HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA-97-4Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge
PLANNING COMMISSION on January 3, 1998, at 7:30 p.m. at 7500 West 29th Avenue,
Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or
submit written comments. The following petitions shall be heard:
1 ~a P Nn 70A-97-4: , An application by the City of Wheat Ridge for approval of an
amendment to section 26-6(B) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws relating to special uses.
ATTEST:
(~ /
Wanda Sang, City Clerk
To be Published: January 2, 1998
Transcript
__
z~~-~7-~
Commissioner SNOW asked for consideration of adding a condition that this does not become
effective until the school puts a walkway in. ,
Commissioner SHOCKLEY clarifies waiting until the City has it in writing from the school.
Discussion followed regarding the sidewalk, whether the school needs it or wants it, and
whether the City wants to give up the pazcel if an access is never completed.
There was discussion of rewording the amendment and options. Commissioner SHOCKLEY
says yes until confirmation in writing_is received.
Staff explained other options for the Commission to consider.
Commissioner SHOCKLEY added, " or until the City received confirmation from the school
district that the property would not be needed for a cut through or connecting sidewalk."
Commissioner THOMPSON asked a question regazding improvements paid for by the owners
and who would be responsible for reimbursement if the City did take it back what if the
property owners do a lot of improvements along there, and we decided that we wanted the 10
feet, do we reimburse them for the improvements or do they lose all of that money? Ms.
Reckert responded that it would be at the home owners risk.
Discussion continued on the need for a sidewalk connection and whether vacation was
advisable or not possible for a future consideration.
Commissioner THOMPSON asked Cor additional discussion. There being none, she called for
a vote.
Motion carried 7-0
Commissioner THOMPSON relayed to the audience that the vacation was approved, but that
the Commission was asking R-1 school district to respond in writing within 60 days to the
City, that they will in fact put a pedestrian path onto the school property. If they respond and
state that they will not put the path in, then the vacation will not be approved. It will also go
to City Council for final approval.
B. Cage number 70A-97-4: An application by the City of Wheat Ridge for
approval of an amendment to section 26-6(B) of the Wheat Ridge Code of laws
relating to special uses.
Alan White explained that this is something that was in the works when he came on boazd
with the City of Wheat Ridge. He gives an overview of the proposed amendment, explaining
that what this proposed amendment does is create two categories of special use approval: 1)
Land Vested, and 2) Owner Grant of Use. He explained that the concept of the two is simple,
Planning Commission
01/08/98 Page 5
Land Vested means that the special use will run with the land. If it changes owners one, two,
three times the special use is still attached to the land. As regulations aze now and as the
second type of special use is set up there is an Owner Grant of Use. This means that the
special use is attached to the owner. This cannot be transferred except through an heir, or
through re-approval of that special use by the Planning Commission and City Council. The
proposed amendment also requires Planning Commission to make the determination of any
given special use before you should be "Land Vested" or "Owner Grant" Special Use. This
recommendation is made to City Council on a case-by-case basis.
Alan explained that he is unaware whether this proposed amendment was directed by Council
or initiated by the Planning Commission. He continued by explaining how this proposed
amendment may or may not affect the staff, City, and Planning Commission and stated that
this type of legislation would be difficult to administer. His philosophy of administering the
zoning ordinance is to keep it simple and straight forward. When special cases are made and
you have different categories of special uses it becomes a burden for staff to keep records and
monitor them. Also, it requires keeping separate rules for one piece of property straight from
the other rules for a different piece of property down the road.
Alan suggested making a motion if the Commission is comfortable. Alan concluded his staff
report and entered into the record his staff report and the zoning ordinance. He stated that
under the zoning ordinance the City has provided public notice as required for a zoning
ordinance amendment.
Commissioner SNOW commented that she was worried about the things mentioned by Alan,
as well as the wording in the zoning ordinance under consideration for removal, "which are
clearly shown to be void or deficient in an azea." This seems to throw out the idea that we
have conditional uses and special uses, or uses by right. This is going to do a lot more than
anybody realizes. For example, many yeazs ago you could put a school in any zoning
category. But pretty soon people started opening schools and things that they called schools
in various places around the City. So then they took schools and churches and put them in a
special use, this verbiage wipes that out, doesn't it? Ms. Reckert responded that it would be a
conditional use.
Commissioner SNOW conditional? At this point today, it says special uses are discretionary
and this says that you have to show that they are void or deficient in an area. Why is that
being taken out along with these changes which is a totally different concept?
Alan replied that the verbiage is taken out and sort of setting up the intent of special uses in
this section, but it does remain in two pages following that as one of the criteria for reviewing
special uses. The page begins with (3) Criteria for review (a). Alan White stated that it is as
the legislature currently is in the code. After a question of its clarity, Alan replied that he
.doesn't have a problem with the language.
Planning Commission
01/08/98 Page 6
Commissioner SNOW isn't that the only difference between a special use and a conditional
use?
Ms. Reckert informed that the conditional use is a use that is allowed but there is a sight plan
review because of some of the affects on the neighborhood and neighboring properties. Ms.
Reckert read the criteria for Conditional Use as it is in the zoning ordinance. The difference is
the condition of blight and filling a void._ She continued to read conditional uses in different
zoning districts and gave examples. Conditional use requires one hearing in front of Planning
Commission with the preapplication neighborhood meeting and there is an appeal to City
Council. With special uses there is a neighborhood meeting, two hearings, and the right of
legal protest.
Commissioner BRINKMAN had a question regazding (2) Application form and review
procedures: (b) how will this be broken out, the difference between Owner Grant of Use and
Land Vested? Ms. Reckert answered business owner.
Commissioner BRINKMAN questioned the description at the beginning, Land Vested Uses
would run with the land, that would be the business owner? Ms. Reckert answered no, and
gave a specific situation in which the building owner leased the building and the business
owner was granted a special use.
Commissioner BRINKMAN also had a question regarding whether special use would go from
Land Vested to Owner Grant or visa versa? Alan White responded that there would have to
be some final determination in going from Owner to Land Vested to come back and have that
final determination made by Council.
Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if that is the case that these uses can flip flop does there
need to be wording in the ordinance stating that?
Commission members discussed several problems with the ordinance:
1. Changing owner grant to land vested would result in increased caseload.
2. What aze the benefits of land vesting?
3. Tracking and transactions involving special uses.
4. Complicated system (time consuming).
5. Implications for businesses wanting to sell - reappmval.
Commissioner BRINKMAN summarized what she has heazd from the Commission. The first
thing being said is that we need a fast track for property owners that are selling to review the
special use and see if it is still worthwhile in that neighborhood. The second is what Nancy is
asking about, the Commission needs to review the special uses. She sees this issue as a big
"hairball" for the Planning Department to try to keep track and make sense of it.
Commissioner BRINKMAN, suggested continuing this issue to a study session to review
special uses, and possibly come up with a fast track method for property owners.
Planning Commission Page 7
01 /08198
.~ ~ • ~
A motion was made by Commissioner SNOW to not pass this ordinance and to direct staff to
prepare recommendations for a faster way to transfer the special use permit when the property
is purchased. Also, at a future study session the Planning Commission reviews special uses
and whether they are properly placed in each zone district.
Commissioner WILLIAMS amended the motion to include directing staff to research how
many special use permits and the types of special use permits there are within the City of
Wheat Ridge.
The motion as amended by Commissioner Williams was seconded by Commissioner
BRINKMAN and carried 6 to 1 with Conunissioner GOKEY voting No.
The Public Hearing was closed.
8. OLD BUSINESS.
Commissioner RASPLICKA added an item to old business, regazding the Richter
application and the speakers that spoke against it with regard to the school.
Commissioner THOMPSON added an item to old business, concerning a question
about the Wheat Ridge sign on the Richter property.
9. NEW BUSINESS.
Commissioner BRINKMAN added an item to ne~v business, about a joint meeting
between Planning Commission and City Council regarding the Comp Plan public
process.
10. DISCUSSION & DECISION ITEMS
11. COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT REPORTS
11. ADJOURN. Meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. by consensus.
Bazb Fuller, Recording Secretary
a ce Thompson"'~Chairperso~-
Planning Commission
01/08/98 Page 8
~ rn~iry of
7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE _ --
WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215-6773 (303) 234-5900 _ ~h e at
City Admin. Fax # 234=5924 Police Dept. Fax # 235-2949 (T ~ ~ ~e
MEIVIOZ2ANDUM "~
Date: January 2, 1998 -
To: Planning Commission
From: Alan White, Planning and Development Director
Subject: Case Nor~7 A=9'~ ~n amendment to Section 26-6(B) of the Wheat Ridge Code
of Laws relating to special uses.
Section 26-6(B) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws establishes the applicability, review
procedures, and review criteria for special uses. Special uses aze discretionary uses within a
zone district which if properly designed, developed, operated, and maintained may be appropriate
for any specific location. Conditions or stipulations are normally attached to the approval of a
special use in order to address compatibility with adjacent uses and mitigation of any detrimental
impacts on adjacent uses, public facilities or services, or the street system.
Special uses are allowed in each zone district and are enumerated under each zone district. The
current legislation provides that the approval of a special use is a personal grant of use to the
owner of the special use, and is not a vested right assigned to the property. In other words, the
special use runs with the owner and not with the land. The only way a special use can transfer
ownership is through inheritance by an heir.
The proposed atnendments to the special use section of the Code are attached. New language is
shown in bold with deleted language shown in strikeattt. The proposed amendment creates two
categories of special use approval : 1) Land Vested, and 2) Owner Grant of Use.
The two categories address the cases where the investment in developing and constructing the
facilities involved in a special use is substantial versus cases where it is not. "Land Vested" uses
would run with the land; "Owner Grant" uses would run with the owner and could be transferred
only through an Heir or reapplying for approval as is currently the case for all special uses.
The amendment further requires Planning Commission to make a determination specifying the
recommended classification of the special use as "Property Vested" or "Owner Grant" on a case
by case basis. City Council makes a final determination at their hearing. In the case of "Owner
Grant" uses, conditions or stipulations of approval which aze not complied with become criteria
for revocation of the special use under the enforcement provisions of the Special Use Section of
the Code. This requires a revocation hearing by Council. In the case of "Land Vested" uses,
enforcement is through normal code enforcement procedures.
0~ FECYCLE~-PAPEP
Case No. ZOA-97-4
STAFF COMMENTS:
This legislation vas prepared by the former Director and is being brought forwazd at this time for
Planning Commission consideration prior to Council action. It is not known if this proposal was
a Council directive or staff initiated.
The proposed legislation is intended to give special uses making substantial investments in
property improvements ("Land Vested"), as determined by City Council, reliance on the
approval of the use for possible future transfers of ownership. Also because of this substantial
investment, compliance with stipulations or conditions of approval is through normal code
enforcement procedures and not through use revocation procedures. This creates a disparity in
enforcement and gives the City less leverage in compliance with "Land Vested" uses because
revocation of the use is not an option.
With the current system of all special uses being tied to the owner, the prospect of selling a
business is more difficult (less certain because reapproval is necessary) and the owner may suffer
economic hardship as a result. While the operation of the special use and other aspects may
remain the same with a new owner, there is no guarantee that a different Planning Commission
and City Council would reapprove the use. In some instances it may be beneficial to the City for
a special use to run with the land, not the owner..
The proposed legislation does not define "substantial investment" and there are no criteria to
establish what constitutes a substantial investment. This could result in different determinations
from case to case where one use is given "Land Vested" status and another "Owner Grant" status
with relatively the same investment.
The creation of two classes of special uses creates two sets of rules for special uses and will
require additional monitoring by staff. Administration of regulations is streamlined when the
legislation is simple and applies to all cases. This will not be the case with this proposed
legislation.
Staff is presenting the legislation for consideration by Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDED MOT[ONS:
OPTION A
"I move to CONTINUE Case No. ZOA-97-4, an amendment to Section 26-6(B) of the
Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to special uses, to January 15, 1998 and direct
staff to address the following concerns:
1.
2"
Case No. ZOA-97-4
OPTION B
"I move to recommend DENIAL of Case No. ZOA-97-4, an amendment to Section 26-
6(B) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to special uses, for the following
reasons:
1.
2."
OPTION C
"I move to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. ZOA-97-4, an amendment to Section
26-6(B) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to special uses, with the following
changes:
1.
2."
Sec. 26-6. Legislative and administrative process and procedures.
This section sets forth the procedural and substantive requirements which apply to the various ~~
administrative and legislative processes established by this code, and as may be required by
other city ordinances and/or state law, where applicable.
(B) Special Uses: Special uses are discretionary uses which
- °°-' •••'~ if properly designed, developed, operated and
maintained, may be approved for any specific location with a zone district wherein the
special use is enumerated. There are two categories of special use approval:
(1) Land Vested. These special uses require substantial investment in site
andlor building improvements which are longterm capital investments and
are unique in design such that adaptation to a principal permitted use in
the particular zone is impractical and cost prohibitive. Approval of these
special use permits shall become a vested property right which may
transfer with the land or lease, however are subject to all conditions of
approval.
(2) Owner Grartf of Use: This category of special use is less dependent upon
unique site and/or building improvements to accommodate the use,
however, is highly dependent upon proper management to ensure that
operational aspects of the use are not detrimental to adjacent properties,
the neighborhood, or the general public welfare. Therefore, approval of
"Owner Grant~pecial uses" vests only to the owner of the special use
approved and shall not be a vested property right and shall not
automatically transfer H+ith the land or lease, except through inheritance by
an heir.
. The
primary issues which planning commission and city council shall address are those
related to justification of need and those special design and operational considerations
which mitigate potential detrimental impacts of a special use on surrounding land uses,
the street system, or public services or facilities. In order to protect the public interest,
the planning commission and city council shall have the right to approve, approve with
modifications or deny a special use request and to revoke previously approved special
use permits pursuant to subsection (6) hereof.
(1) Applicability. The requirements of this subsection shall apply to all uses listed as ,
"Special Uses" within the provisions set forth for any particular zone district.
(2) Application form and review procedures:
(a) Prior to submitting any application for a special use permit, the applicant
shall be required to hold a neighborhood.input meeting. (See subsection ,'
(F)(1) for requirements.)
(b) Special use applications may be originated only by the prospective owner
of the proposed special use, with written approval of the fee owner of the
property in cases where the owner of the property is different than the
owner of the proposed special use. Both the special use owner and the
land owner, or their legal representatives, must be present at all public
hearings.
(c) Application shall be submitted on forms provided by the department of
planning and development, and shall be accompanied by a copy of the
property deed, a certified surrey, and a fee of one hundred dollars
($100.00).
(d) All applications shall also be accompanied by a site development plan
and additional written information in sufficient detail to convey the full
intent of the applicant in developing, operating and maintaining the
special use. The site development plan shall meet the following minimum
requirements:
1. Sheet size: 8.5 X 11 inches minimum. '
2. Scale and north arrow.
3. Property boundaries and lot lines with dimensions.
4. Existing and proposed public street rights-of-way, public
easements, irrigation ditches, drainage ways and other
easements affecting the site,
5. .Existing and proposed public improvements within and adjacent to
the site, including curbs, gutter, sidewalk, street pavement,
drainage improvements, street lights, etc..
6. Existing and proposed street access points or curb cuts and
dimensions thereof.
7. Proposed site development elements, including general building
envelops, landscape/open space buffers, parking and loading
areas, and cutside work, storage or display areas.
8, Site data table, including gross and net lot area, maximum
building coverage, maximum floor area of buildings,
landscape/open space area, parking area, maximum building -~
height, etc..
(e) Upon receipt of a complete application packet as described above, the
planning and development department shall proceed with the following
process:
1. Refer the application to affected public agencies for review and
comment.
2. Within thirty (30) days of acceptance of a completed application
packet, give notice of a scheduled public hearing on the
application bJr newspaper publication, letter notification and
posting in the manner as provided in subsection (F)(1).
3. Prepare a written report and recommendations to the planning
commission vuhich evaluates the proposal and makes findings
using the following review criteria set forth in subsection (3) below.
(3) Criteria for review. Before a special use is approved, the applicant shall show,
and the planning commission and city council shall find, the proposed special
uses:
(a) Will meet a proven public need in that it will fill a void in necessary
services, products orfacilities especially appropriate at the location
proposed, considering available alternatives.
(b) Will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety
and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
the proposed use.
(c) Will not create or contribute to blight in the neighborhood by virtue of
physical or operational characteristics of the proposed use.
(d) Will not adversely affect the adequate light and air, nor cause significant
air, water or noise pollution.
(e) Is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(f) Will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards, or unsafe
parking, loading, service or internal traffic conflicts to the detriment of
persons whether on or off the site.
(g) Will be appropriately designed, including setbacks, heights, parking, bulk,
buffering, screening and landscaping, so as to be in harmony and
compatible with character of the surrounding areas and neighborhood,
especially with adjacent properties.
(h) Will not over burden the capacities of the existing streets, utilities, parks,
schools and other public facilities and services.
(4) Planning commission review. The planning commission shall hear and consider
any evidence or statement presented by the applicant, city staff, or by any
person in attendance at the hearing. The planning commission shall then make
a recommendation to city council to approve, approve with conditions or deny the
application, basing its recommendation upon the facts presented in the public
hearing in consideration of the criteria for review as specified in subsection (3)
above. Planning commission shall make a specific determination
specifying the recommended classification of the proposed special use as
"Property Vested" or "Owner Grant". Wanr~ing-6ommissiort-shai}-make a
-~ sted-ar"6wnerGraoY~ Planning
commission may recommend conditions or stipulations, which may include
physical design as well as operational and maintenance considerations, upon the
special use in addition to standard development and use regulations which apply
within a particular zone district or for a similar "permitted use". Such conditions
or sti ulations may be recommended in order to ensure compliance with the
criter a for review, which, in the case of "Owner Grant" uses, if not complied
with, shall be grounds for revocation of the conditional use. A recommendation
for denial shall be considered final, unless the applicant files an appeal to city
council.
(5) City council review. City Council shall review and decide upon all requests for
special uses upon recommendation of planning commission for approval or upon
appeal by an applicant of a recommendation fordenial by planning commission. `
Special uses may only be approved by passage of an ordinance, following fhe
city's standard ordinance adoption procedures. Notice of public hearing shall be
in the manner provided in subsection 26-6(F)(1). City council, in addition to
consideration of the planning commission record, shall hear additional evidence
and testimony presented, and either pass, pass with modifications, or deny the
ordinance, its decision being based upon all evidence presented, with due
consideration of the criteria for review.
In the event of a protest against such special use permit, signed by the owners
of twenty (20) percent or more of the area:
(a) Of those immediately adjacent to the rear or any side of the property,
extending one hundred (100) feet from the property; or
(b) Of those directly opposite across the street from the property, extending
one hundred (100) feet from the street frontage of such opposite
property.
Such special use permits shall not become effective except by the favorable vote
of three-fourths of the entire city council. Where land which is adjacent or
opposite, as defined above, is owned by the city, such property shall be excluded
in computing the noncity land within the one-hundred-foot limit, as defined
above, shall be considered adjacent or opposite despite such intervening city
land. The written protest to such special use shall be submitted to the city
council no later than the hearing on the proposed special use permit.
(6) Enforcement. All conditions and stipulations imposed by city council shall be
maintained in perpetuity with the special use. If at any time the stipulations or
conditions are not adhered to or are found to have been materially altered in
scope, application or design, the zoning administrator shall notify a code
enforcement officer of the nature of the violation(s) arid the code enforcement
officer shall investigate and, if appropriate, initiate normal code enforcement
procedures in the case of a "Land Vested" special use, or in the case of
"Owner Grant" special uses, initiate revocation proceedings which shall
include the following:
(a) Notice of violation following procedures as set forth for nuisances
pursuant to Wheat Ridge Code, Chapter 15.
(b) Upon a finding of noncompliance by a code enforcement officer after the
prescribed correction date, the zoning administrator shall schedule a
revocation hearing before the city council. Such revocation hearing date
shall be set by city council after first reading of an ordinance therefor.
The purpose of the revocation hearing shall be for the city council to hear
evidence concerning the nature and extent of the alleged noncompliance
with the conditions of the special use permit. The council shall have the
power, upon good cause being shown to cancel or revoke the previously
issued special use permit, to require certain corrective measures to be
taken, and/or to direct the city's's agents to enter upon the premises and
take corrective measures required by the city council, and to modify the
conditions which apply to the special use permit. Any revocation action
shall become effective fifteen (15) days after final publication of the
ordinance. Any other action shall require a continuance of the public
hearing to a specific future date and a motion stipulating the specific
corrective measures that are to be accomplished either by the special
use owner or by an agent of the city within that time period. Upon the
date of the continued hearing, should the council find that the conditions
and stipulations have not been satisfactorily met, council shall adopt the
revocation ordinance.
7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE
WHEAT RIDGE, Ci 80215-6713
(303) 234-5900 ...
City Admin. Fax # 234-5924 Police Depi. Fax # 235-2949
Th~ity ~f
Wheat
Ridge
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
January 2, 1998
Planning Commission
Alan White, Planning and Development Director
~al~6c: !~d(1~c~-
Case No. ZOA-97-4, An amendment to Section 26-6(B) of the Wheat Ridge Code
of Laws relating to special uses.
Section 26-6(B) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws establishes the applicability, review
procedures, and review criteria for special uses. Special uses are discretionary uses within a
zone district which if properly designed, developed, operated, and maintained may be appropriate
for any specific location. Conditions or stipulations are normally attached to the approval of a
special use in order to address compatibility with adjacent uses and mitigation of any detrimental
impacts on adjacent uses, public facilities or services, or the street system.
Special uses are allowed in each zone district and are enumerated under each zone district. The
current legislation provides that the approval of a special use is a personal grant of use to the
owner of the special use, and is not a vested right assigned to the property. In other words, the
special use funs with the owner and not with the land. The only way a special use can transfer
ownership is through inheritance by an heir.
The proposed atnendments to the special use section of the Code are attached. Ne~v language is
shown in bold with deleted language shown in ~`-•'~n-~1~~. The proposed amendment creates two
categories of special use approval : 1) Land Vested, and 2) Owner Grant of Use.
The two categories address the cases where the investment in developing and constructing the
facilities involved in a special use is substantial versus cases where it is not. "Land Vested" uses
would run with the land; "Owner Grant" uses would run with the owner and could be transferred
only through an heir or reapplying for approval as is currently the case for all special uses.
The amendment further requires Planning Commission to make a determination specifying the
recommended classification of the special use as "Property Vested" or "Owner Grant" on a case
by case basis. City Council makes a final determination at their hearing. In the case of "Owner
Grant" uses, conditions or stipulationsof approval which are not complied with become criteria
for revocation of the special use under the enforcement provisions of the Special Use Section of
the Code. This requires a revocation hearing by Council. In the case of "Land Vested" uses,
enforcement is through normal code enforcement procedures.
~ PECYCLED PAPER
Case No. ZOA-97-4
STAFF COMMENTS:
This legislation was prepared by the former Director and is being brought forward at this time for
Planning Commission consideration prior to Council action. It is not known if this proposal was
a Council directive or staff initiated.
The proposed legislation is intended to give special uses making substantial investments in
property improvements ("Land Vested"), as determined by City Council, reliance on the
approval of the use for possible future transfers of ownership. Also because of this substantial
investment, compliance with stipulations or conditions of approval is through normal code
enforcement procedures and not through use revocation procedures. This creates a dispazity in
enforcement and gives the City less leverage in compliance with "Land Vested" uses because
revocation of the use is not an option.
With the current system of all special uses being tied to the owner, the prospect of selling a
business is more difficult (less certain because reapproval is necessary) and the owner may suffer
economic hazdship as a result. While the operation of the special use and other aspects may
remain the same with a new owner, there is no guarantee that a different Planning Commission
and City Council would reapprove the use. In some instances it may be beneficial to the City for
a special use to nm with the land, not the owner.
The proposed legislation does ttot define "substantial investment" and there are no criteria to
establish what constitutes a substantial investment. This could result indifferent determinations
from case to case where one use is given "Land Vested" status and another "Owner Grant" status
with relatively the same investment.
The creation of t~vo classes of special uses creates two sets of rules for special uses and will
require additional monitoring by staff. Administration of regulations is streamlined when the
legislation is simple and applies to all cases. This will not be the case with this proposed
legislation.
Staff is presenting the legislation for consideration by Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
OPTION A
0~~1t~ ~~
"I move to Case No. 2;OA-97-4, an amendment to Section 26-6(B) of the
Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to special uses, to January 15, 1998 and direct
staff to address the following concerns: ~~~__--yjj^l~ yt~~ i ~ ~'~y
l . ~~ztq~r~ sel5ro,r~- S~2c~c~ ( ~' ~Jb'~Y `~~~ ( ~~
z."
2 ~ ~~ ~~~ ~r~~ss ~
~~~r ~ ~
~1~w ~ sr~tip's lw Cl
Case No. ZOA-97-4
OPTION B
iti "I move to recommend DENIAL of Case No. ZOA-97-4, an amendment to Section 26-
6(B) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to special uses, for the following
reasons:
1.
2."
OPTION C
"I move to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. ZOA-97-4, an amendment to Section
26-6(B) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to special uses, with the following
changes:
1.
2.'.
d(~tci ~~ ~~7a~~4~
3
Sec. 26-6. Legislative and administrative process and procedures.
This section sets forth the procedural and substantive requirements which apply to the various ~'
administrative and legislative processes established by this code, and as may be required by
other city ordinances andlor state law, where applicable.
(B) Special Uses: Special uses are discretionary uses which
-'~~ G;G„t ~„-s;, a;aa; a;,'' ••~"' ., if properly designed, developed, operated and
maintained, may be approved for any specific location with a zone district wherein the
special use is enumerated. There are two categories of special use approval:
(1) Land Vesfed. These special uses require substantial investment in site
andlor building improvements which are long term capital investments and
are unique in design such that adaptation to a principal permitted use in
the particular zone is impractical and cost prohibitive. Approval of these
special use permits shall become a vested property right which may
transfer with the land or lease, however are subject to all conditions of
approval.
(2) Owner Granf of Use: This category of special use is less dependent upon
unique site andlor building improvements to accommodate the use,
however, is highly dependent upon proper management to ensure that
operational aspects of the use are not detrimental to adjacent properties,
the neighborhood, or the general public welfare. Therefore, approval of
"Owner GrantSpecial Uses" vests only to the owner of the special use .
approved and shall not be a vested property right and shall not
automatically transfer with the land or lease, except through inheritance by
an heir.
.. L.'.. L.I...J.. '
I IIJG ,
" L .."
1 1
. The
primary issues which planning commission and city council shall address are those
related to justification of need and those special design and operational considerations
which mitigate potential detrimental impacts of a special use on surrounding land uses,
the street system, or public services or facilities. In order to protect the public interest,
the planning commission and city council shall have the right to approve, approve with
modifications or deny a special use request and to revoke previously approved special
use permits pursuant to subsection (6) hereof.
(1) Applicability. The requirements of this subsection shall apply to all uses listed as ,
"Special Uses" within the provisions set forth for any particular zone district.
(2) Application form and review procedures:
(a) Prior to submitting any application for a special use permit, the applicant
shall be required to hold a neighborhood.input meeting. (See subsection ,~'
(F)(1) for requirements.)
(b) Special use applications may be originated only by the prospective owner
of the proposed special use, with written approval of the fee owner of the
property in cases where the owner of the property is different than the
owner of the proposed special use. Both the special use owner and the
land owner, or their legal representatives, must be present at all public
hearings.
(c) Application shall be submitted on forms provided by the department of ,'
planning and development, and shall be accompanied by a copy of the
property deed, a certified survey, and a fee of one hundred dollars
($100.00).
(d) All applications shall also be accompanied by a site development plan
and additional written information in sufficient detail to convey the full
intent of the applicant in developing, operating and maintaining the
special use. The site development plan shall meet the following minimum
requirements:
1. Sheet size: 8.5 X 11 inches minimum.
2. Scale and north arrow.
3. Property boundaries and lot lines with dimensions.
4. Existing and proposed public street rights-of-way, public
easements, irrigation ditches, drainage ways and other
easements affecting the site.
5. Existing and proposed public improvements within and adjacent to
the site; including curbs, gutter, sidewalk, street pavement,
drainage improvements, street lights, etc..
6. Existing and proposed street access points or curb cuts and
dimensions thereof.
7. Proposed site development elements, including general building
envelops, landscape/open space buffers, parking and loading
areas, and outside work, storage or display areas.
8, Site data table, including gross and net lot area, maximum
building coverage, maximum floor area of buildings,
landscape/open space area, parking area, maximum building
height, etc..
(e) Upon receipt of a complete application packet as described above, the
planning and develepment department shall proceed with the following
process:
1. Refer the application to affected public agencies for review and
comment.
2. Within thirty (30) days of acceptance of a completed application
packet, give notice of a scheduled public hearing on the
application by newspaper publication, letter notification and
posting in the manner as provided in subsection (F)(1).
3. Prepare a written report and recommendations to the planning
commission which evaluates the proposal and makes findings
using the following review criteria set forth in subsection (3) below.
(3) Criteria for review. Before a special use is approved, the applicant shall show,
and the planning commission and city council shall find, the proposed special
uses:
(a) Will meet a proven public need in that it will fill a void in necessary
services, products or facilities especially appropriate at the location
proposed, considering available alternatives.
(b) Will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety '.
and convenience of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
the proposed use.
(c) Will not create or contribute to blight in the neighborhood by virtue of
physical or operational characteristics of the proposed use.
(d) Will not adversely affect the adequate light and air, nor cause significant
air, water or noise pollution.
(e) Is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(f) Will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards, or unsafe
parking, loading, service or internal traffic conflicts, to the detriment of
persons whether on or off the site.
(g) Will be appropriately designed, including setbacks, heights, parking, bulk,
buffering, screening and landscaping, so as to be in harmony and
compatible with character of the surrounding areas and neighborhood,
especially with adjacent properties.
(h) Will not over burden the capacities of the existing streets, utilities, parks,
schools and other public facilities and services.
(4) Planning commission review: The planning commission shall hear and consider
any evidence or statement presented by the applicant, city staff, or by any
person in attendance at the hearing. The planning commission shall then make
a recommendation to city council to approve, approve with conditions or deny the
application, basing its recormendation upon the facts presented in the public
hearing in consideration of f:he criteria for review as specified in subsection (3)
above. Planning commission shall make a specific determination
specifying the recommended classification of the proposed special use as
"Property Vested" or "Owner Grant". Alaani
'sPectfre-determinatiorrspecifying-tFte-reFemcpendart riacciti~~tT, ;cam of thg
-PmP~~Fe~ase aS=Rroperty~Fested-or' 6wner-6raai; Planning
commission may recommend conditions or stipulations, which may include
physical design as well as operational and maintenance considerations, upon the
special use in addition to standard development and use regulations which apply
within a particular zone district or for a similar "permitted use". Such conditions
or sti ulations may be recommended in order to ensure compliance with the
triter a for review, which, in the case of "Owner Grant" uses, if not complied
with, shall be grounds for revocation of the conditional use. A recommendation
for denial shall be considered final, unless the applicant files an appeal to city
council.
(5) ; City council review. City Council shall review and decide upon all requests for
special uses upon recommendation of planning commission for approval or upon
appeal by an applicant of a recommendation for denial by planning commission. '
Special uses may only be approved by passage of an ordinance, following the
city's standard ordinance adoption procedures. Notice of public hearing shall be
in the manner provided in subsection 26-6(F)(1). City council, in addition to
consideration of the planning commission record, shall hear additional evidence
and testimony presented, and either pass, pass with modifications, or deny the
ordinance, its decision being based upon all evidence presented, with due
consideration of the criteria for review.
In the event of a protest against such special use permit, signed by the owners
of twenty (20) percent or more of the area:
(a) Of those immediately adjacent to the rear or any side of the property,
extending one hundred (100) feet from the property; or
(b) Of those directly opposite across the street from the property, extending
one hundred (100) feet from the street frontage of such opposite
property.
Such special use permits shall not become effective except by the favorable vote
of three-fourths of the entire city council. Where land which is adjacent or
opposite, as defined above, is owned by the city, such property shall be excluded
in computing the noncity land within the one-hundred-foot limit, as defined
above, shall be considered adjacent or opposite despite such intervening city
land. The written protest to such special use shall be submitted to the city
council no later than the hearing on the proposed special use permit.
(ti) Enforcement. All conditions and stipulations imposed by city council shall be
maintained in perpetuity with the special use. If at any time the stipulations or
conditions are not adhered to or are found to have been materially altered in
scope, application or design, the zoning administrator shall notify a code
enforcement officer of the nature of the violation(s) and the code enforcement
officer shall investigate and, if appropriate, initiate normal code enforcement
procedures in the case of a "Land Vested" special use, or in the case of
"Owner Grant" special uses, initiate revocation proceedings which shall
include the following:
(a) Notice of violation following procedures as set forth for nuisances
pursuant to Wheat Ridge Code, Chapter 15.
(b) Upon a finding of noncompliance by a code enforcement officer after the
prescribed correction date, the zoning administrator shall schedule a
revocation hearing before the city council. Such revocation hearing date
shall be set by city couhcil after first reading of an ordinance therefor.
The purpose of the revocation hearing shall be for the city council fo hear
evidence concerning the nature and extent of the alleged noncompliance
with the conditions of the special use permit. The council shall have the
power, upon good cause being shown to cancel or revoke the previously
issued special use permit, to require certain corrective measures to be
taken, and/or to direct the city's's agents to enter upon the premises and
take corrective measures required by the city council, and to modify the
conditions which apply to the special use permit. Any revocation action
shall become effective fifteen (15) days after final publication of the
ordinance. Any other action shall require a continuance of the public
hearing to a specific future date and a motion stipulating the specific
corrective measures that are to be accomplished either by the special
use owner or by an agent of the city within that time period. Upon the
date of the continued hearing, should the council find that the conditions
and stipulations have not been satisfactorily met, council shall adopt the
revocation ordinance.
{~eeEtme-effeetive-~,-,-Qa~'
~'
`~`~~ ~~~fi ~m ~~~~~ ~d~~~ ~
~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~(~~ a~ ~I~ll~X~l~ rJo_
7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE
WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215-6713
(303) 234-5900
CiTy Admin. Fax # 234-5924
Date: January 2, 1998
Police Dept. Fax # 235-2949
The City of
Wheat
Ridge
MEMORANDUM
To: Planning Commission
From: Alan White, Planning and Development Director
Subject: Case No. ZOA-97-4. An amendment to Section 26-6(B) of the Wheat Ridge Code
of Laws relating to special uses.
Section 26-6(B) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws establishes the applicability, review
procedures, and review criteria for special uses. Special uses are discretionary uses within a
zone district which if properly designed, developed, operated, and maintained may be appropriate
for any specific location. Conditions or stipulations are normally attached to the approval of a
special use in order to address compatibility with adjacent uses and mitigation of any detrimental
impacts on adjacent uses, public facilities or services, or the street system.
Special uses are allowed in each zone district and are enumerated under each zone district. The
current legislation provides chat the approval of a special use is a personal grant of use to the
owner of the special use, and is not a vested right assigned to the property. In other words, the
special use runs with the owner and not with the land. The only way a special use can transfer
ownership is through inheritance by an heir.
The proposed amendments to the special use section of the Code are attached. New language is
shown in bold with deleted language shown in s#rileeettt. The proposed amendment creates two
categories of special use approval : 1) Land Vested, and 2) Owner Grant of Use.
The two categories address the cases where the investment in developing and constructing the
facilities involved in a special use is substantial versus cases where it is not. "Land Vested" uses
would run with the land; "Owner Grant" uses would run with the owner and could be transferred
only through an heir or reapplying for approval as is currently the case for all special uses.
The amendment further requires Planning Commission to make a determination specifying the
recommended classification of the special use as "Property Vested" or "Owner Grant" on a case
by case basis. City Council makes a final determination at their hearing. In the case of "Owner
Grant" uses, conditions or stipulations of approval which are not complied with become criteria
for revocation of the special use under the enforcement provisions of the Special Use Section of
the Code. This requires a revocation hearing by Council. In the case of "Land Vested" uses,
enforcement is through normal code enforcement procedures.
i0 RECYCLED PAPER
Case No. ZOA-97-4
STAFF COMMENTS:
This legislation was prepared by the former Director and is being brought forwazd at this time for
Planning Commission consideration prior to Council action. It is not known if this proposal was
a Council directive or staff initiated.
The proposed legislation is intended to give special uses making substantial investments in
property improvements ("Land Vested"), as determined by City Council, reliance on the
approval of the use for possible future transfers of ownership. Also because of this substantial
investment, compliance with stipulations or conditions of approval is through normal code
enforcement procedures and not through use revocation procedures. This creates a dispazity in
enforcement and gives the Ciiy less leverage in compliance with "Land Vested" uses because
revocation of the use is not an option.
With the current system of all special uses being tied to the owner, the prospect of selling a
business is more difficult (less certain because reapproval is necessary) and the owner may suffer
economic hardship as a result. While the operation of the special use and other aspects may
remain the same with a new owner, there is no guarantee that a different Planning Commission
and City Council would reapprove the use. In some instances it may be beneficial to the City for
a special use to run with the land, not the owner,
The proposed legislation does not define "substantial investment"_and there are no criteria to
establish what constitutes a substantial investment. This could result in different determinations
from case to case where one use is given "Land Vested" status and another "Owner Grant" status
with relatively the same inveshnent.
The creation of two classes of special uses creates two sets of rules for special uses and will
require additional monitoring by staff. Administration of regulations is streamlined when the
legislation is simple and applies to all cases. This will not be the case with this proposed
legislation.
Staff is prewriting the legislation for consideration by Planning Commission.
RECOMIv1ENDED MOTIONS:
OPTION A
"I move to CONTINUE Case No. ZOA-97-4, an amendment to Section 26-6(B) of the
Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to special uses, to January 15, 1998 and direct
staff to address the following conr-erns:
1.
2."
2
•
Case No. ZOA-97-4
OPTION B
"I move to recommend DENIAL of Case No. ZOA-97-4, an amendment to Section 26-
6(B) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to special uses, for the following
reasons:
1.
2."
OPTION C
"I move to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. ZOA-97-4, an amendment to Section
26-6(B) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to special uses, with the following
changes:
1.
2.»
3
Sec. 26-6. Legislative and administrative process and procedures.
This section sets forth the procedural and substantive requirements which apply to the various
administrative and legislative processes established by this code, and as may be required by
other city ordinances and/or state law, where applicable.
(B) Special Uses: Special uses are discretionary uses which
.,I..F...:.....i :... __ r -~+~ •••V:-~- if properly designed, developed, operated and
maintained, may be approved for any specific location with a zone district wherein the
special use is enumerated. There are two categories of special use approval:
r
(1) Land Vesfed. These special uses require substantial investment in site
'~ and/or building improvements which are long term capital investments and
are unique in design such that adaptation to a principal permitted use in
the particular zone is impractical and cost prohibitive. Approval of these
special use permits shall become a vested property right which may
transfer with the land or lease, however are subject to all conditions of
approval.
(2) Owner Grant of Use: This category of special use is less dependent upon
unique site and/or building improvements to accommodate the use,
however, is highly dependent upon proper management to ensure that
operational aspects of the use are not detrimental to adjacent properties,
the neighborhood, or the general public welfare. Therefore, approval of
"Owner Grant-Special Uses" vests only to the owner of the special use
approved and shall not be a vested property right and shall not
automatically transfer with the land or lease, except through inheritance by
an heir.
'. The
primary issues which planning commission and city council shall address are those
related to justification of need and those special design and operational considerations
which mitigate potential detrimental impacts of a special use on surrounding land uses,
the street system, or public services or facilities. In order to protect the public interest,
the planning commission and city council shall have the right to approve, approve with
modifications or deny a special use request and to revoke previously approved special
use permits pursuant to subsection (6) hereof.
(1) Applicability. The requirements of this subsection shall apply to all uses listed as
"Special Uses" within the provisions set forth for any particular zone district.
(2) Application form and review procedures:
(a) Prior to submitting any application for a special use permit, the applicant
shall be required to hold a neighborhood. input meeting. (See subsection ,'
(F)(1) for requirements.)
(b) Special use applications may be originated only by the prospective owner
of the proposed special use, with written approval of the fee owner of the
property in cases where the owner of the property is different than the
owner of the proposed special use. Both the special use owner and the
land owner, or their legal representatives, must be present at all public
hearings.
(c) Application shall be submitted on forms provided by the department of ,`
planning and development, and shall be accompanied by a copy of the
property deed, a certified survey, and a fee of one hundred dollars
($100.00).
(d) All applications shall also be accompanied by a site development plan
and additional written information in sufficient detail to convey the full
intent of the applicant in developing, operating and maintaining the
special use. The site development plan shall meet the following minimum
requirements: ,
1. Sheet size: 8.5 X 11 inches minimum. '
2. Scale and north arrow.
3. Property boundaries and lot lines with dimensions.
4. Existing and proposed public street rights-of-way, public
easements, irrigation ditches, drainage ways and other
easements affecting the site.
5. Existing and proposed public improvements within and adjacent to
the site, including curbs, gutter, sidewalk, street pavement,
drainage improvements, street lights, etc..
6. Existing and proposed street access points or curb cuts and
dimensions thereof.
7. Proposed site development elements, including general building
envelops, landscape/open space buffers, parking and loading
areas, and outside work, storage or display areas.
8. Site data table, including gross and net lot area, maximum
building coverage, maximum floor area of buildings,
landscape/open space area, parking area, maximum building
height, etc..
(e) Upon receipt of a complete application packet as described above, the
planning and development department shall proceed with the following
process:
1. Refer the application to affected public agencies for review and
comment.
2. Within thirty (30) days of acceptance of a completed application
packet, give notice of a scheduled public hearing on the
application by newspaper publication, letter notification and
posting in the manner as provided in subsection (F)(1).
3. Prepare a written report and recommendations to the planning
commission which evaluates the proposal and makes findings
using the following review criteria set forth in subsection (3) below.
• i
(3) Criteria for review. Before a special use is approved, the applicant shall show,
and the planning commission and city council shall find, the proposed special
uses:
(a) Will meet a proven public need in that it will fill a void in necessary
services, products or facilities especially appropriate at the location
proposed, considering available alternatives.
(b) Will not have a detrimental effect upon the general health, welfare, safety '
and convenience of persohs residing or working in the neighborhood of
the proposed use.
(c) Will not create or a~ntribute to blight in the neighborhood by virtue of
physical or operational characteristics of the proposed use.
(d) Will not adversely affect the adequate light and air, nor cause significant
air, water or noise pollution.
(e) Is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(f) Will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards, or unsafe
parking, loading, service or internal traffic conflicts to the detriment of
persons whether on or off the site.
(g) Will be appropriately designed, including setbacks, heights, parking, bulk,
buffering, screening and landscaping, so as to be in harmony and
compatible with character of the surrounding areas and neighborhood,
especially with adjacent properties.
(h) Will not over burden the capacities of the existing streets, utilities, parks,
schools and other public facilities and services.
(4) Planning commission review: The planning commission shall hear and consider
any evidence or statement presented by the applicant, city staff, or by any
person in attendance at the hearing. The planning commission shall then make
a recommendation to city council to approve, approve with conditions or deny the
application, basing its recommendation upon the facts presented in the public
hearing in consideration of the criteria for review as specified in subsection (3)
above. Planning commission shall make a specific determination
specifying the recommended classification of the proposed special use as
"Property Vested" or "Owner Grant".
Planning
commission may recommend conditions or stipulations, which may include
physical design as well as operational and maintenance considerations, upon the
special use in addition to standard development and use regulations which apply
within a particular zone district or for a similar "permitted use". Such conditions
or stipulations may be recommended in order to ensure compliance with the
criter a for review, which, in the case of "Owner Grant" uses, if not complied
with, shall be grounds for revocation of the conditional use. A recommendation
for denial shall be considered final, unless the applicant files an appeal to city
council.
(5) City council review. City Council shall review and decide upon all requests for
special uses upon recommendation of planning commission for approval or upon
appeal by an applicant of a recommendation for denial by planning commission. '
Special uses may only be approved by passage of an ordinance, following the
city's standard ordinance adoption procedures. Notice of public hearing shall be
in the manner provided in subsection 26-6(F)(1). City council, in addition to
consideration of the plannung commission record, shall hear additional evidence
and testimony presented, and either pass, pass with modifications, or deny the
ordinance, its decision being based upon all evidence presented, with due
consideration of the criteria for review.
In the event of a protest against such special use permit, signed by the owners
of twenty (20) percent or more ofi the area:
(a) Of those immediately adjacent to the rear or any side of the property,
extending one hundred (100) feet from the property; or
(b) Of those directly opposite across the street from the property, extending
one hundred (100) feet from the street frontage of such opposite
property.
Such special use permits shall not become effective except by the favorable vote
ofthree-fourths of the entire city council. Where land which is adjacent or
opposite, as defined above, is owned by the city, such property shall be excluded
in computing the noncity land within the one-hundred-foot limit, as defined
above, shall be considered adjacent or opposite despite such intervening city
land. The written protest to such special use shall be submitted to the city
council no later than the hearing on the proposed special use permit.
(6) Enforcement. All conditions and stipulations imposed by city council shall be
maintained in perpetuity with the special use. If at any time the stipulations or
conditions are not adhered to .or are found to have been materially altered in
scope, application or design, the zoning administrator shall notify a code
enforcement officer of the nature of the violation(s) and the code enforcement
officer shall investigate and, if appropriate, initiate normal code enforcement
procedures in the case oi` a "Land Vested" special use, or in the case of
"Owner Grant" special uses, initiate revocation proceedings which shall
include the following:
(a) Notice of violation following procedures as set forth for nuisances
pursuant to Wheat Ridge Code, Chapter 15.
(b) Upon a finding of noncompliance by a code enforcement officer after the
prescribed correction date, the zoning administrator shall schedule a
revocation hearing before the city council. Such revocation hearing date
shall be set by city council after first reading of an ordinance therefor.
The purpose of the revocation hearing shall be for the city council to hear
evidence concerning the nature and extent of the alleged noncompliance
with the conditions of the special use permit. The council shall have the
power, upon good cause being shown to cancel or revoke the previously
issued special use permit, to require certain corrective measures to be
taken, and/or to direct the city's's agents to enter upon the premises and
take corrective measures required by the city council, and to modify the
conditions which apply to the special use permit. Any revocation action
C~
shall become effective fifteen (15) days after final publication of the
ordinance. Any other action shall require a continuance of the public
hearing to a specific future date and a motion stipulating the specific
corrective measures that are to be accomplished either by the special
use owner or by an agent of the city within that time period. Upon the
date of the continued hearing, should the council find that the conditions
and stipulations have not been satisfactorily met, council shall adopt the
revocation ordinance.
~Y-