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