Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/2007 ORIGINAL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting April 19, 2007 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order by Chair SCEZNEY 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 Dick Matthews John McMillin Davis Reinhart (arrived at 7:06 pm) Jerry Scezney Cassie Spaniel Kim Stewart Staff Members Present: Alan White, Community Development Director Travis Crane, Planner II Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner STEWART and seconded by Commissioner BRINKMAN to approve the order of the agenda as presented. The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner REINHART absent. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AprilS, 2007 It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by Commissioner SPANIEL to approve the minutes of April 5, 2007 as presented. The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner REINHART absent. 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) There was no one present to address the Commission at this time. Planning Commission April 19, 2007 -1- 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-06-11: An application filed by Gregory Ham for approval of a zone change from Commercial-One (C-l) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) and approval of an outline and final development plan for property located directly south of 5400 West 38th Avenue. This matter 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. He entered a letter into the record from Lee Fisher at 11301 West 40th Avenue. Mr. Fisher indicated he was in favor of the rezone but asked that approval include a provision that only a single family home could be built on the lot. Lucy Dinneen 4491 Marigold Lane, Littleton 80123 Ms. Dinneen is the applicant in this case. In response to a concern expressed by Commissioner McMILLIN, she stated that she would change the fence height from five to six feet on the north. However, she stated a need for the three foot setback to prevent having a product so small that it would only be suitable for rental. Travis Crane noted that the portion of the building that is three feet from the property line on the adj acent property is utilized as a garage. Commissioner STEWART asked what kind of families the applicant hoped to attract. Mr. Dinneen replied that a specific type of family had not been identified but that the units would have individual owners. Commissioner STEWART expressed concern about the lack of yard space for children. In response to a question from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Ms. Dinneen stated that each unit is 1900 square feet with a two-car garage. The landscaping would be irrigated and there are no plans for basements. Commissioner CHIL VERS inquired about the type of landscaping that would be used. Mr. Crane stated that homeowners can install the type oflandscaping they desire as long as it meets code. At the request of Commissioner BRINKMAN, Mr. Crane read a list of names and addresses of those individuals who attended the neighborhood meeting on this case. Planning Connnission April 19, 2007 -2- John Montoya 3755 Benton St. Mr. Montoya stated that he is the property owner just to the south ofthe subj ect property. Mr. Montoya objected to the setback which would be different from his house and would have a detrimental visual effect on Benton. Mr. Montoya also obj ected to a two-story structure that would look down into his house. Charles Durbin 3703 Ames Mr. Durbin was sworn by Chair SCEZNEY. He spoke in opposition and submitted a photo of a sign on the property that states a duplex lot is for sale at this location. He expressed concern that this sign was posted on the property when it has not yet been rezoned. He asked the Commission to consider the effect on the neighborhood ifthis development is allowed to occur because it will encourage future pop-ups and the character of the neighborhood will be affected. He noted that the houses directly across from this property are single-family dwellings. Lucy Dinneen returned to the podium. She stated that there are duplexes south of this property and that a single family home built on the lot could also be a two- story structure. She noted that the present commercial zoning would allow greater structure height than would a residential zoning. She stated that she is attempting to provide a high quality development to match the surrounding area. Commissioner McMILLIN commented that he is in favor of downzoning from commercial to residential and there are other duplexes in the area. He expressed concern about the large variance and that in an effort to build garages, 40% of the lot would be given to concrete and rooftop. Commissioner REINHART expressed concern about changing setbacks so much from surrounding properties. Further, the lot does not provide enough space for a duplex. Commissioner CHIL VERS expressed concern that the landscape would work and be sustainable. Commissioner BRINKMAN stated that the lot would best be utilized as residential rather than commercial and favored downzoning. She expressed some concern about the landscaping but didn't have a problem with the driveway. While the building could be downsized and have more landscaping, it is a difficult piece of property to deal with. She also commented that a two-story building should act as a buffer for properties behind it. Commissioner SPANIEL stated she was in favor of the downzoning, but believed the proposed building is too large for the small lot. Planning Connnission April 19, 2007 -3- Commissioner STEWART was in favor of downzoning but was concerned that it was too much building for the property. She also expressed concern about the lack of grass and so much concrete. Commissioner SCEZNEY stated that he believed it to be a good plan for this site. It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by Commissioner McMILLIN to recommend approval of Case No. WZ-06-11, a request for approval of a rezoning from Commercial-One to Planned Residential Development and an Outline Development Plan for property located at Lot 2, Cadence Subdivision, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed zone change will be consistent with the existing surrounding land use. A residential structure will provide a buffer from the existing commercial development adjacent to West 38th Avenue. 2. The change in zone will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare, nor will it create an isolated or spot zone district. 3. The change in zone will be in conformance with several goals of the Comprehensive Plan, specifically providing quality, aesthetically pleasing housing, providing a variety of housing and development that is a contribution to and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The motion passed 5-3 with Commissioners SPANIEL, CHIL VERS and REINHART voting no. It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by Commissioner McMILLIN to recommend approval of Case No. WZ-06-11, a request for approval of a Final Development Plan for property located at Lot 2, Cadence Subdivision, for the following reasons: 1. The Final Development Plan is consistent with the Outline Development Plan. 2. The Final Development Plan meets the standards established in Chapter 26, Article III of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. With the following condition: 1. The height of the fence on the north shall be changed from five feet to six feet. The motion passed 5-3 with Commissioners SPANIEL, CHIL VERS and REINHART voting no. Planning Connnission April 19, 2007 -4- B. Case No. ZOA-06-07: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 ofthe Wheat Ridge Code of Laws regarding development review processes. This matter was presented by Alan White. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Commissioner BRINKMAN expressed concern about Section 1, A, on page one of the ordinance that could allow the developer to go in and grub the site before approvals are obtained and could give the appearance to the public that approvals were already given. Allowing the developer to do this before approvals could result in damage to the property such as removal of trees or filling in wetland areas. Alan White explained that this was suggested in an effort to be "developer- friendly." While the developer could grub the site, they would have explicit understanding that they may do the work but still not get necessary approvals to go ahead with the project. Commissioner REINHART asked what protection the city would have in these types of situations. Mr. White explained that the developer would have to post bond, install erosion control and would be informed that the work would not mean a future land use approval would be granted. If not approved and vegetation was removed, revegetation would have to take place as part of the bonding process. Commissioner STEW ART expressed concern that once clearing had taken place and the development not approved, the city would be reluctant to press the developer to take corrective action. Commissioner McMILLIN commented that most ofthe ordinance changes made good common sense and were based on professional experience. He did have a concern on page 3 where four out of five criteria must be found in relation to change in character of an area. He believed all five zoning criteria are essential. Commissioner REINHART commented that he believed the suggested criteria are linked enough to make a decision. Alan white noted an error on the bottom of page 3. The paragraph marked No.3 stating "The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. " should actually be item "f' under No.2. There was discussion about changing administrative variances from 10% to 50%. Alan White commented that changing from 10% would give the staff a little more flexibility in dealing with some sites, especially in commercial areas. In regard to the Architectural Manual, Alan White stated that the Community Development Director and Public Works Director can make changes. Planning Planning Commission April 19, 2007 -5- Commission and City Council approval are not necessary for such changes. He asked Commissioners if they would like to review it at this time. Chair SCEZNEY asked if there were members of public who wished to address this matter. Hearing no response, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner McMILLIN suggested continuing review of the architectural manual. He did not feel the ordinance could be approved if the Commission was not comfortable with the architectural manual. Commissioner REINHART agreed that the architectural manual needs more study. It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to continue this case for one month. The motion failed 2 to 6 with Commissioners BRINKMAN, CHILVERS, MATTHEWS, REINHART, SCEZNEY and SPANIEL voting no. It was moved by Commissioner REINHART and seconded by Commissioner McMILLIN to recommend approval of the ordinance amending chapter 26 ofthe Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the development review process. It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to amend the ordinance to change the percentage required to grant an administrative variance from 50% to 25%. The motion passed 6-2 with Commissioners BRINKMAN and REINHART voting no. It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by Commissioner McMILLIN to amend the ordinance to leave in the words "No site development of property may be initiated" and "substantial clearing, grading, filling or excavation may not be commenced" in Section I-A on page one of the ordinance; and remove the sentence stating, "Clearing, grading filling or excavation may be commenced subject to the approvals required in this chapter and pursuant to section 26-621" in the same section. The motion passed 5-3 with Commissioners CHILVERS, REINHART and MATTHEWS voting no. The motion to approve the ordinance with the above amendments passed unanimously. There was a consensus to review the architectural manual at the meeting of May 17,2007. 8. OTHER ITEMS Alan White asked if Commissioners would like to hold brief meetings prior to regular Planning Commission meetings in order to review certain items on the Planning Commission April 19, 2007 -6- agenda. The City Council does this on occasion. Staff would advise the Commission ahead of time when it is deemed desirable to have such a pre- meeting. These meetings would convene at 6:45 and the public would be welcome to attend. These meetings would not be held on quasi-judicial matters. There was a consensus to conduct these briefmg sessions when staff believes it is advisable. 9. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner STEWART and seconded by Commissioner CHILVERS to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. The motion passed 8-0. L /' - Ann Lazzeri, ~tary Planning Connnission April 19, 2007 -7-