Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/04/1997 MINUTES OF MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION December 4, 1997 i. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairperson BRINKMAN at 7:30 p.m., on December 4, 1997, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Anne Brinkman Jay Rasplicka Tom Shockley Nancy Snow Harry Williams Janice Thompson (Excused Absence) Dean Gokey STAFF PRESENT: - Alan White, Director of Planning Meredith Reckert, Planner Jenifer Roche, Assistant Secretary PUBLIC HEARING The following is the official copy of Planning Commission minutes for the Public Hearing of December 4, 1997. 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 A motion was made by Commissioner WILLIAMS, seconded by Commissioner SNOW to accept the order of the agenda. The Committee agreed by consensus. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 20,1997 Commissioner SNOW motioned, Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded, to approve the Minutes as amended. Motion carried 5-1 with Commissioner GOKEY 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.) - 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-97-15: An application by Karen Cleaveland for approval of rezoning from Agricultural-Two and Residential-One to Commercial-One and for approval of a site plan. Said property is located at 12200 W. 44th Avenue. Meredith Reckert presented an overview of this case. Ms. Reckert stated for the record that there was a revised site plan that was received earlier in the day. She suggested that everyone take a few minutes to look over the plans. The property is currently zoned Agricultural-Two and Residential-One. The current land use Vacant; Commercial with ancillary residence. The site is approximately 1.4 acres and 600' deep. The historical use of the property has been a greenhouse associated with wholesale and retail sales and ancillary residence. Ms. Reckert would like to enter into the record the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning ordinance case file, packet materials and exhibits. The property is in the City of Wheat Ridge and all posting, publications and notification requirements have been met. She reviewed overheads and slides with the regulations and the case files and packet materials/exhibits. The intended use for the property is for recreational vehicle sales lot and there was a neighborhood meeting which was held on October 21, 1997. The neighborhood concerns were drainage issues, amount of paving and what type of buffering was being proposed by the applicant. The staff has reviewed the necessazy criteria and made the following conclusions. Ms. Reckert pointed out that the property is located within the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan azea. The Master Plan Future Land Use Map shows the northern half of the property as general commercial. _ The Future Land Use Map is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as showing the southern half as Low Density Residential. Ms.. Reckert stated that there are multiple land uses surrounding the applicants property.- Ms. Reckert pointed out that even though conditions of the azea have changed there is still an existing Single-Family neighborhood to the west that staff is concerned with.. Ms. Reckert commented that the economic benefits will be minimal. Ms Reckert sated that they were able to come to a agreement with water and fire district to resolve some negative issues. Drainage problems would have to be addressed and since the rear of the property is within the Clear Creek 100-yeaz floodplain, a special exemption permit will be required. Ms. Reckert stated that the proposal to rezone the entire depth of the property to C-1 is inconstant with adjacent low density residential land use and zoning to the west and that it is inconsistent with the designations on the Comprehensive Plan and the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan. Ms. Reckert stated that the rezoning of the property to Commercial-One may encourage deterioration of the neighborhoods to the west. Staff made a recommendation for denial. However, Ms. Reckert stated the City would support rezoning of the northern 200' as this portion is compatible with adjacent land use, as well as the Comprehensive Plan designations; If the applicant is willing to reduce the request, the staff recommends the case be continued so the site plan for the use of the property can be modified. In conclusion, Ms Reckert stated that if the new revised site plan meets rezoning conditions that staff would consider recommending approval. Commissioner Snow asked what is the legal status on a PCD versus site plan approval? Ms Reckert answered that the site plan approval would run with the property and the property would be developed 3 ~n conformance with the site plan. If there are any changes to the site plan then it would require coming back fora site plan approval review. Commissioner SNOW asked what the height maximum is in C-1? Nls. Reckert stated the maximum building height is 50'. Commissioner SNOW asked if the staff suggested a PCD. Ms. Reckert stated that they did suggest a PCD, however, that was not the route the applicant wanted to move forward with. Commissioner SNOW asked questions regarding Floodplain. Ms Reckert stated that the floodplain is merely a technicality and the applicant will need to get a special exemption permit if they decide to build in the floodplain Commissioner WILLIAMS asked if the property was posted. Ms. Reckert answered yes. Commissioner WILLIAMS inquired about the property zoning and asked why it was two different zone districts. Ms. Reckert explained that the property was designated with the Jefferson County zoning. Dick Steiner, a representative for the applicant, 2358 Van Gordon, distributed handouts which was to address the new proposed site plan. He reviewed the site plan which is being proposed. Commissioner SNOW asked why did the applicant not do a PCD. Mr. Steiner stated that he was new at this process and decided to pursue a rezoning instead of a PCD. Ms. Reckert stated that the increase in application cost for a PCD is significantly more then a rezoning/site plan approval. The Vice Chairman BRINKMAN swore in Sommer Chase, applicant representative, 6783 Valley Drive, Morrison. Ms. Chase explained that a Site Plan and a PCD would filter down to the same result and reiterated that the applicant would save a considerable amount of money if they do not do the PCD. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked what the impact on traffic will be to the? Ms. Chase answered that the impact would be very little. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if they planned to do repairs on this property? Mr. Steiner answered, very little but stated there will not be extensive repairs on the property only reconditioning of the vehicles. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if there would be gas tanks or propane on the property? Mr. Steiner answered, no. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if there would be loud speakers. Mr. Steiner answered, no. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if there would be a sprinkler system for the trees? Mr. Steiner answered, yes. Commissioner GOKEY pointed out to Mr. Steiner that the trees on the future building site will eventually be gone. Mr. Steiner answered, yes. Ms. Reckert explained that the construction of the additional building will cut the root system and will interfere with the drip line of the trees and the trees will eventually die. Mr. Steiner answered, yes. Commissioner GOKEY asked what the height of the .building was expected to be? Mr. Steiner stated that the dimensions will be the same as the existing building which is two-story. Commissioner GOKEY directed a question for Ms. Reckert regarding what type of stnzcture will the building be? Ms. Reckert answered, she did not know. Mr. Steiner answered that the structure would be' steel building. Commissioner GOKEY then asked what type of fence? Mr. Steiner answered, cedarwood. Commissioner GOKEY asked if the pazking area foundation is road base not asphalt. Mr. Steiner answered, yes that is correct. Cormissioner asked what type of lighting Mr. Steiner planned on using? Mr Steiner answered the applicant would use mercury vapor lighting and motion detectors. Commissioner BRINKMAN swore in Gary Wayne Krieg, citizen, 4320 Vivian. Mr Krieg stated that he did not-feel that the RV sales lot would be a benefit to the community. The reason he stated was because there was already two RV sales lot in the azea. He alsa sated he was concerned with the drainage problem that will be a negative result to the neighborhood due to the washing of the vehicles on this property. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked how long did Mr. Krieg live at his current address? Mr. Krieg answered, 10 years. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked what would be an acceptable land use to the neighborhood? Mr. Krieg answered that he would like to see a land use that had a lesser impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner BRINKMAN swore in Jamie Birky, citizen, 3550 Holland Ct. She stated she is opposed to the proposed project because of friends and family that live in that area. The concerns she had were the negative impacts to the immediate community. The concerns that she had were with drainage and that it is a rezoning to C-1 zoning, which allows,a multiple of uses, ,some which are undesirable. Her other concerns were with the lighting and the increased pollution that would be caused by the proposed project. Commissioner SNO W asked if there were any ideas to better the buffering to the back of this property? Ms. Krieg answered yes, however, it would take 5 years to have these trees at a adequate height for buffering. Commissioner BRINKMAN swore in Wayne Bonger, citizen, 43400 Vivian Street. Mr. Bonger stated that he was opposed. Mr. Bonger stated that he has lived at his current address since 1954. The biggest concern he had was with. the wells being destroyed. The drainage is a problem because the asphalt is course and will be degrading to the healthy existing soil in the area. Commissioner BRINKMAN swore in Curt Anderson, 4330 Vivian Street. He stated that he was opposed. He told the commission that he had owned the property for 9 yeazs. Mr. Anderson explained that if the property becomes a RV sales lot that the property value surrounding the azea will decrease. He stated that he really liked the agriculturaUcountry atmosphere and would be opposed to the rezoning to C-1. He stated for the record, the concept of RV rentals was not mentioned at the neighborhood meeting. He also briefly discussed the drainage problem that the other citizens expressed a concern with and agreed with the earlier testimony. • Commissioner GOKEY asked Mr. Anderson what it is that he would like to see the land use used as? Mr Anderson replied, a Use that has less of an impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner BRiNKMAN asked what type of water does_Mr. Anderson have? He an_ _ swered, well water system. Karen Cleave land, property owner , 12200 W. 44th Avenue was sworen in. She wanted to clazify Commissioner WILLIAMS question regarding the divided zoning on the pazcel. Ms. Cleveland land stated she was unawaze until recently that the property was double. zoned but this error occurred when the property was part of the unincorporated Jefferson County zoning . Her wish is to see the property zoned as one zone district rather then two so she can sell it for a specific use. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if the house is on a sewer system? The owner answered yes. She also stated that they have City water and two well water systems on the property. There is drainage out in the front of the property. Mr. Bonger spoke again and explained why the land was subdivided in 1955 from a Agricultural zone district to Agricultural-One and Residential-One zone district. Ms. Chase asked to speak about the subdivided zoning. She stated that when they went to subdivide •and replat this area the city adopted zoning the pazcel maintained the existing county zoning. She made reference to the sewer tap and clarified that the sewer tap is a 4" tap and the public water is a 1" tap. Mr. Steiner addressed the propane and the fuel issue and pointed out that it is not the norm to have RV vehicles stored with full tanks. The propane, the purchase of fuel and the cleaning of the RV vehicles would all occur at the existing truck stop. Ms. Reckert indicated to the Commission members that before they make a motion that there are a couple of options to be considered. 1) The applicant would agree to revisions on the proposal. 2) The applicant would revise there proposal and consider a rezoning to RC with this one additional use. Commissioner SNOW asked if Ms. Reckert had any comments on the new issue of the rentals? Ms. Reckert stated that this would not change staff's recommendation at this point in time. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if Ms. Reckert had any comments on the water issue? Ms. Reckert commented that the staff would not be required to make the applicant submit a drainage report unless they apply for a PCD. There ate concerns about the groundwater and she suggested using concrete or asphalt so that it is not as permeable. Commissioner BRINKMAN swore in Vashi Sachanandani, 3224 Beech Ct, Golden. He stated that he has been in the business for 22 years. He explained that the impact on the neighborhood is minimal from h is point of view. Discussions continued. •A motion was made by Commissioner SNOW, seconded by Commissioner SHOCKLY " I move that ,J 6 Case No. WZ-97-15, a request to rezone property located at 12200 West 44th Avenue from agricultural- Two and Residential-One to Commercial-One, be denied for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan. 2. It is incompatible with the adjacent low density residential land use and zoning to the west. 3. The evaluation criteria did not support approval. 4. The neighbors have raised valid issues about the possible impact on neazby wells. Motion carried 5-1 with Commissioner WILLIAIvIS voting no. Commissioner SNOW suggested that the applicant consider Ms. Reckert's recommendations to rezone to a different zone district, to change buffering or to do a well study. Commissioner WILLIAMS suggested RC-1 with 1 additional use. Commissioner SNOW encouraged the staff to work with the applicant and the neighbors before coming back to seethe Planning Commission. 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 9. OLD BUSINESS ~~ • • 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ITEMS ~ .71..~J f a~ \ ~~• as lC2 ak. ~ ~ ~~~ l~}Z `l`o~Z Commissioner BRINICMAN referred to the articles in the Sentinel regarding Cazl Cerveny. She asked ~K' Commissioner SNOW why she brought up the issue and how she worded the issues regarding the vote from the previous Planning Commission meeting held on November 20,1997. Commissioner SNO W L explained that the reporters approached her not the other way azound. Commissioner SNOW stated for the record that she stands by what she said to the press when they called and asked her some questions. Commissioner BRINKMAN commented that her concern on the newspaper article was that the Planning Commission was not presented in a very good light. The second concem was that the internal conflict among Commission members did not need to be surfacing for all of the metro area to be exposed to. Thirdly, she did not feel that all the information was brought forwazd and it could have been handled in a less political manner. Commissioner BRINKMAN stated that the Planning Commission reputation have been degraded and she felt there could be a better way to resolve internal conflicts. Commissioner RASPLICKA stated that he felt that Cazl Cerveny served this Commission for a long time and deserved better treatment then he got in the newspaper. Commissioner RASPLICKA also stated that he resented the way the whole issue occurred. Commissioner WILLIAMS agreed with Commissioner RASPLICKA and pointed out that the Planning Commission is not an elected body, therefore, they aze not political. Commissioner BRINKMAN explained to Commissioner SNOW that she was disturbed that the article represented the Planning Commission through the comments made by Commissioner SNOW. ~ Commissioner SNOW stated that she advised the Newspapers to call Commissioner THOMPSON. i S ~ ~ -i-~l, ~ .`~~ P~ CiVttn. Mme'( C ®~'vt'u . gel ~"~ , Q, `^r D~ ~ ~~t' d-tSa W l C~~.M• w~`lli ~wtc~ Discussion continued. Commissioner RASPLICKA commented that the Ficco project was already approved in May, 1997 and this case was only up for a final development plan so the voting issue from previous meeting was irrelevant. Ms. Reckert introduced Commissioner GOKEY to the Planning Commission. Ms. Reckert stated she felt Commissioner GOK.EY will be a positive addition to the Planning Commission. Ms. Reckert brought to the attention of the Planning Commission that the first meeting next year is on January one. Discussions continued on when to schedule the meetings for January, 1998. A motion was made Commissioner WILLIAMS, seconded by Commissioner RASPLICKA to cancel the January 1, 1998 and to have the scheduled meetings for January 8, 1998 and January 15, 1998. The Committee agreed by consensus. Commissioner SNOW discussed the issue of the Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Map and updated the Commission on the happenings of the Committee. Commissioner SNOW stated that she was disappointed with the refusal by staff to display the Map for Public comment. Discussion continued. ~2. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. by consensus. ~~ J`f PRo~e, ~e ording Secretary