Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/15/2005 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting September 15, 2005 ORIGINAL 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order by Chair McMillin at 7:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers ofthe Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Commission Members Present: Jim Chilvers John McMillin Phil Plummer Cassie Spaniel Kim Stewart Commission Members Absent: Anne Brinkman Jerry Scezney Scott Wesley Staff Members Present: Alan White, Community Development Director Travis Crane Debra Kalish, City Attorney's Office Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Following is the official set of Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing of September 15,2005. 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 CIDL VERS and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to approve the order ofthe agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 5. APPROVE MINUTES - August 4, 2005 It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to approve the minutes of August 4, 2005 as presented. The motion passed 4-0 with Commissioner STEW ART abstaining and Commissioners BRINKMAN, SCEZNEY and WESLEY absent. 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one present to address the Commission during this portion of the meeting. Planning Commission September 15,2005 Page 1 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-05-07: An application filed by lBC Holdings for approval of a rezoning from Industrial and Planned Industrial Development to Planned Mixed Use District and approval of an outline and final development plan for property located at 5060 Ward Road. B. Case No. WS-05-02: An application filed by lBC Holdings for approval of a 17-lot major subdivision plat on property presently known as 5060 Ward Road. These two cases were 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. He noted that language needs to be added regarding the outline development plan to clarify that landscaping standards are being distributed throughout the site and, while some individual lots may not meet the landscaping percentage, the development as a whole meets the requirements. Commissioner CHIL VERS commented that RTD's announcement in February that a transit stop is planned for the Gold Line near this development occurred in the middle of the applicant's development flans. He further commented that it appears a connector street would be necessary between 50t and 52nd Avenues. Commissioner STEWART expressed concern about possible conflicts with emergency equipment exiting the fire station directly across the street from the proposed entrance to the development. Brian Mott IBC Holdings Mr. Mott was sworn in by Chair McMILLIN. He presented a background of his company and reviewed the development plan. An existing building will be retained for modification to house several businesses. Seven companies have already signed leases to relocate to this building which will be called Studio 10. lBC does not agree to the elimination of uses as suggested in the staff report. He acknowledged that they did get caught in the middle with the recently announced RTD plans to build a transit station near the development. While they would like to take advantage of this, it is impractical at this time since actual completion of the station may not occur for 12-15 years. However, the development is designed with enough flexibility to be compatible with a transit station when it is fully realized. Rick Gunter Ware Malcomb Mr. Gunter was sworn in by Chair McMILLIN. The development is divided into three portions. The middle portion would house six light industrial buildings built to cater to local west side businesses. Space in these buildings would be sold rather than leased. The two remaining portions (one fronting Ward Road and the other on the eastern side of the property) would be developed at a later date. The appIlcant will dedicate three feet of right-of-way for future widening of Ward Road. Entrances have been designed to reduce congestion. Conflict Planning Commission September 15,2005 Page 2 with emergency vehicles is mitigated by the fact that the entrance across the street from the fire station is aligned with a street rather than the fire station. Outdoor storage will be screened with solid walls. The applicant's traffic study indicates that there is no need for accel/decel lanes on 50th or 52nd and that a decel lane is not necessary on Ward Road. Carey Smeister Marin Design Group 852 Broadway, Denver Mr. Smeister explained that the applicant plans to double the amount of landscaping required by the city. Diverse landscaping with xeriscape plantings will be used. He agreed that the outline development plan language should be changed to reflect that overall landscape percentages are being met, but not necessarily on a lot by lot basis. The applicant prefers that, rather than limiting uses, controls be placed on how specific uses are to be executed in order to have a high quality development. He stated that it was disconcerting to learn in June of this year that R TD planned a transit station near this site that may not occur for 12-15 years. The development is designed to work now but does not preclude opportunities for future development that would take advantage of the mass transit availability. For example, the front door of Studio 10 would face the proposed R TD station. Commissioner PLUMMER expressed concern about outdoor storage. Mr. Smeister stated that the applicant plans to have very tight covenants and restrictions in order to control the use of outdoor storage areas. The applicant expressed a willingness to work with staff on these matters. Travis Crane explained that the stafr s reason for requesting prohibition of certain uses is to provide for possible future uses when property owners have changed, etc. In response to a question from Commissioner McMILLIN regarding second, third and fourth lives of these buildings, Mr. Gunter explained that there is flexibility in design such as ceiling heights which would allow two stories or mezzanines. Side cast concrete panels are also very flexible. Studio I 0 is one example where a warehouse will be rehabilitated into office space. In response to a question from Commissioner STEWART, Mr. Mott explained that a common area association would control maintenance issues, etc. She also expressed concern about increased traffic on 52nd Avenue. The possibility of a connector street between 50th and 52nd A venues was discussed. The applicant stated that studies show there are other locations for a connector street that would not necessitate intersection of their development. Commissioner McMILLIN asked about the proposed 85% building coverage rather than the city's requirement of 80%. Mr. Mott explained the request is due to the economics of a private redevelopment involving the purchase and demolition of a building and other factors such as not having the benefits of tax increment funding. They will also be adding improvements such as curb, gutter and sidewalk. Commissioner STEW ART asked about economic benefit to the city from this development. Travis Crane replied that the city would receive permit fees as well as future sales tax from some of the businesses. Planning Commission September 15, 2005 Page 3 Alan White commented that two important points in the recently completed revitalization study pointed to the importance of considering developments in light of the future and what a development will do to attract or retain strong households in the city. The study also criticized the city for lack of foresight in regard to planning for the transit line. Mr. Mott commented that this development would fit in with the revitalization plans for the city by providing employment as well as great potential for retail and other development that would benefit from the future light rail transit station. Dave Ruble LST Traffic Consultants Mr. Ruble stated that his traffic study reveals that east-bound 52nd A venue operates at service level A which is the best scenario possible and that an acceIldecel lane is not needed. Neither is there enough enough traffic on 50"1 Avenue to warrant an acceIldecel lane. He commented that he did not believe the city would invest in these improvements, but is asking the developer to pay for them. He didn't believe it was fair to request the applicant to pay for a decel lane on Ward Road or to be responsible for increased traffic that would be generated from the proposed light rail station. (Chair McMILLIN declared a brief recess at 9:00 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9: 1 0 p.m.) Bob Harmsen 8035 Newman St. Mr. Harmsen was sworn in by Chair McMILLIN. He spoke in favor of the application but expressed concern about traffic. He also pointed outthe auto-train conflict that has existed on Ward Road for many years. He owns the RV storage lot and open space east of the subject project. He stated that he only recently learned of the proposed RTD project and expressed surprise that no one from RTD has contacted any of the adjacent property owners. He did not believe it was fair for RTD's proposal to affect the applicant's development because no one really knows for sure exactly where the station will be located or when it will be built. Mike Camp CB Richard Ellis Mr. Camp, marketing agent for the applicant, was sworn in by Chair McMILLIN. He stated that interest in this development has been very strong and building hasn't even started yet. Interest has been expressed by businesses such as engineering companies, general contractors, assembly and light manufacturing businesses, and technology companies. Screened outdoor storage is very desirable for office/warehouse developments. Joel Scott Murray & Stafford Mr. Scott was sworn in by Chair McMILLIN. He spoke in favor ofthe application and stated that his general contracting business has been located in Wheat Ridge for over 30 years. He would have preferred to stay on the west side of town and relocate to the Jolly Rancher site; Planning Commission September 15,2005 Page 4 however, his business was growing to such an extent that he couldn't wait for this development and it became necessary to purchase a location in Denver. Debra Kalish stated that the applicant could provide covenants, codes and restrictions to be incorporated into the outline development plan and therefore be enforceable by the city. Mr. Mott indicated that he would welcome this type of agreement. Commissioner PLUMMER did not believe the development would have that much impact on traffic and was in favor of controlling uses within the development. Commissioner CHIL VERS stated that there were too many issues yet to be reconciled (conflicting traffic studies, building coverage, etc.) to make a decision at this time. Commissioner STEWART stated her main concern is traffic. She was in favor of incorporating covenants, codes and restrictions into the outline development plan. Commissioner SPANIEL agreed that traffic concerns and covenants to control uses within the development were issues that need to be settled. Commissioner McMILLIN was in favor of the concept of the development but expressed concern about the number of details which have not been settled including noncompliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the fifteen conditions suggested by staff. It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER to recommend approval of Case No. WZ-05- 07, a request for approval of a rezoning from Industrial and Planned Industrial Development to Planned Mixed Use District and an Outline Development Plan for property located at 5060 Ward Road for the following reasons: 1. The change in zone is compatible with existing conditions in the immediate area. 2. The change in zone will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare. With the following conditions: 1. A note shall be added to the Development Standards section of the Outline Development Plan which reads: "Lots 1. 2 and 3 - Four sided architecture required - brick is strongly encouraged. Tilt-up concrete, eMu, metal, vinyl, imitation brick stone or rock exteriors are not allowed. No corporate design allowed." 2. Buildings 8 and 9 shall have the same architectural standards as Lots 1, 2 and 3, and the building envelopes shall be moved south toward West 50th Avenue and the parking areas shall be located on the north side of the buildings. 3. The uses shall be in the form of covenants as negotiated with city planning and approved by Planning Commission at a later date. 4. A note shall be added to the Outline Development Plan in Exterior Signage under Development Standards which addresses the maximum size allowed for each freestanding sign. 5. A note shall be added to the Outline Development Plan in Exterior Signage under Development Standards which reads: "Off-premises signage is allowed." Planning Commission September 15, 2005 Page 5 6. A note shall be added to the Outline Development Plan in Landscaping under Development Standards which reads: "Required trees and shrubs as shown on the Final Development Plan. For all other landscape requirements, refer to Section 26-502 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws." 7. The maximum lot coverage and minimum landscaping on lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 needs to be clarified and consistent with the actual provided quantities on the Final Development Plan. This will entail either increasing maximum lot coverage and decreasing minimum landscaping requirements for these lots or decreasing maximum lot coverage and increasing minimum required landscaping for these lots. 8. The list of allowed uses shall include "retail" as an allowed use in all three use areas. 9. The lists of allowed uses shall include "residentiar' as an allowed use in all three use areas. 10. The lists of allowed uses shall include "eating establishment, sit down" as an allowed use in Use Area 2 (phase I). 11. A note shall be added to the Outline Development Plan under Required Setbacks in Development Standards which reads: "For use area 2 - side yard setback shall be a minimum of20 feet when adjacent to public right-of-way." The motion died for lack of a second. It was moved by Commissioner STEWART and seconded by Commissioner SPANIEL to continue Case No. WZ-05-07, a request for approval of a rezoning from Industrial and Planned Industrial Development to Planned Mixed Use District, and an Outline Development Plan for property located at 5060 Ward Road to the meeting of October 6, 2005, to give the applicant and staff time to negotiate the exclusions as recommended by staff and the applicant's covenant controls in order to reach an agreement as to what should or should not be excluded and, additionally, give staff and applicant time to work on a compromise regarding recommendations and/or requirements relating to traffic issues concerning acceleration and deceleration lanes. The motion passed 5-0, with Commissioners BRINKMAN, SCEZNEY and WESLEY absent. It was moved by Commissioner STEW ART and seconded by Commissioner SPANIEL to continue Case No. WZ-05-07, a request for approval of an Outline and Final Development Plan for property located at 5060 Ward Road, to the meeting of October 6, 2005 for reasons stated in the previous motion. The motion passed 5-0, with Commissioners BRINKMAN, SCEZNEY and WESLEY absent. It was moved by Commissioner STEW ART and seconded by Commissioner SPANIEL to continue Case No. WS-05-02, a request for approval of a 17-lot subdivision plat for property located at 5060 Ward Road, to the meeting of October 6, 2005, for the same reasons stated in the first motions. The motion passed 5-0, with Commissioners BRINKMAN, SCEZNEY and WESLEY absent. Planning Commission September 15, 2005 Page 6 8. OLD BUSINESS . Chair McMILLIN commented that the new lights in Applewood Shopping Center are a success stor~ in terms of more light and less glare. He also asked about lighting at Chase Plaza on 38t1 Avenue. The center has installed new facades, however one ofthe four parking lot lights shines directly into the house across the street. He expressed concern that building permits were obtained for the improvements without addressing lighting issues. Alan White will follow up on this situation. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 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 CIDL VERS and seconded by Commissioner PLUMMER to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission September 15,2005 Page 7