Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/15/1997AGENDA CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION May 15, 1997 STUDY SESSION Notice is hereby given of a Study Session to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission and City Council on May 15, 1997, at 7:30 p.m., 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA (Items of new and old business may be recommended for placement on the agenda.) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 1, 1997 6. STUDY SESSION ITEM Case No. ZOA-97-1: An application by the City of Wheat Ridge to consider proposed amendments to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26, Zoning Code, Section 24, Light Industrial District Regulations regarding uses allowed at "Principal Permitted" and "Special Uses", City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. (Continued from April 3, 1997.) 7. CLOSE THE STUDY SESSION 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ITEMS 11. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Reservations have been made at Marc's located at 6920 West 38th Avenue at 7:00 p.m. on May 16th. If you have not called me with your RSVP, please do so ASAP. There is a cash bar and the City will provide dinner for the past Commissioners, Secretary and their significant other. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 235-2846. Have a good time!! I T Y -I O r "O' c"IT4 - M-- in oroern 41,1111, mt, judicial hearing before you in the near future, our department will regularly provide you with the following information when it becomes available: • Notices of Neighborhood Meetings which are required by Code for various land use cases. Notices of Public Hearings as they are prepared for newspaper publication. Not only will this information be useful to you for scheduling purposes, as this information precedes agendas by at least 3 weeks, it will also provide you advance notice of matters which are subject to quasi-judicial exparte contact rules. Should you have questions regarding any case, please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff. 606 t,ARRY A. ANGUS NON*If" m APR 2 A 1997 .Mv) likids 29 r.I#AIr-arxs residents norMS11Y have include the following, oMy 7. -1997 61 MINUTES OF MEETING May 1, 19• 7 11 UlNtm WPM 011 ROLL CALL: 1, 1997, in the Council CharrA Wheat Ridge, Colorado. MEMBERS PRESENT: Anne Brinkman Harry Williams Carolyn Griffith - Excused Absence Jay Rasplicka Carl A. Cerveny Distributed to: Courcjl: Date: kuyor: i 4 City Mgr: j City Treas. I City Atty: Dept Heads: Nancy Snow Janice Thompson - Excused Absence Thomas Shockley - Excused Absence STAFF PRESENT: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Marilyn Gunn, Recording Secretary The following is the official copy of Planning Commission minutes for the Public Hearing of May 1, 1997. A copy of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Department of Planning and Development of the City of Wheat Ridge. 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA (Items of new and old business may be recommended for placement on the agenda.) Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 2 S. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner SNOW motioned, Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded, to approve the Minutes of April 17, 1997, as written. Commissioner CERVENY questioned whether or not a resolution had been proposed at the Training Session by Commissioner THOMPSON. He was unsure about the specifics and it was decided to wait until the next meeting to consult Commissioner THOMPSON. Motion passed to accept the Minutes as written 5-0. 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing under Item 7 of the Public Hearing section of the agenda.) There was no one present to speak. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-97-6: An application by Good Times Drive Thru, Inc., for Walter R. Morris for approval of an amendment Planned Commercial Development final development plan. Property is located at 4020 Wadsworth, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. (Continued from April 3, 1997,) Commissioner CERVENY motioned, Commissioner BRINKMAN seconded, ``that Case No. WZ-97-6, a request for approval of an amendment to a Planned Commercial Development final development plan for property located at 4020 Wadsworth Boulevard be approved for the Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 3 following reasons: With the following conditions 1. The two new trees in front of the building be moved out of the right-of-way, 2. The parking lot island north of the dumpster be landscaped with at least one tree and four shrubs, 3. The architect ensure that there is adequate room for a wheelchair to maneuver from the handicapped parking space to the front door. Motion carried 5-0. B. Case -No. WZ-97-3. An application by Rob Tucker for Custom Envelope Corporation for approval of an amendment to a Planned Industrial Development final development plan. Property is located at 4990 Iris Street, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 4 remain a requirement, Ms. Reckert stated it is common in this type of situation to allow the owner sign and development covenant delaying the requirement for public improvement installation. Commissioner SNOW motioned, Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded, "motioned that Case No. WZ-97-3, a request for approval of an amendment to a Planned Industrial Development final development plan for property located at 4•90 Iris Street be approved for the, following reasons: I . A plan amendment is required to allow building expansion, 1 All requirements for a final development plan have been met, 3. Staff recommends approval. With the following conditions: Motion carried 5-0. Egn c , g Hgigbt Variance Commissioner r W motioned, Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded, request Rpproval of a 15 foot rear setback variance for property located at 3900 Pierce Street be denied 6or the following reasons: I . There is no hardship or unique circumstances, 2. There are potential negative impacts on the residence directly to the east, 3. The evaluation criteria does not support approval, 4, Staff recommends denial." Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 6 would make it possible to build two new classrooms, 1 The adjacent neighbor has indicated that he does not object • the variance. • 11 1111111! F 111111�111plli 1. Request a Power of Attorney from the legal owner of the property to the east stating that he does not object to this request. Motion carried 5-0. Cgindilignal Use Permit Commissioner Snow motioned, Commissioner BRINKMAN seconded, that Case No. CUP-97-3, a request for approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the expansion of a church and private school for property located at 3900 Pierce Street. be approved lor the following reasons: I , It will allow for the expansion of an existing use, 2. The evaluation criteria support approval of the request, 1 Staff recommends approval of the request. With the following conditions: D. Case No. CUP-97—. An application by the Applewood Baptist Church for L approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion of a church (baseball field and volleyball courts) in a Residential-One zone district. Property is located at 11225 West 32nd Avenue, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado. Ms. Reckert advised the Commission that additional correspondence had been received regarding this case. There was a letter of support from members of the church who live in Wheat Ridge and two other letters from citizens who oppose the proposal. Ms. Reckert passed out copies of an aerial photo designating the areas in consideration. Ms. Reckert presented information Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 7 Discussion occurred regarding what path materials were being proposed, adjacent house locations and future building prospects, possibility of moving the baseball fields to the east, drainage plan requirements, special event/outside uses, bleachers, use of the fields by outside entities, and location of volleyball courts. Chairperson WILLIAMS swore in the following: Questions were raised regarding how high they would want bleachers, sanitation facilities, and leaving the curb cut with specific in/out lanes, however, Staff feels one of the cuts needs to be closed. Commissioner SNOW requested that the response letter from the church dated April 14, Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 8 1997, be read aloud for the audience. 11 R go MAODNI116INUX MIONINII M. I W1, Mike Larkin, 3187 Robb, Lakewood. Mr. Larkin stated that he is against the project. He feels the church has not been a good neighbor. There has been excessive parking on the street while the new parking lot remains half full. Other concerns included poor response from the church when approached about problems, traffic, noise, restroom facilities, and he also feels there is a lack of planning. He suggested keeping it open space. Mr. Anthony Marcello, 3241 Routt Street. Mr. Marcello is opposed to the project for all the reasons previously stated. The noise issue is his main concern and stated that on nights that the church have functions including loud music, his children are kept awake. He also does not see a connection with the church and school which he believes should be kept separate. Other concerns included increased traffic, parking on the street, noise, and sanitation facilities. Ms. Virginia Sellers, 3310 Routt Street. Stated she and her husband are opposed to the project and have actually built alence to protect their property from the public and those riding horses. Mr. Ross Casados, 3291 Routt Street. Mr. Casados is against the proposal and feels that everything expressed previously applies to him as well. He is also concerned that AIN activity will increase in the field with the addition of ball fields. Ms. Joanne James, 3233 Pierson. Ms. James is opposed for all reasons stated however is mostly concerned with noise and no sound barrier to protect neighbors. She stated that the church had no consideration of neighbors. An example given was the use of bullhorns during games last summer which continued to the point she had to close her windows. Mr. Jerome Sisneen, 3395 Quail Street. Mr. Sisneen is a professional planner and has been a resident of the area for two weeks. lie stated that this cannot be planned in a vacuum and is opposed to the proposal. He stated that he believes the whole area needs a master plan and landscape plan. He feels this proposal does not fit in the neighborhood, Mr. Will Sugai, 11158 W. 33rd Avenue. Mr. Sugai agrees with most concerns said and added that he feels that there is no master plan and that the church is piece mealing this project together. Ile further stated that he does not feel the neighborhood issues have really been addressed and that it has been a mockery and a white wash by the church. sum Mr. Dave Cole, 3050 Quail Street, Lakewood. Mr. Cole is opposed to the project as proposed and agrees with those comments made previously. Mr. Tom George, 3184 Routt St., Lakewood. Mr. George is opposed to the project and althoug' he feels the people at the church are pretty good neighbors and good people. He believes that there should be better communication between the church and the neighborhood. The two thin he is most concerned about is thenoise and congestion. I Ms. Barl George, 3184 Routt St- Lakewood, She agrees with the opposition and believes that it is the beginning of the end tor the neighborhood. Mr. Darren Richey, 12066 W. Virginia Place, Mr. Richey stated he is for the proposal and is a volunteer with the church working with the students. There are between 150-200 students drawn to the church with approximately 45 volunteers, He said there has been no vandalism and feels that a home field for DeEvelyn is important. Mr. Ryan Wiemer, 10941 W. Louisiana, Lakewood. Mr. Wiemer is a member of the church and a student volunteer. He stated he felt this was important because many of the students come from a background of very little home life and very little from people who are supposed to invest and care for them. It is good that they have a place to hang out on Wednesday nights and be around those who do care about them so that they feel life is worth living. He feels this is a great opportunity to give back to the community. Mr. Lee Lloyd, 1995 Zang Street. Mr. Lloyd is a volunteer working with the youth at the church. He stated that students arriving for a game usually come in car pools which should not create a traffic problem. Most baseball fields are full and this would provide another for the students at DeEvelyn as well as giving them the opportunity to be a part of the church and to do something good. Mr. David Miller, 3485 Quail Street. Mr. Miller basically does not oppose the project. He inquired about the volleyball area and asked if it was for use by anyone. His main concerns, however, are the noise and lights. He would prefer no lights, sanitation facilities, and that games only be played until sundown. Mr. Gary Theander, 3349 Swadley. Mr. Theander is not opposed to the project and feels it would provide a nice field and facility for students, ]'his should be a very positive experience. The noise that is being complained about are normal community noises. Mr. David DiGiacomo, 3275 Quail, Lakewood. He is opposed to the project and feels his property is more affected than most everyone else. He has observed the church grow for longer than most as well. He feels that this is an issue of good government with long term, rational, Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1997 Page I I Ms. Robin Christians, 3159 Robb Circle, Lakewood. Ms. Christian is the author of the letter that was distributed to the neighborhood. She was upset that her area was not included in the aerial map as well as various other issues directed at the planning department. Ms. Christian stated she felt that at the neighborhood meeting there was a gross lack of information received from tile church. She is totally opposed to the project and feels the church has no plan and has not addressed the issues presented to them at any time. Ms. Christians took issue with many topics from the project, the church, the neighborhood meeting, as well as, the process. Ms. Georgia Canici, 3204 Pierson Street. Ms. Canici is against the project as the proposal stands at this time and requested that it be denied. Mr. Pete Klammer, 3200 Routt Street. Mr. Kiammer is strongly opposed to the project and feels Scott Wilcox, 3137 Robb Circle. Mr. Wilcox is the father of a boy who was struck by an automobile from the church. He stated that he attended the hearing regarding the parking lot which he opposed. He does not feel that the church listens to the concerns of the neighborhood. He stated that the associate pastor parks on the street every week, Commissioner SNOW motioned, Commissioner CERVENY seconded, to continue Case No. CUP-97-3 so a compromise could be reached between the church and the neighborhood, to a date no later than August, 1997, that Staff pick an appropriate date of review, and that this case will be the only case heard that evening. Motion carried 5-0. Directives as received from Commissioner SNOW are as follows: 1. The field and volleyball pits be limited to use by the church only. 2. The path to the restrooms be opened and available for all games. 3. Delete the requirement for bleachers. That a drawing be provided that shows that they are no higher than 2 or 3 levels at the most. Ms. Reckert stated that the conditions were very broad and that hopefully a compromise could be arrived at, Commissioner SNOW stated that these where only her comments and that perhaps no one else on the Commission will agree with her. Commissioner RASPLICKA motioned, Commissioner SNOW seconded, that the church provide a master plan instead of a piece meal plan to the Commission. Motion carried 5-0 Ms. Reckert stated that requesting a master plan from the church could open up a whole set of new issues. Commissioner RASPLICKA stated that he didn't feel that the church could provide a master plan at the next meeting to consider this case. He feels that this case needs to be reviewed at the earliest possible date. He still felt, however, that a master plan is in order. Commissioner CERVENY motioned, Commissioner BRINKMAN seconded, that the motion to request a master plan be reconsidered, Motion carried 5-0. Ms. Reckert stated that a long range planning document should be submitted so that the Commission would be aware of what may be requested in the future. I , Limit church activities as far as a baseball field would be concerned. 2. Other items can be determined by negotiations between the neighborhood and church. Commission BRINKMAN added the following directives: The church to develop a recreation committee to get together with the neighbors to Planning Commission Minutes May 1, 1997 Page 15 t01412111110 - • Ms. Gunn advised the Commissioners that the dinner for retired commissioners would be held May 9th and asked if they could check their calendars for conflict. The meeting which was canceled due to weather regarding Light Industrial zoning changes that was to take place with City Council, has been rescheduled to May 15, 1997, in City Council chambers. 11. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ITEMS 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS 13. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 1:30 am. by consensus. Marilyn Gunn, Recording Secretary 04 6e~,.S" O&M 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 The City of Wheat Telephone 303/ 237 FAX 303/234-5924 MEMORANDUM TO: Industrial (I) Zoned Land Owners FROM: Glen Gidley, Planning & Development Director Ridge RE: Status of Proposed Amendments to Light Industrial Zoning Regulations/Case No. ZOA-97-1 DATE: May 5, 1997 As you have recently been informed, the City of Wheat Ridge is considering amendments to the zoning code regarding the Industrial Zoning regulations (Case ZOA-97-1), which may affect the future use of your property. The Planning Commission held a meeting April 3, 1997, at which time many of you testified. The Planning Commission has continued this matter to May 15, 1997, for further study. No decision or recommendation, other than continuance, resulted from this April 3rd meeting. City Council had scheduled a joint work session with the Planning Commission to further discuss the issues relating to this proposal on April 24th. However, due to severe weather, the 24th meeting was canceled. Therefore, City Council will meet with the Planning Commission on: May 15, 1997 Thursday, at 7:30 p.m. Wheat Ridge City Hall Council Chambers 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge Although this is a public meeting, it is not a public hearing, and no final decision will take place. It is intended to allow a more in-depth discussion between City Council and Planning Commission regarding the Industrial areas, the Comprehensive Plan, and zoning regulations. Thanks for your patience, and should you have any questions; please feel free to contact me at 235-2844. MEMORANDUM F WHEgT O ,P i ti O To: Planning Commission From: Glen Gidley, Planning & Development Director Re: Case ZOA-97- I /Industrial District cotoRao° Date: May 9, 1997 The City Council is scheduled to meet with you at your May 15, 1997, meeting to further discuss Industrial District issues. Various changes that have been considered to date by City Council and Planning Commission include: Rezoning from Industrial (I) to Planned Industrial Development (PID). 2. Shifting currently "Permitted Uses" in the "I" zone to "Special Uses". 3. Amending the "Special Uses" general provisions in Code Section 26-6 to: a. Eliminate five year amortization of nonconforming uses. b. Eliminate the "nontransferability" provision of nonconforming uses. C. Create two types of Special Uses. One that would vest with the property and another that would vest only with the owner. 4. Amending the "Conditional Uses" general provisions to be similar to the "Special Uses" provisions. A secondary option to this was the elimination of "Conditional Uses" and shifting them into either or both "Permitted" or "Special" uses. For the purpose of simplifying the issues and focusing on possible solutions, I would like to provide the following summary: A. CONCERNS OF COUNCIL AND RESIDENTS Semi-trucks and trailers are allowed as permitted, accessory uses in the Light Industrial Zone, without special review and public input. 2. Outside storage of industrial types of equipment and materials is permitted with only a six-foot screen fence or wall. Any permitted use in the Industrial District can develop and use property without a public hearing process involving neighborhood input and quasi-judicial approval. Memorandum - Page 2 RE: ZOA-97-1 May 9, 1997 B. CONCERNS OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY OWNERS Rezoning to PID unfairly limits their ability to use their property for a wide variety of "Permitted Uses", but rather would require a public hearing, rezoning type process to change uses or make physical modifications. They perceive this as uncompensated takings. 2. Shifting most of the "Permitted Uses" into the "Special Uses" category unfairly limits their ability to use their property for a wide variety of "Permitted Uses", but rather would require a public hearing, rezoning type process to change uses or make physical modifications. They perceive this as uncompensated takings. In addition, it places a five-year amortization schedule on them and a nontransferable limit on them because their new "Special Use" has never received approval. This makes leasing existing space or selling the property extremely difficult and devalues the property. C. CONCERNS OF PLANNING STAFF 1. RE: Rezoning Option a. If the legal protest provision of the City Charter applies, which the City Attorney has advised that it does, then a legal protest is almost guaranteed by the land owners. Before going through this resource intensive, politically charged process, is their a 3/4 majority of Council in favor of rezoning? b. Zoning Code Section 26-25, Planned Development District regulations require an Outline Development Plan to be reviewed and approved with rezoning to a Planned Development District. Obviously this requirement would not be met with this rezoning process. 2. RE: Shifting currently "Permitted Uses" in the "I" zone to "Special Uses" a. This creates nonconforming uses on almost every developed I-zoned property as the Special Use general provisions of Section 26-6 are currently adopted. b. Such nonconforming uses, unless the Special Use provisions of Section 26-6 are amended otherwise in the future, would be vested to the current owner/occupant, and would need to conform in five years. Memorandum - Page 3 RE: ZOA-97-1 May 9, 1997 C. For Council to decide to "exempt" these properties from the nonconforming provisions will create potential administrative errors in the future since the "general" rules would not apply to all similarly situated properties. Every time a unique condition or requirement is placed upon a specific "straight-zoned" parcel, the odds of an administrative error increases. 3. RE: Amending "Special Uses" general provisions. Staff generally agrees with the three suggested revisions. 4. RE: Amending "Conditional Uses" to be processed the same as "Special Uses". Staff believes that there needs to be a site plan review process for certain uses which is fairly simple and quick while allowing for reasonable neighborhood involvement and reasonable public decision discretion. The current Conditional Use process adequately provides for these objectives. D. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS RE: Semi-trucks and Trailers Amend all of the Commercial District Regulations and Industrial (I) Regulations to limit the "regular parking or storage" of more than three semi-trucks and trailers upon a property subject to a Special use Permit. This would not apply to semi-truck activity making deliveries or pickups. The term "regular" would need to be defined, such as "for a time span in excess of four hours". 2. RE: Outside Storage Amend the C-1, C-2 and I district regulations to allow (or require) taller solid walls and fences to screen outside storage areas. Maybe up to ten feet high. 3. RE: Special Use Permits a. Amend Section 26-6 to eliminate the Special Use nonconforming provisions hence, Section 26-7, nonconforming provisions would apply. b. Amend same to allow for a specific determination at time of approval by City Council that designates a specific Special Use application as either "Property Vested" or "Owner/Applicant Vested".