Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/18/1996MINIITES OF MEETING January 18;'1996 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson LANGDON at 7:33 p.m., on January 18, 1996 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado .._ _ 2. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Eckhardt -- Harry Williams -- James Owens - Excused Absence Jay Rasplicka Carl A. Cerveny , George Langdon Wallace Crumpton - Excused Absence Warren Johnson - Excused Absence STAFF PRESENT: Glen Gi.dley, Director of Planning & Development _ Meredith.Reckert, Planner Sandra Wiggins, Secretary PIISLIC HEARING The following is the official copy of Planning Commission minutes for the Public Hearing of January 18, 1996. A cop~r of these 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. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 18, 1996 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA Commissioner ECKHARDT moved to approve the agenda for the meeting of January 18, 1996 as printed ._ Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes for the meeting of January 11, 1996 will be available at the February 1, 1996 meeting. 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing under Item 7 of_the Public Hearing section ,of the agenda.) No one had signed the roster, nor came forward at that time to speak. 7. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No_ WZ-96-1: An application by Benjamin Bandimere - for approval of a rezoning from A-1 to R-2A for -- -- property located at 4470 Lee Street-. 2. Case No_ MS-96-1. An application by Benjamin Bandimere for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision with variances .for property located at 4470 Lee Street. Mr. Gidley presented the staff report, which included both Case No. WZ-96-1 and MS-96-1. Entered into the record and accepted by the Chairperson were the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, case file, packet materials and exhibits. Commissioner RASPLICRA asked if accommodate a triplex. Mr. Gidley stated that if the p. square feet would. be needed and Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if easement be located through the the parcel was large enough to ~rcel was not subdivided, 12,500 the parcel is large enough. it was necessary that the utility center of the parcel. Mr. Gidley stated that the Subdivision Regulations require that there are-five-foot side and rear lot easements. If the parcel was not subdivided, the easement through the middle of the property would not be necessary. i Planning Commission Minutes January 18, 1996 Page 3 Mr, Gidley reminded Commission that'three separate motions were required, The motion regarding the variance requires a greater- than-majority vote, or four out of five members.. Chairperson LANGDON asked if the variance should be voted on first. What happens if the variance is denied? Mr. Gidley explained that approval of the variance. to put a duplex on Lot 2, to 9.,000 square feet a si 1. If the parcel was not triplex on the property. the rezoning to R-2A could pass without -The applicant would still be allowed and upon increasing the 'square footage agle-family home could be placed on Lot subdivided, the owner could put a Ben Bandimere, 13831 West 54th Avenue, Arvada, was sworn_in. Mr. Bandimere stated he originally had planned to build two houses on the property, however, the appraisal done did not support his plan. He had also considered a four-plea, but decided two_ duplexes would work better. . Commissioner CERVENY asked if the property was Large enough to support a four-plex. - - • Mr. Gidley stated that a minimum of 4,000 square feet of land area is required for each dwelling unit in multi-family buildings. The applicant has more. than the 16,000 square-feet required. - Commissioner CERVENY asked if a four-plea would have advantages over two duplexes, other than one meeting Subdivision Requirements and the other does not? Mr. Gidley stated that he felt that the four-plea structure would have a better relationship on the whole parcel, than two duplexes on two smaller lots. He explained that this was true because you have individual side lot requirements and also individual private property associated with the smaller lots.- Commissioner CERVENY mentioned possible pros and cons of owner- occupied versus renter-occupied units. Mr. Gidley reminded Commissioner CERVENY that the same argument could be made for any R-2A zone district having a substandard lot situation. He reiterated that the variance criteria asked "How is this parcel diffez~ent from any other R-2 zone district in the City?" He elaborated, - Commissioner CERVENY asked if approving the variance might set a precedent for further actions? Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 January 18, 1996 Mr. Gidley stated that when a subdivision is under deliberation, unless unusual/unique circumstances exist, staff will .recommend compliance with recommendations. In this case, no unique/unusual circumstances were found. Commissioner CERVENY,asked if the fact that a duplex would be. allowed on the whole parcel, but that two duplexes would not be allowed on the subdivided lot, would be considered unique or unusual circumstances. He thought that the two duplexes might actually enhance the neighborhood. He elaborated. Ms. Reckert answered that there was quite a bit of vaca__nt land left, especially in that area. Mr. Gidley-noted that because of numerous small, in-fill lots withir~ the City, this type of request will not be unusual. He reminded Commission that most variance requests are for individual lots and are referred to the Board of Adjustment. He elaborated. Commissioner CERVENY asked what Board of Adjustment would do, for example, if the parcel was already subdivided and requested such a variance. Mr. Gidley answered that they had denied and approved some such cases.' He added that he did not know nor could he predict what the Board would do in the incidence Commissioner CERVENY _ mentioned. Ms. Reckert informed Commission that should the subdivision be approved, denial of the variance request would not preclude an applicant from applying for variance again iri-the .future. Commissioner ECKHARDT suggested the possibility of attaching the units only at the corners. He explained. _ Mr. Gidley noted to Commission that the-greatest possibility for ownership would exist if the'variance request was denied. Commissioner ECKHA.RDT stated he was not concerned about ownership. Mr_ Bandimere stated he had concerns about a four-plex being, maintained. He noted that should duplexes.be allowed, an owner could live in half, renting the other half and make sure that the units were maintained. Commissioner ECKHARDT suggested condominium ownership could be_ done. • - Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 Sanuary 18, 1996_ Mr. Bandimere. noted that it was costly to set up condominium ownership. _ Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if a four-plea was constructed, would the units have to be attached? . Mr. Gidley answered yes. Chairperson LANGDON asked that Mr. Gidley further explain Mr. Bandimere's options. should the variance not be granted. Mr. Gidley answered that if the subdivision was approved but_the variance denied, Mr. Bandimere or another applicant/owner-would have the option of doing a consolidation plat and after one year has passed any owner can reapply for variance request. Chairperson LANGDON asked if that was only if the_lots were still unimproved. _ Mr, Gidley stated yes, that was correct ._ _ Commissioner ECKHARDT moved that the request for rezoning from C- 1 and A-1 to R-2A for property located at 4470 Lae Street be_, • Approved for the, following reasons: _ 1. The request is compatible_with the surrounding use; _ 2. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and 3. The evaluation criteria presented support the request. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Commissioner ECKHARDT moved that the request_for lot area and lot width variances associated with a proposed minor subdivision be Denied for the following reason: 1. The variance evaluation criteria do not support approval. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion. .Motion carried.4-1, with Commissioner CERVENY voting no. Commissioner ECKHARDT moved that the request for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision for property located_at 4470 Lee_Street be approved f or the following reason: _ 1. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following condition: . 1. The plat be redesigned to allow for one,R-2A single-family lot and one.R-2A duplex lot. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 • January 18, 1996 Commissioner CERVENY seconded the motion. Commissioner CERVENY suggested that since the request for variance had been denied, perhaps the applicant would not.-care to subdivide the lot. Mr. Bandimere considered,liis options. Commissioner ECRHARDT asked if there was a possibility of purchasing additional land. Mr. Bandimere answered that he_ had tried to purchase additional land, but had no success. He explained. - Commissioner CERVENY stated that Commission was awaiting Mr. Bandimere's decision whether he wished to proceed with his. __ subdivision request. , Discussion followed. Commissioner ECKHARDT thought that if-the_subdivision was approved, but not recorded, it would make no difference. _ _ • Mr. Gidley reminded those present that the case would go next to City Council., who will make a decision on the zoning request. The applicant can appeal Planning Commission's decision on the subdivision and variance. to City Council. Discussion followed regarding various options for-the applicant and_procedures_for same. - Mr. Gidley went through the pros and cons for the various options the applicant has, explaining them to the applicant. Mr. Bandimere decided to leave his request as is. Commissioner ECKHARDT_'s motion regarding the subdivision request carried, 5-0. - 3. Case No. WZ-96-2: An application by Terry Kunz for HJH, L.L.C., for approval of a final development plan and plat for PCD zoned property within the Town Center Master Plan area. Said property is located at 4010 Wadsworth Boulevard. - Meredith Reckert presented the staff .report. Entered .and . accepted .into the-.record by the Chairperson were the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, _ case file, packet materials and slides. • Planning Commission Minutes_ Page 7 . January 18, 1996 Commissioner ECKHARDT asked about location of a_ sidewalk mentioned by Ms. Reckert in the staff report. Ms. Reckert stated the existing sidewalk along the eastern side of the connector dive would have to be increased. in width to meet ADA Handicapped standards. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked if there would be sidewalk along the landscaped island? Ms. Reckert answered that there would be. Commissioner ECKHARDT had a question regarding the location of the island the Fire Department wanted painted. Ms. Reckert stated it was the pork chop-shaped area, Commissioner ECKHARDT asked if they wanted it painted rather than raised? Ms. Reckert answered yes. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked if the proposed building would be a • single story. Ms, Reckert answered yes. She thought the building shown was about 22 feet in height.. _ - Commissioner ECKHARDT asked if the island was going to be painted; why have it2 Ms. Reckert answered the purpose of the island was to direct _ traffic. Commissioner ECKHARDT suggested use of Hollywood_ curbing, which would allow vehicles to drive over it. Ms. Reckert stated there was six-inch vertical curbing along the eastern edge of the connector-drive. - Commissioner WILLIAMS asked about the type of lighting to be used. Ms. Reckert stated that lighting exists in the park but the _ developer was responsible to light the parcel in question. Chairperson LANGDON asked Ms. Reckert what would be done about the request from the Police Department. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 • January 18, 1996 Ms. Reckert explained how the developer could avoid potential problems by using non-graffiti paint on Large flat ,surfaces; the underbrush be kept to a minimum and shrubs/trees be trimmed. Terror Kunz 2665 Taft Court, Lakewood, was sworn in. Mr. Kunz stated he was handing development and construction for the property owners. He explained that the proposed building would __- be single-use owner-occupied. He had no problem with the conditions noted in the staff report. Commissioner CERVENY moved that Case No. WZ-96-2, a request for approval of a PCD final development plan and plat for PCD zoned property within the Town Center Master Plan area, located at 4010 Wadsworth Blvd. be Approved for the following reasons: 1. The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge and alI notification and posting requirements have been met. 2. The proposal is consistent with the Town Center Master Plan Design Guidelines. 3. All requirements for a final development plan and plat have been met. With the following conditions: • 1. A note regarding signage be added; 2. A note regarding exterior lighting be added; 3. The dumpster enclosure material be showny 4. Colors be specified to correspond with Staff recommendation under Section 1S I; and 5. On the southern curb cut,, the island be painted and_the northern radius be increased two feet. Commissioner ECKHARDT seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. .. 4. Case No_ MS-96=2c An application by Gerald M. Biehl _ for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision for T property located at 3600 Youngfield Street. Mr, Gidley presented-the staff report. Entered and accepted by the Chairperson were the Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Ordinance, case fj.le and ,packet materials. There were no questions from Commission at that time. Jerry Biehl, 11115 Wes t. 38th Avenue, was sworn in. Mr. Biehl . stated he needed to isolate this parcel for financing and tax purposes. - . There-were no question6 from Commission at that time. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 January 18, 1996 - - i Commissioner WILLIAMS moved that Case No. MS-96-2, an application by Gerald. J. Biehl for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision for property located at 3600 Xoungfield Street be approved for the following reasons: 1. No physical changes are proposed. 2. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following conditions: 1. A water line easement be provided consistent with Consolidated Mutual's requirements. 2. A blanket cross access easement be provided on the plat. 3. A signature block be added for the mortgagor. 4. Legal description problems be corrected. Commissioner ECKHARDT seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 9. OLD BIISINSSS • 1. Utility Undergrounding Mr. Gidley provided information gathered from a survey of other communities he did last summer and summarized responses. Lengthy discussion followed. Consensus was that Commissioner CERVENY was appointed to further investigate costs and time frames for un_dergrounding utilities. Additionally, Commissioner CERVENY will search for alternate ways to fund undergrounding utilities in the future. Commission resolved, if possible, to meet with Council in May regarding Carl's findings. 2. Mr. Gidley brought Commission up-to-date regarding items pending with City Council. 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ITEMS 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS 13. ADJOIIRNMENT • Planning Commission Minutes • January 18, 1996 Page 10 There being no further business, by consensus, meeting adjourned at, 9':35 p,m. - Sandra Wiggins, cretary • •