Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/1996~~~ • MINUTES OE MEETING October 17, 1996 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson LANGDON at 7:34 p.m., on October 17, 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 STAFF PRESENT: Glen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development Sandra Wiggins, Secretary PU$LIC HEARING The following is the official copy of Planning Commission minutes for the Public Hearing of October 17, 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. Y • Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1996 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA Page 2 Commissioner WILLIAMS moved to approve the order of the agenda as printed. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion: Motion carried. 8.-0. S, APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner WILLIAMS moved to approve the minutes for_the _ meeting of October 3, 1996 as printed. Commissioner JOHNSON _ seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0, with Commissioners JOHNSON and CERVENY abstaining,. _ 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 to_speak at that- time. 7. PUBLIC HEARYNG 1. ~a.ae No. W7.-96-'6.1z An application by James R. and Corrine Slotnick for approval of a Planned Commercial Development final development plan and plat on property located at 4549 Tabor Street. Mr. Gidley presented the staff report. Entered into the record were the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations and case file. Mr. Gidley informed those present that slides were- taken of the Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1996 Page 3 property, however, the slide projector was not working that night. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mr. Gidley to address the building being larger than that proposed by the Fruitdale Master Plan. Mr. Gidley answered that the building was not larger than proposed by the Fruitdale Master Plan, but it was larger than the Outline Development Plan provided for. He explained. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if semi-trucks would be servicing the businesses, and if so were the turning radii adequate end also what is the City planning to do with Tabor Street? Mr. Gidley stated that there was not adequate room to pull a semi-truck onto the site, turn around_and pull out. He thought _ that smaller trucks would be servicing the businesses. He added that the applicant might be able to. answer that question better. Regarding Tabor_$treet, which is a collector street, the only . standard the City has for a collector street, is that the right- of-way be 6o feet in width. He elaborated. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if Mr. Gidley thought Tabor Street would be widened in the future. Mr. Gidley answered, yes, he would recommend it but he added he was uncertain if the neighborhood would agree. He elaborated. Mike z3rav. 12826 Crazy Horse Court, Parker, was sworn in. Mr. Bray stated he was the architect on the project. Mr, Bray pointed out the trees on the :site that would be saved. He added that the site would contain not more than five tenants. Mr. Bray stated he had never been informed of the ten-foot setback requirement. The civil engineering on the project had been completed, which required bringing in fill dirt to raise the elevation. He explained how the site drains and informed those present it would be impossible t_o move the building five feet. He elaborated. Mr. Bray showed a color rendering of the proposed building and emphasized that it would not be constructed solely out of 11block01.__He elaborated. :~ • Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 October 17, 1996 Commissioner GRIFFITH asked what exterior construction material would be used? Mr_ Br-av answered that concrete block would be used. He elaborated. _ Commissioner GRIFFITH asked if different colors would be used in the design? Mr. Rrav answered yes, and showed the proposed color scheme. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if he was correct that the east face would be block. Mr. Bray answered the entire east face would be. block. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if the process had begun in July? Mr_ Brav answered that the first meeting with staff had been July • 16. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked-when City Council passed the ordinance requiring the ten-foot setback. Mr. Gidley answered he thought it was the last meeting in _ September, probably the 28th. Discussion followed. Commissioner THOMP$ON asked Mr. Gidley what he would recommend the applicant use as an exterior material in order ,to avoid an "industrial" look. _ _ Mr. Gidley suggested the use of brick, alternate block in a reveal pattern, the patterns can be used to accent large, blank walls. He added that according to the landscape plan, the landscape would provide a natural barrier to the oast wall. Mr. Gidley stated that-parapet_walls could be designed to alter the roof line in order to add interest, as well. • Commissioner RASPLICKA-asked Mr. Bray if he had said "fluted edge'° blo-ck was being used. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 October 17, 1996 Mr. Arav stated that was correct. Discussion followed. Mr. Gidley pointed out that comments from a comprehensive planning standpoint, as well as from public meetings and other comments that the planning process allows buildings to be constructed lacking architectural character.' He added that he was trying to listen to the citizens relative to that matter. Commissioner THOMPSON stated her concern was that there would be other developments coming in on Tabor Street, plus the residential neighborhood which is already feeling the impact from the Interstate, she thought Commission might be setting a precedent. She elaborated. Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr. Bray if there was a problem with staff°s recommendation that the eastern elevation and north and south elevations of the two eastern end units be upgraded by the • use of brick or building offsets in order to avoid an "industrial" look. Mr_ Rrav, spoke about the .importance of constructing a development which is aesthetically pleasing, especially the front of the development. Mr. Gidley stated that if the developer was also willing to upgrade the front (south) of the building,. that would be great. Commissioner CERVENY asked if there could be any leniency regarding the setbacks, since the ruling had changed after he applied. Mr. Gidley answered the City Attorney had interpreted our ordinances so that if you want to allow a five-foot setback, that would require a variance. It would be a separate issue and require a greater-than-majority vote of Planning Commission and City Council would be required. Commissioner CERVENY asked if that would require a separate motion. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 October 17, 1996 Mr. Gidley stated, yes, it would.- Mr. Gidley spoke regarding the issue of the change in the setback regulation and building permits versus plans and plats. He noted that rules do change on plats. He elaborated. _ Commissioner CERVENY asked if a request for. variance would. ___ require a separate application. Mr. Gidley answered no, he thought Commission could make that determination at the public hearing and convey your recommendation in a motion to-City Council. He added that the __. setback issue should be split from the original request. Chairperson LANGDON asked if would be possible to take the five- foot shortage from the landscaping. Mr_ Brav stated that suggestion would not work because the large trees being retained were in that area, plus major drainage-for • the site was being channelled through there. He explained. Discussion followed. - Chairperson LANGDON asked if Mr. Bray why the building could not be relocated five feet to accommodate the required setback. Mr_ Brav stated if that was done, the entire site would have to be redesigned due to drainage needs: _. Chairperson LANGDON wondered if the size could be reduced:- Discussion followed Commissioner ECKHARDT stated that he had no great problem with the five-foot setback, but he would like to see something to break up the expanse of wall on the north and east as well. He thought perhaps a design could be incorporated into the plan to use split block. He elaborated. He noted there were only four - shrubs on the north side and thought the developer could do better. _- _ _ -_ _ • Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 October 17, 1996 ~r Rrav stated that because of-the setback requirement, the land available was too narrow to do more. He elaborated. Commissioner--ECKHARDT stated he understood it would still be a flat wall, but a flat wall doesn~t have to be left a blank wall. Mr. Brav stated they could do something with paint. Mr. Gidley stated that with a five-foot setback, the opportunities to do vertical landscaping are very limited, He suggested English ivy could grow on the north side. A ten-foot setback would allow more options such as upright junipers, etc. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that she thought it was, time Wheat Ridge encouraged quality developments that would attract good tenants. Mr. Gidley mentioned several recent developments where staff worked with the builder to provide architectural relief. He elaborated. Commissioner GRIFFITH-suggested the possibility-of a painted mural. She asked if there would be a fence? Mr. Rrav answered there would be a fence along the south side. Commissioner GRIFFITH asked if there would be a fence constructed along the north side? Mr. Brav answered that the only fencing on the north would be to secure some vehicle storage, which he pointed out. Commissioner GRIFFITH reiterated that some type of painted design would dress it up. Mr. Rrav answered some type of graphic could be done, or-perhaps accent striping. He had some confusion about what the concern was about the looks of the building. . Mr. Gidley explained that staff had been given flexibility to work with developers in the past to provide some measure of • Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 October 17, 1996 • visual architectural relief on the sides of the building exposed to public eye. He elaborated. Mr. Rrav spoke of the importance of a unified design and not getting too many materials on the building. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked Mr. Bray if he could continue the color bands on the north .wall, as they were on the east wall. Mr_ Brav answered yes. He thought the band would work well these. 7;m Svtt~~ 17453 West 53rd Dr., Golden was sworn in. He stated he was with EJCM, general contractor for the project. Mr. Sutton stated that three different types of material were being considered for the east wall. He elaborated. Mr. Sutton stated that the carrying the color bands around to the north side would be an easy task for his company. He explained further the planned exterior materials on the proposed building. Kim Stewart, 11700 West 46th Avenue was sworn in. Ms. Stewart stated she wanted to raise some questions regarding this proposed development. Among her concerns were semi-truck traffic, opposition to the widening of Tabor Street and the need for a signal light at 44th and Tabor Street. She had heard that drainage from the proposed site would be directed across Tabor Street into the property backing up to her property. She had concerns about that plan being carried through. Ms. Stewart was concerned about the type of tenants going into the development. She wanted to know if the neighborhood would be protected. She supported retaining the trees on site and any architectural, enhancement. There were no questions for Ms. Stewart at that time. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mr. Gidley if he could address the drainage concerns. Mr. Gidley suggested the applicant address drainage concerns. • • Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 October 17, 1996 1. Between the time of application and public hearing, an ordinance was passed increasing the setback requirement. Commissioner JOHNSON seconded the motion. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mr. Gidley if Commission would be setting a precedent for other possible developments on Tabor Street. Commissioner CERVENY offered to amend his motion to read that this would not establish a precedent because engineering work had _ been completed on this site prior to the requirement for setback had been established by the City. Mr. Gidley stated that the term "unique and unusual hardship imposed by a change in regulations in the development review process" would be more appropriate in this case. This would identify this case as being different from any other application at a later date. • Commissioner CERVENY agreed to that amendment to his motion. Commissioner JOHNSON agreed to the amendment as well. Chairperson LANGDON suggested that the five feet of remaining setback could be planted in__a xeriscape-type design to avoid it becoming an eyesore: later on. Mr. Gidley pointed gut that the back area of this development could be the front area for someone else. Since there is not a fence proposed, that area could be incorporated into landscaping of the development to the north. Discussion followed. Mr. Brav stated that the plan shows rock, however, they could upgrade to 6-8 inch cobblestones. Grass he said, would be very hard to maintain, since it is on the north. He elaborated. Motion carried 7-1, with Commissioner THOMPSON voting no. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 October 17, 1996 Commissioner CERVENY moved that Case No. WZ-96-11, an application by James R. and Corrine Slotnick for approval of a Planned Commercial Development final development plan and plat on property located at 4549 Tabor Street be approved for the following reasons: 1. The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge and all posting and notification has been requirements have been met. 2. The proposal is consistent with an already-approved Planned Commercial Development outline development plan. 3. All requirements for a final development plan. have been met. With the following conditions: 1. The eastern elevation and the north and south elevation of the two eastern end units be up-graded by the use of block . or building off-sets; and 2. Some plan be worked out that either texture or paint be used to break up the plain look of the north wall to avoid an industrial look and be more pleasing to the adjacent properties. The exact material and plan will be left up to staff°s approval. 3. That a complete drainage report be submitted prior to public hearing before City Council. 4. Staff make certain that. the entrance is adequate for the occasional semi-truck that is mentioned in the approved outline development plan. Regarding the signal at West 44th Avenue, Commissioner CERVENY suggested that Public Works take a look at the feasibility of installing a traffic at West 44th Avenue. Commissioner THOMPSON seconded the motion and suggested an addition to the motion that if at all possible, the large • evergreen trees in the front of the building be retained: • Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1996 Page 12 Commissioner CERVENY accepted that addition. _. Mr. Gidley stated that based upon new evidence, and some discussion of the possibility of a-similar development on the north, plus the concern regarding the north face, even though the strip is only five feet wide, and some variation is to be provided in the wall, Mr. Gidley suggested a minimum of one shrub for each unit be planted along the north wall in the five-foot, strip. The developer could work with staff to determine the size and type of shrub(s) used. --- Discussion followed. Commissioner CERVENY added the words "and landscaping" to the second condition regarding the north face_of the building. Commissioner THOMPSON agreed with that change, Commissioner ECKHARDT stated that there had been considerable • concern regarding traffic, drainage, type of tenant(s), however, those were concerns when the original PCD was approved. The plan is in-accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Fruitdale Valley Master Plan. Street improvements will someday be necessary to Tabor Street. Traffic on Tabor Street will not likely decrease. Motion carried 8-0. - Commissioner THOMPSON asked if there was a sign on 46th and-Tabor Street prohibiting large truck traffic. Could anything be done to make it more difficult for trucks to travel that area? Mr. Gidley stated a "neck down" design could be considered for ' several intersections. Discussion followed. Commissioner THOMPSON moved that by consensus Commission could request that Public Works Department to investigate the traffic situation in the areas of West 44th Avenue and Tabor Street, 46th • Avenue and Swadley and possibly the service road as well to see- what could be done to alleviate traffic problems in those areas. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 October 17, 1996 Commissioner ECKHARDT seconded the motion. Motion carried 8-0. 2. S'ase No. TrrA-96-26: An application by John Medved for approval of a master sign plan with variances for property located at 11001 and 11201 West'I-70 Frontage Road North. (Case continued from July 18, 1996 and September S, 1996) Mr. Gidley presented the staff report, explaining carefully each separate issue. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked which sign had been approved by Board of Adjustment? Mr. Gidley stated probably one'of three signs he pointed out, possibly the Cadillac sign. Discussion followed. Commissioner THOMPSON asked for an explanation regarding how much signage is allowed, both on buildings and freestanding. Mr. Gidley stated the building signs were not a part of the issue being decided that night. He explained how allowed building signage is determined. __ -- Commissioner THOMPSON asked if Commission should view this dealership as five separate businesses? Mr. Gidley answered that is how the dealership views the issue. He explained further. Chairperson LANGDON asked for some clarification of the request. Mr. Gidley explained. Dennis Pnik 1667 Cole Blvd., Building 19, Suite 100, Golden, was sworn in. Mr. Polk represented John Medved, owner of Medved Autoplex. He stated that they had worked very hard with staff coming up with a plan that would work for them. H® elaborated. Mr. Polk explained to Commission that the 50-foot-high sign would contain a community bulletin sign, utilizing a continuous time, • Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 October 17, 1996 temperature, etc. feature. He explained further, addressing a number of problems with the particular site. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked how many signs were currently in place? Mr. Polk, pointed out the signs in place. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if all signs would be moved? Mr. Polk answered yes. Mr. Gidley asked if the white signs would be taken away? Mr. Polk asked if Mr. Gidley meant the directional signs? Mr. Gidley stated the ones he was referring to were larger, white signs, probably six or eight feet tall. He pointed some out. Mr. Polk stated the signs would be removed if they needed to be. Commissioner WTLLIAMS asked if all General .Motors dealerships had the 28-foot signs? Mr pn7k answered no that was not the case. Different signs marketing different products are used in other communities. Commissioner GRIFFITH asked Mr. Polk if there were currently signs on the buildings that have the same information on them as the proposed signs. Mr_ Polk answered yes there were signs with like or similar information.. However, tho__se building signs could not be read from the highway. Commissioner_THOMPSON stated she had a difficult time agreeing with some of his arguments. She mentioned that 95,000 vehicles pass by this site daily, creating high visibility for Medved. She felt the continuous sign, 'mentioned previously, would be a distraction to motorists. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that the • power lines and the interstate were built prior to this development and therefore, did not create a hardship for the • Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 October 17, 1996 • dealership. She added that cities could not change their codes in ~r~q,- to meet the needs of every business. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that residents had complained about the "fores,t" of signs along the interstate-and have requested less signage, not more. She asked Mr, Gidley if sound barriers would be installed around Mountain Vista Nursing Home and would they block the view of this development in the future? Mr. Gidley answered that sound barriers were proposed, but not funded for the south side. They are proposed, but not funded,. for the north side east of Tabor Street in front of Mountain Vista and slightly to the east of Mountain Vista as well. He did not believe they would block the view. Mr_ pn7t;.stated that a federal highway requirement exists that states you must have certain types of signs. within certain distances. He elaborated. Mr Pow stated that all studies indicated that slower traffic,.provides longer visibility for dealerships. ,Additionally, no study supports signs next to an adjacent highway impedes the traffic flow or causes traffic incidences. Citizens, generally do not like signs. Commissioner THOMPSON asked about signage requested by other developments along the interstate. Was there a chance that Commission could be setting a precedent? Mr. Gidley stated other developments had requested larger and taller signage. He named a few. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked Mr. Polk if he had said that the Federal Highway Administration requires a sign of that nature? Nfr- p~~ answered no. .What he had intended to say was that signs within a certain distance/location of a federal highway had to provide information such as time, temperature, etc. on them. Commissioner ECKHARDT stated he was not aware of that requirement. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked if Mr. Polk was saying that every 50- • foot-high sign in the City of-Wheat Ridge along the interstate highway must have the time and temperature flashing on it?_. • Planning Commission Minutes_ Page 9 October 17, 1996 Mr. RraV_ pointed out on the site plan projected overhead how the drainage plan would work. He stated that the establishment would not be retail, but mostly wholesale. Discussion followed. ~orrv Rroam 4430 Tabor Street was sworn in. He stated he had some questions regarding drainage and semi-truck traffic. Mr. Gidley stated that the issue of semi-truck traffic was addressed when the outline development plan was reviewed. He' thought deliveries would mainly be made with a step-van type of vehicle, however, from time-to-time smaller semi bob-tail type trucks could be making deliveries. He thought if the turn-around could accommodate a 55-foot long truck, it could also accommodate a semi-truck. Commissioner ECKHARDT pointed out that a PCp had been approved, and therefore semis will be servicing the tenants. He thought it . a moot point. ivrr. Rrav_ explained how they had arrived at the current drainage _ plan. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked what the historical drainage flow had been. Mr_ Brav_ stated the drainage flowed to the north historically. Chairperson LANGDON asked if a motion should be made regarding a variance for the five-foot setback. Commissioner CERVENY asked if a motion for variance_should_ be made first? Mr. Gidley suggested that Commission deal with the variance .issue first, then follow with a separate motion dealing with the balance of site plan. He explained. Commissioner CERVENY moved that a five-foot variance be approved . for the following reason: • Planning Commission Minutes October 17_, 1996 Page 16 Mr_ Pn1~ answered the sign must have a public informational aspect. Commissioner ECKHARDT stated that whatever information was on the sign could be considered "public information". Discussion followed. _- Commissioner ECKHARDT asked how that would be measured; from-the- edge of the highway or edge of right-of-way? Mr. Polk stated that he believed. it was measured from paved,.--- travelled mass, as opposed to the edge of-right-of-way. He elaborated< Commissioner-ECKHARDT.asked what the distance was. Mr. Polk answered it depended on the specific project design. He- added he was not certain which .distance he was referring to. • Commissioner ECKHARDT stated he was referring to the distance from'the roadway to the sign. Mr. Polk answered he thought it was 250 feet. Commissioner ECKHARDT_asked Mr. Polk what distance the Federal Highway Administration requires. Mr. Polk stated he believed it was 250 feet. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked how far sign P4 was from the highway? Mr. Polk answered he did not know, but he thought it would be _ less than 250 feet. Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mr. Gidley if he could address the federal standard Mr. Polk refers to? Mr. Gidley stated he had really never heard of the FWA requirement Mr. Polk had spoken of. He elaborated. • • Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 -- October 17, 1996 Commissioner THOMPSON asked about a sign that had once been on Youngfield. Mr. Gidley noted that sign had been a "continuous reader board°' He elaborated. There were no further questions for Mr. Polk. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the criteria for variances contained nine or ten items. Mr. Gidley answered there were nine items making up the criteria for variances. No change had yet been made. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if any of the criteria change, based on staff's new recommendation? Mr. Gidley went over the four types of variances requested and the variance criteria. • Chairperson LANGDON asked if the 28 foot height request was flexible at all. M~_ Polk stated the 28-foot becomes a big deal, since the alternative size was 36 feet. Chairpersoh LANGDON stated that the applicant was asking for more signs than are allowed on the sites. If they were 25 feet rather than 28, there would be no need for the height variance. Discussion followed. Mr. Gidley stated this case would not go before City Council unless it was appealed to City Council by the applicant or another aggrieved person. Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr. Polk to explain why the 28-foot -- height was so important. Mr. polk_stated the signs were manufactured by General Motors and . no 25-foot sign is available. x • 'Planning Commission Minutes October 17,-1996 Page 18 Chairperson LANGDON talked about setting a precedent. _ Mr. Polk reiterated .that there were two separate lots; and frontages consisting of the frontage road, Parfet street and West 50th Avenue. He did no.t feel the request was out of line. Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if the sign was a 25-foot sign, and it sat on a three-foot pedestal? Mr~_ vnl~ stated it was not that simple. Commissioner WILLIAMS did not believe that the average person would notice if the sign was 25 or 28-feet tall. Commissioner ECKHARDT reiterated that the Code allowed the 25- foot height. Mr pn~ reminded Commission that they ,had reduced the sign height request from 36 feet to 28 feet. _ - • Discussion followed. Commissioner ECKHARDT_noted that the Hummer sign was different Mr. Pow stated it was not manufactured by General Motors Company. He elaborated. Chairperson LANGDON asked if six separate dealerships would be allowed to have individual, 36-foot-tall signs? Mr. Gidley stated that the Code of -Laws prevents that type of situation. He explained. Discussion followed. Ralph Snyder, 8933 Union Avenue, Suite 2Q8, Englewood, was'sworn in. Mr. Snyder explained that there were four different height signs manufactured - 47 feet, 36 feet,_28_feet and 20 feet.._,They are custom made and provided to the dealerships around the U.S. He explained the difficulty in shortening the signs. • • Planning Commission Minutes Page 19 October 17, 1996 Commissioner ECKHARDT stated he also had a hard time sympathizing as he served on the Planning Commission at the time the proposal was considered regarding rezoning for the_site of the dealership. He, at that time commented that he did not feel it was a good location due to poor access. He elaborated. On the proposed 50- foot-high sign, he stated he had a real problem with informational-type signs. He felt the signs were often gaudy and distracting. Mr. Gidley suggested five separate motions, four relating to variance requests; one for height, one for the number of signs; one for the area and one for setback. Finally, a motion will be required to either approve or disapprove the master-sign plan. , Commissioner CERVENY moved that regarding Case No. WA=96-26, an application by John Medved for approval of a master sign plan with variances for property located at 11001 and 11201 West I-70 Frontage Road the variance request for the number of signs be approved for the following reasons: • 1. The location of the business on the Interstate with the service road being involved as well as two other streets. 2. The dealership is an economic benefit to the City. 3. The signage will not be detrimental to the health of the citizens of Wheat Ridge. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion failed 5-3, with Commissioners THOMPSON, GRIFFITH and ECKHARDT voting against. (Since this was a variance, a super-majority in favor was required-_) Commissioner THOMPSON stated she voted no because assuming that the 50-foot sign will be approved, she believes there is adequate visibility from I-70; there has been public outcry regarding too much signage in Wheat Ridge; she's concerned about setting a precedent for other businesses along I-70; and, based on testimony given, she did not feel that each dealership can be considered a separate business. • • Planning Commission Minutes October 17, 1996 Page 20 Mr. Gidley suggested that Commission may want to be selective regarding other variance requests. He asked Commission make a decision next if they wished to approve the bonus sign which would allow a total of four signs in the master sign plan. Once that decision is made, Commission could decide which sign is the bonus sign, if it was approved. Chairperson LANGDON asked for clarification o~ the bonus sign. Mr. Gidley explained that this is a bonus, not a variance, Commissioner CERVENY moved to allow one bonus sign, making a total_of four signs. He added that it was his desire to allow Medved to decide which sign would be the bonus sign. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked Commissioner CERVENY why he was proposing to allow a bonus sign. Commissioner CERVENY answered that under the master sign plan, a • bonus sign is allowed and for the same reasons stated above for the number of signs.- Commissioner ECIGiARDT stated it was his feeling that a bonus sign would be allowed for a plan that was exceptional. He did not feel that the plan before them was exceptional. Commissioner JOHNSON seconded the motion.' Motion carried 5-3, with Commissioner THOMPSON, GRIFFITH and ECKHARDT voting against. Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr. Gidley since the number of signs changed from six to four, would that make a difference in sign area? Mr. Gidley answered that the sign area does not come into play then. He stated that the applicant has asked that Commission vote on the original request, as it relates to sign area. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked if it would be necessary to vote on a variance for sign area with approval of the bonus sign? . Mr. Gidley explained that it would be necessary. • Planning_Commission Minutes Page 21 October 17, 1996 Mr. Gidley explained to Commission that the motion must cover all six variance requests, so that applicant will have the right to appeal, if he so desires. Commissioner CERVENY moved to allow the variance of 89.62 square. feet over the bonus of 819 feet totaling 908.02 feet. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-1, with Commissioner THOMPSON voting against. Commissioner CERVENY moved that the requested setback variances for all six signs be allowed for the following reasons: 1. The property configuration and its' close proximity to overhead power lines, water rights and street right-of-way. Commissioner JOHNSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-1, with Commissioner GRIEFITH voting against. • Mr. Gidley stated Commission did_not approve six signs. Whichever four signs the applicant chooses to erect, they can choose amongst the six setbacks approved. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the signs-would meet sign code? Mr. Gidley stated he had no problem with that. He just wanted Commission to know that they had not reversed itself relative t_o the number of signs. Commissioner CERVENY moved the request (five signs at 28 feet) for five sign height variances be approved for'the reasons stated: 1,. The location of the business on the Interstate with the service road being involved as well as two other streets. 2. The dealership is an economic benefit to the .City. 3. The signage will not be detrimental to the health_of the citizens of Wheat Ridge. • • Planning Commission Minutes Page 22 October 17, 1996 Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion fails 5-3, with Commissioners THOMPSON, GRIFFITH and ECKHARDT,..voting against. Mr. Gidley requested that Commission establish a maximum sign height for the four allowed signs. Commissioner CERVENY moved-that the maximum sign height for the _ four signs approved, one sign be 50 feet in height and three signs be 25 feet in height. Commissioner JOHNSON seconded the motion. Commissioner THOMPSON-asked if the 50-foot sign would include the continuous reader board sign. Mr. Gidley stated that the applicant could choose to include_it. Mr. pnik stated that for the purpose of the record, he wanted to • make it perfectly clear that Planning Commission did not have the legal jurisdiction to decide content of signs. Motion carried 7-1 with Commissioner RASPLICKA voting against. Mr. Gidley agreed that government may not regulate the content of signs, except under extreme circumstances. He elaborated. Discussion followed. Commissioner CERVENY moved to approve the master sign plan, as amended, be approved. Commissioner THOMPSON seconded the motion. Commissioner ECKHARDT requested to comment. 'He stated he was not pleased with the continuous reader board sign. Additionally, he did not feel there was a need for additional signs (more than what was allowed by sign code), nor did he feel that additional sign height was necessary from what was allowed by the sign code, Since the sign height is tied into the setback, he did vote for • variances on setbacks because he felt there were some difficulties there. • Planning Commission Minutes Page 23 October 17, 1996 • • Commissioner GRIFFITH_stated she voted as she did because she . does not feel they need-any more signs. There are sufficient signs already. She was in agreement with Commissioners THOMPSON and ECKHARDT. Mr. Gidley suggested that Commissioners reference the variance criteria when formulating their reasoning. Commissioner ECKHARDT suggested that regarding the master sign plan, he asked the developer to make a commitment that the use of temporary signs such as inflatables, pennants, streamers, sandwich signs, etc. not be permitted on this development. Mr. Polk stated he declined the request and reminded Commission that City ordinances allow such temporary signage. The applicant cannot be restricted in ways that other City businesses are not. __ Commissioner ECKHARDT requested the developer strive for a nice appearance. He elaborated. Commissioner CERVENY stated that his motion did not include Commissioner-ECfQ3ARDT's comments. He requested that discussion be limited to the motion made. Commissioner ECKHARDT apologized if he was out of order. Motion carried 7-1. Commissioner ECKHARDT voted against. SECREmaRY'S Colvm~nrr~ Due to the complex nature of this case, it is believed that the final result of the Planning Commission was as fnllowsr A Master Sign Plan was approved and that plan allows a total of four (4) freestanding signs. Three of those four signs may not exceed 25 feet in height and the fourth sign cannot exceed 50 feet in height. Setback variances were approved for whichever four of the six signs proposed that the applicant chooses to erect. Likewise, size variances were approved for whichever four of the six signs proposed that the applicant chooses to erect. 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Page 24 • October 17,_1996 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ITEMS A. Update of City Council Action on recent Planning Commission cases and other items concerning the Planning Commission • Mr. Gidley stated that regarding the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, City Council split the definition into ten feet for residential and 12 feet for commercial and defined how the measurement would be taken (from average grade to the top of a building). The group home ordinance was passed with slight modification.._, A moratorium was created on crematoriums and mortuaries. Mr. Gidley suggested a dinner study session November 7 at 5:30 p.m. so that discussion could be heard regarding 38th and Kipling. Commissioner THOMPSON stated-she would not be able to_ attend that meeting. Consensus was the study session would begin at 5:30 and the public hearing would begin at 8:00 p.m. Mr, Gidley informed Commission that an .ordinance would be drafted for their consideration regarding the elimination of the Industrial (I) zone district. He elaborated. B. Update on the Comp Plan Review Project • Commissioner ECKHARDT reported to Commission citizen concerns that came out of the two meeting held recently: 1. Wanted sidewalks 2. Wanted the City to look nicer 3. Wanted landscaping maintained 4. Wanted people to take pride in the City - both residential and commercial sites 5. Wanted a recreation center, multiple use 6. In favor of annexation(s) • Planning Commission Minutes Page 25 October 17, 1996 Commissioner ECKHARDT informed Commission that they would be receiving the Comp Plan Review Committee minutes. Mr. Gidley informed Commission that Council had requested that the Comp Plan Review Committee make a recommendation for a member to participate on the County-wide transportation project. 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS 13. ADJOURNMENT By consensus, meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Sandra Wiggins, Secretary • •