HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/05/2006
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting
January 5, 2006 0 R \ G \ N A L
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order by Chair
McMillin at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West
29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
2. ROLL CALL
Commission Members Present:
Anne Brinkman
Jim Chilvers
John McMillin
J eITY Scezney
Cassie Spaniel
Scott Wesley
Commission Members Absent:
Kim Stewart
Phil Plummer
Staff Members Present:
Alan White, Community Development Director
Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Following is the official set of Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing of January
5,2006. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the
Community Development Department ofthe City of Wheat Ridge.
4. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner WESLEY and seconded by Commissioner SCEZNEY to
approve the order ofthe agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 1, 2005
It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by Commissioner SPANIEL
to approve the minutes of December 1, 2005 as presented. The motion passed 6-0 with
Commissioners PLUMMER and STEWART absent.
6. PUBLIC FORUM
Charles Durbin
3703 Ames Street
Planning Commission
January 5, 2006
Page I
Mr. Durbin expressed concern about the proposed auto parts business to be built at 38th and
Benton. He objected to the building being built so close to the sidewalk and expressed concern
that the building would cast a shadow onto 38th Avenue causing snow and ice buildup
problems in the winter. He believed the building should be set back to be in line with other
buildings on the street He was also concerned that this building did not require urban renewal
approval even though it is in an urban renewal area. He stated that he understood the builder
would be asking for a sign variance. He believed the signs should meet sign code.
Alan White stated that this application has been thoroughly reviewed by staff over the past
several months. The property is zoned C-l and an auto parts store is a use by right in this zone.
The urban renewal plan is a guideline for future development. However, unless the zoning is
changed, the city is obligated to issue building permits. The streetscape and architectural
design manual requires setbacks closer to the street in an effort to create a pedestrian friendly
situation. The builder applied for a variance to allow for more of a setback from the sidewalk,
but was denied by the Board of Adjustment. The city presently has no regulations regarding a
building's shadowing onto streets and sidewalks. The builder is requesting a variance for sign
height. Staff is recommending denial of the variance.
7. PUBLIC HEARING
A. ZOA-05-03: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 ofthe Wheat Ridge Code of Laws
pertaining to public noticing.
This case was presented by Alan White. He advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to
hear the case and then reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner WESLEY commented that as more people receive notices about public
hearings, more people will become involved in the public hearing process.
Commissioner McMILLIN favored having public hearing notice signs large enough to be read
from the street.
Commissioner BRINKMAN expressed concern that the ordinance has no provision for
establishing the length of time a sign may be posted on a property. This would especially
become an issue when there are multiple hearings and it could be confusing if old signs are not
taken down right after the hearings.
Commissioner SCEZNEY suggested that a provision also be included that would require
maintenance ofthe public notice signs.
There was no one from the public who indicated they would like to address this case.
It was moved by Commissioner WESLEY and seconded by Commissioner BRINKMAN
to recommend approval of the ordinance with the following additions:
. Notification period for newspapers, public notices and property signs shall be
iucreased from 15 to 21 days.
Planning Commission
January 5, 2006
Page 2
. The applicant shall post and maintain the sign.
. The applicant shall remove public notice sign from property within 72 hours following
the public hearing.
The motion passed 6-0 with Commissioner STEWART and PLUMMER absent.
B. Case No. ZOA-05-06: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code
of Laws pertaining to signage.
This case was presented by Alan White. He advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to
hear the case and then reviewed the staff report and digital presentation.
Commissioner McMILLIN commented that while we are decreasing setbacks for buildings we
are increasing them for signs.
There was discussion about pole signs versus monument signs. The possibility of offering
incentives to replace nonconforming pole signs with freestanding signs was discussed. For
example, fees can already be waived; setbacks could be reduced.
Commissioner McMILLIN expressed concern that monument signs placed close to pedestrian
corners would prohibit visibility for both pedestrians and motorists. He cited the Starbucks
sign at 38th and Kipling as an example. Commissioner WESLEY suggested that some kind of
allowance be made for line-of-sight issues.
Commissioner McMILLIN commented that monument signs all tend to look the same and have
no personality. There are also older signs in the city that have historical significance that add
character to the city. He was in favor of incentives to replace nonconforming signs. He further
commented that he admired the reasonable language contained in the ordinance.
Commissioner BRINKMAN stated that she would vote against the ordinance because it would
allow nonconformity to continue.
Commissioner WESLEY stated that he was opposed to language in the ordinance which allows
nonconformity to remain. He commented that some signs could never reduce their setbacks
and therefore be nonconforming forever. The strategic plan calls for the city to have a high
priority for reducing nonconforming signs. New signage sometimes encourages new customers
for businesses. He further commented that passage of this ordinance would send the message
that we really don't have a vision for our city. He favored tabling consideration of the
ordinance in order to take a closer look at an incentive program.
There was no one from the public who indicated they would like to address this case.
It was moved by Commissioner WESLEY and seconded by Commissioner CHIL VERS to
recommend denial ofthe ordinance amending subparagraph 1 of the nonconforming
provisions of the sign code as presented by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 5-1 with
Commissioner McMILLIN voting no and Commissioners STEWART and PLUMMER
absent.
Planning Commission
January 5, 2006
Page 3
It was moved by Commissioner WESLEY and seconded by Commissioner SCEZNEY to
make a resolution recommending that City Council look at the entirety of the sign code
(rather than individual pieces) as it relates to the comprehensive plan, the neighborhood
revitalization plan, the streets cape and architectural design manual, and the 20-20
strategic plan. The motion passed 6-0 with Commissioners STEWART and PLUMMER
ABSENT.
8. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
9. NEW BUSINESS
. Alan White reported that Winston & Associates would be making a presentation to City
Council and he encouraged Commissioners to attend.
10.
COMMISSION 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 WESLEY and seconded by Commissioner SCEZNEY to
adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
C1
#j'
J n McMillin, Chair
'1 ./
I /
/1'< t'
G' ~
) r".~, '
. P (..'vJ t.> '{:.L'r." '11 A..I
Ann Lazzeri, Recording<Se~etary
\
" I
'v
,Planning Commission
January 5, 2006
Page 4