Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/06/2000CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting March 16, 2000 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair MacDOUGALL at 7:30 p.m. on March 16, 2000 in the Council Chambers of the Municip Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. I 2. ROLL CALL: Alan White introduced Marian McNamee as the new Planning Commissioner from District 1. Commission Members Present: Staff Members Present: 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ann Lazzeri, Secretary The following is the official set of Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing of March 16, 2000. A set 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. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner GO KEY to approve the order of the agenda. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0. Im APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner COOPER requested the following amendment to page seven of the minutes of MarchY, 2000: line three of Barbara Newman's comments should read: ` "........fence be built between her proj)erq and the units......;" It was moved by Commissioner COLLINS and seconded by Commissioner'GOKEY that the minutes of MarchV, 2000 be approved as amended. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0. as PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak before the Commission on unscheduled matters. Planning Commission Page I March 1 6, 2000 Commissioner DOYLE expressed concern about the setback of the building. Mr. White explained that C- I zoning allows a zero setback if a buildini is constructed of non-flavarnabli In response to a question from Commissioner COOPER, Mr. to explained that, in the event the property is ever sold, the cross access easement would apply to the new owners. Commissioner THOMPSON stated she would like to see a site plan required for any future development on this property. In response to questions from Commissioner SNOW, Mr. White stated that the subject property consists of two separately described lots in the deeds. He explained that there is not enough property involved for a planned commercial development. In response to questions from Commissioner GOOEY, Mr. Wincland stated that he was in agreement with the conditions proposed for the rezone. He also understood a site plan would be required for any future development on the property. In response to questions from Commissioner THOMPSON, Mr. White stated that the city can legally require a cross access easement to assure adequate parking. Planning Commission Page 2 March 16, 2000 Commissioner COOPER asked to know the number of employees for Mr. Wineland*s business. He replied there would be two or three at the most and there is adequate parking for that number of employees. In response to questions from Commissioner DOYLE, Mr. Wineland explained that machine work, engine work and painting is done off-site. The restoration process on-site will include disassembling, cleaning or replacing parts, and then reassembling the motorcycles. Biodegradable detergent is used to clean the parts. He also stated that the business will not consist of motorcycle sales. Commissioner GOKEY referred to the photo which shows a plumbing utility truck parked near the second garage on the property and asked if the applicant planned to operate a plumbing business out of the other garage. Mr. Wineland explained that the second garage is presently rented out for storage and that they had no plans to operate a plumbing business. It is planned to eventually use the second garage for storage. Commissioner McNamee requested that the applicant ask customers to refrain from driving through or parking on the property to the west. Mr. Wineland agreed to this. 0 S__ ft - WITU - W151 'I e Commission regarding this matter. No one indicated a desire to speak. Commissioner COOPER asked if those individuals who attended the neighborhood meeting were aware that their concerns had been met. Mr. White stated that no comments had been received as a result of the public hearing notices and posting of the property. It was moved by Commissioner THOMP$ON and seconded by Commissioner GOKEY 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 44th Avenue, be recommended to the City Council for approval for the following reasons: 1. The proposed rezoning from R-C to C-1 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. 1. Use of the front building be limited motorcycle repair as described in applicants' Exhibit '13'. 2. A cross access/joint parking agreement with the property to the east be recorded. Planning Commission Page 3 March 1 6, 2000 Commissioner SNOW stated she would vote against the motion for the following reasons: The motion carried by a vote of 7-1, with Commissioner SNOW voting no. 8. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chair MACDOUGALL declared the public hearing close,14 Planning Commission Page 4 March 16, 2000 9. OLD BUSINES A. Site Plan Reviej Commissioner THOMPSON stated that the previous case indicated the importance of conducting site plan reviews for all commercial sites. She would also like to see RV's, motorcycles, personal water crafts and boats added to C -1 zoning in order to have some control over the 1,500 foot separation on sales and other requirements. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner THOMPSON that staff draft a short ordinance, for discussion at a future study session, which would require site plan approval for commercial uses and residential above four units. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0. A. Discussion and Review of Landscape RggLalations Commissioner GO KEY expressed concern that excessive landscaping requirements could result in creating situations where lots are rendered undevelopable. Availability of water should be also be considered when landscaping requirements are considered. Commissioner SNOW expressed concern about many developments in the City where lots are nearly covered with buildings and paving and have very little landscaping. She suggested that Commission members take a look at some of the relatively new developments in Wheat Ridge city that meet present city requirements. Commissioner COLLINS suggested positive reinforcement for those developers in the city who have implemented good landscaping practices. Commissioner McNAMEE suggested that regulations should set forth the types of trees, etc. which would be allowed for landscaping. For example, there are trees that, once established, need no water and do well in polluted air. Staff will look into landscaping and building coverage requirements and bring the information back to Planning Commission for discussion at a study session. B. Plannine Commission Training Session - Since there are no cases scheduled to come before the Planning Commission on April 6, a study session will be held for the purpose of training new members. The study session will be preceded by a dinner to begin at 6:00 p.m. Planning Commission Page 5 March 16, 20001 C. APA Colorado/Planning Commissioners Workshop - Mr. White urged Commission members to attend this workshop to be held on May E. D. Election of Vice Chair - Nancy Snow was elected as Planning Commission Vice Chair, 11. COMMISSION REPORTS There were no Commission reports. all 13. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner DOYLE and seconded by Commissioner SNOW that the meeting be adjourned at 9:25 p.m. The motion carried by a vote Don MACDOUGALL, Chair C. 'if3arbara\PCRj PLANGCOM'P('MINt,4TE'�000316,wpd Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Page 6 March 1 6, 2000 Wheat Ridge Planning Commission Workshop April 6, 2000 B. Exactions and Conditions of Approval. (1) What can the City require as conditions of approval of a land use case? (2) Are there different 'rules" depending upon the type of land use case? 1 . Increased focus on clear standards and adequate notice. Beaver Meadows v. Larimer County (1985). a) Off -site road impacts and emergency services. b) Specific delegation of authority required. c) Resulting regulations must be specific. 2. The government must have the delegated authority to impose. Cherry Hills Resort Development Co. v. Cherry Hills Village (1990) . 3. Must meet due process standards. Since most conditions and exactions are imposed on site - specific approvals or rezonings, due process standard is that for quasi - judicial actions (notice; opportunity to be heard and to rebut evidence; no ex -parte contact between applicant and the commission). 4. Commonly imposed conditions: building height, recreational facilities, parking, street improvements on /off site, sound and view impact mitigation, fire equipment, landscaping /paving, utilities, snow storage /drainage, property dedications. 5. Dolan v. Tigard (Oregon 1994): "rough proportionality" to the impact. 6. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (California, 1982); conditions must be related to impact. Reasonable relationship to legitimate government interest required. 7. Regulatory Takings: the outside limit of permitted regulation: No right to "highest and best use." GED \53027 \344689.01 C. Taking Testimony Rules for Limiting Testimony Goal That board members and public attendees leave the hearing feeling that it was fair and that their views were heard and appreciated. Explain the rules for conduct of the hearing at the outset. Some suggested rules 1. Require those wishing to speak to sign up and indicate for /against and who they represent 2. If a large number signed up, divide the available time and assign it at the beginning 3. Stick to your rules on time 4. Suggest speakers don't repeat prior testimony if they can state they agree with an earlier speaker 5. Make sure that all attendees at the public hearing know they have the right to speak 6. Alternate between those for and against the proposition, or take them in order of sign up 7. Option: Permit organized groups to block their testimony 8. Thank all the speakers for appearing What Testimony is Admissible? 1. Hearsay: "I heard G. Dahl say that." [Where J. Dahl is not present and cannot be cross examined.] 2. Relaxed rules of evidence in administrative hearings. 3. There is no prohibition /limitation on kind or nature of testimony in the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. 4. It is appropriate for the Commission to consider the weight and credibility of testimony 5. Consider all the testimony and evidence (Don't let the number of people for or against the application determine your decision.) G ED \53027 \344689.01 2 D. Making Motions 1. Importance of Findings and Reasons for Approval a) Compare the evidence against the standards and the Code C4wr % b) Draw conclusions from the evidence c) Rely upon and state your conclusions in the motion d) "[Al record of proceedings before the Board must contain details of the evidence presented and proper grounds and reasons to support its decision." Murray v. Board of Adiustment of Larimer County 2. Findings I U G j if 01: � � dc'fcoi� �f v�Pxt vr,ee�1 a) Written Summarize the evidence and relate the evidence relied upon to satisfy each and every one of the criteria in the Code of Laws b) Oral Not recommended. How do you defend an oral finding? c) Written conditions have a greater chance of being adopted by Council and of being enforced. 3. Amendments to Motions a) Must be germane to the motion b) Are a good way to add one or a series of conditions. c) An amendment seeking to "reverse" the main motion is a substitute motion and is not favored. 4. Stick to the request before you. a) Apply the same standards of relevance you would want to see in public testimony. b) If it is a rezoning case, do not engage in site planning. c) Applicant is in charge of his application; if the request is for rezoning to C -1 ; that is what you vote on. (Exception: variances.) GED \53027 \344689.01 3 5. Failed Motions a) Failed motion means no recommendation (unlike BOA) b) If approval motion fails, someone on the prevailing side should immediately move to recommend denial. GED \53027 \344689.01 4 City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Departmell I TO: Planning Commission SUBJECT: Training Materials DATE: March 22, 2000 Supplemental materials for your meeting of April • 2000, will be distributed to you at the meeting by Jerry Dahl, City Attorney. I have attached for your information, some infonnation on site drainage requirements. SITE DRAINAGE •r All final drainage reports shall be submitted in the format o the attached outline. The City of Wheat Ridge will not revie a final drainage report in any other format unless this forma has been pre-approved by the development engineer. Any subsequent P to the approved final drainage P.P. ! ! plan(s) be submitted to of Wheat Ridge o! review ! approval by . tt process previously defined. approved drainage P shall be part of the construction plans and specifications f or the proposed • ^ ! • 4! A building permit will not be issued until the aforementioned requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the City of Wheat Ridge. Irrigation ditches are not to be used to convey storm runoff unless written permission obtained f rom the affected ditch company owner. permission be in the f orm P a letter P the City from granting ! P k! P P an approval signature block on the drainage report and plan(s) I cc us 0 z w u$ A E 0 Z CL o tv Maimm INITIAL REVIEW All Rtqtdmd Info madon Prosmt RETURN FOR SATISFACTOR� REVtStON OF REPORT M E M 0 K A N P U I Frequency of otormo ic, a term you hear quite often. We mention a 5-year otorm, or a 100-year otorm in report o and diocuoo ion 1 5. What thin refer to io the risk of a otorm event occurring. A -year Corm occur o on the average of once every five yearn, and hao a 20% chance of occurring in any given year. A 100-year otorrm occuro on the average of once every 100 yearn, and ha 1% chance of occurring in any given year. When a drainage OLudy io approved, which oometimeo takes up to five 1 5 u �mitt a j o to meet our otrimocrit requirement o, you earl be cure that it meet o all of the guidelines which the City requires.