Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/01/2002 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting August 1, 2002 ORIGINAL 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order by Chair WEISZ at 7:00 p.m., August 1, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Commission Members Present: Jerry Collins Paulette Cooper John McMillin Philip Plummer Nancy Snow Paula Weisz Commission Members Absent: Marian McNamee (excused) Kevin Witt Staff Members Present: Alan White, Planning Director Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner Ann Lazzeri, Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Following is the official set of Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing of August 1, 2002. A set ofthese minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Department of Planning and Development of the City of Wheat Ridge. 4. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner PLUMMER to approve the order of the agenda. The motion passed with Commissioners McNAMEE and WITT absent 5. APPROVE MINUTES - July 11, 2002 and July 18, 2002 It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner SNOW to approve the minutes of July 11,2002. The motion passed 4-0 with Commissioners WEISZ and COOPER abstaining and Commissioners McNAMEE and WITT absent. It was moved by Commissioner COLLINS and seconded by Commissioner PLUMMER to approve the minutes of July 18, 2002. The motion passed 6-0 with Commissioners McNAMEE and WITT absent. Planning Commission August I, 2002 Page I 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one to appear before the Commission at this time. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-02-10: An application submitted by Wadsworth Old Chicago for approval of an amendment to the Applewood Village Shopping Center Planned Commercial Development final development plan to allow a 50' high freestanding sign with 170 square feet of area south of the structure at 3250 Youngfield Street (Old Chicago Restaurant) The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She reviewed the staff report and presented photos and site layout of the area. She entered all pertinent documents into the record, stated that all proper publication and noticing requirements had been met and advised the Commission they had jurisdiction to hear the case. In response to a question from Commissioner McMILLIN, Ms. Reckert stated that proposed sign would have an east-west face. Commissioner SNOW referred to the letter from a neighbor to the south who objected to an existing sign that causes light pollution to her residence and expressed concern as to how neighbors to the south would be protected from the proposed sign. In response to a question regarding a sign plan for the entire shopping center to prevent piecemeal sign applications, Ms. Reckert explained that an ideal situation would be if the shopping center applied a plan amendment to pursue an integrated sign plan. Staff did encourage the applicant to consider piggybacking their sign request with a possible amendment request by the shopping center regarding King Soopers. Old Chicago representatives chose to proceed at this time rather than wait for the shopping center's future application for an amendment. Commissioner McMillin asked whether there were any unique circumstances associated with this application. Ms. Reckert stated that Old Chicago was aware of sign limitations when they remodeled the building. She commented that while staff was concerned for the applicant's sign visibility, there was also concern for the impact on the surrounding residential area. Terry Jensen Representative for Old Chicago Mr. Jensen was sworn in by Chair WEISZ. He stated that the east elevation of the sign that faces residential neighborhoods would not be illuminated. The applicant prefers to have the sign close to the restaurant rather than being placed on Y oungfield. The shopping center management is requiring it to be on the Old Chicago property. He stated that the sign is not intended to be visible from the interstate but to inform local traffic of Old Chicago's location. Mr. Jensen stated that it was his understanding that if this request were granted, no other pole signs could be allowed in the area. Ms. Reckert explained that this would be the case if straight C-I zoning were involved; however, this is a planned development and it is possible that there could be other pole sign requests. Planning Commission August I, 2002 Page 2 Commissioner McMILLIN asked the applicant if the proposed sign would provide visibility from 32nd Avenue. Mr. Jensen stated it would be more visible in the winter when there are no leaves on the trees. He also stated the shopping center owner would not give permission for a monument sign at the 32nd Avenue entrance. The owner did submit a letter giving approval for the proposed sign. Commissioner COOPER asked about the sign on the south side of the building referred to in the letter from the resident to the south and asked if the applicant would remove the neon sign if the request is granted for a pole sign. Mr. Jensen stated that they would not remove the sign but would turn it off at the close of business Beverly Tomlinson 3185 Xenon Ms. Tomlinson was sworn in by Chair WEISZ. She spoke in opposition to the application. She stated there is already too much light pollution in her neighborhood. The west face of the proposed sign would shine directly onto Xenon Street. She also noted that the proposed 50- foot sign would be on a 25-foot embankment, which would result in a 75-foot high sign. Jan Coryell 3175 Xenon Ms. Coryell was sworn in by Chair WEISZ. She spoke in opposition to the application. She stated that the recently constructed Walgreen's is adjacent to her back yard and. Walgreen's promised that there would be zero percent illumination into the neighbor's yard, but they have not lived up to that and the neighbors are experiencing light pollution. This has reduced her trust in statements made by applicants. She stated her opinion that when the City of Wheat Ridge won't allow garage sale signs on telephone poles, a 50-foot high sign near a residential area should not be allowed. She suggested alternative locations for the sign such as 32nd A venue or Y oungfield. Vince Austin 12550 West 32nd Avenue Mr. Austin was sworn in by Chair WEISZ. He spoke in opposition to the application. His residence is across the street from Old Chicago. He expressed concern that the granting of this application would set a precedent for other large signs. Commercial encroachment into the residential neighborhood is causing more and more light and noise pollution and the neighborhoods are bearing the commercia! burden without the financial benefits. Jay Reed 3244 Y oungfield Mr. Reed was sworn in by Chair WEISZ. He is owner of the Wild Bird Store in the Applewood Shopping Center. There are several other restaurants in the center that do not have tall signs and he expressed concern that granting of this application could set a precedent. He also stated that lessees of the shopping center are in favor of better signage for the center. They have made many requests to the owners for improved signage without success. Planning Commission August I, 2002 Page 3 Roberta Ribera 11250 West 32nd Avenue Ms. Ribera was sworn in by Chair WEISZ. She spoke in opposition to the application. She believed the large bright light on the south of Old Chicago was adequate advertising. She further stated that employees of Old Chicago empty bottles and other trash at closing time which is very disruptive to the neighborhood in early morning hours. She also mentioned the lack of trust caused by Walgreen's not living up to its promises. Commissioner COOPER asked for elaboration on the city's discussion with the shopping center regarding circulation and signage improvements. Mr. White stated that he has had no response from the owners for over a year. He stated that staff would contact the owners of the center to discuss concerns expressed this evening. He stated staff s concern about the impact of Old Chicago on the adjacent neighborhoods. He also shared the neighbor's concern about Walgreen's and stated that if the lighting is not changed, the city will not allow them to open. Chair WEISZ asked if there were others who wished to address this matter. Hearing no response, Chair WEISZ closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS to deny Case No. WZ-02-10, a request for approval of an amendment to the Applewood Village Shopping Center PCD final development plan to allow erection of a fifty foot high freestanding sign south of the structure at 3250 Y oungfield Street for the following reasons: 1. The proposed sign will be intrusive to the low density residential neighborhood to the northeast, to the south and to the west. 2. The proposed sign is inconsistent with the intent of the sign code. 3. Signage for individual businesses within the shopping center is better addressed with a comprehensive program rather than individual requests. 4. If approved, it would establish a precedent for other businesses to request fifty- foot signs. 5. There are several alternatives to this sign which would direct potential customers to the restaurant but which would be less intrusive to the neighborhood. Chair WEISZ stated she would vote to deny the application because she didn't believe the city was prepared to begin approving a forest full of tall signs. The motion passed 6-0 with Commissioners McNAMEE and WITT absent. B. Case No. ZOA-02-04: An ordinance amending Section 26-621 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to parking in residential areas. Before presentation of this case, Commissioner McMILLIN declared that he has written several freelance articles in recreational vehicle magazines over the past ten years and asked the Commission if this would be considered a conflict of interest since this case involves recreational vehicles. Chair WEISZ asked if this would affect Commissioner McMILLIN's Planning Commission August I, 2002 Page 4 vote. He replied it would not. Alan White also commented that this case concerns legislation and is not dealing with a specific piece of land. The case was presented by Alan White. He stated the proposed ordinance resulted from direction given to staffby City Council to address the parking ofRV's in residential areas. Commissioner SNOW asked that the language concerning campers mounted on a truck be clarified to make it easier to understand. Commissioner PLUMMER suggested changing the requirement for RV's parked in a driveway from six feet to thirty feet back from the property line. Commissioner McMILLIN expressed concern about portions ofthe ordinance and pointed out that some properties don't have back yards, but only side yards. It also treats all mobile homes the same regardless of size. He said he would like to know what regulations have been instituted by other cities. He did not think it was reasonable to allow one trailer or one boat, or one jet ski, etc. Commissioners COLLINS and PLUMMER expressed concern about the abundance of junk cars parked on property in Wheat Ridge. Commissioner McMILLIN suggested that the language defining front yard should be clarified to make it easier to understand. Commissioner COOPER discussed the possibility of allowance for people who are restoring cars. There was discussion about establishing a ratio between size of lot and number of vehicles allowed. It was suggested to look at portable building regulations and if a certain size building would be allowed, a comparable recreational vehicle could be allowed. It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS to accept Section 1 of the ordinance as proposed; accept Section 26.621, paragraph B; accept Section C with a change from six feet to ten feet, and a change from ten feet to fourteen feet from the edge of the pavement; accept Section F. Commissioner McMILLIN stated that he had too many questions to vote for the motion. He preferred to have staff survey other cities to see what regulations they have in place. Commissioner SNOW stated that she would not vote for the motion because she believed there would be tremendous opposition to a requirement to park RV's so far back from the front property line. Further, Section B needs grammatical correction and Section F goes too far. The motion failed by a vote of2 to 4 with Commissioners SNOW, COOPER, McMILLIN and WEISZ voting no. Planning- Commission August I, 2002 Page 5 It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner McMILLIN to continue the hearing and request staff to rewrite portions of the ordinance and bring back information about how neighboring cities regulate recreational vehicles and junk cars. Commissioner COLLINS stated that he felt that Section F of the ordinance is very important relating to junk cars and should be left as proposed. He had no objection to continuing discussion of regulation of recreational vehicles. The motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner COLLINS voting no. 8. OLD BUSINESS Commissioner PLUMMER expressed his disappointment that the Commission missed an opportunity to improve the Ford dealership facility with nearly four acres of green area. It would have also opened up 38th and Wadsworth for tax-generating commercial development 9. NEW BUSINESS Alan White announced that the American Planning Association conference is to be held in September. Commissioners interested in attending should notify Alan White. 10. COMMISSION REPORTS There were no commission reports. 11. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS There were no committee or department reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. ~ ecretary Planning Commission August I, 2002 Page 6