Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/16/2000CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting March 2, 2000 E CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair BRINKMAN at 730 p.m. on March 2, 2000 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL: Commission Members Present: Alan White, Planning Director Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner Greg Knudson, City Engineer Ann Lazzeri, Secretary 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak before the Commission on unscheduled matters. 7. PUBLIC HEARING (Chair MACDOUGALL arrived at 7:40 p.m.) A. Case No.,,CUP-00-01: Application by Alpine Valley School for a conditional use pernmnit allow a private school with a .34 acre variance to the I -acre minimum lot size requirement for property zoned A-! and located at 4501 Parfet Street. Planning Commission Page I March 2, 2000 1 The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She reviewed the staff report and presented slides and overheads of the subject property. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Commission that there was jurisdiction to hear the case. In response to a question # 01111111,111si 0 .4— of the neighborhood meeting referred to in the staff report should be corrected to read January 26, 2000. Commissioner THOMPSON expressed concem that there could be an increase in traffic 0 1 the use changes from a church to a school that operates five days a week. She also questioned whether there would be adequate parking. Mr. Welshon also submitted a letter dated February 29, 2000 from Mr. Jack G. Atkinson, the adjacent property owner to the west. It was discovered that the present parking lot for the building encroaches one foot onto Mr. Atkinson's property. In his letter, Mr. Atkinson agreed to the school's use of this one foot of property; however, he does want to retain ownership of the piece. Mr. Atkinson's letter was made a part of the case file. Commissioner SNOW asked if there would be room for a drive-through if the one-foot encroachment is not considered. Mr. Welshon replied that the drive-through area does not involve that one-foot piece of land. Chair MACDOUGALL questioned whether the outdoor exercise area was large enough to meet the needs of students. Mr. Welshon replied that since 60% of the students are elementary age, there would be ampleroom and, also the children will be using the exercise area at staggered times. The nearby park and greenbeft area will also • utilized occasionally. Commissioner THOMPSON expressed concern that the cap of fifty students could be increased in the future resulting in additional building space. Meredith Reckert stated that Planning Conmiission Page 2 March 2, 2000 any future requests for an increase would have to come before the Plannin- Commission. In Z addition, the CLIP could also be granted specific to the Alpine Valley School. Greg Grossman 9556 West 47th Avenue Mr. Grossman was sworn in by Chair MACDOUGALL. He stated that he was in favor of the application. He liked the idea of having the building vacant in the evenings. Planning Commission Page 3 March 2, 2000 Laurie forte 4573 Everett Court Ms. Forte was sworn in by Chair MACDOUGALL. She stated she was in favor of the application. She stated that children will, with parental permission, occasionally walk through the neighborhood to the park, etc. Commissioner THOMPSON expressed concern, about the safety of unaccompanied childri walking through the greenbelt area during the school year. Mark Greaves 11733 West 33rd Avenue Mr. Greaves was sworn in by Chair MACDOUGALL. He stated that he was in favor of the application and felt the school would be the best alternative of all uses possible for the building. B. C. Dougherty 4686 Parfet Street Mr. Dougherty indicated that he did not desire to speak to the issue. It was moved by Commissioner THOMPSON and seconded by Commissioner DOYLE that a request to approve a lot width and lot area variance to allow a quasi-public use at 4501 Parfet Street, be approved for the following reasons: 1. This use has been existence for several years and has not proven to be problematic. 2. There is a unique circumstance due to the nonconforming lot. Planning Commission Page 4 March 2, 2000 Commissioner SNOW expressed concern about allowing expansion of anything on lot that is too small, and indicated she would vote in favor of the motion only because she doesn't want to rezone agricultural property. The motion passed by vote of 8 -0. In response to a question s m Commissione DOYLE, Meredith Reckert stated that staff would be - • to withdraw their request for • • • • fence in light of the letter received from Mr. Williams. Planning Commission Page 5 March 2, 2000 Avenue; and a planned building group plan with a variance to Section 26-30(N) on 4445 Parfet Street. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She reviewed the staff report and presented slides and overheads • the subject property. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Commission that there was jurisdiction to hear the case, In response to a question from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Meredith Reckert stated that this area. In response to a question from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Meredith Reckert stated that concern about low-income housing was expressed at the August, 1999 neighborhood meeting. Meredith Reckert explained that the applicant has reduced the density for his project from a multi-family building to duplexes. Commissioner THOMPSON expressed concern about access to the second story for the handicapped unit and questioned why the handicapped unit was the only unit without a garage. She also expressed concern that the Comprehensive Plan shows this area as sing family. In response to a question from Commissioner THOMPSON, Ms. Reckert explained that a cul- de-sac design would limit the applicant to two lots which is the reason for the applicant's driveway configuration. However, if the variance is not granted, the applicant still has the option • constructing an apartment house. Planning Conunission Page 6 March 2, 2000 In response to a question from Commissioner THOMPSON, Mr. Finnegan stated lie planned to sell the units individually for S 120 per square foot or an approximate cost of S 160. 170,000 per unit. The single family house planned for the other lot will beapproximatel 1600 to 1800 square feet upstairs and down and will also sell for $120 per square foot. Commissioner COOPER asked what the ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) requirements are for a garage. Commissioner SNOW replied that there are no ADA requirements the unit is built in conjunction with state or local governments. Thomas Rossillon 9327 West Iowa, Lakewood Mr. Rossillon, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in by Chair MACDOUGALL. In response to concerns expressed • Commissioner GOKEY, he described elevations and drainage on the property. Commissioner COLLINS inquired about drainage. Mr. Rossillon explained that all water up to a five-year flood will be detained. Above that point, water will be released into a six-inch pipe that flows into the curb and gutter and across a cross-pan into an area with buried rip- rap located in city right-of-way. Greg Knudson stated that this,plan was satisfactory with the city. Leland J. Fidal 4480 Pierson Street Mr. Fidal was sworn in by Chair MACDOUGALL. He stated his opposition to the Planning Conunission Page 7 March 2, 2000 01 "T M.. -0 In response to a question from Commissioner THOMPSON, Mr. Knudson stated that it was his opinion that the drainage plan was accurate and acceptable. to be developed and this plan is less • an impact than an apartment building. Regarding the single family residence, Commissioner GOKEY asked if the applicant would consider building a one story house. Mr. Finnegan stated that it would not work because of bedrock which would prevent the construction of a basement. He also pointed out that there are to be no windows on the west side of the house. Planning Conunission Page 8 March 2, 2000 Mcertain amount oi win•ows are required y e building code. I g I The proposed strip of C-1 property cannot reasonably be developed under the existing conditions. 2. It is generally desirable to have zoning lines run with lot lines. Commissioner COLLINS indicated he would vote against the motion for the same reasons listed by Commissioner SNOW. 91 am IM I" H" I" Commissioner BRIM AN requested tile last sentence of item no. 3 on page 4 of tile staff report which reads "The rezoning ivill not result in the creation of adilitional divelling units be removed, Commissioner THOMPSON expressed concern that, even though she does not like this plan, a higher density use could come Ft was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner COOPER that the Cases MS-99-05 and PBG-99-02 be continued to an indefinite time to give the applicants opportunity to withdraw, redraw or appeal to the City Council. The motion passed by a vote of 8-0. Commissioner SNOW requested that the city staff review the drainage problems expressed by the neighbors. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chair DVJGALL declared the gublic hearing closed. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. NEW BUSINESS Lsi=s Co-viFicissi"I COMMISSION REPORTS ........... It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner GOKEY that the meeting ®. adjourned at 11:55 p.m. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0. Don MACDOUGALL, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Page 10 March 2, 2000 PRESENT ZONING: Restricted- Commercial PRESENT LAND USE: Commercial, residential 'IRROUNDING ZONING: N: R -3, S, E: C -1; W: R -C SURROUNDING LAND USE: N: multi- family; S: commercial; E: residential; W: vacant COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: Single-family detached (not to exceed 6 do's per acre) DATE PUBLISHED: f 0 OTHER JURISDICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this ease. Fin Attached as Exhibit '13' is the applicants' description of the use. A meeting for neighborhood input was held on November 17, 1999. The following persons were in attendance Meredith Reckert - city staff Marty Wineland - applicant Connie Garcia - applicant C.E. Zinsli - 4350 Hoyt Court Moe Keller - 4325 Iris Street *qM#MA)FTWW 7 sed repair garage. The following specific concerns were identified: All responding agencies are already providing service to the property. Public Works Department has no comments at this tine. Building Division has no comments at this tine Valleys Water Distric4 can serve. Protection Arvada Fire IV. REZONING CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a change in zoning (change of zoning conditions): 1. The existing zone classification currently recorded on the official zoning maps of the City of Wheat Ridge is in error. property There is no mistake on the zoning map. The • Restricted-Commercial 2. A change in the character in the area has occurred due to the installation of public facilities, other zone changes, new growth trends, deterioration or development transitions. 4. That the proposed change of zone is compatible with the surrounding area and there will be minimal adverse impacts considering the benefits to be derived. Consolidation of C- I zoning on the property is consistent with C- I zoning to the cast and with the proposed PCD zoning to the west which would allow C- I type uses. 5. That there will be social, recreational, physical and/or economic benefits to the community derived by the change of zone. There are no obvious social, recreation, or physical benefits derived by the zone change. It is good planning practice • have zoning run with property lines. 6. That adequate infrastructure/facilities are available to serve the type of uses allowed by the change of zone, or that the applicant will upgrade and provide such where they do not exist or are under capacity. 7. That the proposed rezoning will not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare by creating excessive traffic congestion, creating drainage problems, or seriously reducing light and air to adjacent properties. No physical changes are proposed to the property so there should be no effect on drainage or the amount of light and air to adjacent properties. By requiring a recorded cross-access/ parking agreement with the property to the east (9707 West 49 Avenue), there should be minimal impacts on traffic. 8. That the property cannot reasonably be developed under the existing zoning conditions. The 15' wide strip of R-C cannot be reasonably developed • itself It makes sense to consolidate zoning on the property. It is likely that the property to the west will be rezoned to PCD. If the R-C zoned piece is also not rezoned, it would leave a IS' strip of R-C sandwiched between C- I and PCD on the zoning map. Planning Commission Page 4 WZ-00-O l/Windeland M There is no void in services, products and facilities that the rezoning would fill. V. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Up"M ion is undesirable, For these reaso s, a recommendation of Approval is given with the following conditions: Option A: "I move that Case No. WZ-00-01, a request by Marty Wineland, et al, for approval of a rezoning from Restricted-Commercial and Commercial-One to Commercial-One for property located at 9709 West 44" Avenue, be recommended to the City Council for APPROVAL for the following reasons: I The proposed rezoning from R-C to C- I will consolidate zoning on the property, 2. There will be no effect on the general health, safety and welfare. 3. Although it is inconsistent with the designation on the Comprehensive Plan, residential land use at this location is undesirable. Planning Commission Page 5 WZ-00-O l/Windeland Option • "I move that Case No. WZ-00-01, a request by Marty Wineland, et al, for approval of a rezoning from Restricted-Commercial and Commercial-One to Commercial-One for property located at 9709 West 44' Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons: I - 2. 3." M E �Reckertw7000) pc wpd Planning Commission Page 6 WZ-00-Ol/Windeland OFFICIAL ARE QSOUQING 51TE PLAN APPROVAL 22 ZON MAP { '�'' Y V 1� # I...� 1 I V G E t = 1 00 - YEAR OXI ATE LOCATION) PG�TtI C L.0 AC Z ONS 01 TRICT r y O DD MID #7q #DD iDD 5 MAP .�D { 1 Ley,,} MAP A. EGY� J4�C��e {J {^. 'JT IGNALG6 Vi - 41P) Last Revision= March 19, 1999 WA TER FEATURE V K RA14" *0 Y W • iWAi 0 CV 8 Q c 8 (n 1. -s lx6xkxxWMIff EY, H 13 L-r ' C3 4r LETTER OF INTENT To Whom It May Concern: M y Wineland Curtis Peek Paul Carberry I Rease print or type ill information ; Applicant Address —q �O I ? Phonq City Owner Address 5 Phone t. City Location • request (address) -t --- e aZ 9;dt, Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.) 3= I i IN WKWEIIIA 1111jiIIIII iffity commission, expires Related Case No. I Zoning Quarter Section Map The Pyi-itd 0w6-- of this I.m Am bft* spor."it by IFTIUS FORM IS USED IN CONSIINIFRCRFr)fTTRANSACnON,CONSVLTI.ECAI,COL�N.;Vt. WE IS A LEGAL INTIAMME it HOT VNOE#Sy000, ttck TAT of OTHER COONStUstrouto Of CONIOLIAO ittroll $10904 THIS DEED OFTRUST is made this 23rd day or— �`P—ril t"W"n tis J. Reek 1 ! whose address is and the Public Trustee or the County in which tire Property (w Paragraph 1) is situated (TyusterY for I fit benefit (Lender), whose address is 13 0rrOwcr unit Lender covenant and agree as follows: IL Property in Trust. florrower, in consideration ortht indebtedness herein recited and the trust herein created, hereb g rin t s and con" to Trust" intrust, with power orsate. the followingdescribcd property located in the c o r tiefferson s tate o c o l ora d lE See Exhibit I and Exhibit � 'attached and See Addendum to Deed Of Trust Attached. *Marty R. Wineland Paul F. Carberry Curtis J. Peek 5055 Lowell Blvd. 1044 S. University Blvd. 14922 W 76th Drive Denver, 00 80211 Denver, OD 80209 Arvada, •0 80007 4. Payment o( Prim ilud and Int Borrower Shalt Promptly Pay when due the Principal of and interest on the indebtedness evidenced by the Nom and late chortles as Provided in the Note and shall perform O lt or o ffit o is Ints contained in the Note, S. ffmw he r covert I Appliestionot Plat meats. All payments received by Lender uncia the terms herrol'shall be applied by Lender first in payment of amounts due pursuant to Paragraph 23 (Escrow Funds for Taxes and Insurance), then to amounts disbursed by Lender pursuant to paragraph 9 (Prourokin of Lender's Security), and the balance in 4ocardaffm with the terms and conditions or the Note, No-T012-7-96. &WJkWd PW"40& EF41 Waft St, DMIMCCA OOM —0031292-2300— 4-911 Page 1 *(4 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Alan White, Planning and Development Director SUBJECT: Landscape Regulations City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Memorandum qL: fOR TO: Alan White FROM: Meredith Reckert EM DATE: March 8, 2000 1 =MWIRI 1 1 Buffering between incompatible uses: No specific width given but different techniques to use with discretion by staff. No specific minimum coverage requirement - varies based on zoning classification Parking lot parameters Trees installed along public streets at a ratio of 1/25' Trees installed along side lots lines at a ration of 1/40' Screening required adjacent to residential - 6' high wall with sufficient plant material to provide 75% opacity They also have specifications for tree protection during construction. NO Larimer Count-OLoveland: Streetscape standards: I tree at 25' - 40' intervals )X walk is over 10' wide. cut-outs are required Buffer along street must be at least 5' wide Commercial and industrial: Must have one tree and five shrubs for every 500 sf of landscaped area They have specific requirements for installation of landscaping and protection during construction. M City of Westminster: �_q TO: Alan White FROM: Mary Austin SUBJECT: Landscape Re s BATE: March 14, 200 City of Westminster: �_q City of Thornton: Streetscape Standards. • One (l) tree and 5 shrubs for each 50 feet of street frontage. • One ( f) tree for each 50 feet and 20 shrubs for each 400 square feet in a median. Mi Plant Sizes: • Deciduous shade trees: 3, inch caliper • Ornamental trees: 1 V2, inch. caliper • Evergreen trees: 6 ft. minimum height • Shrubs. 5 gallon container M RMM rt� q Vegetation Requirements One (1) tree and five (5) shrubs are required for each 1,500 sqaure feet of lot area not covered by buildings or required parking. Minimum Plant Sizes: • Deciduous shade trees: 2 inch caliper • Ornamental trees: I V2 inch caliper • Evergreen trees: 5 ft. minimum height • Shrubs: 5 gallon container Streetscgge Standards: • Detached sidewalk: min. tree planting interval varies from 15 feet to 40 feet depending on thv width of the planting strip and whether power lines are buried or overhead. • Attached sidewalk: min. planting interval of 15 feet to 20 feet where power lines are overhead, min. planting interval of 30 feet to 40 feet where power lines are buried. 15-7