Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/18/20030 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA (Items of new and old business may be recommended for placement on the agenda.) S. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — December 4, 2003 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda. Public comments may be limited to 3 minutes.) 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. ZOA-03-19: An ordinance amending Section 26-621 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to parking in residential areas. 9. NEW BUSINESS 7 11 , ` i 1 111 1 2. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting December 4, 2003 I CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order by Chair McNAMEE at 7:00 pm. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Following is the official set of Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing of December 4, 200-3. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Department of the City of Wheat Ridge. 4. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner STITES to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. S. APPROVE MINUTES — November 6, 2003 It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner STITES to approve the minutes of November 6,2003 as presented. The motion passed with Commissioners MCNAMEE and WESLEY abstaining and Commissioners WEISZ and WITT absent. Planning Commission Page I I December 4, 2003 6. PUBLIC FORUM There were none present to address the Commission. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. ZOA-03-16: An ordinance amending Section 26-109 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning public hearing notice and procedure. Meredith Reckert reviewed the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the case for the following reasons. Meredith Reckert explained that posting procedures would not change if this ordinance is approved. Neighborhood meetings are noticed by letter to surrounding property owners, Robert Wallace 3749 Sheridan Mr. Wallace stated from the audience that he agreed with Mr. Durbin's comments. Commissioner McMll,,I,,,TN stated he would vote in favor of the ordinance because it is the consequence of previous decisions but expressed concern about future streamlining procedures that may take more authority from Planning Commission or to cut back on requirements of development applications. Meredith Reckert stated that she is not aware of any other changes planned to the land use processes. It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner PLUMMEA to recommend approval of an ordinance amending Section 26-109 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning public hearing notice and procedure. The motion passed 5-0 with Commissioners WEISZ and WITT absent. Planning Commission Page 2 December 4, 2003 B. Case No. ZOA-03-17: An ordinance amending Section 26-107 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning expiration of development approvals. Meredith Reckert presented this matter. She reviewed the staff report and noted that staff recommended removal of time limits on outline development plans so they remain in perpetuity. However, staff acknowledges there should be more discussion and consideration on of that discussion to a later time. Alan White explained that there are final development plans that are 30 years old where the outline plan sets the standard for landscaping at 8% to 10%. The current requirement for landscaping is 20%. �i"ITVJ I A been developed. Alan White explained that most situations deal with the last one or two buildings within an old planned development. He estimated there are probably two dozen of these situations. number of years, the plan must be reviewed which would involve new application fees. Commissioner STITES suggested a requirement that the application must be brought up to current code requirements after a certain time lit nit has passed. Commissioner McMILLIN asked about an applicant's vested rights with prior development approval. Alan White explained that the statutory limit for vested rights is three years. Howev.4 n 11 1 1 would have to be reviewed and approved by City Council. ft W - Y %-vilurrmn t Rt _Rff),-U_P 10JUU1 CUM - VdKe - ongeT an three years to prepare for construction and drainage, roadway and other conditions could change during that time. Alan White explained that notices of any such changes in Planned Developments are given to the owners or developers of surrounding properties. Commissioner McNAMEE asked if there were time restrictions for a developer to begin or complete his project. Alan White stated that there is the one-year restriction to begin building. He noted that a provision in the code adopted two years ago stated that building needed to begin within one year of adopting the code or their approval would expire. No notice to owners was given of this requirement. No one responded to this action. Commissioner McMILLIN suggested a survey of other municipalities regarding their regulations. Meredith Reckert stated that she checked with other municipalities and found that most have a three-year limitation on final development plans, She didn't check to see what Planning Commission Page 3 December 4, 2003 procedures were in place when the time limitation is up and indicated that she would contact neighboring municipalities regarding this matter. It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner McMILLIN that Case No. ZOA-03-17, an ordinance amending Section 26-107 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning expiration of development approval, be continued to February 5, 2004. The motion passed unanimously. I Alan White reported that the December 18 Planning Commission agenda will include RV regulations. Meredith Reckert reported that the interview process has begun to fill the planner technician vacancy. 10. COMMISSION REPORTS There were no commission reports. 12, ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner STITES to adjourn the meeting at 7:55p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Marian McNamee, Chair Planning Commission December 4, 2003 r om City of Wheat Ridge Planning and Development Department Changes proposed for the Commission's consideration are shown in bold. Deletions are shown in strikethrough. Summary of Ordinance Changes The current regulations have been changed as follows: 1. Recreational vehicles and trailers less than 6 feet in height are exempt from the limitation 4. The regulations apply to renters so long as the vehicle stored on the property is owned by the renter. 5. There are no provisions to grandfather any existing situations. Staff Comments Grandfathering existing situations in the community would be a time-consuming and labor- intensive endeavor. This would entail inventorying every residential parcel in the City for recreational vehicles and trailers. Probably several situations would change during the course of conducting the inventory, rendering the inventory inaccurate. There simply isn't the time or personnel to commit to this task. In addressing the visual impact issue, there are several options to consider: 1. Do not allow parking of recreational vehicles beyond the front wall of the structure. This would require the parking of all recreational vehicles in side or rear yards, This may not be possible on smaller lots in the City, Numerous permits have been issued for the purpose of constructing parking pads for vehicle storage in front yards. Should the measure of "oversize" be height, length, or weight? Such provisions might tend to complicate the regulations for enforcement officers and citizens and could slow down enforcement by requiring time to measure a vehicle or to research its weight. The draft ordinance contains a provision implementing option #3, allowing only one recreational vehicle or trailer to be stored in the front yard. Short of banning all recreational vehicles in the front yard, this limitation is the easiest to interpret and enforce. It would reduce the potential number of vehicles parked in front yards, thereby potentially reducing the visual impact, Exhibits 1. Memo to City Manager dated 11/07/03. 2. Minutes of Council study session of 11/17/03. 3, Proposed Ordinance 4. Figures showing allowed parkingareas City of Wheat Ridge , ` " "E � Community Development Department 1 ; rn LORP Memorandum TO: Randy Young, City Manager FROM: Alan White, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Recreational Vehicle Parking DATE: November 7, 2003 This ernoranchim - presents a brief historp of the chan -e ade to RV PAiT ti-AW summary of recommendations from public meeting held this past summer, and staff recommendations for changes to the existing regulations. The current regulations are found in Section 26-621, Residential Parking, of the Code of Laws. Ordinance No. 1265 was adopted • Council on September 23, 2002. This ordinance defined recreational vehicles and limited the number allowed to be parked outside on residential property to one. Ordinance 1265 is attached. * Ordinance No. 1265 was vetoed by the Mayor. Council overrode the veto. Council held a study session on October 21, 2002 and reached consensus on several changes to the ordinance. • Ordinance No. 1271. was adopted by Council on December 9, 2002. This ordinance made the following changes to the provisions adopted in September: • A definition of personal recreational vehicle was added. Horse trailers were added to the definition of trailers. • A maximum number of two of the following can be stored outside on residential property: recreational vehicle; trailer upon which is stored any number of personal recreational vehicles. o Clarified language relating to parking vehicles in excess of the two permitted vehicles in carports or temporary structures. • Allowed parking or storage areas to be surfaced with gravel. • Moved the non-operative vehicle provision to Chapter 15 (Nuisances) of the Code of Laws. • Empowered the Board of Adjustment to hear requests for variances to the number of non-operative vehicles allowed on a residential property. These are the regulations currently in effect. Ordinance 1271 is attached. • January 13, 2003, Council directed staff to conduct a series of public meetings to solicit comments and ideas about changes to the ordinance, Meetings were held at the Recreation Center on May 21", June 18' and July 16"', The group recommended the following changes: Im Staff recommends the following changes to the ordinance: CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES 7 :30 p. The Study Session was called to order by Mayor Cerveny at 7:30 pm. Councilmembers present: Jerry DiTullio, Karen Berry, Dean Gokey, Wanda Sang, Karen Adams, Lena Rotola, and Larry Schulz. Also present. City Clerk, Pam Anderson, City Manager, Randy • • Director of s Development, and interested AP APRIL M otion by # to approve the Minutes of April 21, 2003; - i • - by o carried 3-0 with CoUhcilmembers DiTullio, Rotola and Gokey voting yes. Councilmembers Berry, Sang, Adams, and Schulz were not on Council during that meeting. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Mrs. Sang to approve the Agenda as printed; seconded by Mr. Go key; carried 7 -0. STUDY SESSION MINUTES: November 17,2003 Page -2- Mr. Gokey asked to amend the con to include more detailed criteria and instructions that recreational vehicles must meet setbacks for accessory structures, and present zoning codes; Consensus was 7 to 0. Mr. Gokey asked to amend instructions to create size criteria or classification for recreational vehicles. Mr. White suggests a consensus to give general direction to staff and Planning Commission to come up with a way to deal with the visual impacts of large recreational vehicles stored in the front yard; Consensus was 7 to 0. Mr. White reviewed the code section regarding home occupation of commercial vehicles. The code restricts home occupation to one commercial vehicle per home occupation. He explained the history, details, and intent of the code and explained that the ordinance does not refer to limousines in particular. Mr. Young wanted to establish the context of the ordinance. He stated that selecting one exemption for residential zones makes it difficult, because you are selecting one above others. Mrs. Sang asked for consensus to hear a representative from the audience; Consensus was 7 to 0. Peter Perrone spoke on behalf of audience members, The PUC considers sedans limousines. The limousines have no more traffic impact than other people coming and going from work. The business goes to great lengths to not impact the community. The industry has a desire to preserve residential neighborhoods. What is the distinction between allowing two RVs, but only one limousine? Mr. DiTullio reemphasized that this is not about limousines, but that they have to consider commercial vehicles. Mr. Perrone felt that there should be a process for exception. Sedan should be exempt. i Mr. Schulz stated that it is important that the rules make sense and that Wheat Ridge is friendly to businesses, and we are fair. He would like to know how we compare to other communities. Mr. White said that there would have to be some research about some of the neighboring communities. INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. Ordinance No. Series of 2004 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-621 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. BE ITORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAJ RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 26-621 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended as follows: • Recreational Vehicle • Trailer upon which are stored personal recreational vehicles Recreational vehicles or trailers are exempt from this two-vehicle limitation ­1 - 101 L • The vehicles or trailers are less than six (6) feet in height, and • The vehicles or trailers are not ble from the public right-of-way as a result of being stored behind a solid fence six (6) feet in height, a structure, or vegetation which completely screens the vehicle from view from the public right-of-way. C. Only one (1) such recreational vehicle or trailer may be stored in the area between the street and all walls of the structure facing the street. Such vehicles CAPrqjects\zoning amendments\Residential Parking\res parking 3rd version.rtf Recreational vehicles or trailers stored in a side yard need not meet any setback requirements. Recreational vehicles or trailers exceeding six (6) feet in height stored in a back yard must meet the side and rear yard setback requirements for accessory structures for the zone district in which the recreational vehicle or trailer is stored. G.E. In residential zone districts, detached trailers and recreational vehicles are prohibited Section 3, Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Zoning Co or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason • adjusted by COL111 Of CoMpetent Jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect application to other persons or circumstances, Section 4. Supersession 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 of adoption of this Ordinance, the provisions, requirements and standards herein shall supersede and prevail, Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final publication. t1l; this _ day of , 2004, 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 , 2004, at 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 - 2004 SIGNED by the Mayor on this - day of 2004. GRETCHEN CERVENY, MAYOR Pamela Anderson, City Clerk 1st Publication: 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript 4� Effective Date: CAProjectsVoning arnendments\Residential ParkingVes parking 3rd versionstf Interior Lot RVs; and exerT if screened 11 1 1 1111111 jjjj, M I • litinglazzo • l Street I Areas of non-exempt RVs; and exempt RVs if screened Area of exempt RVs if screened; non- exempt must meet Area of 1 RV; 6' setback setbacks frnm fiNok nr^r-.ckrfAi limn,