HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/18/2001CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting
Januar 4, 2001
I. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chair McNAMEE at 7:30 p.m.. January 4. 2001. In the City
Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue. Wheat Ridge,
Colorado.
2. ROLL CALL
Commission Members Present
Staff Members Present: Alan White. Planning Director
Gerald Dahl, City Attorney
Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner
Ann Lazzeri, Secretary
6. PUBLIC FORUM
'there was no one to appear before the Commission.
Planning Commission Page I
January 4. 2001
7. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No. WZ-00-14: An Application by Dona and Paul Thompson for approval ot'a
rezoning from Residential -One -C (R- -IC) to Residential-Three (R-3) for property
located at 8400 West 46"' Avenue to allow an existing illegal dwelling to Come Into
conforniance.
Meredith Reckert was sworn in by Chair McNAMEE, She reviewed the staff report. presented
slides and overheads of the subject property and entered all pertinent documents into the record.
The documents were accepted by Chair McNAMEE. She advised the Commission there was
jurisdiction to hear the case. Staff recommended approval ofthe application for reasons
outlined in the staff report.
In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW. Ms. Reckert explained that the situation
came to the attention of the city when a code enforcement officer was in the area oil another
matter and the owner of the property asked the officer ifshe was aware of anyone wishing to
rent an apartment.
Commissioner SNOW inquired about property tax designation of the property. Ms. Reckert
replied that Jefferson County records indicate that the property is taxed as a single residence.
Comissioner'ITIOMPSON commented that, according to the Comprehensive Plan, this would
be a good transitional use for this piece of land.
Commissioner COLLINS pointed out that the adjacent area is in a flood plain. Ms. Reckert
stated that construction could take place through the flood plain exemption process.
` rhere was discussion about possible uses on the vacant property to the north which is owned by
the City of Arvada. Commissioner SNOW expressed concern that rezoning of the subject
property could set a precedent for the Arvada property if it should be developed.
Dona Thompson
Mrs. Thompson, the applicant. was sworn in by Chair McNAMEE. She stated that the
apartment was originally built to accommodate her mother. After her mother's death, she and
her husband continued to rent the unit because they were unaware that the situation was illegal.
In response to a question from the Commission regarding the previous use of the vacant
property owned by Arvada. Mr. Thompson explained that the property originally contained an
artesian well. When the well collapsed approximately fifteen years ago, the pipes were
removed and it was closed down.
Ann Dungan
8420 West 26" Avenue
Planning Commission Page 2
January 4, 2001
Ms. Dungan was sNvorn in by Chair McNAMEL", She testified that she and her husband hay c;
lived next door to the applicants tor twenty-three years and they have been exemplary
neighbors. She urged the Commission to approve the application,
Commissioner THOMPSON asked Ms. Dung
g an flow she would feel if the Thorripson*s said tile
property and it continued as a rental. Ms. Dungan replied that it would make no difference
because most of the houses in the area were rentals.
Commissioner SNOW asked how she would fieel if the property to the north were developed as
apartments. Ms. Dungan stated she had no feeling one way or the rather about additional, rental
property in the area.
It was moved by Commissioner MacDOUGALL and seconded by Commissioner GOKEY
Planning Commission
I Page 3
January 4, 200 1
applicant xvere to reappl\ for a lesser zoning. Mr. White explained that the Council is the onl\
body with authority to waive tees.
Commissioner GOKEY asked if there was a Utility easement on the vacant property owned bN
Arvada. Ms, Reckert replied that she could find no record of an easement.
A
The motion passed by avote of 5-3 with Commissioners SNOW, COOPER and DOYLE
voting no.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Chair McNAMEE declared the public hearing closed,
9. OLD BUSINESS
A. ' Reconsideration of Case No. WZ-00-10: An application by Sandra Thompson for
approval of a rezoning from Commercial-One (C-1) with restricted uses to a Planned
Commercial Development and for approval of an outline development plan and a
combined preliminary and final development plan and plat for property located at
11808 West 44' Avenue.
Mr. Dahl reviewed the memorandum from Alan White to the Planning Commission, dated
December 20, 2000. which outlined the reconsideration process.
It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS that
Case No. WZ-00-10 a request for approval for a zone change from Commercial-One with
unrestricted uses and Commercial-One with restricted uses to Planned Commercial
Development and for approval of an outline development plan for property located at
11800,11808 and 11880 West 44" Avenue be DENIED for the following reasons:
1. The original zoning was granted upon representation by the owner that the RV
storage would be for an interim use.
2. The Fruitdale Master Plan, in effect at the time, as well as the current
Comprehensive Plan shows the southern part of the property requested for
rezoning as intended to be residential. The citizens have a right to expect that any
zoning changes should be in conformance with the Comprehensive plan.
3. There have been no recent commercial changes in the neighborhood which extend
as far south as this application. This particular application would go 200 feet
further south than any other commercial uses and is incompatible with residential
neighborhoods to the cast, the south, and the greenbelt on the west.
Commissioner THOMPSON stated she would not support the motion for the following
reasons: (1) Planned Commercial Development gives more protection to the neighborhood
Planning Commission Page 4
January 4, 200 1
than C° -I, both no\k and In the future. (2) increased residential development on the SOLItlICI
portion of 'Labor Street could require widening Tabor for access. ( possible development of
rentals on the southern part of the property would result in adding to the many rentals already
existing in Wheat Ridge, (4) surrounding uses are presently not corripatible kvith R- 1. but the
R- I neighborhood needs to be protected as best as possible given the surrounding zoning and
uses: and (5) planned development gives the city some leverage now and in the inture, 'I 'lie
conditions placed on this zoning have given the residential neighborhood some protection and
provides a good transition between commercial and residential.
It will eliminate two different zonings on three properties owned by a single entity
1 It will allow more control by the city of the potential negative effects of an open-ended
commercial zone.
3. It allows the city opportunity to improve buffering for adjacent property owners.
3. The solid wooden fence along the western and southern property lines be increased to 8
feet in height.
4. The existing recycled asphalt be replaced with a clean, Class 6 road base.
5. The western wall of the building shall have a stucco finish.
Planning Commission Page 5
January 4. 2001
6. Dunipster locations need to be added with screening of noncombustible inaterial,
T No access to Tabor. now or in the future . except for emergency fire access,
8. No storage along Tabor. the southern fence line and adjacent to the open space property
shall exceed the height of the fence.
9 Irrigation systems shall be installed for all planted areas.
10. The detention pond shall be designed to retain and release water at the historic flow and
will be maintained per a drainage report.
1 3 ). Increased planting would occur from the fire access north to the south side of tile
building along Tabor Street on the inside of the fence.
Commissioner COLLINS stated that, while he appreciated Commissioner THOMPSON's
view, he believed it was time to set a precedent which gives priority to residential uses.
Commissioner GOKEY stated that he would not support the motion because he believed there
are other alternatives available to the applicant.
Commissioner SNOW stated that she would not support the motion for tile same reasons stated
in her previous motion for denial. In addition. drainage problems were brought up during the
hearing which have not been addressed. It is also unfair to the neighbors to say this use is
simply a lesser of two evils.
The motion failed due to a tic vote. Commissioners COLLINS, COOPER, GOKEY and
SNOW voted no.
Gerald Dahl informed the Planning Commission that their bylaws state that a tie on a motion to
approve constitutes a denial.
(Chair McNAMEE declared a recess at 8:5.) p.m, The meeting was reconvened at 9:03 p.m.)
10. NEW BUSINESS
A. ReDealinti and re-enactinU of Chapter 261ZO.A--00-1 I - It was moved by
Planning Commission Page 6
January 4. 2001
Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner MacDOI:(;At,l- that
repealing and re-enacting of Chapter 26 (ZOA-00-1 1) be postponed to the
Planning Commission meeting of January 18, 2001. The motion passed 8-0.
B. City Initiated Rezoning - Commissioner THOMPSON moved and Commissioner
SNOW seconded that the city initiate a rezoning to A-1 for all city-o-vvned land
along the Clear Creek greenbelt which is zoned higher than A-1. The motion
passed 8-0.
11. COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Economic Development Committee - Chair McNAMEE reported that the Economic
Development Committee has devoted the last three meetings to the code rewrite. She
will provide minutes to the Commission when they are available.
11. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS
There were no committee or department reports.
13. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner GOKEY to
adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. The motion passed 8-0.
MARIAN McNAMEE, Chair
Planning Corninission
January 4, 2001
Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
Pa , e 7
t�
NAME & ADDRESS OF APPLICANT(S): Qwest Wireless
4301 East Colfax Avenue, 9314
Denver, CO 80220
NAME & ADDRESS OF OWNER(S): City of Wheat Ridge
7500 West 29" Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80215
---------------------------------
APPROXIMATE AREA: NIA
PRESENT ZONING: Residential-Two
PRESENT LAND USE: City Hall, parkland
SI.'RROUNDING ZONING: N: R -2, R -IA S, E: R -2; W: Jefferson County
SURROtrNDING LAND I. #SE: N: mortuary, low density residential; E: low density residential;
W: cemetery; S: church, private school
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AREA: Public/Semi- public
°- °~-° ~- --_._-------
DATE PtTBLISHED: December 29, 2000 _
DATE POSTED: January 4, 2001
DATED LEGAL NOTICES SENT: January 4, 2001
_
ENTER INTO RECORD: : ,._.._______.._______ -___
(Y) CO MPREHENSIVE PLAN (N) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
(N) ZONING ORDINANCE (} SLIDES
() SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (t) EXHIBITS
(} OTHER
The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting; requirements have been
rne. Therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
I. REQUEST
The applicant requests approval to allow the collocation ot'C'IRS (commercial mobile radio service) antennas
on an existing lattice tower in an R-2 zone district located at 7500 West 29" Avenue (City hall property),
IL CASE HISTORY
City Council adopted legislation in 1996 relating to the erection of MRS facilities. Pursuant to Section 26-
30(T), freestanding CMRS facilities are allowed only on commercially and agriculturally zoned property. In
this instance, the tower was constructed prior to enactment of the CNIRS legislation, Since the City Hall
property is zoned R-2, the existing tower is considered a legal nonconforming use, These facilities may remain
in place, however, any addition to these nonconforming freestanding towers requires special use review.
The existing tower is 160' in height and was constructed in 1994, The existing equipment on the tower is owned
by the city as part of the police department's communication system, There is an existing equipment shelter
structure and an 8' high brick wall surrounding the tower and equipment building. There are already two other
users (Sprint PCS and AT &T Wireless) on the tower. Both of these satellite companies provide revenue to the
city, as will the applicant, if this land use request is approved.
Although the city attorney and acting city manager have been -,vorking on a lease agreement with Qwest, no
action by City Council has been taken.
The new panel antennas will be hung at 5g' and 68' above grade, Two equipment cabinets will be located within
the screened equipment shelter area. See Exhibit 'A' which is the applicant's explanation of the request. Also
attached is a photo simulation submitted by the applicant as Exhibit '13.
111. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
A meeting for neighborhood input was held on December 14, 2000. There were no attendees from the
neighborhood. See Exhibit 'C',
IV. AGENCY REFERRALS
All agencies have indicated no problem with the request,
Wheat Ridge Building Department will require a structural analysis of the tower with the permit application.
Wheat Ridge Police Communications has indicated that the additional antennas will not interfere with existing
emergency communication.
V. SPECIAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA
The following is the evaluation criteria for a Special Use Permit. The Planning Commission and City Council
should draw conclusions whether the Special Use Permit...
1. Will meet a proven public need in that it will fill a void in necessary services, products or facilities
especially appropriate at the location proposed, considering available alternatives.
If the special use is approved allowing additional antennas to be hung on the existing tower. it may eliminate the
need for one or more additional freestanding towers of lesser height. Srafffeels the additional antennas will be
less obtrusive than an additional tower in the ity hall vicinity,
2. Will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
It has been proven by the industry that the operational characteristics of PCS facilities (low power and high
frequency) do not pose a health risk to persons residing or working in the vicinity.
Will not create or contribute to blight in the neighborhood by virtue of physical or operational
characteristics of the proposed use.
There will be no changes in the operational characteristics of the day-to-day functions at City Hall which would
contribute toward blight in the area because of the new panel antennas,
4. Will not adversely affect the adequate light and air, nor cause significant air, water or noise
pollution.
Because the additional panel antennas are not obtrusive regarding mass, there will be little or no effect on the
amount of light and air to adjacent properties and no negative effect due to air, water, or noise pollution.
5. Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designates this municipally- owned property as Public /Semi- Public.
Because the underlying R-2 zone classification will remain in place, consistency with the Comp Plan is
maintained,
G. Will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards, or unsafe parking, loading, service or
internal traffic conflicts to the detriment of persons whether on or off the site.
According to the applicant's submittal, there will be one service visit per month to the tower, Therefore, Staff
concludes that the additional antennas will not have a negative effect on traffic or loading in the vicinity of City
Hall.
7. Will be appropriately designed, including setbacks, heights, parking, bulk, buffering, screening
and landscaping, so as to be in harmony and compatible with the character of the surrounding
areas and neighborhood, especially with adjacent properties.
It would be impossible to screen this type of facility (the tower) from adjacent properties. The additional panels
create only slightly more visual impact than the existing tower and antennas. The equipment cabinets will be
located behind the existing brick screening wall,
8. Will not overburden the capacities of the existing streets, utilities, parks, schools and other public
facilities and services.
All existing utilities are already serving the property or indicate no problems with the request. There will be no
effect on parks or schools in the area,
N't. STAFF CONCIATSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Statt'COnClUdes that a special use permit is required to allow collocation of CNIRS panel antennas on the existing
lattice tower at 7500 West 29"' Avenue. Staff further concludes that the visual impact was created when the
to% er was built and the addition of panel antennas will not make a significant difference. Staff further concludes
that collocation may alleviate the necessityofanother 1reestandirni tower in the area, For these reasons, a
L
iccorrimendation ot'appro is val g iven for Case No. SUP-00-03.
VIL RECOMMENDED MOTIONS
Option A: "I move that Case No. SUP-00-03, a request for approval of a special use permit to allow collocation
of CMRS panel antennas on an existing lattice tower with equipment cabinets on R-2 zoned property located at
7500 West 29"' Avenue, be APPROVED for the following reasons.
1. A special use permit is required to allow collocation of CMRS panel antennas on the existing
lattice tower at 7500 West 29"' Avenue.
2, The visual impact was created when the tower was built and the addition of panel antennas will
not make a significant difference.
1 The collocation may alleviate the necessity of another freestanding tower in the area."
Option B: "I move that Case No., SUP-00-03, a request for approval of a special use permit to allow collocation
of CMRS panel antennas on an existing lattice tow equipment with equ pment cabinets on R-2 zoned property located at
7500 West 29" Avenue, be DENIED for the following reasons:
1.
2.
Y'
e:\pianning\forms\rcport
e:\planning\forms'\reptcovr
R 2 '
T
- 1
uj
(V
..
)� |
\/
�
� /
! e*fwwRD
j
|
PARK
HALL ��»
��
� .
R 2 '
|�
}\
//
k�
T
- 1
|�
}\
//
k�
Property Owner
Applicant Applicant Representative
City of Wheat Ridge
Qwest Wireless, LLC Brad Johnson, Zoning Manager
7500 W. 29 Ave.
4301 E. Colfax, Rm 314 (720) 351-9667
Wheat Ridge, CO 80215
Denver, CO 80220 (303) 398-8497 FAX
Attn: Katy Myers Email: bwjohn3@uswest.com
Site Plan/Project Name:
Owest Wireless CMRS Facility,
DEN-416(2) — Crown Hill
Site Address:
7500 W. 29" Ave., Wheat Ridge, CO 80215
Zoning:
R-2, Residential Two
Parcel #:
39-264-15-001
Schedule #:
188123
Process:
Special Use Permit
Planner:
Meredith Reckert
Project Description:
Co-location CMRS Facility — attaching an antennae array on an existing
160 foot unstaffed wireless facility with equipment cabinets at base of
tower, and screened by existing brick wall.
Reauest and Justification (12/15/00)
I 1111111piiip�il III 111 1111111 IIIIIIIIq pill
1111,101a 7
rnee e e'V
Code.
Remininon (&-, Lone Tree. DEN456
I
Owest's application meets all applicable and practical standards and criteria set under the City
• Wheat Ridge zoning codes and should be approved.
Thank you for your time reading our Application.
Brad W. Jolw<on
2
Remington @ I-one Tree, DEN456
Z:�
meta Q a z�7 sc t; qa�-e rnt a r7 a a
7�
OWES W:� - -Nc
a g a
-
an -- 9: . ', 5 84
3"'1 scot
- � � t 1 3 � . T- 8 1 � i' I
MNM
P'LA,NE
E; 4: '3 4: ,, 4
GWEST
EN4
Sc a: a: 4953
carnect ing
BMW
a m
0 V E R A I A %' O o h E
mm
mAP
EkNigiT '$ '
f
r
J
J
h
r
V
J
r
v
r
i
N
a�
3
CA
u
z
w
z
w
0
w
a
0
-i
i
0
0
N
N
H
i
H
Ci
°
y • ee
V
y G
L 7
3
E
y
ri J
O
V_
W Ct
7
3 E�
o�
i� U E
O s�-2
w�a
h
z
� a o
0 3
w L CI
p v
N 7
Z
C = `o
a d
°
o�
� w
N
ow
,a
A
°w
z°
w ° a
Aa
7500 West 29th Avenue
Wh eat Ridge, Colorado 80215
elephone 30 3123 j
FAX 303/235 -2857
The City of
Wh R
CITY STAFF PRESENT: 1 - * e_c1 _ LOCATION OF MEETING:
PROPERTY ADDRESS: �W x
N
PROPERTY +t WNER PROPERTY OWNER(s) PRESENT`' Yes _,)( No
Applicant(s):
Existing zoning: "' Comp Flan Designation: �-
1
Existing use /site conditions:
P
ee , l .
A pplicants p roposal:
.:
w ..a _..Z_4d — , _ r -.
Atten part a si
Issues discussed:
AReckenlatighmeong recap,wpd
m
PROPOSED FUTURE ANTENNA
I*IM4:0
LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION
Planning and Development Department
7500 Went 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridcre, CO 60033
Phone 235-2846
Please print or type all mformanoT�z������
Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.)
are not to be Used to create lots for additional units.
7. Page _5 -- Expiration of Approvals: How does this apply to as phased pr Ject" w
(Anser: As
0 1
with any other project. The developer has one year trorn preliminary approval to receive final
approval and one year to subrilit for as building permit. If final approval is only foi a portion or
phase of the project, the developer has an additional year to request final approval of the next
phase of the project. There is a "rolling" one year approval for each phase of the project.)
9. Page 9, Paragraph B: This isn't the correct purpose statement and should be replaced with
what is now in the Code for Type 11 Site Plans, Delete small format paragraph under section
entitled "sheet size,"
10. Page 14 -- Paragraph E, Planning Commission Review: Remove "approve with conditions"
in the fourth line and remove the sentence "The planning commission may recommend
conditions or stipulations which may include site plan review, use limitations, or specific design
or operational stipulations in addition to standard development and use regulations which apply."
(These changes were recently made to the code by adoption of an ordinance,)
I I . Page 19 Section 26-114 E 2, Special Uses: The new regulations require planning
commission to recommend and city council to decide if a special use should run with the land or
with the owner. Should the section include criteria to guide this decision?
12. Page 40 Add a definition for "boat."
13. Page 51 Add a definition for "trailer."
UIVEMMM
14. Page 58 --- Accessory Uses: Add Section 26-607 to the notes column. Beekeeping is also
found in that section,
15. Page 60 --- Delete developmentally disabled, mentally ill from group homes; this is already
included in the definition of family,
N
16. Page 61 - Include *'and Industrial" in the Table of Uses title.
17. Page 62 Replace "camper and travel trailer" with - recreational vehicle" in the fifth use
category in the chart. The definition of recreational vehicle covers these types of trailers.
20 Add a section to supplementary regulations that any use with a drive through must receive
approval of a special use permit.
22. Clarify in the definitions the distinction between semi-trailers and recreational vehicles,
23. Page 87 - If City Council repeals the Kipling Activity Center Master Plan and the Fruitdale
Master Plan, as recommended by Planning Commission, the overlay zone district can be deleted,
(Staff recommends repealing the Kipling and Fruitdale plans. This will need to be by
separate action at a public hearing.)
I
27, Page 91 — Section 26-302, Paragraph 13 Add a sentence that states the planned development
process shall not be used to circumvent the regulations of the City.
28. Page 159 -- Paragraph G is repeated in its entirety in the supplemental regulations. Delete
here and keep in supplementary regulations.
Supplementary Regulations:
31. What about the separation of auto repair uses' Oftentimes these uses end up having storage
lots and appear to be sales lots.
32. Page 178 -- Sight Triangles: Height of obstruction should be 42", not 36". Eliminate the
exemption for single family and duplexes. (Planning and Public Works staff recommend the
36" height. The exemption for single family and duplexes should be eliminated on Class I
through Class 5 streets.)
33. Page 245 — Start Article IX Historic Preservation on a new page.
34. Page 255 — 26-1003 B: Delete "rezoning approvals" from the list of previous development
approvals subject to the requirements of the new ordinance. Prior zoning approvals cannot be
repealed by enacting this new ordinance, but any property previously rezoned can be subject to
the new requirements (landscaping, etc.) of the ordinance.
4.
El
35, Cross refierences need to be checked throu (,ThOUt the document.
1t Fllcs llro;cas « > omm, ayncildment, dwP2r, K chan"'c" %kpd
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Alan White, Planning and Development Director Oq,
SUBJECT: Chapter 26 Recommended Changes, Economic Development Committee
DATE: January 2, 2001
The Economic Development Committee has recommended the following changes to the draft
Chapter 26 re-write
Page 61 -- add animal veterinary hospitals, no outside pens as permitted uses in C-2 and I
districts.
Page 61 — Footnote 1: which zone districts does it apply to?
I
Page 62 — change car wash, coin operated to special use in C- I district.
Page 62 -- change car wash, automatic to permitted use in C-2 district,
Page 63 — in notes column for community buildings, should churches be taken out of the list of
example uses? The thought is that they are exempt from property taxes and shouldn't occupy
commercial zone districts.
Page 64 — governmental and quasi - governmental buildings; which uses can the City control, if
any?
Pages 77 through 82 — staff should look at alternatives to the required front yard setbacks of 30
and 50 feet in the commercial zone districts to achieve the look of 32 " d /Low ll. Develop
flexibility in side and rear yard setback in the commercial zone districts.
Page 144 — The areas excluded from the definition of floor area in calculating parking
requirements under B I should be expanded to include hallways, kitchens, and common use
areas. In the same section, look at the figure of 10% reduction in floor area where detailed
calculations are not possible; possibly increase this figure.
I ,
Page 1 55 - park Ing requirements ShOLIld be adjUSted to provide credit for on-street parking
spaces. Parking sl�lould be required to be located at the side or rear of buildings.
Overall comments:
(° "M' 'ICS NkTh I CS Pro I cc us zomtq a nwndmcnts%chap26 EDC �kpd