Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA-96-10~~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on September 5, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested citizens are invited to-speak at the etbtions Hearing or submit written comments. The following p shall be heard: 1. Case No ZOA-96-8: Amendment to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Code, Chapter 26. Zoning Code regarding FENCES, WALLS and OBSTRUCTIONS TO VIEW. 2. 'Case No. ZOA-96-10: Amendment to the WheaeTRaining do of Laws, Zoning Code, Section 26-6(D)(2)(c) p VARIANCE CRITERIA. 3. Case No. WZ-96-9: An application by Daniel R. Dearing for approval of an amendment to a PID final development plan at 10501 West I-70 Frontage Road North. Said property is legally described as follows: A part of the SW1/4, SE1/4 of Section 16, Township 3 South, Range 69 West of the 6th P.M. described as: Beginning at a point which is 789.00 feet East of the Southwest corner of the SE1/4 of Section 16, Township 3 South, Range 69 West and 303.5 feet north on a line parallel with the east line o£ the SW1/4, SE1/4 of Sec. 16. T3S, R69W: Thence, continuing northerly along a line parallel to the East line of the SW1/4, SE1/4 a distance of 181.50 feet; Thence, East parallel to the South line of the SW1/4 SE1/4, a distance of 299.70 feet; Thence, South parallel to the East line of the SW1/4 SE1/4, a distance of 75.75 feet; Thence, West parallel to the South line of the SW1/4, SE1/4, a distance of 30.00 feet; Thence, South parallel to the East line of the SW1/4, SE1/4 a distance of 75.75 feet; Thence, East a distance of 271.30 feet to a point on the East line of the SW1/4, SE1/4; Thence, South 30.00 feet along the east line of the SW1/4, SE1/4 a distance of 541.00 feet to the Point of Beginning except the orsless,fCOUntyrofoJeffersonPoStatecoftColorado,363 acres, more 4. Case No. MS-96-8: An application by Keith M. Daly for Wheat Ridge Congregation, UCC for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision on R-1 land located at 6310 West 29th Avenue andd 2777 Kendall Street. Said property is legally described as follows: 1/4aofeSection 251oTownship 3hSouththRange169 WEsthofstheh6tht Principal Meridian, City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 25; Thence N 89°39'27" E along the South line of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 25, 1652.43 feet; Thence N 0°19'29" W, 659.59 feet to the southeast corner of the East 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of said Southwest 1/4 of Section 25 being the Ture Point of Beginning; Thence S 89°40'02" W 165.25 feet to the Southwest corner of Block 5, amended plat of Henderson's Subdivision; Thence N 0°19'32" W along the East line of said Block 6, 500.00 feet to the Southeast corner of a parcel of land described in Book 983 at Page 135 of the Jefferson County Records; Thence S 89°40'02" W along the Ssouth line of said parcel, 21.65 feet to the Southeast corner of a parcel of land described in Book at Page of the Jefferson County Records; Thence N 0°19'32" W along the East line of said parcel 134.62 feet to the South line of West 29th Avenue; Thence N 89°40'37" E along said South line of West 29th Avenue, 186.97 feet to the East line of the Eat 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of said Southwest 1/4 of Section 25; Thence S 0°19'29" E 634.59 feet to the True Point of Beginning, containing 2.4747 acres. Sandra Wiggins, SJecretary ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk To be Published: August 16, 1996 Wheat Ridge Transcript b:\b9596.phn Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Sean McCartney, Planner Date: September 5, 1996 Subject: Case No. ZOA-96-10 /Variance Criteria Staff is recommending the approval of an additional 10th criteria, to the existing nine criteria for a variance or waiver, that will allow a variance to be reviewed as a possible benefit or contribution to the neighborhood. In the past, variances have been presented to the Board, Planning Commission and City Council, which have not posed any threat to the public health, safety and welfare, but have been denied because there was no evidence of a unique circumstance or a particular hardship as distinguished from a mere inconvenience should the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. In some cases, there may actually be a benefit to the neighborhood or community should the variance be approved (e.g. saving a large tree, architectural enhancement, economic development, etc.). The Board of Adjustment has reviewed this proposal, and has recommended approval. City Council is aware of this proposal as the Board of Adjustment presented it to them when they recently met at study session. Because of this, the following language is recommended: "10. If it is found in criteria 8 and 9 above, that granting of the variation would not be injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood, and it is found that public health and safety, public facilities and surrounding property values would not be diminished or impaired, then, would granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant?" Suggested motion: "I move that Case No. ZOA-96-10, an amendment to Section 26-6 (D)(2)(c), regarding Variance and Waivers criteria, be forwarded to City Council with Planning Commission's recommendation far approval". MINIITES OF MEETING September 5, 1996 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson LANGDON at 7:30 p.m., on September 5, 1996 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Eckhardt - Harry Williams Carolyn Griffith Jay Rasplicka Carl A_ Cerveny George Langdon Janice Thompson Warren Johnson - EXCUSED ABSENCE STAFF PRESENT EXCUSED ABSENCE Glen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development Meredith Reckert, Planner Sandra Wiggins, Secretary PIIBLIC HEARING The following is the official copy of Planning Commission minutes for the Public Hearing of September 5, 1996_ A copy of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City-Clerk and in the Department of Planning and Development of the City of Wheat Ridge. b~NF~ Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA Page 2 Commissioner WILLI4IMS moved to approve the order of the agenda for the meeting of September 5, 1996 as printed. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0 ._ 5. APPROVAL OF MINIITES Commissioner RASPLICKA moved to approve meeting of August 15, 1996 as printed. seconded the motion. Motion carried 4- GRIFFITH and THOMPSON abstaining. 6. PIIBLIC FORIIM (This is the time for subject not appearing under Item 7 section of the agenda.) the minutes for the Commissioner CERVENY ~, with Commissioners anyone to speak on any of the Public Hearing- No one had signed the roster nor came forward to speak at that time. - - 7. PDBLIC HEARING 1. Case No. WZ-96-9: An application by Daniel R. Dearing for approval of an amendment to a PID final development plan at 10501 West I-70 Frontage Road North. Meredith Reckert presented the staff report, which included slides. Entered into-the record and accepted by the Chairperson were the Zoning Ordinance, case file and packet materials. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the proposed amendment would decrease parking on the site- Ms. Reckert answered the owner. was looking a remedial measures to gain additional parking on the east and north. sides of the building. Daniel R. Dearing, 10501 West 48th Avenue, was sworn in. Mr. Dearing stated the proposed addition would be utilized to house new parts storage, and would be a metal, prefabricated building. He elaborated. Commissioner THOMPSON asked the applicant if-the proposed addition would eliminate the used parts currently being-stored on site? Mr. Dearing stated the addition would be for new body parts. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 5, 1996 ` Commissioner WILLIAMS asked if the addition would match the existing building? Mr. Dearina stated it would.. Commissioner CERVENY moved that Case No. WZ-96-9, an application by Daniel R. Dearing for approval of an amendment to a PID final development plan at 10501 West .I-7d Frontage-Road North be approved and forwarded to City Council .for the following reasons: 1. The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge and all posting and notification requirements have been met. 2. It meets the requirements of a Planned Industrial Development. With the following conditions: 1. All requirements for a final development plan have been met; and 2. There will be no reduction of landscaping on the property. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 2. Case No. MS-96-8: An application by Keith M. Daly for Wheat Ridge Congregation, IICC for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision on R-1 land located at 6310 West 29th Avenue and 2777 Rendall Street. Meredith Reckert presented the staff report. Ehtered-into the recorded and accepted by the Chairperson were the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, case file and packet materials. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Ms. Reckert if Wheat Ridge property owners dedicated land to Kendall Street at the time Terra Village was developed? Ms. Reckert answered that through research staff had discovered that the street was equally dedicated from two parcels on either side of Kendall, which would indicate that land was dedicated from the western (Wheat Ridge) parcel. Commissioner THOMPSON stated she was having difficulty understanding why the church should be required to dedicate the five feet. She stated she also had concerns about exiting the driveway. Ms. Reckert stated that the standard section for a local street in Wheat Ridge is 25 feet from centerline. Presently, she added there was only 20 feet dedicated from centerline, which is why Planning Commission Minutes. September 5, 1996 Page the City is requesting the additional five feet.. Staff feels the 20 feet requested by .the City of Edgewater is unreasonable_ Commissioner RASPLICKA-noted that Kendall_Street, if aligned _- properly, would be further east. Ms. Reckert stated that it appears that the right-of-way is offset. She elaborated, utilizing the aerial map projected overhead. Commissioner THOMPSON noted that it appeared,- with rationale, all the benefits would be Edgewater's. She was concerned about traffic from Terra Village pouring out onto 29th Avenue. Commissioner THOMPSON stated she could not understand why the City of Wheat Ridge was requesting the five-foot dedication from the Church_ Chairperson LANGDON asked Ms. Reckert to explain why the City was asking for the dedication from the Church at this time. Ms. Reckert answered because .the Church is in the process of subdividing and it "opens the door" for staff to .examine standards such as street widths. __ Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the City of Edgewater, when the six acres is developed, could request from the City of Wheat. Ridge right-of-way for street improvements in Edgewater? Ms. Reckert answered that if the development should occur, then the City of wheat Ridge would likely participate utilizing any right-of-way available in our jurisdiction. She elaborated. She agreed that Edgewater would be the one to gain. Mr. Gidley stated that Wheat Ridge does cooperate with municipalities bordering the City and expects them to do the same. He elaborated, explaining the benefits of a full-width dedication. Commissioner CERVENY asked if the 25-foot setback met R-1 zoning requirements. Ms. Reckert stated that because of the existing adjacent right-- of-way, it was substandard. Typically, even though the street has not yet been developed, the City would require a 30-foot setback. Commissioner CERVENY-noted that requiring the five-foot - dedication would not. make their nonconforming. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 Ms. Reckert answered that there would be an because it was a City action. Therefore, it nonconforming setback. Page 5 implied variance would be a legal, Commissioner CERVENY asked if the church burned down, could it be rebuilt? ~ ~U~., ~, Q /,1 Ms. Reckert answered yes, that was true. Mr. Gidley stated that by virtue of a public taking, a nonconforming situation is created, then that line is established as a conforming line and they could build back to that line. Commissioner CERVENY that the property was currently nonconforming because the setback is 25 not 30 feet, as required. Discussion. followed. Mr. Gidley agreed with Commissioner CERVENY that he property, if it burned down, would have to comply with the 30-foot setback. Keith Dalv, 2001 Otis Street, Edgewater 80214, was sworn in. Ron Hoisinaton, 3281 Alkire Court, Golden 80401, was sworn in. Mr. Hoisington stated he was a planning consultant as well as a member of the wheat Ridge Church of Christ. He gave a brief history of the church and stated he felt the request by Edgewater was unfair and unnecessary. Mr. Hoisington stated the church would have no problem dedicating the five feet, if the City felt it was important to cooperate with the City of Edgewater. The 20-foot dedication was out of the question, he stated, since it would make the church sideyard nonconforming. Mr. Hoisington stated the 15-foot corner radius would be no problem however, it was _a matter of timing. He was not certain that Edgewater had plans to extend Kendall Street toward 29th Avenue. Should Edgewater decide to build Kendall Street, the church would go on record and submit an irrevocable letter stating that "if the street is to be built, the Wheat Ridge United Church of Christ would dedicate five feet of its' eastern property line for the extension and at that time would dedicate the 15-foot corner radius. He felt the. dedication should be done at the time the street is built. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if the City requires the 5-foot dedication and 15-foot corner radius, and the street is not extended, who would maintain the land? Mr. Hoisinaton stated that if the church dedicates the land for public purposes it becomes City-owned land. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 Page 6 Commissioner THOMPSON stated her concern regarding the maintenance of the property, should it be dedicated to the City. What if Kendall Street is never extended? The street, she added could. also be moved in order to align with Kendall Street to the north and then there will be the process to return the unnecessary 5-foot strip to the Church. Mr. Gidley mentioned another option and that is to notify Edgewater that the street is off-set and that the dedication should be made from the Edgewater (east) side, not the Wheat Ridge (west) side. He elaborated.- Commissioner WILLI?1M5 asked if the land dedication was reversible? Mr. Gidley stated anything is reversible. Commissioner WILLIAMS noted that should the church change hands the land dedication would remain and create a possible "glitch". Ms. Reckert pointed on the map projected overhead why she thought Edgewater was pushing for a 20-foot dedication. Commissioner THOMP$ON asked if the City would have input regarding aligning Kendall Street extended with Kendall Street-on the north. Mr. Gidley stated it is Staff's responsibility to report to Commission other agencies' responses. He added the City does make recommendations regarding street alignment when requested to do so by other municipalities. He elaborated. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mr. Gidley what would be the appropriate distance to develop an off-set street? Mr. Gidley answered 150 feet or about one--half a city block, is the appropriate distance. Commissioner GRIFFITH asked if the 20 feet had been requested by the City of Edgewater, or by the Public Works Department? Mr. Gidley answered it was the City of Edgewater Public Works Department making the request. He explained further. Chairperson LANGDON asked if Wheat Ridge would be sending a message to Edgewater in favor of straightening the street, if the five feet was not dedicated? Mr. Gidley stated that could be made a part of Commission's findings in the motion. He explained how the motion could reflect that decision. Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes , September 5, 1996 Chairperson LANGDON stated it made sense for safety reasons. Mr Hoisinaton reiterated that the church was willing and wanted to cooperate once-the .street is developed. Mr. Gidley noted that the church would not be the owner of Lot 2 and noted that the time for dedication is when parcels are platted. He explained. .- Discussion followed. Bob Malo_uf, 2596 Fenton Street, was sworn in. He stated he would have no objection to a wedge-shaped dedication and explained why. Commissioner CERVENY stated he had no recollection seeing an "irrevocable letter of intent" as part of a title commitment. He added that he understood that if the land was dedicated, the home owner maintained it. He elaborated. Commissioner CERVENY asked about the dotted line across the parcel. Ms. Reckert answered that was the property line of Terra Village line. Commissioner CERVENY was uncertain if it was practical to request the five-foot dedication. He didn't understand why "tapering" the dedicated land amount would be beneficial. Ms. Reckert drew a line on the map projected overhead showing where the "tapered" land dedication would begin and end. Commissioner CERVENY was uncertain what good tapering the land dedication would do. He added-that as drawn, it did not accomplish anything. He elaborated. Ms. Reckert asked if the church would be agreeable to a tapered land dedication? Mr Hoisinaton stated that the church was agreeable to doing whatever is appropriate at the right time. He added that until the street is developed, the time was not right for land dedication. Mr. Hoisington stated he agreed with the City's intent and elaborated. Commissioner RASPLZCKA stated it seemed to him that Edgewater had made the original error by not getting adequate land.- Now they want the City of Wheat Ridge to help them correct their error. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if the land is not dedicated now and the street is developed sometime in the future, would the City of Wheat Ridge have to purchase the necessary land? And, he added the City could be responsible to maintain it. Planning Cgmmission Minutes Page 8 September 5, 1996 Commissior_er THOMPSON stated she felt it would be poor planning to require the church to dedicate land so that a dangerous off--- set street could b_e constructed. Good planning, she added, would be to obtain land dedication from the south parcel, so that the street could be ,aligned with Kendall Street at-the north., She elaborated. ' Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr. Hoisington to mark on the map projected overhead, the church driveway on-the south side. Mr Hoisinaton pointed out the parking lot. Commissioner CERVENY asked where was the driveway exiting the property? Mr Hoisington stated the one-way going out was on the eastern side of the church-going Korth. , Mr. Hoisinaton asked Mr. Gidley if there was an easement on the eastern property line? Mr. Gidley answered yes, it was a 10-foot easement. Mr Hoisinaton suggested that the language of the easement to future right-of-way dedication for street purposes. Mr. Gidley stated normally the City uses five feet of right-of- way for sidewalk and signage. Therefore, it could be a sidewalk and signage easement. The curb, gutter and street (with the exception of the sidewalk) could be outside that area, he added. He noted that if it is an easement, the property owner continues to pay taxes on it. If dedicated, it is taken off the tax roles and placed in the street system. He elaborated. Commissioner CERVENY asked what length dedicated would it take to taper from zero to five feet? Could it be done in 50 feet? Mr. Gidley said a five-foot taper could be accomplished in a fairly short distance. He would like it in less than l00 feet. Discussion was heard regarding how the tapered land dedication could/should occur. Commissioner THOMPSON moved that Case No. MS-96-8, an application by Keith M. Daly for wheat Ridge Congregation, UCC for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision on R-1 land located at 6310 West 29th Avenue and 2777 Kendall Street, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The subdivision is required to allow sale of the southern portion; and Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 September 5, 1996 2. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following condition: 1. A five-foot light-of-way be dedicated for Kendall Street,,. beginning at the common boundary between Lot 1 and 2, starting at zero at that point and tapering to five feet to the southern boundary of Lot 2. Commissioner CERVENY seconded the motion. __ Commissioner THOMPSON asked_.if City staff would notify Edgewater regarding Commission's recommendation. Ms. Reckert answered City staff would be in contact with Edgewater. __ Commissioner CERVENY made a suggestion for a friendly amendment, which would add to Commissioner THOMPSON's motion the reasons for Commission's recommendation to taper the land dedication from zero to five feet. One reason being the Church was in existence prior to .the dedication of Kendall Street and the current problem exists because the street._was incorrectly aligned by Edgewater. The Church, which is not located within the city limits of Edgewater, should not be required to correct that mistake. Chairperson LANGDON asked if that addition could be a friendly amendment, or simply add it to the motion? Mr. Gidley stated it was an amendment to the motion. Both the motion-maker and the individual who seconded would have to accept the amendment. Commissioner THOMPSON stated she agreed with the amendment, however, felt Commission should send a message to both city councils, Edgewater and Wheat Ridge, that it is an undue hardship on the Church and good planning requires, if possible, street alignments to occur. In this case, there is vacant land to the east which could be utilized. It is Commission's desire to see Kendall Street aligned, both north and south. Motion carried 6-0. 3. Case No. WA-96-26: An application by John Medved for approval of a master sign plan with variances for property located at 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road North. (Continued from 07-18-96) Page 10 Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 Staff recommended and the applicant agreed, that this case be' continued to our first regular meeting in October, October 3, 1996. Commissioner CERVENY moved to continue Case No. WA-96-26 to October 3, 1996. Commissioner THOMPSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-D. 4. Case No. ZOA-96-9: An amendment to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Code, Section 26-30 (P) pertaining to Group Homes for Handicapped, Developmentally Disabled, Elderly Persons and Children. (Continued from 08-15-96). Mr. Gidley gave a brief overview of this case. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if there was a limitation of the numbeY of group homes in a particular area? Mr. Gidley stated that state law requires 750 feet of separation, which is about a block and a quarter apart- Additionally, there is a separation requirement between homes. He explained further. Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr. Gidley how the number "11" developmentally disabled was chosen. Mr. Gidley stated it could be any number. It was chosen because it was a number customarily associated with a "family" situation. Discussion followed. Commissioner CERVENY moved to continue Case No. ZOA-96-9 to our next regular meeting, September 18, 1996estions~w the City Attorney time to answer the following qu 1. Is it possible to generically limit erson?tuber of residents, based upon an area requirement per p 2. Regarding other provisions that limit other kinds of group homes to one per district, is it legal? 3. If a group home resident becomes rowdy, noisy, etc-, is that person treated by the police as a nuisance like any other resident? Commissioner THOMPSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 5. Case No. ZOA-96-10: Amendment to the Wheat Ridge Code Zoning Code, Section 26-6(D)(2)(c) pertaining of Laws, to VARIANCE CRITERIA. This case had been continued from August 15, 1996. Planning Commission Minutes _ Page 11 September 5, 1996 _ Mr. Gidley gave an overview of the_proposed amendment. He read a proposed addition to_the amendment, which would be added at the end of paragraph 10: ", or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities?" Mr. Gidley explained the term "reasonable accommodation" for Chairperson LP.NGDON_ Discussion followed. Commissioner CERVENY moved to approve as amended, Case No. ZOA- 96-10, a proposed amendment. to the Zoning Code, Section 26- 6(D(2)(c) and forward to City Council for their cons~.deration. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. ., 6. Case No. ZOA-96-8: Amendment to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Code, Chapter 26. Zoning Code regarding FENCES, WALLS and OBSTRIICTIONS TO VIEW. Mr. Gidley asked Commission if they had the memo from Bob Goebel, Public Works Director.- He summarized Mr. Goebel's position for Commission. Mr. Gidley gave an overview of the proposed amendment explaining the current ordinance and the proposed changes.. Discussion followed. Commissioner WILLIAMS moved to retain a 36-inch fence height limitation in the sight distance triangle, a 48-inch fence height limitation in the front yard, and a six-foot fence height limitation in the back and side yards. Commissioner CERVENY suggested that each of the items be considered separately- Issue A (Sight Triangle) Commissioner CERVENY retain 36-inch fence triangle. Motion carried 6-0.- Issue B (Front Yard1 seconded Commissioner- WILLIAMS' motion to height limitation in the sight distance Commissioner WILLIP.MS moved to retain a 48-inch fence height limitation in the front yard. outside the sight distance triangle- Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 Commissioner CERVENY seconded the motion. Page 12 Commissioner THOMPSON asked if that height would include pillars Mr. Gidley answered that pillars were allowed to be one foot higher than the fence height, provided the pillars measure no more than one foot by one foot. Commissioner CERVENY offered a friendly amendment to the motion, stating the reason for the limitation:- 1. A higher than 48-inch fence would be detrimental to the aesthetic value of the City of Wheat Ridge, which would over-shadow any benefit to any individual. Commissioner wILLIAMS agreed to the friendly amendment. Motion carried 6-0. Issue C (Grade Determination) Commissioner WILLIAMS moved that the "natural grade" be utilized when determining the overall height of fences and walls. Natural grade will be determined by City staff. Commissioner GRIFFITH seconded the motion., Motion carried 6-0. 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 9. OLD BUSINESS A. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mr. Gidley for an update on the Kipling Master Plan idea discussed previously by Commission. Mr. Gidley answered that Staff was working on two additional ideas. Further, he noted that there was some "movement" in the area with several parcels of land. Discussion followed. B. Chairperson LANGDON asked for an.update on the bus stop project. Mr. Gidley stated the City was waiting for Outdoor Productions to fill out applications for each of the individual locations. They have provided the_City with a site location map. As required, all locations have been posted for 25 days. Approval-from Public Works, RTD and State Highway Department will be necessary, once the applications are completed. 10. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 September 5, 1996 ' A. Commissioner CERVENY informed Commission that 'he would be unable to attend the October 3, 1996 meeting. 11.- DISCUSSION AND DECISION ITEMS A. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked for items to take to the- PWAC meeting. 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, by consensus, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Sandra Wiggins, Secretary PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST CASE NO: ZOA-96-10 DATE: September 5, 1996 REQUEST: Amendment to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Code, Section 26- 6(D)(2)(c) pertaining to VARIANCE CRITERIA. CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION CASE N0: ZOA-96-10 LOCATION: City-wide APPLICANT(S) NAME: City of Wheat Ridge OWNER(S) NAME: Same. RE4UEST: Amendment to Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Code, Section 26 -6(D)(2)(c) pertaining to VARIANCE CRITERIA. APPROXIbL~TE AREA: n/a WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division has submitted a list of factors to be_considered with the above request, and said list of factors_is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, thew was testimony received at a public hearing by the ' Planning Commission and such testimony provided additional facts. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the facts presented and conclusions reached, it was-moved by Commissioner CERVENY, seconded by Commissioner R~SPLICKA, that Case No. ZOA-96-i0, a proposed amendment to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Code, Section 26-6(D)(2)(c) pertaining to VARIANCE CRITERIA be Approved as amended and referred to City Council for their consideration. The following verbiage should be added to 10., at the end of the paragraph: ", or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation. o£ a person with disabilities?" VOTE: YES: Williams, Griffith, Rasplicka, Cerveny, Langdon and Thompson N0: Same. I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by a 6 - 0 vote of the members present at their regular meeting_held,in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the 5th day of September, 1996. George J. Langdon, Cfiairper§dh Sandra Wiggins; Secretary WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEAT P.IDGE PLANNING COMMISSION b:\zoa9610.res Memorandum To: City Council From: Sean McCartney, Planner Re: Council Bill 49 /Variance Criteria Date: November 15, 1996 Staff is recommending the approval of an additional 10th criteria, to the existing nine criteria for a variance or waiver, that will allow a variance to be reviewed as a possible benefit or contribution to the neighborhood. In the past, variances have been presented to the Boardof Adjustment, Planning Commission and City Council, which have not posed any threat to public health, safety and welfare, but have been denied because there was no evidence of a unique circumstance or a particular hardship as distinguished from a mere inconvenience should the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. In some cases, there may actually be a benefit to the neighborhood or community should the variance be approved (e.g. saving a large tree, architectural enhancement, economic development, etc.) The Board of Adjustment has reviewed this proposal, and has recommended approval. The case was presented to Planning Commission on September 18. Staff proposed additional language to the amendment, which would be added to the end of paragraph 10: ", or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities?" The proposed amendment was approved as presented, and Planning Commission recommended that Case No. ZOA-96-10 be forwarded to City Council for consideration. plannlnC COm1il1 SS.1On. i~"11 RLlteS September 5, 1996 Paoe 1~ Staff recommended and. the applicant agreed,'thac this case be continued-to our first regular meeting in October,, October 3, 1996. Commissioner CERVEN-Y moved to continue Case-No. W3-96-26 to October. 3, 1996. •Commissioher THOMPSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 4. Case No. ZOA-96-9. An amendment to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Code, Section 26-30{P) pertaining to Group Homes for Handicapped, Developmentally Disabled, Elderly Persons and Children. (Continued from 08-15-96}. Mr. Gidley gave a bri-ef overview of this case. Commissioner R.~ISPLICiCA asked if there was a limitation of the number of group homes.in a oarticula~ area?. _ Mr. Gidley-stated that star=_ law requires 750 feet of separation, which is about a block and a quarter apart. Additionally,-there is a separation requirement between homes. He explained further. Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr. Gidley how the number "11" developmentally disabled-was chosen.. ?r. Gidley stated is could De any number. It_«as chos=_n because it •«as a nurlber cuscomari:v associated with a =amity" situateion. Discussion followed.. Commissioner CERVENY moved to continue Case No. ZOA-96-9 to our next regular meeting, September 18, 1996 co allow the Cicy Attorney time to answer the following questions: 1.. Is it possible to generically limit the number of residents,.. based upon an area requirement per person? 2. Regarding other provisions that limit other kinds of group homes to one:-per district, is it-legal? 3. If a group home resident becomes rowdy, noisy, etc., is .that person treated by the police as a nuisance like any other resident? Commissioner THOMPSON seconded the motion..' Motion carried 6--0. S. Case No_-ZOA-9-6=10: Amendment to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Code, Section 26-6R(D)(2)(c} pertaining to VARIANCE CRITERSA. This case had been continued from August 15, 1996_ _ ,. Planning Commission Minut=_s September-5, 1996 , Doge ~_ Ntr. Gidley gzv2 an overview of the prooos=_d_amendment. He read a - prOpOSed addition to the amendm=_nt, which would be added at.the_ end of paragraph 10: ", or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities?" Mr. Gidley explained the term "reasonable accommodation" for Chairperson LANGDON. Discussion followed. Commissioner CERVENY-moved to approve as am=_nded, Case No_ Z0=_- 90'-10, a proposed amendment to the Zoning Cod=_, Section 26- 6(D(2)fc) and forward t0 C1tV COllnCil SOr cheer CORSlderatSOn. Commissioner R_~1SPLZC?CA seconded the motion.. Motion carried 6-0. o. Case No. ZOA-96-8:. Amendment to_the Wheat Ridge Code _ of Laws, Zoning Code, Chapter 26. Zoning-Code regarding-- FENCES, WALLS and OBSTRIICTIONS TO VIEW. Mr. Gidley asked Commission if they had-the memo from Sob-Goebel Public Works Director.. He summarized Mr. Go=_be1's position for Commission.' Mr. Gidley gave an overview o~ the proposed amendment e:cplaining the current .ordinanc=_ and ;.he orooosed chances. - Discussion. followed. Commissioner WILLIAMS mov=_d to retain a 36-inch fence height limitation in the sight distance triangle, a 48-inch fence- height limitation ih the front yard, and a six-foot fence height limitation in the back and side yards. Commissioner CERVENY suggested that each of the items be considered seoarately: Issue A fSioht Triangle) _ Commissioner.-CERVENY seconded Commissioner wiLLL1~°tS' motion to retain 36-inch fence heicht limitation in the sigh t. distance triangle. , Motion carried 6-0. Issue B (Front Yardl Commissioner wILLIANIS moved to r=rain a ;8-inch fence height limitation in the front-yard outside the sight distan~e_triancle. ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT $ 26-6 part of another administrative process, such 7. Has the alleged dif<culty or hard- as achange of zone, subdivision or a formal ship been created by any person site plan or development plan review which presently having an interest in the requires a public hearing before the plan- property? - ning commission and/or city council, then $. Would the granting of the varia- the planningcomm;ccionand/orcity council tions be detrimental to the public shall be empowered to decide upon such welfare or injurious to other prop- variance orwaiver request concurrent with . such other process; however in deciding erty or improvements in the neigh- , such variance or waiver the planning com- boyhood in which the property is mission and/or city council shall be subject located? to the voting ratio as applies to the board of 9. Would the proposed variation im- adjustment, set forth in Wheat Ridge Code pair the adequate supply of light of Laws section 2.61. and air to adjacent property orsub- stantially increase the congestion !c) Review criteria and f ndings of fact: in the public streets or increase the Where the boazd of adjustment, plan- danger of fire or endanger the Wing commission or city council shall public safety or substantially di- hear and decide upon a request fora minish or impair property values variance or waiver, that authority shall within the neighborhood? base its decision in considerati -~ extent to which the wtng facts, fa- (d) Expiration of variance: Any variance vorable tot plicant, have been es- granted by the boazd of adjustment or tabus y the evidence: planning director shall automatically Can the property in question yield expire within one hundred eighty (18D) a reasonable return in use, service days of the date it was granted, or or income if permitted to be used within such other time as the boazd of 5EE ,art6{.~-4th only under the conditions allowed adjustment or planning director may by regulation for the district in 1'p'Nt°ua'1''E Prescribe, unless a building permit for • which it is located? the variance is obtained within such 2. Is the plight of the owner due to period of time. If the building permit unique circumstances? expires, the vaziance shall expire at the 3. If the variation were granted, same time. Extensions of time may be would it alter the essential chaz- granted far good cause shown, but only aster of the locality? if an application for the extension is 4. Would the particular physical sur- made prior to the expiration of the vazi- rounding, shape or typographical ance. condition of the specific property (3) Temporary permit (or uses, buildings and involved result in a particular signs.~ hardship (upon the owners as dis- tinguished from a mere inconve- (a) One-month temporary permit: The nience if the strict letter ofthe reg- zoning administrator is empowered to ulations were carried out? decide upon applications for temporary 5. Would the conditions upon which buildings, uses or signs which would the petition for a vaziation is based not otherwise be permitted in a partic- be applicable, generally, to the ular district, without requirement of a other property within the same public hearing, under the following con- zoning classification? ditions: 6. Is the purpose of the variation 1. The duration of the building, use based exclusively upon a desire to or sign shall not exceed one (1) make money out of the property? month. Supp, No 10 1697 p. PROPOSED REVISION TO BOA REVIEW CRITERIA Over the years I have observed a desire on the part ofOVee Bo ante Irequesgts whi hsarennot a Council and sometimes Staff to find a way to app threat to public health or safety and which are not a detriment (and sometimes even a benefit) to the neighborhood and/or community, however, which are not unusual, unique or a bona fide hardship. Henceroval, odr further support,denial!tThe follow ng languageas if you so choose, to support aPP ' rv 10. If it is found in criteria 8 and 9 above, that granting of the variation would not be detrimental or injurious to other property or improvublictfaciliYeseandb~uhro~n d ng it is also found that public health and safety, p property values would not be diminished or impaired, then, would the granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the ~ community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant?" GEGaIw attachment RE: COUNCIL BILL NO. 49 PER THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS, ADD TO THE BOTTOM OF PARR # 10: ", or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities?" INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER y Council Bill No. •- _ . Ordinance No. 1055 Series of 1996 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-6(D) OF THE CODE OF - LAWS OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, RELATING TO VARIANCE CRITERIA. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 Section 2-6-6(D)(2)(c) of the Code of Laws of the_City of Wheat Ridge is hereby amended by,the addition of a new Paragraph 10 as follows: 10, YF IT IS FOUND YN CRITERIA 8 AND 9 ABOVE, THAT GRANTING OF THE VARIATION WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL OR INJURIOUS TO OTHER PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS YN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SdTRROUNDING PROPERTY VALUES WOULD NOT BE DIMINISHED OR IMPAIRED, THEN, WOULD THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE RESULT IN A BENEFIT OR CONTRIBUTION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE COMMUNITY, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM AN INDIVIDIIAL BENEFIT ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT, OR WOULD GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE RESULT IN A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION OF A PERSON WITH DISABILITIES? S ion 2 ev r h;l;r~ 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 3 afary C~ 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 anal-for the protection of public convenience Page 2 Ordinance No. 1055 Series of 1996 and welfare. The City Council further determines that the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained.. r°oxi 4 SupersesG~~n 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. GP~+-ion 5 This ordinance shall take effect days after final publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND i to on this day in full in a newspaper Wheat Ridge and Public set for Council Chambers, 7500 1OPTED on first reading_by a vote of of 1996, ordered published of general circulation in the City of _ Hearing and consideration on final passage 1996, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the West 29th Avenue," Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to _ ,..this day of ~.. 1996. 1996. _ SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of __ ---• _=- _ _- - DAN WILDE; MAYOR Wanda Sang, City C1 Ordinance No. 1055 Series of 1996 Page 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY .ATTORNEY . GERALD E. DAHL, CITY __ _ , ATTORNEY lst Publication: 2nd Publication; Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date:" - C:\Y7P60\ORD\VARCRI.ORD AGENDA ITEM RECAP -AGENDA ITEM Meeting Date .QUASI-JUDICIAL X Yes No PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY ADM. MATTERS _ PROC./CEREMONIES CITY ATTY. MAT' BIDS/MOTIONS _ LIQUOR HEARINGS _ INFORMATION ONLY PUBLIC.COMMENT -.- AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Council Bi11 No. , Zoning Ordinance, Section 26-6(D) regarding _ ELEC. OFFICIALS M~ITTERS PE_RS x ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING _ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING _ RESOLUTIONS - - _ an amendment to the Variance Criteria. SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 5, 1996 recommending approval of an addition to the nine existing criteria used in reviewing variances and waivers. Staff -- recommends approval on first reading. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Memo 2) PC Minutes 9/5/96 3) BUDGETED ITEM Yes No Fund Dept/Acct # Budgeted Amount S. Requested-Expend.S Requires Transfer/ Supp. Appropriation Yes No SUGGESTED MOTION: I move that Council Bill be approved on first reading, ordered published, public hearing be set for Monday, November 11, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, Municipal Bldg., and if approved on second reading take effect 15 days after final publication. INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER Council Bill No. _ Ordinance No. Series of 1996 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-6(D) OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, RELATING TO VARIANCE CRITERIA. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Section 26-6 (D) of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge is hereby amended as follows: Variar_ces must be considered separately from the other cases and require a greater-than-majority vote based upon Wheat Ridge Code of Laws Section 2--53(s). and Section 26-6(D}(2} Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a variance: 1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the-district in which it is located? 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? 3. If the variation was granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? 4. Would the particular physical surrounding shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification? 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the property? 7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? 8. Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located? 9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or .increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood? Ordinance No. Series of- 1996 Page 2 10. IF IT IS FOUND IN CRITERIA S AND 9 ABOVE, THAT GRANTING OF THE VARIATION WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL OR INJURIOIIS TO OTHER PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT PUBLIC $EALTH AND SAFETY, PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SURROUNDING PROPERTY VALUES WOULD NOT BE DIMINISHED OR IMPAIRED, THEN, WOULD THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE RESULT IN A BENEFIT OR CONTRIBUTION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE COMMUNITY, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM AN INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT? Section 2. Severability If any cola se, 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 3. 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 4. Supersession Clatiase 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 5. This ordinance shall take effect. days after final publication. INTRODUCED, READ, AND to on this day in full in a newspaper Wheat Ridge and Public set for Council Chambers, 7500 ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of of 1996, ordered published of general circulation in the City of Hearing and consideration on final passage __,_199,6, at _7:00 o'clock p.m., in the West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to this day of, , 1996. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 199-6. __ Ordinance No. - Page 3 Series of 1996 - DAN WILDE, MAYOR Wanda Sang, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY GERALD E. DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY 1st Publication: 2nd Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: C:\WP60\ORD\VARCRI.ORD Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Sean McCartney, Planner Date: September 5, 1996 Subject: Case No. ZOA-96-10 /Variance Criteria Staff is recommending the approval of an additional 10th criteria, to the existing nine criteria for a variance or waiver, that will allow a variance to be reviewed as a possible benefit or contribution to the neighborhood. In the past, variances have been presented to the Board, Planning Commission and City Council, which have not posed any threat to the public health, safety and welfare, but have been denied because there was no evidence of a unique circumstance or a particular hardship as distinguished from a mere inconvenience should the strict letter of the regulations were carried out. In some cases, there may actually be a benefit to the neighborhood or community should the variance be approved (e.g. saving a large tree, architectural enhancement, economic development, etc.). The Board of Adjustment has reviewed this proposal, and has recommended approval. City Council is aware of this proposal as the Board of Adjustment presented it to them when they recently met at study session. Because of this, the following language is recommended: "10. If it is found in criteria 8 and 9 above, that granting of the variation would not be injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood, and it is found that public health and safety, public facilities and surrounding property values would not be diminished or impaired, then, would granting of the variance result in a benefit or contribution to the neighborhood or the community, as distinguished from an individual benefit on the part of the applicant?" Suggested motion: "I move that Case No. ZOA-96-10, an amendment to Section 26-6 (D)(2)(c), regarding Variance and Waivers criteria, be forwarded to City Council with Planning Commission's recommendation for approval". MINIITES OF MEETING September 5, 1996 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson LANGDON at 7:30 p.m., on September 5, 2996 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Robert Eckhardt - Harry Williams Carolyn Griffith Jay Rasplicka Carl A. Cerveny George Langdon Janice Thompson Warren Johnson - EXCUSED ABSENCE EXCUSED ABSENCE Glen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development Meredith Reckert, Planner Sandra Wiggins, Secretary PIIBLIC HEARING The following is the official copy of Planning Commission minutes for the Public Hearing of September 5, 1996. A copy of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Department of Planning and Development of the City of Wheat Ridge. ~tR Planning Commission Minutes Page Z September 5, 1996 - 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA Commissioner WILLI.~MS moved to approve the order of the agenda for the meeting of September 5, 1996 as printed. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINIITES Commissioner RASPLICiCA moved to approve the minutes for the meeting of August 15, 1996 as printed. Commissioner CERVENY seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0, with Commissioners GRIFFITH and THOMPSON abstaining. 6. PIIBLIC FORDM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing under Item 7 of the Public Hearing section of the agenda.) No one had signed the roster nor came forward to speak at that time. 7. PDBLIC HEARING 1. Case No. WZ-96-9: An application by Daniel R_ Dearing for approval of an amendment to a PID final development plan at 10501 West I-70 Frontage Road North. Meredith Reckert presented the staff report, which included slides. Entered into the record and accepted by the Chairperson were the Zoning Ordinance, case file and packet materials. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the proposed amendment would decrease-parking on the site.- Ms. Reckert answered the owner was looking a remedial measures to gain additional parking on the east and north sides of the building. Daniel R Dearing, 10501 West 48th Avenue, was sworn in. Mr. Dearing stated the proposed addition would be utilized to house new parts storage, and would be a metal, prefabricated building. He elaborated. Commissioner THOMPSON asked the applicant if the proposed addition would eliminate the used parts currently being stored on site? __ __ Mr. Dearing ,stated the. addition would be for new body parts Planr_ing Commission Minutes Page 3 September 5, 1996 Commissioner WILLIANIS asked if the addition would match the existing huilding? Mr. D arincr stated it would. Commissioner CERVENY moved that Case No. WZ-96-9, an application by Daniel R. Dearing for approval of an amendment to a PID final development plan at 10501 west I-70 Frontage Road North be approved and forwarded to City Council for the following reasons: 1. -The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge ar_d ali postir_g and notification requirements have been met. 2. It meets the requirements of a Planned Industrial Development. With the following conditions: i. A11 requirements for a final development plan have been met; and 2. There will be no reduction of landscaping on the property_ Commissioner WILLIaMS seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 2. Case No. MS-96-8• An application by Keith M. Daly for Wheat Ridge Congregation, IICC for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision on R-1 land located at 6310 West 29th Avenue and 2777 Kendall Street. Meredith Reckert presented th_e staff report. Entered into the recorded and accepted by the Chairperson were the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, case file and packet materials. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Ms. Reckert if Wheat Ridge property owners dedicated land to Kendall Street at the time Terra village was developed? Ms. Reckert answered that through research staff had discovered that the street was equally dedicated from two parcels on either side of Kendall, which would indicate that land was dedicated from the western (Wheat Ridge) parcel. Commissioner THOMPSON stated she was having difficulty understanding why the church should be required to dedicate the five feet. She stated she also had concerns about exiting the driveway. Ms. Reckert stated that the standard section for a local street in Wheat Ridge is 25 feet from centerline. Presently, she added there was only 20 feet dedicated from centerline, which is why Planning Commission Minutes September S, 1996 Page 4 the City is requesting the additional five feet. Staff feels the 20 feet requested by the City of Edgewater is unreasonable. Commissioner RASPLICKA noted that Kendall Street, if aligned properly, would be further east. Ms. Reckert stated that it appears that the right-of-way is offset. She elaborated., utilizing the aerial map projected overhead. Commissioner THOMPSON noted that it appeared, with rationale, ali the benefits would be Edgewater's. She was concerned about traffic from Terra Village pouring out onto 29th Avenue. Commissioner THOMPSON stated she could not understand why the City of wheat Ridge was requesting the five-foot dedication from the Church. Chairperson Lt1NGDON asked Ms. Reckert to explain why the City was asking for the dedication from the Church at this time. Ms. Reckert answered because the Church is in the process of subdividing and it "opens the door" for staff to examine standards such as street widths. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the City of Edgewater, when the_ six acres is developed, could request from the City of wheat Ridge right-of-way for street improvements in Edgewater? Ms. Reckert answered that if the development should occur, then the City of wheat Ridge would likely participate utilizing ary right-of-way available in our jurisdiction. She elaborated. She agreed that Edgewater would be the one to gain. Mr. Gidley stated that Wheat Ridge does cooperate with municipalities bordering the City and expects them to do the same. He elaborated, explaining the benefits of a full-width dedication. Commissioner CERVENY asked if the 25-foot setback met R-1 zoning requirements. Ms. Reckert stated that because of the existing adjacent right- of-way, it was substandard. Typically, even though the street has not yet been developed, the City would require a 30-foot setback. Commissioner CERVENY noted that requiring the five-foot dedication would not make them nonconforming. Page S planning Commission Minutes _ September 5, 1995 Ms. Reckert answered that there would be an implied variance because it was a City action. Therefore,, it would be a legal, nonconforming setback. Commissioner CERVENY asked if the church burned down, could it be rebuilt? ~ _ ~,l L~'~'` Ms. Reckert answered yes, that was true. Mr. Gidley stated that by_virtue of a public taking, a nonconforming situation. is created, then that line is established as a conforming line and they could build back to that line. Commissioner CERVEN-Y that the property was currently n ;,-ed. nonconforming because the setback is 25 not 30 feet, as r qu-- Discussion followed. Mr. Gidley agreed with Commissioner CERVENY that he property, if is burned down, would have to comply with the 30-foot setback. Keith Da1v, 2001 Otis Street, Edgewater 80214, was sworn in. Ron Hoisington, 3281 Alkire Court, Golden 8001, was sworn in. Mr. Hoisington Stated he was a planning consultant as well as a member of the Wheat Ridge Church of Christ.- He gave a brief history of the church and stated he felt the request by Edgewater was unfair and unnecessary. Mr. Hoisington stated the church would have no problem dedicating the five feet, if the City felt iC was important to cooperate with the City of Edgewater: The 20-foot dedication was out of the question, he stated, s;nce it would make the church sideyard nonconforming. Mr. Hoisington stated the 15-foot corner radius would be no problem however, it was a matter of timing. He was not certain that Edgewater had plans to extend Kendall Street toward 29th Avenue. Should Edgewater decide to build Kendall Street, the church would go on record and submit an irrevocable letter stating that "if the street is t-o be built, the Wheat Ridge United Church of Christ would dedicate five .feet of its" eastern property line for the extension and at that time would dedicate the 15-foot corner radius. He felt the dedication should be done at the time the street is built. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if the City requires the 5-foot dedication and 15-foot corner radius, and the street is not extended, who would maintain the land? Mr Hoisington stated that if the church dedicates the land for public purposes it becomes City-owned land. Planning Coms~ission Mir_utes Septem:oer 5, 1996 Page 5 Commissioner THOMPSON stated her concern regarding the maintenance of.-the property, should it be dedicated to the City. What if Kendall Street is never extended? The street, she added could also be moved in order_to align with Kendall Street to the north and then there will be-the process to return the unnecessary 5-foot strip to the Church. Mr. Gidley mentioned another option and that is to notify Edgewater that the street is off-set and that the dedication should be made from the Edgewater (east) side, not the wheat Ridge (west) side. He elaborated. Commissioner WILLIANiS asked if the land dedication was reversible? - btr. Gidley stated ar_ything is reversible Commissioner WILLIP.~~IS noted that should the church change hands the land dedication would remain and create a possible "glitch" Ms. Reckert pointed on the_map projected overhead why she thought Edgewater was pushing for a 20-foot dedication. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the City would have input regarding aligning Kendall Street extended with Kendall Street on the north. Mr. Gidley stated it is Staff's responsibility to report to- Commission other agencies' responses. He added the City does make recommendations regarding street alignment when requested to do so by other municipalities. He elaborated. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mr. Gidley what would be the appropriate distance to develop an off-set street? Mr. Gidley answered 150 feet or about one-half a city block, is the appropriate distance. Commissioner GRIFFITH asked if the 20 feet had been requested by the City of Edgewater, or by the Public works Department? Mr. Gidley answered it was the City of Edgewater Public Works Department making the request. He explained further. Chairperson LANGDON asked if wheat Ridge would be sending a message to Edgewater in favor..of straightening the street, if the five feet was not dedicated?- Mr. Gidlev stated that could be made a part of Commission's findings in the motion. He explained how the motion could - reflect that decision. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 Page 7 Chairperson LP1tiGDON stated it made sense for safety reasons. Mr Hoisz.*z~ton.reiterated that the churci? was willing and wanted to cooperate once the .street is developed. Mr. Gidley noted that the church would not be the owner of Lot 2 and noted that the time for dedication is when parcels are platted. He explained. , Discussion followed. Bob Malouf. 2596 Fenton Street, was sworn in. He stated he would have no objection to a wedge-shaped dedication and explained why. Commissioner CERVEW stated he had no recollection seeing an "irrevocable letter of intent" as part of a title commitment. He added that he understood that if the land was dedicated, the home owner maintained it. He elaborated. Commissioner CERVENY asked about the dotted line across the parcel. Ms. Reckert answered that was the property line of Terra Village line. Commissioner CERVENY was uncertain if it was practical to request the five-foot dedication. He didn't understand why "tapering" the dedicated land amount would be beneficial. Ms. Reckert drew a line on the map projected overhead showing where the "tapered" land dedication would begin and end. Commissioner CERVENY was uncertain what good tapering the land dedication would do. He added that as drawn, it did not accomplish anything. He elaborated. Ms. Reckert asked if the church would be agreeable to a tapered land dedication? Mr. Hoisinaton stated that the church was agreeable to doing whatever is appropriate at the right time. He added that until the street is developed, the time was not right for land dedication. Mr. Hoisington stated he agreed with the City's intent and elaborated. Commissioner RASPLICKA stated it seemed to him that Edgewater had made-the original error by not getting adequate land. Now they want the City of Wheat Ridge to help them correct their error. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if the land is not dedicated now and the street is developed sometime `in the future, would the City of wheat Ridge have to purchase the necessary land? And, he added the-City could be responsible to maintain it. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 - Page 8 Commissioner THOMPSON stated she felt it would be poor planning to require the church to dedicate land so that a dangerous off- set street could be constructed- Good planr_ir_g, she added, would be to obtain land dedication from the south parcel, so that the street could be aligned with Kendall Street at the north. She elaborated- ___ Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr. Hoisington to mark on the map projected overhead, the church driveway on the south side. Mr. Hoisinaton pointed out the parking lot. Commissioner CERVENY asked where was the driveway exiting the property? Mr. Hoisinaton stated the one-way going out was on the eastern side of the church going north. Mr. Hoi ing on asked Mr. Gidley if there was an easement on the eastern property line? Mr. Gidley answered yes, it was a 10-foot easement- Mr. Hoisinaton suggested that the language of the easement to future right-of-way dedication for street purposes. Mr. Gidley stated normally the City uses five feet of right-o°- way for sidewalk and signage. Therefore, it could be a sidewalk and signage easement. The curb, gutter and street (with the exception of the sidewalk) could be outside that area, he added. He noted that if it is an easement, the property owner continues to pay taxes on it. If dedicated, it is taken off the tax roles and placed in the street system. He elaborated. Commissioner CERVENY-asked what length dedicated would it take to taper from zero to five feet? Could it be done in 50 feet? Mr. Gidley said a five-foot taper could be accomplished in a fairly short distance. He would like it in less than 100 feet. Discussion was heard regarding how the tapered land dedication could/should occur. _.. Commissioner THOMPSON moved that Case No. MS-96-8, an application by Keith M. Daly for wheat Ridge Congregation, UCC for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision on R-1 land located at 6310 West 29th Avenue and 2777 Kendall Street, be approved for the following reasons: 1. The subdivision is required to allow sale of the southern portion; and Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 September 5, 1995 2. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following condition: 1. A five-foot 'right-of-way be dedicated for Kendall Street, beginning at the common boundary between Lot 1 and 2, starting at zero at that point and tapering to five feet to the southern boundary of Lot 2. Commissioner CERVENY seconded. the motion. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if City staff would notify Edgewater regarding Commission's recommendation. Ms. Reckert answered City staff would be in contact with Edgewater. _ Commissioner CERVENY made a suggestion for a friendly amendment, which would add to Commissioner THOMPSON's motion the reasons. for Commission's recommendation to taper the land dedication from zero to five feet. One reason being the Church was in existence prior to the dedication of Kendall Street and the current problem exists because the street was incorrectly aligned by Edgewater. The Church, which is not located within the city limits of Edgewater, should not be required to correct that mistake. Chairperson L.IDTGDON asked if that addition could be a friendly amendment, or simply add it to the motion? ' Mr. Gidley stated it was an amendment to the motion. Both the motion-maker and the individual who seconded would have to accept the amendment. Commissioner THOMPSON stated she agreed with the amendment, however, felt Commiss-ion should send a message to both city councils, Edgewater and Wheat Ridge, that it is an undue hardship on the Church and good planning requires, if possible, street alignments to occur. In this case, there is vacant land to the east which could be utilized. It is Commission's desire to see Kendall Street aligned, both north and south. Motion carried 6-0. 3. Case No. WA-96-26• An application by John Medved for approval of a master sign plan with variances for property located at 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road North. (Continued from 07-18-96) Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 September 5, 1996 . Staff recommended and the applicant agreed, that this case be continued to our first regular meeting in October, October 3, 1996. Commissioner CERVENY moved to continue Case No. WA-96-26 to October 3, 1996. •Commissioner THOMPSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 4. Case No. ZOA-96-9• An amendment to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Code, Section 26-30{p) pertaining to Group Homes for Handicapped, Developmentally Disabled, Elderly Persons and Children. (Continued from OS-15-96). Mr. Gidley gave a brief .overview of this case. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if there was a limitation of the number'of group homes in a particular area? Mr. Gidley stated that state law requires 750 feet of separation, which is about a block and a quarter apart. Additionally, there is a separation requirement between homes. He explained further. Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr. Gidley how the number "11" developmentally disabled was chosen. Mr. Gidley stated it could be any number. It was chosen because it was a number customarily associated with a "family" situation. Discussion followed. Commissioner CERVENY moved to continue Case No. ZOA-96-9 to our next regular meeting, September 18, 1996 to allow the City Attorney time to answer the following questions: 1. Is it possible to generically limit the number of residents, based upon an area requirement per person? 2. Regarding other provisions that limit other kinds of group homes to one per district, is it legal? 3. If a group home resident becomes rowdy, noisy, etc., is that person treated by the police as a nuisance like any other resident? Commissioner THOMPSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0_ 5. Case No. ZOA-96-10 •_ Amendment to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Code, Section 26-6(D)(2)(c) pertaining to VARIANCE CRITERIA. This case had been continued from August 15, 1996. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 Page li Mr. Gidley gave an overview of the proposed amendment. F?e read a proposed addition to the amendment, which would. be added at the end of paragraph 10: ", or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities?" Mr. Gidley explained the term "reasonable. accommodation" for Chairperson LANGDON. Discussion followed. Commissioner CERVENY moved to approve as amended, Case No. ZOA- 96-10, a proposed amendment to the Zoning Code, Section 26- 6(D(2)(c) and forward to City Council for their consideration. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 6. Case No. ZOA-96-8: Amendment to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Code, Chapter 26. Zoning Code regarding FENCES, WALLS and OBSTRIICTIONS TO VIEW. Mr. Gidley asked Commission if they had the memo from Sob Goebel, Public Works Director. He summarized Mr. Goebel's position for Commission- Mr. Gidley gave an overview of the proposed amendment explaining the current ordinance and the proposed changes. Discussion followed. Commissioner WILLIAMS moved to retain a 36-inch fence height limitation in the sight distance triangle, a 48-inch fence height limitation in the front yard, and a six-foot fence height limitation in the back and side yards. Commissioner CERVENY considered separatel Issue A (Sight Trian~ Commissioner CERVENY retain 36-inch fence triangle. Motion carried 6-0. Issue B (Front Yard) suggested that each of the items be f. ale) seconded Commissioner WILLIAMS' motion tc height limitation in the sight distance Commissioner WILLIP.MS moved to retain a 48-inch fence height limitation in-the front yard outside the sight distance triangle. Planning Commission Minutes Page '_2 September 5, 1990 ' Commissioner CERVENY seconded the motion. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if that height would include pillars. Mr. Gidley answered that pillars were allowed to be one foot _ higher than the fence height, provided the pillars measure no more than one foot by one foot. Commissioner CERVENY offered a friendly amendment to the motion, stating the reason for the limitation: 1. A higher than 48-inch fence would be detrimental to the aesthetic value of the City of Wheat Ridge, which would over-shadow any benefit to any individual. Commissioner WILLIAMS agr=_ed to the friendly amendment. Motion carried 6-0. Issue C (Grade Determination) Commissioner WILLIAMS moved that the "natural grade" be utilized when determining the overall height of fences and walls. Natural grade will be determined by City staff. Commissioner GRIFFITH seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 9. OLD BUSINESS A. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mr. Gidley for an update on the Kipling Master Plan idea discussed previously by Commission. Mr. Gidley .answered that Staff was working on two additional ideas. Further, he noted that there was some "movement" in the area with several .parcels of land. Discussion followed. B. Chairperson LANGDON asked for an.update on the bus stop project. Mr. Gidley stated the City was waiting for Outdoor Productions to fill out applications for each of the individual locations. They have provided the Ci-ty with a site location map. As required, all locations have been posted for 25 days. Approval from Public Works, RTD and State Highway Department will be necessary, once the applications are completed. 10. NEW BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 1996 _ Page 13 A. Commissioner CERVENY informed Commission that 'he would be unable to attend the October 3, 1996 meeting. 11. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ITEMS ?~. Commissioner RASPLICK~1 asked for items to take to the PWAC meeting. 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS 13. ADJOURNMENT There beine no further business, by consensus, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Sandra Wiggins, Secretary CERTIrICATION Oc RESOLUTION CITY OF '+v~EAT RIDGE PL,IWING COMN!SSION CASE N0: ZO?•-96-.10 LOCATION: City wide APPLICAN2'(S) NAME: City of Wheat Ri3ae Ow-N"ERiS) Al~:`SE: Same. REQUEST: Amendment to Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Code, Section 26-6 (D) (2) (c) pertaining to V?RL~NCE CRITERIA. AaoRO!~IbLaTE AREA: n/a Sd?-iEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division has submitted a list of factors to be considered wire. the above request, and said list of factors is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and made a Dart hereof; and tv?-iERE?.S, there was testimony received at. a public haaxing by the Planning Com.-nission and such testimony provided additional faccs- NO[4, T3EREFORE, based upon the facts presented and conclusions reached, is was mo~~ed by Commissioner CERVENY, seconded by Commissioner R.~SPLZCKA, that Casa No. ZOA-96-10, a proposed amendment co the Wheat Ridge Code of Lbws, Zoning Code, Section 26 -6(D)(2)(c) pertai.^.ing to 'v~RL~NCE CRITERIA be 1pproved as amended and referied co City Council for their consideration. The fallowing verbiage should be added to 10., at the end ~'_ the paragraph: ", or would granting of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities?" VOTE: YES: Williams, Griffith, Rasplicka, Cer~eny, Langdon and Thompson NO: Same. I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the City of '+vheat Ridge Planning Comnussion, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by a 6 0 vote of the members present at their regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, wheat Ridge, Colorado, on t'r~e.5th day of September, 1996. George J. Langdon, Ch~~irperson Sandra 'Niggi.^.s, Secretary WHE2.T RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION WHEAT P.IDGE,PLANNIAIG COMMISSION b:\coa9610.res