Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/05/1996 MIivus.nS OF MEETING September 5, 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 September 5, 1996 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL; MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Robert Eckhardt - Harry Williams Carolyn Griffith Jay Rasplicka Carl A. Cerveny George Langdon Janice Thompson Warren Johnson - EXCUSED ABSENCE EXCUSED ABSENCE Glen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development Meredith Reckert, Planner Sandra Wiggins, Secretary PUBLIC HEARING The following is the official copy of Planning Commission minutes for the Public Hearing of September 5, 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 Page 2 September 5, 1996 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA Commissioner WILLIAMS moved to approve the order of the agenda for the meeting of September 5, 1996 as printed. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner RASPLICKA moved to approve the minutes for the meeting of August 15, 1996 as printed. Commissioner CERVENY seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0, with Commissioners GRIFFITH and THOMPSON abstaining. 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 nor came forward to speak at that time. • 7. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No. WZ-96-9e An application by Daniel R. Dearing for approval of an amendment to a PID final development plan at 10501 West I-70 Frontage Road North. Meredith Reckert presented the staff report, which included slides. Entered into the record and accepted by the Chairperson were the Zoning Ordinance, case file and packet materials. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the proposed amendment would decrease parking on_the sits. Ms. Reckert answered the owner was looking a remedial measures to gain additional parking on the east and north sides of the building. Daniel R_ Dear.ina, 10501 West 48th Avenue, was sworn in. Mr. Dearing stated the proposed addition would be utilized to house new parts storage, and would be a metal, prefabricated building. He elaborated. Commissioner THOMPSON asked the applicant if the proposed addition would eliminate the used parts currently being stored on site? . Mr_ Dearing stated the addition would be for new body parts. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 September 5, 1996 Commissioner WILLIAMS asked if the addition would match the existing building? Mr. Dearing stated it would. Commissioner CERVENY moved that Case No. WZ-96-9, an application by Daniel R. Dearing for approval of an amendment to a PID final development plan at 10501 West I-70 Frontage Road North be approved and forwarded to City Council for the following reasons: 1. The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge and all posting and notification requirements have been met. 2. It meets the requirements of a Planned Industrial Development. With the following conditions: 1. All requirements for a final development plan have been met; and 2. There will be no reduction of landscaping on the property. • Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 2. Case No. MS-96-8: An application by Keith M. Daly for Wheat Ridge Congregation, UCC for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision on R-1 land located at 6310 West 29th Avenue gad 2777 Kendall Street. Meredith Reckert presented the staff report. Entered into the recorded and accepted by the Chairperson were the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, case file. and packet materials. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Ms. Reckert if Wheat Ridge property owners dedicated land to Kendall Street at the time Terra Village was developed? Ms. Reckert answered that through research staff had discovered that the street was equally dedicated from two parcels on either side-of Kendall, which would indicate that land was dedicated from the western (Wheat Ridge) parcel. Commissioner THOMPSON stated she was having difficulty understanding why the church should be required to dedicate the five feet. She stated she also had concerns about exiting the driveway. Ms. Reckert stated that the standard section for a local street in Wheat Ridge is 25 feet from centerline. Presently, she added there was only 20 feet dedicated from centerline, which is why Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 September 5, 1996 the City is requesting the additional five feet. Staff feels the 20 feet requested by the City of Edgewater is unreasonable. Commissioner RASPLICKA noted that Kendall Street, if aligned properly, would be further east. Ms. Reckert stated that it appears that the right-of-way is offset. She elaborated, utilizing the aerial map projected overhead. Commissioner THOMPSON noted that it appeared, with rationale, all the benefits would be Edgewater's. She was concerned about traffic from Terra Village pouring out onto 29th Avenue. Commissioner THOMPSON stated she could not understand why the City of Wheat Ridge was requesting the five-foot dedication from the--Church. Chairperson LANGDON asked Ms. Reckert to explain why the City was asking for the dedication from the Church at this time. Ms. Reckert answered because the Church is in the process of subdividing and it "opens the door" for staff to examine • standards such as street widths. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the City of Edgewater, when the six acres is developed, could request from the City of Wheat Ridge right-of-way for street improvements in Edgewater? Ms. Reckert answered that if the development should occur, then the City of Wheat Ridge would likely participate utilizing any right-of-way available in our jurisdiction. She elaborated. She agreed that Edgewater would be the one to gain. Mr. Gidley stated that Wheat Ridge does cooperate with municipalities bordering the City and expects them to do the same. He elaborated, explaining the benefits of a full-width dedication. Commissioner CERVENY asked if the 25-foot setback met R-1 zoning requirements. - Ms. Reckert stated that because of the existing adjacent right- of-way, it was substandard. Typically, even though the street has not yet been developed, the City would require a 30-foot setback. Commissioner CERVENY-noted that requiring the five-foot dedication would not make them nonconforming. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 September 5, 1996 Ms. Reckert answered that there would be an implied variance because it was a City action. Therefore, it would be a legal, nonconforming setback. Commissioner CERVENY asked if the church burned down, could it be rebuilt? Ms. Reckert answered yes, it could. Mr. Gidley stated that by virtue of a public taking, a nonconforming situation is created, then that line is established as a conforming line and they could build back to that line. Commissioner CERVENY that the property was currently nonconforming because the setback is 25 not 30 feet, as required. Discussion followed. Mr. Gidley agreed with Commissioner CERVENY that the property, if it burned down, would have to comply with the 30-foot setback. Keith Daly, 2001 Otis Street, Edgewater 80214, was sworn in. Ron Hoisinaton, 3281 Alkira Court, Golden 80401, was sworn in. Mr. Hoisington stated he was a planning consultant as well as a member of the Wheat Ridge Church of Christ. He gave a brief history of the church and stated he felt the request by Edgewater was unfair and unnecessary. Mr. Hoisington stated the church would have no problem dedicating the five feet, if the City felt it was important to cooperate with the City of Edgewater. The 20-foot dedication was out of the question, he stated, since it would make the church. sideyard nonconforming. Mr. Hoisington stated the 15-foot corner radius would be no problem however, it was a matter of timing. He was not certain that Edgewater had plans to extend Kendall Street toward 29th Avenue. Should Edgewater decide to build Kendall Street, the church would go on record and submit an irrevocable letter stating that 11i.f the street is to be built, the Wheat Ridge United Church of Christ would dedicate five feet of its' eastern property line for the extension and at that time would dedicate the 15-foot corner radius. He felt the dedication should be done at the time the street is built. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if the City requires the 5-foot dedication and 15-foot corner radius, and the street is not extended, who would maintain the land? Mr_ Hoisinaton stated that if the church dedicates the land for public purposes it becomes City-owned land. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 September 5, 1996 Commissioner THOMPSON stated her concern regarding the maintenance of the property, should it be dedicated to the City. What if Kendall Street is never extended? The street, she added could also be moved in order to align with Kendall Street to the north and then there will be the process to return the unnecessary 5-foot strip to the Church. Mr. Gidley mentioned another option and that is to notify Edgewater that the street is off-set and that the dedication should be made from the Edgewater (east) side, not the Wheat Ridge (west) side. He elaborated. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked if the land dedication was reversible? Mr. Gidley stated anything is reversible. Commissioner WILLIAMS noted that should the church change hands the land dedication would remain and create a possible °glitch". Ms. Reckert pointed on the map projected overhead why she thought Edgewater was pushing for a 20-foot dedication. • Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the City would have input regarding aligning Kendall Street extended with Kendall Street on the north. Mr. Gidley stated it is Staff's responsibility to report to Commission other agencies' responses. He added the City does make recommendations regarding street alignment when requested to do so by other municipalities. He elaborated. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mr. Gidley what would be the appropriate distance to develop an off-set street? Mr. Gidley answered 150 feet or about one-half a city block, is the. appropriate distance. Commissioner GRIFFITH asked if the 20 feet had been requested by the City of Edgewater, or by the Public Works Department? Mr. Gidley answered it was the City of Edgewater Public Works Department making the request. He explained further. Chairperson LANGDON asked if Wheat Ridge would be sending a - message to Edgewater in favor of straightening the street, if the five feet was not dedicated? Mr. Gidley stated that could be made a part of Commission's findings in the motion. He explained how the motion could reflect that decision. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 September 5, 1996 Chairperson LANGDON stated it made sense for safety reasons. Mr. Hoisinaton reiterated that the church was willing and wanted to cooperate once the street is developed. Mr. Gidley noted that the church would not be the owner of Lot 2 and noted that the time for dedication is when parcels are platted..- He explained. Discussion followed. Boh Malouf, 2596 Fenton Street, was sworn in. He stated he would have no objection to a wedge-shaped dedication and explained why. Commissioner CERVENY stated he had no recollection seeing an "irrevocable letter of ..intent" as part of a title commitment. He added that he understood that if the land was dedicated, the home owner maintained it. He elaborated. Commissioner CERVENY asked about the dotted line across the parcel. Ms. Reckert answered that was the property line of Terra Village line. Commissioner CERVENY was uncertain if it was practical to request the five-foot dedication. He didn't understand why "tapering" the-dedicated land amount would be beneficial. Ms. Reckert drew a line on the map projected overhead showing where the "tapered" land dedication would begin and end. Commissioner CERVENY was uncertain what good tapering the land dedication would do. He added that as drawn, it did not accomplish anything. He elaborated. Ms. Reckert asked if the church would be agreeable to a tapered land dedication? Mr_ Hoisinaton stated that the church was agreeable to doing whatever is appropriate at the right time. He added that until the street is developed, the time was not right for land dedication. Mr. Hoisington stated he agreed with the City's intent and elaborated. Commissioner RASPLICKA stated it seemed to him that Edgewater had made the original error by not getting adequate land. Now they want the City of Wheat Ridge to help them correct their error. Commissioner RASPLICSZA asked if the land is not dedicated now and the street is developed sometime in the future, would the City of • Wheat Ridge have to purchase the necessary land? -And, he added the City could be responsible to maintain it. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 September 5, 1996 Commissioner THOMPSON stated she felt it would be poor planning to require the church to dedicate land so that a dangerous off- set street could be constructed. Good planning, she added, would be to obtain land dedication from the south parcel, so that the street could be aligned with Kendall Street at the north. She elaborated. Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr. Hoisington to mark on the map projected overhead, the church driveway on the south side. Mr_ Hoisinaton pointed out the parking lot. Commissioner CERVENY asked where was the driveway exiting the property? Mr. Hoisinaton stated the one-way going out was on the eastern side of the church going north. Mr_ Hoisinaton asked Mr. Gidley if there was an easement on the eastern property line? Mr. Gidley answered yes, it was a 10-foot easement. Mr. Hoisinaton suggested that the language of the easement to future right-of-way dedication for street purposes. Mr. Gidley stated normally the City uses five feet of right-of- way for sidewalk and signage. Therefore, it could be a sidewalk and signage easement. The curb, gutter and street (with the exception of the sidewalk) could be outside that area, he added. He noted that if it is an easement, the property owner continues to pay taxes on it. If dedicated, it is taken off the tax roles and placed in the street system. He elaborated. Commissioner CERVENY asked what length dedicated would it take to taper from zero to five feet? Could it be done in 50 feet? Mr. Gidley said a five-foot taper could be accomplished in a fairly short distance. He would like it in less than 100 feet. Discussion was heard regarding how the tapered land dedication could/should occur. Commissioner THOMPSON moved that Case No. MS-96-8, an application by Keith M. Daly for Wheat Ridge Congregation, UCC for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision on R-1 land located at 6310 West 29th. Avenue and 2777 Kendall Street, be approved for the following reasons: • 1. The subdivision is required to allow sale of the southern portion; and Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 September 5, 1996 2. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following condition: 1. A five-foot right-of-way be dedicated for Kendall Street, beginning at the common boundary between Lot 1 and 2, starting at zero at that point and tapering to five feet to the southern boundary of Lot 2. Commissioner CERVENY seconded the motion. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if City staff would notify Edgewater regarding Commission's recommendation. Ms. Reckert answered City staff would be in contact with Edgewater. Commissioner CERVENY made a suggestion for a friendly amendment, which would add to Commissioner THOMPSON's motion the reasons for Commission's recommendation to taper the land dedication from zero to five feet. One reason being the Church was in existence prior to the dedication of Kendall Street and the current problem exists because the street was incorrectly aligned by Edgewater. The Church, which is not located within the city limits of Edgewater, should not be required to correct that mistake. Chairperson LANGDON asked if that addition could be a friendly amendment, or simply add it to the motion? Mr. Gidley stated it was an amendment to the motion. Both the motion-maker and the individual who seconded would have to accept the amendment. Commissioner THOMPSON stated she agreed with the amendment, however, felt Commission should send a message to both city councils, Edgewater and Wheat Ridge, that it is an undue hardship on the Church and good planning requires, if possible, street alignments to occur. In this case, there is vacant land to the east which could be utilized. It is Commission's desire to see Kendall Street aligned, both north and south. Motion carried 6-0. 3. Case No. WA-96-26c An application by John Medved for approval of a master sign plan with variances for progerty located at 11001 and 11201 West 2-70 Frontage Road North. (Continued from 07-18-96) • • Plenn~ng Commission Minutes Page 10 September 5, 1996 Staff recommended and the applicant agreed, that this case be continued to our first regular meeting in October, October 3, 1996. Commissioner CERVENY moved to continue Case No. WA-96-26 to October 3, 1996. Commissioner THOMPSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 4. Case No_ ZoA-96-9: An amendment to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Code, Section 26-30 (P) pertaining to Group Homes for Haadicappeda Developmentally Disabled, Elderly Persons and Children. (Continued from 08-15-96). Mr. Gidley gave a brief overview of this case. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if there was a limitation of the number of group homes in a particular area? Mr. Gidley stated that state law requires 750 feet of separation, which is about a block and a quarter apart. Additionally, there is a separation requirement between homes. He explained further. • Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr. Gidley how the number 1111" developmentally disabled was_chosen. Mr. Gidley stated it could be any number. It was chosen because it was a number customarily associated with a "family'° situation. Discussion followed. Commissioner CERVENY moved to continue Case No. ZOA-96-9 to our next regular meeting, September 18, 1996 to allow the City Attorney time to answer the following questions: 1. Is it possible to generically limit the number of residents, based upon an area requirement per person? 2. Regarding other provisions that limit other kinds of group homes to one per district, is it legal? 3. If a group home resident becomes rowdy, noisy, etc., is that person treated by the police as a nuisance like any other resident? Commissioner THOMPSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 5. Case No. ZOA-96-10: Amendment to the Wheat Ridge Code • of Laws, Zoning Code, Section 26-6(D)(2)(c) pertaining to VARIANCE CRITERIA. This case had been continued from August 15, 1996. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 September 5, 1996 Mr. Gidley gave an overview of the proposed amendment. He read a proposed addition to the amendment, which would be added at the end of paragraph 10: ", or would graating of the variance result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities?" Mr. Gidley explained the term "reasonable accommodation" for Chairperson LANGDON. Discussion followed. Commissioner CERVENY moved to approve as amended, Case No. ZOA- 96-10, a proposed amendment to the Zoning Code, Section 26- 6(D(2)(c) and forward to City Council for their consideration. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 6. Case No. ZOA-96-8: Amendment to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Zoning Code, Chapter 26. Zoning Code regarding FENCES, WALLS and OBSTRUCTIONS TO VIEW. . Mr. Gidley asked Commission if they had the memo from Bob Goebel, Public Works Director. He summarized Mr. Goebel's position for Commission. Mr. Gidley gave an overview of the proposed amendment explaining the current ordinance and the proposed changes. Discussion followed. Commissioner WILLIAMS moved to retain a 36-inch fence height limitation in the sight distance triangle, a 48-inch fence height limitation in the front yard, and a six-foot fence height limitation in the back and side yards. Commissioner CERVENY suggested that each of the items be considered separately. Issue A (Sight Triangle) Commissioner CERVENY seconded Commissioner WILLIAMS' motion to- retain 36-inch fence height limitation in the sight distance triangle. Motion carried 6-0. Issue B (Front Yard) • Commissioner WILLIAMS moved to retain a 48-inch fence height limitation in the front yard outside the sight distance triangle. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 September 5, 1996 • Commissioner GERVENY seconded the motion. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if that height would include pillars. Mr. Gidley answered that pillars were allowed to be one foot higher than the fence height, provided the pillars measure no more than one foot by one foot. Commissioner CERVENY offered a friendly amendment to the motion, stating the reason for the limitation: 1. A higher than 48-inch fence would be detrimental to the aesthetic value of the City of Wheat Ridge, which would over-shadow any benefit to any individual. Commissioner WILLIAMS agreed to the friendly amendment. Motion carried 6-0. Issue C (Grade Determination) Commissioner WILLIAMS moved that the "natural grade" be utilized when determining the overall height of fences and walls. Natural grade will be determined by City staff. Commissioner GRIFFITH seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 9. OLD BUSINESS A. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mr. Gidley for an update on the Kipling Master Plan idea discussed previously by Commission. Mr. Gidley answered that Staff was working on two additional ideas. Further, he noted that there was some "movement" in the area with several parcels of land. Discussion followed. B. Chairperson LANGDON asked for an update on the bus stop project. • Mr. Gidley stated the City was waiting for Outdoor Productions to fill out applications for each of the individual locations. They have provided the City with a site location map. As required, all locations have been posted for 25 days. Approval from Public Works, RTD and State Highway Department will be necessary, once the applications are completed. 10. NEW BUSINESS • Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 September 5, 1996 A. Commissioner CERVENY informed Commission that he would be unable to attend the October 3, 1996 meeting. 11. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ITEMS A. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked for items to take to the PWAC meeting. 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, by consensus, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. t h F~ Sandra Wiggins, Sec e y •