Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/03/1996 Muvui~S OF MEETING October 3, 1996 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson LANGDON at 7:30 p.m., on October 3, 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 Carolyn Griffith Jay Rasplicka Carl A. Cerveny - George Langdon Janice Thompson Warren Johnson - EXCUSED ABSENCE EXCUSED ABSENCE STAFF PRESENT: Glen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development Bob Goebel, Director of Public Works Meredith Reckert, Planner Sandra Wiggins, Secretary PUBLIC HEARING The following is the official copy of Planning Commission minutes for-.the Public .Hearing of October 3, 1996. A copy 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 October 3, 1996 3. PLEDGE OF 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA Commissioner WILLIAMS moved to approve the agenda for the meeting of October 3, 1996 as printed. Commissioner RASPLICIZA seconded the motion. Commissioner THOMPSON asked_ if it would be an appropriate time to request that regarding the first case (under public hearing) that the request be divided into two separate motions. Mr. Gidley suggested that the appropriate time to make that decision would be when Commission gets to that item on the agenda. Motion carried 6-0 to. approve the agenda. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner WILLIAMS moved to_approve the minutes for the • meeting of September 18, 1996 as printed. Commissioner THOMPSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 6. PIIBLIC 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 to speak at that time. 7. PUBLIC "rF'r~"ING 1. Case No. WZ-96-10e An application by Dwaine R. Richter for approval of a Planned Commercial Development combined final development plan with sign variances and subdivision plat. Said property is located at 12851 West 32nd Avenue. (Continued from September 18, 1996) Commissioner THOMPSON moved that when Commission is ready to make a decision on this case, two motions be made as follows: 1. One motion concerning the requested subdivision; and 2. a second motion concerning the requested sign variances. Commissioner GRIEFITH seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. • Ms. Reckert stated she had three additional pieces of information to distribute to Commission. Two were letters from area Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 1996 Page 3 residents and the third was a sign plan for the Diamond Shamrock monument sign. Ms. Reckert reiterated to those present that this case had been continued and that Planning Commission had taken testimony at the Public Hearing on August 15, 1996. She added that included in the packet materials provided to Commission was all written - testimony, as well as copies of the minutes. Ms. Reckert went over the revised plan, which was projected overhead for ease in viewing. Ms. Reckert concluded her presentation and asked for questions. Commissioner THOMPSON reported that although she did not attend __ the public- hearing on the case before Commission, she had listened to the tapes and felt she was prepared to make a decision that night. Additionally, Commissioner THOMPSON informed those present that the case presently under discussion was brought up at the Town Meeting she had attended the previous Tuesday evening. At that time, she had informed those individuals who inquired about the. case, that she could not discuss it as no decision had yet been- . made. Commissioner THOMPSON voiced her concern regarding the following: traffic on West 32nd Avenue; no stop light being installed at 32nd Avenue and the Frontage Road; stacking of vehicles on West 32nd Avenue; possible re-development of the area to the north and need for more right-of-way on West 32nd Avenue; adequate room for stacking when headed east and turning into development; on and off ramps at I-70; transition from commercial uses to residential uses and possible trash problems; light glare; placement of handicapped parking; developer is trying to pack too much into small-space - small retail space should not be built; continuance of wall to West 32nd Avenue; wall should be continued to West 32nd Avenue; no reason not to continue wall to north end of the development; one-way-in/one-way-out at Wendy°s; location of drive-up window; impact of showroom on residential neighborhood; berm adequate or should wall be continued at that location; location of dumpsters for restaurant, will they be enclosed; dumpster for showroom currently located next to residential area; evergreens being utilized for buffering and not just deciduous trees. She stated she would like to have someone respond to her concerns. Mr. Gidley stated he would go through Commissioner THOMPSON's concerns one-by-one, adding that Bob Goebel, Director of Public Works, was present and could answer questions regarding • intersection design, design of West 32nd Avenue, and the traffic signal. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 • October 3, 1996 Bob Goebel answered that the-traffic report did indicate a signal would be necessary when the gas station or Wendy°s is built. Funds are budgeted in 1997 to construct that signal, which will be hard-wired to the signal at Youngfield, the off-ramp on the West side of I-70 and the signal at Alkire, which is in Jefferson County. He elaborated. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if mention of the signal should be made in the motion. Mr. Goebel stated it wouldn't hurt to include it. Commissioner THOMPSON had concerns regarding stacking on West 32nd Avenue and the ingressjegress off from West 32nd Avenue into the site. Discussion followed. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that if a signal is installed, that would address the stacking problem. Mr. Goebel agreed it would. • Mr. Gidley offered to talk about some of the other issues including the transition from residential to commercial. He stated that generally, the transition was dealt with in 1974 when certain parameters were built into the outline development plan. He elaborated. Ms. Reckert stated that the landscape plan showed mostly deciduous trees, with low-growing junipers along West 32nd Avenue. She added the evergreen buffering would be .low. Mr. Gidley noted that the developer feels that the combination of landscaping and the berm along West 32nd Avenue addresses the neighborhood concerns. He stated that the handicapped parking space did need to be relocated. The small building on that lot was extremely tight, and that was been brought to the attention of the developer. It does meet minimum requirements, he added, but it is a design issue. Mr. Gidley stated the Wendy's drive-up window was located on the west side. He didn't believe the showroom building would be an easily-marketed building, due to its' location. He added that the dumpsters for the restaurant were shown on the plan. Mr. Gidley spoke about the retail building site of 925 square feet, remarking that it might accomplish a "sound barrier" objective, making the sound barrier wall unnecessary. If the building is not constructed, he added, it might be best to have the duplex access off the Frontage Road, rather than West 32nd Avenue or Zinnia. • Planning Commission Minutes • October 3, 1996 Page 5 Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the building was constructed, why wouldn't you recommend having the wall extended to close off any opening, so that high school students could not "cut through". Mr. Gidley answered that more than likely the duplex would. have a side yard fence. Commissioner THOMPSON voiced her concern including the small retail building, even though it met minimum standards. Commissioner ECKHARDT stated it was his understanding that the subject building was previously approved and it was office space. Mr. Gidley stated he helieved Commission ECKHARDT was correct, it was office space, not retail. Ms. Reckert checked the. plan. Mr. Gidley stated only "limited retail" was allowed on that site. The building itself, was not approved, he added. The applicant, he stated, had chosen to interpret the outline plan by the "use area" being designated on the plan to convert into a building. He elaborated. • Ms. Reckert stated that the outline plan does allow retail along that side, however, there. are. limitations. The building limited to office/warehouse type uses was the building in back of the subject building (Lot 6). Commissioner ECKHARDT noted that with seven parking spaces, the business couldn't be very large. Chairperson LANGDON asked if Commission should hear applicant`s testimony before further discussion. Mr. Gidley reiterated that the case had been continued for specific purposes. He explained that those purposes were to address concerns after the public hearing was closed. The primary purpose to reopen this case for the purpose of clarifying the revisions necessary, based upon the previous submittal - not to go through the entire public hearing again. Commissioner-GRIFFITH asked if Commission decided against allowing the small building and decided in favor of extending the wall, who would be responsible to maintain the landscaping? Mr. Gidley answered that it would be on the applicant's land and would be applicant's responsibility to maintain. Mr. Gidley explained the importance of specifying what Commission wants in • that area, whether a building, landscaping, extension of the wall, etc. Pla.,,,;,,g Commission Minutes Page 6 • October 3, 1996 Commissioner THOMPSON asked regarding the restaurant shown on alternate 'A', would the restaurant share the dumpster with Wendy's? She added that she did not see a dumpster for the restaurant. Ms. Reckert stated it would be her recommendation that Commission include that a dumpster be added for that pad site in their motion. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if Wendy's traffic circulation would allow only one way in and one way out? Ms. Reckert answered "angle" parking is shown. which is generally utilized for one way, but full-width aisles are also shown, which would allow two-way movement. They could do some striping on the lot for circulation purposes. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mr. Goebel how he felt about the small retail site, the curb cut and the location of same? Do you feel traffic can move safely through this area as the proposal plan indicates? Mr. Goebel stated the amount of traffic generated by such a small • retail outlet would not be large enough have a significant bearing on traffic circulation. He elaborated. Chairperson LANGDON asked Ms. Reckert if two 25-foot entrances would be adequate. Ms. Reckert stated it would provide for one-way circulation. She elaborated. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if it was necessary to address business hours for the proposed development? Mr. Gidley stated that if limits are placed on business hours, it would be the first application of limiting business hours in Wheat Ridge. He added that he would have concerns about setting such a precedent. He wasn't certain that it could be enforced. Chairperson LANGDON agreed that it would be difficult to enforce such a limitation. Discussion followed. Mr. Gidley noted that one condition that could be placed would be that Diamond Shamrock canopy signage on the west and south not be illuminated. He reminded Commission that the applicant had agreed to lower sign height along West 32nd Avenue. He • elaborated. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 • October 3, 1996 • • Chairperson LANGDON asked if it would be possible for Diamond Shamrock to reduce lighting at night. Mr. Gidley reminded Commission that there would be two other types of signs - a 50-foot sign and a 'ten-foot sign along 32nd Avenue. Chairperson LANGDON stated that when he spoke of reducing the lighting, he was referring more to the ten-foot sign than the 50- foot sign. Dwaine Richter, the applicant and owner of 70 West Business Center, came forward to speak. Mr. Richter has been sworn in previously. He went over items listed on page 2 of the staff report regarding items needing to be addressed relative to the final development plan, bringing those present up-to-date. Chairperson LANGDON asked if it would be best to address each of Mr. Richter's statements now? Mr. Gidley suggested that Commission allow Mr. Richter to finish his response. Questions could then be directed to specific items. Mr_ Richter then updated Commission on the status of corrections to be made to the subdivision plat and items discussed at the August 15 Planning Commission which were not addressed. Mr. Richter stated his strong feelings against limiting business hours. He pointed out to Commission a berm and six-foot fence which-he had built in 1984. He noted a sprinkler system had been installed, as well as landscaping and that the project had been quite expensive. He felt he had met the City's requirements and added that it was unfaix to expect him to do more. He elaborated. The cost to continue the sound barrier wall 91 ,feet to West 32nd Avenue would be $10,500. Mr. Richter stated much of the noise comes from Interstate 70. He elaborated. He added that a building would provide more protection to the residents than continuance of the sound barrier to the south. He went on to talk about building coverage and disagreed that the site, as proposed, would be too dense. Mr. Richter-went over questions Commissioner THOMPSON had voiced and offered to answer any other questions Commission might have. Commissioner THOMPSON-asked Mr. Richter where the dumpster would be placed for the retail restaurant. Mr_ Richter stated the lot was small and therefore, he felt the trash accumulation would be small.- He added he would make certain that it was added. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 • October 3, 1996 Chairperson LANGDON asked Commissioner THOMPSON if she had further questions or if any of her previous questions had not been answered to her satisfaction. Commissioner THOMPSON answered that Mr. Richter had covered them well. Mr_ Richter introduced Mr. Bob Leigh of Lee, Scott and Cleary. Following that Mr. Gipson of Diamond Shamrock would speak, he added. Boh LPiah, of Leigh, Scott and Cleary, 2889 York Street, Denver, was sworn in. He reported that his firm prepared a traffic impact analysis that was required by the City. Mr. Leigh reported that the overwhelming majority of the traffic would be generated by the gas station and the fast food restaurant (800). He elaborated. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked who would be paying for the signal? Mr. Goebel stated that the City would be paying for the signal as part of an agreement reached between City Council and a judgement placed on the City by the courts. • Chairperson LANGDON asked if Jefferson County would participate. Mr. Goebel answered that Jefferson County will participate in communications with the signal on Alkire Street. That way, he added all signals can be controlled by computer. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the signature block for the Colorado Department of Transportation was necessary? Mr. Gidley answered that is a minor issue. He elaborated. Commissioner THOMPSON asked about Alternate A and B on the plan. Ms. Reckert answered that the applicant has requested approval of both alternatives, Approval of both alternatives would allow more marketing possibilities. Rick Gipson, real estate representative with Diamond Shamrock, 520 E 56th Avenue, Denver, was sworn in. Mr. Gipson offered to answer any questions Commission might have. Chairperson LANGDON reiterated that a motion had been approved to separate the issues. Mr. Gidley answered that there would be a separate motion • regarding the signs. Discussion could be heard, however, regarding signage. Planning Commission Minutes • October 3, 1996 Page 9 Mr_ Ginson pointed out that items No. 5 and 6 (Items needing to be addressed relative to the final development plan), the supplemental document provided at that night`s meeting, does reflect a significant- change in Street signage along West 32nd Avenue. It reduces the height from a 25-foot pole sign with 125 square feet of illuminated sign face to a 50 square foot illuminated sign face with a height of ten feet. Additionally, the structure would move approximately 100 feet east. Mr. Gipson- Gl~r~2ssed his confusion over item No. 6, whether the concern was light projection or just what. Mr. Gidley stated that the reference made was for canopy signs. The. canopies are quite tall, he explained, and there are residential areas to the west and south. Since the canopies would remain illuminated all night, Staff was requesting that they not be lit. Mr. Ginson explained the sign configuration. He added that the illumination would be "soft" and-would not project light. He elaborated. He said they would be visible not invasive. He stated Diamond Shamrock would certainly like to retain the illuminated lights as part of the marketing package of the facility. • There were no questions at that time. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mr. Gidley to point out the changes made to the original sign proposal. Mr. Gidley walked to the overhead and pointed out to Commission locations of the signs on the original submittal (Three 50-foot- high signs and two 25-foot-high signs, plus signage on the walls). He then pointed out the changes that had been made from that original submittal. He further elaborated. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the canopy sign would illuminate residential back yards, even with the height of the sound barrier wall? Mr. Gidley stated he had never been in the back yards of the homes in-that area. He said the sound barrier consisted of a four-foot-high berm, with a ten-foot-high solid masonry wall on top of it (14 feet of elevation). He thought there was a possibility that they would not. However, he pointed out that the homes from another area would be able to see the canopy light. He reminded Commission that it is a commercial area and had been-zoned as such since 1974. Commissioner ECKHARDT suggested that at 10:00 or 11:00 p.m. the • west signs could either be turned off or dimmed. • • Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 October 3, 1996 Mr. Gipson stated due to this particular type of signage, if the Signs were dimmed, it would be like shutting them off. Commissioner ECKHARDT suggested the signs may not be necessary. Mr_ Gioson stated it was Diamond Shamrock's desire to have the signs illuminated, but should Commission decide the signs are not necessary, Diamond Shamrock would still do fine at that location. Chairperson LANGDON announced to those present that there were four persons"who had signed the roster to speak. He reminded everyone wishing to speak that only items regarding new information (information presented at this meeting) would be discussed. Mike Coen, 13146 West 33rd Avenue, Golden, was sworn in. Mr. Coen spoke of plans to install a "trap door" to service three fire hydrants, should the opening in the wall be closed. He thought the trap door was unnecessary. He was in favor of the continuing the brick wall, should the road be constructed. He had concerns about covenants that had been in place since 1965. He added that he had never seen a sprinkler on his side of the berm, and that the landscaping consisted of tall weeds and grass. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mr. Coen where the fire hydrants were located? Is the trap door needed? Ms. Reckert answered that the hydrants were interspersed around the site and the City had worked with Consolidated Mutual Water and Lakewood Fire District on the location of the hydrants. She added that the City could verify if the trap door is necessary. It may not be needed. Commissioner GRIFFITH asked Mr. Coen if he did-or did not want the wall extended. Mr_ Coen stated if the road is constructed, he would like the wall extended. Commissioner GRIFFITH asked if there wasn't a fence there already. Mr. Coen stated there was a six-foot wooden fence. Chairperson LANGDON asked who would pay if the wall was extended? Mr. Gidley stated the City had built the wall adjacent to the public street right-of-way, but if the wall wa__s extended, the developer would pay for it. • Planning Commission Minutes • October 3, 1996 Page 11 Emily Bennett, 13206 West 33rd Place was sworn in. Ms. Bennett stated that some lots in the development were still covered by covenants. She added that the City of Wheat Ridge has started a condemnation proceeding to relocate street right-of-way and this procedure would also remove the covenants. Ms. Bennett stated she planned to file a protest. Mr. Gidley apologized for interrupting, but informed Commission - the matter Ms. Bennett was referring to was in litigation and it was inappropriate to discuss it at that time. It was not an issue for Commission to consider, he added. Ms. Bennett disagreed. Chairperson LANGDON informed Ms. Bennett that the legal process has begun and Planning Commission was not empowered to interfere with that process. The request before Commission, he added, will not include the covenants. Chairperson LANGDON asked Ms. Bennett if she had other issues she wished to comment on. Ms. Bennett answered she thought the color of the Diamond Shamrock canopies would_be closer to "kelly" green rather than "holly'° green. She was certain that the proposed canopy signs • would be seen from her home. Brad Brauer, 3238 Zinnia Court was sworn in. Mr. Brauer pointed out his home on the projected map. He stated he was surrounded by Wheat Ridge on two sides. He stated he had been asked to_ represent approximately 15 residents on Zinnia Court. Mr. Brauer had written the letter dated September 26, 1996 handed out that night. He stated his and neighbors' concern was for the integrity of the neighborhood and they appreciated Commission's concern regarding the impact of this development. Mr. Brauer had concerns regarding access and inadequate roads servicing the development. Chairperson LANGDON asked if Mr. Brauer°s concerns were regarding information brought forward that night? Mr_ Brauer disagreed that the wall need not be extended, as there was no way of knowing when the duplex might be built. Mr. Gidley stated the site of the proposed duplex allows only a single or two-family dwelling. Mr. Brauer stated that the lot in question has not been developed now, it's assumed it will be. built and act as a barrier. Mr. Gidley stated that was not the building he was saying would • act as a barrier. The building he was referring to was the commercial building. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 • October 3, 1996 Mr. Brauer had concerns about the foot traffic crossing the empty lot, which is landscaped with natural weeds, grasses and dead trees. He stated a wall would help buffer the neighbors and keep the trash out. He elaborated. Mr. Brauer asked if the opening would be closed. Chairperson LANGDON stated he believed that the opening where the fire hydrant is located will be closed. Mr. Brauer stated he appreciated the closure of that area. He noted that when the high school adds a 12th grade, traffic will increase significantly. Mr. Brauer stated that if there is a choice between alternate 'A° and 'B', the residents prefer alternate 'B'. The reason for their choice is that alternate 'B' would reduce the amount of traffic, reduce peak time traffic, and prevent an "all-night" establishment. Mr. Brauer stated the canopy sign(s) will be visible from his two-story home and he was hopeful that the canopy signs would not be illuminated. Mr. Brauer thought that 50-foot signs was overkill and explained why. Chairperson LANGDON asked if the 50-foot sign would be placed before the 32nd Avenue exit? • Discussion followed. _- Mr_ Brauer spoke of the existing traffic congestion and stated that one of the biggest problems was that there is no south-bound access onto I-70 westbound coming off Highway 58. He also spoke of the poor quality landscaping done in 1984 and-.the broken sprinkler system. Mr. Brauer told of his concern for light pollution into their. neighborhood.. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if plans exist to extend the service-- road to the north. And, if so, will the commercial office showroom conform to the parking regulations? Mr. Gidley stated that Pl~rn~ng Staff had suggested on several occasions that rather than the alignment shown, that alternate alignment occur directly north behind the LaQuinta, across the Salter property and connect further to the north. That alignment was not chosen. Mr. Richter was willing to work with Staff to provide the. potential for that to occur. If that alignment were to occur, it would remove a long line of parking, however, that parking would have to be replaced. He elaborated. Commissioner THOMPSON reiterated that the fire department has approved the plans and there is adequate access. Mr. Gidley answered yes, that was true. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 October 3, 1996 Commissioner THOMPSON asked about the statement Mr, Gidley had made regarding a fence around the proposed duplex. She felt a barrier should be constructed between commercial and residential. Mr. Gidley stated there was a barrier, consisting of a four-foot berm and a six-foot fence on top of the berm from east to west. Commissioner THOMPSON asked why is the responsibility of the duplex owner to provide the barrier? Mr. Gidley asked if the wall was extended in a north-south fashion, then should the berm/fence be removed? That is what you would have in a normal residential area. He elaborated. Mr_ Brauer asked to speak regarding the wall question. He spoke in favor of the wall remaining. He stated it protected his home from the ugly field and the traffic noise on West 32nd Avenue. He elaborated. Commissioner ECKHARDT suggested that a solid fence be installed along the west side of Lot 5, which would be an extension of the berm until such time as the building is constructed. Then extend the berm down to the building and out to West 32nd Avenue if • necessary. Chairperson LANGDON asked if Commissioner ECKHARDT was suggesting a six-foot privacy fence? Commissioner ECKHARDT answered he thought that would be appropriate. Commissioner THOMPSON stated some type of a division should be made, separating residential from commercial< Commissioner ECKHARDT asked Commissioner THOMPSON if his suggestion was reasonable? Commissioner THOMPSON answered yes, it was. Commissioner ECKHARDT stated he preferred to see the small retail building as strictly an office building. He stated it would have the same exterior as the duplex, and it is probably a good way to transition from residential to the west and commercial to the east. Norm Ross, 3135 Zinnia Street, was sworn in previously. He stated he was also concerned about the quality of life and his property value. Mr. Ross requested a copy of the revised plan. He was provided same. One of his concerns was the barrier and he • was in favor of a four-foot wall being placed on the barrier to block light, noise and trash. Mr. Ross spoke in favor of Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 October 3, 1996 evergreen trees rather than deciduous trees utilized on the berm. He voiced his concern regarding the installation of a traffic signal to aid in traffic congestion. Signage was another of his concerns. He thought 50-foot signs were not necessary. Mr. Ross felt the proposed bikeway was located too close to I-70. He suggested it be relocated to the east edge of the old service road. Mr. Ross inquired when discussion would be heard regarding architectural details/building materials? He was concerned that the traffic movement though the development was not going to work well -in certain areas. Mr. Ross thought approval should be given for either alternate 'A' or °B'. He was in favor of limiting business hours and turning lights off at 11:00 p.m. He asked Commission to address unresolved issues. There were no questions at that time. Chairperson LANGDON called a short recess at 9:55 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 10:05 p.m. Chairperson LANGDON listed resolved issues from the various lists in the staff report. Regarding outstanding or unresolved issues, Mr. Gipson was invited back to the podium. • Mr. Ginson stated that if Commission did decide that lighting of the canopy on the west be dimmed or turned off, to consider early dark hours in winter and allow perhaps use of a timer to cut the light at a specific time. Discussion was heard. Mr. Gipson stated he was willing to keep the west canopy light off from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Chairperson LANGDON suggested that Mr. Richter address the landscaping and the sprinkler system. Mr. Richter stated the sprinkler system had been turned off years ago. The flooding Mr. Brauer referred to was Caused by trash clogging the irrigation ditch cleanout which resulted in over- flowing on the north side of 32nd Avenue. He added that the irrigation pipe had been relocated with the construction of the street and there has been no further problem. He has tried to cut the weeds three times yearly. Mr. Richter stated his objection to constructing a wall. He would not object to constructing a wooden fence. He elaborated. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked Mr. Richter if he planned to turn the sprinkler system back on and install some landscaping on the berm? • Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 • October 3, 1996 Mr. Richter stated the berm was planted in native grasses for arid climate. The sprinkler system is not really necessary, he added. - Commissioner WILLIAMS asked if Mr. Richter would agree to build a six-foot wooden fence across the property line. Mr. Richter stated he would if that is what Commission wants him to do, although he does not see the need for an additional fence. There would be a fence installed when the duplex is constructed. There was no further discussion at that time. Commissioner THOMPSON stated she would make the motion, however she needed to ask one question. She asked Mr. Gidley if it was possible to extend the plantings and the berm there near the corner to alleviate the problem with the lights that have concerned the neighbors across the street. Also, she asked Mr. Gidley for some further discussion of the duplex wall. Mr. Gidley stated that the berm could be extended from 32nd to the I-70 Frontage Road west, so that vehicle lights would not project across the street to the south. The grading plan can be • modified to accomplish that, providing that sight visibility at the intersection is accommodated. Additionally, he stated that the landscape plan could be modified to include evergreen trees on the berm acting as a light barrier. Deciduous trees-could be planted in other areas of the. berm, allowing for visibility into the site. The third issue was a barrier between the duplex and the development. He suggested that one possible solution might be that the owner be allowed to remove the berm and relocate the six-foot-high wall or fence at the property line, giving the owner a bit more usable space, better access to parking facilities and integrating-the site with residences to the north. Chairperson LANGDON asked if Mr. Gidley was suggesting that the decision be left to the discretion of the owner. Mr. Gidley answered yes, he was. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if Commission requires the extension of the fence that the City built, would it be at City expense? Mr. Gidley answered no. He pointed out on-the projected map where a berm with a fence on it current exists and where the fence would be constructed. Commissioner THOMPSON moved that Case No. WZ-96-10, an application by Dwaine R. Richter for approval of a Planned Commercial Development combined final development plan be Approved with the following conditions: Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 • October 3, 1996 1. The traffic light on West 32nd Avenue be installed at the earliest possible date. 2. Enclosed dumpsters be provided for all buildings. 3. The handicapped parking space for the retail development (Lot 5) be moved closer to the building. 4. That the opening in the sound barrier wall be closed, and the fire district decide whether a trap door needs to be installed for access to the fire hydrant. 5. Lighting for the canopy signs on the west side of the Diamond Shamrock building be turned off from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. daily. 6. That a six-foot-high wood fence be continued from the noise barrier to West 32nd Avenue behind retail building on Lot 5. 7. whether or not the berm on Lot 4 is removed will be determined at the time of construction of the duplex by the property owner. At the discretion of the developer, a wall or fence is to be constructed between the two properties. Commissioner ECKHARDT- asked Commissioner THOMPSON if she had meant to include the signs on the west and south sides of the Diamond Shamrock facility in her motion. - Commissioner THOMPSON stated it was her understanding it was the • lighting of the signs. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked if she wanted to include the west side of the monument signs on West 32nd? Commissioner THOMPSON stated that could be included in the motion regarding signage. Commissioner ECKHARDT agreed. 8. That the developer work with Public Works Department on the creation of a berm that will extend along West 32nd Avenue west as far as possible to I-70 Service Road to aid in alleviating headlight glare into residential property. Evergreen trees be utilized when possible so long as the integrity of the sight distance triangle is maintained. Commissioner GRIFFITH seconded the motion. Motion carried 6=0. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked-what would the second motion cover? Chairperson LANGDON answered the second motion would be-regarding the requested sign variances. He summarized the changes made. Commissioner THOMPSON stated personally, she felt the requested number of signs was too many, however, the developer and City • have come to a compromise. - Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 • October 3, 1996 Commissioner-ECKHARDT stated he felt the lighting on the west side of the monument signs should be turned off at 11:00 p.m. along with the canopy sign. However, if evergreen trees are planted on the berm, it may not be necessary. Chairperson LANGDON stated he was impressed with signage he had seen recently which utilized a more controlled lighting that didn't seem so harsh. He elaborated. He thought this was the type of signage that was planned. Commissioner WILLiAMS agreed. He thought government can be allowed to regulate too much. Commissioner ECKHARDT agreed with Commissioner WILLIAMS although the people living in the area have rights as well. --If the signs are not invasive, leave them on. However, he felt that turning the lights off at 11:00 p.m. would not be a real problem to the developers. Mr. Gidley stated that from a functional standpoint, the signs proposed are prefabricated boxes and it would be impossible to light just one side. He thought the evergreen trees possibly could be placed so that they block visibility to the homes on the • corner. Chairperson LANGDON stated he felt that the monument signs lighting would not be obtrusive to the adjacent neighborhood. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if she should make reference to the revised sign plan? Mr. Gidley answered if Commission desired to amend the development plans relating to the issues of freestanding signs then indicate the motion is directed toward modification to the development plan related to freestanding signs and specifically the following signs. Then state what you wish to state. Commissioner THOMPSON moved to approve the modification to the development plan for the. 70 West Business Center concerning the freestanding signs as follows: 1. The monument sign for the office showroom will be 10'-51° high and a maximum sign face of 150 square feet; 2. The existing signs for LaQuinta and Country Cafe . Commissioner ECKHARDT informed Commissioner THOMPSON that her motion only need to specify changes to the modified sign plan. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if Commissioner ECKHARDT would like • to make the motion. Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 1996 Page 18 Commissioner ECKHARDT moved that the freestanding signs be approved as depicted on t_he 70 West Business Center Official Development Plan. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Commissioner ECKHARDT moved to approve the 70 West Business Center re-subdivision plat with conditions as stated in the staff report. Commissioner THOMPSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 2. Case No. WZ-96-8: ACity-initiated large area rezoning from Commercial-One (C-1) to Residential-One C (R-iC) and Residential-Two (R-2). The rezoning area is generally located on either side of West 29th Avenue, between Fenton Street and Sheridan Boulevard. Mr. Gidley presented. the staff report. Entered into the record and accepted by the Chairperson were the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, case file, packet materials and Code of,Laws. Commissioner THOMPSON noted that 2875 Benton Street and 5560 West • 29th Avenue had two different addresses.. Mr. Gidley stated that City address maps need to be updated. He explained that when multiple addresses occur on a single lot, because of the small scale used, it was often difficult to get all address numbers on the map. Rod Weuve, owner of 2860 Ames Street, was sworn in. He stated he purchased the property as income property. -The zoning is presently C-1 and he wishes to retain the C-1 zoning. Mr. Weuve added that several of his renters have had businesses they maintained at that location. He felt that if the City rezones his property to residential zoning, it would decrease the resale value and limit his income. One of Mr. Weuve's letters had been included in the packet and he had a second letter, which he provided for the record as well. Mr. Gidley asked Mr. Weuve if the businesses which were operated at his property received a business license from the City? Mr. Weave answered he did not know. Mr. Gidley stated he had investigated the property on several occasions, and never observed any commercial activity from the street. He added that it was a residential neighborhood and the residents would like to retain the residential character. • Encroachment into the neighborhood by commercial activities is why the rezoning was undertaken. Planning Commission Minutes • October 3, 1996 Page 19 Mr Weuve stated he understood that the zoning would be R-2, rather than R-1. Mr. Gidley stated that properties used as two-family dwellings would be rezoned R-2, any properties used as single-family homes would zoned R-1C. Mr_ Weuve stated his property was presently being used as a single-family residence. He elaborated. Commissioner THOMPSON asked about the possibility of a transitional zone such as Restricted Commercial. Mr. Gidley stated that RC-1 is the lowest commercial category and has the most limitations in terms of commercial activities. It would allow for office-type uses such a real estate or an attorney's office. IInless changes are made, it would still be a non-conforming use as a residence. He elaborated. Discussion followed. Mr. Gidley discussed the possibility of down-zoning the property from C-1 to RC-1. He noted that the uses Mr. Weuve mentioned, • furniture repair and auto repair, would not be allowed in that zone district. Mr_ Weuve stated that the property contains an over-sized two-car garage, which lends itself to commercial endeavors, such as furniture repair. He elaborated. He requested that the commercial zoning be retained. Discussion followed. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if any other letters of protest had been received? Mr. Gidley answered no. However, he added that he did receive a phone-call. The caller was in favor of splitting the zoning on -- parcels that contain a home and commercial business. Normally, if possible, lots are not split-zoned. Chairperson LANGDON stated his concern regarding limiting citizens' income or livelihood. However, Mr. Weuve's renters should have been licensed to do commercial activities. Mr. Gidley stated he could check to see if business licenses had been issued to that address. He suggested if Commission wished to do so, they could elect not to make a determination on that particular lot, and allow City Council make that decision, based • upon further investigation of past business licensing. Planning Commission Minutes Page 20 October 3, 1996 Mr. Weuve stated he had a new renter. He doubted that he had yet applied for a business license. Steve Duke&, 5330 West 29th Avenue, was sworn in. Mr. Dukes attended the meeting in March and he stated he supports the mass rezoning. Dennis Willmore, 2857 Chase Street, was sworn ine He stated he enjoys helping high school students in the neighborhood with their cars. His hobby is finding old cars and Fixing-them up. Mr. Willmore was concerned that the rezoning might prohibit him from doing these things. Mr. Gidley stated that Mr. Willmore or any resident, was allowed to sell automobiles that you own, up to three per year. Mr. willmore_stated that would be no problem for him. Discussion followed. Commissioner ECKHARDT moved that Case No. WZ-96-8, a City- initiated large area rezoning from Commercial-One (C-1) to Residential-One C (R-1C) and Residential-Two (R-2). The rezoning • area is generally located on either side of-West 29th Avenue, between Penton Street and Sheridan Boulevard as shown on Exhibit 'A', be Approved for the following reasons: 1. To preserve and protect predominately low density character of the neighborhood; and 2. To recognize and exclude existing developed commercial uses; 3. To rezone to bring this area into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and 4. To rezone from C-1 to R-1C and to R-2 to avoid creation of non-conforming uses. With the following condition: 1. The property located at 2860 Ames Street be excluded from this motion and that property remain as it is presently zoned. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion. Commissioner THOMPSON requested that Commissioner ECKHARDT accept a friendly amendment that relative to 2860 Ames Street, Staff investigate past uses of that parcel and defer decision on it to • City Council. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 21 October 3, 1996 Commissioner ECKHARDT agreed to accept the friendly amendment. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if any special provision needed to be made for 5560 West 29th Avenue? Mr. Gidley stated that if Commission wished to split-zone that property, part C-1 and part R-1C, then modify Commissioner ECKHARDT's motion and specify that split zoning be considered for that parcel. Commissioner THOMPSON stated her intent was to leave the entire parcel commercial zoning. Mr. Gidley stated that his recommendation is to retain the commercial zoning on that property. He explained. Motion carried 6-0. Commissioner ECKHARDT moved to extend our 11:00 p.m. limitation. Commissioner GRIFFITH seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 3. Case No. ZOA-96-7n Proposed amendment to Wheat Ridge • Code of Laws, Chapter 26. Zoning Code, Section 26-20. Restricted Commercial-One (RC-iD zone district regulations regarding RESIDENTIAL USES. Mr. Gidley presented the staff report. There were no questions at that time. Commissioner ECKHARDT moved that Case No. ZOA-96-7, a proposed amendment to Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26. Zoning Code, Section 26-20. Restricted Commercial-One (RC-1) zone district regulations regarding RESIDENTIAL USES, be forwarded to City Council with our recommendation for Approval. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 1. Joint Meeting with City Council Mr. Gidley informed Commission that a joint meeting with City Council had been scheduled for Monday, October 7, 1996 at 7:00 • p.m. Planning Commission Minutes Page 22 October 3, 1996 2. Capital Projects Information regarding Capital Projects had been provided to Commission from Public Works Director, Bob Goebel. 3. Commissioner THOMPSON stated she was having surgery November 6, 1996 and would not be able to attend the November 7 Planning Commission meeting. 11. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ITEMS 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS 1. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if Commission members had anything for him to take to PWAC on October 17. Commissioner ECKHARDT stated that at the recent Town Meeting, many people had mentioned the need for sidewalks throughout the City. Commissioner THOMPSON noted that, at that same meeting, it was mentioned that many businesses do not have their addresses clearly posted. • Chairperson LANGDON Stated that mention was also made of problems with Wheat Ridge's many 2IP CODES. 1. Update on Comprehensive Plan Review Report 13. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned by consensus at 11:40 m. `~~ _ c_ f < Sandra Wiggins, etary •