Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/2002 ORIGI;~AL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting April 4, 2002 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting ofthe Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order by Chair WEISZ at 7:30 p.m., April 4, 2002, 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 John McMillin Marian McNamee Philip Plummer Nancy Snow Paula Weisz Kevin Witt Staff Members Present: Alan White, Planning Director Jim Windholz, Urban Renewal Attorney Ann Lazzeri, Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Following is the official set of PI arming Commission minutes for the public hearing of April 4, 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 McNAMEE and seconded by Commissioner COOPER to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed 8-0. 5. APPROVE MINUTES Commissioner SNOW requested an amendment to the minutes of March 21, 2002 to expand on her reasons for voting against Case No. WZ-OI-06 and to include her comments that the density did not match surrounding development. It was moved by Commissioner COLLINS and seconded by Commissioner McNAMEE to approve the minutes of March 21, 2002 as amended. The motion passed 8-0. Page 1 Planning Commission April 4, 2002 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one to appear before the Commission at this time. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Resolution No. 01, Series of2002, Case No. WPA-02-01: An amendment to the City of Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. The proposed amendment is to change the future land use designation of certain areas on the west side of Upham Street to Community Commercial Center. The case was presented by Alan White. Staffrecommended approval of the amendment which would provide better opportunity for potential redevelopment of this area. One reason for the change was that potential developers prefer a deeper site than is available now. Commissioner McMILLIN asked for dimensions and Mr. White said they weren't available. Notice of this hearing was published in the Wheat Ridge Transcript and, although not required, letters of notification were sent to landowners involved in this proposal. Commissioner McMILLIN asked iflandowners on the east side of Upham Street were also notified of this meeting. Alan White replied that they were not. Commissioner SNOW asked ifit is intended to find the subject area blighted and, if blight is found, would properties be condemned. Alan White replied that findings of blight in the area will be considered during a hearing in front of City Council on April 22 and, if blight is found, condemnation would be an option. In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Alan White stated there is no specific development plan for the subject area at this time. Chair WEISZ asked to hear from those present who wished to address the Commission. Gordon Hinshaw 4045 Upham Mr. Hinshaw expressed opposition to the resolution. The city is putting the cart before the horse-the blight study has not been approved by City Council and there is no developer. He also commented that the city has done nothing with the Spartan pad in the past twenty years. He asked the Commission to hold off on making a decision until there is a specific plan. David Nikkel 4175 Upham Mr. Nikkel expressed opposition to the resolution. Residents of this area will not want to improve their properties if they are designated as a blighted area. No decisions should be made unless there is a specific development plan. He expressed concern that incompatible uses could be placed next to his property. There are a lot of unanswered questions for residents of the area. Planning Commission April 4, 2002 Page 2 John Hatzibakus 4107B Upham Street Ms. Hatzibakus is presently a renter at this address. He likes the area very much and does not wish to move from this address. Joe McCluskey Mr. McCluskey appeared on behalf of his sister, Pat Price, who resides at 4110 Upham. Her main concern is increased traffic generation on Upham Street. He wondered if Upham Street would be widened and, if so, where ingress and egress would occur on the west side. J an Kissell 4115 Upham Ms. Kissell expressed concern that her house could be condemned. She was opposed to her area being labeled as "blighted." She has lived in this house for 28 years and chose this location because ofthe large lot. She urged the P1arming Commission to keep Wheat Ridge as it is and asked that the area not be placed in urban renewal without a specific plan. She stated that this is the fourth time residents of this area have had to fight for their property. Richard Carver 4360 Upham Mr. Carver expressed concern about increased traffic on Upham. He wanted to know what kind of development would be proposed for the area. Ted Whaley 4100 Upham Mr. Whaley expressed opposition to the resolution. He has lived in this location for over forty years and likes the area. He expressed concern about the traffic on Upham from 38th to 44th People drive at excessive speeds on this street and development would only increase the problem. If the west side of Upham is developed commercially, it will limit access into his property. John Minshall 3550 Miller Court Mr. Minshall owns the apartment complex at 4001 to 4039 Upham containing twenty units. He expressed concern about the lack of a development plan. He also expressed concern about increased traffic on Upham. He asked if there was someone interested in developing the area because it seems someone wants the area for urban renewal and the blight study is almost an afterthought. If blight exists in this area, residents have never been notified so they could correct any problems. Commissioner SNOW asked Mr. Minshall if he was notified of the Urban Renewal meeting held in February. Mr. Minshall replied that it was posted on the bulletin board and listed in the Transcript. One of the residents found out about the meeting and notified the rest of the neighbors. He stated that the first notification he received was regarding this hearing. Page 3 Planning Commission April 4, 2002 Ray Chewning 4047 Upham Mr. Chewning expressed opposition to the resolution and believed there is a lack of humanity in displacing approximately 130-140 people. He expressed concern about further traffic problems on Upham where there is already a speeding problem. Cheryl Chewning 4047 Upham Ms. Chewning manages the apartment complexes here and expressed opposition to the plan. There are 130 residents in 63 units and they do not wish to move. She does not want to see this area torn down and redeveloped as a commercial area. Rose Marie Moore 3900-3920 Upham Ms. Moore spoke in opposition to the resolution. She also expressed concern that homeowners on the east side of Upham did not receive written notification of this hearing. Mike Markham Mr. Markham appeared on behalf of Julie Newman who lives at 4281 Upham. There are too many unanswered questions. If there are no prospective developers, there seems to be no need for this resolution. He suggested that citizens be involved in planning for this area and asked the Commission to shelve this matter until there is a concrete plan to consider. Lynne Martinelli 4240 Upham Ms. Martinelli expressed opposition to the resolution. She has lived in the area for four years although most of her neighbors have lived in the area for 25-50 years. She wondered why, when she bought her house, they were required to deed part oftheir property for widening Upham. She also expressed concern about increased traffic. In reply to a question from Commissioner SNOW regarding the street dedication, Alan White explained that the city requested this dedication to bring the road up to right-of-way standards for a local street. Tessa Morris Ms. Morris spoke on behalf of her father, Angelo Martinelli who lives at 4240 Upham. Her father is opposed to the resolution. As a realtor, she expressed concern about real estate values which would plummet as a result of being placed in an urban renewal area. Jan McNeel 4275 Upham Mr. McNeel is co-owner of this property with his parents and indicated his opposition to the resolution. The property is presently being rented to someone with an option to buy. This option is now clouded with the possibility ofthe area being designated as blighted. He wanted to know if there was a petition with the signatures of 25 homeowners necessary to form an urban renewal authority. He objected to the fact that there was no notice to the homeowners Planning Commission April 4, 2002 Page 4 about the blight study dated October 15, 2001. He also expressed concern about the possible removal of trees with redevelopment. He questioned that blight exists in the area. Gay Anne Fay 4320 Upham Ms. Fay spoke in opposition to the resolution. She lives behind the Stage Stop and would prefer to keep it rather than have new development with more traffic and more delivery trucks. Robert McLeod 3960 Upham Mr. McLeod spoke in opposition to the resolution. His family is living in this house which was originally built by his wife's grandmother and felt that people have the right to stay in their houses if they wish to. Louise Adams 4065 Upham Ms. Adams spoke in opposition to the resolution. She rents from the Minshall's and stated she was terrified of losing her home. Michael Sheeley 4085 Upham Mr. Sheeley spoke in opposition to the resolution for reasons previously expressed by others. Chair WEISZ asked if there were others who wished to address the Commission. Hearing no response, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner PLUMMER commented that his understanding was that the resolution is just an invitation to open this area up for redevelopment and wouldn't necessarily mean the loss of any homes. Landscape buffering and traffic issues would be addressed if development should ever take place. Alan White stated that, if a specific development is ever considered, there would have to be several more public hearings before City Council. Commissioner SNOW expressed concern that there may be some plan in the works that have not been presented to the residents since the Urban Renewal Authority does conduct executive sessIOns. Commissioner COOPER stated that, as she drove through the subject area, she did not see evidence of blight. She asked if it were necessary to change the land use plan before a developer would even look at this area. Jim Windholz replied that the purpose of this proceeding is to make a recommendation to City Council as to whether the proposed modification to the urban renewal plan conforms to the City's Comprehensive Plan. This recommendation would have nothing to do with blight but only with whether the plan is in conformance with the COMPLAN. He read from the urban renewal law Section 31-25-107(2): "Prior to the approval or modification of an urban renewal plan, the City Council shall submit such a proposed modification to the Planning Commission for review and recommendations as to the proposed modification's conformity with the general plan for the development of the city as a whole. " Planning Commission April 4, 2002 Page 5 The Commission commented that the issue of blight was relevant and important to the discussion and to the neighbors. In response to a question from Commissioner COLLINS as to whether the city has a plan, Mr. Windholz stated that there is a Wadsworth Corridor Redevelopment Plan and this modification would add additional area to this plan for mixed use commercial uses. Commissioner McNAMEE suggested to those individuals who expressed concern about traffic on Upham Street that they contact the city regarding installation of traffic calming devices. A member of the audience stated the residents had already contacted the city but found that such devices could not be installed because they would interfere with emergency traffic. Jim Windholz explained that blight is determined when four out of eleven statutory factors of blight are found and blight does not necessarily mean individual homes. These findings will be considered at a public hearing before City Council on April 22 when blight will or will not be proven. He also stated that there is not a developer on board and there have been no secret meetings with any developer. This does not necessarily mean there will be a developer who wants to include the residences along Upham, but if it is in an urban renewal area, the opportunity is there if the City Council determines to include these properties in a redevelopment area. Commissioner McMILLIN stated that, as a residential realtor, he believes that placing an area under urban renewal makes residential properties more difficult to sell. Upon a motion by Commissioner SNOW and second by Commissioner COOPER the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the Comprehensive Plan for this area was adopted only a few years ago after a very lengthy study by the Comprehensive Plan Study Committee, the Planning Commission and the City Council; and Whereas, there has not been sufficient evidence presented to change the Comprehensive Plan at this time; It is recommended to the City Council that no change be made in the current designation of the area on the map presented to Planning Commission. The motion passed 8-0. 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Plarming Commission. 9. NEW BUSINESS A. Resolution No. 02, Series of2002, Wadsworth Boulevard Corridor Redevelopment Plan - First Modification Page 6 Planning Commission April 4, 2002 Alan White presented this item which is a charge to the Plarming Commission to determine whether or not the proposal to add this area to the urban renewal area is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Upon a motion by Commissioner SNOW and second by Commissioner McMILLIN, the following resolution was stated: Whereas, the Planning Commission has evaluated the proposed first modification of the plan for its compliance with the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan; and Whereas, it has been found by the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission that the proposed first modification is not iu conformance with the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan; The resolution shall be transmitted to the Wheat Ridge City Council pursuant to the requirements of the urban renewal law. The motion passed 8-0. B. Change to Planning Commission Bylaws Alan White reviewed the staff report and requested the Plarming Commission take action which mayor may not have to be approved by City Council. It was moved by Commissioner McNAMEE and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS that the Planning Commission bylaws be amended to change the time of Planning Commission meetings from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The motion passed 7-1 with Commissioner SNOW voting no. C. Next Planning Commission Meeting - Video re: Conducting Planning Commission Hearings Since there are no cases scheduled for April 18th, a training session has been scheduled on that date to begin with dinner at 6:00 p.m. A video regarding the conducting of plarming commission hearings will be presented. Commissioners McNAMEE and WEISZ armounced that they would be out of town for the April18th P1arming Commission meeting and requested their absences to be excused. 10. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner McMILLIN suggested that a future study session be held to discuss possible changes to public notice requirements that freestanding signs be required for Comprehensive Plan land use changes similar to those required for rezoning matters. 11. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS There were no committee or department reports. Planning Commission April 4, 2002 Page 7 12. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. The motion passed 8-0. .... a v - - ~'/j~~r~{ A~ Ann Lazzeri, Recording cr ary Page 8 Planning Commission April 4, 2002