpetuates the use of the existing building for office space in substantially the same manner as it has in the past. The continued use of the existing building without substantial modifications at this time does not seriously hinder the ability to redevelop the property in the future, either individually or in combination with adjacent properties, consistent with the goals of the Town Center Urban Renewal Plan. • ~~L ~ ~ ~ a W ' R Y ~ m El o . , w ~ U t I ~C 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ `I ~ ~ J 1 ~ 1 r- - ~ ~I 3 ~ !I = I ~ . ~ ~I 3 , i ~ ~ ~ ' ; . . ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ f ' t(i Q~~'{ r = ' . 3 ° ~flllf ' ~ ~ ~ $ ~11111Hil~~llll~ , ~ millNHfi$~IlIfI11D ~ t mlHI11Hi1D~"" Z ~ ~IIHI1ID ~ 1 ~ ~ ~IlHllm ~ W ~ ~IIIi~ LL o~ ~oi e ~1(NICm ~ c : NQ ¢ a ~lIIIIIID' ~ ~ z' ° mfflllllD = v w OilN ~ milHl ~ N F ~ - ~ QUIHlHH11iINIfIIU► a o ; cr ? a., ~ ~ID irH~ ~ i~ H111m' + t f~ . ; ~ s . a fflHl - r u . n ~ p ~ - i' ~ ~ ~ N f p O ~ a W ~ 0 U o ~ a M V/ _ • : a W ~ Q ~ cc LU ~ W Q Z W J ~ C'3 < W- ~ LU 1 0 W Z < O ~ ~ Community Development 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 303.235.2846 Fax:303.235.2857 The City of "eat Ridge Community Development Referral Form I Date: January 29, 2007 Response Due: February 12, 2007 I The Wheat Ridge Community Development Department has received a request for approval of a Special Use Permit to allow psychic advisement on property zoned RC, Restricted Commercial located at 7323 W. 38th Avenue. No response from you will constitute having no objections or concerns regarding this proposal. Case No.: SUP-07-02/Ix Chel Healing Arts, Inc. Request: Approval of a Special Use Permit for psychic advisement. The property for which the Special Use Permit being requested is approximately 1.24 acres in size. No site changes are proposed. All improvements are already in place. Please respond to this request in writing regarding your ability to serve the property. Please specify any new infrastructure needed or improvements to existing infrastructure that will be required. Include any easements that will be essential to serve the property as a result of this development. Please detail the requirements for development in respect to your rules and regulations. If you need further clarification, contact the case manager. Case Manager: Meredith Reckert Voice: 303.235.2848 Fax: 303.2352857 Email: mreckert@ci.wheatridge.co.us "The Carnation City" DISTRIBUTION: Water District (V1lheat Ridge) - Sanitation District (Wheat Ridge) Fire District (Wheat Ridge) Wheat Ridge Police Department Wheat Ridge 2020 Wheat Ridge Building Division Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority Wheat Ridge Public Works ATBT Broadband Xcel Energy Qwest Communications "The Carnation Caty"