Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/12/1999ORIGINAL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting August 12, 1999 1. 2. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair BRINKMAN at 7:30 p.m. on August 12, 1999, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL: Commission Members Present: Anne Brinkman Jerry Collins Dick Doyle Don MacDougall Nancy Snow Janice Thompson Commission Members Absent: Staff Members Present: 3. Dean Gokey (excused) Alan White, Planning Director Ann Lazzeri, Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The following is the official set of Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing of August 12, 1999. A set 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. 4. APPROVAL OF ORDER OF THE AGENDA Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner THOMPSON seconded to approve the order of the agenda. The motion passed by. a vote of 6-0, with Commissioner GOKEY absent. 5. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak before the Commission on unscheduled matters. 6. PUBLIC HEARING Chair BRINKMAN advised those present that the two cases to be heard this evening (Revised Comprehensive Plan and Parks and Recreation Master Plan) would be heard concurrently. Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1999 A. Case No. WPA 99-01 An application from the City of Wheat Ridge to adopt the revised Comprehensive Plan. B. Parks and Recreation Master Plan: An application from the City of Wheat Ridge to adopt the revised Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Alan White entered the following documents into the record: (1) Draft of Comprehensive Plan as drafted by the Planning Commission, dated August, 1999; (2) Parks and Recreation Master Plan amendments, dated 1998, and the existing Parks and Recreation Master Plan dated June, 1991. The documents were accepted by Chair BRINKMAN. Mr. White presented an overview of the development process involved in the drafting of the Comprehensive Plan being considered this evening. He noted that most of the changes made by the Planning Commission involved Chapter 2 which is the land use plan. (Copies of Chapter 2 were made available for members of the audience.) He reviewed and summarized those changes. In response to a request from Chair BRINKMAN, Alan White explained the difference between land use plans and zoning. Chair BRINKMAN noted an error on page 2-20 of Chapter 2 as follows: Under the section entitled "Land Use Classifications" the following bulleted words should be deleted: "Single Family Detached and Duplexes (not to exceed 7 dwelling units per acre) " Chair BRINKMAN invited public comment and asked that speakers limit their questions and presentations to three or four minutes. Eric and Sue Whiteman 4760 Dover Sue Whiteman addressed the area of Garrison and 48th Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area to be planned residential with 12 dwelling units per acre allowing 72 homes to be built in a small area. The surrounding area is shown as 6 units per acres. She felt that the proposed high density would add to the serious traffic problem which already exists at the service road and Garrison and also to overcrowded schools in the area. She requested that the area designated on the Comprehensive Plan in this area as 12 units per acre be changed to 6 units per acre. Scott Albertson 1667 Cole Boulevard, #100 Golden, CO Mr. Albertson stated that he was an attorney representing the three owners (Charles, Harold and Robert Einarsen) of 8.3 acres at the southeast quadrant of Kipling and 38th Avenue. He requested that the future land use map which designates this area as SF-4 be changed to Village Center. There were two reasons for this request: (1) Village Center designation is in conformity with existing zoning in the area. He expressed concern about language in the draft Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 August 12, 1999 Comprehensive Plan that suggests existing commercial properties would need to be considered for rezoning to residential. (2) Village Center designation is in conformity with policy and goals statements contained in the Comprehensive Plan, in particular, goal no. 4 on page 2-10. Commissioner COLLINS called a point of order and asked Mr. Albertson to summarize his points to conform to the 3-4 time limit requested at the beginning of the meeting. Chair BRINKMAN advised Mr. Albertson that he could return to the podium to complete his comments after the other speakers have had the opportunity to speak. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that she would personally like to hear everything the speakers have to say and made a motion that speakers be allowed at least a minimum of ten minutes in order to present most of their points. The motion died for lack of a second. Chair BRINKMAN reminded the Commission that points of order can only be directed to other Commission members. Charles Einarsen 6475 West Kingsley Avenue Mr. Einarsen indicated that he would prefer to hold his comments until Mr. Albertson returns to conclude his presentation. Louise Turner 1256 West 38th Avenue Ms. Turner expressed concern that when a lesser use than the zoning classification is designated on a land use map, it is almost guaranteed that the land will be rezoned to the greater use. She stated her opposition to the CPRC map. She further stated that citizens have requested many times that the character of the community and agricultural atmosphere be preserved, and it is unfortunate that the Planning Commission has chosen not to protect the agricultural zoning. She presented a map that depicted what the Planning Commission changed in regard to these requests and what was not changed. She presented a copy of her map for copy and distribution to Planning Commission members. She read from the Comprehensive Plan that encouraged the preservation of residential and agriculture zoned land and asked that the following language be included in the plan as follows: Should any intense uses be determined to be excessive, down zoning would be accomplished through the purchase of development rights. She stated that 23 years ago when the last Comprehensive Plan was written, there were 1370 acres of agricultural and/or vacant land. That is almost all gone today which tells us that 1000 acres of that land has been rezoned in the past 23 years. She urged the Commission to consider their obligation to protect these larids as citizens have requested. Chuck Stiesmeyer 4996 Parfet Mr. Stiesmeyer expressed concern about the area where he lives at 50th and Parfet. The future Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 August 12, 1999 land use map shows this area as AER zoning. He expressed opposition to the part of the future land use map that shows plans for a Class 5 minor collector street to be built directly through the heart of the AER area on Parfet and would be located about 8 feet from his bedroom. He felt that this street which would allow 11,000 cars per day is in conflict with the definition of rural character. He further noted that the roadway classification map shows it as a minor collector street that "begins at nowhere and leads to nowhere". Alan White stated that the only connection under consideration right now is Miller Road. He mentioned that there was problem in reproducing the road classification map in color and this map is from the neighborhood traffic management program and classifications that were adopted as a part of that program. In the CPRC draft, the map of roadway classifications does show 50th Avenue as it is shown on the future land use map. He explained that this was inadvertently left off the land use map when the map was converted to color. Chair BRINKMAN asked which map was correct. Alan White replied that the future land use map was correct. Commissioner SNOW asked if the proposed street was dedicated. Alan White replied that portions of it are. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the rationale of the road is to service future industrial development in Arvada and questioned whether industrial traffic should be funneled into a residential area. She felt that Ridge Road should be the main access. Chair BRINKMAN asked why Miller doesn't go straight down to I-70 frontage road. Alan White said that planning done with Arvada is that it is a loop road into and through the Ridge Home project and funneled over to Kipling at approximately 50th. Commissioner SNOW asked if recent Council action to make Miller three lanes would have any effect on this matter or cause a change to any of the maps. Mr. White replied that it did not. Commissioner THOMPSON expressed concern that Wheat Ridge not take the whole impact of Arvada's development. Barbara Hance 11818 West 52nd Avenue She stated that they own property where the proposed Ridge Road extension is planned to go northwest and connect into 52nd Avenue. She stated that the map looks like her property has been divided partly into residential and partly agriculture. Commissioner SNOW advised Ms. Hance that the Planning Commission did make a motion to designate all of her property AER. Ms. Hance further expressed concern about traffic resulting from the 500 homes planned for the Ridge Home area. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 August 12, 1999 Pat Fisher 7609 West 47th Avenue She stated that following a meeting last October, a number of residents met with city officials to discuss the section of Wadsworth from Red Lobster north. At that meeting, she was informed that the city had reached a decision not to change the land use map from 45th Avenue north on Wadsworth. She expressed concern that the present map shows the area to be NR and she has not been informed of that change. She requested that she receive, in writing, the reasons for the change. She also stated that traffic coming into her subdivision has increased since Walgreen's was built. Alan White stated that the meeting Ms. Fisher referred to was concerning the Wadsworth Corridor Plan which showed the area between 47th and 48th as residential. He commented that this seems to be a case where one plans says one thing and another plan says something else. Commissioner DOYLE also advised Ms. Fisher that the meeting she referred to, where he was also in attendance, was the Wadsworth Corridor meeting. He assured Ms. Fisher that the Commission is doing its best to attempt to satisfy all the residents of this area. Chair BRINKMAN read the description of neighborhood retail (NR) area which allows only one lot depth from Wadsworth. Ms. Fisher stated that, in her case, one lot is 3/4 acres. (Chair BRINKMAN declared a recess at 9:00 p.m.) The meeting was reconvened at 9:15 p.m. Because Gary Wardle had to leave the meeting shortly, Chair BRINKMAN announced that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan would be addressed at this time and then the hearing would continue for further comments on both the Comprehensive Plan and the Parks Master Plan. Gary Wardle presented the Parks and Recreation Master Plan update. He explained that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan which was originally completed in 1991 has been updated to coordinate with the revision of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that most of the changes reflect the renaming of parks, additions of park land, and work done at these facilities from 1991 through 1998. Commissioner DOYLE noted an error in the listing of participants for the master plan amendments. Ken Siler and Ralph Mancinelli are District II and not District III. Mr. Wardle stated that this would be corrected. Chair BRINKMAN asked if the master plan addressed the need for maintenance of parks and other facilities. Mr. Wardle replied that maintenance needs as outlined in the original master plan have been reviewed and determined to still be adequate. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 August 12, 1999 Debbie Fidrich 7737 West 46th Avenue Ms. Fidrich stated that she attended the Wadsworth Corridor meeting with Ms. Fisher and wanted to verify that the property on Wadsworth from 47th north is zoned residential now and was going to be left residential. It was her understanding that everything from 46th to 48th would be left residential. She stated that Bob Middaugh assured her that if Arapahoe House is ever sold, commercial will not be allowed in its place. Susan Seeds 6147 West 35th Avenue Ms. Seeds commended the Planning Commission and Planning Department on the Comprehensive Plan. She expressed two concerns. The first was on page 2-18 where the greenbelt was discussed. She believed the Comprehensive Plan was referred to the Planning Commission before conservation had been formally designated by City Council. In the paragraph that contains language to the effect that the greenbelt is the spine of the pedestrian trail in Wheat Ridge and therefore neighborhood access should be encouraged does not take into account the study that was done before the conservation area was designated. That study specifically states social trails in conservation areas are disruptive to wildlife and wildlife habitat and therefore should be discouraged or reduced. She requested the following sentence be added: The conservation area should be treated as a separate entity from the rest of the greenbelt and should be held to a higher standard of access than the rest of the greenbelt. Her second concern was on page 6-9, A.2 where it states the city should annex the Coors land west of I-70 for commercial development. She wanted to know what kind of commercial development this would mean. She felt that there is more than enough industrially zoned land for a city the size of Wheat Ridge. She expressed concern that there are no restrictions on the types of businesses which will go in there. She stated that she would like to see that designation removed but, if it doesn't happen, she requested the following sentence added: The area has significant wildlife habitat, especially along Clear Creek, and that the creek should be buffered significantly and, in fact, maybe inappropriate for development of any kind. I would like to see the area on the other side of I-70 become a regional park with ball fields, where appropriate, and leave the area along Clear Creek natural as it is a prime migratory flyway. Commissioner SNOW asked if the idea of a regional park west of I-70 was a recommendation in the Park Plan. Susan Seeds replied that she didn't think the plan addressed any land not owned by the City of Wheat Ridge. In amendments on page 18-A it says that, because of the value of the wildlife and vegetation in the area between Youngfield and Kipling, south of Clear Creek was designated as a conservation area. However, it doesn't mention limited access. Scott Albertson Mr. Albertson returned to the podium to conclude his remarks. He read from a noise study performed relative to his client's property which determined that noise from Kipling would not be conducive to residential development. He stated that language in the plan recognizes that his Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 August 12, 1999 client's property is not residential property and has the potential for economic development to emphasize retail uses. In conclusion, he stated the existing conditions warrant that this property be designated as Village Center. Charles Einarsen 6475 West Kingsley Avenue Mr. Einarsen stated that he concurred with Mr. Albertson's remarks. Ms. Louise Turner returned to the podium. She asked the Commission to consider the option of going back to the zoning map if they wish to preserve agricultural and low density lands. She expressed concern about areas that allow six units per acre. She felt there is a need to build homes for average families with children that allow room for yards. She stated that, although the plan mentions preservation of character in Wheat Ridge, there is nothing in the plan to back this up. She urged the Commission to preserve agricultural lands.and simply exercise its power to not rezone them. She further noted that the CPRC said they would preserve the right for citizens to keep streets without curbs, but there is no mention of this in the plan. There also was talk about separated sidewalks or walkways and she could find no mention of that in the plan. She felt there was far too much emphasis in the Comprehensive Plan on economic development and rewriting specifications for commercial development which really belong in the zoning law. With the addition of more commercial areas, she stated the cost of city government goes up about a million dollars a year. She urged the Commission to look at the northwest area in terms of reclaiming some of that area for lowest density residential. She suggested the following language for the plan: The city will support economic development which is sustainable, desirable and consistent with the needs and wishes of the people. The city will carefully analyze EDARC, ESTIP, enterprise zones and other favors to selected businesses to determine their value and the length of their continuance. No additional urban renewal will be created except through a vote of the people. She stated that even though these concerns have been requested at many of the public meetings, they were never included in the comments recorded in the back of the book. She asked the Commission to make a recommendation for the percentage of lot that can be given to residential building on open land in AER zones. She referred to page 2-7 regarding development constraints which mentions a conservation easement on land of which she is a part owner. She requested that language which says the land has been deeded to a land trust along with a guarantee that it will never be developed should be deleted and replaced with the following language: This means that the land is encumbered with a conservation easement which guarantees that it will never be developed but will remain in agricultural use and wildlife habitat. She asked that the plan include the one scenic easement in the city as well as the gravel property and the easements. She noted an error regarding sales tax that says 1% of all of the tax generated will go to capital improvements when what it really means is that tax collected by a I% tax will go to capital improvements. She suggested that the plan be edited to delete repetition. The plan also refers to things that have been "requested by citizens" such as more government involvement in business, more urban renewal, the city taking over the water and sanitation districts, more annexations and straightening boundaries. She believed it would be pretty rare if any of these Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1999 ideas have been requested by citizens. Louise Turner then commented on the Park Plan. She requested that a statement be included in the comprehensive part of the park plan that Lena Gulch is not suitable for a trail. She stated that it is proposed to have access under the bridge at 38th from Lee Street into the Gulch and on to the recreation center. Nothing is proposed for anything west of Lee Street, and she wanted some assurance that this will never happen. She also expressed concern about safety for children as they go under 38th. She did not want to see a situation which would entice children into a flood channel from which there is no easy access. In conclusion, she read the following comments into the record: Lena Gulch is not suitable for a trail for the following reasons: (1) It would be in conflict with some existing use or purpose for its entire length. (2) It could not be continuous. It would be cutoff at Parfet on the east and Simms on the west. (3) It would be in conflict with the conservation easement on the 12-acre Williams property between Parfet and Queen. (4) It has been strongly opposed by residents between Parfet and Simms who feel wildlife would be threatened by public access. (5) It has been strongly opposed by residents west of Simms who feel a through trail would be a threat to the neighborhood status of Lewis-Meadows Park. (6) West of Union, backyards come together in the waterway. (7) There is a growing public feeling that special wildlife areas should not be disturbed This small, fragile area cannot withstand the impact of public access and survive. At a large meeting in 1993, the Parks Department stated that it had no plans or interest in a trail on Lena Gulch and was surprised that so many people were there to oppose it. This was considered to be a commitment and should be honored. Consequently, the Lena Gulch Area and the open lands abutting it should be shown on the Parks Master Plan and Map, as they were before, to be "Open space for ecology in private ownership" and no trail. 7. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair BRINKMAN asked if there were others present who wished to speak before the Commission. There was no response and she declared the public hearing closed. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner MACDOUGALL that the Planning Commission continue the Comprehensive Plan and the amendments to the Park Master Plan to Wednesday, September 8, 1999, at 7:30 p.m. for action by the Planning Commission only, without additional testimony. The motion passed by a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner THOMPSON voting no. In response to a question from Commissioner THOMPSON, Alan White replied that the Commissioners could bring any changes in writing to the staff at the meeting of September 8. Commissioner SNOW requested that citizens be urged to review the Comprehensive Plan and submit written comments before the hearing on September 8. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 August 12, 1999 8. 9. 10 OLD BUSINESS A. Highway 58 and I-70 Report - Commissioner THOMPSON received the report in the mail and urged the Commissioners to read this report and submit comments to CDOT. B. Planning Commission Vacancy - Chair BRINKMAN asked the status of the vacancy. Alan White replied that no applications have yet been received for this position. NEW BUSINESS There was no business to come before the Commission. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS that the meeting be adjourned at 10:20 p.m. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner GOKEY absent. ANNE BRINKMAN, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Record' g ecretary Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 August 12, 1999