Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/21/1996• MINUTES OF MEETING November 21,1996 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson LANGDON at 7:30 p.m., on November 21, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Municipai Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Carl A. CERVENY Robert ECKHARDT Carolyn GRIFFITH Warren JOHNSON George LANGDON Jay RASPLICKA Janice THOMPSON Harry WILLIAMS STAFF PRESENT: Glen Gidley, Planning & Development Director Meredith Reckert, Planner Marilyn Gunn, Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVAL OF ORDER OF THE AGENDA Commissioner RASPLICKA moved to approve the agenda for the meeting of November 21, 1996, as printed. Commissioner ECKHARDT seconded the motion. Motion carried 8-0 to approve the agenda. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -November 7,1996 Commissioner JOHNSON moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of November 7, 1996, as printed. No revisions or corrections were necessary. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-2 with Commissioners THOMPSON AND RASPLICKA abstaining due to their excused absence from this 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 was present to speak. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 2 7. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case Nn. W7_-9h-1 S & WS-9h-3. An application by Daniel and Sherri Schneider for approval of a three-fold request: I) approval of a rezoning from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One-A ; 2) approval of a variance to Section 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations; and, 3) approval of a seventeen (17) lot major subdivision. Ms. Reckert stated she had additional pieces of correspondence to distribute. The first was a response from the City's Pazks and Recreation Commission meeting held November 20, 1996, with regard to their pazk dedication requirement. The second piece is a letter from the adjacent property owner to the east known as the Jenk's property. Ms. Reckert stated that Case No. WZ-96-15 and WS-96-3 was athree-fold request for the property located at 12345 West 38th Avenue. The property is currently zoned Residential-One/Agricultural-Two and is currently vacant. Ms. Reckert stated there were no slides available for the hearing due to the projector being broken. Ms. Reckert entered into the record the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, Case File, Packet Materials, and Exhibits. Ms. Reckert stated the property is within the City of Wheat Ridge and established jurisdiction. She stated again that this was athree- foldrequest for this property. Approval of a rezoning from aResidential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One A, approval of a variance to Section 45 of the Subdivision Regulations, and approval of a seventeen (17) lot major subdivision. Ms. Reckert stated that she would like to take each section of the request and deal with them separately beginning with rezoning. After completing her comments, the applicant will then make his comments. She advised the Planning Commission that they would have to have a positive vote on the rezoning to be able to proceed with the subdivision and variance requests. Ms. Reckert advised the Planning Commission that earlier in 1996 they had reviewed a request to subdivide this property pursuant to Case No. MS-96-5. Initially the applicant had requested to subdivide into four estate type cots approximately one plus acres in size. The applicant, however, has decided to pursue the request at this meeting of rezoning and resubdivision. Ms. Reckert advised that she had performed preliminary calculations and arrived at approximately eleven (11) single family lots on the property. Ms. Reckert provided overheads to allow the Planning Commission a visual aspect of the application. On the north side of the property, a section has been dedicated for a park plan pursuant to the previous case that was approved in May, 1996. Ms. Reckert reviewed the various lot size minimums as it related to the different zoning assignments. The criteria for • consideration of rezoning was not included in the packet. However, Ms. Reckert provided an overhead and read the information to the audience and elaborated on Staff's . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 3 recommendation per item number read. Ms. Reckert concluded her comments and asked for questions. There were no questions at this time regazding rezoning. Mr. Schneider elaborated on the initial zoning of the land beginning in 1941. He provided overheads which showed his interpretation of how the zoning line had changed beginning in 1946 by Jefferson County. He stated that he believed that the zoning line that is currently in use is incorrect which he believes is another reason for granting a change in zoning. He stated that no land had been acquired nor sold since the beginning zoning standazd. He maintains that he believes that there is a zoning error somewhere in the City maps. Mr. Schneider provided an overhead that showed the surrounding area and their zoning of Residential-One which he maintains positively contributes to the reason for rezoning as well. Mr. Schneider provided additional justification as it related to the lot sizes being proposed for single family homes. He stated that there could be approximately twenty- one (21) lots. However, he was only proposing that the land be divided into seventeen (1 ~ lazger lots. Mr. Schneider listed his reasons for rezoning the property and the potential benefits overall as he int,,.Y..,Led them. He also advised the Planning • Commission that he had attended the Parks Commission meeting of November 20, 1996, to review his plan. He stated that the Pazks Commission did not particularly like the idea of a pathway. Ms. Reckert stated that the pathway/greenbelt final decision would be that of the Pazks Commission. However, she continued that there still needs to be pedestrian access to the adjacent subdivision as it makes good planning design sense. Discussion continued regarding the path/greenbelt access by Mr. Schneider regarding the neighboring land should it ever be developed. Mr. Schneider stated that most of the surrounding land owners were in support of the rezoning. He further stated that he felt that this rezoning was consistent with the goals and policies of the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan. He asked if there were any questions regarding the rezoning request. Commissioner CERVENY inquired about the thought process for requesting a rezoning to R-lA as opposed to PRD (Planned Residential Development) which he believed the McLaughlin Subdivision was. Mr. Schneider said he did not really understand the difference between the two. He further stated that his understanding was that by going with the rezoning the way that he was doing it, he could achieve his purpose. He stated that it was also his understanding that once the property was zoned as proposed, it could never go back to anything eflse. He inquired of Commissioner CERVENY if this was correct. Commissioner CERVENY stated that with a PRD, the plot lines basically cannot be changed. Mr. Schneider stated he would not have any problem with the restriction or • conditional approval that says the plan is based on seventeen (17) lots. • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 4 Commissioner THOMPSON inquired of Director Gidley if there was a problem with the rezoning when there was a discrepancy in the zoning and can the Commission rezone since the Commission would be rezoning all of the property at once? Director Gidley stated the City Council zoned the City in 1972 by adoption of Ordinance 98. All of the zoning that was on the official zoning map of the City of Wheat Ridge at the time that the map was adopted, rezoned the entire City including all of the discrepancies that may have been in place and it institutionalized the discrepancies. Even though there may have been discrepancies between 1969 and 1972, they were institutionalized by the adoption of the zoning map and therefore there is no discrepancy at the present time. Commissioner THOMPSON then asked if it was the time to discuss the easement. Director Gidley stated it was a platting issue and that questions regarding easements should be held until that portion was discussed. He further stated that the real difference between R-Al and R-1 in this particular case is not lot I dimensions but sideyard setbacks. The issue is the size of building to size of lot and setbacks. Director Gidley referred to the McLaughlin Subdivision to further clarify the difference between R-lA and R-1 and discussed in more detail the type of buildings in the immediate azea. Mr. Schneider went into more detail why he was applying for the change in zoning as it applies to lot size and use. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked how many lots could be put into the subdivision for R-1 and R-lA. Ms. Reckert stated that she had calculated the figures. However, Mr. Schneider interjected that he had the figures readily at hand and stated that there were twelve (12) different scenarios that could be looked at. He further stated that under R-1 the maximum number of lots would be fourteen (14) with all but one of the scenarios which was calculated at twelve (12). Commissioner ECKHARDT inquired the same about R-lA and Mr. Schneider stated the number would betwenty-one (21). Commissioner WILLIAMS verified that Mr. Schneider was asking for seventeen (17) lots. There were no further questions on the zoning. Commissioner THOMPSON clarified that Mr. Schneider was actually asking for three (3) additional homes be built and not an additional six (6). This was verified by Director Gidley. Chairperson LANGDON inquired if those who signed in to speak were at the meeting to address the rezoning issue or the whole issue. Mr. Jorgerson from the audience stated he was there regarding the entire issue. Chairperson LANGDON asked if he could wait until later to make testimony on the subdivision portion of the case. He said he could but he may have to leave. However, he submitted a letter to the Secretary which is included in the file. • John Moore stated he was there to speak about the entire issue but was concerned about Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 5 the zoning, Chairperson LANGDON swore Mr. Moore in and he stated that his name was Jahn Moore and that he lived at 12201 West 38th Avenue. Chairperson LANGDON advised Mr. Moore to retain his comments to the zoning issue only at this point in time. Mr. Moore stated he owned 3.1 acres west of this proposed subdivision. He elaborated on the reason he and his family purchased the land. He said that he was concerned about the lots being changed from four (4) to seventeen (17) as he has expended a considerable amount of money believing that he would not be surrounded by a lot of houses and would prefer keeping the lots to one (1) acre sites. Commissioner ECKHARDT verified that N1r. Moore's property was directly to the west of the proposed development site and requested that the aerial photo overhead be displayed. Mr. Moore's property is zoned A- 2. Mr. Moore concluded his comments. At this time Chairperson LANGDON swore in Debbie Moore, wife of John Moore, same address. She stated she had one question regarding the R-1 vs the R-lA zoning. She asked if the Commission would consider placing a restriction on the number of lots being developed and hold it to a maximum of seventeen (17). Commissioner THOMPSON asked Mrs. Moore if she had a choice between a maximum of fourteen (14) or seventeen (17) and if she would state, for the record, her preference. Mrs. Moore responded • fourteen (14). Chairperson LANGDON called for a motion on the rezoning. Commissioner WILLIAMS moved that Case No. WZ-96-15, a request to rezone property at 12345 West 38th Avenue from Residential-One and Agricultural-Two to Residential-One-A, be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1) The R-lA zoning is consistent with the low density residential designation in the Comprehensive Plan; 2) The R-lA zoning is compatible with zoning and land use in the area; and, 3) The evaluation criteria support approval of the request. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded. The motion carried 6- 2. Ms. Reckert presented her overview of the variance portion of the request which concerns the footage limitations from West 38th Avenue to the center of the cul-de-sac bulb. The subdivision regulations currently states that the footage shall be no longer than 500 feet. The measurement according to the plat is reflecfing 694 feet. The applicant is requesting a 194 foot variance. Ms. Reckert stated that the applicant provided information reflecting that there are several areas within the City that exceed the standard. Ms. Reckert verified that this information was correct for two of the areas questioned. Ms. Reckert stated that if the variance is not approved, the applicant's request for subdivision design must be either denied or redesigned to include a connection on either the east or west. Criteria to consider the approval for this request was not included in the packet. Therefore, Ms. Reckert read aloud for the Commission each point as she discussed them. Ms. Reckert stated after her presentation that Staff was recommending DENIAL of the request. She Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 6 then asked for questions. Commissioner RASPLICKA commented regarding Staff's suggestion that there was no hardship. He stated that owners on both sides of the property are not ready to develop and that he viewed that as a hazdship. Ms. Reckert stated the approach of creating a temporary bulb has been approved for other parts of the City and further stated that the street connection to the east would not have to be developed. Commissioner RASPLICKA clazified that the connection would not have to be developed until if/when the owners were ready. It would allaw the applicant to develop his plot of land and alleviate what he considered a hardship. Ms. Reckert confirmed all concerns. Commissioner THOMPSON inquired about the easement and access to the greenbelt. She felt that there was no access from the adjoining Jenk's property. She stated that if the access point was approved and the Jenk's property developed, the Parks Commission could ask for access through the applicant's property. She was concerned about access to the McLaughlin property and wanted to know how an access could be accomplished. She questioned if there was any place on the Jenk's or applicant's property where the citizens could safely get down the bluff. Ms. Reckert stated that both properties were very steep. • Director Gidley interjected that the Parks Department indicated that at the base of the slope there is an area that they would like to maintain as a wildlife refuge. He went into a more in-depth discussion regarding all properties involved and access availability including a foot path to Col.,.~uu.~d School. A pedestrian connection could remain with a street access or another pedestrian connection to the opposite side. Director Gidley stated that a plan to connect all parcels of land in one way or another is suggested and would be the appropriate direction to take even thaugh there may be opposition. Commissioner WILLIAMS inquired about the easement measurement. Director Gidley stated that this easement would zun along the easement that is currently there which is for the sewer line and that it is 116 plus 37 feet. Commissioner WILLIAMS asked who would maintain that azea until the Jenk's property was developed. Director Gidley stated that when it was canstructed, it would probably be maintained by the public. Director Gidley suggested that funds be placed in escrow until such time that the connection was constructed and further that it be delayed and not built until the future. G**~*n~ssioner WiLLIAMS inquired if there would be a time limit on the easement. Director Gidley said when the Jenk's property develops, the City Council would decide whether or not the other side of that connection would occur. If it did not occur, that easement would be vacated for the purpose of pedestrian access. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that she did not understand why the City only • provided one access in several other property developments. Director Gidley stated that they were split access points which is very similar to two streets from the standpoint that • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 7 they are physically divided and are a loop system. In this property there is no split access or loop. Access discussion continued regarding being able to access all properties should there be an emergency. Commissioner CERVENY asked if the width of the street and cul-de-sac had a 50 foot flowline. Director Gidley stated it was a fifty (50) foot right-of--way, however, the applicant still needed to go through a street width designation public hearing process to establish flow line. He further stated that it was not an overly wide subdivision street except for the diameter of the cul-de-sac bulb itself. This bulb is larger than the minimums of forty-five 45 feet due to the need for emergency equipment access. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that a compromise of having the trail wide enough when the Jenk's property develops to either construct a street or trail could be included in the motion. She wished to ensure that there was enough land to do either. If it did remain as a trail, the property would be dedicated back to the lot owners. Director Gidley stated that it could be increased to a minimum of 50 feet and then, if the street was not built, partials could become part of the adjacent lots. Director Gidley provided various scenarios which could happen in the future. • Discussion took place regarding Tract A. The tract reflects a storm detention area and access for Parks and Recreation to the greenbelt. It was the general consensus that access and connection to other subdivisionsiY.,,Y~~~:es in the immediate area was a concern of the Planning Commission. Several ideas were suggested by members of the Commission including an access be made available either by a connector street or pedestrian access on both the east and west sides of the subdivision with the main entrance into the development coming from 38th Avenue. Mr. Schneider gave his variance presentation with overheads providing three (3) variations of the cul-de-sac drives. His presentation also provided visual information on similar scenazios involving other developments which were approved. Mr. Schneider stated that there were twenty-one (21) options. Four (4) options that exist that would bring the cul-de-sac into conformance. The first one he presented was basically the same that was made by Staff. Discussion was again held regazding the access needs leading to the Jenk's property. Mr. Schneider relayed that Mr. Jenk, who was in the audience, had no intention of developing his land and that the access road would lead nowhere. He went on to say that the lazger bulb was introduced after tallcing to the Fire Department. He further stated that he took a survey of cul-de-sac requirements from fifteen (15) surrounding cities and found that nine (9) of the fifteen (15) had lengths of between 500 and 700 feet. He was advised that it was the Fire Departrnent(Fire Mazshal that had the • ultimate decision regarding any cul-de-sac. Mr. Schneider stated that the neighboring property owners favored his preferred variance option. • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 8 Commissioner ECKHARDT stated that he believed that the variety of cul-de-sac lengths from other municipalities could be due to the density of the housing. He said that if this property was going to be subdivided into four (4) lots like it was presently approved, he would not have a problem with a cul-de-sac that long. However, with seventeen (17) units, he believes that it becomes a different situation and has a problem with a cul-de-sac so long. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that the Fire Marshal is only one component of the issue. He is concerned about fire truck access while the Commission is concerned with all internal circulation and density, etc.. She asked if twenty (20) feet were removed to provide access in addition to the thirty (30) feet already provided, why would Mr. Schneider be opposed. He responded that Tract A was pretty much decided and went on to say that it would have to be decided as to what style of subdivision would be recommended. He stated that if there was no way to approve the cul-de-sac, he would be willing to lose some additional land for access to make the development work. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked Staff if there was a logical place for the applicant to tie into on the west. Director Gidley stated that the same problems exist on the west as on . the east. He stated that he did not know how those sections would subdivide. Commissioner THOMPSON inquired as to how many acres were vacant to the east and west. Director Gidley stated 13.5 to the east and 2.8 to the west. Ms. Reckert stated the west acreage was zoned R-1 which increases the lot availability. Commissioner JOHNSON asked if it would be right-of-way on the road. Mr. Schneider stated yes. He then asked if it would be built flowline to flowline and Mr. Schneider replied yes. Comrissioner JOHNSON asked if it would be thirty-four (34). Mr. Schneider stated he would have to attend the street width designation hearing. Depending on the outcome of this hearing, the designation could be narrower according to Director Gidley. Mr. Schneider stated it was not his intention to put in a narrower road. Chairperson LANGDON asked Director Gidley to clarify if the bulb was designated as the correct street sign. Director Gidley said yes. Chairperson LANGDON asked if he misunderstood Director Gidley when he stated that Parks does or does not want access to the area below. Director Gidley stated that their access is for maintenance only, the do not want a pedestrian access down the hill to the base. They would prefer to use the existing McLaughlin and Kullerstrand School access rather than creating additional access points. Chairperson LANGDON also clarified if the access was designated as a street, then there would be no need for the variance because the cul-de-sac would be • eliminated after temporary use. Director Gidley stated it was a subdivision with a future street connection, therefore, it would be a temporary cul-de-sac. • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 9 Commissioner THOMPSON asked at who's expense, if the connection happens, and would Director Gidley clazify statements made regarding lot lines being moved. Director Gidley explained the use of Lot 9 and the problems that it would incur and stated that Mr. Schneider would lose all or most of this lot. Mr. Schneider said that he was aware that this could happen but stated that if he was going to lose a lot he would prefer that it be one closer to the middle/front of the subdivision rather than one in the rear. Additional general discussion was held regarding the location of various access points and the preferences of Mr. Schneider and the Planning Department. Chairperson LANGDON asked if Mr. Jorgerson wanted to speak. Ms. Reckert stated that he had left but submitted a letter supporting the rezoning and seventeen (17) lot proposal R-lA. Chairperson LANGDON asked for his address and Ms. Reckert stated it was 3734 Union Court which is located on the south side of the property to be subdivided. Chairperson LANGDON swore in the Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District Fire Marshal Dave Roberts who stated his address as 3880 Upham Street. Chairperson LANGDON advised the Fire Marshal that the Commissioners would be interested in his views of the • cul-de-sac size, access, and advantages of what Mr. Schneider has proposed. Mr. Roberts stated that Mr. Schneider has met all requests for changes and adequately meets the Fire Department requirements. The Fire Marshal stated that the private access road scenario was totally unacceptable to him. Chairperson LANGDON swore in James Matera who resides at 26 Skyline Drive. He stated that his purpose at the meeting was to state that he is under contract to purchase land to the west of the proposed subdivision and wanted to speak against the connection street. His contract is contingent upon subdividing using the existing R-1 zoning. Bringing the street through into a small subdivision would eliminate the possibility of planning seven (7) lots. Commissioner ECKHARDT inquired if his subdivision was from 38th Avenue north and Mr. Mater stated it was and that it was 2.8 acres. General discussion was held. Commissioner CERVENY asked Mr. Matera about the discussion regarding a path and Mr. Matera stated he would have no problem with that. Chairperson LANGDON asked Director Gidley how that could be accomplished at this meeting. He stated that a comparison would have to be accomplished to see how the lots align. He suspects that there could be a difference but that it would all need to be worked out to be sure. Commissioner ECKHARDT inquired if this item could be continued until the appropriate people get together and work out the details. • Mr. Schneider came forward and stated that he has been put in a position which was out • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 10 of his control. He must attend the street designation hearing and that he is scheduled to go before City Council on December 16, 1996. Postponing this hearing would cause a time frame problem and he would really appreciate trying to come to a compromise. Commissioner ECICHARDT stated he is opposed to the length of the cul-de-sac, feels strongly that there be circulation east and west of this property, and he would move that the variance not be granted. That would mean would be that the land would have to be resubdivided. Director Gidley advised the Planning Commission that the applicant could continue with his various other subdivision scenarios. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that she did not recall the answer to her previous question regazdang who would pay for the street installation. Director Gidley advised that there would have to be funds placed in a long term escrow account by the developer for the area that would not be developed. At the time the other side of property was developed, this parcel would get built. If City Council in the future decided they did not want to do that, they would vacate the street and give the money back to the property owners on a pro rata share as part of their lot cost reimbursement. Commissioner THOMPSON asked what would happen if the escrow account did not cover the costs due • to inflation. The City would pay the balance.. Commissioner CERVENY asked if the access could go between other lots and Director Gidley stated that was correct. Since it is not a fire hazard and there is access to the east and west by path, what was Staff's objection. Mr. Schneider stated he would be very willing to provide the path access. Director Gidley said that it did not provide a distribution of traffic throughout a street system which Staff believes is a better subdivision design process. Generally Staff prefers a street system, however, it is the option of the Commission as to what they want to do. He further stated that this was a variance request and variance does require a higher standard of consideration and there is criteria established for vaziance changes. Discussion was held regazding another variance situation and consideration of the through street proposal. Commissioner JOHNSON asked where the problem came up with the street width and who it was that told Mr. Schneider how wide the street had to be. Director Gidley and Mr. Schneider stated that it was City Council. Commissioner JOHNSON asked if he couldn't pick ou4 a width of his own. Director Gidley stated that he could not even if it conformed to the current standazds due to the Charter Amendment that occurred in 1995 - Street Width Designation Charter Amendment. Further discussion was held regarding street width. Director Gidley stated that the width could be smaller than fifty (50) feet and elaborated on the operating principles of street needs. Commissioner THOMPSON asked if the minimum width necessary for the Fire Department and maintain subdivision • safety between the neighborhoods was fifty (50) feet. Director Gidley suggested that a fifty (50) foot right-of--way be maintained and then make a street width determination at . Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 11 the time that the street width designation occurs on December 16. He also advised the Commission that they could make a recommendation on the width if they chose. Commissioner ECKHARDT motioned that the request for variance to Section 4.B.5 of the Subdivision Regulations for property located at 12345 West 38th Avenue be DENIED for the following reasons: 1) There is no physical hardship, 2) It does not promote good design, 3) There are no unique circumstances, and, 4) There may be detriment to safety and to the adjacent greenbelt. Motion was seconded by Commissioner THOMPSON. Motion for denial of variance was questioned by Chairperson LANGDON. Director Gidley stated that this was a motion for variance only and that the next question was regarding the subdivision approval or alternate design. It was further questioned if City Council could recommend denial and Director Gidley stated not on the variance. Motion FAILED with a 4-4 vote. A majority approval was needed to pass the variance. Director Gidley explained the rules and the City Attorney's voting opinion as it relates to variances. The affect of the vote was that the variance was DENIED. Commissioner ECKHARDT asked if a motion could be made regarding the subdivision • or was there more information needed to vote. Ms. Beckett stated that the access issue to the pazk needed to be resolved as well. Commissioner ECKHARDT moved that Case No. WS-96-3, a request for approval of a seventeen (17) lot major subdivision at 12345 West 38th Avenue, be APPROVED as it is consistent with the R-lA zoning. However, the condition that there be vehicular access provided to the property to the east and pedestrian access be provided to the property to the west; location of those two access points be determined by Staff after they have met with the appropriate parties; also, that there be access provided to Tract A within the utility drainage easement from the cul-de- sac to the east end of the subdivision. The motion was seconded by Commissioner THOMPSON. Discussion was held. Commissioner THOMPSON inquired if the maximum of seventeen (17) units should be included in the motion. She further stated that the adjacent land owners as well as the applicant preferred not building to the maximum of twenty-one (21) units. General discussion was held and consensus was formed to mandate a maximum of seventeen (17) units would be approved without being part of the motion. Motion passed 8-0. Commissioner CERVENY motioned that the connector street width recommendation for thre link to the east, be thirty (3Q) feet right-of--way and twenty-four (24) feet flowline to . flowline. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. General discussion was held. Motion was approved 8-0. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 12 8. CLO5E THE PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson LANGDON closed the public hearing. 9. OLD BUSINESS General discussion was held regazding the recent passing of long time Commission member, one of the founders of the City of Wheat Ridge, and resident, Bonnie Scoma. Due to her dedication, the Planning Commission felt that she should be honored in some way. Commissioner ECKIiARDT stated that Ms. Scoma had mentioned to him that she would like to have a gazebo in the park. Chairperson THOMPSON suggested putting her picture in City Hall. Commissioner JOHNSON asked what happened to the original typewriter and desk that she used. It was thought that they were either in Ms. Scoma's home or in the City somewhere. Her daughter had inquired what she should do with many items that probably had historical value. Director Gidley stated that the desk and typewriter were stored fox safekeeping. Commissioner THOMPSON stated that a memoria] using the desk and typewriter with her picture would make a nice tribute. • Chairperson LANGDON motioned that it be suggested to City Council that the typewriter and desk, along with Ms. Scoma's picture, be placed within the walls of City Hall in a place of honor, as a tribute to her longstanding contributions to the City. Commissioner JOHNSON seconded the motion. Motion passed 8-0. 10. NEW BUSINESS Chairperson LANGDON stated that it was time to vote for a new Chair. A confidential vote was taken and tallied by Secretary Gunn. Commissioner WILLIAMS was voted as the new Chairperson and Commissioner CERVENY as Vice Chair after a tie vote was broken with arun-off vote. Chairperson LANGDON thanked everyone for their support and a job well done over the past year while he was Chairperson. 11. DISCUSSION AND DECISION ITEMS 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS There were no reports. 13. ADJOURNMENT • Commissioner THOMPSON motioned to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner • Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 21, 1996 Page 13 GRIFFITH seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:00 Gunn, Secs The next meeting will be December 5,1996. •