Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06. 4 Agenda PacketAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO Thursday, June 4, 2026, 6:30 p.m. This meeting will be conducted as a virtual meeting, and in person, at: 7500 West 29th Avenue, Municipal Building, Council Chambers. Planning Commissioners and City staff members will be physically present at the Municipal building for this meeting. The public may participate in these ways: Attend the meeting in person at City Hall. Use the appropriate roster to sign up to speak upon arrival. Provide comment in advance at www.wheatridgespeaks.org (comment by noon on June 3, 2026) Virtually attend and participate in the meeting through a device or phone: a) Click here to join and provide public comment (create a Zoom account to join) b) Or call 1-669-900-6833 with Meeting ID 831 5404 9101 and Passcode: 818243 View the meeting live or later at www.wheatridgespeaks.org, Channel 8, or YouTube Live at https://www.wheatridge.gov/view CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 19, 2026 PUBLIC FORUM This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the Public Hearing agenda. Public comments may be limited to 3 minutes. PUBLIC HEARING* No cases to be heard OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1. City Attorney Training 2. Upcoming Dates 3. Project and Development Updates 4. Commissioner Updates *Public comment is welcome during any public hearing item. The standard procedure for a public hearing is as follows: a. Staff presentation b. Applicant presentation – if applicable c. Public comment – time may be limited at the discretion of the Chair, often to 3 minutes d. Staff/applicant response e. Close public hearing f. Commission discussion and decision Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. The City will upon request, provide auxiliary aids and services leading to effective communication for people with disabilities, including qualified sign language interpreters, assistive listening devices, documents in Braille, and other ways of making communications accessible to people who have speech, hearing, or vision impairments. To request auxiliary aid, service for effective communication, or document in a different format, please use this form or contact ADA Coordinator, (Kelly McLaughlin at ada@wheatridge.gov or 303-235-2885) as soon as possible, preferably 7 days before the activity or event. ADA Accessibility Statement The City of Wheat Ridge (City) is committed to providing accessible facilities, services, and communication to all members of the public. As part of this commitment, the City aims to provide an accessible website compatible with W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.2) that is in compliance with Colorado HB 21-1110, allowing individuals with a disability to understand and use the website to the same degree as someone without a disability. As the City works toward this goal, you may have a need to access documents in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, audio, etc.). In that event, please contact the ADA Coordinator, Kelly McLaughlin, at ada@wheatridge.gov or 303-235-2885 who will make every effort to respond to your inquiry and provide an alternative solution. Planning Commission Minutes - 1 – March 19, 2026 PLANNING COMMISSION Draft Minutes of Meeting March 19, 2026 CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair DISNEY at 6:30 p.m. This meeting was held in person and virtually, using Zoom video-teleconferencing technology. 1. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Kristine Disney Jennifer Gibbs Daniel Graeve Simon McGowan Anna Sparks Commission Members Absent: Krista Holub Michael Moore Syrma Quinones Staff Members Present: Jana Easley, Planning Manager Chris Masar, Planner II Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner SPARKS and seconded by Commissioner GRAEVE to approve the order of the agenda as amended. Motion approved 5-0. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – February 19, 2026 It was moved by Commissioner SPARKS and seconded by Commissioner GRAEVE to approve the minutes of February 2, 2026, as written. Motion carried 3-0-2 with Commissioners GIBBS and MCGOWEN abstaining. 5. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) No one wished to speak at this time. 6. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes - 2 – March 19, 2026 A. Case No. WZ-26-1: an application filed by Betsy Lawton for approval of a rezone from Residential-Three (R-3) to Residential-Once C (R-1C) to match the surrounding properties and to reduce front and rear setbacks for a new detached single dwelling located at 3338 Depew Street. Vice Chair DISNEY opened the public hearing. Mr. Masar gave a short presentation regarding the zone change and the application. He entered into the record the contents of the case file, packet materials, the zoning ordinance, and the contents of the digital presentation, and amended the staff report to address the updated Case No. from WZ-25-02 to WZ-26-1.He stated the public notice and posting requirements have been met, therefore the Planning Commission has jurisdiction to hear this case. Public Comment No one wished to speak at this time. Vice Chair DISNEY closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner SPARKS and seconded by Commissioner GRAEVE to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. WZ-26-1, a request for approval of a zone change from Residential-Three (R-3) to Residential- Once C (R-1C) at 3338 Depew Street for the following reasons: 1. The proposed zone change will promote the public health, safety, or welfare of the community and does not result in an adverse effect on the surrounding area. 2. Utility infrastructure adequately services the property. 3. The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City’s adopted plans and policies. 4. The R-1C zoning is more appropriate than R-3 given the size of the subject property, the land use on the subject property, and the predominant land use in the surrounding area. 5. The criteria used to evaluate a zone change support the request. Commissioner SPARKS commented that she appreciates seeing property owners renewing and refreshing items that looked worn which improves the community. Commissioner GRAEVE thanked staff for the report and welcomed Mr. Masar. Motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes - 3 – March 19, 2026 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Ms. Easley gave a brief explanation of the voting process, then Commissioner DISNEY was voted in as Chair and Commissioner GRAEVE was voted in at Vice Chair. B. Upcoming Dates Ms. Easley reported upcoming meeting dates of April 2nd and April 16th, have no items currently scheduled for either hearing. She also mentioned that Attorney training with City Attorney Jerry Dahl was scheduled for June 4th, beginning at 6:00 p.m. with dinner in the lobby conference room followed by formal training in Council Chambers. C. Project and Development Updates D. Commissioner Updates Both Commissioners MCGOWEN and GIBBS were welcomed by Chair DISNEY and asked to tell a little about themselves. Commissioner MCGOWEN mentioned he is a longtime resident of Wheat Ridge and even graduated from Wheat Ridge High School. He lives here with his family and recently bought a franchise business. Commissioner GIBBS mentioned she has lived in Wheat Ridge for 3 years and is currently restoring it. She added she is in-house counsel for a land development company, with a background in risk management and construction. Commissioner GRAEVE noted his appreciation for the improvements at Panorama Park, particularly the new tennis courts and basketball court that are getting heavy use and look very attractive. 10. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner SPARKS and seconded by Commissioner GIBBS to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 p.m. Motion approved 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 – March 19, 2026 __________________________ _______________________________ Kristine Disney, Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM DATE: June 4, 2026 TOPIC: Attorney Training FROM: Jana Easley, Planning Manager The City Attorney will be providing a training for the commission on several topics including: • Quasi-judicial actions • Conducting public hearings • Taking action • Exactions and conditions of approval The training document is attached for reference. WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP June 4, 2026 A. INTRODUCTIONS B. QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTIONS 1. The quasi-judicial standard: Actions on zoning matters and on variance requests or appeals from administrative officials are quasi-judicial, not legislative. The consequences of the fact that an action is quasi-judicial are several: a. notice and hearing required b. right to present witnesses and evidence c. right to legal argument d. no ex parte contacts allowed e. right to an impartial decision maker 2. Ex parte contacts a. Defined: contacts between the applicant or opponents and the members of the body outside of publicly scheduled hearings and meetings on the application. b. Why should these contacts be avoided? Judges never talk to the parties outside the courtroom. Neither should you. The consequence of engaging in these contacts can be as severe as invalidating the action of the commission. c. How can ex parte contacts be avoided? If you are called by the applicant or opponent and the matter is identified by them, immediately advise them that as a commission member, it is improper for you to talk about the case outside of the hearing room. Urge them to bring their points of view and testimony to the hearing. d. The prohibition extends to e-mails and written materials as well: Make sure any materials you receive outside of the hearing are given to the staff to be copied and shared with everyone at the time of hearing. e. What to do if an ex parte contact has occurred: Disclose the contact at the beginning of the hearing; describe its content as completely as possible. In an extreme case, you may be required to step down and not further participate. -2- 3. Right to an impartial decision maker; Open Records Act restrictions a. Like judges, you should not decide the case before hearing the evidence. b. Refrain from “signaling” your opinion before the testimony is complete. c. You should not attend and speak on the application at other meetings prior to final decision of the body of which you are a member. d. You may not contact adjacent property owners or residents or the applicant to research the application before the hearing. e. If you have any concern about a contact you have had prior to the hearing, contact the city attorney for guidance. f. Send any emails or letters you receive to the staff for distribution to the entire Commission before the hearing g. Bear in mind that the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) makes any emails you send or receive concerning City business open for inspection. This includes emails you send or receive on a personal device or on your personal email account. Because of this, the City recommends you exclusively use a separate email address for your Commission work, such as firstnamelastname.PC@gmail.com. C. CONDUCTING PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Goal: That Commission members and public attendees leave the hearing feeling it was fair and their views were heard and appreciated. 2. Some Suggested Rules: a. Announce the rules and applicant’s rights at the beginning, then stick to them. b. If a large number have signed up, divide the available time and assign it at the beginning. c. Suggest speakers do not repeat prior testimony if they cans state they agree with an earlier speaker. d. Public testimony is to be directed to the Commission – speakers may not direct questions to staff or the applicant (both staff and applicant will have an opportunity at the end of the testimony to answer those questions. e. Make sure that all attendees at the public hearing know they have the right to speak. f. Give witnesses your full attention. -3- g. Thank all the speakers for appearing. 3. What testimony is admissible? a. There is no prohibition or limitation on kind or nature of testimony in the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. b. Relaxed rules of evidence apply in administrative hearings. c. Hearsay: “I heard G. Dahl say that: [Where Dahl is not present and cannot be cross examined.] Hearsay is admissible. d. It is appropriate for the Commission to consider the weight and credibility of testimony. e. Consider all the testimony and evidence. Don’t let the number of people for or against the application determine your decision. 4. Applicant Rights a. To make a full presentation b. To present multiple witnesses c. To respond after public comment closes D. TAKING ACTION 1. Importance of findings and reasons for approval or denial a. “[A] record of proceedings before the Board must contain details of the evidence presented and proper grounds and reasons to support its decision.” Murray v. Board of Adjustment of Larimer County. b. Draw your conclusions from the evidence in the record made during the hearing. c. Your decision must be based on whether or not the application complies with the Code of Laws, not whether you as a Commissioner like or do not like the project, or feel a different project would be a better fit for the property. d. The applicant is in charge of what their application contains, not the Commission. Commissioners may not conduct separate research and attempt to enter it into the hearing record. e. Relate the evidence against the criteria in the Code of Laws. f. The staff-proposed motions are available and can be added to with additional statements by the maker of the motion. If taking the opposite motion, provide Code-based reasons. 2. Amendments to Motions a. Must be germane to the main motion -4- b. Good way to add one or a series of conditions 3. Stick to the request before you a. Apply the same standards of relevance to your comments and decision that you would want to see in public testimony. b. Rezoning and comp plan amendments are the only opportunity to consider land use and density c. If it is a rezoning case, do not engage in site planning (ex: parking, open space). d. The Applicant is in charge of its application. If the request is for rezoning to C-1, that is what you vote on. 4. Grounds for Denial a. Appropriate grounds for denial: anything in the applicable portions of Chapter 26. b. Inappropriate grounds for denial: failure of developer to volunteer a condition which could not independently be imposed by the City; Commissioner belief that the project is the wrong use or density when the zoning in place allows this. 5. Failed Motions a. Failed motion means no recommendation (unlike BOA). b. If a motion fails, someone on the prevailing side should immediately move to recommend the opposite position. E. EXACTIONS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL What can the City require as conditions of approval of a land use case? Are there different “rules” depending upon the type of case? What are permitted grounds for denial? 1. Commonly imposed conditions relate to site design or timing. 2. Commonly imposed exactions: land dedication; park fees; facilities to be dedicated to public use. 3. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, (California 1982): reasonable relationship between the exaction / condition and a legitimate government interest required. 4. Dolan v. Tigard, (Oregon 1994): “rough proportionality” between the exaction and the impact sought to be mitigated 5. Regulatory takings: the outside limit of permitted regulation: no right to “highest and best use.” 6. Acceptable conditions to recommend be imposed (examples): -5- a. Land dedication requirements (typically, right-of-way; rely on staff recommendation) b. Corrections to the plat c. Conditions which support enforcement of the technical requirements of Chapter 26 (eg: drainage easements) d. Requirements for maintenance of common elements (eg: requirement to establish an HOA) e. Preservation of trees and vegetation – Code Sec. 26-414.D: “Natural features and vegetation of the area must be preserved it at all possible.” f. Redirecting traffic patterns – Code Sec. 26-414.B: “The residents of the City must have available to them within the area, safe and convenient movement to points of destination or collection. Modes of travel to achieve this objective should not conflict with each other or abutting land uses. g. Conditions offered by the applicant 7. Conditions which are not permitted: a. Density restrictions (if site plan review) b. Matters outside the scope of the applicable portions of Chapter 26 c. Conditions which have no Code basis d. Conditions which actually redesign the application 8. Technical Requirements a. The City has professional staff to review drainage plans and development design. b. Trust your staff c. Best time to ask staff questions: before the hearing