Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/2004 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting November 18, 2004 ORIGINAL 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the' Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order by Vice 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 Jerry Scezney Kim Stewart Kevin Witt Commission Members Absent: Marian McNamee Phil Plummer Scott Wesley Staff Members Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior 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 November 18, 2004. A set of these minutes is retained both in the officeofthe City Clerk and in the Community Development Department of the City of Wheat Ridge, 4. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner WITT and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 5. APPROVE MINUTES - November 4, 2004 It was moved by Commissioner STEWART and seconded by Commissioner SCEZNEY to approve the minutes of November 4, 2004 as presented. The motion passed 4-0 with Commissioner CHILVERS abstaining and Commissioners McNAMEE, PLUMMER and WESLEY absent. Planning Commission November 18,2004 Page I 6. PUBLIC FORUM There were none present who wished to address the Commission during this portion of the meeting. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. MS-04-05: An application filed by Patrick Hyland for approval of a 4-lot minor subdivision plat including a 2-foot variance to the 80-foot lot width requirement for a comer lot in the R-2 zone district, resulting in a lot width of 78 feet on property zoned Residential Two and Commercial One and located at 10403 West 44th Avenue. The 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 of the application for reasons outlined in the staffreport. Mr. Crane then read the following letter into the record which was received just prior to the beginning ofthe meeting: Dear Wheat Ridge Planning Commission: 1 have been notified of Case No MS-04-05 and have taken time to review the blueprints, The two things 1 would like to see is that when Miller Street is being excavated it not interfere with my business as 1 cannot afford to be closed or lose any clientele, My salon is not open on Sundays and Mondays which would be ideal for the excavation on Miller Street. Secondly, 1 would like for the driveway to be moved 25 feet west of the property line for future development. Signed by Raffaele Vitali, 10401 West 44'h Avenue. Patrick Hyland 10403 West 44th Avenue Mr. Hyland, the applicant, was sworn in by Vice Chair McMILLIN. He agreed with the staff presentation and stated that he planned to work with the surrounding environment to make a minimal impact on 44th Avenue and the surrounding neighborhood. Raffaele Vitali 3910 Simms Court Mr. Vitali was sworn in by Vice Chair McMILLIN. He stated that he was in favor of the application with one concern being the location of the present driveway that his salon shares with the applicant. He would like to have the driveway moved 25 feet to the west of his property because he plans to build a shoppette on his property in the future and would like to use the present curb cut on 44th A venue. He was concerned that when he develops his property, a new curb cut from 44th A venue would not be allowed in another place on his property. While there is no separation requirement for curb cuts, there is a requirement that a curb cut could not be located within fifty feet of Miller Street. Mr. Hyland stated that he planned to separate his property from Mr. Vitali's property with fencing and he had no problem with using the shared driveway for access to his residence. He also stated that he would work with subcontractors to make sure they don't interfere with Mr. Vitali's business during storm drain construction. Vice Chair McMILLIN commented that if Planning Commission November 18, 2004 Page 2 future development ofMr. Vitali's property causes too much congestion in the driveway, Mr. Hyland could have another curb cut installed for his property. Mr. Vitali stated that his concerns were addressed and he felt comfortable with the situation. It was moved by Commissioner CHIL VERS and seconded by Commissioner SCEZNEY to approve the lot width variance associated with Case No. MS-04-05, a request for approval of a two-foot lot width variance, for property located at 10403 West 44th Avenue, for the following reasons: 1. The hardship has not been created by a person having interest in the property. 2. The request will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to properties in the area. The motion passed 5-0 with Commissioners McNAMEE, PLUMMER and WESLEY absent. It was moved by Commissioner SCEZNEY and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to approve Case No. MS-04-05, a request for approval of a four-lot suhdivision plat for property located at 10403 West 44th Avenue, 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 5-0 with Commissioners McNAMEE, PLUMMER and WESLEY absent. (Vice Chair McMillin declared a brief recess at 7:38 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 7:44 p.m.) 8. OLD BUSINESS A. Case No. ZOA-04-04. Outdoor Lic:ht Standards Studv Session Travis Crane introduced this item for discussion. In response to direction from the Commission, staff created an ad hoc committee to discuss the lighting ordinance. Recommendations from the committee were included in the staff report. Discussion items included: . Include examples of compliant and noncompliant lighting in material that goes to City Council. . Practicality of enforcement issues are important to consider. . There is some city lighting that would be in nonconformance; for example, the street lights on 38th Avenue. Ways to modify noncompliant city lighting should be researched. Important that city lighting especially comply with standards. Planning Commission November 18, 2004 Page 3 . "Low wattage" needs definition. . Research lighting standards contained in the Uniform Building Code. . Important to regulate lighting which shines into residential properties. . Important to regulate lighting that shines upward. . There are still amortization issues to be worked out for noncompliant lighting. . New canopy lighting should be recessed. Existing canopies could be converted to meet conformance standards. . Members of the ad hoc committee agreed there was a need for a lighting standards ordinance. B. Sic:n Code Meredith Reckert reported that the sign code would be brought before the next Planning Commission meeting. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. 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 CffiL VERS and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. t:L~ Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary' Planning Commission November 18, 2004 Page 4