Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/1997 MINUTES OF MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION March 20, 1997 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson WILLIAMS at 7:30 p.m., on March 20, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Eckhardt -Absent Harry Williams Carolyn Griffith Jay Rasplicka Carl A. Cerveny -Excused to arrive late. George Langdon Janice Thompson Warren Johnson -Absent STAFF PRESENT: Glen Gidley, Director Planning & Development Marilyn Gunn, Recording Secretary • PUBLIC HEARING The following is the official copy of Planning Commission minutes for the Public Heazing of Mazch 20, 1497. 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. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA (Items of new and old business maybe recommended for placement on the agenda.) Commissioner THOMPSON motioned, Commissioner GRIFFITH seconded to accept the agenda as written. Motion carried 5-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner RASPLICKA motioned, Commissioner LANGDON seconded to accept the Minutes of March 6, 1997, as written. Motion carried 5-0 • Planning Conunission Minutes March 20, 1997 Page 2 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.) There was no one present to speak. 7. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case Nn. ZOA-97-O1: An application by the City of Wheat Ridge to consider proposed amendments to the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26, Zoning Code, Section 24. Light Industrial District Regulations regarding uses allowed as "Principal Permitted" and "Special Uses", City of Wheat Ridge, County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, (Continued from March 6,1997). Director GIDLEY reviewed this proposal in detail and presented exhibits. This case had been originally presented to the Commission in January, 1997 and again on March 6, 1997. At that time in-depth discussion took place and the Commission directed Staff to conduct a certified mailing to all property/business owners which may be affected by this proposal in all Light Industrial districts within the City of Wheat Ridge. The mailing was completed and several concerned business/property owners were in the audience to hear this case. Director GIDLEY advised the Commission and audience that this proposal was born from concerned residents of the northwest azea of the City. They felt "I" zoning for a specific use that was allowed by right or a permitted use, was being allowed in the subject areas without their input or knowledge. A protest was presented by these residents to members of City Council. An appeal was made of the Administrative decision on the part of Planning Staff to interpret the particular use allowed in this zone district. The appeal was presented to the Board of Adjustment and the Board upheld the Administrative decision on the interpretation. At this point the City Council approved the initiation of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which would eliminate the "I" district zone regulations from the Code'of Laws. (A detailed memorandum was included in the meeting packet that more fully explained the vazious issues at hand.) Director GIDLEY further explained that rezonings of any kind are subject to the legal protest provisions of the Wheat Ridge Charter which provides for a super majority vote should the owners of properties file a legal protest. In addition, no outline development plan would be approved for the majority of the current "I" districts. These plans are an important step as it relates to planned development zoning because it provides the basic structure for the zone district. Each property can be its own zone district which is problematic. Director GIDLELY reviewed the history of how the light industrial districts came into being. He reviewed the memorandum included in the Commission packet which outlined the various categories, "Permitted", "Conditional", and "Special" uses, that fall into the "I" zone district in detail. He stated that it was important Yo understand these options because the zoning moves from an absolute "right" to a "discretionary" process. A letter from the pet cremation services business located in Wheat Ridge was distributed to the Commission • which expressed their concern over the proposal and stated their objections should they be down zoned. Director GIDLELY stated that he had conversation on today's date with Mr. Bob Harmson who is the Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 March 20, 1997 controller for his family of a substantial amount of industrial zoned land. Mr. Harmson indicated significant concern regazding any change that would place their property into a special use permit category that would subject him to any type of amortization schedule. Chairperson WILLIAMS swore in the following speakers regazding this case: Sherri Jerrod, 10852 W. 44th Avenue, Wheat Ridge. Ms. Jenod is representative of her family who has owned their property for 47 years and is currently the Truck Driving School. She stated their objection to the proposal and commented that their attorney referred to the action as "uncompensated taking". Jim Oglesby, 5040 Ward Road, Wheat Ridge. Mr. Oglesby stated he has owned his property since 1954 and that a change in zoning would cause significant undue hardship on his family. He stated that he has had various uses within his buildings and asked how it would affect him. Director GIDLEY clazified his concerns at which point Mr. Oglesby stated his objection. Burton Levy, 8933 E. Union Avenue, Suite 216, Englewood. He stated he represented the ownership group and is one of the owners of the Wheat Ridge Industrial Park at 7993 to 65 West 48th Avenue and is located across from the Truck Driving School. He voiced his objection for the group. • Mike Ursetta, Arvada Excavating Company, located on the east side of the Truck Driving School. He stated that his company purchased this land mainly because of the assurances received from the City of Wheat Ridge. He has had other parcels which have been condemned by the respective cities in which they were located. The City of Wheat Ridge stated that this parcel would be okay because of the property being located in the flood plain and was an unusable pazcel of land for other than industrial uses. He stated that they went to a great expense purchasing the land, cleaning up the contamination, environmental studies, and a great deal of time was spent improving this parcel. He voiced his concern and opposition to the proposal due to the hardship it would place on his company. Bill Sanders, 2960 Braun Court, Golden. Mr. Sanders is representative for his mother who has owned her pazcel of land since 1968. The sole purpose of the purchase was for its industrial usage. He asked how this could have occurred and Director GIDLEY explained the proposed change orientation. He ~.~Y.~~sed his opposition and advised the Commission of the various users they currently have as tenants. He also expressed his concern regarding the time that would be involved when considering renting to a new tenant. He questioned his loss of revenue and personal rights. Joe DaVilla, 5055 Tabor, Wheat Ridge. Mr. DaVilla owns DaVilla Truck Lines and is totally opposed to the proposal. He was concerned how this would affect his business. He opposes the proposal. Jackie Oglesby, wife of Jim Oglesby, 5040 Ward Road. She stated her biggest concern was for her husband who in 1954 built his building and plans on this investment for his retirement income. He relied on the • zoning to remain the same. She stated that 40 years later, her husband is in his 70's and preparing to retire and manage his property until he can't. At that time he will need to sell the property. If this proposal is • Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 Mazch 20, 1997 passed, he will not be able to sell and get the money out of it he is due. She thinks it is totally wrong and is concerned about all of the small business owners. Director GIDLEY advised the audience prior to leaving that the next step would be held at the next Planning Commission meeting of April 3, 1997, where this proposal would again be discussed. The decision of what direction to take regarding this issue will be made at that time. He stated that the final decision would be made by the City Council which receive what the Planning Commission recommends. The public hearing will be held at the second reading of the ordinance. He stated that they would continue to be informed of the dates of the public hearings so that they would be awaze of what was happening. They will receive additional mailings. He stressed that this meeting was not the final step and that the City Council public hearing on the ordinance itself could be. The date of this meeting is not scheduled at this time because it depends on when the Conunission finishes its work and when City Council has it scheduled on their agenda. He suggested that it may occur in late spring or early summer. Mr. Sanders asked for information regarding a legal protest. Director GIDLEY stated that a legal protest is made by the owners of the property within the proposed rezoning area or within 200 feet of the rezoning area. He said that a protest would encompass a percentage of all properties within the rezone area. Director GIDLEY stated that at least 20% of all the ownerships of "I" zoned property in the City would have to file a protest to force a super majority vote of City Council. The Commissioners held discussion regarding parking and landscaping requirements, grandfathering, whether or not current uses would be unacceptable if the area is rezoned, affects of the five-year requirement, and time tables in securing a use permit. Director GIDLEY advised the Commission on all issues questioned. Commissioner LANGDON stated that this issue was of concern to him and questioned why the City of Wheat Ridge was placing additional control on the commercial and industrial properties. He stated that he felt obligated to say something about the issue even though his opinion was his personal view. He went on to say that the City has a basic right to protect the surrounding land owners. He stated that for the City to take a right away from people that have either inherited or purchased the right on their property just to get control of commercial properties within the City, is wrong and believes it to be unconstitutional. He said that he did not believe government had the right to take a person's inalienable right to pursue happiness and that this proposal was what it came down to. He elaborated additionally on sale and use of the areas in question. Commissioner THOMPSON requested the audience to notify their neighbors to ensure that all affected persons are notified of the proposal. She stated she would rather see the Director spending the time trying to come up with a proposal that will protect them. She asked that anyone who may not be on the mailing list call the Planning Department and provide needed information. . Chairperson WILLIAMS assured the audience that time would be taken to consider ail of the evidence presented and if changes are made to the zoning, that they are made correctly. Planrring Commission Minutes Page 5' i Mazch 20, 1997 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was closed, however, general discussion continued regarding the rezoning issues. Items discussed included grandfathering, heirs, special use for estates, investments, possible City Charter changes, elimination of SUP or change CUP, streamlining current special uses, conformance to current standards, landscaping, and parking. It was suggested by Commissioner LANGSTON to perform a study and redefine the special use process and further stated that this was a considerably large decision and wanted appropriate time to be devoted before making a final recommendation to City Council, Director GIDLEY stated that he would prepare specific language that would be appropriate in making changes to special use permit procedures which would solve some of the problems that are occurring. It was decided by consensus to postpone the decision and for Director GIDLEY to prepare proposed language including lists of uses for conditional use permits until the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of Apri13, 1997. 9. OLD BUSINESS Director GIDLEY advised the Commission that the Recreation Center Site Meeting went well and was very well attended. City Council directed City Administrative Staff to move forward on the acquisition of the Weller Property for the new center. General discussion took place as to the development and promotion of surrounding azeas of the recreation center site, construction of a bridge over Lena Gulch, etc.. • 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ITEMS I2. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS I3. AD30URNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. by consensus. Secretary The next Planning Commission Meeting will be held 4/3/97. •