Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/06/2005 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting 0 R' G l N A L October 6, 2005 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: Jim Chilvers John McMillin Phil Plummer Jerry Scezney Kim Stewart Scott Wesley Commission Members Absent: Anne Brinkman Cassie Spaniel 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 October 6, 2005. A set cif 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 STEWART to approve the order of the agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 15, 2005 It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to approve the minutes of September 15, 2005 as presented. The motion passed 4-0 with Commissioners SCEZNEY and WESLEY abstaining and Commissioners BRINKMAN and SPANIEL absent. 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one present to address the Commission during this portion of the meeting. Planning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 1 , . 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-05-07 (continued from 9-15-05): 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 (continued from 9-15-05): An application filed by IBC Holdings for approval of a 17-lot major subdivision plat on property presently known as 5060 Ward Road. Due to their absence at the prior hearing of these cases, Commissioners WESLEY and SCEZNEY stated that they had thoroughly reviewed all material from the September 15 and October 6, 2005 meeting packets and were prepared to make fair and impartial decisions in the cases. The cases were presented by Travis Crane. At the last meeting, the Planning Commission voted to continue these two cases to give the applicant and stafftime 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 also to give staff and applicant time to work on a compromise regarding recommendations and/or requirements relating to traffic issues concerning acceleration and deceleration lanes. Mr. Crane reviewed the staffreport that included the decisions reached on the outstanding issues from last meeting. Commissioner PLUMMER stated that he believed office warehouse use should be allowed in this type of development. Commissioner CHIL VERS questioned staff s recommendation that no outside storage be , allowed. Mr. Crane replied that staff is concerned that outside storage does not mesh with the location of a future light rail transit station in this area. He asked that if Planning Commission felt outdoor storage is appropriate, the motion should contain conditions to screen the storage and that storage not exceed the height of the screening. In response to a question from Commissioner CHIL VERS, Mr. Crane stated that curb and gutter would be installed on 52nd Avenue and there would also be room for a deceleration lane into the development. In regard to the north bound deceleration lane on Ward Road, Mr. Crane stated that the Public Works Department did an overlay which indicated there is presently room for the lane; however, this was done from aerial photographs and was not survey quality. It does appear the lane could be constructed without major acquisition of property. In response to a question from Commissioner CHIL VERS concerning a north-south connector street between 50th and 52nd, Mr. Crane stated that this was discussed with the applicant who was not amenable to having such a road intersect their development. Planning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 2 Commissioner McMILLIN expressed concern that in light of the heavy traffic already existing on Ward Road that a north south connection would be necessary between 50th and 52nd, especially if the light rail transit station is built. In response to a question from Commissioner WESLEY, Alan White stated that RTD has a transit oriented development specialist who is in the process of formulating best management practices (zoning, pedestrian connections, etc.) adjacent to transit stations. In response to another question from Commissioner WESLEY, Mr. Crane explained that the staff and applicant have agreed that vocational and training schools uses should be fully contained within the buildings and shown on the final development plan. Commissioner WESLEY asked about the applicant's offer to provide cash in lieu of roadway improvements (accel and decellanes) and the fact that the city code does not presently allow for such an arrangement. Mr. Crane stated that the applicant could discuss their offer with City Council. If this were to occur, it would be the city's responsibility to build the lanes. Commissioner STEW ART expressed concern that the power of eminent domain could be exercised to acquire property for the lanes. The property owner to the south could possibly lose property through that process which would benefit another landowner. Commissioner McMILLIN commented that there is some disadvantage in making a decision without input from RTD. Mr. Crane commented that he understood RTD would begin an enviromnental impact statement in February. In response to a question from Commissioner STEW ART, Mr. Crane stated that he has reviewed the applicant's covenants and they contain strong controls. Mr. White explained that a portion of the covenants have been made a part of the outline development plan which gives the city ability to pursue zoning violations. Travis Crane entered a letter into the record from Shaun Baker who owns property at 5040 Ward Road and would be the property owner impacted by an accelldecellane on Ward Road. Mr. Baker was asking for further clarification on the accelldecellane and how it would impact his property and tenants. He also expressed concern about storm drainage issues in the area. Members of the Commission reviewed the letter before proceeding with the meeting. Brian Mott IBC Holdings Mr. Mott stated that good progress was made in discussions with staff since the last hearing. In regard to traffic issues, the proposed development would generate less traffic than the Jolly Rancher factory. It appears that existing right-of-way would accommodate both accel/decel lanes which would only require paving and striping to create the lanes. He agreed with the solid screening requirement for outdoor storage and eliminating outdoor storage from Use Area One. He did not want Use Area I restricted to retail only, but did agree to have a higher use for the area. He stated they have received some interest in sit -down restaurants for this area. Planning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 3 Rick Gunter Ware Malcomb Mr. Gunter is the architect for the proposed development. He requested a change to staffs recommended motions. He asked that suggested Condition One be changed to the following: Outdoor storage shall be completely screened from view with a solid enclosure. The height of stored materials shall not exceed the height of the enclosure. Chain link is not an allowed screening material. Solid screen walls are required. He requested that a change be made to suggested Condition One to include the words "only architectural grade" following the words "brick is strongly encouragecl' and strike the word "not" to read "Tilt-up concrete, CMU, metal, vinyl, imitation brick, stone or rock exteriors are allowed." He requested that suggested Condition Three be eliminated and that Condition Four be reworded as follows: Outdoor storage is prohibited in Use Area 1. He requested that suggested Condition Five be reworded as follows: 1t appears that there is existing right-oi-way to provide additional pavement. Therefore the decellane on Ward Road south of 50th Avenue shall be installed per City of Wheat Ridge Public Works Department requirement. He stated that the applicant would install the decellane as part of the development. He requested the same wording for suggested Condition Six only pertaining to West 52nd Avenue. He agreed with the remaining suggested conditions. In regard to an earlier question from the Commission, Mr. Gunter explained that landscape materials will be provided on each lot; however, the majority of landscaping will be provided on the outskirts ofthe development to address the community. He stated there is no intention to have solid pavement in the interior of the development. In response to a question from Commissioner McMILLIN, Mr. Mott stated that they have not been approached by RTD about the proposed transit station. Commissioner STEW ART asked about the storm drainage concerns expressed in Mr. Baker's letter. Mr. Crane stated there is a large drainage problem in this area caused by past errors in engineering and development. Mr. Baker's concern is that this problem is not made worse by the proposed development. The applicants would be required to retain storm water run-off and therefore the problem would get no worse for Mr. Baker. However, it would not improve Mr. Baker's situation. Shaun Baker 5040 Ward Road Mr. Baker expressed concern about the deceleration lane. He suggested that a survey be done to accurately determine whether there actually is space for a lane. He didn't want to give up prime space in his property which has a I 50-foot frontage along Ward Road. He commented that any restaurants in the development would significantly increase traffic along Ward Road and suggested that a traffic light could be installed to accommodate that increased traffic. He expressed concern about his property being taken by eminent domain to benefit another land owner. He also commented that if Ward Road is widened to three lanes, there would probably be curb, gutter and sidewalk on the west side which would accommodate storm runoff, but there are no storm drains on the east side of Ward Road. Planning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 4 There were no other individuals who wished to address these cases; therefore, Chair McMILLIN closed the public hearing. Commissioner PLUMMER stated his approval ofthe development. Commissioner WESLEY expressed concern that he would like to see development that is compatible with a future RTD transit stop; however, it seems unfair to the developer to hold off for twelve or so years on a possible transit stop. Commissioner STEWART asked about the possibility of a traffic light on Ward. Mr. Crane explained that traffic lights are installed dependent on meeting warrant requirements. She expressed concern for the property owner to the south and would like to see the right-of-way issue clarified. She would have no problem if there is existing right-of-way for the accelldecel lane on Ward. She was opposed to the use of eminent domain for obtaining right-of-way. Commissioner McMILLIN expressed concern about boxing in a good site for an RTD station. On the other hand, he commented that RTD was not present to defend their interest in the property. It was moved by Commissioner CHILVERS and seconded 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 development standards section of the Outline Development Plan which reads: "Lots 1, 2 and 3 - Four sided architectural grade construction must be used. Corporate architecture must be modified to comply with the standards of the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. 2. Buildings 8 and 9 shall have the same architectural standards as Lots 1,2 and 3. 3. The deceleration lane on Ward Road south of West 50th Avenue shall be installed per the City of Wheat Ridge Public Works Department requirement. 4. The accel/decellane for east bound traffic on West 52nd Avenue shall be installed per the City of Wheat Ridge Public Works Department requirement. 5. Page two of the Outline Development Plan shall be amended to accurately reflect the proposed access point on West 52nd Avenue. 6. An association shall be created which governs maintenance of the collective properties. 7. A note shall be added to the Outline Development Plan in Exterior Signage under Development Standards which reads: "Three freestanding monument signs are allowed": Planning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 5 . One on West 50th Avenue frontage . One on West 52nd Avenue frontage . On.e on Ward Road Pole signs are not allowed. Each sign may be a maximum of fifteen feet in height, set back at least ten feet from the street right-of-way. Each sign shall match building architecture and coloring. Monument signs may be internally lit. Signs may not be located within the required sight distance triangle. For all other signage requirements and guidelines refer to Article VII of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. Off-premise signage shall be allowed so that each business may have advertising on the freestanding sign. 8. Outdoor storage shall be completely screened from view with a solid enclosure. The height of stored materials shall not exceed the height of the enclosure. Chain link is not an allowed screening material. Solid screen walls are required. Commissioner STEW ART stated that she could not support the motion without knowing for sure if right-of-way exists for an accel/decellane on Ward. Commissioner CHIL VERS stated that the motion makes it incumbent upon the applicant to make the lane happen. Commissioner WESLEY commented that he didn't like creating a situation with the potential for use of eminent domain. In order to hear further from the applicant, it was moved by Commissioner STEW ART and seconded by Commissioner SCEZNEY to reopen the public hearing. The motion passed 6-0 with Commissioners BRINKMAN and SPANIEL absent. Shaun Baker returned to the podium. He stated that he liked the proposed project, but was very concerned about losing some of his property. He suggested having a formal survey done. He would have no problem if right-of-way already exists for the lane. Rick Gunter returned to the podium. He reminded the Commission that the accelldecellane was not the applicant's idea. He agreed to have a survey done before the city council meeting. If there is not sufficient right-of-way, the applicant could look at different options or default to CDOT rules that say there is no requirement for additional lanes outside of existing right-of- way. He stated the applicant has no interest in obtaining property by use of eminent domain. Commissioner STEW ART commented that she would be in favor of the applicant being responsible for purchasing right-of-way if it does not already exist. Chair McMILLIN closed the public hearing. Commissioner WESLEY stated that he was opposed to the use of eminent domain in this situation. (Chair McMILLIN declared a brief recess at 9:05 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:12 p.m.) Commissioner STEWART offered a friendly amendment to conditions 3 and 4 of the motion approving the rezoning: The deceleration lane on Ward Road south at 50th Planning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 6 Avenue be installed per City of Wheat Ridge Public Works Department requirement if adequate right-of-way currently exists. If adequate right-of-way does not exist, the applicant shall be responsible for acquiring the property for the right-of-way and constructing the improvement in lieu of paying an impact fee to the city. The applicant has agreed to conduct a survey prior to second reading at City Council. The amendment was accepted by Commissioners CHILVERS and PLUMMER. The amended motion was approved by a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner WESLEY voting no and Commissioners BRINKMAN and SPANIEL absent. It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner CHIL VERS to recommend approval of Case No. WZ-05-07, a request for approval of a Final Development Plan for property located at 5060 Ward Road for the following reasons: 1. With slight modification, the Final Development Plan will comply with the development standards established by the Outline Development Plan. 2. The Final Development Plan meets the technical requirements as established in Article III for Final Development Plans. With the following conditions: 1. Lot 6 shall be amended to include one more parking stall as required by the Outline Development Plan. 2. One additional tree must be added to Lot 7 to meet minimum requirements established on the Outline Development plan. The motion passed 5-1 with Commissioner WESLEY voting no and Commissioners BRINKMAN and SPANIEL absent. It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner CHIL VERS to recommend approval of Case No. WS-05-02, a request for approval of a seventeen lot subdivision plat for property located at 5060 Ward Road for the following reasons: 1. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. 2. All required utility easements are being provided. 3. Adequate infrastructure will be constructed with the development to serve the proposed use. The motion passed 5-1 with Commissioner WESLEY voting no and Commissioners BRINKMAN and SPANIEL absent. 8. OLD BUSINESS . Commissioner McMILLIN asked for an update on the lighting situation at Chase Plaza. Alan White stated that he had reported the situation to the community service officers. Planning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 7 9. NEW BUSINESS . Commissioner STEW ART expressed appreciation for the new lighting on Kipling. 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 PLUMMER to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission October 6, 2005 Page 8