Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/02/2004 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting 0 RIG I N A L December 2, 2004 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order by Chair Plummer at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th A venue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Commission Members Present: Jim Chilvers John McMillin Marian McNamee Phil Plummer Kim Stewart Scott Wesley Commission Members Absent: Jerry Scezney Kevin Witt Staff Members Present: Alan White, Community Development Director Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Following is the official set of Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing of December 2, 2004. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development Department of the City of Wheat Ridge. 4. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner McNAMEE to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 5. APPROVE MINUTES - November 18, 2004 It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to approve the minutes of November 18, 2004 as presented. The motion passed 3-0 with Commissioner McNAMEE, PLUMMER and WESLEY abstaining and Commissioners SCEZNEY and WITT absent. Planning Commission December 2, 2004 Page 1 6. PUBLIC FORUM There were none present who wished to address the Commission during this portion of the meeting. 7. STUDY SESSION A. Case No. ZOA-03.18: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to signage. At an earlier meeting, the Commission requested more research on how other communities address the following items: nonconforming signs, balloons/pennants/flags, off-premises and political signs. Meredith Reckert reviewed the staff report that contained the requested information. There was discussion regarding a time limit on the display of political signs, especially after an election is over. It was moved by Commissioner WESLEY and seconded by Commissioner McNAMEE that political signs for ballot issues, primary and general elections be allowed to go up 90 days before the election and be required to be taken down 15 days after the election. Commissioner McMILLIN argued that any time limits would present a constitutional restraint on freedom of speech. Commissioner STEWART expressed concern about the necessity and enforcement of time limits. The motion failed 3.3 with Commissioners CHIL VERS, McMILLIN and STEWART voting no and Commissioners SCEZNEY and WITT absent. Replacement of nonconforming sign issues was discussed. Amortization issues were discussed. Alan White will discuss these issues with the city attorney and will also survey other cities to see if they have amortization for nonconforming signs. There was a consensus that nonconforming signs can stay unless there is damage of more than 50% or a substantial increase in square footage of the business. There was a consensus to accept banner regulations as outlined in the staff report; however, there was discussion about limiting the size of a banner that stays up all the time to one-half the size allowed for a permanent wall sign. Milton Tedford Mr. Tedford, owner of 42 West, stated that he appeared in municipal court and paid a hundred dollar fine for having an off-premise sign for his apartment complex. The sign had been in place for over twenty years and Mr. Tedford thought it was legal until he recently received a notice from the city telling him it was illegal. In checking his files, he did find evidence of Planning Commission December 2, 2004 Page 2 I payment for a 3-month renewable off-premise sign in 1985. The sign is his main source of advertisement for his apartments. He stated that he was not asking the city to change the sign code but wanted the city to make an accommodation for him to keep the sign via variance, grandfathering or applying a statute of limitations to allow his sign to remain where it has been for twenty years. He mentioned that the property owner who allowed the off-premise sign may request a rezone to commercial so that the sign would be allowed. There was discussion about the problem of setting a precedent if this sign is allowed. Alan White mentioned that other off-premises signs have been cited and removed. He also explained that variances cannot be allowed for something that is prohibited in the code. While the Commissioners were sympathetic to Mr. Tedford's situation, they did not believe the sign was legal just because code enforcement action was not taken until recently. It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner WESLEY to reaffirm the city's ban on off-premise signs. The motion passed 6-0 with Commissioners SCEZNEY and WITT absent. 8. OLD BUSINESS . Commissioner McMILLIN stated that he would like to see the proposed lighting ordinance address commercial issues only and not address single family and duplex lighting (front porch lights) at this time. 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. 10. COMMISSION REPORTS There were no commission reports. 11. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS There were no committee and department reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner CHIL VERS and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. p Planning Commission December 2, 2004 Page 3