Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1996 MiivuimS OF MEETING June 6, 1996 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION 1. CALL T8E MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson LANGDON at 7:32 p.m., on June 6, 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 Carolyn Griffith Jay Rasplicka - EXCUSED ABSENCE Carl A. Cerveny George Langdon Janice Thompson Warren Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Meredith Reckert, Planner Sandra Wiggins, Secretary PUBLIC HEARING The following is the official copy of Planning Commission minutes for the Public Bearing of June 6, 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. • Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1996 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA Page 2 Ms. Reckert informed those present that the applicant, Mr. Carpenter, had requested a continuance of Case No. MS-96-4 to our next regular meeting. Commissioner ECKHARDT moved that Case No. MS-96-4 be continued to June 20, 1996. Commissioner JOHNSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. Commissioner CERVENY requested the addition of an item under OLD BUSINESS. He wanted to talk about the upcoming CML Conference in Vail . - Commissioner ECRHARDT moved to approve the agenda for the meeting of June 6, 1996 as amended. Commissioner JOHNSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner WILLIAMS moved to approve the minutes for the • meeting of May 16, 1996 as printed. Commissioner JOHNSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0, with Commissioners CERVENY and ECKHARDT abstaining. 6. PUBLIC FORUbI (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 at that time to speak. 7. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No. MS-96-4: An application by Richard Carpenter for Michael Lynch for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision with variances. Said property is located at 3707 and 3711 High Court. (At applicant's request, this case was continued to June 20, 1996.) 2. Case No. ZOA-96-4: Amendment to Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Ordinance, Section 26-5. Definitions, regarding "EXOTIC ANIMALS" as "HOUSEHOLD PETS". 3. Case Nos_ ZOA-96-5: Amendment to Wheat Ridge Code of . Laws, Zoning Ordinance, Section 26-19. Agricultural-Two . Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 6, 1996 (A-2) District Regulations regarding the keeping of "POT-BELLIED PIGS" as a permitted use. The above-two cases were heard simultaneously, because they were inter-related. Ms. Reckert presented the packet information. Commissioner THOMPSON had concerns that "prohibiting the feeding of garbage" was not included in the first ordinance, but was stated in the third ordinance. Additionally, there was no provision for "odor" in the attached ordinances. Ms. Reckert suggested that Louise Turner, who was present and serves on the Animal Control Commission, might be able to address those issues. Commissioner THOMPSON also had concerns regarding possible runoff of effluent waste. Ms. Reckert stated she was checking the ordinance pertaining to the keeping of domestic animals to see if it made reference to odors. Commissioner THOMPSON stated she thought it would be less confusing if information regarding pot-bellied pigs was in one location rather than several. Ms. Reckert stated that in the section regarding the keeping of domestic animals does talk about the accumulation of animal waste, "to the extent that such becomes a nuisance to surrounding property owners". The nuisance ordinance, she added, was all- inclusive. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked what was the average height and weight of pot-bellied pigs? He added that since the City already has a nuisance ordinance, would that not be sufficient? Ms. Reckert stated that it could be included in the ordinance(s) under consideration. She added that she did not know the average weight and height of pot-bellied pigs. She thought someone in the audience might be able to answer his question. Commissioner WILLIAMS elaborated on his concern with height and weight restrictions. Commissioner JOHNSON asked what is considered "garbage"? Ms. Reckert stated she would look for a definition. Discussion followed. • • Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1996 Page 4 Commissioner CERVENY asked what the reasoning was behind the requirement for neutering? Ms. Reckert stated she thought it had to do with responsible pet ownership. It may have stemmed from uncontrolled breeding of the animals in the early 1980s. She elaborated. Commissioner CERVENY questioned the need for neutering. Commissioner ECKHARDT wasn't aware of large numbers of stray pot- bellied pigs. Ms. Reckert suggested that we hear from persons in the audience who may be more knowledgeable. Kathv Cline, 4360 Reed Street, was sworn in. Ms. Cline stated she was present because she has dealings with the Pot-bellied Pig Association and had gained knowledge about the animals from her experience. Pot-bellied pigs are not fed garbage, but instead eat some vegetables and fruits, but mainly pig chow. She added that it is standard procedure to neuter pot-bellied pigs. A pig's weight can and should be controlled by the amount of food it is given daily. So long as the pig pen is cleaned once a week, it should not have an offensive odor. A pig does not bark nor does it shed. In addition, they have a high intelligence and since they are not allowed to run free, should not be a neighborhood nuisance. Ms. Reckert asked if Ms. Cline had seen the proposed ordinances? Ms_ Cline answered she had.. not. She stated she was in favor of the proposed requirement for neutering. The procedure ensures a better-behaved and healthier pet. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked what the normal weight and height of a pot-bellied pig would be. Ms. Cline stated the size varies greatly. If fed properly, pigs don't get that big. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked Ms. Cline if the 100 lb, 22" size limitation was reasonable? Ms_ C],ine stated she did. Discussion followed. Commissioner CRIFFITH asked if the animals were properly neutered then they don't have the "distinctive pig odor"? • Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 June 6, 1996 • Ms. Cline answered yes, that was true less assertive. It also helps make them Commissioner THOMPSON suggested that a brochure/pamphlet be designed and provided to prospective pot-bellied pig owners. Ms. Clingy agreed that would be a good idea. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if a pig became obese and over-sized, would the owner have a period of time to get the pig down to an acceptable size? Ms. Reckert thought that it might work something like code enforcement does, except that animal control officers would do the enforcement. Each situation would probably be judged according to its' own merits. Discussion followed. Chairperson LANGDON asked what else would be covered by an "exotic animal license"? Ms. Reckert it would cover other-than-domestic animals listed in the animal regulations. Chairperson LANGDON stated then the city would have a record and could check back with the owners. Ms. Reckert confirmed that was true. Commissioner WILLIAMS pointed out that ordinance 3 did specifically restrict feeding garbage to pot-bellied pigs. Louise Turner 11256 West 38th Avenue, was sworn in. Ms. Turner was confused about the ordinance(s) under consideration. Ms. Reckert stated the attachments were from the City Attorney's office. Ms. Turner summarized the first ordinance generated by the Animal Control Commission, noting recommended changes. The second ordinance, which amends Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws pertaining to the keeping of pot-bellied pigs in Agricultural-Two zone districts is for clarification purposes, she said. The final ordinance defining pot-bellied pigs as household pets should be eliminated, she stated. Commissioner CERVENY asked for clarification from Ms. Turner regarding recommended changes to the ordinances. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 ~ • June 6, 1996 Commissioner THOMPSON asked Ms. Turner if it should be specific in the ordinance amended by the Animal Control Commission that swine could not be feed garbage. Ms. Turner stated that when applicants came before the Animal control Commission with a request to have a pat-bellied pig, they could be told then that garbage could not be fed. Commissioner THOMPSON acknowledged the convenience of having all information about pot-bellied pigs in one place. Ms_ Turner thought that a pamphlet on pot-bellied pigs might be the answer. She elaborated. xaren Heinv stated from the audience she had nothing more to add. Chairperson LANGDON asked what was required from Commission? Commissioner CERVENY suggested that specific language be added regarding prohibiting the feeding of garbage to swine. Ms. Reckert stated she would suggest three motions be made; one for each of the proposed ordinances. To avoid confusion, the ordinances under consideration were numbered as follows: Ordinance number one - Classifies potbellied pigs as exotic animals and imposes requirements on granting of exceptions by the Animal Control Commission Ordinance number twn - Amending Chapter 26 pertaining to the definition of household pets Ordinance number three - Amends Chapter 26 pertaining to the keeping of pot-bellied pigs in the A-2 zone district Commissioner ECKHARDT moved that Case No. ZOA-96-4, (Ordinance Number One) be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation for approval with the following changes: 1. That IV., regarding required square footage, be eliminated. 2. That IX., line four should read "necessary to protect the animal's health and the safety and enjoyment. . 3. That specific language be added to prohibit the feeding of garbage to swine. Commissioner CERVENY seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 June 6, 1996 Commissioner CERVENY moved that Case No_ ZOA-96-4, (Ordinance Number Two) be eliminated and pot-bellied pigs not be considered as household pets. Commissioner ECKHARDT seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. Commissioner ECKHARDT moved that Case No. ZOA-96-5 (Ordinance Number Three) be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation for approval with the following change: 1. Section 1.(B)(3) should read: General farming and the raising or keeping of stock, bee keeping, rabbits or chinchillas, and the keeping of swine and/or pot-bellied pigs Commissioner CERVENY seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. 4. Case No. ZOA-96-6: Amendment to Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 26.5. Definitions, regarding "Telecommunications Facilities" and amendment to Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 26-20. Restricted Commercial-One (RC-1) District, regulations regarding "Telecommunications Towers" as a • Conditional Use. Ms. Reckert presented the case, explaining the need for a review process, due to increasing requests for telecommunication facilities in the City. Chairperson LANGDON asked if the regulations would strictly apply to Commercial zone districts. Ms. Reckert stated it was primarily aimed toward the telephone companies, who are trying to create a network of cell tower facilities. It would not be geared toward the amateur ham radio operator. Chairperson LANGDON asked if it would restrict the small TV satellite dishes? Ms. Reckert answered no, it would not. She added that five years ago, an ordinance was adopted which specifically controlled satellite dishes. Ms. Reckert would plan to review the language of that ordinance, should the ordinance before Commission be approved. The technology has changed so greatly, the old ordinance is in need of updating. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the towers cause interference? Ms. Reckert stated supposedly not. Legislation recently passed by the state senate prohibits towers interfering with each 0 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 June 6, 1996 other's frequency. She elaborated. Ms. Reckert stated that she had learned, at a conference she recently attended, the City must allow cellular facilities to be placed in the public right-of- way, like any other utility. It is possible, she added, to collect franchise fees, which would bring additional revenue into the City. Commissioner THOMPSON asked what our recourse would be should it be discovered that the towers do cause interference? Ms. Reckert stated she could add restrictions, "there could not be be held harmless". some sort of disclaimer to the interference and the City would Discussion followed. Commissioner JOHNSON stated that with the use of 800 or 900 frequency that interference would not be a problem. Commissioner JOHNSON asked if the tower next to the Municipal Complex would meet the restrictions under consideration? Ms. Reckert answered it would not. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked if there would be height restrictions? Ms. Reckert stated there are height restrictions on the poles themselves. In Commercial areas, it is 50 feet, with the ability to apply for a five-foot variance. In Residential areas, the height restriction is 35 feet. The antennas can be taller than the building height. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked if these limits were included. Ms. Reckert stated yes, they were under Item 3. Commissioner THOMPSON stated she felt it important to have some type of "safety clause". Ms, Reckert stated that a disclaimer statement should take care of that. Commissioner CERVENY moved that Case No. ZOA-96-6, a proposed Amendment to Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 26-5. Definition, regarding "Telecommunications Facilities" and amendment to Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 26-20. Restricted Commercial-One (RC-1) District regulations regarding "Telecommunications Towers" as a conditional use be forwarded to City Council as printed with a recommendation for approval, with the Following addition: • Planning Commission Minutes June 6, 1996 1. That a disclaimer clause be added. Commissioner ECKHARDT seconded the motion. Page 9 Commissioner JOHNSON asked if approval would be handled by staff, or would a public hearing be necessary? Ms. Reckert stated that only if the applicant wishes to "ground Mount" would they be required to go through a public hearing. If they want to build a tower, she added, they would have to get site plan approval. Motion carried 7-0 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 9. OLD BUSINESS 1. Commissioner CERVENY urged Commissioners to attend, if possible, the CML Conference in Vail, scheduled June 19, 20 and 21. Ms. Reckert suggested that anyone interested should call Friday • and let us know. 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ITEMS 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS 13. ADJvuiu~ulENT There being no further business, Commissioner JOHNSON moved for adjournment. Commissioner ECKHARDT seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m. t 4 Sandra Wigging, Se ary