Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/17/2000 ORIGINAL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting February 17,2000 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair MACDOUGALL at 7:50 p.m. on February 17,2000 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL: Commission Members Present: Anoe Brinkman Jerry Collins Paulette Cooper Dick Doyle Dean Gokey Don MacDougall Nancy Snow Janice Thompson Staff Members Present: Alan White, Planning Director Gerald Dahl, City Attorney Ano Lazzeri, Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The following is the official set of Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing of February 17,2000. A set ofthese 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. APPROVAL OF ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner THOMPSON to amend the order ofthe agenda to hear item (7b) prior to agenda item 7(a). The motion passed by a vote of 7-1 with Commissioner GOKEY voting no. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The following amendments were offered to the minutes of February 3, 2000: (1) Pal!:e two. last paral!:raph. second line: Chair MACDOUGALL change "12-foot doors"to be "10-foot doors." (2) Pal!:e three. reason number one under the motion to approve Case No. WZ-99-15: Commissioner SNOW requested the word "rezone" be changed to "rezoning." (3) Pa~e eil!:ht. condition number seven under the motion to approve Case No. W A-99- 16: Commissioner BRINKMAN requested the words "with good locks" be removed. Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner THOMPSON seconded that the minutes of February 3, 2000 be approved as amended. The motion passed by a vote of 8-0. 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak before the Commission on unscheduled matters. 7. PUBLIC HEARING B. Case No. ZOA-OO-Ol: Application by the City of Wheat Ridge to amend the Zoning Ordinance Sections 26-6(F)(4) and 26-6(C) of the Code of Laws concerning the right of citizens to protest amendments to changes in the Zone District Regulations. This case was presented by Gerald Dahl. He reviewed the staff report explaining the proposed changes. Commissioner SNOW suggested the ordinance be changed to require notification to property owners with within 600 feet which would be the same as the requirements for neighborhood meetings. Mr. Dahl stated that ifthe notice requirement is greater than 100 feet, as suggested in the amended ordinance, two notices should be sent due to the fact that only those people living within the 100- foot radius have a right of protest. Commissioner GOKEY agreed that 100 feet would not necessarily incorporate all those property owners who would be impacted by a development. In response to a question by Commissioner GOKEY, Mr. White stated that street right-of-way is not included in the measurements. Commissioner SNOW requested that Sections 26-6(F)(4) and Section 26-6(C) of Charter Section 5.10 be included in their entirety in the ordinance. Mr. White explained that if notice boundaries extend to 600 feet, it would be necessary to increase application fees to cover the cost of certified mail involved in sending the notices. In response to a question from Commissioner DOYLE, Mr. Dahl explained that a property owner may circulate petitions to be presented to Council even though they are not within the 100-foot boundary that gives them the right to protest. Commissioner BRINKMAN stated that she was in favor of expanding the boundaries because of the many in-fill developments taking place in the city. In response to a question from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Mr. White stated that only property owners are notified and the owners are determined based upon county records. Planning Conunission Minutes February 17,2000 Page 2 In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW concerning amendments to planned developments such as changing the proportion of uses, Mr. Dahl explained that the charter triggers the right of protest when the Council amends the size, shape, boundaries or regulations applicable to any zone district by ordinance. If the change is being made without an ordinance, the protest right is not triggered. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the city could exercise discretion to send notices to those outside prescribed notice boundaries. Mr. Dahl replied that the city has a right to exercise such discretion as long as it is made very clear to such property owners that they do not have the right to protest. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS that the application by the City of Wheat Ridge to amend the Zoning Ordinance Sections 26- 6(F)(4) and 26-6(C) of the Code of Laws concerning the right of citizens to protest amendments to changes in the zone district regulations be forwarded to the City Council with recommendation for approval with one change: in Section 4. Letter notice, the words "within 100 feet" be changed to "600 feet"; and that the remainder of the charter section be inserted in the "whereas" section on page one ofthe ordinance. The motion passed by a vote of 8-0. Commissioner THOMPSON suggested that an article be placed in the CAP newsletter concerning the notice boundary changes. She also suggested that a laminated copy ofthe regulations defining who has a right of protest be placed on the back table for public information. Commissioner BRINKMAN requested that applicants be required to remove postings after the application has expired to eliminate confusion when there are multiple postings associated with a property. Staff will monitor these situations. A. Case No. WP A-OO-Ol: Application by the City of Wheat Ridge to amend the Comprehensive Plan by repealing the Kipling Activity Center and Fruitdale Valley Master Plans. These plans have been superseded by the new Comprehensive Plan. This matter was presented by Alan White. He stated that staffs recommendation was to repeal these plans for reasons outlined in the staff report. Commissioner SNOW asked if these plans were listed as attachments to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. White replied that they were not attachments to the Comprehensive Plan, but were two separate plans. Planning Commission Minutes February 17,2000 Page 3 Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if the city had received any citizen comments concerning the repealing of these two plans. Mr. White replied that no comments had been received. In response to a question from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Mr. White replied that copies of the subject plans will be kept in the Planning Department for historical purposes. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner GOKEY that the application by the City of Wheat Ridge to repeal the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan and the Kipling Activity Center Master Plan be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation for approval for the following reasons: 1. The Fruitdale Valley Master Plan and Kipling Activity Center Master Plan are required to be referenced when zone changes and special uses are proposed. These plans refer to good planning practice in design and offer examples such as cross access between commercial properties, elimination of curb cuts, and better pedestrian circulation. Many of these principles are included in the new Comprehensive Plan. 2. Many ofthe objectives listed in the Fruitdale and Kipling Plans (buffering, setbacks, lot coverage bonuses) were never translated into regulations. The plans refer to "high quality design," but give no specific guidelines for what it is or how to achieve it. 3. In the Fruitdale Plan, several of the desired goals are no longer valid (redesign of street system south of 44th, west of Vivian and realignment of Y oungfield with Ward Road.) Many of the goals specified in the Kipling Plan will be addressed by the hotel/motel program. 4. The Fruitdale Plan contains the "multiple land use" category which has caused problems in the past in the Fruitdale area. The land use categories in general aren't defmed. Land uses in the Comprehensive Plan are generally more specific and less intense than the land uses in either the Fruitdale or Kipling Plan. The less intense commercial uses and less dense residential uses are consistent with current community desires. 5. The planning areas covered by the two plans overlap and the overlap areas contain different land use designations. This creates further confusion in determining consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The motion passed by a vote of 8-0. 8. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chair MACDOUGALL declared the public hearing closed. 9. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes February 17,2000 Page 4 10. NEW BUSINESS A. ProDosed Moratorium on Non Profit Use BRINKMAN asked if this moratorium would impact an upcoming Planning Commission case. Alan White replied that it would depend upon the final form of the ordinance. B. District Three First Mondav Meetinl!: Commissioner BRINKMAN referred to this meeting which she was unable to attend. Commissioner SNOW stated that she was present at the meeting which was very well attended. 11. COMMISSION REPORTS There were no Commission reports. 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS There were no committee or department reports. 13. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner GOKEY that the meeting be adjourned at 8:40 p.m. The motion passed by a vote of 8-0. ~.~ Ano Lazzeri, Recording Secretary C:\Barbara\PCRPTS\PLANGCOM\PCMINUTE\000217.wpd Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes February 17,2000