Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/21/1996 i MINIITES OF MEETING March 21, 1996 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION 1. CALL TH8 MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson LANGDON at 7:32 p.m., on March 21, 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 Jay Rasplicka Carl A. Cerveny George Langdon Warren Johnson - Excused Absence STAFF PRESENT: Glen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development Sandra Wiggins, Secretary PIISLIC HEARING The following is the official copy of Planning Commission minutes for the Public Hearing of March 21, 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 Wheat Ridge. s Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 March 21, 1996 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA Commissioner CERVENY moved to approve the agenda for the meeting of March 21, 1996 as printed. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINIITES Commissioner WILLIAMS moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of March 7, 1996 as printed. Commissioner CERVENY seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0, with Commissioners RASPLICKA and OWENS abstaining. 6. PIISLIC FORIIM (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 nor came forward to speak at that time. 7. Pl7BLIC HEARING 1. Case No. ZOA-95-6: A public hearing will be held to reconsider 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). Commissioner SOHNSON joined the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Mr. Gidley summarized the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code. He explained how the amendment, if passed, would allow neighborhoods to restrict certain undesirable elements. He noted that changes recommend by Planning Commission on February 1, 1996 had been incorporated. Commissioner CERVENY stated he understood how this amendment could be useful in some instances, however, his concern was that individuals could lose property rights. His recommendation was that the amendment be limited to regulating aesthetically how the property is used without changing uses allowed, Mr. Gidley asked Commissioner CERVENY if he understood correctly - that he did not want the proposed amendment used to eliminate a principally permitted use. • Commissioner CERVENY agreed that was his intent, since the procedure to rezone is already in place. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 March 21, 1996 • • Commissioner WILLIAMS asked Mr approximately in five acres? Mr. Gidley answered roughly 20. Gidley the number of homeowners Commissioner WILLIAMS stated he felt that if 75% of the homeowners in an area agreed that something should or should not be permitted in their neighborhood, he felt they should have the right to decide whether it would be allowed. Commissioner JOHNSON asked if there were provisions in the proposed amendment for variance? Mr. Gidley stated that each petition that would come before Planning Commission would be unique and therefore each could require different procedures. Some might include a variance request, others might not. Commissioner WILLIAMS noted the increased number of residents owning campers, RVs, boats, etc. He asked if Jefferson County required such vehicles to be screened? Mr. Gidley answered not in the unincorporated area of the County. Mr. Gidley reminded members of Commission that if they have concerns regarding the structure of the proposed ordinance, now was the time to make recommendations for change. He elaborated. Commissioner OWENS asked if the proposed ordinance was a method to enf-orce variances? Mr. Gidley stated that the proposed amendment was an alternative to a stricter, City-wide recreational vehicle ordinance. If approved, it allows a neighborhood to place restriction(s) on itself. He elaborated. Commissioner WILLIAMS reiterated that it still would go through Planning Commission and City Council, so there would be many avenues of recourse. Mr. Gidley added that there are no criteria for Planning Commission or City Council, therefore either Planning Commission or Council could deny the request for any reason, or for no reason. Commissioner RASPLICKA remembered that City Council had prohibited the parking of recreational vehicles on the streets in Wheat Ridge several years ago except by permit for a limited period of time. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 March 21, 1996 Mr. Gidley stated he was referring to parking recreational vehicles on private property. Commissioner OWENS had concerns that there was no real way to put these issues to rest. That applicants could apply and reapply again and again. Discussion followed. Commissioner WILLIAMS stated that because RVs are allowed to be parked on private property in the City, property owners store RVs for family members living in other cities where they are not allowed. Chairperson LANGDON was concerned that only two citizens had signed the roster to speak on this item. He had expected many more. Les Botham, 3380 Pierce Street, was sworn in. Mr. Botham was with the Wheat Ridge Livestock Association and was concerned that this proposed amendment restrict the keeping of large animals in Wheat Ridge. He added that Wheat Ridge is one of the last communities to allow large animals. Mr. Botham felt the proposed . amendment was "overkill" as this appears to him to be a small problem, not a large one. He opposed the proposed amendment. Karin Heine, 4600 Miller Street, was sworn in. Ms. Heine opposed the proposed amendment because she felt it could take away freedom of choice and she compared the possible result of the proposed amendment to living in a covenant community, which she chose not to do. Commissioner CERVENY explained that in order for restrictions to be imposed, 3/4 of the residents involved would have to sign a petition in favor of the restriction. Discussion followed. Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr. Botham if he felt people in his neighborhood would restrict large animals? Mr. Botham stated that some people like animals, other do not. He elaborated. Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr. Gidley from a planning standpoint, what were his views regarding the proposed amendment. Mr. Gidley answered that if passed, it was a tool, and if properly used, it could be effective. He added that it should not be broadly used, both geographically and topically. Mr. Gidley stated that if recreation vehicle parking is the issue, • Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 March 21, 1996 then do something about recreational vehicle parking and abandon the proposed amendment. He explained further. Commissioner JOHNSON asked Mr. Gidley what the cost would be for staff time to administer this amendment? Mr. Gidley answered no, but at least two neighborhoods were expected to apply fairly soon to restrict recreational vehicle parking. Discussion followed. Commissioner CERVENY moved that Case No. ZOA-95-6, 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) be Approved with the following amendments: 1. That principal permitted uses may not be modified by this amendment to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws; and 2. That animals be exempt from this amendment; and 3. That if applicant is denied, one year must pass prior to re- application. • Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion failed, as the vote was 3-3, with Commissioners. Johnson, Langdon and Owens voting no. 2. Case No. zOA-96-1: A public hearing will be held to consider an amendment to the Wheat Ridge Zoning Code, Section 26-3. Establishment of districts and provisions for official zoning maps, relating to procedures for mass rezoning. Mr. Gidley gave an overview regarding the proposed amendment to the Wheat Ridge Zoning Code. Commissioner CERVENY stated it was his understanding that citizens, at the present time, have the right to initiate a zoning change. Mr. Gidley stated three parties presently could initiate a rezoning - the property owner; the City; and citizens through the initiative process. He added that the City Attorney had informed him that the City would be in a more favorable position if specific provisions were in place. Commissioner CERVENY asked what changes would take place if a property (apartment complex) was zoned R-3 and the proposed. • rezoning took place. • Planning Commission Minutes March 21, 1996 Page 6 Mr. Gidley explained that such properties are excluded from the legal description of affected properties, and therefore nothing would change. Mr. Gidley explained further that there was built-in flexibility based upon what City Council wants and what the residents would want. Mr. Gidley gave an example, using a fictitious property, and explained how the proposed amendment would affect such a property. Discussion followed. Commissioner JOHNSON asked how the nonconforming moratorium would affect nonconforming properties affected by the proposed rezoning. Mr. Gidley answered that the year 2000 moratorium would not apply to the nonconforming properties affected by the proposed rezoning because the year 2000 moratorium was directed to nonconforming uses prior to 1985. He added that anyone with a nonconforming property use would get 15 years to use that property as is. He elaborated. • Commissioner spoke of his concern about the upcoming year 2000 moratorium and how the City plans to proceed. Discussion followed. Commissioner CERVENY asked if the Planning Commission could recommend that the proposed ordinance be modified to allow property owners with a nonconforming use to either be eliminated from the affected area or the property could be given a nonconforming use designation. Mr. Gidley stated that City Council has that right presently. Discussion followed. Mr. Gidley stated that Planning Commission could make that recommendation, but he would not advise it. He felt that each case should be evaluated on its own merit. In same instances, it may be in the best interest of the City and neighborhood to amortise. He elaborated. Discussion followed. Mr. Gidley stated that the reason for the proposed amendment was to establish procedures. Commissioner JOHNSON voiced his concern about the proposed • amendment. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 March 21, 1996 Commissioner CERVENY stated that he did not feel the City should have the right to abolish an individual's vested rights without compensation. He elaborated. Mr. Gidley explained that when rezoning or down-zoning a property the Constitutional issue is "Are you eliminating all reasonable use of property?" When this happens, the property uses list may decrease from 69 uses to 47 uses, but the property can be utilized in many other ways. Commissioner OWENS spoke of his concern that property owners could get caught in the amortization process with a building they could no longer use. Mr. Gidley stated that leaving options open to deal with different situations was preferable, rather than attempting to -- make decisions about future problems now. Discussion followed. Commissioner CERVENY moved that Case No. ZOA-96-1, a proposed amendment to the Wheat Ridge Zoning Code, Section 26-3. Establishment of districts and provisions for official zoning • maps, relating to procedures for mass rezoning be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation for Approval with the following condition: In cases where there is mass rezoning and an existing use is in place, the City will limit its' options to three: 1. To eliminate the property from the area of mass rezoning; or 2. To give the property a nonconforming status; or 3. If the zoning is changed, reasonable compensation (as determined by an appraisal requested by the City, by the property owner and third party) be paid to the land owner. Anyone purchasing a raw piece of land within two years with the intent of using the land in a manner no longer allowed, would fall under the same consideration. Commissioner JOHNSON seconded the motion. Mr. Gidley asked if that would apply even if no plan had been submitted and therefore no vesting? That is what state law provides, he added. He explained that a person is vested only if • that person has an approved development plan to use a certain piece of land in a particular way. . Planning Commission Minutes Page S March 21, 1996 • Commissioner CERVENX requested that the statement he made last regarding vacant or raw land be eliminated. Mr. Gidley suggested that he re-word his motion to state "Raw land if it is subject to the three-year vesting schedule" would fall under the same consideration. Commissioner CERVENY agreed to this change. Commissioner JOHNSON agreed to the change. Motion carried 6-0. 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Gidley reported that City Council has generally approved the Comprehensive Plan update process. A steering committee will be appointed which will include one City Councilmember, a member from Parks and Recreation Commission, one member from Planning Commission, etc. He requested that a Planning Commission appointee be chosen. By motion, Commissioner OWENS nominated Bob Eckhardt to be Planning Commission's representative. Commissioner JOHNSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Commissioner RASPLICKA reported that a PWAC meeting will be held March 28 and inquired whether Commission had any items for discussion. Mr. Gidley stated he would be taking an item to PWAC involving a concept plan for the area at West 38th Avenue and Kipling. He elaborated. 11. DISCIISSION AND DECISION ITEMS 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS 13. ADJOIIRNMENT There being no further business, Commissioner OWENS moved to adjourn. Commissioner JOHNSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Sandra Wigginscretary •