HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/05/2006AGENDA
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMNIISSION
January 5, 2006
Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning
- Commission on January 5, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA (Items of new and old business may be
recommended for placement on the agenda.)
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 1, 2005
6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not
appearing on the agenda. Public comments may be limited to 3 minutes.)
7. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No. ZOA-05-03: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code
of Laws pertaining to public noticing.
B. Case No. ZOA-05-06: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code
of Laws pertaining to signage.
8: OLD BUSINESS
9. NEW BUSINESS
10. CONIIVIISSION REPORTS
11. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING CONIlVIISSION
Minutes of Meeting
December 1, 2005
1.
2.
CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order by Chair
A4eMillin at 7:00 pm. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West
29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
ROLL CALL
Commission Members Present:
Staff Members Present:
Anne Brinkman
Jan Chilvers
John McMillin
Phil Plummer
Jerry Scezney
Cassie Spaniel
Kim Stewart
Scott Wesley
Alan White, Community Development Director
Travis Crane, Planner
Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Following is the official set of Planning Comrnission minutes for the public hearing of
December 1, 2005. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and
in the Community Development Department of the City of Wheat Ridge.
4. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner WESLEY and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to
approve the order of the agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
5. APPROVAL OF NIINUTES - October 6, 2005
It was moved by Commissioner STEWART and seconded by Commissioner SCEZNEY
to approve the minutes of October 6, 2005 as presented. The motion,passed 6-0 with
Coinmissioners BRINKMAN and SPAIVIEL abstaining.
6. PUBLIC FORLTM
There was no one present to address the Commission during this portion of the meeting.
Planning Commission
December 1, 2005
Page 1
7. PUBLIC HEARING '
Chair McMII,LIN announced that Cases No. LLA-05-03 and WA-05-19 would be heard
concurrently.
A. Case No. LLA-05-03: An application filed by Gino and Michelle Quintana for
approval of a lot line adjustment at the properties located at 3295 Cody Street and 8605
West 32nd Place.
B. Case No. WA-05-19: An applicafion filed by Gino and Michelle Quintana for approval
of a variance to minimum lot size for an existing duplex on property zoned Residential
Two and located at 8605 West 32°a Piace.
These two cases were presented by Travis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into the
record and advised the Comxnission there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the
staff report and digital presentation.
In response to a question from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Travis Crane explained that denial
of the variance request would not affect a two-family dwelling on lot 1.
Gino Quintana
Michelle Quintana
3295 Cody Court
The applicants, Gino and Michelle Quintana, were sworn in by Chair McMII.LIN. In response
to a question from Commissioner WESLEY, Mr. Quintana explained that the uneven notch of
land on the property line would allow an eacisting fenced gazden to remain. Mrs. Quintana
stated that she and her husband plan to maintain that portion of the property.
IDenise Colburn
8605 West 32°d Place
The property owner, Denise Colburn, was sworn in by Chair McMIT.I.IN. In response to a
quesfion from Commissioner McMILLIN, Ms. Colburn stated that she has no plans to equalize
the size of the two lots. She also noted that there is a cement culvert running between the two
properties.
In response to concerns expressed by Commissioner BRINi{1VIAN, Travis Crane stated that the
uneven property line would not cause any future problems in that these types of situations earist
in many parts of Wheat Ridge.
Alan White stated that there were no other individuals signed up to speak regazding these two
cases.
Commissioner WF.SL.EY stated that he would vote in favor of the applications. He did not
believe the city should hold anyone hostage about quirks along property lines. He commented
Planning Commission Page 2
December 1, 2005
~
that the applicant is attempting to utilize the property as a gazden azea and keep it in the same
condition as the property at 8605 West 32nd Place. Further, if the property owners wanted to
change the configuration in the future they would have to come back to the city for approval.
It was moved by Commissioner STEWART and seconded by Commissioner BitINKMAPd
to approve Case No. WA-05-19, a request for approval of a lot size variance for an
existing two-family dwelling in the R-2 zone district for property located at 8605 West
32°d Place for the following reasons:
1. The hardship has not been created by any person having interest in the property.
2. The two-family dwelling currently exists and the reduced property size should
have no impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
The motion passed 8-0.
It was moved by Commissioner STEWART and seconded by Commissioner WESLEY to
approve Case No. LLA-05-03, a request for approval of a lot line adjustment plat for
properties located at 8605 West 32°d Place and 3295 Cody Court, for the following
reasons:
1. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met.
2. The land to be transferred is not being used by the owners of Lot 1 and is a logical
extension of Lot 2.
The motion passed 8-0.
C. Case No. ZOA-05-04: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code
of Laws pertaining to references to the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual.
This case was presented by Alan White. He advised the Commission that proper public notice
had taken place for this case. He reviewed the staff report and explained that the proposed
atnendment would simply provide cross references between the commercial zone district
regulations and the Streetscape and Architectural Design guidelines. These changes would
lessen confusion for applicants.
Commissioner WESL.EY suggested adding language to the ordinance to reflect that the
regulations may be changed from time to time.
It was moved by Commissioner WESLEY and seconded by Commissioner STEWART
that Case No. ZOA-05-04, proposed amendments to various sections of Chapter 26 of the
Wheat Ridge Code of Laws referencing the Streetscape and Arclutectural Design Manual,
be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation of approval for the following
reasons:
1. The City of wheat Ridge has adopted legislation pertaining to the development
standards for the commercial zone districts;
Planning Comixrission Page 3
December 1, 2005
2. The City of Wheat Ridge has adopted legislation pertaining to streetscape and
architectural design guidelines;
3. There are no cross references between the two different sets of standards.
With the following condition:
Thaf the following language be added behind references to architectural and streetscape
standards as follows: "as may be amended."
The motion passed 8-0.
8. OLD BUSINESS
• Commissioner McMII.LIN commended city staff for correcting the lighting problem at
Chase Piaza.
Commissioner McMII.LIN requested an update following City Council's denial of the Jolly
Rancher property development proposal. Alan White stated that the city has not yet heard
from the applicant and noted that City Council is considering the suspension of acceptance
or review for applications in this azea unfil the sub-azea plan is completed. He also stated
that a meeting was held with business owners regazding the sub-area plan and; according to
an RTD representative present at the meeting, the Gold Line and transit station neaz Ward
Road seems to be a reality. He will inform Planning Commission of the next meeting for
the sub-area.
9. liTEW BUSINESS
• Alan White informed the Commission that a kick-off meeUng for the Wadsworth sub-area
plan will be held in the Council Chaznbers on December 13 at 5:30 p.m.
• Alan White reported that there are no cases scheduled for the December 15 Commission
meeting andtherefore it would not be necessazy to have a meeting on that date.
. Comxnissioner BRIlVKMAN asked for clarification on the quasi-judicial process regarding
the Cabela's development. Alan Wiute explained that Planning Commission members may
attend meetings and review material regazding highway improvements. However, he
cautioned members not to lend any opinions on land use issues.
10. COMNIISSION REPORTS
There were no commission reports.
11. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS
There were no committee and department reports.
i\
Plamiing Couunission Page 4
December 1; 2005
12. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Coimnissioner PLUMNIER and seconded by Commissioner STEWART
to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m. The motion passed unaniuiously.
John McMillin, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretazy
Planning Commission
December 1, 2005
Page 5
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
Memorandum
TO: Planning Coxnxnission
FROM: Alan White, Community Development Director ~
SUBJECT: Public Notice Requirements
DATE: December 27, 2005
OF WHEqT
~ P
0
c~ m
C~C OR A00
Planning Commission eulier in 2005 took action to recommend changes to the public notice
requirements for public hearings. Staff has prepared the required ordinance and it is attached as
Exhibit 1. It is not clear from our records if the ordinance was reviewed at a public hearing as
required for changes to the zoning regulations. Also, there were a few changes staff thought should
be made to clarify when neighborhood meetings were required. Before forwazding this item to City
Council, staff wanted to be sure we held the required public hearing and to include staff
recommended changes. Minutes of the meeting when your recommendations were made aze
attached as Exhibits 2 and 3.
Planning Commission requested that the Department reseazch other jurisdictions' requirements far
public noticing, in particular the distance far which mailings are sent and the size of signs that are
required to be posted. That reseazch is attached as Eachibit 4. The Commission recommended that
an ordinance be drafted changing our current reqnirements as follows:
Noticin Re uirement
Current Re uirement
Pro osed New Re uirement
Letters to Owners
100'
300'
Size of Sign
18" x 24'
36" x 48"
There are implications to making these changes. Currently the letter noticing is completed by staff.
Staff fime to research owners and prepaze certified mailings will increase. It is difficult to estimate
the increase in staff costs. A large parcel could generate hundreds more letters by increasing the
mailing distance to 300 feet. A variance might generate only a dozen more letters with the 300-foot
requirement. With the increase in the number of norices comes an increase in the cost of postage,
which is soon to increase to 39 cents regardless of your recommendation. Postage costs aze
reimbursed to the City's general fund.
It is estimated that application fees will need to increase a minimum of $78.00 to cover these
increased costs, the majority of which is the cost of certified maii postage. The City provides the
signs and the larger signs will cost an additional $7.00 to print. Publication/public notice fees wiil
need to increase a total of $85.00 to cover these additional costs to the Depariment.
The increase in fees will affect ali land use applications, even relatively xninor applications such as
variances. The cost of a variance will increase from $390 to $475.
Usrv-ci-eng-002\users$\awhite\All FIles\zoning amendments\Noticing RequirementsNemo to PC.doc
The noticing requirements currently aze the same for all applications requiring a public hearing and
they need to stay the same for several reasons: 1) Given all the public hearings we provide notices
for (Pla.miiug Coxnxnission, Board of Adjustment, City Council), this is time-consuming task for staff
and standardized requirements result in routine prepazation and efficient use of staff time, ultnnately
resulting in savings to the customer; 2) Standardization means less chance of mistakes being made
and postponing or continuing hearings; and 3) One requirement creates a consistent expectation and
lessens confusion of the public. All of these are compromised if the noticing requirements are, for
example, 100' for variances, 200' for special uses, and so on.
SUGGESTED MOTIONS:
"I move to recommend approval of the ordinance amending publicnotice requirements for signs and
mailings as prepazed by staff."
Or, if you make changes:
"I move to recoxnmend approval of the ordinance amending public notice requirements with the
following change(s):
2.>,
Exhibits:
\
\\srv-ci-eng-002\users$\awhiteW1 Files\zoning axnendments\Noticing RequirementsVvlemo [o PC.doc.
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
Council Bill Na
Ordinance No.
Series of 2006
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-109 OF TfIE WHEAT
RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCEItNING PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE AND PROCEDURES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TFIE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE,
COLORADO,THAT:
Section 1. Section 26-109 of the Code of Laws is hereby amended as follows:
Sec. 26-109. Public hearing notice and procedure.
A. Pre-application neighborhood meeting. Prior to submitting any application for a
rezoning ofproperty t^ "higher naathm ?_„y__rAly Yemi?;±e? or for approval of a
pianned development outline development plan or amended outline development
plan, an applicant shall be required to do the following:
Applicant shall, by regulaz mail or by pamphlet or flyer personally delivered,
notify all residents within six hundred (600) feet of the azea proposed to be
rezoned or if a planned development outline development plan or amended
outline development plan approval fo: wMeh a u_° ~°•-m~~ =r.. _~a ~ ~ is
- r-------
songht, of a meeting to be held, at a tune and place selected by applicant but
reasonably calculated to be convenient both to applicant and those residents
notified, for the purpose of allowing the applicant to present to said residents the
nature, character and extent of the action requested by applicant, and further to
aliow the residents to give input to the applicant regarding said proposal.
2. The intent of this proposal is to give adequate opportunity for both applicants and
residents to give and receive input regarding proposed prajects prior to their
formal submission so that the projects are carefully designed and conceived to be
compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. It is not the intent of the city council
to require formal agreements between applicants and residents prior to submission
of applications, nor is any applicant to be denied the right to proceed to any
required or permitted hearings regarding such application because no agreement is
reached. Rather, the city council by this subsection is encouraging reasonable,
honest, good faith communication between residents and applicants, and vice
versa.
3. No application shall be accepted by the city's staff until applicant has certified by
affidav'it that he has complied with the provisions of this subsection A.
EXHIBIT 1
B. Newspaper publication. At least fifteen (15) days prior to any public hearing for a
specific site or development which requires approval by the plamiing commission,
boazd of adjustment or city council, the director of community development shall
cause to be published, in the legal section of a newspaper of general circulation
within the city, a notice of public hearing. The notice shall specify the kind of action
requested; the hearing authority; the time, date and location of hearing; and the
location of the pazcel under consideration by both address and legal description.
Notwithstanding the above, any action which requires approval by passage of an
ordinance by city council shall be subject to the regulaz ordinance approval process,
which includes a first reading of the ordinance by city council at a regular meeting
where no testimony is allowed. Then, if passed upon first reading, council establishes
the time and date of the public hearing and the city clerk shall cause the proposed
ordinance to be published in a form and manner as described above.
C. Posted notice. At least fifteen (15) days prior to any public hearing for a specific site
development which requires approval by the planning commission, boazd of
adjustment or city council, the director of community development shall cause to be
prepared, and the applicant sha11 post, a sign (one (1) per street frontage) upon the
parcel under consideration for approval which provides notice of the kind of action
requested; the hearing authority; the time, date and location of hearing; and the
locarion of the pazcel under oonsideration by both address or approximate address.
°Ra'°ga' a°°e~ip'iar. The sign shall be posted within the property boundaries, shail
be affixed ta a flat surface, shall measure thirty-six (36) inches in height by forty-
eight (48) inches in width, shall be elevated a minimum of thirty (30) inches from
the ground (however, not more than six (6) feet above ground), shall be visible from
the street without any obstructions, shali be legible and displayed for fifteen (15) days
prior to the public hearing. The facf that a parcel was not continuously posted the fixll
fifteen (15) days may not, at the discretion of the hearing authority, constitute
grounds for continuance where the applicant can show that a good faith effort to meet
this posfing requirement was made.
D. Letter notice. At least fifteen (15) days prior to any public hearing which requires
notification by letter, the director of community development shall cause to be sent,
by certified mail, a letter to adjacent property owners within exe-kundred-(I9j three
hundred (300) feet of the property under consideration and to owners of property
included within the azea under consideration. The letters shall specify the kind of
acrion requested; the hearing authority; the time, date and location of hearing; and the
location of the pazcel under consideration by address or approximate address. Failure
of a property owner to receive a mailed notice will not necessitate the delay of a
hearing by the hearing authority i and shall not
be regarded as constituting inadequate notice
Section 2. Safetv Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declazes
that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat
Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this
ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of (
public convenience and welfaze. The City Council further determines that the ordinance
beazs a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained.
Section 3. Severabilitv: Conflicting Ordinances Renealed. If any secfion; subsection
or clause of this ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid,
the validity of the remaining section, subsections and clauses shall not be affected
thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final
publication.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to
on this day of , 2006, ordered published in fixll in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and
consideration on finai passage set for , 2006, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., m
the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29 Avenu`, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by
a vote of to , this day of 2006.
SIGNED by the Mayor on this . day of , 2006.
Jerry DiTullio, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela Y. Anderson
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY ATTORNEY:
Gerald Dahl, City Attorney
ls` Publication:
2na Publication:
Wheat Ridge Transcript
Effective Date:
7. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No. ZOA-OS-Ol: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code
of Laws concerning the location of parking facilities.
This case was presented by Alan White. The proposed ordinance would allow a business
owner to purchase a parcel in a residential zone district to be used for parking.
Commissioner BRINKMAN suggested that these types of situations might better be addressed
through a special use permit process. Alan White explained that parking lots aze not included
in special permit uses.
Commissioner WESLEY recognized that businesses sometimes need an avenue to expand
parking but not sure this is the way to do it.
Chair McMILLIN commented that the proposed ordinance could weaken the zoning code and
that he prefened straight rezoning to commercial to allow parking lots.
There were no individuals present to addiess this case.
It was moved by Commissioner STEWART and seconded by Commissioner WESLEY to
recommend DISAPPROVAL of Case No.: ZOA-OS-Ol concerning the iocation of parking
facilities with the modification as proposed by staff. The motion passed 7-0 with
Commissioner PLiTMMER absent.
It was moved by Commissioner WESLEY and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to
recommend that planned development : egula:ions'ae modified to a11ow application for
rezoning for surface parking only to a straight commercial application rather than a
planned development process. The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner PLUMMER
absent.
8. OLD BUSINESS
In light of claims by some individuals that they were not noticed regazding the proposed
~7development west of I-70 near Youngfield, Commissioner WESLEY asked if the city had
surveyed other municipalities about their requirements for sending public hearing nofices.
Chair McMILLIN requested that the city also check with other municipalities regarding the
size of signs that are required to be posted on the property. He expressed concern that the
present signs are too small to be read easily.
Alan Wkute explained that public heazing notices aze sent via certified mail to property owners
within 100 feet of any proposed rezoning. Notices aze sent by the city with the cost later
reimbursed by the developer.
rlammng Commission
June 2, 2005
Page 2
EXHIBIT 2
Chair McMILLIN expressed concern that 100 feet is not adequate in the case of larger
developments.
~ Commissioner WESLEY suggested that the noticing azea be based on the footprint of the
development. The lazger the development, the greater the azea would be to receive public
heazing notices.
9. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
10. COMNIISSION REPORTS
There were no commission reports.
11. , COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS
There were no committee and department reports.
12. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner CffiLVER,S and seconded by Commissioner STEWART
to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
John McMillin, Chair
Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Page 3 `
June 2, 2005
Commissioner SCEZNEY stated that he did not believe the drainage issues supported a motion
for denial. He stated he was in favor of the application based upon the issues presented and
conditions associated with approval.
Commissioner SPANIEL offered a friendly amendment to add two additional findings:
3. The proposed commercial zone change is inconsistent with the Agriculture/Esfate
ResidenHal designation on the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The proposed commercial development could be incompatible with the existing
residences to the north.
The friendly amendment was accepted by Commissioner BRINKMAN.
The motion passed 4-1 with Commissioner SCEZNEY voting no, Commissioners
STEWART and WESLEY abstaining and Commissioner PLUMMER absent.
9. NEW BUSINESS
• Alan White reported on staff's findings regazding other muncipalities' noticing
requirements for rezoning heazings.
There was a consensus that public hearing notice signs should be increased in size to 3 feet
by 4 feet and that boundaries be increased for sending notices by mail from 100 feet to 300
feet. Staff will draft an ordinance to be brought back for the Commission's consideration.
e Chair McMILLIN encouraged Commission members to review the report prepared by the
Wheat Ridge 20/20 consultant. Alan White stated that the consultant is fmalizing the report
for consideration by City Council on July 25th.
1. COMIVIISSION REPORTS
There were no commission reports.
1. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS
There were no committee and department reports.
2. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner STEWART and seconded by Commissioner CHILVERS
to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
John McMillin, Chafr
Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretazy
Planning Commission Page 4
July 7, 2005
EXHIBIT 3
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Jurisdiction
Notice to
Landowners
# of Days
Sign Size
Arvada
400'
12
24" x 36"
Aurora
Abuttin land
10
24" x 24"
Broomfield
500'
10
22" x 28"
Centennial
Ad'acent land
14
3' x 4'
Commerce Cit
300'
10
24" x 36"
Denver
Not re uired
21
Prescribed by Zonin Administrator
En lewood
500'
10
22" x 28"
Golden
300'
12
24" x 36"
Jefferson Coun
500'
14
24" x 30"
Lafa ette
750'
10
Not s ecified
Lakewood
500'
15
24" x 36"
Littleton
Not re uired
10
3' x 4'
Lone Tree
200'
15
3' x 4'
Louisville
500'
15
Not s ecified irr code
North lenn
500'
15
20" x 26"
Thornton
600'
10
24" x 42"
Westminster
300'
12
30 s.f.
Wheat Rid e
100'
15
18" x 24"
Notes:
(1) 15 days for sign
(2) Technically not required by code
(3) Planning commission only; not required for ciry council
(4) Four days required for city council
EXHIBIT 4
City of Wheat Ridge ~oF WHEqT~i
Community Development Department ~ °
Memorandum ~o~oRAO~
TO: Plamiing Commission
FROM: Alan White, Community Development Director @%
SUBJECT: ZOA 05-06, Change to Nonconfonning Signs Provision
DATE: December 30, 2005
Councii directed staff to prepare an ordinance which would clarify Section 26-707 A 1 of the Zoning
and Development Code, specifically to clarify what the terms rebuilding and reconstruction mean
with regard to nonconforming signs. The intent of Council's direction is to allow new sign cabinets
to be installed on existing support structures (usually poles) without meeting height and setback
standards.
Currently the code provision reads as follows: "Rebuilding, enlargement, relocation, extension,
replacement, or reconshuction of a nonconforming sign is not permitted unless such sign is brought
into conformance with this article." This provision has been in the Zoning and Development Code
for decades. The provision has consistently been interpreted to include the placement of a'new sign
cabinet on top of an existing shucture as either "rebuilding" or "reconstruction."
Current Regulations
The code changes in 2001 required setbacks for freestanding signs of a certain height as follows:
Setback from adjacent properties: Ten (10) feet where adjacent to residential-zoned
properties; no setback in all other cases with other than residential (including PRD) zoning.
Where a sign exists on an adjacent property and that sign is wiUun twenty (20) feet of the
proposed location of a new sign on the adjacent property, an offset, either vertical or
horizontal, shall be required such that the existing sign is not visually blocked by the new
sign.
2. From street right-of-way: Five (5) feet for signs under seven (7) feet high; ten (10) feet for
signs seven (7) to twenty-five (25) feet high, and thirty (30) feet for signs over twenty-five
(25) feet high.
Maximum height of a free-standing sign is fifteen (15) feet; provided that signs for retail and service
businesses within one-quarter (1/4) mile of an interstate highway, that are oriented to the interstate
highway, are permitted one (1) freestanding sign up to fifty (50) feet high. Any other permitted
freestanding sign shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet.
Most of the nonconfoxxnities today are a result of signs not meeting the new setbacks required by the
' height of the sign.
~
Proposed Code Changes
The changes to subsection 1 are intended to clarify what can be done to nonconforming signs.
Signs being replaced or relocated (meaning new support shucture and new sign cabinet) should be
required to meet the provisions of the new code. The new requirements should apply to what is
essentially a new sign. The legality of the nonconformity shouldn't carry over to the new sign.
Enlazgement or expansion would be allowed as long as the nonconformity was not increased. For
example, on a sign with a nonconforming setback, a larger sign could be put on an exisring support
structure as long as the setback wasn't reduced. (Setback is measured from the leading or streetside
edge of the sign.)
The terms rebuilding and reconstructing would not include placing a new sign cabinet on top of an
existin support structure. If both the support structure and sign cabinet were being replaced, the
sign would be considered a replacement sign, which would have to conform to the new provisions.
Planning Commission reviewed the nonconforming sign provisions while reviewing the sign code
re-write brought forwazd by staf£ Your concern was more directed at how to treat signs that were
damaged. Your recommendation was to allow nonconforming signs to be rebuilt unless damaged by
more than 50% by any means or if a business increases in size by 20%. An additional
recommendation was to include an amortization period of five yeazs for all nonconforming signs.
Attached are minutes from the hearings at which you dealt with nonconforming signs.
Issues
The hardest thing to deal with in a community that is mostly built-out is effecting changes that will
be good in the long run, but which create some hardship in the interim. One part of a comprehensive
program to improve the image of the City's streets (a goal in the NRS) is to require that all signs be
converted to monument signs. (The current code only encourages this.)
Pole signs tend to clutter the visual environment and detract from any streetscape or landscape
improvements, unlike monument signs. If anything, the existing code isn't strong enough in
requirnig pole signs to be converted. Allowing the use of pole signage tends to perpetuate the
cluttered environments we see on many of the City's streets.
An alternative is to reduce the sefback requirements.
Suggested Motions
"I move to recommend approval of the ordinance amending subparagraph 1 of the nonconfornung
provisions of the Sign Code as presented by staff."
Or, if you make changes:
"I move to recommend approval of the ordinance amending subpazagraph 1 of the nonconforming
provisions of the sign Code with the following changes:
1.
2.,,
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
Council Bill No.
Ordinance No.
Series of 2006
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-707 A 1
OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS
PERTAIIVING TO NONCONFORMING SIGNS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT
RIDGE, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Section 26-707 A 1 of the Zoning and Development Code is hereby
amended as follows:
A. Nonconforming signs. The lawfixl use of a sign existing at the effective date of the
ordinance from which this article is derived may be continued, although such use
does not conform to the provisions of this article, subj ect to the following provisions:
1. Rebuilding, eplargem , Relocation, °°~n-, or repiacement e~
reeenstFaetiee of a nonconforming sign is not permitted unless such sign is
brought into conformance with this article. Enlargement or extension of a
nonconforming sign is permitted so long as the nonconFormity is not
increased. Rebuilding or reconstructing a nonconforming sign is permitted
only if the rebuilding or reconstruction is limited to installing a new sign
cabinet on an existing support structure. Installing a new sign cabinet
together with a new support structure shall constitute replacement of the ,
nonconforming sign and shall require conformance with this article.
Section 2. Safetv Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and
declazes that this ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of
Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and
that this ordinance is necessary far the preservation of health and safety and for the
protection of public convenience and welfaze. The City Council fiuther determines that
the ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative obj ect sought to be
attained.
Section 3. Severabilitv; Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section,
subsection or clause of this ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitufional or otherwise
invalid, the validity of the remaining section, subsections and clauses shall not be
affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section 4. Effecrive Date. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after final
publication.
l:
~
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of
to on this day of , 2006, ordered published in full in a
newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and
consideration on final passage set for , 2006, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in
the Councii Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final
reading by a vote of to , this day of , 2006.
SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 12006.
JERRY DITULLIO, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Pamela Y. Anderson
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY CITY
ATTORNEY
GERALD DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY
lst Publication:
2nd Publication:
Wheat Ridge Transcript
Effective Date:
6. PUBLiC FORUM
There were none present who wished to address the Commission during this portion of the
meeting.
STUDY SESSION
~ A. Case No. ZOA-03-18: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat i2idge Code
of Laws pertaining to signage.
~
At an earlier meeYing, the Cominission requested mare researck on how other communities
address the following items: noncon#'orming signs, balloons/pennants/flags, off-premises and
politicai signs. Ivieredith 12eckert reviewed the staff report that conYained the requested
information.
There was discussion regazding a time limit on the display of political signs, especialiy after an
election is over.
It was moved by Commissioner WESLEY and seconded by Commissioner 1VIcNAMEE
that political signs for ballot issues, primary and general elections be allowed to go np 90
days before the election and be required to be taken down 15 days after the eiection.
Commissioner IvIcMiLLIN did noY agree that the 15-day time liulit should appiy to primazy
elec#ion signs.
Commissioner STEWART expressed concem about the necessity and enforcement of time
limits.
The motion failed 3-3 with Commissinners CHILYERS, McMILLIN and STEWART
voting no and Commissioners SCEZNEY and WITT absent.
Replacement of nonconfom-iiug sign issues was discussed. Amortizaiion issues were
discussed. Alan VJhite will discuss these issues with #he city attomey and will also survey
other cities io see if they have amortization for nonconfomung signs. There was a consensus
that nonconforming signs can stay unless ttiere is damage of more than 50% or a subsYantial
increase in square footage of the business.
There was a coasensus ta accept banner regulations as ouilined in the staff report;'however,
there was discussion abont limiting #he size of a banner that stays up ali #he tune to one-half the
size allowed for a permanen# wall sign.
Mil#on Tedford
ivtr. Tedford, owner of 42 Wes#, stated that he appeazed in municipal court and paid a hundred
dollaz fine for having an off-premise sign for his aparhnent complex. The sign had been in
place for over twenty years and Mr. Tedford thought it was legal until he recently received a
notice from the city teliing him it was iliegal. In checking his files, he did find evidence of
Planning Commission Page 2
December 2, 2004
payment for a 3-month renewable off-premise sign in 1985. The sign is his main source of
` advertisement for his apartmeats. He stated that he was not asking #he city to change the sign
~ code but wanted the city to make an accommodation for him Yo keep the sign via variance,
grandfathering or applying a statute of limitations to aliow his sign to remain where it has been
for twenty yeazs. He mentioned that the property owner who aliowed the off-premise sip may
request a rezone to conimercial so that the sign would be allowed.
There was discussion about the problem of setting a precedent if this sign is allowed. Alan
White mentioned that other off-premises signs have been cited and removed. He also
expiained that variances cannot be allowed for something that is prohibited in the code.
While the Commissioners were syxnpathetic to Mr. Tedford's situation, they did not believe the
sign was legal just because code enforcement action was noi taken untii recently.
~ it was moved by Commissiot+er 1VIcMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner WESLEY to
~ reaffirm the city's ban on off-premise signs. The motion passed 6-0 with Commissioners
SCEZNEY and WITT absen#.
8. OLD BUSINESS
. Commissioner McMILLIN stated that he wouid like to see the proposed lighting ordinance
address commercial issues only and not address single family and duplex lighting (front
porch lights) at this time.
9. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to come before the Commission.
1~. COMMISSION REPORTS
There were no commission reparts.
11. COMMI'TTEE AND DEPARTMENT REP012TS
There were no committee and department reports.
i2. ADJOIJRNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner CHILVERS and seconded by Commissioner STEWART
to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. The motian passeal unanimousiy.
Phil Plummer, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretazy
~
\
Planning Commission Page 3
December 2, 2fl04
the recently installed city lighiing, such as along 38b Avenue, i31ega1 and cause a financial
burden to the city for lighting replacement.
~ Commissioner McMILLIN commented that the ordinance won't require rep3acement of the
lights, but any new iighting wou3d have to conform to the ordinance.
Mayor Cerveny stated that she would like Lo see any new lighting look the same as Yhat already
insiailed.
Chair PLUMNIER commenYed that shields could be placed on exisring lights without a great
deal of expense. New lighYing conld look the same and still conform to the new lighting
standards.
There was discussian about giving ciirectian io staff to research and report on options for
retrofitting existing street and pedesirian lights
It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner WESLEY
that the ord'utance be amended under Section E, i"Parking Lots" to read: Maximum
foot-candles shall not exceed Yen (10) foot-candies for parking lots measured as an
average of readings taken direcLly under a main lighting standard and directly between
iwo lighting standards in tt►e interior of the parking lot The motion passed 3-2 with
Con►missioners CHILVERS and SCE711EY voting no and Convnissioners STEWART
and WITT absent
IY was moved by Conunissioner 1VIcMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner WESLEY
that Case No» ZOA-03-18, proposed amendments to Chapter 25 of the WLeat Itidge Code
of Laws regarding the sign code, be approved with the amendment to Section E,1. The
motion passed 5-0 with Commissioners STEWART and WITT absent,
B. Case No. ZOA-03-18: An ordinance amending ChapYer 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code ,
of Laws pertaining to signage.
~ T3vs case was presenied by IvIeredith Reckert. There was jurisdiction to hear the case and Ms.
Reckert reviewed the staff report.
Time limits on the display of political signs and number of signs allowed per candidate or issue
were discussed and whether or not time limits would infringe upon freedom of speech.
Commissioner WESLEY suggested that ihe city attorney research case law regarding spch
limiYations and their relafiion Yo freedom of speech.
Amortization for noncon#orming signs was discussed. Commissioner CHILVEI2S cammented
that it is important to reach a long-term solution to nonconfomung signs in the city.
Commissioner WESLEY suggested defining politicai campaign signs which would be different
than po3iticai signs.
Chair PLUMAffiR asked to heaz from members of the pubiic.
Planning Commission
7anuary 20, 2005
Page 3
Gretchen Cerveny
3425 1VIoore SLreet
Mayor Cerveny asked for more clarification regazding flags, pennants and streamers. She
asked if fiags on light poles alang 38'b, balioons such as those on dealership automobiles, and
streamers such as on Casey's RV were allowed under the proposed ordinance.
Ms. Reckert explained that the 38"' Avenue business district and holiday fiags are pernutted
under the flags for non-profit organizations or holiday decorations categories o# the regulauons.
The streamers similar to those at Casey's RV are ailowed up to 30 days per year: The balloon
regulaiions apply to large advertising balloons and not small balloons such as those attached to
automobiles at dealerships.
It was moved by Commissioner McNIILLIIN and seconded by Commissioner CHILVEi2S
thai Case No. ZOA-03-18, proposed amendments to Chapter 26 of the VVheat Itidge Code
af Laws regarding sign code, be forwardecl to City Council with a recommendation of
apQroval for the following reasons:
1. The changcs will improve readability and understanding of the sign code.
2. The changes deal more effectively with negative effects of exterior lighting on
adjacent properties. .
With the following conditions:
i. Accept pption B amortizing nonconformities over a five-year dearlline and
eliminafing section (B) of Option B pertaining to discontinued businesses.
2. The city attorney wiil research case law regarding time limita#ions for political
campaign signs as they relate to free speech.
3. . The category for "Pennauts, streamers, and similar devises" 6e expanded as
discussed.
~ The motion passed 5-0 with Commissioners STEWART and WITT absent
8. OLD BiJSINESS
There was no old business ta come before the Commission.
9. NEi'V BUSINESS
'i'here was no new business Yo coma before the Commission.
10. COMMISSION REPOItTS
There were no commission reports.
il. COMIVIITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REP{)ItTS
There were na cammittee and department reports.
Planning Commission Page 4
3anuary 20, 2005,