The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/18/2004AGENDA CITY OF WHEAT FUDGE PLANNING COMMISSION March 18, 2004 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting February 19, 2004 The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order by Chair McNAMEE at 7:03 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL 5. APPROVE MINUTES — December 18,2003 It was moved by Commissioner WEIS Z and seconded by Commissioner PLUMMER to approve the minutes of February 5, 2004 as presented. The motion passed 4-0 with Commissioner WESLEY abstaining. No one indicated a desire to speak at this time. Planning Commission Page I February 19, 2004 It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner WEISZ that Case No. ZOA-04-01, a proposed amendment to Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws regarding the commercial and industrial zone district use schedule, be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation of APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. It alleviates a redundancy relative to newsstands. 2. It modifies the classification of high traffic generating uses such as banks and medical offices from permitted uses to special uses. 3. Less impactive uses such as tailoring and dressmaking have been added as permitted uses. The motion passed 5-0 with Commissioner McMILLIN absent. • The RV ordinance is scheduled for first reading before city council on March 8 with the second reading scheduled for March 22. • City Council has directed staff to research and develop regulations to allow more than one vehicle for use in home-based occupations, • This meeting marks the end of terms for Scott Wesley, Phil Plummer and Paula Weisz. Mr. Wesley and Mr. Plummer have applied for reappointment; however, Ms. Weisz has not, Since there is nothing scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting, it was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner WITT to cancel the March 4' Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner WESLEY announced that he will • out of town and cannot attend the April Commission meetings. It was moved by Commissioner WEISZ and seconded by Commissioner WITT to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Marian McNamee, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary am City of Wheat Ridge W �HEA4 Community Development Department Memorandum DATE: 10 March 2004 A dinner meeting has been scheduled for 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, March I S. Community Development staff and the City Attorney will be present to discuss public hearing procedures and the basics of the subdivision process. Attached to this memo is the schedule of review topics and pertinent documents, There are no public hearings scheduled for this date, ` COMMISSION TRAINING SESSION Second Floor Conference Room March 18,2004-6:00 P.M. I. What can the City require as conditions of land use case? , 2. Are there different "rules" depending upon the type of land use casel mm� �-�M I. What testimony should be considered as evidence in the proceedings? 2. What is hearsay evidence? 3. Rules for limiting testimony? ZMLMM�� I . Use Chart 2. Process Chart rj!��i 11 JK11111:7 i 11 0 1 - 4 0 Wheat Ridge Planning Commission V1 1 twUh March 18, 2004 (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 CqMnt y (1985). b) Specific delegation of authority required. 2. The government must have the delegated authority to impos Cherry Hills Resort Development Co. v. Cherry Hills Villa, (1990). 1 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. Ti and (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." . A GEDX5302713446M01 1 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 • the hearing at the outset. M* Oy I 1t . 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 tin 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 rlolyrr!m 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 anf credibility of testimony a - . 10junowr-1,11 a 0 Its a D. Makin q Motions 1. Importance of Findings and Reasons for Approval GEDX53027\3446M01 2 a) Compare the evidence against the standards and the Code 2. Findings 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. Now 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 Apply the same standards of relevance you would want to see in public testimony. a) Failed motion means no recommendation (unlike BOA) GED\63027\344689.01 3 b) If approval motion fails, someone on the prevailing side should immediately move to recommend denial. • - • a*] 1. Use Chart (see attached) • a • 211 • a) City must approve if the application meets the standards in the Code of Laws b) Subdivision review does not raise the question of whether the property should be subdivided, • if the density is appropriate J M (11 11111,141AL 3-200��= =�Mrlli! 1 , EMMUMME= b) Corrections • the plat c) Condons which support enforcement of the technical requirements of Article IV, Chapter • (example: drainage easements) d) Requirements for maintenance of common elements (establish HOA) e) Preservation of trees and vegetation Code Sec. 26- 414.D.: "Natural features and vegetation of the area must be preserved if at all possible. " f) Redirecting traffic patterns. Code Sec. 26-414.13: GED\53027\344689.01 4 h) Standard of (court) review: is the condition tied to an applicable provision of the Code? 3. Conditions Which are Not Permitted e) Redesigning subdivision 4. Technical Requirements a) The city has professional staff to review drainage plans and subdivision design (Case Study: 38/Sheridan plat) b) Trust your staff c) Best time to ask staff questions: before the hearing 5. Variances — Code Sec. 26-411 a) Appropriate subjects for variances include lot size, width, etc.; cul-de-sac length b) Not density c) Variances may not be granted unless proper noticing has occurred (Exception: PUD's); Case Study: Best Friends SUP a) Appropriate grounds for denial: anything in Chapter 26, Article IV b) Inappropriate grounds for denial: failure • developer not to volunteer a condition which could not independently be imposed by the City GED\53027\344689,01 5 IN M4 buildings, re stations and public utility bu vernment Outside S S S S S S S S M M and quasi. storage vemrnento buildings, re stations and public Wily buildings Parks Ind P P P P P P P P nonoommerc ial playgrounds or other c Iion E Public or Restaurants, S S S S S S S S private gaff lounges and ryes, bars country dubs permitted as or cubs accessory to operated for a public or the benefit of private golf members course only and nol or gain Public and S S S S S S S S private schools, colleges and universities. Residential See § 26- S S S_ S S S S S group home 612 or children Residential 26- P P P P P P P P group 612 nursing homes, or mVegate care facility or 6-6 elderly persons Residential See § S S S S Coup 612 nursing or w9egate care facility for gor more elderly persons NW Not in S S S S S pawed excess of 35 eledric feet Ewalors Awassory Uses F or f ' Districts t Plus their unweaned offspring horses, cows, llamas, shW, goats and similar j,'A* § 26-605; EXCLUDES the keong of swine pools and tennis courts Public and private communications towers, television or radio IF satellite earth receiving stations, see 26-616 and 26-617 k6k utility lines and poles, imption channels, storm drainage and kt facilities !Not in excess of 35 feet %-fly Of IN FICat Kluge Community Development 7500 W 29' Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 303-235-2846 �5� OR P'1�59 Sec. 26-204. Zone district use schedule. wwwxi.wheatridge.co.us A. The following schedule of permitted and special uses allowed within the various zone districts is hereby adopted and declared to be a part of this code and may be amended in the same manner as any other part of this code. In each zoning district, any uses not expressly permitted (P) or allowed as a special use (S), or as an accessory use (S) shall be deemed to be excluded. The director of community development shall render the final administrative decision concerning the scope, application and meaning of the terms in this section. � 111 11 lI III 1P11 111 111 0 IN 6 HIM 1. Such use is appropriate to the general physical and environmental character of the district to which it is proposed to be added, and 3. Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare, or other objectionable influences or more traffic hazards than the minimum amount normally resulting from the other uses permitted in the district to which it is proposed to be added, and 4, Such use is compatible with the uses existing and permitted in the district to which it is proposed to be adde4 at the time of adoption. Adult entenainnmt estatilistirwnts MMM time • Anti ique st ores of l Appareland ,accessoirystores ", P. � MW 00 Y INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER DITULLIO Council Bill No. 46-2003 Ordinance No. 1316 Series of 2003 t # 1�1:11111111qqi WHEREAS, there are occasions when pre-application meetings and neighborhood rneetings are not necessary, WHEREAS, existing review process chart does not differentiate between the different types of planned development applications, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO THAT: Section 1. Section 26-106. Review Process Chart • the Zoning and Development Code is hereby amended with addition of the following chart: all mm a Will w. �i M Floal D , , R � UI II , �Non-odminis7ra tive OEM I Ilu r;"r y {R{ ♦:: fix.. man M