Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/07/2002 ORlG1NAL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting February 7, 2002 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order by Chair THOMPSON at 7:30 p.m., February 7, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLLCALL Commission Members Present: Anne Brinkman Jerry Collins Marian McNamee Philip Plununer Nancy Snow Janice Thompson Paula Weisz Commissioner Members Absent: Paulette Cooper Staff Members Present: Alan White, Planning Director Mary Austin, Planner Ann Lazzeri, Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The following is the official set of Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing of February 7, 2002. 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 SNOW and seconded by Commissioner PLUMMER to amend the agenda to include discussion of deleting an overlay section which is no longer applicable; discussion of proposal to add a city council member to the Planning Commission; discussion of 60-day time period for John Elway dealership; and discussion ofthe AP A Conference. 5. APPROVE MINUTES Commissioner SNOW requested the following amendments to the minutes of December 20, 200 I: (l) page three, paragraph preceding item B should reflect that Commissioner SNOW wanted a copy of the EP A report to be furnished to City Council; and (2) paragraph six should reflect that item "C" be changed to reflect "a maximum height of 3 5 feet." (Staff has since Planning Commission February 7, 2002 Page I checked and Commissioner SNOW's condition was not that the environment report be furnished to City Council, but that the report be made part of the case file.) It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner PLUMMER to approve the minutes of December 20, 2001 as amended. The motion passed unanimously. 6. PUBLIC FORUM Mayor Gretchen Cerveny appeared to urge Planning Commission to review its actions in order to encourage quality developers to locate in Wheat Ridge. Quality development would increase sales tax revenue and keep the city a quality place to live. She has heard from some developers that they do not believe Wheat Ridge to be business friendly and one reason they cited is that they are "nitpicked to death" when they bring their plans before Planning Commission and City Council. Commissioner SNOW commented that she has heard comments from citizens who think it is very sad that, over the years, City Council has approved developments that no one wanted and is the reason some parts of the city look tacky. This was due mainly to one developer who didn't want to follow the rules. Chair THOMPSON commented that there have been times when City Council has imposed stricter regulations on a developer than the Planning Commission had suggested. Commissioner WEISZ commented that she believed the Planning Commission has demonstrated a good faith effort in reviewing applications to ensure that proposed developments meet all the city zoning standards. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. MS-02-01: An application by Albert Holland for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision plat with dedication and lot width variance for the purpose of building a two-family structure on property located at 3114 Teller Street and zoned Residential-Two. This case was presented by Mary Austin. She reviewed the staff report and presented slides and overheads of the application. All pertinent documents were entered into the record and Ms. Austin advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case. Staff recommended approval of the subdivision plat and denial of the lot width variance for reasons outlined in the staff report. Albert Holland 13633 West 78th Place, Arvada Mr. Holland, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair THOMPSON. In response to an earlier question, Mr. Holland stated that the Happy Landings development did not have to put in curb and gutter because many homeowners along Teller have water rights in the ditch and such improvements would interfere with the water rights. Mr. Holland also owns water rights. Page 2 Planning Commission February 7, 2002 Because of the size of his lot, he believed a duplex was suitable for the property. He plans to live in one of the dwellings on the property. Commissioner WEISZ asked the reason for the uneven division of the lot. Mr. Holland replied that the property is already essentially subdivided with buildings and a fence. He also explained that he withdrew his prior application because he didn't fully understand the procedures and assumed that because he was turned down at Planning Commission he would be turned down at City Council. He has since contacted an attorney who advised him that he must go through the entire procedure before he could file a lawsuit. In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW regarding a structure located five feet from the proposed property line, Mr. Holland stated that some of these structures (old chicken coops, etc.) would probably be removed at the time of development. Carissa Dial 3025 Saulsbury Ms. Dial was sworn in by Chair THOMPSON. She spoke in opposition to the variance. She preferred that a single-family structure be built on the property. In response to a question from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Ms. Dial stated she was not the homeowner at this address. Tracy Rubey 3025 Saulsbury Ms. Rubey was sworn in by Chair THOMPSON. She spoke in opposition to the variance because she believed the addition of a duplex would have a negative effect on the quality of life in the neighborhood. She stated that she was the owner of the property. Eileen Wiseman 3135 Saulsbury Ms. Wiseman was sworn in by Chair THOMPSON. She stated that she purchased her property six months ago and expressed concern that she did not receive a notice of the hearing. She stated that she was not opposed to the duplex, but was opposed to the orientation of the structure on the property which would place the driveway next to her bedroom. Alan White stated that a letter was sent to Ms. Wiseman's address. However, the city relies on county records when sending public hearing notices and a previous owner was shown on the county records. Mary Austin distributed copies of a letter from Sharon Heinlen, 3145 Saulsbury, which expressed her opposition to the application. This letter was entered into the record. Catherine Dunlap 7160 West 30th Avenue Ms. Dunlap was sworn in by Chair THOMPSON. She spoke in opposition to the application because a duplex would not fit with the character and quality of the neighborhood. She objected to the manner in which the lot would be divided. She would prefer to see a single family home built on the property. She stated she was the owner ofthe property. Planning Commission February 7, 2002 Page 3 Diane Simmons 7160 West 29th Place Ms. Simmons was sworn in by Chair THOMPSON and stated that she was the homeowner. She provided copies of her text which was made a part of the record. She was opposed to the application because it would result in increased density for the neighborhood. In response to a question from Chair THOMPSON, Ms. Austin stated that the lot size and required setbacks would allow the duplex as currently designed to be reoriented to face Saulsbury and the applicant would have to address his proposal for a northern orientation. Albert Holland returned to the podium. He stated his reason for the proposed orientation was due to the length of the property and reorientation of the duplex would necessitate building single car garages or building the garages in the back of the property. Commissioner BRINKMAN commented that, while she understood the neighbors' concerns, the property is zoned R-2 and the applicant could build a duplex without coming before the Planning Commission if it were not for the variance request. Chair THOMPSON asked ifthere were others present who wished to speak. Hearing no response, she closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner BRINKMAN that Case No. MS-02-01, a request for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision in an R-2 zone district at 3114 Teller Street, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The minimum lot size requirements ofthe R-2 zoning district have been met. 2. All requirements of the City's Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following conditions: 1. A final drainage report shall be approved by the Department of Public Works prior to development of Lot 2. Commissioner SNOW stated that since the City Council had previously decided not to require curb, gutter, sidewalk or an escrow account, according to the wishes of the neighborhood, she did not include such a requirement in her motion. Commissioner PLUMMER commented that while the requirement for a duplex on an R-21ot is only 12,500 square feet, the subject lot is 17,900 square feet. The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner COOPER absent. It was moved by Commissioner COLLINS and seconded by Commissioner SNOW that the request for a 6-foot lot width variance from the 100-foot minimum lot width requirement for a two-family dwelling, be DENIED for the following reasons: Page 4 Planning Commission February 7, 2002 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 two-family dwelling instead of single-family home. 3. There are no unique circumstances attributed to the property that would warrant approval of the variance. Commissioner McNAMEE offered a friendly amendment to add the following reasons for denial: 4. Approval of the variance could potentially alter the essential character of the neighborhood based upon the second criteria used in evaluating a variance. 5. The neighborhood has been opposed in the past to additional multi-family development 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 amendment was accepted by Commissioners COLLINS and SNOW. The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner COOPER absent. Commissioner SNOW questioned whether there was a request for dedication. Ms. Austin replied that there is a 5-foot dedication on Saulsbury. Upon review of the plat document submitted by the applicant for Commission packets, it was discovered this dedication was not shown. Therefore, it became necessary to reconsider the original motion. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner PLUMMER to reconsider Case No. MS-02-01 solely for the purpose of discussing possible dedication on Saulsbury. The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner COOPER absent. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner WEISZ that Case No. MS-02-01 be approved for the same reasons presented in the previous motion with the same condition number one and the addition of condition number two that the owner dedicate five feet on Saulsbury and that the dedication be drawn in and referred to on the plat before it goes to City Council. The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner COOPER absent. (Chair THOMPSON declared a brief recess at 8:50 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:00 p.m.) B. Case No. ZOA-OI-02: An ordinance amending Sections 26-123, 26-211 and 26-212 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to required setbacks for residential structures in the R-3 and R-3A zone districts and the definition of a "story". Planning Commission February 7, 2002 Page 5 City Council directed staff and Planning Commission to correct conflicting requirements in the R-3 and R-3A zone districts pertaining to side and rear setbacks and to look at the definition of a "story." Alan White presented the staff report on this matter. During discussion of the matter, there was a consensus to send the ordinance back to staff for further clarification before acting on the ordinance. Chair THOMPSON asked if there were individuals present who wished to address the ordinance. Louise Turner 11256 West 38th Avenue Ms. Turner was sworn in by Chair THOMPSON. She suggested that a story should be measured to the top of the roof and suggested the following wording: "A structure with one level of living above grade shall not be considered a two-story building unless the big open vaulting roof is high enough that the distance between the grade and the rooftop equals or exceeds the twenty feet." Beyond a two-story structure, where there is living space on two levels, you could say that "each ten feet, or portion thereof above that point, shall constitute a story for setback purposes." She further suggested that, for any structure, a five-foot setback would be required for each ten feet of building height. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner PLUMMER that Case No. ZOA-OI-02 be continued until a time set by the Planning Director to clarify the various problems discussed this evening. The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner COOPER absent. C. Case No. ZOA-OI-06: An ordinance amending Section 26-628.0 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to the 1,500-foot minimum separation between any motor vehicle, farm implement, recreational vehicle, mobile or modular home, motorcycle, boat trailer and equipment sales, rental and storage lots in the City. The staff report was presented by Alan White. The subject ordinance contains revisions recommended by City Council at the January 21 st study session. Commissioner THOMPSON requested that the ordinance allow a special use permit to be granted only to the owner and not run with the land. Further, the portion of land with a special use could only be used for storage with no building allowed. Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner PLUMMER seconded that Case No. ZOA-OI-06 be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation for approval with the following amendment: At the end of Section D, the following language be added: special use permits granted on property not meeting the 1,500 foot separation requirement may have conditions imposed such as, but not limited to, a restriction on permanent construction on the site. The motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner COLLINS voting no and Commissioner COOPER absent. Page 6 Planning Commission February 7, 2002 D. Case No. ZOA-02-0l: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws to implement adopted urban renewal plans. Alan White presented this case. City Council directed staff to prepare this ordinance which requires land use cases to be reviewed by the Urban Renewal Authority for conformance with the respective urban renewal plan. It was moved by Commissioner McNAMEE and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS to recommend approval of Case No. ZOA-02-01 with an amendment to attach URA to Historic Designation and change all references from 26-225 to 26-226. Commissioner SNOW offered an amendment to add URA to Planned Building Groups and that Site Plan and Planned Building Group be changed from A to URA. The amendment was accepted by Commissioners McNAMEE and COLLINS. The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner COOPER absent. Because there was a member of the audience who wished to address the matter, it was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner McNAMEE to reopen the public hearing. The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner COOPER absent. Louise Turner 11256 West 38th Avenue Ms. Turner expressed her opinion that the Urban Renewal Plan should come before the Planning Commission to see if they are consistent with the zoning laws of the city. She expressed concern that the streetscape program on 38th Avenue did not come before the Planning Commission for a public hearing. Alan White explained that if there should be a specific proposal for redevelopment under urban renewal, an amendment to the urban renewal plan would have to be accomplished and Planning Commission would hear land use cases. He further explained that the streetscape project was a capital improvement project, not an urban renewal project. After hearing public comments, it was moved by Commissioner McNAMEE and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS that the motion, as previously stated, stands. The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner COOPER absent. 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. 9. NEW BUSINESS A. Distribution of the Streetscape Manual- Alan White presented a brief overview of the streetscape manual. He mentioned that THK, the consultant who prepared the Page 7 Planning Commission February 7, 2002 manual, received an award from the American Society of Landscape Architects for the document. In response to a question from Commissioner COLLINS, Alan White stated that the 38th Avenue demonstration project will be maintained by the city. Other streetscape projects will be maintained by the adjacent landowners who will enter into a written maintenance agreement with the city. B. Cancellation of next rel!:ular meetinl!: of Februarv 21, 2002 - Since there are no cases scheduled to come before Planning Commission on February 21, 2002, it was moved by Commissioner McNAMEE and seconded by Commissioner PLUMMER that the February 21, 2002 Planning Commission be cancelled. The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner COOPER absent. C. Repeal of Section 26-225 - Commissioner BRINKMAN requested that since the Fruitdale Master Plan is no longer in existence, Section 26-225 should be repealed. It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by Commissioner SNOW to repeal Section 26-225. The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner COOPER absent. D. 60-day Extension for John Elway Dealership - In response to a question from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Alan White stated that it appears the dealership will consent to not have a hearing during this sixty days and consent to a thirty-day extension at that time. E. City Council Member as Chair of Pllinninl!: Commission Commissioner BRINKMAN expressed concern that the ordinance could conflict with the process of city council setting policy and giving direction to the city manager, rather than staff, to implement those policies. Commissioner COLLINS expressed concern about having a council member having two votes on an application (one on Planning Commission and one on City Council.) Commissioner THOMPSON expressed concern about having a council member hear a matter twice. Commissioner SNOW expressed concern about a council member having a vote on Planning Commission rather than being in a liaison position. Commissioner SNOW offered the following resolution: (I) Planning Commission requests that City Council not approve the ordinance on second reading; and (2) if Council wishes to have a member here as a liaison, that this person be a non-voting member and that Planning Commission retain the right to pick its own chairman. There was a consensus to approve the resolution. F. APA Conference Commissioner SNOW reminded Commissioners about the AP A Conference. Anyone who wishes to attend, should contact Alan White. Page 8 Planning Commission February 7, 2002 10. COMMISSION REPORTS There were no commission reports. 11. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS There were no committee or department reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner COLLINS and seconded by Commissioner McNAMEE to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. J~~~i~ ~d1 ' Ann Lazzeri, ReC~ary Planning Commission February 7, 2002 Page 9