Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/15/2003 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting May 15, 2003 ORIGINAL (The regular meeting was preceded by a dinner training session held at 6:00 p.m. in the second floor conference room.) 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order by Chair McNAMEE at 7:15 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Commission Members Present: Kimberly Davis John McMillin Marian McNamee Phil Plummer Michael Stites Paula Weisz Kevin Witt Commission Members Absent: Karen Berry (excused) Staff Members Present: Alan White, Community Development Director Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Mary Austin, Planner 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 May 15, 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 It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner DAVIS to approve the order ofthe agenda as presented. The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner BERRY absent. 5. APPROVE MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner STITES and seconded by Commissioner DAVIS to approve the minutes of May 1, 2003 as presented. The motion passed 4-0 with Commissioners PLUMMER, WITT and McNAMEE abstaining and Commissioner BERRY absent. Page 1 Planning Commission May 15, 2003 6. PUBLIC FORUM There were none present to address the Commission during this portion of the meeting. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. WZ-03-04 (continued from Mav 1. 2003): An application filed by Excell Fund LLC for Family Dollar for approval of a rezoning from Restricted-Commercial (R-C) to Planned Commercial Development (PCD) and approval of an outline and final development plan for property located at 6090 West 44th Avenue. Since posting requirements had not been met, this case could not be heard on May I and was therefore continued to May 15. The case was presented by Mary Austin. She advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the staff report, digital presentation and entered all pertinent documents into the record which were accepted by Chair McNAMEE. Staff recommended approval of the application for reasons outlined in the staff report. Ms. Austin submitted copies ofa letter dated May 14,2003 from Jocelyn Lang at 4375 Harlan Street. The letter was made a part of the official packet for this case. The letter read as follows: I attended the meeting on December 3, 2002 in regards to the rezoning from Restricted Commercial to Planned Commercial Development for property located at 6090 West 44th Avenue, Case No. WZ-03-04. At that time I said I would agree to the rezoning providing Acklam Associates would put in a six.joot vinyl solid white fence. Donald E. Casper, AlA, Director of Planning and Architecture from Acklam Associates, said that would not be a problem. Michael Pesicka, Planning Technicianfor the City of Wheat Ridge also attended this meeting. Our family has been living at this residence for over 25 years. We feel that this six- foot fence would cut down the amount of trash that comes into our yard from these businesses. It would also prevent them from plowing the snow and debris two feet onto our property. I have contacted Duane Daugherty ofG&R Fence Company whose phone # is 303-425-7090. He will be able to provide the Timberline Vinyl Product I have chosen. It is a solid privacy fence with 1 "x8" interlocking tongue and groove panels with the decorative top and bottom support rails featuring subtle fluted detail. It would be responsibility of Acklam Associates to maintain the fence free of graffiti and any type of damage. If you have any questions, please contact Jocelyn D. Lang. Sincerely, Jocelyn D. Lang In response to a question from Commissioner McNAMEE, Ms. Austin replied that the plans call for a wooden, rather than vinyl, fence. Don Casper 9475 Wilshire Drive, Littleton Mr. Casper, representing the applicant, was sworn in by Chair McNAMEE. He addressed the size ofthe sign and stated that the applicant would prefer a larger sign on the side ofthe building which faces 44th Avenue. The proposed 96-square-foot sign would exceed the 69- square feet which is permitted by code. In regard to Ms. Lang's request for a plastic fence, he stated that there may have been a misunderstanding at the neighborhood meeting when the material for the fence was discussed. The applicant's understanding was that he would erect a wooden fence which would match fences for adjacent properties. In regard to her concern Page 2 Planning Commission May 15, 2003 about snow being plowed onto her property, he commented that a wooden fence would be more substantial in this situation than a vinyl fence. In conclusion, he stated the use proposed by the applicant would renew the property and generate additional sales tax for the city. Commissioner WITT asked about semi-truck deliveries to the site. Steve Cersonsky 2 Steele Street, Denver Mr. Cersonsky, the applicant, was sworn in by Chair McNAMEE. He explained that semi deliveries would take place during business hours. Trucks would back into the site and the delivery process should take less than an hour. In answer to a question from Commissioner WEISZ, Mr. Cersonsky stated that the dumpster would not interfere with parking. Commissioner McMILLIN asked if the reduction in the size of the sign would make it impossible for his business to succeed at this site. Mr. Cersonsky replied that smaller signs do have an adverse effect on retail businesses. Don Casper returned to the podium and explained that, due to the length of the Family Dollar sign, the reduced size of the sign would make it necessary to reduce the height of the letters making it more difficult for drivers to read the sign. Commissioner DAVIS asked the size of the existing pole sign which would also be used by the applicant. Mr. Casper replied that it was 6-feet by 9-feet. Commissioner McMILLIN pointed out that this gives the applicant an extra 54 square feet of signage. Chair McNAMEE asked if there were others present to address this matter. The following individual appeared before the Commission: Jocelyn Lang 4375 Harlan Street Ms. Lang was sworn in by Chair McNAMEE. She asked if the fence would extend across the entire property without any gaps. Don Casper stated that part of the area is owned by the bank and he did not foresee any problems with the bank objecting to extending the fence a few feet onto their property; however, it would be necessary to obtain permission from the bank. Commissioner WEISZ asked Ms. Lang if she would object to a wood, rather than plastic fence. Ms. Lang replied that she would have no objection to a wood fence that would match existing fences. She was more concerned that there be no gap in the fencing. It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner McMILLIN that Case No. WZ-03-04, a request for approval of a zone change from R-C, Restricted Commercial, to PCD, Planned Commercial Development, and approval of an outline and Planning Commission May 15, 2003 Page 3 final development plan for property located at 6090 West 44th Avenue be approved for the following reasons: 1. The rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Neighborhood Serving Retail. 2. The rezoning will not adversely impact the public health, safety or welfare. 3. The requirements ofthe City's Planned Development Regulations have been met. 4. The rezoning and proposed Final Development Plan propose a good re-use of an existing but unoccupied developed site, thereby creating physical and economic benefits to the community. 5. The zone change is compatible with the surrounding area and there will be minimal adverse impacts associated with the rezoning. 6. Adequate infrastructure is available to serve the proposed use. With the following conditions: 1. The wall sign as proposed on the Final Development Plan be reduced to a maximum of 69 square feet in size to comply with the City's sign code. 2. The fence, built to match existing wood fences, shall be extended north to the adjacent property owner's fence if approved by the adjacent property owner. Commissioner McMILLIN commented that while the applicant would prefer to have a larger sign, there is consolation in that the sign will be on the shorter face ofthe building which will have the effect of having the sign appear larger. A vote was taken on the motion. The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner BERRY absent. B. Case No. ZOA-03-08: An ordinance amending Section 26-115 Variances/Waivers/Temporary Permits/Interpretations ofthe Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case and she reviewed the staff report. Commissioner McMILLIN referred to Section 3, paragraph (k) of Ordinance No. 1271 and asked what methods would be used to determine if a vehicle is undergoing active restoration. Ms. Reckert replied that this would depend on information contained in the application and the applicant's testimony. Commissioner McMILLIN expressed concern that paragraph (k) of the original ordinance is too restrictive and would prevent a restoration hobbyist from keeping a "parts car" in addition to the car that is being restored. He stated that he would like to make it practical for this type of hobby to continue. Alan White suggested that perhaps the definition of "active restoration" could be clarified to include a parts car. Page 4 Planning Commission May 15, 2003 Commissioner PLUMMER commented that he would not like to live next door to someone who had several non-operative vehicles in their yard. Chair McNAMEE asked if there were individuals present who wished to address this ordinance. There was no response. It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner STITES that Case No. ZOA-03-08, an ordinance amending Section 26-115 Variances/Waivers/Temporary Permits/Interpretations ofthe Wheat Ridge Code of Laws be forwarded to City Council with a recommendation of approval. It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner DAVIS that active restoration as defined in Section 3, subsection (k) shall include parts cars being used for other vehicles that are under restoration. In response to a question from Commissioner WEISZ, Commissioner McMILLIN stated that he would prefer to see the Board of Adjustment decide on the number of parts cars to be allowed. The motion for amendment passed 6-1 with Commissioner PLUMMER voting no and Commissioner BERRY absent. A vote was taken on the amended motion. It passed 7-0 with Commissioner BERRY absent. C. Case No. ZOA-03-06: An ordinance amending Section 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to Special Uses This case was presented by Alan White. The major changes under the proposed amendment would shorten the Special Use Permit process by eliminating the neighborhood meeting and the legal protest provision. Whether the special use runs with the land or is a personal grant of use will remain a decision to be made on a case-by-case basis by the Community Development Director or City Council. Commissioner PLUMMER questioned the elimination ofthe legal protest provision. Alan White explained that under the current code, any adjacent land owner could file a legal protest to the City Council which would then require six affirmative votes out of eight possible votes to be approved. It is City Council's desire to remove this provision. If a case should go to City Council, public input would still be allowed under the public hearing process. In answer to a question from Commissioner WEISZ, Alan White stated that the legal protest provision is not required under law. Commissioner McMILLIN asked how many SUP cases in the past ten years involved a legal protest. Alan White stated that he could not recall any SUP cases where the legal protest was involved. Planning Commission May 15, 2003 Page 5 Commissioner DAVIS asked for clarification regarding the Planning Commission's role in the new process. Alan White explained that the proposed amendment would eliminate the Planning Commission's involvement in the process. He also stated that a special use permit handled under the administrative process could take approximately ten days as opposed to four to six months under the current process. If the application proceeded to City Council, it should take approximately two months to process. Commissioner McMILLIN asked about the impact of eliminating neighborhood meetings. Alan White stated there has been very little response to neighborhood meeting notices which are sent out within a 600-foot radius of the subject property. Commissioner McMILLIN stated that he would like to see the Planning Commission involved if any protests are registered at a neighborhood meeting. If no protests are registered at the meeting, an administrative approval could be granted. He expressed concern about the Planning Commission being removed from the special use process. Commissioner STITES stated that he was in favor of the proposed ordinance because it will streamline the process without hurting anyone. Individuals would still have opportunity for input at the City Council hearing. There were no individuals present in the audience to address this matter. It was moved by Commissioner STITES and seconded by Commissioner PLUMMER to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance modifying Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws pertaining to special uses. It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner DAVIS to amend the motion to keep the legal process in place which requires a super majority vote of Council if a protest is filed. The motion failed 4-3 with Commissioners PLUMMER, McNAMEE, WEISZ and STITES voting no and Commissioner BERRY absent. A vote was taken on the original motion which passed 6-1 with Commissioner McMILLIN voting no and Commissioner BERRY absent. 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. 10. COMMISSION REPORTS There were no Commission reports. Planning Commission May IS, 2003 Page 6 11. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS There were no committee or department reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner STITES to adjourn the meeting at 9:08 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ~~-~ Ann Lazzeri, Recording ~y /{E:.A()/\ J11.rN{2rvVUL arian McNAMEE, Chair Planning Commission May IS, 2003 Page 7