Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/2002 @ CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO November 18. 2002 The Regular City Council Meeting was called to order by Mayor Cerveny at 7 00 P m Councilmembers present: Jerry DiTullio, Vance Edwards, Dean Gokey, Ralph Mancinelli, David Schneider, Odarka Figlus, Lena Rotola, and Harry Hanley Also present: City Clerk, Wanda Sang, City Manager, Randy Young, City Attorney, Gerald Dahl Director of Planning, Alan White, staff; and interested citizens APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF October 28, 2002 Motion by Mr DiTullio to approve the Minutes of October 28 2002 as previously corrected seconded by Mr Schneider; carried 8-0 PROCLAMATIONS AND CEREMONIES Mayor read the Proclamation for "Feed America Thursday, November 21,2002" CITIZENS' RIGHT TO SPEAK Barry Brown presented the Certificate of the Guinness Book of World Records for the largest bouquet of flowers and read the contents Sheila Bardwell, 3445 Simms Street, addressed street parking and speeding on West 32nd Avenue Pete Klammer, 3200 Routt Street, complained about Mr Schneider and his inappropriate use of e-mail Mr Schneider replied that this was a personal and private e-mail and had nothing to do with City business Kimary Marchese, 10400 West 38th Avenue has lived in Wheat Ridge for 1 year and really enjoys being here and just came in to meet Council and say hello APPROVAL OF AGENDA Motion by Mr DiTullio that Item 11 G be removed from the Agenda, seconded by Ms Figlus carried 7-1 with Mr Hanley voting no CITY COUNCIL MINUTES' November 18, 2002 Page -2- Motion by Mr DiTullio to remove Items 11 and 12, Council Rules Change, and refer them to the next Study Session for discussion, seconded by Mr Edwards, carried 5-3 with Councilmembers Hanley, Gokey, and Figlus voting no Ms Figlus feels this should be discussed before we elect the positions Mr Hanley feels it is extremely important to discuss this prior to the elections This is going in the direction of undermining the public process in the City Mr Gokey stated these positions are unimportant and too much attention is being paid to this Motion by Ms Figlus that we postpone the elections of Council President and Mayor pro tem until these issues are resolved at the next Study Session, seconded by Mr Hanley' failed 3-5 with Councilmembers Hanley, DiTullio, and Figlus voting yes Approval of Agenda as amended carried 7-1 with Ms Figlus voting no PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 1 Consideration of an application for approval of a Planned Commercial Development final development plan and plat for property located at 3502 Wadsworth Blvd (Case No WZ-02-02) (Roger and Eileen Loecher) Case No WZ-02-02 was introduced by Mr DiTullio, subject, summary and background read by the Clerk. Meredith Reckert, Planning Department, was sworn in by the Mayor and presented the staff report. Roger Loecher, applicant, was sworn in by the Mayor and asked for approval of his application Motion by Mr DiTullio to approve Case No WZ-02-02 for the following reasons 1 All development conditions imposed by City Council have been incorporated into the plan set 2 All requirements for a PCD final development plan have been met. 3 All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following conditions 1 Minor survey adjustments be made to the final development plan document 2 The handicapped space must be modified to be 8-1/2 feet in width with a 5 feet wide aisle 3 The civil plans be modified to reflect the modified curb cut to West 35th Avenue 4 Modify the development plan to move the curb cut to the West; Seconded by Mr Edwards, carried 8-0 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES' November 18, 2002 Item 2 Page -3- Consideration of a request for approval of a Planned Residential Development District final development plan and plat for property located at 4580 and 4690 Garrison and 9105 West 46th Place (Case No WZ-02-08) (Centex Homes) Case No WZ-02-08 was introduced by Mrs Rotola who also read the subject, summary and background Meredith Reckert, Wheat Ridge Planning Department, was sworn in by the Mayor and presented the staff report. Yvonne Seaman, representing Centex Homes, was sworn in by the Mayor and introduced Jack Pedota, owner of the property, Mike Brady, Real Estate Representative for Mr Pedota, Wendell Aris, Engineering Consultant, and Karen Henry Planning Consultant. She described their plans for this development Motion by Mrs Rotola to approve Case No WZ-02-08 for the following reasons 1 An on-site playground amenity has been provided consistent with the cost of fees-in-lieu of parkland dedication requirements 2 All other conditions imposed by City Council have been met. 3 All requirements for a PRD final development plan have been met. 4 The proposal is consistent with Section 26-504 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws (Residential Site design Requirements) 5 All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met; Seconded by Mr Schneider; carried 8-0 ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING Item 3. Council Bill 35-2002 - An Ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 22 of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge concerning taxation, moving certain sections of Chapter 22 concerning the licensing of peddlers solicitors and nonresident vendors to Chapter 11, and eliminating the requirement that canvassers obtain a license Council Bill 35-2002 was introduced on first reading by Ms Figlus, who also read the title, summary and background Motion by Ms Figlus to approve Council Bill 35-2002 on first reading, ordered published, and set for public hearing and consideration on second reading at 7 00 P m in City Council Chambers on December 9 2002, seconded by Mr Schneider; carried 8-0 Item 4. Council Bill 36-2002 - An Ordinance amending the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to parking and storage of vehicles in Residential areas (Case No ZOA-02-04) Council Bill 36-2002 was introduced on first reading by Ms Figlus, who also read the title summary and background CITY COUNCIL MINUTE:s- November 18, 2002 Page -4- Motion by Ms Figlus to approve Council Bill 36-2002 (Case No lOA-02-04) on first reading, ordered published, and set for public hearing and consideration on second reading at 7 00 P m in City Council Chambers on December 9, 2002, seconded by Mr Schneider Beverly Agy stated that this Ordinance limits responsible property owners She asked that 2 recreational vehicles be allowed, as outlined in this Council Bill Jim Simons stated that horse trailers should be excluded from this Ordinance, they should not be counted as recreational vehicles He also asked that Council give variances where neighbors are supportive This Ordinance should address very large RV's on small properties that infringe on the neighbors not small RV's on large lots parked in the back and not bothering anybody Mr Dahl suggested the following change to the Council Bill prior to publishing it on first reading On Page 3, Subsection (k) strike the word "such" and add after vehicles in addition to. or in excess of the maximum number permitted hereby Motion-maker and second accepted this as part of the motion Nancy Ward spoke on behalf of her father, who had just stepped out He is 80 years old and was born and raised in Wheat Ridge He collects vehicles and they are all in running order, but he cannot afford to have license plates for all of them Does he have to get rid of all his vehicles? Sheila Boone indicated that Council is concerned about the new neighborhoods she is concerned about the old neighborhoods People have junk and up to 12 cars sitting in their yards People should put their equipment away under cover where neighbors don't have to look at it. Tom Prose has lived here for 35 years, they have had a hobby of restoring old automobiles They are in the backyard and he has a stockade fence around them and nobody can see them He doesn't understand why he has to get rid of his hobby This is a rural community and we are trying to turn it into Highlands Ranch Kevin Craig questioned if this applied to all zone districts He likes the idea of a grandfather clause CITY COUNCIL MINUTE0' November 18, 2002 Page -5- Paul Dierschow has lived in Wheat Ridge for 23 years and his hobby is antique and collectable cars He takes great pride in his neighborhood and doesn't think his hobby should make him an undesirable citizen He suggested that the Ordinance address specific types of undesirable behavior and not paint everything with the same brush Motion by Mr DiTullio for an amendment that this Ordinance come back on second reading with a variance process for the junk vehicle section seconded by Ms Figlus Mr Schneider suggested we either postpone this or send it to a Study Session because he doesn't see how numerous changes are going to be incorporated into this by the second reading He will not support this because he wants the Planning Commission recommendations discussed Mr Mancinelli does not support this because we are specifically after junk vehicles and not collectible vehicles Motion tied 4-4 with Councilmembers Schneider, Mancinelli, Rotola and Edwards voting no Mayor broke the tie by voting yes Motion carried 5-4 Original Motion as amended carried 6-2 with Mr Schneider and Mr Gokey voting no DECISIONS, RESOLUTIONS. AND MOTIONS Item 5. Resolution 28-2002 - endorsing the findings of the 1-70 Denver to Golden ("Gold Line") Major Investment Studies Resolution 28-2002 was introduced by Mr Edwards, who gave background on this Resolution Motion by Mr Edwards to adopt Resolution 28-2002, seconded by Mr DiTullio, carried 8-0 Item 6. Resolution 29-2002 - amending Resolution 01-2002, in order to correct the annual appropriation for the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) budget. Resolution 29-2002 was introduced by Mr Edwards Motion by Mr Edwards for the adoption of Resolution 29-2002, seconded by Mr Schneider; carried 8-0 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES' November 18, 2002 Page -6- Item 7 Resolution 30-2002 - amending the fiscal Year 2002 Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) budget to reflect acceptance of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to provide funding for public works and streetscape improvements to include the purchase of street furniture, trash receptacles, clocks, planters, and signs Resolution 30-2002 was introduced by Mr Edwards, who also explained the background for this Resolution Motion by Mr Edwards for adoption of Resolution 30-2002, seconded by Mr DiTullio, carried 8-0 Item 8. Resolution 31-2002 - authorizing submittal of the application for the 2002 Joint Venture/Grant Project to Jefferson County Open Space - Clear Creek Trail Replacement Project. Resolution 31-2002 was introduced by Mrs Rotola, who also read the summary and background Motion by Mrs Rotola for adoption of Resolution 31-2002, seconded by Mr Mancinelli Motion by Ms Figlus for an amendment that the trail replacement be in asphalt except for those places where concrete currently exists, seconded by Mr Hanley; failed 2-6 with Councilmembers Hanley and Figlus voting yes Original Motion carried 6-2 with Mr Hanley and Ms Figlus voting no Item 9. Approval of findings as developed by the City Attorney and render the application for a preliminary and final development plan and plat submitted by John Elway AutoNation, USA, denied Item 9 was introduced by Mr Schneider, who also read the summary and background Motion by Mr Schneider not to accept the findings for Case No WZ-00-09, seconded by Mr Mancinelli. Motion by Mr Edwards for a substitute motion to accept the findings for Case No WZ- 00-09, seconded by Mr DiTullio Doris Ibbison stated that her family owns the property directly across the street, east of the subject property For 30 years she has come in and listened to proposals for that property and nothing has ever satisfied the City This last plan was the best by far why did it fail? CITY COUNCIL MINUTES' November 18, 2002 Page -7- Dick Scheurer, representing the applicant in this case, expressed his confusion regarding the findings and they don't represent what he remembers about the hearing He understood that 5 Councilmembers were in favor, but the findings are converting a failed effort for approval, because we did not have the six votes necessary for the super majority, into an affirmative finding of non-compliance and inadequacy of the plan He thinks a record has been of that and he is confused It seems to be a transparent attempt on part of City Council to cover tracks or at least to minimize legal exposure and he has to question that as a valid action of Council Anne Brinkman asked Council to vote for the findings of fact as they are written and to speak for the citizens of Wheat Ridge Mr Schneider stated that in his opinion, the evidence was not there to support the denial of this application He will not support these findings in any way, shape, or form He read the Council Minutes from October 28 back in the record once again (as corrected) Mr Schneider asked Mr White if the applicant has followed all the City's rules and regulations as far as the Planning Department is concerned. The answer was yes Are there any outstanding issues why this applicant should be denied this request. Answer was no He also asked the same questions of Mr Knudson, Acting Public Works Director The answers were yes to the first question and no to the second question He asked the same questions of Mr Nguyen, City Traffic Engineer, and the answers were yes to the first question and no to the second question Mr DiTullio stated that Mrs Ibbison had made a good point that the public needs to know why the application was turned down and asked that the City Attorney summarize the findings for the public. *Findings are attached to these Minutes as a permanent record Mr Schneider asked Mr White if this was a compatible development with the adjacent residential land uses through proper land use transition with buffering techniques Mr White stated that the buffer with the wetlands that was proposed to the west side provided that sufficiency and also it was the use allowed under the outlined development plan that was previously approved Upon further questioning, Mr White stated that the applicant did fulfill their obligation to restore 1 acre of wetlands on the site, per previous agreement with the Corps of Engineers permit Mr Schneider further asked if the development as proposed would have created excessive traffic, noise or air pollution or such that would result in a density or intensity of use that would be damaging or deterious to the stability, unified operation or integrity both economic and aesthetic of the surrounding area Mr White replied that their conclusion was it would not create those impacts CITY COUNCIL MINUTES November 18,2002 Page -8- Mr Edwards stated Council's role tonight was to approve the findings, not to discuss the case Move on Mr Mancinelli stated the developer bent over backwards to do everything that was asked of him He cannot find anything in those findings that he can agree with He cannot vote for this Motion tied 4-4 with Councilmembers Hanley DiTullio, Figlus and Edwards voting yes Mayor broke the tie by voting yes Motion carried 5-4 Main Motion as amended tied 4-4 with Councilmembers Hanley, DiTullio Figlus and Edwards voting yes Mayor broke the tie by voting yes Motion carried 5-4 Item 10 Right-of-Way Use Agreement between the City and Ricochet Networks, Inc (RNI) Motion by Mr DiTullio to approve the Right-of-Way Use Agreement; seconded by Mr Schneider; carried 7-1 with Mr Gokey voting no Item 13. Election of Mayor pro tem Motion by Mr DiTullio that Vance Edwards be Mayor pro tem, seconded by Mr Schneider Meegan Kiefel asked that the job description of Mayor pro tem and Council President be explained Mr DiTullio read the description from the Council Rules City Clerk, Wanda Sang, read the description for Mayor pro tem from the Charter Motion carried 8-0 Item 14. Election of Council President Mrs Sang read the description for Council President from the Council Rules Motion by Mrs Rotola to nominate David Schneider for Council President; seconded by Mr Mancinelli Pete Klammer reiterated what he had said earlier in the evening about the character of the person nominated Does the Council wish to laud the shameful Internet use and are there any conflicts of interest Mr Schneider clarified that he had no conflicts of interest Motion carried 5-3 with Councilmembers Hanley DiTullio and Figlus voting no CITY COUNCIL MINUTES' November 18,2002 Page -9- Item 15 Motion by Mr Mancinelli to set the public hearing on the 2002 Budget as December 9, 2002 and ordered published at least 7 days prior to the hearing as established by City Charter; seconded by Mr Hanley; carried 8-0 Item 16 Motion by Mr Edwards that Council approve the transfer of $272,293 11 from the Capital Fund balance to the West 38th Avenue Streetscape Pilot project, Acct. No 30-303-800-8551, seconded by Mrs Rotola, carried 6-2 with Ms Figlus and Mr Hanley voting no Item 17 CONSENT AGENDA. A Award bid RFB-02-065, Traffic Signal Equipment Replacement, to U S Traffic Corporation, in the total amount of $28,093.21 B Street Improvements Projects, Project No S-04-02 - Budget Carry Over to 2003 C Motion to approve second renewal to RFP-01-006, Custodial Services to AFL Maintenance for a 6 month period, for the total amount of $24,834 D Award bid RFB-02-063, Backflow Assemblies Retrofit, for Apel-Bacher, Randall and Stites parks to AJllrrigation Company in the total amount of $11 ,308 E. Award bid RFB-02-062, Water Line Replacement/Anderson Park, to Ricor, Inc in the total amount of $14 905 F Award bid RFP-02-053, HVAC/Senior Center, to Whitney Mechanical Company Inc. in the total amount of $1785960 Ms Figlus introduced and read the Consent Agenda and moved for approval as printed, seconded by Mr Schneider; carried 8-0 CITY MANAGER'S MATTERS Mr Young thanked the citizens who had come out earlier in the evening and made comments on the budget. These comments will be provided to Council in a written record He also invited citizens to supply written comments in regard to the budget CITY COUNCIL MINUTES' November 18,2002 Page -10- ELECTED OFFICIALS' MATTERS Mrs Rotola asked for consensus to have City Attorney and Chief of Police look into the sale of acid etching paint and other graffiti materials and come back to Council with a recommendation as to whether or not we should incorporate any of this into our newly revised graffiti Ordinance Consensus was 8 in favor Meeting adjourned at 10 35 P m APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON BY A VOTE OF 7 to 0 / ". .Qt^f "<L ---- David Schneider, Council President The preceding Minutes were prepared according to &47 of Robert's Rules of Order, i e they contain a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members Tape recordings and video recordings of the meetings are available for listening or viewing in the City Clerk's Office, as well as copies of Ordinances and Resolutions ATTACHMENT TO MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2002 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO Case No WZ-00-09 In re the Application submitted by John Elway AutoNation, USA for approval of a Preliminary and Final Development Plan and Final Plat for property located at 3501 Wadsworth Boulevard FINDINGS AND DECISION THIS MATTER comes on for a public hearing before the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge Colorado ("City Council") with respect to an application for approval of a Preliminary and Final Development Plan and Final Plat submitted by John Elway AutoNation ("Applicant") concerning real property within the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado with the following address 3501 Wadsworth Boulevard Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 consisting of 11 acres, more or less (the "Subject Property") The City Council having conducted the public hearing and conSidered the evidence and testimony makes and enters the following FINDINGS AND DECISION FINDINGS 1 The referenced application for approval of a Preliminary and Final Development Plan and a Final Plat ("Application") was submitted on August 1 2000 The Subject Property is presently zoned Planned Commercial Development (PCD) 2 The Wheat Ridge Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the Application on July 18, 2002, at which the Planning Commission recommended denial of the Application by a vote of six to two for the following reasons a Final approval had not yet been received from CDOT for the Wadsworth Boulevard access location and street design, b The parapet wall will not cover automobiles at a 42-inch height and will need to be a minimum of 72 inches high for protection of the rooftop vehicles CNB\53027\426497.02 c A car lot and rooftop parking, and especially lights that accompany a car lot, crate visual blight and are not compatible with residential developments to the west, northwest and south. d The planned use is not in keeping with one of the essential desired attributes of the community-commercial center in the Comprehensive Plan which is "uses that generate sales tax revenues in support of public services and facilities" A car lot provides far less sales tax than almost any other retail use. e The property is now in the urban renewal area and one of the purposes of delineating urban renewal areas is also so the city can increase sales tax revenues 3 Proper notice as required by law has been provided the Subject Property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, the City Council has jurisdiction to hear and decide this case On October 28, 2002 the City Council conducted a public hearing on the Application. Testimony and exhibits were adopted into the record from the Applicant and the public The Applicant presented the testimony of Richard Scheurer Bud Simon and Philipe Martin Public testimony was given both in favor of and in opposition to the Application Witnesses testifying in support of the Application were Tony Ficco and Dick Walter Witnesses testifying in opposition to the Application were Anne Brinkman, Eztel Fuller John Bever and Sandra Balsley 4 Applicable Law. a When the Application was submitted on August 1 2000 Section 26-25 of the then-current Code of Laws governed applications for uses in planned development districts b In February 2001 the City Council adopted an ordinance comprehensively revising Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws (the City's land use regulations) To proVide a transition from the standards of the former (pre- February 2001) to the current Chapter 26 the revisions provided in Section 26- 1003A All site developments initiated 011 and after February 26 2001 shall be reviewed pursuant to the review process and standards set forth in this chapter as amended by Ordinance 2000 and effective on that date All site developments submitted for review prior to February 26, 2001, shall be reviewed pursuant to the process and under the criteria set forth in applicable portions of this chapter in force prior to that date Such prior regulations are continued in force and effect for that limited purpose only Upon approval or denial of all such remaining applications the prior regulations shall be deemed repealed CN6\53027\426497 02 2 In no event shall any resubmission of an application after its rejection or any such development application filed after the effective date of these regulations be reviewed under any such prior regulations. (emphasis supplied) c. Because the Application was submitted for review prior to February 26, 2001 the version of Chapter 26 that was in force at the time the Application was submitted (2000) governs the City's consideration of the Application. Accordingly, references to Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws or portions thereof hereinafter refer to the version of Chapter 26 in force when the Application was submitted, and under which the Application was processed 5 Procedural standards. Procedural standards are provided by Section 26- 25M All review procedures, including required notice and public hearings, have been followed 6 Review standards. General standards for planned development districts are provided in Sections 26-25(11) and 26-25(1V)(A), standards specific to planned commercial developments are provided in Section 26-25(IV)(B)(2) All of these standards apply to the Application a. Pursuant to Section 26-25(111) a proposed use for a planned development district may be approved "provided that the intent and purposes of this Section are met, and provided that the general health, safety and welfare of the community are advanced through its approvaL" b The intent and purposes of the Section 26-25 are provided under subsection (II)(A), which reads in pertinent part: The protective standards for site use, development, operations and maintenance contained herein are intended to minimize any adverse effect of the planned development to the community by achieving maximum compatible integration of land uses, by assuring adequate provision of public services and facilities, by preserving the aesthetic qualities of the area and by providing for safe and efficient use of the land resource itself and subsection (II)(E) which reads in pertinent part: (E) The general purposes of this section are as follows (1 ) To accomplish compatible development with adjacent residential land uses through proper land use transitions and buffering techniques CNB153027\426497 02 3 (4) To preserve to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and to minimize impacts on other natural features of the site (7) To minimize traffic congestion on public streets control street access c. Pursuant to Section 26-25(1V)(A), the City Council' "[S]pecifically retains jurisdiction to limit the approved uses to be made of, and on, the property at the time of final development plan approval upon an expressed finding that the uses so limited or denied are incompatible with uses made on surrounding properties or such uses as proposed would create excessive traffic, noise or air pollution, or that such uses would result in a density or intensity of use which would be damaging or deleterious to the stability unified operation or integrity (both economic and aesthetic) of the surrounding area. d An application for a final subdivision plat may be combined with an application for a planned development district pursuant to Section 26-25(V) In such a case the final plat portion of an application is regulated by the Subdivision Regulations, Chapter 26, Article III The final plat portion of the Application satisfies the applicable Subdivision Regulations 7 Comprehensive plan The Subject Property is classified a Community Commercial Center under the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan Among the desired attributes of Community Commercial Center property under the Comprehensive Plan are . Uses that provide services for the traveling public . A mixture of complementary uses such as retail and office · Compact development that is well landscaped no outdoor storage, screened trash areas · Uses that generate sales tax revenues in support of public services and facilities 8 Protest riqhts a Property owners adjacent to land which is the subject of certain development applications possess a protest right pursuant to the City Charter of the City of Wheat Ridge ("Charter") and the Code of Laws b Section 5 10 of the City Charter contains the basic protest right entitlement CNB\53027\426497 02 4 The council shall have the power to amend, supplement, change, or repeal the regulations, restrictions and boundaries of zoning districts within the city Such changes shall be adopted by ordinance after a public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard In the event of a protest against such changes signed by the owners of twenty (20) percent or more of the area. 1 Of the property included within the proposed change, or, 2. Of those immediately adjacent to the rear or any side of the property, extending one hundred (100) feet from the property; or, 3 Of those directly opposite across the street from the property, extending one hundred (100) feet from the street frontage of such opposite property such changes shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of three-fourths of the entire city council Where land within the area proposed for change or adjacent or opposite land as defined above is owned by the City of Wheat Ridge, such property shall be excluded in computing the required twenty (20) percent, and owners of non-city land within the one-hundred-foot limit as defined above shall be considered adjacent or opposite despite such intervening city land c Section 26-6C(7) provides The foregoing right of protest, as proVided by Charter section 5 10 shall be applicable to applications for which a public hearing before the city council is required for (1) approval of a change of zone (2) the establishment of a planned development district pursuant to Code of Laws section 26-25 and (3) approval or amendment of outline preliminary or final planned development plans pursuant to Code of Laws section 26-25 d In this case a protest was filed on October 28 2002 at 3 36 P m by Doris and Carol Lou Higgins owners of the property at 3700-3720 Yukon Court, Tract 1 C of Adkins Subdivision ("Higgins Property") The Higgins Property adjoins the property which is the subject of the Application (the "Subject Property") on the north The Higgins Property is 140 feet wide along its southern boundary with the northern boundary of the Subject Property The entire CNB\53027\426497 02 5 northern boundary of the Subject Property is 615 feet. The other two adjoining private owners along the northern boundary of the Subject Property are 140 feet and 300 feet in width, respectively The City-owned right of way of Yukon Court adjoining the northern boundary of the Subject Property is excluded in calculating the "protest area," pursuant to Section 26-6C(5) In the instant case, a 100 foot deep strip of land adjoining the Subject Property on its north side is the "protest area." The southerly 100 feet of the 164 foot deep Higgins Property has registered a protest. This portion of the Higgins Property constitutes 22% of the "protest area" (14000 ft. /61500 ft = 22.76%) e This timely filed and proper protest qualifies under Section 26-6C(5) to trigger the required three-fourths Council vote to approve the Application At the conclusion of the public hearing on October 28, 2002, five members of the City Council voted to approve the Application and three members voted to deny Under Section 26-6C, with the application of a valid protest, six votes were required to approve the Application, thus the Application was denied 9 While there is conflicting testimony and evidence in the record based upon the record as a whole and weighing the credibility of each witness the City Council reasonably concludes that the evidence and testimony presented at the October 28 2002 hearing on the Application establishes, inter alia a The proposed development is incompatible with adjacent residential land uses (Section 26-25(II)(E)(1)) as follows. light pollution - especially likely from lights for rooftop parking ii noise pollution - though Applicant has agreed to use pagers, residual noise remains likely, from idling cars test drives delivery trucks etc iii the architectural features of the proposed structures are not compatible with adjacent structures, iv traffic - the proposed development will certainly create increased traffic, not only from customers coming and going, but from test drives, the increased traffic will adversely impact surrounding residential areas, including but not limited to those along 35th Avenue and Allison Street. b The proposed development does not adequately minimiZe traffic congestion. Sections 26-25(II)(A), 26-25(II)(E)(7) The accel-decel lanes to be provided along Wadsworth Boulevard do not address the inevitable increase in traffic on 35th Avenue and Allison Street caused by the median to be constructed in the middle of Wadsworth Avenue The proposed turn inhibitor on W 35th CNB\53027\426497.02 6 Avenue, if ever constructed, will merely shift this congestion to other adjacent areas. c. The proposed use does not minimize impacts on natural features of the site. Section 26-25(II)(E)(4) The creation of a wetland on the western edge of the Subject Property will impact the historical water flow and drainage characteristics of the property and may create new impacts such as an increased mosquito or other insect population d Based on the entirety of the above-listed characteristics of the proposed use, approval of the Application would not advance the general health, safety and welfare of the community Section 26-25(111) 10 The City Council expressly finds, based upon evidence deemed persuasive and adequately appearing in the record, that the uses proposed in the Application are incompatible with uses made on surrounding residential properties and that such uses would create excessive traffic or noise Section 26-25(IV)(A) 11 The City Council finds that each of the bases listed in paragraphs 9 and 10 for its decision herein, standing alone, is a sufficient ground for its decision 12 Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds and determines that the Application does NOT meet the applicable standards for approval under Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws DECISION Based on the foregoing Findings, the City Council renders this DECISION that the request for approval of a Preliminary and Final Development Plan and Final Plat submitted by John Elway AutoNation USA for the property located at 3501 Wadsworth Boulevard, City of Wheat Ridge, be and is hereby DENIED ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge Colorado this day of November 2002, by a vote of in favor and against. By' Gretchen Cerveny Mayor ATTEST Wanda Sang City Clerk CNB\53027\426497 02 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing FINDINGS AND DECISION was placed in the U S Mail, return receipt requested, this _ day of November, 2002, addressed as follows. John Elway AutoNation, USA 3765 Wadsworth Blvd Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 with a copy sent via first-class U S Mail to. Richard J Scheurer, Esq Robinson & Scheurer 143 Union Boulevard, Suite 625 Lakewood CO 80228 CNB\53027\426497 02 8