Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/08/1998P MINUTES OF MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION January 8, 1998 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson THOMPSON at 7:30 p.m., on January 8, 1998, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Janice Thompson Anne Brinkman Harry Williams Jay Rasplicka Thomas Shockley Nancy Snow Dean Gokey Staff Present: Alan White, Director Planning & Dev. Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Barb Fuller, Recording Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The following is the official copy of Planning Commission minutes for the Public Hearing held on January 8, 1998. A copy of these minutes is retained in the office of the City Clerk and in the Department of Planning & Development of the City of Wheat Ridge. 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA (Items of new and old business may be recommended for placement on the agenda.) A motion was made by Commissioner WILLIAMS, seconded by Commissioner SNOW, with the added items, to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner WILLIAMS, seconded by Commissioner SHOCKLEY to approve the minutes of December 18, 1997, as amended. Motion carried 6-1, with Commissioner BRINKMAN 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.) There was no one present to speak. Planning Commission 01/08/98 Page 1 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WV-98-1 : An application by the City of Wheat Ridge for approval of a right-of-way vacation for property located at 33rd Avenue between Pierson & Parfet Streets adjacent to 3294 Pierson Street and 3295 Parfet Street. Ms. Reckert presented an overview of the case. She entered into the record the Comprehensive Plan Zoning Ordinance case file, packet materials, and exhibits. The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction by Planning Commission to hear this case. This is a City initiated right-of-way vacation for a piece of land that has been reserved for pedestrian, fire access and utility access between Pierson and Parfet. The access was never constructed and the land is currently zoned R-1. This property runs adjacent to two single-family residences and has been incorporated into their yards. This is 5500 square feet of land. The City recently initiated code enforcement action due to the fact that the residences installed fences on this right-of-way and were essentially blocking emergency/fire access. As the City proceeded through the code enforcement action, it was determined with the help of the Wheat Ridge Fire District, that there is not a need for emergency access at this location. Thus, the request for right-of-way vacation. The Jefferson County School District has voiced no objection to the request for vacation. Ms. Reckert reviewed the criteria for evaluating a right-of-way vacation. She stated that staff concludes that pedestrian access is to be constructed on school property, staff recommends that a non-exclusive utility easement be reserved over the entire 20'. Ms. Reckert further concluded that all of the evaluation criteria have been met in order to approve the vacation, and that the vacated property should be vested with the property owners to the south. Commissioner GOKEY asked if each of the properties already have constructed dwellings. Ms. Reckert further explained the aerial slide, described the fence and explained that the shadow being seen was a private storage shed that has since been removed pursuant to the code enforcement action over the summer. Commissioner THOMPSON asked a question about the proposed pedestrian path and where it will be constructed and whether the connection would be straight. Ms. Reckert explained that the right-of-way is the only straight, level portion of the parcel. North of the right-of-way it dips down and possibly has a drainage detention area. There are also several fairly large trees. An alternate location for the pedestrian access makes sense. Commissioner SNOW asked what would happen if the school district changed its mind and decided not to construct this pedestrian access. Planning Commission 01/08/98 Page 2 Ms. Reckert explained that this concern was the reason for her pursuing contact with Jefferson County Schools. She wanted the school district to know that the City was not going to support the vacation unless the pedestrian path was built and that it needed to be done with the 1 st phase of improvements. Ms. Reckert stated that if the Planning Commission recommended approval of this vacation, she would get the commitment from Jefferson County Schools in writing. Commissioner SNOW suggested not making the vacation effective until the path is built. She stated that the letter is not specific about the plans to build the path. She also asked about the law in regard to giving the vacated property back to the owners. Ms. Reckert responded that it depended on how it was dedicated. Her interpretation of the vesting law was that it goes back to the property from which it was dedicated. Both parcels of the right-of-way were dedicated from the property to the south. Therefore, it would vest back with those properties. Commissioner THOMPSON asked about the situation.if the school became private property. Ms. Reckert pointed out that there were no guarantees that a private owner wouldn't come in and fence off any pedestrian access. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if the utility easement is enough to preclude that from happening? Ms. Reckert explained that the utility easement would allow the utility companies to come in and do maintenance on the easement but would not allow general foot traffic. Commissioner THOMPSON voiced concern and also pointed out that City Council is concerned about vacating property because of its permanence. Commissioner GOKEY asked if the area is presently used for any foot traffic. Ms. Reckert responded that it is not used for foot traffic and that there is a fence. Commissioner SNOW asked about when the fences were constructed? Ms. Reckert stated that she is unsure when the fences were built. But that both property owners were in the audience and could probably answer that question. Commissioner THOMPSON asked for names of people signed up to speak. Ms. Reckert explained that there is no one signed up to speak. But that the Fire Marshal was in the audience and the adjacent property owners were also in the audience. Commissioner THOMPSON asked the Commission for questions or comments. Planning Commission 01/08/98 Page 3 Commissioner WILLIAMS commented that this parcel has been dedicated for 24 years and has not been used. He felt that it would make good sense to return it to the owners. Commissioner THOMPSON asked for comments from the land owners. Commissioner THOMPSON swore in George Feeny and Laura Leprino of 3295 Parfet. Commission asked questions regarding the fence, when it was constructed and about pedestrian activity. George Feeny and Laura Leprino responded to all of the questions, stating that the fence was there when they moved into the house 3 years previous, and that there is minimal pedestrian activity due to the size of the school yard. Ms. Leprino also stated that they would appreciate the consideration of the Commission for this vacation because they are trying to be good neighbors to the school but that they would also like to be able to control the parcel which becomes a weed patch and a snake haven in the summer time. Commissioner THOMPSON asked for further questions or comments. Commissioner SNOW had the same question for the other home owner. Commissioner THOMPSON swore in Augusta Faehnrich of 3294 Pierson. Commissioner SNOW asked how long the fence had been on Ms. Faehnrich's property? Mrs. Faehnrich stated that they put the fence up 20 years ago, but that it didn't extend as far as the other fence. She then explained her concern with putting a sidewalk right by her bedroom window. Motion: A motion was made by Commissioner SHOCKLEY, seconded by Commissioner WILLIAMS, that case number Case No. WV-98-1: A request for approval of a right-of-way vacation for property located at 33rd Avenue between Pierson & Parfet Streets be approved for the following reasons: It is not needed for emergency vehicle access. The pedestrian connection between Pierson and Parfet will occur on school district property. The evaluation criteria support approval. With the following conditions: A non-exclusive utility easement be reserved over the entire 20 feet. Vesting occur with the property owners to the south. Planning Commission 01/08/98 Page 4 Commissioner SNOW asked for consideration of adding a condition that this does not become effective until the school puts a walkway in. Commissioner SHOCKLEY clarifies waiting until the City has it in writing from the school. Discussion followed regarding the sidewalk, whether the school needs it or wants it, and whether the City wants to give up the parcel if an access is never completed. There was discussion of rewording the amendment and options. Commissioner SHOCKLEY says yes until confirmation in writing is received. Staff explained other options for the Commission to consider. Commissioner SHOCKLEY added, " or until the City received confirmation from the school district that the property would not be needed for a cut through or connecting sidewalk." Commissioner THOMPSON asked a question regarding improvements paid for by the owners and who would be responsible for reimbursement if the City did take it back what if the property owners do a lot of improvements along there, and we decided that we wanted the 10 feet, do we reimburse them for the improvements or do they lose all of that money? Ms. Reckert responded that it would be at the home owners risk. Discussion continued on the need for a sidewalk connection and whether vacation was advisable or not possible for a future consideration. Commissioner THOMPSON asked for additional discussion. There being none, she called for a vote. Motion carried 7-0 Commissioner THOMPSON relayed to the audience that the vacation was approved, but that the Commission was asking R-1 school district to respond in writing within 60 days to the City, that they will in fact put a pedestrian path onto the school property. If they respond and state that they will not put the path in, then the vacation will not be approved. It will also go to City Council for final approval. B. Case number ZOA-97-4: An application by the City of Wheat Ridge for approval of an amendment to section 26-6(B) of the Wheat Ridge Code of laws relating to special uses. Alan White explained that this is something that was in the works when he came on board with the City of Wheat Ridge. He gives an overview of the proposed amendment, explaining that what this proposed amendment does is create two categories of special use approval: 1) Land Vested, and 2) Owner Grant of Use. He explained that the concept of the two is simple; Planning Commission 01/08198 Page 5 Land Vested means that the special use will run with the land. If it changes owners one, two, three times the special use is still attached to the land. As regulations are now and as the second type of special use is set up there is an Owner Grant of Use. This means that the special use is attached to the owner. This cannot be transferred except through an heir, or through re-approval of that special use by the Planning Commission and City Council. The proposed amendment also requires Planning Commission to make the determination of any given special use before you should be "Land Vested" or "Owner Grant" Special Use. This recommendation is made to City Council on a case-by-case basis. Alan explained that he is unaware whether this proposed amendment was directed by Council or initiated by the Planning Commission. He continued by explaining how this proposed amendment may or may not affect the staff, City, and Planning Commission and stated that this type of legislation would be difficult to administer. His philosophy of administering the zoning ordinance is to keep it simple and straight forward. When special cases are made and you have different categories of special uses it becomes a burden for staff to keep records and monitor them. Also, it requires keeping separate rules for one piece of property straight from the other rules for a different piece of property down the road. Alan suggested making a motion if the Commission is comfortable. Alan concluded his staff report and entered into the record his staff report and the zoning ordinance. He stated that under the zoning ordinance the City has provided public notice as required for a zoning ordinance amendment. Commissioner SNOW commented that she was worried about the things mentioned by Alan, as well as the wording in the zoning ordinance under consideration for removal, "which are clearly shown to be void or deficient in an area." This seems to throw out the idea that we have conditional uses and special uses, or uses by right. This is going to do a lot more than anybody realizes. For example, many years ago you could put a school in any zoning category. But pretty soon people started opening schools and things that they called schools in various places around the City. So then they took schools and churches and put them in a special use, this verbiage wipes that out, doesn't it? Ms. Reckert responded that it would be a conditional use. Commissioner SNOW conditional? At this point today, it says special uses are discretionary and this says that you have to show that they are void or deficient in an area. Why is that being taken out along with these changes which is a totally different concept? Alan replied that the verbiage is taken out and sort of setting up the intent of special uses in this section, but it does remain in two pages following that as one of the criteria for reviewing special uses. The page begins with (3) Criteria for review (a). Alan White stated that it is as the legislature currently is in the code. After a question of its clarity, Alan replied that he doesn't have a problem with the language. Planning Commission 01/08/98 Page 6 Commissioner SNOW isn't that the only difference between a special use and a conditional use? Ms. Reckert informed that the conditional use is a use that is allowed but there is a sight plan review because of some of the affects on the neighborhood and neighboring properties. Ms. Reckert read the criteria for Conditional Use as it is in the zoning ordinance. The difference is the condition of blight and filling a void. She continued to read conditional uses in different zoning districts and gave examples. Conditional use requires one hearing in front of Planning Commission with the preapplication neighborhood meeting and there is an appeal to City Council. With special uses there is a neighborhood meeting, two hearings, and the right of legal protest. Commissioner BRINKMAN had a question regarding (2) Application form and review procedures: (b) how will this be broken out, the difference between Owner Grant of Use and Land Vested? Ms. Reckert answered business owner. Commissioner BRINKMAN questioned the description at the beginning, Land Vested Uses would run with the land, that would be the business owner? Ms. Reckert answered no, and gave a specific situation in which the building owner leased the building and the business owner was granted a special use. Commissioner BRINKMAN also had a question regarding whether special use would go from Land Vested to Owner Grant or visa versa? Alan White responded that there would have to be some final determination in going from Owner to Land Vested to come back and have that final determination made by Council. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if that is the case that these uses can flip flop does there need to be wording in the ordinance stating that? Commission members discussed several problems with the ordinance: 1. Changing owner grant to land vested would result in increased caseload. 2. What are the benefits of land vesting? 3. Tracking and transactions involving special uses. 4. Complicated system (time consuming). 5. Implications for businesses wanting to sell - reapproval. Commissioner BRINKMAN summarized what she has heard from the Commission. The first thing being said is that we need a fast track for property owners that are selling to review the special use and see if it is still worthwhile in that neighborhood. The second is what Nancy is asking about, the Commission needs to review the special uses. She sees this issue as a big "hairball" for the Planning Department to try to keep track and make sense of it. Commissioner BRINKMAN suggested continuing this issue to a study session to review special uses, and possibly come up with a fast track method for property owners. Planning Commission 01/08/98 Page 7 Motion: A motion was made by Commissioner SNOW to not pass this ordinance and to direct staff to prepare recommendations for a faster way to transfer the special use permit when the property is purchased. Also, at a future study session the Planning Commission reviews special uses and whether they are properly placed in each zone district. Commissioner WILLIAMS amended the motion to include directing staff to research how many special use permits and the types of special use permits there are within the City of Wheat Ridge. The motion as amended by Commissioner Williams was seconded by Commissioner BRINKMAN and carried 6 to 1 with Commissioner GOKEY voting No. The Public Hearing was closed. 8. OLD BUSINESS. Commissioner RASPLICKA added an item to old business, regarding the Richter application and the speakers that spoke against it with regard to the school. Commissioner THOMPSON added an item to old business, concerning a question about the Wheat Ridge sign on the Richter property. 9. NEW BUSINESS. Commissioner BRINKMAN added an item to new business, about a joint meeting between Planning Commission and City Council regarding the Comp Plan public process. 10. DISCUSSION & DECISION ITEMS 11. COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT REPORTS 11. ADJOURN. Meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. by consensus. CDw~ Barb Fuller, Recording Secretary Ja ce Thompson, Chairperson Planning Commission 01/08/98 Page 8