Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/04/2003CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting November 6, 2003 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order by Vice Chair WEISZ at 7:00 pm. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Commission Members Present: 2003, 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 177 as In Tivea an y I i min I'EX to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed 5-0 with Commissioners McNAMEE and DAVIS absent. Planning Commission Page I November 6, 2003 R A. Sign Code Commissioner McMILLIN suggested the possibility of instituting fees for temporary banners. Fees could be assessed according to the time the banner is to be displayed. Commissioner McMILLIN commented that he would like to see animated signs allowed under the sign code if they meet certain requirements. Commissioner PLUMMER commented that he prefers monument signs rather than tall signs that sometimes are obliterated by trees. It is also good t have signs at drivers' eye Commissioner WEISZ commented that she would not like to see the 1-70 corridor opened up to ,?.ny more signs. She agreed with the suggestions to issue banner pennits. Commissioner WEISZ expressed concern about enforcement in light of recent staff reductions. Planning Commission Page 2 November 6, 2003 Meredith Reckert commented that most of the present code enforcement regarding signs is complaint based and she thought enforcement would not be a problem. Commissioner McMILLIN stated that he felt it was important to address excess window signage which can cause problems with police enforcement when they are called to an establishment and are unable to see inside the building before going in. A vote was taken on the motion which passed 5-0 with Commissioners DAVIS and McNAMEE absent. Commissioner WITT suggested that staff look into regulations concerning banners that are affixed to buildings. Some are attached by one comer to the building and extend across parking lots, etc. This matter was introduced by Meredith Reckert. Planning Commission in February, 2003, requested a review of uses to be allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial zone district. There is ve ,- little n iAborhood commercial use in the cit� however a vehicle is needed to-r 4 e�,IaL those uses. Commissioner McMILLIN pointed out that newsstands are presently listed in two categories: (1) bookstores, newsstands, stationery and card stores are a special use; (2) newsstands alone are a permitted use. He suggested that newsstands be removed from the list for special use. He also believed tailoring, dressmaking or alteration shops should ♦ a pen use as they have a low impact on a neighborhood, Dairy stores and small bakeries were discussed. Suggestions were made that dairy stores should be permitted if un der a coil in square footage aiid small bakeries should be a permitted use. (Vice Chair WEISZ declared a brief recess at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:35 P-m) It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner PLUMMER to include banks, medical and dental clinics, including laboratories, and clinics for nonresidential psychiatric counseling as special uses; include tailoring, dressmaking and alterations as a permitted use; and paint and wallpaper stores should not be permitted. The motion passed 5-0 with Commissioners DAVIS and McNAMEE absent. Planning Commission Page 3 November 6, 2003 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business • come before the Commission. Meredith Reckert reported that City Council approved the consolidation plat for the proposed Walgreens at 38 and Sheridan. City Council approved residential setback standards recommended by Planning Commission with the exception of setbacks for sheds. These standards will become effective November 21, 2003. 1 011111=1MI , 12. ADJOURNMEAT It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner WITT to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Paula Weisz, Vice Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Page 4 November 6, 2003 City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Department Memorandum OR �� TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meredith Reckert SUBJECT: Case No. ZOA-03-16/neighborhood meeting requirement DATE.: November 28, 2003 RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move that Case No. ZOA-03-16, a proposed amendment to Chapter 26 of the Zoning and Development Code regarding pre-application neighborhood meetings, be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation of APPROVAL for the following reasons: I The proposed change will be consistent with the revised land use process chart. The requirement for pre-application neighborhood meetings will apply for zone changes and planned development outline development plan approvals, 3. The proposed modifications are consistent with the revised special use procedures." CASE NO. ZOA-03-16/public hearing procedure Section 26-109. Public hearing notice and procedure. A. Pre-:413 plication neighborhood meeting, Prie to submitting any application for a .,A 0— — -- rezoning of property to a hjt4ief-ttse I.— i e—ently per-mitt or for approval of a planned development outline development plan or amended outline development plan, of fef a special-tise-pefffi4-. an applicant shall be required to do the following: City • Wheat Ridge WH A,, Community Development Department M.emorandum 0 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meredith Reckert SUBJECT: Case No. ZOA-03-17/expiration of development plan approvals DATE: November 28, 2003 Attached is proposed legislation amending Section 26-107 of the zoning and development code relating to the expiration of development approvals. As always, new language is shown in bold typeface and deletions are shown with StIAMV However, many times once a final development plan public hearing process is completed, the market for the approved development has changed and financing is not available. Is it reasonable to require that a developer reapply to get the original final development approved again? Should this approval be through a public hearing process or should it be an administrative approval? Finally, should final development expirations be retroactive to old projects or should it apply to new approvals only? Staff acknowledges that there should more discussion and consideration on the proposed changes to final development plan expirations. For these reasons we are recommending discussion be continued until the first available public hearing date in January. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move that Case No. ZOA-03-17, a proposed amendment'm Chapter 26 of the Zoning and Development Code regarding the expiration of development pla approvals, be continued until January 15, 2004" 1 2 CASE NO. ZOA-03-17/expiration of development approval Section 26-1,07. Expiration of development approval; reapplications. A, Any pfeliminafy of-fmal approval of a site development plan shall expire and become null and void if. UNION (24 (1) For planned development district final development plan approvals, a building permit is not issued for the work authorized within one-(44teaf three (3) years from the date of final development plan approval. of if the ee ---A e A clofflfflefleVV. (2) For variances, a building permit is not issued within 180 days from the date it was granted. See section 26-115.4. (4) Any issued building permit shall expire if the work authorized is not commenced within sixty (60) days from the date of issuance, or if the work is ceased for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days or more at any time after work is commenced. B. After site development approval has expired, no work shall be commenced until the develo!2er has received new a. -roval. in this chapter. C. A new application for substantially the same development process may not be refiled for one (I) year after denial.