Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/01/2001 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting February 1,2001 ORIGINAL 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair McNAMEE at 7:30 p.m., February 1,2001, in the City Council Chambers ofthe Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Commission Members Present: Jerry Collins Paulette Cooper . Dean Gokey Don MacDougall Marian McNamee Nancy Snow Janice Thompson Commission Members Absent: Dick Doyle Staff Members Present: Alan White, Planning Director Gerald Dahl, City Attorney Ann Lazzeri, Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The following is the official set of Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing of February 1, 2001. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Department of Planning and Development of the City of Wheat Ridge. 4. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner COOPER and seconded by Commissioner MacDOUGALL to approve the order ofthe agenda as presented. The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner DOYLE absent. 5. APPROVE MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner COLLINS and seconded by Commissioner THOMPSON to approve the minutes of January 18, 2001 as presented. The motion passed 4-0 with Commissioners COOPER, GOKEY and MacDOUGALL abstaining and Commissioner DOYLE absent. 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one to appear before the Commission Planning Commission February 1,2001 Page 1 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. ZOA-OO-ll - (continued from January 18,2001) An ordinance repealing and re-enacting Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. Alan White distributed copies of a redline version of the code containing Planning Commission and City Council changes. Jerry Dahl reviewed a memo from Alan White that set forth changes recommended by the Planning Commission at its January 28th work session. Discussion followed. . There was a consensus of the Commission to include requirements for handicapped van parking spaces in the table on page 150. . There was a consensus (6 to 1 with Commissioner MacDOUGALL voting no) of the Commission to change the wording in the third line of the second paragraph on page 49 to read: "........public thoroughfare and originally designed and intended for use of human habitation." . There was a consensus ofthe Commission to approve the new language contained in paragraph "f', under Sec. 26-401 of Subdivision Regulations, on page 108. There was discussion of subdivision regulations on page 130 regarding a possible requirement to require private roads to be built to ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) standards. . There was a 4-3 consensus to add the following language as No. 10 on page 91: "To promote handicapped accessibility." Commissioners GOKEY, MacDOUGALL and COLLINS voting no. There was discussion of defining wetland areas in the code. Jerry Dahl advised that it is not necessary to define wetlands in the zoning ordinance. However, it is possible for the city to have a wetlands protection ordinance. . There was a consensus of the Commission to agree with the city attorney's recommendation regarding definition of wetland areas. . There was discussion regarding reducing densities and increasing landscaping. Commissioner SNOW was in favor of increasing landscaping requirements from 25% to 30% in item "i( on pages 74 and 75. Possible water shortages need to be taken into consideration when establishing landscape requirements. Planning Commission February 1,2001 Page 2 Quality of landscaping should be considered rather than only quantity. Quality control standards should be established. Staff should survey surrounding cities to learn what their landscaping requirements are. . There was a consensus of the Commission to agree with the omission of those paragraphs referring to Unified Control on page 91. . There was consensus ofthe Commission on the following: The words "or until they are amortized" in the sixth line of paragraph 1 on page 34 should be deleted. The words "which created the nonconformity" should be added after the word "Chapter" in the third line of paragraph 2 on page 34. The word "vacant" should be removed from the third line of paragraph "B" on page 35. The word "minimum" should be added preceding the words "lot width..." in line six ofthe second paragraph under "B" on Page 35. Paragraph "C" will be deleted in its entirety. The words "with a replacement value of more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00)" will be deleted from the first and second lines of paragraph "D" on page 35. Item 7 on page 36 should be deleted in its entirety. The word "use" in the first line of item 2 on page 3 7 should be replaced with the word "lot". . Paragraph 3, regarding private roadways, on page 38 should remain but language should be changed for the purpose of clarity. Language in paragraph G, page 38, should remain. . There was consensus that on page 22, first paragraph, second line, under "C. Variances and Waivers should be changed to read ".......empowered to decide only upon............" Remove language in the above referenced paragraph: "which apply throughout the various zone district regulations and in other situations which may be specifically authorized in the various sections" and replace with "pertaining to development Planning Commission February 1, 2001 Page 3 standards pertaining to zone districts in Article II." A reference should also be made to Article V -Design Standards and Article VII-Sign code." (Chair MacNAMEE declared a recess at 10:15 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 10:30 p.m.) . There was consensus to add a new section on page 22 under C: 1: "e. That limitations of Charter Section 5.10.1 are not exceeded." This same language should be added to the end of C.2. on page 23. . There was discussion regarding page 26-E. Interpretations. There was consensus that item 3 should be rewritten: "shall include zone district boundary interpretations, as permitted by Section 26-203.G." . In regard to Page 26 - F. Appeals - Jerry Dahl stated his opinion that the only party who has a right to appeal a planning commission variance decision to the city council is the applicant. There was discussion about how to define "aggrieved party" in this paragraph. Jerry Dahl will take a further look at this. . Sight distance triangles on page 177, paragraphs 2 and 3 were discussed. There was a consensus that homeowners should be required to trim existing trees but should not be required to remove trees. Language should be added to the effect that new trees may not be planted in sight triangles It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner GOKEY to continue the public hearing to February 15, 2001. The motion passed unanimously. 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. 10. COMMISSION REPORTS There were no commission reports. 11. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS There were no committee or department reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner GOKEY and second by Commissioner COLLINS to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. It) tLuCvi !h('A )Oft.QJL MARIAN McNAMEE, Chair ,~ ui "/ T (~ (~.]~ Ann Lazzeri, Recording ecretary Planning Commission February 1, 2001 Page 4