Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWPA-02-01RESOLUTION NO. 10 2002 Series of 2002 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE WHEAT RIDGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (WPA 02-01) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge adopted a Comprehensive Plan on October 25, 1999 and further amendments were considered and adopted in January 24, 2000; and WHEREAS, C.R.S. 31-23-206 (2) provides that the Comprehensive Plan may be amended by the City from time to time; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan has been proposed which changes the land use designation on the Future land Use Map in a certain area of the City in order to accommodate possible future redevelopment for the benefit of the City as a whole; and WHEREAS, C.R.S. 31-23-208 and Section 2-60 (b) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws requires review of the Comprehensive Plan or amendments thereto to be reviewed by the Planning Commission with a written recommendation forwarded to the City Council; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission concerning the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan was published in the Wheat Ridge Transcript on March 21, 2002; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2-60(a) of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and has forwarded its written recommendation on the proposed amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing as provided by Section 2-60(b) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws; legal notice thereof being duly published in the Wheat Ridge Transcript on April 4, 2002. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, as follows: A. That the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge hereby adopts the amendment to the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan illustrated by Exhibit A. B. An attested copy of this resolution shall be attached to the Plan amendment and a copy of the Plan as attested shall be certified to Jefferson County, Colorado. DONE AND RESOLVED THIS ATTEST: WANDA SANG, CITY CLERK Ylj~ ay 2002 LIEN CERVE YOR C:\MyFiles\WPFilcs\COMPPLAN\upbam amend cc res.wpd CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: APRIL 22, 2002 Page - 2 - Motion by Mr. DiTullio to suspend the Rules and let Councilmembers speak as many times as necessary on Items 1. 2. and 3.; seconded by Mr. Gokey; carried 8-0. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Item 1. Follow-up to joint meeting with Urban Renewal Authority on March 25, 2002. (Jim Windholz) (No back-up material) Jim Windholz, attorney for the Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority since the mid 1980's, gave follow-up and answered questions regarding the meeting of March 25, 2002. He outlined the purpose and benefits of Urban Renewal, as well as the State mandated process. Arnie Ray of Scymanski/Ray, was present to answer questions. He outlined some examples that got off the ground because of Urban Renewal, such as Cinderella City, Villa Italia, Westland, Northglenn, etc. Alan White, Wheat Ridge Director of Planning, also answered questions. He described the conditions of the property in the vicinity of 44th and Wadsworth, directly west of the Stage Stop Antique Store, and also showed pictures. This was the former Spartan Store, that burned down many years ago and has remained undeveloped. It has turned into a dumping ground for unwanted items. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 2. Public Hearing on Resolution 10-2002 - A Resolution by the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, adopting an amendment to the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan. (Case No. WPA-02-01) Item 3. Public Hearing on Resolution 11-2002 - finding blight in certain additional areas of the Wadsworth Boulevard Corridor Redevelopment Area and approving the first modification of the Wadsworth Boulevard Corridor Redevelopment Plan. Councilmember Edwards introduced Resolution 10-2002 and 11-2002 and read the titles. City Attorney, Gerald Dahl, stated that public testimony would be taken on both items together. He encouraged people to focus their testimony on these two items specifically. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: APRIL 22, 2002 Page - 3 - Alan White, was sworn in by the Mayor, presented the staff report, and entered exhibits into the record. Jim Windhoiz, was sworn in by the Mayor. He established for the record that all the requirements of the Urban Renewal Statutes had been followed precisely as outlined in the law. He entered Exhibits 1 through 4 into the record. Arthur Anderson, Urban Renewal Consultant, was sworn in by the Mayor. He was asked by the Urban Renewal Authority to investigate the area at 44`h & Upham Street; the investigation took place on January 7, 2002; report was presented to the Urban Renewal Authority on February 11, 2002. He. investigated the site this morning and again this afternoon. He asked that the two pictures on the front, left and right, be crossed out. On Page 4, the building on 4281 Upham has now been painted. The fence at 4085 Upham Street has been fixed and replaced with a chain link fence. Page 6, under Section 5.4, the address under 3. Should be 4145 Upham, not 4115 Upham. 4. 4275 Upham has been cleaned up. 5. 4001 Upham, the damaged car has been removed. 11. Has been sealed off. 1. 3955 Upham has been. cleaned up and looks better than the picture indicates. Page 7, Item 5.5, 2. 3. 6. 8. 9. and 10. should be stricken. On Page 8, 5.6, 1. has been partially cleaned up. 4. is out and 3955 Upham has been partially cleaned up. 4281 Upham the building has been painted, but there are still stacks on wood in the area. Page 9., 5.7, 1. the fence cut-through has been fixed. He gave criteria of what he had looked for when he did the blight study: conditions included some deteriated or deteriating structures defective or inadequate street layout; absence of curb, gutter and sidewalk; faulty lot layout; unsanitary or unsafe conditions; deteriation of site and other improvements; unusual topography; defective or unusual conditions of title; etc. He stated that even with the improvements he observed today, the elements of blight still exist. Mr. Anderson's "Upham Street Blight Survey" was entered into the record as Exhibit 5 Mr. White entered into the record the first modification to the Wadsworth Corridor Development Plan, that is contained within Councils' packet; this is a description and map and copy of Urban Renewal Authority Resolution 01. These were marked as Exhibit 7. Mr. Windholz offered the hard copy of the powerpoint presentation that was made and be entered as Exhibit 6. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: APRIL 22, 2002 Page - 4 - The following speakers were sworn in by the Mayor: John Minshall, 3550 Miller Court; is the owner of the 20 unit apartment complex, shown on Page 3 of the blight study as 4001 Upham Street, and is also speaking on behalf of his mother, who owns the 43 apartments at 4065 and 4085 Upham Street. They are very proud of their apartments, they are well taken care of, have low rents and loyal tenants. Mr. Minshall presented pictures of the apartments, which were numbered Exhibits A and B. He is totally outraged that their properties are considered blighted and rebutted numerous items in the blight study. Motion by Mr. Mancinelli to remove the pictures displayed on the front of the dais; these pictures are not representing the area being discussed; seconded by Ms. Figlus; carried 8-0. Ray Chewning, 4047 Upham Street, implored Council not to take away their affordable apartments. Sheryl Chewning, 4047 Upham Street, apartment manager, opposes the Wadsworth Corridor Redevelopment Plan. She is offended that the area is being referred to as blighted. They can't afford, nor do they want to, move. She submitted a letter from a tenant named Chrysti Hagen as Exhibit C. Beth Jenkins-Eddleblute, 4031 Upham Street, showed pictures of the inside of their apartment, which were marked Exhibit D. She is very happy and comfortable there. Clarence Eddleblute, 4031 Upham Street, agreed with the previous speakers. He is glad to live there and there are no drive-by shootings, drugs, etc. Gordon Hinshaw, 4045 Upham Street, questioned why the neighbors to the east side of the street were not informed of this; is worried about his property value dropping. Kendra Paiement, 4057 Upham Street, has lived at the Minshall Apartments for 7 years; she can walk to work at Lutheran; apartments are very well kept, affordable, safe neighborhood. Kalen Bauer, 4017 Upham Street, resident of town homes for almost 10 years; agrees with Mr. Minshall; hopes this won't pass. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: APRIL 22, 2002 Page - 5 - Susan Seeds, 6147 West 35th Avenue, read a letter on behalf of Wheat Ridge United Neighborhoods, which urged not to change the west side of Upham Street to a commercial designation on the Comprehensive Plan. This letter was designated as Exhibit E. Mike Markham, 4736 West 69th Drive, Westminster, speaking for Lorraine Neumann, who lives at 4281 Upham. He brought pictures of 4281 Upham, marked as Exhibit F. He indicated that these pictures clearly show this is not a slum. He disputed the accuracy of the blight study. Rosemarie Moore, owns the properties at 3900 and 3920 Upham Street (east side of street), gave background on neighborhood. Jan and Dave Kissell, 4115 Upham Street, presented pictures of their property, which were marked Exhibit G. Wheat Ridge is unique, we don't want to be like other cities. There are other properties in Wheat Ridge that. can be developed. There are many empty shopping centers in the metro area. Motion by Mr. Schneider to suspend the Rules and go past 11:00 p.m.; seconded by Mr. Edwards; carried 7-1 with Mr. Hanley voting no. Efiseo Martinez, 1693 Garland Street, owns 3955 Upham Street. He showed pictures of the property, which were marked-Exhibit H. He asked that Council not gamble with the community for something that may not come true. Jan McNeel, 2012 Beech Court, Golden, owns 4275 Upham Street. He brought pictures of his property, which were marked Exhibit I. He is opposed to the Urban Renewal Plan for his street. Justin Grosch, 1410 South Birch Street, Denver, was present to speak on behalf of his sister, Corrina Lane, 4093 Upham Street. He addressed increased traffic and safety issues if a commercial area is put in. Gerald Oslar, 4085 Upham Street, asked that Wheat Ridge not be turned into a Lakewood or Arvada. Cliff Peterson, 4105 A Upham Street, loves living on Upham Street. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: APRIL 22, 2002 Page - 6 - Tessa Morris, 1070 Rogers Street, Golden, speaking on behalf of her parents, Angelo and Lynn Martinelli, 4240 Upham Street. Her parents bought their house as a retirement home and have put a lot of money into it. They wouldn't want to live there if a commercial development goes in across the street. People on the east side of the street should have been informed of the meetings.. Louise Adams, 4065 Upham Street, has lived in her apartment for 12 years and does not want to be displaced. Edna Fleming, 4053 Upham Street, doesn't feel that her apartment is a slum or in a blighted area. Louise Turner, 11256 West 381t, Avenue, stated that "relocation" means taking people's homes; that is not something to take lightly. There is no shortage of commercial land in Wheat Ridge. . Cheryl Johnson, 4200 Upham Street, asked what would go in across the street. Robert McLeod, 3960 Upham Street, is opposed to the blight survey. Neil Duggan, 11237 West 26th Place, Lakewood, is a good friend of the Minshalls; agrees with all the speakers. Al Leos, 4221 Upham Street, submitted pictures of his property, which were marked Exhibit J. He doesn't want to relocate. Cindy and Ted Whaley, 4100 Upham Street, are opposed to the Urban Renewal Plan. Josh Green, 4089 Upham Street, lives at the Minshall Apartments; needs the affordable housing. This plan will not benefit the City of Wheat Ridge. Mr. White entered two letters into the record, which were marked Exhibits 8 and 9. Exhibit 8 is a letter from Anne Hinshaw. Exhibit 9 is a letter from J.L. Neumann. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: APRIL 22, 2002 Page - 7 - Motion by Mr. Edwards to approve Resolution 10-2002, Case No. WPA-02-01, a Resolution adopting an amendment to the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan; seconded by Mr. Gokey; carried 5-3 with Councilmembers Hanley, Mancinelli and Figlus voting no. Mr. Mancinelli voted no because the Urban Renewal Authority needs to go back to Square One and deal with what we presented to the Colorado Department of Transportation, the Wadsworth Corridor Study. We told the State that we would develop a "Village Concept" on that corner. Mr. White submitted the latest, revised, edited copy of Resolution 11-2002, which was marked Exhibit 10. Motion by Mr. Edwards to adopt the latest version of Resolution 11-2002, which was just handed out and marked Exhibit 10, a resolution finding blight and amending the Wadsworth Boulevard Corridor Redevelopment Plan by adding the 3900 block to and including the 4200 block of Upham Street; seconded by Mr. Gokey; carried 5-3 with Councilmembers Hanley, Mancinelli, and Figlus voting no. Mr. Mancinelli voted no because we are dealing with taking out a neighborhood; he has spent 3 years working on the Wheat Ridge Housing Authority and this is a slap in the face to moderate income housing. Ms. Figlus voted no because she cannot see how this area is blighted; she found it well maintained; people really care about this neighborhood. Mr. Hanley voted no because this is a neighborhood. ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING Item 4. Council Bill 13-2002 - An Ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 7 of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge concerning the conduct of municipal elections. Council Bill 13-2002 was introduced on first reading by Mr. DiTullio, who also read the title, summary and background. Motion by Mr. DiTullio that Council Bill 13-2002 be approved on first reading, ordered published, public hearing be set for Monday, May 13, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, Municipal Building, and if approved on second reading, take effect 15 days after final publication; seconded by Mr. Mancinelli; carried 8-0. Of W:iEgT P a AGENDA ITEM _QL REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION April 22, 2002 cOC OR P00 X PUBLIC HEARINGS ORDINANCES FOR 1ST READING _ BIDS/MOTIONS ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING X RESOLUTIONS Quasi-Judicial: X Yes No SUBJECT: Case No. WPA 02-01, a Resolution adopting an amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the City of Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: An amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan is proposed for the area on the west side of Upham Street. This area is currently shown as Transitional Residential, Single Family (not to exceed 4 du's/acre) and Planned Residential Development (not to exceed 12 du's/acre.) The proposed amendment would changes these designations to Community Commercial Center, so that the entire area bounded by 38th Avenue, Wadsworth, 44" Avenue, and Upham would be designated Community Commercial Center. A resolution is required to adopt an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission considered this amendment at a public hearing on April 4, 2002 and did not recommended adopting the nnendment. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Recommendation to City Council form 2. Resolution No. 10- 2002 , with exhibit showing amendment 3. Memo to City Council 4. Planning Commission resolution 5. Planning Commission 4/4 draft minutes STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval BUDGETIMPACT: Original budgeted amount: $0 Actual contracted amount: $0 Impact of expenditure on line item: $0 Budget Account No.: N/A ORIGINATED BY: Alan White, Planning and Development Director STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Alan White, Planning and Development Director SUGGESTED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. M- 200 Case No. WPA 02-01, a resolution adopting an amendment to the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan." Vt~l yUtj -72 4*V&6wc~c? C:WyFiles\WPFiles\COMPPLAN\upham amend cc action.wpd yJ I _ &4 C i t y o f W h e a t R i d g e Recommendation(s) to Council Date I /11 LO2 Board 090 1_ Issue or Case # RECOMMENDATION(S)/AMENDMENT(S) (if applicable, bullet form) RESOLUTION NO. 10_2002 Series of 2002 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE WHEAT RIDGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (WPA 02-01) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge adopted a Comprehensive Plan on October 25, 1999 and further amendments were considered and adopted in January 24, 2000; and WHEREAS, C.R.S. 31-23-206 (2) provides that the Comprehensive Plan may be amended by the City from time to time; and WHEREAS, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan has been proposed which changes the land use designation on the Future land Use Map in a certain area of the City in order to accommodate possible future redevelopment for the benefit of the City as a whole; and WHEREAS, C.R.S. 31-23-208 and Section 2-60 (b) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws requires review of the Comprehensive Plan or amendments thereto to be reviewed by the Planning Commission with a written recommendation forwarded to the City Council; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission concerning the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan was published in the Wheat Ridge Transcript on March 21, 2002; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2-60(a) of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and has forwarded its written recommendation on the proposed amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing as provided by Section 2-60(b) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws; legal notice thereof being duly published in the Wheat Ridge Transcript on April 4, 2002. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, as follows: A. That the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge hereby adopts the amendment to the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan illustrated by Exhibit A. B. An attested copy of this resolution shall be attached to the Plan amendment and a copy of the Plan as attested shall be certified to Jefferson County, Colorado. DONE AND RESOLVED THIS day of 2002. GRETCHEN CERVENY, MAYOR ATTEST: WANDA SANG, CITY CLERK C:\MyFiles\WPFiles\COMPPLAN\upham amend cc res.wpd OF wH~gr City of Wheat Ridge o U ~ Planning and Development Department COOO L ORP Memorandum TO: City Council FROM: Alan White, Planning and Development Director W SUBJECT: Amendment to Comprehensive Plan DATE: April 11, 2002 Attached is a Resolution to which is attached a map showing the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment involves changing the land use designation on the Future Land Use Map for the area on the west side of Upham Street currently designated Transitional Residential, Single Family Residential (not to exceed 4 du's per acre), and Planned Residential Development (not to exceed 12 du's per acre.) The proposal is to change the designations of these areas to Community Commercial Center. Major goals of the Comprehensive Plan are to revitalize existing commercial areas and stimulate economic development. The existing shopping center known as Time Square and the area to the north were developed more than thirty years ago. Subdivision and zoning actions were taken on an individual, piecemeal basis. As a result, there is a mixture of zoning designations and lot configurations that are not conducive to redevelopment of the area. Standards of the retail industry have changed since this area was originally developed. The changes have been in response to consumer desires and retail practices. The area as currently configured does not meet industry requirements for lot depth. A change of the land use designation to Community Commercial Center provides a better potential opportunity for redevelopment of this area, consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval of the amendment. A motion to approve the resolution is necessary. C:\MyFiles\WPFiles\COMPPLAN\upham amend cc memo.wpd CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. D Series of 2002 A RESOLUTION CONCERNING ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE WHEAT RIDGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FORWARDING SAID RECOMMENDATION TO THE WHEAT RIDGE CITY COUNCIL. WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan for this area was adopted only a few years ago after very lengthy study by the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee, the Planning Commission and the City Council; and WHEREAS, there has not been sufficient evidence presented to change the Comprehensive Plan at this time. It is recommended to the City Council that no change be made in the current designation of the area on the map presented to the Planning Commission. DONE AND RESOLVED THIS 411 day of April, 2002. PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Chair LC7~+~ eti' Secretary to the Commission C:\MyFiles\WPFiles\COMPPLAN\upham amend pe res.wpd EXHIBIT A Proposed Comprehensive la Amendment Current Classification of Future Land Use Proposed Classification of Future Land Use CC: Community Commercial Center P: Park and Open Space PS. Public/Semi Public PRD (12). Planned Residential Development (not to exceed 12 du's/acre) SF (4): Single Family Detached Residential (sotto exceed 4 du's/acre) TR: Transitional Residential 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one to appear before the Commission at this time. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Resolution No. 01, Series of 2002, Case No. WPA-02-01: An amendment to the City of Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The proposed amendment is to change the future land use designation of certain areas on the west side of Upham Street to Community Commercial Center. The case was presented by Alan White. Staff recommended approval of the amendment which would provide better opportunity for potential redevelopment of this area. Notices of this hearing was published in the Wheat Ridge Transcript and, although not required, letters of notification were sent to landowners involved in this proposal. Commissioner McMILLIN asked if landowners on the east side of Upham Street were also notified of this meeting. Alan White replied that they were not. Commissioner SNOW asked if it is intended to find the subject area blighted and, if blight is found, would properties be condemned. Alan White replied that findings of blight in the area will be considered during a hearing in front of City Council on April 22 and, if blight is found, condemnation would be an option. In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Alan White stated there is no specific development plan for the subject area at this time. Chair WEISZ asked to hear from those present who wished to address the Commission. Gordon Hinshaw 4045 Upham Mr. Hinshaw expressed opposition to the resolution. The city is putting the cart before the horse-the blight study has not been approved by City Council and there is no developer. He also commented that the city has done nothing with the Spartan pad in the past twenty years. He asked the Commission to hold off on making a decision until there is a specific plan. David Nikkel 4175 Upham Mr. Nikkel expressed opposition to the resolution. Residents of this area will not want to improve their properties if they are designated as a blighted area. No decisions should be made unless there is a specific development plan. He expressed concern that incompatible uses could be placed next to his property. There are a lot of unanswered questions for residents of the area. John Hatzibakus 4107B Upham Street Ms. Hatzibakus is presently a renter at this address. He likes the area very much and does not wish to move from this address. Planning Commission Page 2 April 4, 2002 Joe McCluskey Mr. McCluskey appeared on behalf of his sister, Pat Price, who resides at 4110 Upham. Her main concern is increased traffic generation on Upham Street. He wondered if Upham Street would be widened and, if so, where ingress and egress would occur on the west side. Jan Kissell 4115 Upham Ms. Kissell expressed concern that her house could be condemned. She was opposed to her area being labeled as "blighted." She has lived in this house for 28 years and chose this location because of the large lot. She urged the Planning Commission to keep Wheat Ridge as it is and asked that the area not be placed in urban renewal without a specific plan. She stated that this is the fourth time residents of this area have had to fight for their property. Richard Carver 4360 Upham Mr. Carver expressed concern about increased traffic on Upham. He wanted to know what kind of development would be proposed for the area. Ted Whaley 4100 Upham Mr. Whaley expressed opposition to the resolution. He has lived in this location for over forty years and likes the area. He expressed concern about the traffic on Upham from 38"' to 44a'. People drive at excessive speeds on this street and development would only increase the problem. If the west side of Upham is developed commercially, it will limit access into his property. John Minshall 3550 Miller Court Mr. Minshall owns the apartment complex at 4001 to 4039 Upham containing twenty units. He expressed concern about the lack of a development plan. He also expressed concern about increased traffic on Upham. He asked if there was someone interested in developing the area because it seems someone wants the area for urban renewal and the blight study is almost an afterthought. If blight exists in this area, residents have never been notified so they could correct any problems. Commissioner SNOW asked Mr. Minshall if he was notified of the Urban Renewal meeting held in February. Mr. Minshall replied that it was posted on the bulletin board and listed in the Transcript. One of the residents found out about the meeting and notified the rest of the neighbors. He stated that the first notification he received was regarding this hearing. Ray Chewning 4047 Upham Mr. Chewning expressed opposition to the resolution and believed there is a lack of humanity in displacing approximately 130-140 people. He expressed concern about further traffic problems on Upham where there is already a speeding problem. Planning Commission Page 3 April 4, 2002 Cheryl Chewning 4047 Upham Ms. Chewning manages the apartment complexes here and expressed opposition to the plan. There are 130 residents in 63 units and they do not wish to move. She does not want to see this area torn down and redeveloped as a commercial area. Rose Marie Moore 3900-3920 Upham Ms. Moore spoke in opposition to the resolution. She also expressed concern that homeowners on the east side of Upham did not receive written notification of this hearing. Mike Markham Mr. Markham appeared on behalf of Julie Newman who lives at 4281 Upham. There are too many unanswered questions. If there are no prospective developers, there seems to be no need for this resolution. He suggested that citizens be involved in planning for this area and asked the Commission to shelve this matter until there is a concrete plan to consider. Lynne Martinelli 4240 Upham Ms. Martinelli expressed opposition to the resolution. She has lived in the area for four years although most of her neighbors have lived in the area for 25-50 years. She wondered why, when she bought her house, they were required to deed part of their property for widening Upham. She also expressed concern about increased traffic. In reply to a question from Commissioner SNOW regarding the street dedication, Alan White explained that the city requested this dedication to bring the road up to right-of-way standards for a local street. Tessa Morris Ms. Morris spoke on behalf of her father, Angelo Martinelli who lives at 4240 Upham. Her father is opposed to the resolution. As a realtor, she expressed concern about real estate values which would plummet as a result of being placed in an urban renewal area. Jan McNeel 4275 Upham Mr. McNeel is co-owner of this property with his parents and indicated his opposition to the resolution. The property is presently being rented to someone with an option to buy. This option is now clouded with the possibility of the area being designated as blighted. He wanted to know if there was a petition with the signatures of 25 homeowners necessary to form an urban renewal authority. He objected to the fact that there was no notice to the homeowners about the blight study dated October 15, 2001. He also expressed concern about the possible removal of trees with redevelopment. He questioned that blight exists in the area. Gay Anne Fay 4320 Upham Ms. Fay spoke in opposition to the resolution. She lives behind the Stage Stop and would prefer to keep it rather than have new development with more traffic and more delivery trucks. Planning Commission Page 4 April 4, 2002 Robert McLeod 3960 Upham Mr. McLeod spoke in opposition to the resolution. His family is living in this house which was originally built by his wife's grandmother and felt that people have the right to stay in their houses if they wish to. Louise Adams 4065 Upham Ms. Adams spoke in opposition to the resolution. She rents from the Minshall's and stated she was terrified of losing her home. Michael Sheeley 4085 Upham Mr. Sheeley spoke in opposition to the resolution for reasons previously expressed by others. Chair WEISZ asked if there were others who wished to address the Commission. Hearing no response, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner PLUMMER commented that his understanding was that the resolution is just an invitation to open this area up for redevelopment and wouldn't necessarily mean the loss of any homes. Landscape buffering and traffic issues would be addressed if development should ever take place. Alan White stated that, if a specific development is ever considered, there would have to be several more public hearings before City Council. Commissioner SNOW expressed concern that there may be some plan in the works that have not been presented to the residents since the Urban Renewal Authority does conduct executive sessions. Commissioner COOPER stated that, as she drove through the subject area, she did not see evidence of blight. She asked if it were necessary to change the land use plan before a developer would even look at this area. Jim Windholz replied that the purpose of this proceeding is to make a recommendation to City Council as to whether the proposed modification to the urban renewal plan conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan. This recommendation would have nothing to do with blight but only with whether the plan is in conformance with the COMPLAN. He read from the urban renewal law Section 31-25-107(2): "Prior to the approval or modification ofan urban renewal plan, the City Council shall submit such a proposed modification to the Planning Commission for review and recommendations as to the proposed modification's conformity with the general plan for the development of the city as a whole. " In response to a question from Commissioner COLLINS as to whether the city has a plan, Mr. Windholz stated that there is a Wadsworth Corridor Redevelopment Plan and this modification would add additional area to this plan for mixed use commercial uses. Commissioner McNAMEE suggested to those individuals who expressed concern about traffic on Upham Street that they contact the city regarding installation of traffic calming devices. A Planning Commission Page 5 April 4, 2002 member of the audience stated the residents had already contacted the city but found that such devices could not be installed because they would interfere with emergency traffic. Jim Windholz explained that blight is determined when four out of eleven statutory factors of blight are found and blight does not necessarily mean individual homes. These findings will be considered at a public hearing before City Council on April 22 when blight will or will not be proven. He also stated that there is not a developer on board and there have been no secret meetings with any developer. This does not necessarily mean there will be a developer who wants to include the residences along Upham, but if it is in an urban renewal area, the opportunity is there if the City Council determines to include these properties in a redevelopment area. Commissioner McMILLIN stated that, as a residential realtor, he believes that placing an area under urban renewal makes residential properties more difficult to sell. Upon a motion by Commissioner SNOW and second by Commissioner COOPER the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan for this area was adopted only a few years ago after a very lengthy study by the Comprehensive Plan Study Committee, the Planning Commission and the City Council; and Whereas, there has not been sufficient evidence presented to change the Comprehensive Plan at this time; It is recommended to the City Council that no change be made in the current designation of the area on the map presented to Planning Commission. The motion passed 8-0. 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Planning Commission. 9. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution No 02, Series of 2002, Wadsworth Boulevard Corridor Redevelopment Plan - First Modification Alan White presented this item which is a charge to the Planning Commission to determine whether or not the proposal to add this area to the urban renewal area is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Upon a motion by Commissioner SNOW and second by Commissioner McMILLIN, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed first modification of the plan for its compliance with the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, it has been found by the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission that the proposed first modification is not in conformance with the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan; Planning Commission Page 6 April 4, 2002 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge CITY COUNCIL on April 22, 2002, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building 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 petition shall be heard: Case No. WPA-02-01: An amendment to the City of Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The proposed amendment is to change the future land use designation of certain areas on the west side of Upham Street from Transitional Residential, Planned Residential Development (12) and Single Family Detached Residential (4) to Community Commercial Center. Kathy Field, Senior Secretary ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk To be Published: April 4, 2002 Wheat Ridge Transcript C:\Kathy\CCRPT$\Pubhear\2002\020404.wpd April 4, 2002 The City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29`h Drive Wheat Ridge, CO 80215--6713 Re: Resolution 01, Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Future land use designation of property along Upham Street) This is notice that the listed landowner is opposed to Resolution 01, Amendment to Comprehensive Plan which was referenced by Alan White, Planning and Development Director in a Memorandum dated March 27, 2002 regarding the future land use designation for the property along Upham Street: Property Address -'7~ 8/ Apri14, 2002 The City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29'h Drive Wheat Ridge, CO 80215--6713 Re: Resolution 01, Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Future land use designation of property along Upham Street) This is notice that the listed landowner is opposed to Resolution 01, Amendment to Comprehensive Plan which was referenced by Alan White, Planning and Development Director in a Memorandum dated March 27, 2002 regarding the future land use designation for the property along Upham Street: Landowner Name Property Address Landowner Signature Date 'Y{ Zoo Z- April 4, 2002 The City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29`h Drive Wheat Ridge, CO 80215--6713 Re: Resolution 01, Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Future land use designation of property along Upham Street) This is notice that the listed landowner is opposed to Resolution 01, Amendment to Comprehensive Plan, which was referenced by Alan White, Planning and Development Director in a Memorandum dated March 27, 2002 regarding the future land use designation for the property along Upham Street: Landowner Name I/ Propefty Address Date 6 :L1 -&Sz--vim Apri14, 2002 The City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29 h Drive Wheat Ridge, CO 80215--6713 Re: Resolution 01, Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Future land use designation of property along Upham Street) This is notice that the listed landowner is opposed to Resolution 01, Amendment to Comprehensive Plan which was referenced by Alan White, Planning and Development Director in a Memorandum dated March 27, 2002 regarding the future land use designation for the property along Upham Street: Date Apri14, 2002 The City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 2Wh Drive Wheat Ridge, CO 80215--6713 Re: Resolution 01, Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Future land use designation of property along Upham Street) This is notice that the listed landowner is opposed to Resolution 01, Amendment to Comprehensive Plan, which was referenced by Alan White, Planning and Development Director in a Memorandum dated March 27, 2002 regarding the future land use designation for the property along Upham Street: Landowner Name W-I V Z-- April 4, 2002 The City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29`x' Drive Wheat Ridge, CO 80215--6713 Re: Resolution 01, Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Future land use designation of property along Upham Street) This is notice that the listed landowner is opposed to Resolution 01, Amendment to Comprehensive Plan, which was referenced by Alan White, Planning and Development Director in a Memorandum dated March 27, 2002 regarding the future land use designation for the property along Upham Street: Landowner Name Property Address 414f) t1PN~v~. s~). Landowner Signature Date n 4 -n4 -a4 , April 4, 2002 The City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29"' Drive Wheat Ridge, CO 80215--6713 Re: Resolution 01, Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Future land use designation of property along Upham Street) This is notice that the listed landowner is opposed to Resolution 01, Amendment to Comprehensive Plan which was referenced by Alan White, Planning and Development Director in a Memorandum dated March 27, 2002 regarding the future land use designation for the property along Upham Street: Landowner Name Property Address °,4.~ 2-o Y1P~' April 4, 2002 The City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29`h Drive Wheat Ridge, CO 80215--6713 Re: Resolution 01, Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Future land use designation of property along Upham Street) This is notice that the listed landowner is opposed to Resolution 01, Amendment to Comprehensive Plan, which was referenced by Alan White, Planning and Development Director in a Memorandum dated March 27, 2002 regarding the future land use designation for the property along Upham Street: Landowner Name Property Address Landowner Signature Date v -e'7 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 April 4, 2002, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building 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 petition shall be heard: Case No. WPA-02-01: An amendment to the City of Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The proposed amendment is to change the future land use designation of certain areas on the west side of Upham Street from Planned Residential Development (12) and Single Family Detached Residential (4) to Community Commercial Center. Kathy Field, Senior Secretary ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk To be Published: March 21, 2002 Wheat Ridge Transcript C\Katlry\PCRPTS\PLANGCOM\PUBHRG\2002\020404.wpd The City of 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215-6713 (303) 234-5900 WHEAT heat City Admin. Fax # 234-5924 Police Dept. Fax # 235-2949 GRidge March 28, 2002 Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Hearing Dear Landowner: The purpose of this letter is to inform you of an upcoming hearing the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission will be conducting concerning an Amendment to the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan. The hearing will be held on April 4, 2002 at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building at 7500 W. 291 Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment is a proposed change to the desired future land use designation of property along Upham Street on the Future Land Use Map. The proposed designation is Community Commercial Center. You are invited to the hearing to provide your comments about the proposed amendment. Copies of the Plan Amendment are available at the Planning and Development Department. Please call 303-235-2846 for more information. a RECYCLED PAPER Edwin S. Allen Gordon W. & A. C. Hinshaw David F. Kissell 3915 Upham St. 4045 Upham St. 4115 Upham St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Klaus D. Cox 4145 Upham St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Maria H. Baylon 4211 Upham St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Alfonso Leos 4221 Upham St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Julia L. Neumann 4281 Upham St. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Stanley R. Nikkel 9202 W. Ontario Dr. Littleton, CO 80128 Minshall Upham Properties, LLLP 11650 W. 38th Pl. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Jan F. & Marie A. McNeel 2012 Beech Ct. Golden, CO 80401 Eliseo Martinez & G. S. Trust 1924 King St. Denver, CO 80204 John W. Minshall 11650 W. 38th Pl. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 John A. Minshall 3550 Miller Ct. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 4275 Upham St. 4065 Upham St. 4175 Upham St. 3955 Upham St. 4001 Upham St. 4085 Upham St. Edwin S. Allen Gordon W. & A. C. Hinshaw David F. Kissell Klaus D. Cox Maria H. Baylon Alfonso, Leos Julia L. Neumann Jan F. & Marie A. McNeel John W. Minshall Stanley R. Nikkei Eliseo Martinez & G. S. Trust John A. Minshall Minshall Upham Properties, LLLP 3915 Upham St. 4045 Upham St. 4115 Upham St. 4145 Upham St. 4211 Upham St. 4221 Upham St. 4281 Upham St. 2012 Beech Ct. 11650 W. 38th PI. 9202 W. Ontario Dr 1924 King St. 3550 Miller Ct. 11650 W. 38th PI. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Golden, CO 80401 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Littleton, CO 80128 Denver, CO 80204 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 11 T • FROM: Alan White, Planning and Development Director W SUBJECT: Resolution 01, Amendment to Comprehensive Plan Imm Major goals • the Comprehensive Plan are to revitalize existing commercial areas and stimulate economic development. The existing shopping center known as Time Square and the area to the north were developed more than thirty years ago. Subdivision and zoning actions were taken on an individual, piecemeal basis. As a result, there is a mixture • zoning designations and lot configurations that are not conducive to redevelopment of the area. Standards • tberetail industry have changed since this area was originally developed. The changes have been in response to consumer desires and retail practices. The area as currently configured does not meet industry requirements for lot depth. A change of the land use designation to Community Commercial Center provides a better potential opportunity for redevelopment of this area. I 111i Pill Ili 11 1 111 1 1110 1 1 1 1 1111 11 1 �� 11 1 1 1���Mllli • C:\MyFile amend pc nwllno.%vpd CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Series of 2002 I i # I 1121ill WIV U- 1XIII-My. I k I - 1- CITY COUNCIL. WHEREAS, the City Council of Wheat Ridge adopted by Resolution No. 62, Series of 1999, the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan on October 25, 1999 and amendments were considered and adopted on January 24, 2000; and WHEREAS, C.R.S. 31-23-206 (2) provides that the Comprehensive Plan may be amended b y the City from time to time; and WHEREAS, C.R.S. 31-23-208 and Section 2-60 (b) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws requires review of the Comprehensive Plan or amendments thereto to be reviewed. by the Planning Commission with a written recommendation forwarded to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has initiated an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan as permitted by State Statute and the Code of Laws, and which amendment attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the attached amendment changes the land use designation on the Future land Use Map in a certain area of the City in order to accommodate possible future redevelopment for the benefit of the City as a whole; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing concerning the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan was published in the Wheat Ridge Transcript on March 21, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held the noticed public hearing on April 4. 200 as provided by Section 2-60(b) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, that the Comprehensive Plan is hereby recommended for amendment as shown in the attached Exhibit A, and which amendment and this written recommendation thereon is hereby forwarded to the City Council. BREMOM Secretary to the Commission Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Current Classification of Future Land Use Proposed Classification of Future Land Use CC: Community Commercial Center P: Park and Open Space PB: Public /Semi Public PRD (12): Planned Residential Development (not to exceed 12 du's /acre) SF (4): Single Family Detached Residential (not to exceed 4 du's /acre) TR: Transitional Residential Case No.: App: Last Name: App: First Name: Owner: Last Name: Owner: First Name: App Address: City, State Zip: App:Phone: Owner Address: City/State/Zip: Owner Phone: Project Address: Street Name: City/State, Zip: Case Disposition: Project Planner: File Location: Notes: Follow-Up: PA0201~ Quarter Section Map No.: Citywide ; Related Cases: Case History: Review Body: APN: i 2nd Review Body: 2nd Review Date: Decision-making Body: Approval/Denial Date: Reso/Ordinance No.: hite dive - - - SE23 mend Comp Plan Future Land Use Map to change he designation of certain' reas on west side of PC - 4/4/02 C - 3/11/02 CC - 4122/02 Conditions of Approval: District: II Date Received: 3/1/2002 Pre-App Date: =Cxoto page 1