|
|
|
 |
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
July 21, 2004
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT
Tom Quinn, Chair
Ken Lloyd
Rich Urbanowski
Bunny Malm
Andrea Hollen
STAFF PRESENT
Bob Murphy, City Councilman
Roger Noonan, City Attorney
Mike Connor, Property & Purchasing Services Mgr.
Roger Wadnal, Planning Manager
Susan Piercy, Senior Planner
Tina Dill , Planner I
Anne Heine, Lead Develop. Review Engineer
John Padon, Traffic Engineer Technician
Vicki Kaufman, Planning Commission Secretary
___________________________________________________________________________________
The following are the minutes of the July 21, 2004 Lakewood Planning Commission
Public hearing. A permanent set of these minutes is retained in the office of
the City Clerk and a tape recording is located in the department of Community
Planning and Development, City of Lakewood.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The roll having been called, a quorum was declared and the following business was conducted:
CHAIRMAN QUINN explained guidelines to be adhered to.
ITEM 1: CASE NO. FI-03-009 & PI-03-006 Subdivision request for 1800 Yarrow Street
ROGER NOONAN, CITY ATTORNEY, gave a brief presentation explaining to the commission and the audience background information on what the process is that they are involved in this evening. He said this is a Preliminary Plat and a Final Plat being done at the same time, which the ordinance allows. The first step is annexation but this property has been in the city since the city's incorporation so this step is not necessary. The second step is when the property is zoned. Standards that are applied are set forth in the zoning ordinance. Platting is the third step in the Planning process, which is controlled by the subdivision ordinance that has been agreed upon by City Council, and sets forth standards for subdividing property. The Planning Commission needs to apply those standards to their decision tonight.
KEITH GATTENBEIN, THE APPLICANT, who lives at 8106 Stu Hill Road, Golden, Colorado, 80403, gave his presentation first. Keith said he is requesting a three-lot subdivision. The two new sites will run primarily along 17th Avenue. When the neighborhood notices were sent out for this subdivision there was a lot of opposition. He thought it appeared to the neighbors as if he wanted to rezone or get a variance but that was not the case. Jefferson County originally showed the property as being 9,000 sq. ft. less than what it actually is. The case was postponed so the error could be found and corrected. Jefferson County then corrected their records and the case proceeded. The proposed sites are 12,504, 14,000 plus and 15,000 square feet.
At the Neighborhood Meeting the width of the street and the amount of traffic on 17th Avenue was brought up as a concern. Keith then had the city forester come out. He recommended trimming the trees back and lowering some of the trees for the neighbors as well as the two new sites. Most of that work has been done now, Keith said. He said 17th Avenue is the same width as 19th Avenue, which has a lot more houses on it. Also at the Neighborhood Meeting the neighbors were concerned because the trees at this site act as a sound barrier for the neighborhood. Keith said the shrubs and trees attracted him to the site when he first looked at it. He has no intention of taking out the shrubs to the east or the west or the north. Along the south line Keith is only requesting to remove shrubs and trees for the driveways. After the Neighborhood Meeting he had the elevations done and a landscaping plan that reflects how the houses fit on the sites and what they will be doing to maintain landscaping and what they will do for additional landscaping. He personally did not originally think this site would impact the neighborhood because it is sided by residential and commercial. The site is a little under an acre.
TINA DILL, PLANNER I, gave the Staff Report, entering into the record the Comprehensive Plan, the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance. This case is being heard before Planning Commission because the Director of Planning and Development referred the case to them for their review and decision. The confusion regarding the size of the property was due to Jefferson County Assessor's records. In 2000 incomplete research was done that led the County Assessors Office to determine the former right-of-way along 17th Avenue had not been properly deeded to the owner. At the request of Staff, the County completed their research and adjusted their records to reflect the proper size of the property.
Several letters and phone calls have been received and a petition of the neighborhood
was circulated in opposition from approximately 49% of those living in the notification
area. A copy of this information is attached with the Staff Report. Only one
person indicated they wished to speak at the meeting tonight.
Judy Curman said her testimony would just be repetitious and Susan Powers said
that what she had to say is already in the Planning Commission information.
TRACI SIMMONS of 7791 W. 19th Avenue, Lakewood, CO, 80214, said she was speaking for the neighbors. Traci lives to the north of the subject property, five houses away, making her outside the notification area. She said the smaller lots in that area are on the south side of 17th Avenue, the other side of 20th Avenue and on the west side of Allison with 17th Avenue being the dividing line when the neighbors consider the character of the neighborhood. There is a square of older homes that have large lots and that is the character they would like to see maintained. For the neighbors such as herself, who have large lots, this development feels like the beginning of an encroachment, an end to the large lots in that area. This is where the neighborhood opposition started.
Another major concern is the safety issue. 17th Avenue, where it abuts this property, is only about 21 feet wide. By comparison, 19th Avenue is 31 feet wide. If there are two cars going down 17th Avenue, it is very difficult for the cars to cross. In addition, there are two rental properties on 17th Avenue whose drives back directly onto 17th Avenue with two more driveways proposed. The children tend to play in the street, as children will. This is a safety concern. Traffic engineers told the neighbors that two more houses would only add forty more trips a day. But that doubles what is there now. When the traffic backs up on Wadsworth, the cars tend to go down 17th Avenue to cut through to Colfax and travel faster than they should.
No other persons requested to speak so the public comment portion of the meeting was closed at this point.
COMMISSIONER LLOYD discussed the configuration of the lots and then asked of either garage would have cars backing onto 17th Avenue.
KEITH said they would not back onto 17th Avenue. The cars will back out of the garage and then turn around so they are facing 17th Avenue as they go out. Keith intends to use the homes as rental property.
COMMISSIONER LLOYD asked the applicant if he would be willing to add a speed bump onto 17th Avenue as a part of his conditions.
KEITH said he had no problem with installing a speed bump.
JOHN PADON, CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER, said the policy on speed bumps, set forth by City Council, is that the petition area would have to be determined, the petition area would have to be signed by 95% of the people in that area and 80% would have to be in favor. There is a $700 cost. The minimum volume is 300 vehicles per day, and the average speed must exceed 30 miles per hour, which is the posted speed, then a speed bump could be put in. But it would have to go through review as a separate issue.
COMMISSIONER MALM asked how long the crematorium has been at its current location and if Staff was aware of any complaints.
SUE PIERCY said it has been there about seven years and does meet the most recent requirements for emissions from a crematorium in the City of Lakewood. Sue is not aware of any complaints filed in the City of Lakewood. The crematorium is regulated through the city and the state but we regulate our own ordinances. Brian Nielsen would be the person in the city with whom those complaints would be filed.
COMMISSIONER QUINN asked if the applicant could talk about how he plans to
preserve the vegetation, trees and shrubs, on the property.
KEITH said he plans to limit the impact of the construction on the trees that
are there. In working with the city's forester, he pointed out a number of the
trees are diseased elms and they need to go. The construction areas are going
to impact one tree on Lot 14 inside the building envelope that will need to
be removed, a cottonwood. Along 17th Avenue there will be two driveways. The
intent is to match Lot 14's driveway with the existing cut that is already there
in the shrubs along 17th Avenue. And then along Lot 15 there will be a driveway
cut as well.
COMMISSIONER QUINN asked if the applicant knew about how many of the elms were diseased and needed to be removed. About four trees total was the response.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI asked if any of these large lots could subdivide as long as they meet the rules of our subdivision ordinance?
TINA said yes they could subdivide as long as they meet the requirements and have access to the property.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI said a couple of the lots appear to already have "through
lot" access.
TINA said a "through lot" is a lot that has streets on more than one
side of the lot and none of these lots have that.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI asked if he is correct in that some of the lots appear to have already been subdivided?
TINA said the houses on 19th Avenue pretty much mirror the houses proposed on 17th Avenue.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI wondered if those requirements apply everywhere in the city where there is 1-R zoning if they are one acre lots and the lot owner wants to divide them down to one-third acre sizes, then this can be done administratively?
TINA said yes they can as long as they are nine lots or less.
COMMISSIONER MALM said she didn't notice any reference to a neighborhood plan related to this particular area. Is there one in effect?
ROGER WADNAL said there is not a neighborhood plan for this area yet. The process is just beginning with no meetings having been held at this point.
COMMISSIONER HOLLEN had a couple of questions of staff: She wanted to focus on the width of 17th Avenue with respect to a number of factors mentioned in some of the neighborhood letters included with the staff report. Particularly the issue of this being a school bus route and that there might be a problem with emergency vehicles circulation to provide services to the properties in the area.
JOHN PADON said there are a lot of streets in the city that were taken over from the county that are twenty feet wide or less. 17th Avenue could be a cut through route. This new development isn't going to make it a cut through route. It has been this way a long time. The City of Lakewood adopted a twenty-foot wide street with roadside ditches. There is no parking on 17th Avenue on the north with back out parking only on the south. There is twenty feet of asphalt there to use for circulation so, in John's opinion, there shouldn't be a circulation problem because of this project.
COMMISSIONER HOLLEN asked about rental property in the area, a subject mentioned in neighbors letters of opposition. In the spirit of the provision in the Subdivision Ordinance that requires consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Andrea wondered about the record of impacts or conflicts with rental properties in the area and is the current house on the property a rental? Is there a record of management and operational deficiencies the commission may want to consider?
KEITH stated that he bought the property in November 2002 as rental property and he did not initially manage the property. It has been about ten months since Keith and his son have started managing these properties. The initial property manager rented to a family who had trash on the property, there was excessive noise, etc. This information came out at the neighborhood meeting. He now has a new tenant and the place looks great. He is motivated to having good tenants who maintain the property and said it doesn't benefit him to have tenants who run down the property or allow it to become run down.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI said a letter he received in his packet refers to the zoning R-1A districts and says that residential densities are limited to no more than one dwelling per one-acre lot. Rich thought this project is zoned 1-R. Is there confusion on the part of the person writing this letter?
TINA said the writer was either misinformed or misunderstood the type of zoning of this case.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI then mentioned that the Comprehensive Plan does say that the commissioners need to consider the interest of the neighborhood. Some of the neighborhood is pretty set against this project. How does the city resolve the issue of "the interest of the neighborhood shall be considered" yet a number of residents still oppose this project? Is it because there were only 49% of the neighbors in opposition rather than a majority? Rich wondered if the applicant really had adjusted his proposal because of the concerns of the neighborhood?
TINA said she believed he had adjusted his proposal because of those concerns.
ROGER WADNAL wanted to clarify the 49% figure. He said there were a number
of neighborhood residents who signed a petition. That affected the decision
to not have this case be one that is approved administratively but to bring
it to Planning Commission. There was enough neighborhood concern to have the
Director of Community Planning & Development determine this case to be a
significant decision that needed to be brought to the Planning Commission. Staff
does not look at the number of people who sign a petition and say if it's above
50% it goes to Planning Commission, it's not that simple.
Roger said it's all part of the decision making process, as Roger Noonan, City
Attorney, pointed out at the beginning of this meeting. From annexations to
zoning decision to subdivision decisions, staff can take a look at the case
and determine if the Comprehensive Plan requirements have been met or ultimately
the case needs to come to Planning Commission.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI asked Roger Noonan if the commissioners have discretion here?
ROGER NOONAN said yes the commissioners do. It is not something that is administrative where if it meets certain requirements you have no discretion. However, you have to temper that with applying the standards that are written in the Subdivision Ordinance. If those standards are met then you have to ask what would the concern be outside of the ordinance and how would it apply to that. The courts would look at it and determine whether or not you have been arbitrary or capricious in the decision. Whether you approve it or deny it, you have to apply the standards of the ordinance to your process.
COMMISSIONER LLOYD asked about lot width.
SUE PIERCY explained that the lot width as defined in the zoning ordinance is measured at the setback line. That's where your lot width has to be a hundred feet wide.
COMMISSIONER LLOYD said that the applicant stated he wasn't quite sure what he was going to do so what assurances do the commissioners have that it will look anything like this?
ROGER NOONAN said there is no assurance. What you are approving is a plat that basically shows lines around three lots. This is not a site plan review process or a planned development process but strictly a plat. So what he is showing is a representation but there is no guarantee.
COMMISSIONER LLOYD asked if there were standards in the ordinances and zonings that indicate what a house lot needs to look like.
TINA said there are height, setback and landscaping requirements that are the applicable standards.
SUE PIERCY said there is Article 15 that speaks to the landscaping and how far a garage can set back. So there are some architectural issues Staff looks at during the Article 15 process. Both of these lots have been required to go through this process but it doesn't say that it must look exactly like the picture you are seeing tonight.
COMMISSIONER QUINN asked staff if there are any drainage issues associated with this development?
SUE PIERCY said they are not, they will be required to do drainage and erosion control plan as part of their building permit application.
COMMISSIONER QUINN said the commissioners have heard testimony from the applicant regarding preservation of trees and vegetation on site. What kind of oversight will there be?
SUE said the ordinance doesn't specifically state that you have to preserve trees. It's certainly a goal and intent of the Article 15 process to preserve mature trees and there is some language in the article that speaks to certain types of trees the city is interested in maintaining. Through the site plan process we will take a look at landscaping.
COMMISSIONER QUINN wondered to what degree the city could hold the applicant to the statements he has made on the record regarding his intentions? To what degree can we enforce these intentions?
SUE said the city would look at each building plan as it comes in for Article
15 and look at all the trees that are out there based on the intent and testimony
tonight. You are approving the Preliminary Map and this is looked at during
the planning process.
ROGER NOONAN said this is not a PUD that is being decided tonight, so if your
standards don't address what you described, you cannot require it. Article 15
is what you have in the way of an ordinance that will be used by staff to review
the development. Sue was right when she said the applicant has the right to
never develop anything at all and go out and cut down every tree on his private
property.
COMMISSIONER HOLLEN asked to put the case in context, we have had a lot of discussion about neighborhood character tonight. A definitive statement about the character of a neighborhood is defined through the neighborhood planning process and would be documented in a neighborhood plan. If the interest in preserving the larger lots is articulated and made an essential element in the character of the area, what action steps would the neighborhood and the city have to realize that issue?
ROGER WADNAL used the example of the Jefferson Gardens Neighborhood Plan that adopted several years ago. The intent in that plan was to preserve the valuable rural character of that neighborhood and to preserve the larger lots. In certain instances in that neighborhood neighbors voluntarily down zoned their property. Not at city request but voluntary down zoning that has allowed only certain zoning in the area. The city would help with the process but would not require it. This is an example of action steps that have occurred in the past.
COMMISSIONER MALM said Roger Noonan commented that there would be nothing to keep the applicant from cutting down every tree on his property. Wouldn't that statement also apply to every other property owner in that area?
ROGER NOONAN said the point is there is no ordinance on the books to prohibit anyone from cutting down trees on their property. The comment was made as an overstatement of what could happen from cutting down trees and re-landscaping the lot unless you had a PUD zoning where there are requirements relative to the landscape maintenance and ongoing responsibility of maintenance. But that is not the situation here.
COMMISSIONER QUINN asked if Article 15 had the provision for existing tree protection and replacement and wasn't this project subject to Article 15 provisions?
SUE said yes it does have some language that speaks to existing tree replacement and protection during construction. The intent is for larger scale developments rather than individual single-family infill but it does apply to any lot that is subject to Article 15. And yes, this project is subject to Article 15.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI wanted to clarify to Ms. Simmons that said this project would generate forty trips a day and the Staff Report says it will actually generate ten trips per day per home for a total of twenty.
COMMISSIONER MALM said that taking into consideration the testimony of Staff, the Applicant and considering comments from the adjacent property owners, both verbal and written, and finding that no neighborhood plan currently exists for this area even though one is contemplated for the future, and finding further that the applicant meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Article 5 regarding lot size and lot width criteria, and further that the proposed subdivision meets the intent of the Lakewood Comprehensive Plan as it relates to infill development in a residential area, and that the single family residential construction proposed by the applicant (emphasizing proposed) is compatible with the existing characteristics and character of this neighborhood, she moves that FI-03-009 and PI-03-006 be sent to City Council with a recommendation to approve.
COMMISSIONER URBANOWSKI seconded the motion.
CHAIRMAN QUINN said this is a difficult case in many respects. Certainly one of the best features of many of our older neighborhoods is their mature vegetation, their trees and shrubs that people often planted decades ago. Certainly this neighborhood has some of this mature vegetation that provides shade and buffers between properties, something of a noise barrier, a habitat for birds, etc. So, while he would support the motion, he wants Staff to work with the property owner to make sure as much of that vegetation as possible is preserved. The applicant has made statements on the record that he intends to preserve as much of that vegetation as possible and Tom would just ask Staff to be very diligent in working with the applicant since he is interested cooperating on this.
Motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
CHAIRMAN QUINN thanked everyone for coming to the meeting tonight.
COMMISSIONER MALM wanted to let the neighbors know that they had her assurance that this was not an easy decision to make. She is familiar with the area and encouraged the neighbors to proceed with the neighborhood plan as soon as possible.
ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 16, 2004 MEETING
Minutes were approved by a vote of 5-0.
ITEM 3: GENERAL BUSINESS
ROGER WADNAL said there are no cases scheduled at this point to come before the Planning Commission in the near future. There will be a Study Session that will be in early August for the Comprehensive Plan Action Steps.
ITEM 4: COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
COMMISSIONER LLOYD said this is his last Planning Commission meeting after serving for eight years. This has been a very enjoyable and educational experience. There have been a lot of exciting things that have happened in the City of Lakewood over these eight years and it has really been fun to be involved in. Ken said he has really enjoyed serving with everybody on the Planning Commission. The citizen's of the City of Lakewood are lucky to have such dedicated people and such visionaries on Planning Commission. Ken also wanted to thank Staff and Roger Wadnal in particular for his vision and patience (mostly patience) in working with the Comprehensive Plan and the process. Ken said he wanted to give Roger his personal thanks saying they couldn't have done such a good job without Roger's guidance.
COMMISSIONER QUINN said it has been his pleasure to serve with Ken over the last six years. Tom said Ken was the last of the commissioners from when he started and he learned a lot from Ken.
COMMISSIONER QUINN said we will be having a picnic August 28, 2004 for Planning Commission and asked the secretary to check on the availability of city pavilions.
There being no further business to conduct the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Vicki Kaufman, Secretary to the Lakewood Planning Commission
 |
||
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice |
||
