Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWCA-05-01 Vice Chair BELL closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. 5. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 6. OLD BUSINESS Super Maioritv Vote - Board Member ABBOTT reported that he and Board Member BELL appeared before City Council to speak to the proposed change reducing the super majority vote to a simple majority vote. The City Council voted 8-0 to table the proposal indefinitely. If the Neighborhood Revitalization Study suggests that the super majority vote should be changed, the City Council would revisit the matter. City Council also expressed appreciation for the work performed by the Board of Adjustment. There was discussion about appointing alternates to the Board to serve in the absence of regular members. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of minutes - March 24, 2005 It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member BLAIR to approve the minutes of March 24, 2005 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member BLAIR to adjourn the meeting at 9:13 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ~ Board of Adjustment 05-26-05 - 7- ITEM NO: of WnEgT P� U m REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION (ORA COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 9, 2006 TITLE: MOTION TO APPROVE CHANGES TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BYLAWS F] PUBLIC HE ARING (Date: ) ❑ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING ® BIDS/MOTIONS ❑ RESOLUTIONS Quasi - Judicial: ❑ Yes No i Community Development Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: City Manager Staff and the Board of Adjustment have proposed some changes to the Board of Adjustment bylaws. Section 2 -54 (e) of the Code of Laws states that any change to the rules and procedure of the Board of Adjustment shall be approved by City Council. Among the changes are clerical alterations, clarifications, and the establishment of a pool of at -large alternates which may serve in the absence of a board member. This concept was discussed at a study session which the Board attended on May 16, 2005. The Board reviewed the changes to the bylaws on March 23, 2006 and April 27, 2006 and unanimously approved these recommended changes. This relates to the City's strategic goals of preparing the City for growth and opportunities, and creating a strong partnership between City and community. COMMISSION /BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Board reviewed the changes to the bylaws on March 23, 2006 and April 27, 2006. The Board of Adjustment unanimously approved of these recommended changes. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: While most of the changes are clerical in nature, one of the proposed changes should benefit the Board and applicants alike. The establishment of a pool of at -large alternates will ensure each meeting is attended by 8 members The bylaws specify that to approve a variance, a super- majority of the attending board members must vote affirmatively. This super - majority rule impacts an applicant when one or more members of the Board are absent from the public hearing. For example, with full attendance (8 members), six members must vote affirmatively to approve a variance request. When seven members are in attendance, six of the seven attending members must vote affirmatively to approve a variance request. Simply, when one or more board members are not in attendance, variance approvals are increasingly difficult. The pool of at -large alternates will help alleviate this situation. As a result of the proposed changes to the Board of Adjustment bylaws, City Council would need to appoint four at -large alternates to serve in the absence of a board member. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: Do not approve the proposed changes to the bylaws FINANCIAL IMPACT: None RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: OPTION A: "I move to approve the changes to the Board of Adjustment bylaws as proposed." OPTION B: "I move to not approve the changes to the Board of Adjustment bylaws." Report Prepared by: Travis Crane 303.235.2849 Reviewed by: Alan White 303.235.2844 Attachments: 1. Proposed Board of Adjustment bylaws 2. City Council study session meeting minutes from May 16, 2005 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO PUBLIC WORKS SHOP 11220 W. 45 Ave. (45 & Pierson) May 16, 2005 Mayor pro tem Larry Schulz called the meeting to order at 7:17 p.m. City Council members present: Karen Berry, Wanda Sang, Dean Gokey, Karen Adams, Mike Stites, Larry Schulz, Lena Rotola. Mayor Gretchen Cerveny and Jerry DiTullio were absent. Also present: City Clerk Pam Anderson; Randy Young, City Manager; Patrick Goff, Deputy City Manager; Tim Paranto, Director of Public Works; Alan White, Director of Community Development; staff. The following members of the Board of Adjustment were also present for Agenda Item 2: Betty Jo Page, Robert Blair, Robert Howard, Thomas Abbott, Janet Bell, Daniel Bybee, and Paul Hovland. Item 1. Public Works Shop Tour (6:00 p.m.) Council members, staff and a few members of the Board of Adjustment participated in tour of several project sites and the buildings and facilities at the public works shop. Item 2. Joint Meeting with the Board of Adjustment Mayor pro tem introduced the discussion of Council Bill 05 -2005: An Ordinance Amending Section 2 -53 (d) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws Pertaining to Voting Rules for the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Gokey stated that other municipalities vary in their approach and voting procedures. He stated that he was not particularly opposed to continuing the way it is. Board of Adjustment member Abbott distributed a white paper outlining his reasons for opposing the changes on the voting procedures. They included: the Board should be conservative in the variance of a previously approved ordinance because an ordinance passed by elected officials should not be easily varied by appointed designees; public dissatisfaction with the super - majority vote is minimal; Board approvals run with the land, not the appellant. Mr. Abbott described the "hardship" test for approval and his belief that application of a simple majority will only change the outcome of a very few marginal cases. He suggested that an alternative approach might be to lessen the "hardship" test or broadening the ordinance language with respect to setbacks. Board member Blair suggested the use of alternates on the Board to insure a full attendance of members. He supported maintaining the current voting procedures. ATTACHMENT 2 STUDY SESSION MINUTES: May 16, 2005 Board member Hovland stated that if the laws are good in the first place, you don't need to water down the rules. He said that the super - majority rules are a good idea. Mrs. Sang agreed that the use of alternates was a good option. Ms. Berry stated that she did not feel that we need to make a change right now, and that broader criteria considering impacts, a more performance -based zoning, should be considered. Board member Bybee stated he did not see a compelling reason why the rules should be changed. Board member Howard discussed the issue of legal protest. Board member Bell stated that alternates were an option, and discussed the difficulty in applying one rule to such a variety of cases, due to the nature of the current zoning in the City. Mr. Stites stated that possibly modernizing the system should be considered and that a simple majority should be an option to look at. Recess called at 8:27 p.m. The meeting resumed at 8:37 p.m. Approval of the Minutes of May 2, 2005 Approval of the Agenda Mr: Gokey asked to add an Item 5: A brief discussion of the general study sessions. Approval of the agenda as amended. Item 3. Staff Reports 3a. Budget Supplemental Appropriation — Senior Community Center Staff Position. City Manager Randy Young introduced the item and Deputy City Manager Patrick Goff presented the staff report. He briefed the Council on the upcoming proposal to reinstate the .5 FTE Recreation Clerk at the Senior Center. Mr. Stites stated that we should look very carefully at the issue and consider the spending. Mrs. Adams said that the seniors were a part of the sales tax issue. Item 4. No Proof of Insurance Penalty Ordinance Mr. Goff presented that staff report regarding amending the No Proof of Insurance penalty provisions of the Colorado Municipal Traffic Code to conform to the changes in the Colorado Revised Statutes § 42 -4 -1409. The draft ordinance will be scheduled to come before Council at a regular City Council meeting. To: Wheat Ridge City Council From: Paul Drda Re: Board of Adjustments (BOA) Super majority Voting Issue (May, 2005) May 18, 2005 In our March, 2005 meeting the Board of Adjustments reviewed and discussed the proposed BOA super vs. simple majority voting rule. After a lengthy discussion the Board unanimously apxeed in favor of the current super - majority rule I assume that message has been relayed to you. Though I am the current chairman of the. Wheat Ridge board of adjustments, the remainder of this memo is from me personally and not from the BOA as a whole. As you probably know the Board of Adjustments is a quasi-judicial body that rules on variance requests covering a variety of issues such as the following.... • Building to lot line setback minimums • Vehicle and RV laws /restrictions • Fence and building height restrictions • Lot size and dwelling unit densities • Commercial parking space minimums • Commercial sign height and size issues According to DRCOG (Denver Regional Council of Governments) the majority of Colorado BOAs implement a supermajority voting rule for variance approvals. Wheat Ridge currently requires a 75% majority, and Jefferson County requires an 80% majority. I believe your decision should include a careful consideration of the following issues... 1) Giving more vs. less weight to the City's Code of Laws (Rules vs. Guidelines) 2) Promoting more diversity vs. more consistency with city zoning and code. 3) Whether variance approvals should be based on "proof of hardship" (A Why vs. Why Not test) A SUPER MAJORITY STANDARD.'.. 1) Will result in fewer variances making the Wheat Ridge governing documents (Comprehensive Plan, Zoning, Code of Laws, etc.) more law -like. 2) Promotes a community that is more consistent with future and current zoning/building codes. 3) Advances the concept of a "Why" test for variance approval. A compelling hardship must be found supporting the argument of why the applicant should be allowed to go against Wheat Ridge code of law. Q A SIMPLE MAJORITY STANDARD... 1) Will result in more variances and renders the governing documents more guideline- like.. 2).Promotes /allows for more personal individuality /diversity from current and future zoning/building code. 3) Advances a "why not" test for variance approval. The current hardship (why) test will be deemphasized leading to more of a "why not" approval standard. Thanks for reading this and thank you for your time, commitment and contribution to our great community. Paul Drda CITY COUNCIL MINU ES: May 9, 2005 Page -3- Mr. Dahl stated that the Articles of Incorporation for the 38 Avenue Business District provide for a board of 11 members. Three of those members are appointed by the City Council. The other members are elected board members that are not appointed by the Council, so you have a total of eleven. The Articles can be amended at any time by Resolution of the Board of Directors by 213 vote of the entire membership. Mr. DiTullio gave an accounting of the money that has been spent on fagade improvements, awnings, lighting, architectural design, etc. Eugene Kiefel spoke on behalf of what is now the Wheat Ridge Business District. He asked that Council ease up on the sign restrictions. He is very optimistic that by including the entire City they will receive many applications from business people that need help. Roger Loecher spoke in support of the efforts of the 38 Avenue Business District and the expansion of the district throughout the City and that the long term effects will pay for itself. Amendment to the substitute motion by Mr. Gokey that upon approval or failure of the substitute motion this subject come to a Study Session; seconded by Mrs. Rotola; carried 8 -0. Amendment to the substitute motion by Mr. Schulz that at the Study Session we look at a detailed financial report and business plan for the next year; seconded by Mrs. Adams; failed 5 -3, with Councilmembers Schulz, Adams, and Berry voting yes. Mr. DiTullio's substitute motion as amended carried 7 -1, with Ms. Berry voting no. Substitute Motion as amended carried 8 -0. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 2. COUNCIL BILL 05 -2005: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2 -53 (d) OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO VOTING RULES FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. (Case No. WCA- 05 -01) Mayor Cerveny opened the public hearing. Council Bill 05 -2005 was introduced on second reading by Mr. DiTullio. Mr. DiTullio read the executive summary and the statement of the issues. City Clerk Pam Anderson assigned Ordinance No. 1343, Alan White, Director of Community Development, presented the staff report and answered questions from Council. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: May 9, 2005 Page -4- Mayor closed the public hearing. Motion by Mr. Schulz to continue this item until such time as the Council and Board of Adjustment can hold a joint study session, to include a briefing to the Board regarding the strategic plan, and any related Neighborhood Revitalization Study team recommendations; seconded by Mrs. Adams. Substitute motion by Mr. DiTullio to approve Council Bill 05 -2005 (Ordinance No. 1343) on second reading and that it take effect immediately upon adoption; seconded by Mrs. Sang; tied 4-4; Mayor broke the tie by voting no. Motion failed 5-4 with Councilmembers Stites, Sang, DiTullio, and Gokey voting yes. Motion to amend by Mr. Gokey to bring the proceed to the next City Council meeting; s Stites voting no. item to the next study session and to then sconded by Mr. DiTullio; carried 7 -1 with Mr. Original motion as amended carried 5 -3 with Councilmembers Stites, DiTullio, and Sang voting no. Recess called at 8:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. Item 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF 1 -70, SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 58 AND NORTH OF WEST 32 AVENUE. (Case No. SUP- 05- 04lCabela's and Coors) Mayor Cerveny opened the public hearing. Item 3 was introduced by Mr. Stites. Alan White was sworn in and presented the staff report. He submitted the case file and packet materials, zoning ordinance and digital presentation for the record. Carolynne White, Land Use Counsel for Cabela's, was sworn in and testified on behalf of the joint applicants of Coors and Cabela's. She stated that it is the applicants' belief that granting the two amendments to the Special Use Permit would not violate any of the previous conditions of the permit or the nine criteria for the process. Neil Jaquet, Director of Water Resources and Real Estate for the Coors Brewing Company, Golden, Colorado, was sworn in and testified on behalf of the applicant. He related the gravel mining operations that used to take place on this property. �yNEgT ITEM NO: � REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 9, 2005 TITLE: COUNCIL BILL 05 -2005 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2 -53 (d) OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO VOTING RULES FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (CASE NO. WCA 05 -OJ4 ® PUBLIC HEARING ❑ ORDINANCES FOR 1 ST READING (Date: April 11, 2005 ❑ BIDS /MOTIONS ® ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING ❑ RESOLUTIONS Quasi- Judicial: ❑ Yes No Community Development Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: City Manager This ordinance changes the number of votes needed for the Board of Adjustment to approve an action. Currently a three- fourths majority vote is required for the Board to approve the requests it hears. The ordinance changes this requirement to a simple majority vote. COMMISSIONBOARD RECOMMENDATION: No other Board or Commission recommendation is required; however, at Council's direction, this change was discussed with the Board of Adjustment at their meeting on March 24, 2005. The Board unanimously favored not changing the voting requirement. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: While this voting requirement may have been needed in the past to make it more difficult to gain approval of what could be termed use variances, the amendments to the Code adopted in 2001 do not allow the City to grant a variance to anything that is prohibited, nor to anything other than development standards or items specifically set out for variances. In other words, someone in an R -1 zone district cannot request a variance to build a car wash on their residential lot. The Community Development Department has had variance cases in front of the Board of Adjustment where the vote is 5 -3 in favor of a motion to approve the request, but because of the voting requirement, the request is denied because it takes 6 affirmative votes to approve. If only 7 members are present, an application can be denied with a vote of 5 -2 because 6 votes are required to approve the action. There are other actions taken by the Planning Commission or City Council with far greater impact than a variance, such as a rezoning or special use, which require only a simple majority vote. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: Do not amend the voting requirements. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to adopting this ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Council Bill 05 -2005 on second reading and that it take effect 15 days after final publication." Or "I move to table indefinitely Council Bill 05 -2005 for the following reason(s) Report Prepared by: Alan White, Community Development Director Attachments: I. Council Bill No. 05 -2005 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. 05 Ordinance No. Series of 2005 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2 -53 (d) OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO VOTING RULES FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 2 -53 (d) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended as follows: (d) N em , kh standi ag any h Y this se etion the f ll y eti ftg —.1 s hall be i e f f nt f _ all All matters requiring decision by the board of adjustment to -graat any varianee, waiver, Y J b or use permit, n interp retation fl ea d p l ain (or for any matter requiring decision by the planning commission or the city council under Section 26- 115.C.2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the city)= All other- aetions shall be taken by majority vote of the members present. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3 Severability' Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section, subsection or clause of this ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining section, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final publication. ATTACHMENT 1 INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of 2005, 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 May 9. 2005 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 2005 SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 2005 GRETCHEN CERVENY, MAYOR ATTEST: Pamela Y. Anderson APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY 1 st Publication: 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: City of Wheat Ridge INHE,4 Community Development Department Memorandum tOR TO: Board of Adjustment FROM: Kathy Field SUBJECT: Meeting Cancellation DATE: April 14, 2005 Since there are no cases to be heard by Board of Adjustment, the meeting for April 28, 2005, has been canceled. Your next scheduled meeting is May 26,2005. Please be advised that an ordinance amending Section 2-53(d) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to voting rules for the Board of Adjustment is scheduled for second reading (public hearing) before City Council on May 9 The ordinance was approved on first reading on April 11"'. A copy of this ordinance is enclosed. INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. 05 Ordinance No. Series of 2005 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2-53 (d) OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO VOTING RULES FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 2-53 (d) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended as follows: ft 41. ve+41gfules (d) NooA 1"g aft S seet vx.� S I, 11 ',e4n-e1P1V-e+ -r— �11 All matters requiring decision by the board of adjustment to-gfant anyvaf k4empofary Of -- speetal pefm,-.+. (or for any matter requiring decision by the planning commission or the city council under Section 26-115.C.2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the city): All oth - ... ... ef ae+."-" 6ow, shall be taken by majority vote of the members present. Section 3. Severability; Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section, subsection or clause of this ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining section, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of -- to on this day of , 2005, 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 May 9, 2005, 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 2005 SIGNED by the Mayor on this _ day of 2005 GRETCHEN CERVENY, MAYOR Pamela Y. Anderson APPROVED AS TO FORM, BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY I st Publication: 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: iN 14EAT ITEM NO: A REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Quasi-Judicial: El 0 Yes No Community Development Director City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This ordinance changes the number of votes needed for the Board of Adjustment to approve an action. Currently a three-fourths majority vote is required for the Board to approve the requests it hears. The ordinance changes this requirement to a simple majority vote. 201 1XV Il I No other Board or Commission recommendation is required; however, at Council's direction, this change was discussed with the Board of Adjustment at their meeting on March 24, 2005. The Board unanimously favored not changing the voting requirement. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: While this voting requirement may have been needed in the past to make it more difficult to gain approval of what could be termed use variances, the amendments to the Code adopted in 2001 do not allow the City to grant a variance to anything that is prohibited, nor to anything other than development standards or items specifically set out for variances. In other words, someone in an R -1 zone district cannot request a variance to build a car wash on their residential lot. The Community Development Department has had variance cases in front of the Board of Adjustment where the vote is 5-3 in favor of a motion to approve the request, but because of the voting requirement, the request is denied because it takes 6 affirmative votes to approve. If only 7 members are present, an application can be denied with a vote of 5-2 because 6 votes are required to approve the action. There are other actions taken by the Planning Commission or City Council with far greater impact than a variance, such as a rezoning or special use, which require only a simple majority vote. Do not amend the voting requirements. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to adopting this ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Council Bill 05-2005 on first reading, order it published, public hearing set for Monday, May 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, and that it take effect 15 days after final publication." E "I move to table indefinitely Council Bill 05-2005 for the following reason(s) Report Prepared by: Alan White, Community Development Director Attachments: 1, Council Bill No. 05-2005 004 11 CAF I st reading BOA Voting CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: April 11, 2005 Page -3- PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 2. COUNCIL BILL 04 -2005: AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SALES AND SOLICITATIONS IN CERTAIN PLACES, AND PROHIBITING AGGRESSIVE SOLICITATION. Mayor Cerveny opened the public hearing. City Clerk Pam Anderson assigned Ordinance No. 1342. Mrs. Rotola introduced Council Bill 04 -2005 on second reading and read the executive summary. Police Chief Daniel Brennan presented the staff report. Motion by Mrs. Rotola to approve Council Bill 04 -2005 (Ordinance No. 1342) on second reading, and that it take effect upon adoption. I further move to amend new section 16- 113 (e) and also (i) to read "solicit" rather than "beg "; seconded by Mr. Schulz; carried 6 -1 with Ms. Berry voting no. ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING Item 3. COUNCIL BILL 05 -2005: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2 -53 (d) OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO VOTING RULES FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. (Case No. WCA- 05 -01) Council Bill 05 -2005 was introduced on first reading by Mr. DiTullio. Motion by Mr. DiTullio to approve Council Bill 05 -2005 on first reading, order it published, public hearing be set for Monday, May 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, and that it take effect 15 days after final publication; seconded by Mrs. Rotola; carried 7 -0. DECISIONS, RESOLUTIONS, AND MOTIONS Item 4. RESOLUTION 19 -2005: A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2005 GENERAL FUND BUDGET TO REFLECT THE APPROVAL OF A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,000 FOR THE PURCHASE OF A REPLACEMENT VAN FOR THE SENIOR PROGRAM. Resolution 19 -2005 was introduced by Mr. Gokey. ITEM NO: @ m CC REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 11, 2005 TITLE: COUNCIL BILL 05 -2005 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2 -53 (d) OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO VOTING RULES FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT (CASE NO. WCA 05 -01) ❑ PUBLIC HEARING ® ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING (Date: April 11, 2005 ❑ BIDS /MOTIONS ❑ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING ❑ RESOLUTIONS Quasi - Judicial: ❑ Yes No Community Development Director City Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This ordinance changes the number of votes needed for the Board of Adjustment to approve an action. Currently a three - fourths majority vote is required for the Board to approve the requests it hears. The ordinance changes this requirement to a simple majority vote. COMMISSIONBOARD RECOMMENDATION: No other Board or Commission recommendation is required; however, at Council's direction, this change was discussed with the Board of Adjustment at their meeting on March 24, 2005. The Board unanimously favored not changing the voting requirement. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: While this voting requirement may have been needed in the past to make it more difficult to gain approval of what could be termed use variances, the amendments to the Code adopted in 2001 do not allow the City to grant a variance to anything that is prohibited, nor to anything other than development standards or items specifically set out for variances. In other words, someone in an R -1 zone district cannot request a variance to build a car wash on their residential lot. The Community Development Department has had variance cases in front of the Board of Adjustment where the vote is 5 -3 in favor of a motion to approve the request, but because of the voting requirement, the request is denied because it takes 6 affirmative votes to approve. If only 7 members are present, an application can be denied with a vote of 5 -2 because 6 votes are required to approve the action. There are other actions taken by the Planning Commission or City Council with far greater impact than a variance, such as a rezoning or special use, which require only a simple majority vote. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: Do not amend the voting requirements. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to adopting this ordinance. "I move to approve Council Bill 05 -2005 on first reading, order it published, public hearing set for Monday, May 9, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, and that it take effect 15 days after final publication." Or "I move to table indefinitely Council Bill 05 -2005 for the following reason(s) Report Prepared by: Alan White, Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Council Bill No. 05 -2005 050411 CAF Ist reading BOA Voting INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. 05 Ordinance No. _ Series of 2005 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2 -53 (d) OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS PERTAINING TO VOTING RULES FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 2 -53 (d) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended as follows: (d) Notwithstanding any other provision in this see4ion, the following voting shall be in effect for all All matters requiring decision by the board of adjustment to -grant (or for any matter requiring decision by the planning commission or the city council under Section 26 -6 (D) of the Zoning Ordinance of the city). shall be taken by majority vote of the members present. Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severabilim Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section, subsection or clause of this ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining section, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of 2005, 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 May 9, 2005 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 2005 SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 2005 GRETCHEN CERVENY, MAYOR ATTEST: Pamela Y. Anderson APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY 1 st Publication: 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: It was moved by Board Member BELL and seconded by Board Member HOWARD to approve the minutes of January 27, 2005 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. B. Voting Change Staff is proposing that the voting rules for variances and other matters ruled on by the Board be modified from a super majority vote to a simply majority vote. City Council will be discussing this issue at a future study session. There was a consensus of the Board to recommend leaving the voting rules as they are. 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Board Member HOWARD and seconded by Board Member ABBOTT to adjourn the meeting at 12:00 a.m. The motion passed unanimously. 17-1 Z2~ -----raiilDrda, Chair ~~ Ann Lazzeri, Secretary - 15 - Board of Adjustment 03-24-05 City of Wheat Ridge V*IH Community Development Department Memorandum 0 TO: Board of Adjustment FROM.- eMeredith Reckert, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Variance Voting Rules DATE: March 18,2005 proplo , sing ulai 177777ung rILIMY77yarianues anu Tiner matters rulet oil vy Me Mara, • moarri" from a super majority vote to a simple majority. City Council will be discussing this issue at a future study session. No date has been set for the study session. City of Wheat Ridge H 4 11 Community Development Department Memorandum OR • TO: Randy Young, City Manager FROM: Alan White, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Variance Voting Rules DATE: January 24, 2005 Sections 2-53, 2-61 and 26-115 • the Municipal Code require a "super majority" vote of the Board of Adjustment to approve various items, chief among them variances. The "super majority" vote is defined as 6 votes when 7 • 8 members are present; 5 when • are present; and 4 when 5 are present. This voting requirement applies to Planning Commission or City Council if a variance is combined with another application, such as a subdivision. While this voting requirement may have been needed in the past to make it more difficult to gain approval • what I would term use variances, the amendments to the Code adopted in 2001 do not allow the City to grant a variance to anything that is prohibited, nor to anything other than development standards or items specifically set out for variances. Staff Recommendation: I would propose a code amendment which would revise the voting requirement to require a simple majority to approve the action. I would like to receive direction from Council at their next study session. These voting rules are also embodied in the bylaws of the Board. Their bylaws would have to be amended. Case No.: App: Last Name: App: First Name: Owner: Last Name: Owner: First Name: App Address: City, State Zip: App:Phone: Owner Address: City/State/zip: Owner Phone: Project Address: Street Name: City /state, Zip: Case Disposition: Project Planner: File Location: Notes: Follow-Up: tWhite JActive, Quarter Section Map No.: Related Cases: Case History: mend BOA bylaws [oncerning voting ... Review Body: APN: 2nd Review Body: 2nd Review Date: Decision-making Body: Approval/Denial Date: Reso/Ordinance No.: BOA Conditions of Approval: District: Date Received: F15-m0-05 Pre -App Date: I City of Wheat Ridge of WHEgTP Community Development Department Memorandum c �G pRp0� TO: Randy Young, City Manager FROM: Alan White, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Variance Voting Rules DATE: January 24, 2005 Sections 2 -53, 2 -61 and 26 -115 of the Municipal Code require a "super majority" vote of the Board of Adjustment to approve various items, chief among them variances. The "super majority" vote is defined as 6 votes when 7 or 8 members are present; 5 when 6 are present; and 4 when 5 are present. This voting requirement applies to Planning Commission or City Council if a variance is combined with another application, such as a subdivision. While this voting requirement may have been needed in the past to make it more difficult to gain approval of what I would term use variances, the amendments to the Code adopted in 2001 do not allow the City to grant a variance to anything that is prohibited, nor to anything other than development standards or items specifically set out for variances. We have had variance cases in front of the Board of Adjustment where the vote is 5 -3 in favor of a motion to approve the request, but because of the voting requirement, the request is denied because it takes 6 affirmative votes to approve. If only 7 members are present, an application can be denied with a vote of 5 -2! To make it even more confusing, if a motion to deny the request receives a 5 -3 vote, the motion to deny fails and under a strict application of the voting rules the request is approved with only 3 favorable votes. (If this occurs we encourage the Board to then make a motion to approve which then fails.) It is no wonder that applicants leave the hearings bewildered. Since 2000, we have had seven cases that were denied because a super majority vote was not obtained. In one case we were sued, but the Court ruled in our favor. While this is not a large number, consider that the total is seven cases out of 62 total cases during the five years. There are other actions taken by the Planning Commission or City Council with far greater impact than a variance, such as a rezoning, which requires only a simple majority vote. Staff Recommendation: I would propose a code amendment which would revise the voting requirement to require a simple majority to approve the action. I would like to receive direction from Council at their next study session. These voting rules are also embodied in the bylaws of the Board. Their bylaws would have to be amended. City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Department Memorandum TO: Randy Young, City Manager FROM: Alan White, Community Development Director X� SUBJECT: Variance Voting Rules DATE: November 17, 2004 Sections 2 -53, 2 -61 and 26 -115 of the Municipal Code require a "super majority" vote of the Board of Adjustment to approve various items, chief among them variances. The "super majority" vote is defined as 6 votes when 7 or 8 members are present; 6 when 5 are present; and 4 when 5 are present. This voting requirement applies to Planning Commission or City Council if a variance is combined with another application, such as a subdivision. While this voting requirement may have been needed in the past to make it more difficult to gain approval of what I would term use variances, the amendments to the Code adopted in 2001 do not allow the City to grant a variance to anything that is prohibited, nor to anything other than development standards or items specifically set out for variances. We have had variance cases in front of the Board of Adjustment where the vote is 5 -3 in favor of a motion to approve the request, but because of the voting requirement, the request is denied because it takes 6 affirmative votes to approve. If only 7 members are present, an application can be denied with a vote of 5 -2! To make it even more confusing, if a motion to deny the request receives a 5 -3 vote, the motion to deny fails and under a strict application of the voting rules the request is approved with only 3 favorable votes. (If this occurs we encourage the Board to then make a motion to approve which then fails.) It is no wonder that applicants leave the hearings bewildered. Since 2000, we have had seven cases that were denied because a super majority vote was not obtained. In one case we were sued, but the Court ruled in our favor. While this is not a large number, consider that the total is seven cases out of 62 total cases during the five years. There are other actions taken by the Planning Commission or City Council with far greater impact than a variance, such as a rezoning, which requires only a simple majority vote. I would like to propose a code amendment which would revise the voting requirement to require a simple majority to approve the action. I would request a few minutes at the next study session unless there is a consensus by Council at their next meeting to direct staff to prepare this amendment. These voting rules are also embodied in the bylaws of the Board. Their bylaws would have to be amended also.