Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/06/2003CITY of WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting January 16, 2003 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order by Chair WEISZ at 7:00 pm. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, ••.• It was moved by • seconded by Commissioner approve the minutes of December 19,2002. The motion passed 4-1 with Commissioner SNOW voting no and Commissioners ` and McNAMEE abstaining. Planning Commission Page I January 16, 2003 13 M PUBLIC FORUM There were none present to address the Commission during this portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. WZ-02-14: An application filed by Craig Molenaar for approval of a rezoning from Commercial-One (C-1) to Residential-One (R-lC) for property present known as 6015 West 4e Avenue. I B. Case No. MS-02-08: An application filed by Craig Molenaar for approval, of a 2-lot minor subdivision plat on property presently known as 6015 West 40 Avenue. Due to a publication error, it was staff s recommendation to continue the above cases to February 6, 2003. MrA continued to February 6,2003. The motion passed 7-0. Commissioner SNOW expressed concern that adequate walking paths be available from the the applicant did not complete sidewalks as required when the previous application was approved in 1992. 11 1111 FF.TiTmrmm 4 US Fl�� Oz Architecture Mr. Schafer was sworn in by Chair WEISZ. He stated that handicapped'parking requirements will be exceeded. In response to a question from Commissioner McMILLIN, Ms. Reckert stated that the plan calls for 160 more spaces than required. 3815 Carr Street Ms. Pastor was sworn in by Chair WEISZ. She urged the applicant to consider constructing a parking garage to alleviate parking problems in the area. Everett Allan Davis iniormation out wouia nave7me 7=n1jj7u7r 71, Yoggl-t iiisins UvdTY7VYT hearing. Commissioner SNOW asked if the hospital had received noise complaints. Mr. Davis repli that he has received no complaints concerning helicopter noise. He has received occasional complaints about generator test runs on Sundays and construction noise. I W4 -51 W-1 MR.- Mr. Davis stated there is concern about a ravine and trees that could cause approach proble for the helicopter pilot if the helipad is moved, He will check into these concerns. I Chair WEISZ asked if there were others present who wished to address this matter. There was no response. Planning Commission Page 4 January 16, 2003 A vote was taken on the main motion which passed 6-1 with Commissioner MeMILLIN voting no. Commissioner McMILLIN explained that he voted against the motion because of his concern to placing a helipad so close to a residential neighborhood. (Chair WEISZ declared a brief recess at 8:43 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:50 pm.) 8. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner SNOW commented on the amendment passed by City Council regarding the regulation of psychic advisors, etc. and stated that psychotherapists are not licensed in the state of Colorado. She stated that she would fax the appropriate information concerning this matter to Meredith Reckert. 9. NEW BUSINESS Meredith Reckert announced that Tim Paranto has been hired as Public Works Director for the City. 10. COMMISSION REPORTS There were no Commission reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner MeNAMEE and seconded by Commissioner COOPER t(r, adjourn the meeting at 9:04 p.m. The motion passed 7-0. Paula Weisz, Chair Emm Page -6 NENWANN a- NAW =1 I =11 I w W-Ikw &T910 " LVI 0 LIA36 M a a 1 0 3 al 'A APPROXIMATE AREA: 12,225 Square Feet (approximately 0.28 Ac.) PRESENT ZONING: Commercial One (C-1) PRESENT LAND USE: Vacant Land SURROUNDING ZONING: N & W: Commercial One (C-1), S & E: Residential Three (R-3) SURROUNDING LAND USE: N , & W: Multi-Family, Single-Family Residential; COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: SF (6) — Single Family not to exceed six DU's per acre NNER102M 1. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a rezoning from Commercial One (C-1) to Residential One-C (R- 1 Q. This request also includes a final subdivision plat with an associated lot width variance (Exhibit 1, Applicant Letter), Three motions will be required: one for the rezoning, one for the final plat and one for the variance. 11. CASE ANALYSIS The property in question is located at the northwest comer of 40 Avenue and Harlan Street, and is approximately 12,225 square feet in area. The property is zoned Commercial One (Exhibit 2, Vicinity Map). Currently, the lot is vacant land and is being used as a staging area for the ongoing Harlan Street improvement project. T) accommodate two single-family dwellings. (change of zoning conditions): 1. That the existing zone classification currently recorded on the off cial'zoning maps of the City of Wheat Ridge is an error. The existing zone classification on the official zoning map is not in error. The property currently has Commercial One zoning. 2. That a change in character in the area has occurred due to installation of publ;" facilities, other zone changes, new growth trends, deterioration, or developme transitions, and that the evidence supports the finding of the following. I The City is reconstructing Harlan Street, providing a more pedestrian-friendly environment. There has been no other change in the area, Although much of the surrounding land to the north has been zoned as Commercial One since the City's inception in 1969, this zoning is a remnant of Jefferson County zoning. Regardless zoning, much of the surrounding area is used as residential. I Planning Commission 2 WZ-02-14/Molenaar FQIIMMVMK•� There is a portion of public dedication required. The Public Works Department requested that a section of 393 square feet adjacent to 40' Avenue be dedicated for the purposes of constructing curb, gutter and a sidewalk. 2. If the variance were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? The granting of these requests most likely will not impact the essential character of the locality. While there are no other properties in the immediate neighborhood zoned R- I C, many single-family structures are zoned R-3. Both the R- I C and R-3 zone districts require a lot width of 80 feet on each street frontage for a comer lot. Virtually none of the surrounding R-3 properties meet the lot width standard of • feet for comer lots. as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? The lot does not have a unique shape. It is a typical rectangular lot, and is relatively flat. The request for variance is isolated to the Harlan Street frontage, which now measures 75 feet. The Public Works Department is requesting 2.5 feet of dedication along West 40' Avenue, further reducing the lot width to 72.5 feet. 4. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? The applicant has not created a self-imposed hardship. This lot has existed legally with a 75-foot lot width. The Code of Laws'dictates that any comer lot zoned residential, with the exception • the R- I zone district, must have a minimum lot width of at least 80 feet. The hardship can also be attributed to the acquisition of right-of-way. 5. Would the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious t* other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property , substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood? The request would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties in the area, The adequate supply of light and air would not be compromised as a result • this request. The request would not increase congestion in the streets, nor increase the danger of fire. The request would most likely not have an effect on property values in the neighborhood. VI. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING The meeting for neighborhood input was held on September 25, 2002 in the Municipal Building located at 7500 West 29 Avenue. One person attended the meeting, and was in favor of the proposal. A surnmary of the meeting and sign in sheet has been included as Exhibits 4 & 5. One letter of support was received and has been included as Exhibit 6. LW=1Y0E1V--JHMLW 5 This proposal was retbrred to thefarks and Recreaflon Committee, and Mey recommen=UMT cash in lieu of parkland dedication be collected. The applicant is aware of this fee, and requests that it be paid prior to issuance • certificate of occupancy. I I I M FF i Staff concludes that the proposed zone change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use will be consistent with the neighborhood, and will remove commercially zoned property from the neighborhood. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of Case No. WZ-02- 14. Variance "I move to recommend APPROVAL of the variance associated with Case No. MS-02-08, request for a 7.5 foot lot width variance for a comer lot located in the R- I C zone district, property located at 6015 W 40 Avenue for the following reasons: I 1. The hardship has not been created by any person having current interest in the property. Planning Commission Page 6 WZ-02-09/Ketelsen Planning Commission 7 WZ-02-14/Molenaar City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W. 29P Avenue Wheat Ridge CO 80212-6713 adversely affect the surrounding area by creating any public health, safety, welfare or drainage problems. There is adequate infrastructure in terms of utilities and traffic circulation. The proposed R-IC zoning requires a nummum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Both of the proposed lots would adequately meet this requirement. However, the one requirement that cannot be met with R- I C zoning is that the comer lot shall have a minimum lot width of 80 feet for both street frontages. For the proposed comer lot (Lot 1) these dimensions would be 83 feet (W. 4e ♦ # existin # wi dth o feet right-of-way dedication requested by the Public Works Department it is finther reduced to the 72.5 feet. This condition would This requested variance would not significantly alter the essential character of the locality or severely alter the ab ility # p * resi #. prop erty. Grantin # this variance # a # r detrimental : • # # # # r #r o im provements neighborho in which the property # "a providing # additional 2.5 feet for the right-of-way on West 40' Avenue would permit an adequate street width to accommodate parking as well as a sidewalk. The proposed subdivision of this property shall very much stay in character of the s! �rround�iw !# #Ma # rez enhances t V co 0 # r # ♦ # ! * # #' # a t EXHIBIT 2 NW24 --j IE I i� I M , m NW 2a *1 DEFAFTMENTOF MAP ADOPTED: June 15, 1994 PLANNING ANP DEVELOPMENT Last Revision: September 10, 2001 Date: 25 September 2002 m (D z SWAM w W N 0 Lo Z 04 — 0 t Z in 0 E 0 CL t o 0 � z CL c u 3 m I C 6 4 r-• 06 CL W 3 z CL I C 6 4 r-• 06 Ll om 0 Attached is an ordinance changing the fees for various land use applications processed by the Department, The fee schedule is Appendix A to Chapter 26. As with any change to Chapter 26, Planning Commission needs to provide a recommendation to City Council. Also attached is the current fee schedule which has been in place for two years. A comparison of the current fees with the proposed fees shows an increase for most applications. The reasons for the increase are twofold: • Increased personnel costs over the past two years. • Inclusion of fees for engineering review. CADocuments and SettingsWanVy Documents\WPFi1es\MEMOS\Fee Sched PC.doc Garrent t*ITV no WU=AT DMIU: Variance Administrative or Regular Application Fee Publication/Public Notice Fee Temporary Permit 30-Day Application Fee Publication/Public Notice Fee Application Fee Minor Subdivisio III n Without Dedication Application Fee With Dedication Application Fee Major Subdivision Preliminary Plan Application Fee I =-- $200 $90 $150 $90 $200 $90 $500 + $30/lot SFR $500 + $100/acre Non SFR $150 $500 + $30/lot SFR fit $500 + $30/lot SFR $300 + $15Aot SFR $44 4-41-44-14 $300 A Application Fee $200 Publication/Public Notice Fee •0 Consolidation Plat With Dedication Application Fee $300 Publication/Public Notice Fee $300 R-O-W Vacation, Street Width Designation Application Fee $300 Publication/Public Notice Fee $300 Planned wilding Group, Site Plan Application Fee $250 /acre Publication /Public Notice Fee $0 Special Use Permit Application Fee $500 °lication /Public Notice Fee $300 Rezoning Rezone to Non -PD District Application Fee $500 + $15 /acre Publication /Public Notice Fee $300 Rezone to PD ©istfict Application Fee $750 1 /acre Publication /Public Notice Fee $300 Planned Developments Final Development Plan Application Fee $250 /acre Publication /Public Notice Fee $300 Development Plan Amendment Application Fee $2501acre Publication /Public Notice Fee $300 (Not required if administrative) Floodplain Exemption Class l Application Fee $150 Publication /Public Notice Fee $0 . r ,, . l/ Application Fee $250 Publication /Public Notice Fee $00 Resubmittal Fee $150 Each application shall be reviewed by staff once and be returned for-corrections, If after review of the resubmittal changes have not been made as requested by staff, the application will be returned with corrections. Subsequent review will occur only when the resubmittal fee is paid. Each subsequent resubmittal will require the fee, .Aultiple Case Process In cases where applications processing is more one ° i uest, the applicant will be charged the fees f '# Recording Fees Applicants will be charged the fees to record documents as set by the County Clerk and Recorder as follows: Plats & Development Plans $10 /page Boundary Surveys $20/first page + $10 /ea.,add'l page Mylar Copies $5 /page Other Documents (8 1/2 x 11 or 8 1/2 x 14) $5 /page NOTES: Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Zoning Code or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjusted by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. ,Sugtrsession Clause. If any provision, requirement or standard established by this Ordinance is found to conflict with similar provisions, requirements or standards found elsewhere in the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge, which are in existence as of the date • adoption of this Ordinance, the provisions, requirements and standards herein shall supersede and prevail. Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of — to on this — day of , 2003, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for it 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of — to —, this _ day of 2003. CADocurneats and SeffingsWanNy Documents\WPFiles\Projects\zoning arnendrnents\fee sched ord.doc �v p U (L) co ( C> U*) C\1 ;B 04 U 0 LO tc) 4 - ) c > Cl 0 C) + CD 0 0 6q, 0 CD Lr) Ct) C) + ce) 0 + m + cr) + m 3 c C> C> C) 0 col) C) CD c4r) 64 ca ez M LL LL LL LL CO LL U- CL z ca 1 6 z z tz 0 z 0 z 0 z U. 'D -�s 4) =3 o cz 1 (D 4) CL LL CL tj 8 U- 0- U. 0- tz U- CL 4) LL a_ 0 U- U. 0 0 a a C) 0 0 C: C 0 0 c c 0 - 0 0 " c: 0 c: c C: a 0 0 Z �w *9 (z Ao s 83 tz .2.2 (D aa 2 4> �o 0, IL> . — I- .- = = = Cx 0 iz , a E o a € :3 U- CL M LL a- 0- Q CL < a. > a = < 0- �l CL x w Cl. < :3 CL a. c woo 0 c - d woo * Z w M — = - a c a) v CL w w 0 ­ 0 a - F- 0 N N 4) c V 0 2 crz 020 a (L M 0 0 0. M < cL g c m LL 06 U. 0 6 0 FU CL > I W Ul 5 w z x 2 x W x a w CL 0 0 w U- 0 0 o 0 L ;z L LL U) co 0 0 cz C> C) 0 C) C) 0 C) 0 C) C) C) o C> o 0 0 C 00 04 6q T- C14 09 0 0 + + C� C) 0 C) N v- + C� U*) C) 0 ( Y) 6 00) C 6% 4) 0 ol m 6q 6% + + C) o U*) T- 6% + + o ce) 0 C> ce) 6% o 619 0 0 0 a (D 0 c T- 00 00 6c* 60 v- 64). 6ek 14) U- LL LL U- LL LL 4 6 4 6 0 z o 0 z z z 0 z A2 (D LL jo (D (D 4) Q LL a. U- 0- U- 0- LL U- 0- tt GL 16 c c 0 0 r - 0 0 c C: 0 c 0 0 0 4) 0 z 9 8 co .2.2 = = j: • Q. :3 CL 0 0 0 M LL Q. CL :3 < a_ a. < a. cL < m 0 c c - a 0 0 0 T 0 1- CL < = x .9 a:5 " c w o CO liw 0 IF 0- z < > 1.� CL 0 • (D C e4 • 0 CL 2 • > CL m 0 • CL tM C 4) E t 0 C 0 M = 0= o 0 CL4 E 5-5 m CL IM 0 0 0 a • 0 v = = 0 E"--;Ow 0 0 *6 E 0) LO z w 0 cr 0 CO > 0 • • SD m o .0 0 • C: E (D U- 0 (D : L- — r- "a = A- 4) < (D = q S • 0 = - a I- B co a. 1.�