Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/01/1996r MTNVTES OF MEETING February 1, 1996 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION 1, CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson LANGDON at 7;30 p.m., on February 1, 1996 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Eckhardt Harry Williams James Owens - Excused Absence Jay Rasplicka Carl A. Cerveny George Langdon Wallace Crumpton - Excused Absence Warren Johnson - Excused Absence • STAFF PRESENT: Glen Gidley, Director of _ Planning & Development Sandra Wiggins, Secretary PVBLIC BEARING The following is the official copy of Planning Commission minutes for the Public Hearing of.February 1,_1996. A copy 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 Whew Ridge. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 February 1, 1996 • 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA Commissioner CERVENX moved to approve the agenda for the meeting of February 1, 1996 as printed. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner WILLIAMS moved to approve the minutes for the meeting of January 11, 1996 as printed. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner ECKHARDT moved to approve the minutes for the meeting of ,.January 18, 1996 as corrected. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing under Item .7 of the Public Hearing section of the agenda.) No one had signed the roster to speak, nor came forward at that time. - 7. PIIBLIC HEARING 1. Case No. WS-96-1: An application by Stephen Elkin for Applewood Reserve Venture fo"r`approval of a resubdivision of. property known as Distinctive Addresses at Applewood Subdivision located at 10701 West 32nd Avenue.- Mr. Gidley informed those present that the applicant had requested continuance of Case No. W~-96-1. Consensus was to continue the case to February 15, 1996, the next regularly- scheduled Planning Commission meeting. 2. Case No. ZOA-95-6: A public hearing will be held on a proposed amendment "to Wheat Ridge Code. of Laws, Section 26, Zoning Code, Subsection 26-30 (K) Overlay Zones, regarding the addition of a new subsection (3) providing for Special Area Restriction Districts (SAR). Mr. Gidley gave an overview of the proposed amendment. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if the proposed Overlay Zone would be applied-after property was subdivided. Mr. Gidley answered yes. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 f February 1, 1996 Commissioner CERVENY voiced his concern regarding: City expense in enforcing the proposed amendment, the wisdom of City involvement in policing neighborhood covenants. Mr. Gidley stated that,.it could be less expensive to enforce in one neighborhood, rather than the entire City. He added that if a higher standard is created, then there would be a greater presence of Code Enforcem,~nt in that .specific neighborhood on that issue. He noted that should the Zoning Ordinance be amended, court challenge may be a possibility. Mr. Gidley stated that it was a "leading edge" type of legislation attempting to respond to neighborhood concern, while providing due process. He elaborated. Commissioner CERVENY stated that it would be a mistake for the City to enforce neighborhood covenants. He elaborated. He' wondered why this item was not being placed on a future ballot, since it would be paid for by taxpayers. Mr. Gidley stated that a special assessment could be levied on those individuals wishing special regulations in order to pay for the enforcement costs.- He elaborated. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked about other options. Mr. Gidley stated that if an individual was fully in compliance with City regulations, then a claim would have to be made on th_e basis of a "private nuisance". That claim would have to be proven in court. He gave some examples. Commissioner CERVENY suggested that Commission hear from those in the audience wishing, to speak. Chairman LANGDON informed Commission that he had spoken with Mr. Salzman, who was present, many times regarding his concern about an RV parked next door to him. He added that if Commission felt it would be inappropriate for him to participate in this hearing, he would gladly leave the-room. Mr. Gidley stated this item was not quasi-judicial, but legislative in nature and that Chairman LANGDON could participate. Alan Salzman. 10285 West 33rd Avenue was sworn in. He stated that he and others present were in favor of the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance presently under discussion. He explained .that in his particular case, the Overlay Zone would be very beneficial in maintaining the property values, quality of life and personal safety. He provided copies of a petition signed by 75 of his neighbors. • Chairman LANGDON asked if a special map would be necessary should the proposed amendment be approved? • Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 February 1, 1996 Mr. Gidley said an addition to existing zoning maps would be necessary. He thought perhaps a "clear overlay".could be utilized with a key regarding special provisions. Commissioner CERVENY spoke about his concern regarding requiring only a 2/3 majority for passage. He elaborated. Mr. Salzman stated he thought there had been zoning changes city- wide that affected more than one in three persons. Those passed, he added. - Commissioner CERVENY had some confusion and he read aloud those portions of the proposed amendment. Mr. Gidley explained to Commissioner~CERVENY the differences in the two different,_types of Overlay Zones; one for multiple use/ activity centers (Subsection 2); 'and-the special area restriction (Subsection 3) which. is more residential in nature. He gave examples. Mr. Salzman pointed out to Commissioner CERVENY that neighbors of his had signed the petition.- . Commissioner CERVENY reiterated his concern that the required 2/3 majority was inadequate. Discussion followed. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked if there were other areas in the City with similar problems. Chairperson LANGDON asked if the amendment was approved, would Mr. Salzman's neighbor with the RV be required to move it? Mr. Gidley stated that due process would have to be built in, allowing a reasonable time period for individuals to comply with the regulation. Chairperson LANGDON asked if any of tho'se_ individuals signing the petition owned RVs? Mr. Salzman answered yes, several signers had owned RVs. He elaborated. Chairperson LANGDON asked if regulations currently exist that would prevent the owner of an RV from moving into his back yard. Mr. Gidley answered, no there are not. It could be, moved if it . physically fits in the space. Discussion followed. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 February 1, 1996 Commissioner ECKHARDT suggested that discussion return to the question before Commission,. Delores-'Wellman, #4 Twilight Drive, was sworn in. Ms. Wellman complained about mechanics-.working out of their garage, old beat up cars, etc. She added that property values 'decline when -- neighborhoods decline. Barking dogs are a problem and owners don't-seem to care that the barking is annoying others. Ms. Wellman stated that RVs should not be parked alongside homes. She was present to find out what could be done. Commissioner ECKHARDT stated on this issue he was "torn". He did not believe that the City should be involved in regulating and enforcing private covenants. However, he added that what`is appropriate on one area of the City does not necessarily mean that it would be appropriate in another area of the City. Commissioner ECKHARDT suggested a 3/4 majority rather than 2/3 majority be required _for:.passage., He asked if approved, would requests come before Planning Commission? Mr. Gidley stated that-as the amendment is currently written, they would not come before Planning Commission, however, that could be added. •- Commissioner-WILLIAMS stated he was uncertain whether it would be better to have RVs parked in_ the front yard or on the side of .the property. ' Mr. Gidley stated it depending on how the property was situated, it would be possible that it could be_worse having the RV parked alongside the house rather than in the front yard. Ms. wellman asked what residents could_do to stop their neighborhoods from declining. - - Commissioner CERVENY spoke of_covenants, however, felt iL was an impractical solution. Ms. wellman stated it was unfair allowing_the minority to ruin a neighborhood. She elaborated. - Commissioner ECKHARDT asked Ms. Wellman if the proposed amendment would allow action to be taken against objectionable situations in ~ie~neighborhood? Ms. Wellman stated s_he had not read. the proposed amendment and therefore could not answer. ~~ Commissioner ECKHARDT summarized the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment. • Planning Commission Minutes - -Page 6 February 1, 1996 Ms. Wellman asked what Commissioner ECKHARDT's problem was with City Enforcement of-this proposed amendment. Commissioner ECKHARDT answered that "exclusivity", that is, excluding certain things or even people, could be a problem when enforcing covenants. -He gave some examples and explained. Mr. Salzman agreed that some covenants or regulations border on_ the petty or insignificant.- He gave_an example and elaborated. Commissioner CERVENY-asked if it_would be possible to leave enforcement of the proposed amendment to the residents rather than the City? Mr. Gidley answered he did not believe so. Mr. Gidley summarized issues he had heard: _ 1. 2/3_majority too low? 2. Two-step process better that one-step process? 3. Public funds expended for certain neighborhood(s)? _ He elaborated on the three issues. • Commissioner CERVENY felt the two-step process was important to insure that citizens involved could have input: He felt if special regulations were adopted_by a neighborhood, they should also be able to rescind them-i£ they desire. - Mr. Salzman agreed that at some point, the neighborhood might want to remove the special regulations previously adopted. This would allow the dynamics of the neighborhood to change. Discussion was heard regarding possible time limitation of the special regulations. Chairperson LANGDON asked Mr. Gidley what happens now? _- Mr. Gidley stated-City staff would. work with the neighborhood to meet their. particular concern. The neighbors-would then petition the City. The City would process the application, notifying adjacent property owners, etc. then schedule a public .hearing before Commission and then Council. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked=if Planning Commission would hear. the case, or would Board o.f adjustment? Mr. Gidley stated it would have to be enacted by an Ordinance, but he thought Planning Commission would hear the case. • i Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 February 1, 1996 Commissioner LANGDON thought 20 years might be too long. He _ added that perhaps five years would be a good '°trial period", and _ it could ba_renewed-for ten years~aftes that. Mr. Gidley stated he had concern about placing a time limit on *_he regulations, He_explained. Commissioner RASPLICKA pointed out that the regulations, once enacted, could always be altered. Mr. Gidley stated that if there -was 'a serious problem, the City could initiate the process, without any agreement from the neighborhood. He added that perhaps a statement should be added that the City has the absolute authority to rescind. Mr. Gidley felt-only a simple majority should be required to rescind.- Mr. Salzman noted there were, some "fail safes" built into the proposed amendment. Mr. Gidley stated that an "initiative petition" could be submitted. He explained further. Mr, Salzman urged Commission to give the proposed amendment a chance. - Discussion-followed. Chairperson LANGDON asked what process the proposed amendment would follow from here. Based upon Commission's recommendation; i.e., if-you recommend - approval with conditions, Staff would make those changes and forward it to City Council. If Staff had a serious.concern about Commission's- recommendation, then Council would have to be informed of St~.ff's concern. Following that, Council would hold a first reading and set it 'f or, public hearing/second reading. If Council approved the proposed amendment, then a neighborhood could come in and petition the City to consider applying these rules . Commissioner CERVENY suggested that this ,item be studied further at a-study session. Commissioner ECKHARDT moved to Approve the proposed amendment__to Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Section 26, Zoning Code, Subsection 26- 30(-It) Overlay Zones, regarding the addition of a new subsection (3) providing for_Special Area Restriction Districts (SAR) and forward it-to City Council with the following additions: 1. That instead of the owner-initiated petition signed by a 2/3 majority, it be signed by a 3/4 majority; • Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 February 1, 1996 2. That petitions go first to the_Planning Commission_ and then to City Council; and 3. A statement be added stating the City of Wheat Ridge shall have tY~e authority to rescind this Overlay District_upon proper due process. Commissioner CERVENY seconded the motion. - Mr. Gilley noted that discussion had been heard-regarding majority required to eliminate or_rescind. Commissioner ECIZH.'9RDT agreed to add to hi_s motion that only a simple majority of the neighbors involved would be required_to rescind the-Overlay Zone regulations. Commissioner CERVENY suggested that property owners be notified by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED. Mr. Gilley stated that Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested is routinely used for notification purposes, however, should someone refuse or fail to pick up the Certified Leger, would - that then count..-as a,!'No" vote? What would be. the significance? , • Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if the requirement could be made "75~ of respondents"? Commissioner.WILLIAMS asked if the returned letters; could be considered_"No Response", having no real significance.-- ~ __; " Discussion followed. Motion carried 5-0. _ Commissioner CERVENY spoke of his concern regarding the - _ possibility of creating "flagpole" areas. Mr. Gilley stated a map would be included in the packet to both Planning Commission and City Council. He reminded Commission that if they are not satisfied-with the area depicted, etc., they could deny the application. 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 9. OLD BUSINESS 1. Mr. Gilley brought Commission up-to-date regarding decisions recently made regarding the Wadsworth` Corridor. • • Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 February 1, 1996 10. NEw svslNESs 1. Commissioner ECRHARDT spoke of "gateways°' and the importance of making a positive impression on those traveling through our City. He thought. this would be a good topic to discuss with Council. 2. Mr. Gidley brought to the attention of Planning Commission the recent design of a sign by a City planner which will be installed at West .38th Avenue and Sheridan Blvd. 3. Commissioner RASPLICKA brought Commission up-to-date on the Rocky Flats Task Force. He will be ending his tenure in March after serving on the Task Force for a year. Commissioner ECKHARDT commended Commissioner RASPLICKA for his fine service with the Rocky Flats Task Force. 4. Chairperson LANGDON noted that the recent alternate • resolution sent to Council by Plannirig Commission and Bnard of Adjustment requesting the use of alternates from each body to be utilized when necessary to establish a quorum was found to conflict with the City Charter. Discussion of attendance followed. 5. By consensus, Planning Commission decided to postpone a study session previously scheduled for February 8, 1996. 11. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ITEMS 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, by consensus, meeting adjourned at 9:47 p:m. ~\,\~\\~~~/~/ - Vr1/qI 4 ~ _ ~V ~ Sandra Wiggins, cretary •