The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08/20/1998AGENDA CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION August 20, 1998 a 1111111 t Illi, In I 1 • 111 � 10A, # 1 I I 1 11 Ii I ii ��t'TGNMMJX 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing the agenda. Public comments may be limited to 3 minutes.) i 7. PUBLIC HEARING Approved A. Case No. WZ-98-14: An application by Marcie Emily for approval of zone change from R-2 to R-C I to allow professional office or service uses. Said property is located at 64 10 W. 44" Avenue. (Previously heard as Case No. WZ-98-12.) ' Approved B. Case No. WZ-98-15: An application by Bolle, Inc., for approval of an amendment to Pacifica Development Properties 11, LLC PID Final Development Plan with a setback variance to allow an additional freelivay-oriented, freestanding sign with a 7' setback. Property is zoned PID and located at 9500 West 49 Avenue. 10. NEW BUSINESS C:\Barbara\PCRPTS\PLANGCOM\PCAGENDA\980820,wpd Minutes of Meeting August 6, 1998 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair THOMPSON at 7:30 p.m. on August 6, 1998, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Planning Commission Page 1 08/06/98 6, 1998, be added under the Public Hearing portion of the agenda for the purpose of continuing to August 20, 1998. 1 0 13 N It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS to approve the agenda with the requested amendments. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the July 16, 1998 Wheat Ridge Planning Commission were presented for approval. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner SHOCKLEY that the minutes be approved as presented. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0. , PUBLIC FORUM PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. MS-98-03: An application by Alec Garbini, CM2 Management, for Saulsbury Properties, LLC for approval of a minor subdivision of four lots for residential apartments and duplexes. Said property is zoned R-2 and R-3 and located at 3195 Saulsbury Street. Meredith Reckert explained that this case had proceeded to City Council to be heard during their August 24, 1998, Council meeting, 1. 1 Chair THOMPSON announced that a public hearing would not be held at this time. B. Case No. WS-98-01: An application by Lynn and Nancy Fightmaster for approval of a nine-lot combined preliminary and final subdivision plat on Residential-Three zoned property located at 11681 West 44th Avenue and 11680 West 46th Avenue. Street. Due to insufficient information from the applicant, it was staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission continue this case to an indefinite date. C. Case No. WZ-98-13: An application by The Chesrown Automotive Group for approval of a Planned Commercial Development amended Outline Development Plan and a Planned Commercial Development combined Preliminary and Final Development Plan. Said property is zoned PCD and located at 3601 Wadsworth Boulevard. Planning Commission Page 2 08/06/98 Alan White stated that public notice posted on the subject property contained an incorrect public hearing date and, therefore, the City Attorney advised a public hearing could not be held at this time and suggested that a specific date be set for a future Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner SNOW moved and Commissioner SHOCKLEY seconded that Case No. WZ- 98-1 "), an application by The Chesrown Automotive Group, be continued to September 3, 1998, be properly published and posted, and that notices be sent to all those entitled to such notice. A. Drainage Plans: Commissioner COLLINS made a request that Commission membe- receive copies of approved drainage plans, when applicable, with their packets. He al asked if there was a master drainage plan for the City. I Mr. Goebel replied that staff could make sure that drainage plans have been approved before advertising a public hearing. Planning Commission Page 3 08/06/98 Commissioner GO KEY commented that Planning Commission members need to be educated in regard to reading and understanding drainage plans because of the many technical aspects involved, Ms. Reckert suggested a study session for this purpose. Chair TI- ONIPSON suggested that Planning Commission approve cases subject to meeting all drainage requirements before being heard by the City Council. Commissioner SNOW did not agree with approving cases subject to meeting all drainage requirements but preferred to have a copy of the drainage plan as well as having the Public Works Director present at all hearings where drainage plans are being considered. Mr. Goebel suggested that applicants also be required to have their support engineering staff present to answer questions about the drainage, 10. NEW BUSINESS A. Wadsworth Corridor Study,NjLeetings: Commissioner BRINKMAN requested an update on the recent Wadsworth Corridor Study meetings. She stated that she attended the meetings and found them to be very interesting and informative. Mr. White gave an overview of these meetings and stated that there - were plans to conduct similar workshops some time in the future. I Commissioner COLLINS stated that he attended the evening portion of the workshop and Plannin Cornmissi on Page 4 08/06/98 Mr. White stated that he would inform the Commission members of the date for the consultant's presentation to the City Council during a study session. 11. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Planning Commission MeetinL) Schedule: Ms. Reckert asked if the Commission members would be interested in holding one public hearing a month with the alternating meeting being held as a study session. Discussion included suggestions of holding dinner study session meetings before the regular Planning Commission meeting, and holding a public hearing for one or two cases, and adjourning to a study session. C. SiLyn and Banner Regulation; Commissioner SNOW inquired about legality of the banners at Chesrown Automotive Dealership. Ms. Reckert suggested that code enforcement institute a banner enforcement program after the end of summer. D. State A.P.A. Conference: Ms. Reckert stated that there were funds in the budget to send two Commission members to the conference in Estes Park on September 17 and 18. Commissioner GOKEY indicated that he would like to attend. 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS There were no committee or department reports. 13. AD.JOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner SHOCKLEY that the meeting be adjourned at 8:50 p.m. The motion carried by a vote of 8-0. Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Janice Thompson, Chair C:\Barbrtra\f'CRPTS\PLANGCONIl'CMINUTE1199& Plannin- Commission Page 5 08/06/98 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE OF MEETING: August 20, 1998 DATE PREPARED: August 12, 1998 CASE NO. & NAME: I WZ-98-14/ Emily CASE MANAGER: Sean McCartney 6110 West 441h Avenue APPROXIMATE AREA: 9,150 square feet JURISDICTION: The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. IIIIIIIIIIIIIM wami FHZ21 0 I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a rezone from Residential-Two to Restricted Commercial- One for property located at 641 West 44' Avenue, Approval of this request will allow for the operation of a single-unit office building along an arterial corridor that already consists of small professional offices. The property in question is approximately 9,150 square feet in lot area, and fronts both West 44 Avenue (north) and Lamar Street (east). The applicant intends on re-using the existing 1,3'85 square foot structure as a small office building. II. CASE ms'roizy Planning Commission originally heard this case, then published as WZ-98-12. on July 16, 1998. The original request was to rezone the property from Residential-Two to Restricted-Commercial. The applicant had the same intentions of converting the property into an office building, but Planning Commission determined that a rezone to Restricted-Commercial did not provide enough transition for the adjacent residential use. Planning Commission continued the case for a rehearing on August 6, 1998. The intention was to rehear the case as a request for a rezone to Restricted Commercial-One. However, according to Gerald Dahl, Wheat Ridge City Attorney, the original request could not be modified without C� republishing, re-posting and re-noticing the adjoining property owners. Therefore, the applicant was required to resubmit for the lesser request. III NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING A meeting for neighborhood input was held on August 5, 1998, The following persons were in attendance: Plannino Commission Page 2 WZ-98-14/Etnify Sean McCartney - City Staff Marcie Emily - applicant Jim and Ida May Norton - 4360 Marshall Street IV. AGENCY REFERRALS Arvada Fire Protection district can serve the property. Agencies contacted but not responding: Wheat Ridge Sanitation District, Public Service Company, U.S. West Communications, TCl, Wheat Ridge Building Division V. REZONING CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a change in zoning (change of zoning conditions): 1. That the change of zone is in conformance, or will bring the property into conformance, with the City of Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies, comprehensive land use plan and other related policies or plans for the area. Planninc Conirnission WZ-98-14/Emily Pap .3 A3 Surrounding land use and zoning includes Restricted-Commercial on both the east and west with corresponding commercial uses. To the north of this property are various commercial uses located within the Restricted Commercial-One. Restricted-Commercial and Commercial-One zone districts. This property remains as one of only a handful of properties that are zoned Residential-Two along this stretch of West 44" Avenue. I That there will be social, recreational, physical and/or economic benefits to the community derived by the change of zone. There could be economic benefits from the rezoning based on an increase in property taxes. 4. That adequate infrastru et u re/fa ci li ties are available to serve the type of uses allowed by the change of zone, or that the applicant will upgrade and provide such where they do not exist or are under capacity. All responding agencies are already serving the property. 5. That the proposed rezoning will not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare by creating excessive traffic congestion, creating drainage problems, or seriously reducing tl> light and air to adjacent properties. Because the only changes proposed for this property are in additional parking and landscaping, there should be no impact on the amount of light and air to adjacent properties. Prior to grading paving, a permit will be required ensuring drainage problems are not 11.1> created. There is adequate capacity in West 44th Avenue to accommodate future commercial land use. 6. That the property cannot reasonably be developed under the existing zoning conditions. The structure on the site is currently unoccupied and the existing zoning is Residential-Two. Under the current zone district, and being that the property is only 9, 100 square feet in lot area, a single-family residence is the maximum use permitted on the site. 7. That the zoning will not create an isolated or spot zone district unrelated to adjacent or nearby areas. Restricted-Commercial zone districts are located on the north, east and west of the property, while Restricted Commercial-One zone districts are located within the immediate vicinity. Approval of this request will comply with both the existing adjacent zoning and Comprehensive Plan for this neighborhood. Therefore, spot zoning is not an issue, S. That there is a void in an area or community need that the change of zone will fill by providing for necessary services, products or facilities especially appropriate at the location, considering available alternatives. Planning Coinmission Page 4 WZ•98-14/Eniilv d-q It is impossible for staff to ascertain whether the rezoning will fill a necessary service, product or facility. Staff does believe that approval of this request will allow for the property to cone into compliance with the use and design of the surrounding properties. 4 -s a M o m� t I a t e o o w� +r LIL _ R t w 2 i l4lor-Al v I cr w o�. w t WEST 44TH. (60` RIGHT OF WAY) _„.,�...... . +\ 122.2 < S! 6470 LOT 24 I W } ;o I I C0VERED I CONCRET I F+A N O I • � E IR sir • •••rs :. • PROPERTY ADDRESS: 6410 WEST 44TH, AVENUE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PER CLIENT LOT 1„ KEITH SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON. STATE OF COLORADO. LOT 2 4 385 - LO`F 2 NOTE: COVERED CONCRETE PATIO ENCROACHES 14TO 8' EASEMENT BY a' +j- AS SHOWN. A V VENUE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FLOWLINE 04 RIGHT OF WAY ION NO, 870870$+1 I I « 30 euv_DtNc SETBACK LINE I PER REC. PLAT MIS' I I I uj Iw• I I I LOT 1 I � I ;OROD ILA[ I FOUND #a PINE e E APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FLOWLINE IN RIGHT OF WAY /.; -1' '7v"ciG1c1v1 C G'G".4 T /V/V lrFr'^d T J fat Mlda4 RF4 A 3.'d PuTfS 7V Xf ° $ CCaOW fa fat tlrlA0014A' M kE/S r CCA'Vt"ha t«. ir6.41 4 c aw s4s£o 4rcw an "a N rtrs suIwr x*rw Prcafess rf q ; � y a Nvur rims irnif rw twcovv suat arlirfr. N Av £Afxr L E?r tddplfltl +14 r L' 04 r .4NY AC . tray U£Tcr N AV$ sZeYE'r Ae t cokun r .vas's ry4h rrs rVts "al/ rte' cckrr .ar.I $4vry IcAl ay a -�-*" I FOUND #a PINE e E APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FLOWLINE IN RIGHT OF WAY /.; -1' '7v"ciG1c1v1 C G'G".4 T /V/V lrFr'^d T J fat Mlda4 RF4 A 3.'d PuTfS 7V Xf ° $ CCaOW fa fat tlrlA0014A' M kE/S r CCA'Vt"ha t«. ir6.41 4 c aw s4s£o 4rcw an "a N rtrs suIwr x*rw Prcafess rf q ; � y a Nvur rims irnif rw twcovv suat arlirfr. N Av £Afxr L E?r tddplfltl +14 r L' 04 r .4NY AC . tray U£Tcr N AV$ sZeYE'r Ae t cokun r .vas's ry4h rrs rVts "al/ rte' cckrr .ar.I $4vry IcAl ay a -�-*" ill \/ F2 I I Emp-AKIM mr AV 1 z 0. w \ }� 2 ( ƒ § w z Z # §� \\\ I I I I X 7461 A-j ( Ucst ate Estate) 'I 'l [IS L7FED is wade by E asap.' r g - — as Personal Re €aresentative of the Estate of ? r eca _al-KLA—E er A I I e — nG reen, 1 dcceased. Grantor, to PX i e tat' Grantee, eb• €rose legal address is Ma?� _ 1 (}4 __ of the 'County of State of C91pXA Q WI €EREAS, the Last Will and "teslament of the above named decedent was made and executed is the €ifetime of the decedent, and is dated 19 9 — 6 , which Will was duty admitted to,Nrfi g (informal)" Probate on _ 7 xt3?cl�L,y�, 1 - by the ____- --------- D 3g, igl __......_- Court in and for the C County of _Z e*cs i2..._.., _. - . State of Colorado, Probate No. WHEREAS, Grantor was duty appointed Personal Representative of said Estate on 19,E 8 , and is now qualified anti .acting in said capacity. NOW TI €EREFOR €E, pursuant to the powers conrctred utaon Grantor by the Colorado Probate Code, Grantor does heretl sell, corn•cy :ass ?gn, tr:ansfer and set toer unto said Grantee (for and in considcration of tttaa P itactc3t ec wectG _ Llxczus sad. nc3 tiro /1I2f2- _ __ _____ __ _ Dollars)" OV t €k €t4rsdaa v4atitleb tai d9miliuti(mn Xaf Ale 4trr wrt'y i/t ili ta€v k- c1jui4nc( AViA)'• the following described real proMty situate 'it the __ County of I f f e L.,,G , State of Colorado: I 'Nr,,-,4 r LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION Planning and Development Department 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge. CO 80033 Phone ,303) 235-2846 (Please print or type all information) Type of action requested (check one or more of the actions listed below which pertain to your request.) - :2- 1 i 5 . 17Le�xiarit K I I , -C 1 1-" -111---- — --------- Jill 11 1 Proposed use: Assessors Parcel Number Subscribed and sworn to me this 1 day o16,At, 19 sa- Notary Public My commission expires 1 Ows Case No. YJ — Related Case NoA27e- Zoning - C, — Quarter Section Map CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE OF MEETING: August 0, 1998 DATE PREPARED: August 13, 1998 CASE NO. & NAME: CASE MANAGER: Martin Orner ACTION REQUESTED: Amendment to Final Development Plan Including a Setback 0 Variance for Freestanding Sign Seven Feet From Property N Line LOCATION: 9500 West 49 Avenue (interstate 70 Frontage Road North) APPLICANT(S): Rolle', Inc. OWNER(S): First Industrial Realty 5350 South Roslyn Street --------- – -------------------------------------------------------- Englewood, CO APPROXIMATE AREA: . .......... — – — - – ----- – ------------------------- – --------------------- - Combined total of approximately 6.97 acres PRESENT ZONING: Planned Industrial Development PRESENT LAND USE: Retail and Commercial SURROUNDING ZONING: North: R-C, Restricted Commercial South: Interstate 70 East: R-3, Residential and PRD, Planned Residential Dev. West: C-1, Commercial One SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: Commercial, and Vacant Land South: Interstate 70 East: Residential West: Off ices �M' 20"ifficr W3�=2301�� N ZONING ORDINANCE N SLIDES 0 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS N EXHIBITS 0 OTHER -------------------------------------- – ----- – --------- – ---------------- – -------- – --- – -------- – --- – ---- – ------ . .. . ............ JURISDICTION: All notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. 11 MZNMM 11 SUMMARY IV VARIANCE REVIEW CRITERIA Staff has prepared the following responses to the standard review criteria used to evaluate variance requests: Planning Commission Page 2 W- 98.15 /Balls 1. Can the property in question yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located? 2. Is the plight of the owner due to unique circumstances? Yes. Interstate 70 and the Department of Transportation's sight obscuring fence. The combination • these elements makes the address invisible from the highway. The site is fully constructed with very limited options of the location of the sign. 3. If the variation were granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? No. Other freeway oriented signs are located regularly along both sides of Interstate 70. Locating this sign seven feet from the property line is not expected to alter the essential character of the locality. 4. Would the particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved result in a particular hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out? Yes. As stated above, the applicant has located their international business offices and distribution facilities at this location. The physical condition and topography of the site lies below and outside of visual range of Interstate 70 traffic. The proposed location of the sign is the most sensible one available due to the existing parking area, drive areas, landscaping and buildings located on the site. 5. Would the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based be applicable, generally, to the other property within the same zoning classification? Planning Commission Page 3 WZ-98-15/Botte 6. Is the purpose of the variation based exclusively upon a desire to make money out of the property? No. This site is completely constructed per the approved PID and Final Development Plan. Drive areas, parking, buildings and landscaping are all installed. No other reasonable location exists for the erection of the sign, resulting in the variance request of 23 feet the minimum setback in order to erect the sign seven feet from the property line. 7. Has the alleged difficulty or hardship been created by any person presently having an interest in the property? No, The hardship is inherent in the physical aspects of the subject property, and the approved and constructed business/industrial park. 8. Would the granting of the variations be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located? No. The proposed sign location will not be injurious or detrimental to the public welfare and is not expected to pose a hazard to vehicular traffic. The proposed sign does not create significant visual impacts to neighboring residential users. No one from the public attended tile neighborhood meeting and no concerns have been received from neighboring landowners and/or users. 9. Would the proposed variation impair the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets or increase tile danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. No. The approval of the 2") foot setback variance is not expected to cause any of the negative impacts as listed above. �I Yes. The approval of this application will create an economically viable corporate location for the applicant, which in turn means increased employment opportunities for local residents, and significant overall economic benefits to the community as a whole. City of Wheat Ridge Department of Public Works In a memorandum dated August 10, 1998, the Department states that the sigh placement shall meet the sight distance triangle requirements specified in the City Code. Responding Without Concerns: tk Jefferson County Planning Department Arvada Fire Protection District Planning Commission Page 5 WZ-98-15/Bolle /Jj -5� VIII STAFF CONCLUSION: I. Approval of the amendment and variance, along with the Recommended Conditions of Approval, is not expected to cause a substantial negative impact to City services or residents. 2. Approval of the amendment and variance will not change the overall nature, intent or character of the approved PID or the Final Development Plan. a. A hardship exists to the property associated with this case, being that significant physical constraints limit the visual access of this site compared to other similarly situated and zoned development projects along the highway corridor. 4. The City, property owner and applicant will benefit from the approval of this case, which approval is expected to result in the retention of this user at this location with related employment and economic benefits to the City. Approval of the arnendment and associated variance is subject to the following conditions: 1. Per the Public Works Department, sign placement shall meet the sight distance triangle requirements as specified in the City code. Planning Commission Pa -e 6 WZ-98-1 5/Bolle i� 4. No hardship to the property has been demonstrated." E NPIaswmgkRMRT&wz-98-1 5 wpd Planning Commission Pa-e 7 WZ-98-15/Bolle The size and height of the proposed freestanding sign would be compatible with the sign code for freestanding signs in non-residential districts for businesses located within one-quarter (1/4) mile of 1-70. The sign code states Two freestanding signs per development (one per street front) are permitted with one sign up to 50' high, Based on Bolle's 29,000 sq. ft buildings, the sign code would permit a 230 sq. sign. Our request for a setback of 7' rather than the required 30' setback is necessa due to the 10 barrier fence along 1-70 which impacts the visibility for westbound traffic A 30' setback would also place the sign in the middle of the parking lot. i & r FIRST �INDUSTRIAL " ll�IT1 REAuY TRL:,, INC. ,53 0 S Roslyn Street Suite 240 Englewood, Colorado 80111 303 / 220-5565 1 Fax 303/220-5585 J uly 31, 1998 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on the 61" day of by of WITNESS my hand and official seal. 44m) Notary Public My Commission Expires: em- MEMORANDbM A pproved Date RIM- - I — for the above referenced site, and has the following comments: 1. Sign placement shall meet the sight distance triangle requirements as specified in the City code. cc: Alan White, Planning & Development Director Dave Kotecki, Sr. Project Engineer Steve Nguyen, Traffic Engineer File DATE August 8, 1998 I have reviewed the plans for the above listed site. I have the following recommendations: Thank you. III M A AW --- 30MITIMM A PLANNING DEPAUNIENT 303 431-3020 PHONE A 303 43143969 FACSIMILE TDD: 303 431-3917 City of Wheat Ridge 7500 West 29 Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 800333 sm�� The Citw • Arvada PI-annA 8 Avenue. The request is for a second freestanding freeway oriented sign for a tenant in the 1-70 West Business Park. Information provided to us for review did not include any statements as to the hardship or practical difficulty associated with this request. Under "Character of Development" on the 1-70 West Business Park Final Development Plan states that "The development is designed for commercial uses. The concept is to provide flexible space that can accommodate a variety of tenants". It is the opinion of the Arvada Planning Staff that the granting of a variance for a second freeway sign for an individual tenant is this business park would be unfair to all of the other tenants, located there. The Arvada Sign Code permits signs of this size and height for a single user building that is 300,000 square feet in size and located next to a interstate highway. Therefore, we would be opposed to this amendment • the FDP and setback variance, If you have any questions concerning the above comments, do not hesitate to give me a call at 431-3028 8101 RALSTON ROAD ♦ P.O. Box 8101 A ARVADA, COLORADO A 80001 6 -1k I s 4 NI LAND USE CASE PROCESSING APPLICATION m Planning and Development Department 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Rid-e, CO 80033 Phone (303) 233-2846 Applicant Tom Reed, Bolle, Inc. Owner First Industrial L.P. Address 9500 W. 49th, Unit B Phone 327-2200 City Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Add South Roslyn St., Ste. 240 Phone 220-5565 City Englewood, CO 80111 Location of request (address) Lli'manLlolillim'll��l�I 111M• *~ Date received Receipt No. Case No. W 1 15 Related Case No. T Zoning Quarter Section IMap