Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/19/2006 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting 0 RIG I N A l January 19, 2006 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 Phil Plummer Jerry Scezney Cassie Spaniel Kim Stewart Commission Members Absent: Scott Wesley Staff Members Present: Alan White, Community Development Director Travis Crane, Planner Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Following is the official set of Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing of January 19,2006. 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 STEW ART and seconded by Commissioner BRINKMAN to approve the order of the agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 5, 2006 It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to approve the minutes of January 5, 2006 as presented. The motion passed 5-0 with Commissioners PLUMMER and STEWART abstaining and Commissioner WESLEY absent. 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one to address the Commission at this time. Planning Commission January 19,2006 Page 1 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-05-14: An application filed by Kahsay Abraham for approval of a rezoning from Restricted-Commercial to Planned Commercial Development and approval of an outline and final development plan for property located at 6690 West 44th Avenue. This case was presented by Travis Crane. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff recommended approval with conditions that automotive repair be excluded and counseling be restricted to nomesidential. Commissioner SCEZNEY asked how many feet were between the subject structure and the existing residential duplex. Travis Crane responded that it was approximately 10 feet. At the request of Commissioner BRINKMAN, Travis Crane pointed out on the map the addresses ofthose people attending the neighborhood meeting. Commissioner McMILLIN asked if a 16- foot wide circulation through the lot was adequate. Travis Crane replied that it was sufficient and further commented that there would be an entrance from Otis Street in addition to the entrance from 44th Avenue. In response to a question from Commissioner STEWART, Travis Crane explained that one of the two access points on 44th would be closed at the request ofthe Public Works Department due to the policy of limiting curb cuts on 44th Avenue. Glen Gidley Gidley Zoning and Planning Consultants 8684 West Warren Drive Mr. Gidley was sworn in by Chair McMILLIN. He was appearing on behalf of the applicant. He stated that this site has functioned commercially for many years. His client, Mr. Abraham, purchased the property after he was told by the city that a liquor store would be allowed on the property. He then applied for and was granted a liquor license by the city. When he approached the city to apply for a sign, it was determined during review of the sign request that liquor stores are not allowed in Restricted Commercial'zones. Therefore, Mr. Abraham is applying for a rezone to Planned Commercial Development. Mr. Gidley stated that the applicant is agreeable to eliminating one of the curb cuts on 44th Avenue. The only modification to the existing building would be removal of outside bathroom doors. Before purchase of the property, a Phase I, II and III environmental assessment was done. The applicant also agrees that replacement of the existing sign would conform to the city's sign code. The new sign would also allow addition of landscaping to the east side of the building. He noted that only one person attending the neighborhood meeting stated an objection to the application. Planning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 2 In response to questions from Commissioner STEWART, Mr. Gidley stated that the applicant has owned the property for approximately one and a half years and that he was informed by someone in the planning department that he could operate a liquor store at this location. Travis Crane stated that there are conflicting reports on whether or not the applicant was informed by a member of the Community Development staff that a liquor store was an allowed use at this location. He understood that the applicant was given the use chart for all commercial zone districts. Kahsay Abraham Mr. Abraham, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair McMILLIN. In response to a question from Commissioner SPANIEL, he stated that his hours of operation would be from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. Glen Gidley stated that there would be 24 feet of drive aisle and should not be a problem once the sign is relocated and a portion of the landscaping moved north several feet. The applicant didn't necessarily need extra parking spaces but the lot is paved and he wanted to take advantage of that. In response to questions from Commissioner SCEZNEY, Mr. Gidley stated that delivery trucks would pull up along the right side of the building and take products down the sidewalk into the building. He also stated that no adjacent property owners had objected to this use. In response to questions from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Mr. Gidley stated that the applicant approached him for assistance after he had received his liquor license. He also stated that the landscaping would be hand irrigated. Commissioner McMILLIN expressed concern about the narrow drive aisle of 18 feet through the parking lot. Mr. Gidley said there would be a 24 foot drive aisle and if it is not they could drop a parking space. Commissioners STEWART and SPANIEL questioned how the proposed use would fit with the Wheat Ridge Revitalization Strategy (NRS) as a neighborhood friendly business and expressed concern that there are several other liquor establishments existing in the area. Commissioner McMILLIN commented that he recalled that the revitalization consultant suggested that Commissioners consider how development will bring strong families to Wheat Ridge. Travis Crane commented that the key in the neighborhood revitalization plan is to increase the strong household base in Wheat Ridge. The Comprehensive Plan calls for neighborhood serving retail. The subject business fits into this category and would be an improvement over what exists there now. Planning Commission January 19,2006 Page 3 Commissioner STEWART commented that there is also a school nearby and questioned whether the proposed use would encourage establishment of strong households in this area. She commented that the city needs to start somewhere in moving toward the NRS goals. Alan White commented that the NRS is not an official document ofthe city at this time. There is much implementation work to be done to make the NRS a reality. Mr. Gidley commented that there are many uses presently allowed for this property that would be incompatible with the NRS vision. He reiterated that, out of 130 invitations sent for the neighborhood meeting, only one person opposed this. He believed the proposed use would be an improvement by putting a business into a vacant building and providing landscaping. There were no other individuals present to address this matter. Chair McMILLIN closed the public hearing. Commissioner PLUMMER stated he would vote in favor of the application because it would be an improvement to the present situation and not a detriment to the neighborhood. The liquor license was granted with only one objection by a neighbor. It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner BRINKMAN to recommend approval of Case No. WZ-05-14, a request for approval of a rezoning from Restricted Commercial to Planned Commercial Development and an Outline Development Plan for property located at 6690 West 44th Avenue for the following reasons: 1. The change in zone is compatible with the existing conditions in the immediate area. 2. The change in zone will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare. 3. The change in zone substantially meets the desired attributes of the Neighborhood Retail classification in the Comprehensive Plan. With the following conditions: 1. The following use shall be removed from the list of allowed uses on the Outline Development Plan: Auto service, repair and maintenance shop (minor). 2. The words "non-residential" shall be added to the following use: "Clinic or office for the counseling and treatment of psychological, social, marital, developmental or similar conditions, excluding substance abuse." 3. The sign shall conform to the sign code and shall not exceed 35 square feet. A friendly amendment was offered by Commissioner STEWART to restrict closing hours to no later than 10:00 p.m. during the week and no later than 12:00 midnight on Friday and Saturday. The amendment was accepted by Commissioners PLUMMER and BRINKMAN. Commissioner BRINKMAN stated she would vote against the motion because the proposed use is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, it would create spot zoning where all the Planning Commission January 19,2006 Page 4 other properties are zoned RC, there are concerns about the hours and irrigation and it would possibly exacerbate traffic on Otis Street. Commissioner CHIL VERS stated he would vote against the motion because he believed it would be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare as it would be across the street from a bar (Club Corners). Commissioner McMILLIN stated he would vote against the motion. He expressed concern that 44th Avenue could transition from a string of scattered automotive uses to a string of liquor related uses. The motion failed by a vote of2 to 5 with Commissioners BRINKMAN, CHILVERS, McMILLIN, SCEZNEY and SPANIEL voting no and Commissioner WESLEY absent. It was moved by Commissioner CHIL VERS and seconded by Commissioner SCEZNEY to recommend denial of Case No. WZ-05-14, a request for approval of a rezoning from Restricted Commercial to Planned Commercial Development and an Outline Development Plan for property located at 6690 West 44th Avenue for the following reasons: 1. It is detrimental to public health, welfare and safety. 2. It is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner BRINKMAN offered a friendly amendment to add the following reason: 3. It would create spot zouing. The amendment was accepted by Commissioners CHIL VERS and SCEZNEY. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1 with Commissioner PLUMMER voting no aud Commissioner WESLEY absent. It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by Commissiouer SPANIEL to recommend denial of Case No. WZ-05-14, a request for approval ofa Final Development Plan for property located at 6690 West 44th Avenue for the following reasons: 1. The outline development plan and rezoning from Restricted Commercial to Planned Commercial Development was denied. The motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner PLUMMER voting no and Commissioner WESLEY absent. 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. Planning Commission January 19,2006 Page 5 9. NEW BUSINESS . Alan White advised the Commission that a Northwest Sub Area public meeting would be held next Tuesday night. This is a legislative matter so Commission members may participate. . Alan White also advised the Commission that an open house design session on the Wadsworth corridor would be conducted next Thursday, Friday and Saturday. This is also a legislative matter. 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 CHIL VERS and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission January 19, 2006 Page 6