Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/18/1994 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO APRIL 18, 1994 The City Council Study Session was called to order by Mayor Dan Wilde at 7 00 p m Councilmembers present Vance Edwards, Jean D Fielis, Ken Siler, Tony Solano, Donald R Eafanti, Rae Jean Behm, Dennis Hall, Claudia Worth Also present City Clerk, Wanda Sang, City Administrator, Hobert i~iddaugh, City Attorney, Kathrvn Schroeder, Director of Planning, Glen Gidley, staff, and interested citizens Item 1. A. Planning Commission/City Council Joint Discussion. Mr Middaugh expressed appreciation to Council for taking the time to meet with the Planning Commission so they can discuss some of their concerns Mr. Eckhardt, Vice-Chairman, expressed regrets that Chairman, Jay Rasplicka, was unable to attend the meeting I. PLANNING COMMISSION POWERS & DUTIES Mr Eckhardt briefly reviewed the memorandum from Planning Commission stating their are some types of land use cases that currently require public hearings at both Planning Commission and City Council Some of these cases could receive final action by Planning Commission and other cases that could be referred to City Council for final action without need of requirement for a second public hearing The types of cases that could be changed to terminate at Planning Commission with appeal to City Council are, 1 ) Excavation and fill permits over 20,000 cubic yards, 2) Subdivisions (acceptance of public street dedication would still go to Council), 3 ) Planned Development Final Development Plans approval or amendment, 4) Site plans associated with a zoning district requirement, 5) Planned Building Group plans, and 6) Consolidation plats He further stated the following types of cases could be changed to have the full public hearing bv Planning Commission, with final action still taken by Council However, without totally rehearing the same testimony Decision would occur by City Council based upon the Planning Commission record (minutes and resolution) plus any new evidence not presented at the Planning Commission public hearing 1) Rezonings~2 ) Special Use Permits, 3) Any matter upon which Planning Commission has decision authority, however which decision is appealed to Council Mr Hall stated that a lot of times the presentation that is received at Council meetings is much the same as presented before the Planning Commission There is a concern that the effort and time Planning Commission expends hearing cases and testimony is accompliShing nothing, since City Council spends significant time and effort rehearing and reconsidering the identical information STUDY SESSION MINUTES, APRIL 18, 1994 PAGE -2- Discussion centereJ around the ~ppeal process where an application or proposal was denied by the Planning Commission, establishing appeal procedures and how would the appeal process work Mr Middaugh stated the appeal process is to extend to any potential aggrieved party the opportunity to come to ~ity Council to plead their case, if there is such a case, most cases that come to City Council are not controversial cases Mr Vance stated he is opposed to City Council relinquiShing their duties to Boards and Commissions The process that is established now brings much more accountabilitv Boards and Commissions have no account- ability to the citizens or voters New rity Council members neej to learn how the present process works before they relinquish any authority Consensus was 5-3 to approve the above Powers and Duties listed in Item I, to the Planning Commission II CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Mr Eckhardt stated that there has been a concern for some time that the Planning rommission isn't doing anv physical planning The Planning Commission should be involved in the planning process at the onset of a facilities is being considered, not when they are totally engineered and at the budget process Planning could be started or looked at three to five years ahead and could ~ssist City Council in their long range vision Discussion centered around how to get the Planning Commission involved in the long range planning process as it relates to Capital Improvement programs and having a Planning Commission member anJ Parks and Recreation Commission member serve on the Public Works Advisory ~ommittee Consensus was 6-2 that the Planning Commission will be included early in the process of developing the Capital Improvement Program, and that with the permission of the Mayor, that the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission will have a member, non-voting priVileges, serve on the Public works Advisory Committee III. SPECIAL DISTRICTS CONSOLIDATION Mr Siler stated their are many, many Special Districts operating within the ~ity, some operate quite efficiently, some don't operate so well He explained the difficulties that are involved in consolidation but it is important for rity Council to research the process that is in- volved in consolidation of special districts STUDY SESSION MINUTES PAGE -3- Consensus was 0-0 that the City Attorney research and bring to City Council what would be involved legallv to proceed with consolidation as it pertains to Amendment One, the election process, the sensitivity and the lengthy process Item 1 B. Zoning Map Update Discussion. Consensus was 8-0 to proceed with updating City Zoning Maps and place item on City Council agenda for First Reading Item 2. RAQC Pollution Reduction "Red Sticker" program Mr Siler briefed Council on the proposed Regional Air Quality Control "Red Sticker" program, which bans high-emitting vehicles on high CO pollution days and the proposed recommendations to meet the Clean Air Act requirements Consensus was 6-2 that an item be placej on the the May 16, 1994 Study Session Meeting Agenda for iiscussion on Campaign Reform Consensus was 8-0 that an item be placej on the first Study Session Meeting in June, 1994 for discussion on Development Agreements Consensus was 7-1 that the item on Campaign Reform discussion that was to be on the May 16, 1994 Study Session Agenda be changed to June 6, 1994 Study Session, and the item for discussion pertaining to Develop- ment Agreements be changed and placed on the May 16, 1994 Study Session Agenda Motion by Mr Eafanti to adjourn, seconded by Mr Siler, carried 8-0 Meeting adjourned at 10 / I , . ~L. /, i '- ZJk.2~_~' /v-v- "- Wanda Sang, City Cler~') 08 p m