Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/06/2000 ORIGINAL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting July 6, 2000 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair SNOW at 7:30 p.m. on July 6, 2000 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL: Commission Members Present: Jerry Collins Paulette Cooper Dick Doyle Dean Gokey Marian McNamee Nancy Snow Janice Thompson Commission Members Absent: Don MacDougall (excused) Staff Members Present: Alan White, Planning Director Mary Austin, Planner Greg Knudson, City Engineer Mike Garcia, Development Review Engineer Ann Lazzeri, Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The following is the official set of Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing of July 6, 2000. 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. APPROVAL OF ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner THOMPSON and seconded by Commissioner McNAMEE to amend the order of the agenda to hear Case No; MS-00-03 (agenda item 7- C) first in the public hearing portion of the meeting and that a report on the Economic Development Committee be added to the agenda under Commission Reports. The motion passed 7-0 with Chair MACDOUGALL absent. Planning Conunission July 6, 2000 Page I "", " 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner McNAMEE requested an amendment on page four to reflect that the motion passed 6-1 rather than 7-1. Commissioner SNOW requested an amendment on page six to incorporate her amendment into the body of the original motion. It was moved by Commissioner MCNAMEE and seconded by Commissioner GOKEY to approve the minutes of June 15, 2000 as amended. The motion passed 7-0 with Chair MACDOUGALL absent. 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak before the Commission on unscheduled matters. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. MS-00-03: An application for a two-lot minor subdivision and lot width variance for property zoned R-2 and located at 3114 Teller Street. The case was presented by Mary Austin. She reviewed the staff report and presented slides and overheads of the subject property. All pertinent documents were entered into the record and accepted by Vice Chair SNOW. Ms. Austin advised that there was jurisdiction for the Commission to hear the case. The ten criteria used in evaluating variance requests were reviewed. Because of staff s conclusion that the variance criteria did not support the requested lot width variance, a recommendation for approval of the minor subdivision plat and denial of the lot width variance was given. Staff also recommended that the minor subdivision plat be approved with the condition that public improvements of curb, gutter and sidewalk be constructed along Saulsbury Street. In conclusion, Ms. Austin stated that the only response to the application was received from Alec Garbini of Teller Homes, LLC-Happy Landings. At the request of Vice Chair SNOW, the letter, dated July 5, 2000, was read into the record as follows: Dear Ms. Austin: Thank you for your letter of June 21,2000 regarding the application for a variance for the property located at 3114 Teller Street. Teller Homes, LLC owns the property located at 3135 Saulsbury Street which abuts the subject property on its north property line. Teller Homes, LLC and Saulsbury Properties, LLLP recently developed the property known a Happy Landings PUD which adjoins the subject property and contains the duplex unit at 3135 Saulsbury Street. Teller Homes, LLC is currently managing the homeowners association which was formedfor the four duplex units which comprise the Happy Landings Patio Home Assoc. We recognize the R-2 zoning which exists for the subject property, and do not object to residential uses which conform with that zoning, and meet the required setbacks from neighboring property. Planning Commission July 6, 2000 Page 2 We are concerned about the width of the lot. We understand that it is approximately six feet short of conforming with the City of Wheat Ridge zone lot requirements. When Happy Landings PUD was designed and submitted to the city it was held to very strict standards regarding lot sizes and density. We would expect the City of Wheat Ridge to uphold those standards and make other applicants meet the same type of requirements imposed on our property. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Alec Garbini, Member. Commissioner THOMPSON questioned the reasons for requiring curb, gutter and sidewalks when this requirement was not made for Happy Landings. Greg Knudson replied that the same improvements were recommended for the Happy Landings project; however, City Council did not make such a requirement as a condition of its approval. Commissioner COLLINS commented that installation of sidewalks would have necessitated the removal of some large trees along Saulsbury and that drainage concerns were also involved. Albert E. Holland 13633 West 78th Place, Arvada Mr. Holland, the applicant, was sworn in by Vice Chair SNOW. He submitted a site plan for his proposed project. He also commented that part ofthe concern regarding curb and gutter for the Happy Landings project related to the ditch rights of residents in the area. He stated that most houses in the neighborhood are 2,000 square feet on lots less than 10,000 square feet while the subject lot is 17,892 square feet which he believes is too large for a single family residence. He plans a two-car garage for each unit which would alleviate parking on the street. He. also informed the Commission that he intends to live on the property and that he had no interest in building a single family residence there. If his plans for a duplex are not approved, he stated his only options would be to sell the property or build a group home. He did indicate, however, that he would not ever build a group home in the location. In speaking with his neighbors, he stated that no one has expressed opposition to his plans. In response to a question from Commissioner THOMPSON, Mr. Holland stated that he plans to build a six-foot privacy fence between his property and the property to the south. In response to a question from Commissioner COLLINS, Mr. Holland indicated that he had no concerns with the recommendation for curb, gutter and sidewalk along Saulsbury. Catherine Dunlap 7160 West 30th Avenue Ms. Dunlap was sworn in by Vice Chair SNOW. She stated her opposition to the application because a duplex does not fit into the character of the neighborhood. She felt that the Comprehensive Plan discourages building duplexes in small areas. Page 3 Planning Commission July 6, 2000 Diane Simmons 7160 West 29th Place Ms. Simmons was sworn in by Vice Chair SNOW. She felt that the desires of the neighborhood opposing commercial development were clearly documented during the development of the Smethill's property, and the granting of this variance would create an unfair balance of commercial property in the neighborhood. Thomas Slattery 6869 West 32nd Avenue Mr. Slattery was sworn in by Vice Chair SNOW. He urged the Commission to vote in accordance with the staff recommendation to allow the subdivision but deny the variance which, if granted, would alter the character of the neighborhood. Mrs. Albert Holland 13633 West 78th Place, Arvada Mrs. Holland was sworn in by Vice Chair SNOW. She stated that their son plans to live in the existing single family residence on the subject property and that she and her husband plan to live in one side of the proposed duplex. They would rent the other half of the duplex. Mr. Holland returned to the podium. In response to a question from Vice Chair SNOW, he indicated that he does not plan any construction for the property if the variance is not granted. Commissioner THOMPSON expressed concern with the number of developments in Wheat Ridge where the sides of buildings are facing streets. It was moved by Commissioner DOYLE and seconded by Commissioner GOKEY that Case No. MS-00-03, a request for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision in an R-2 zoning district at 3114 Teller Street, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The minimum lot size requirements ofthe R-2 zoning district have been exceeded. 2. All requirements of the City's Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following condition: 1. Public improvements of curb, gutter and sidewalk shall be constructed along Saulsbury street. The motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner SNOW voting no and Commissioner MACDOUGALL absent. Page 4 Planning Commission July 6, 2000 Commissioner SNOW indicated that she voted against the motion because she felt the lot should be divided equally in order to be more suitable for single family homes on both sides. It was moved by Commissioner THOMPSON and seconded by Commissioner DOYLE that the request for a six-foot lot width variance from the 100-foot minimum lot width requirement for a two-family dwelling, be DENIED for the following reasons: 1. The property may be developed with a single family residence without the need for a variance. 2. The hardship is self-imposed through the desire to construct a duplex dwelling instead of a single family home. 3. There are no unique circumstances attributed to the property that would warrant approval of the variance. 4. Approval of the variance could potentially alter the essential character of the neighborhood based upon the third criteria used in evaluating a variance. 5. The neighborhood has been opposed in the past to additional multi-family developments and this opposition was once again shown at this hearing. 6. The application does not meet the intent ofthe Comprehensive Plan which designates the area for duplexes only for existing two-family conforming lots and the subject lot is not conforming. The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner MACDOUGALL absent. (Vice Chair SNOW declared a brief recess at 8:50 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:00 p.m.) B. Case No. ZOA-00-07: An ordinance amending Section 26-6(D)(3) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws relating to Temporary Use Permits Alan White presented this case. He reviewed the staff report. The Planning Commission earlier requested that the Planning Department look into changing the regulations for temporary use permits. Three options for code changes were presented to the City Affairs Committee. Their recommended option was to amend the section on one-year temporary uses, buildings and signs, to delete all references to temporary uses. Temporary uses for up to one year would not be allowed. One-year TUP's for only buildings and signs would still be allowed but no Page 5 Planning Commission July 6, 2000 renewals would be allowed and a new permit for substantially the same sign or building would not be allowed. Temporary uses would be allowed only for up to 30 days with the ability to renew the permit twice for 30 days each. Provisions elsewhere in the Code still allow temporary uses such as Christmas tree lots and vegetable stands for up to 90 days. After review of this recommendation, staff recommended to allow TUP's for a period of90 days, with no option for renewal, rather than renewing twice at the end of the 30 day periods. It was recommended that the one-year TUP for buildings and signs remain as recommended. In response to a question raised by Commissioner SNOW earlier in the week, Mr. White distributed copies of additional proposed wording relating to city projects which would necessitate the relocation of a use. Commissioner GOKEY suggested changing the wording under 5 (c) to remove the words "per applicant" to allow one permit per site in order to prevent TUP's from being issued time after time on the same property under different applicant's names. Commissioner SNOW questioned whether paragraph (3)(a)1 ofthe proposed ordinance would cover other uses such as special use permits, rezoning, conditional use permits from being granted after they had been denied by Planning Commission or City Council. Alan White stated that it was his opinion this paragraph would cover conditional use, special use and any land use type case that Planning Commission and City Council have decided. In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Alan White stated that if 30-day permits are renewed once or twice, they would still be considered as one permit. It was moved by Commissioner GOKEY and seconded by Commissioner COOPER that the ordinance amending Section 26-6(D)(3) ofthe Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning temporary uses be approved as proposed with the following changes: 1. In paragraph (c) that the words "per applicant" be removed to read: "Only one such permit may be approved per year for a particular site." It was moved by Commissioner THOMPSON and seconded by Commissioner GOKEY to amend the motion to change paragraph (c) as follows: ONE YEAR TEMPORARY PERMIT: 1. The Board of Adjustment is empowered to hold a public hearing to decide upon requests for temporary uses, buildings or signs. Page 6 Planning Conunission July 6, 2000 2. The Board may approve a temporary permit for no longer than one (1) year per application. 3. Only one such permit may be approved per year for a particular site. No renewals of one year permits or new permits for substantially the same building or sign shall be allowed. 4. In the event a City project necessitates the relocation of a use, the Board of Adjustment may conduct a public hearing for the purpose of granting a temporary use for a specified time period upon finding that a legitimate public purpose is served by granting the temporary use, in addition to the findings of fact required below for 30-day temporary uses. The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner MACDOUGALL absent. A vote was taken on the original motion with the above amendment. It passed 7-0 with Commissioner MACDOUGALL absent. C. Case No. ZOA-00-08 - An ordinance amending Section 26-6(F)(4) ofthe Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning noticing for land use cases. Based on discussion at the June IS, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, staff initiated this zoning ordinance amendment which would change the requirement to notify all property owners within a 600-foot radius by certified mail to a requirement to notify all property owners within a 100-foot radius by certified mail and the remainder of property owners within the 600- foot radius to be notified by regular mail. This change would reduce the cost of certified mailings to the applicant as well as reduce the amount of staff time involved in large certified mailings. Commissioner GOKEY commented that he believes the community has asked for more notification and the notification area should not be reduced. Commissioner SNOW expressed concern that all notification boundaries should be the same for neighborhood meetings and public hearings. It was moved by Commissioner GOKEY and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS that the ordinance be approved with the following amendment: That the words "property owners" which appear three times in Section 1 be changed to "owners of property." The motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner THOMPSON voting no. Planning Commission July 6, 2000 Page 7 Commissioner THOMPSON stated that she voted against the motion because she would like to see less of a distance than 600 feet. 8. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Vice Chair SNOW declared the public hearing closed. 9. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. 10. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. 11. COMMISSION REPORTS A. Economic Develonment Committee - Commissioner MCNAMEE presented a brief report on the Economic Development Committee meeting of June 27, 2000. 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS There were no committee or department reports. 13. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner GOKEY and seconded by Commissioner COOPER that the meeting be adjourned at 9:50 p.m. The motion passed 7-0 with Chair MACDOUGALL absent. a .J! a Planning Commission July 6, 2000 Page 8