Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/20161. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ♦6A, City Of Wheat Roge PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting April 21, 2016 CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair OHM at 7:02 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 291h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Commission Members Absent: Alan Bucknam Dirk Boden Emery Dorsey Donna Kimsey Janet Leo Scott Ohm Amanda Weaver Steve Timms Staff Members Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Lisa Ritchie, Planner II Mark Westberg, Engineering Project Supervisor Gerald Dahl, City Attorney Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner DORSEY to approve the order of the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — April 7, 2016 It was moved by Commissioner DORSEY and seconded by Commissioner BUCKNAM to approve the minutes of April 7, 2016, as written. Motion carried 4- 0-3 with Commissioners BODEN, KIMSEY and WEAVER abstaining. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2016 No one wished to speak at this time. 7. OTHER ITEMS A. Continue required actions on Case Nos. WZ-15-10 & WZ-15-11 Ms. Ritchie briefly gave the reason for the cases being included on the Agenda by explaining the action taken by the Commission was found to be incomplete. Ms. Ritchie introduced Gerald Dahl, Wheat Ridge's City Attorney, and explained that his presence at the meeting is to answer any questions and provide additional clarification on the actions required by the Commission. Mr. Dahl explained that at the April 7 meeting, for Case No. WZ-15-10, the only action the Commission took was to approve a motion which was then denied. He stated both City Council and the applicant rely on the Planning Commission for recommendations, but none were given. The hearings for the two cases are complete so there will be no further testimony given. Mr. Dahl explained that Commissioners, BODEN, KIMSEY and WEAVER although absent from the April 7th meeting, but in attendance at the March 17`h meeting could vote for the motions if they can answer yes to 3 questions. First, whether the minutes from the April 7 PC Meeting along with the agenda packet been reviewed. Second, whether the video from the April 7 PC meeting had been viewed. Third, does the commissioner feel like they can make an informed decision. Commissioners BODEN and KIMSEY answered yes to all three questions and will be allowed to vote. Commissioner WEAVER answered no to watching the video and will have to abstain from voting. It was moved by Commissioner DORSEY and seconded by Commissioner BUCKNAM to recommend APPROVAL Case No. WZ-15-10, a request for approval of a zone change from Planned Commercial Development to Planned Industrial Development with an Outline Development Plan for property located at 12700 W. 44`h Avenue, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and other guiding documents; 2. The proposal meets the zone change criteria; 3. The proposed uses and ODP plan are all less intensive than what could be allowed on the property currently and will serve as a neighborhood buffer; 4. All requirements for an Outline Development Plan have been met. Motion carried 4-2-1 with BODEN, BUCKNAM, DORSEY, KIMSEY approving; OHM, LEO denying; WEAVER abstaining. Planning Commission Minutes -2— April 2_April 21, 2016 It was moved by Commissioner LEO and seconded by Commissioner KIMSEY to recommend DENIAL of Case No. WZ-15-11, a request for approval of a Specific Development Plan for property located at 12700 W. 44� Avenue, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is not consistent with purpose of a Planned Development; 2. The proposal is not in substantial compliance with the Architectural and Site design Manual, the Streetscape Design Manual. Motion carried 4-2-1 with BODEN, BUCKNAM, KIMSEY and LEO approving; DORSEY and OHM denying; WEAVER abstaining. Ms. Ritchie added that each commissioner has been given a copy of the bylaws and asked that they be reviewed for discussion at a later date. A review of the bylaws will be added as an Agenda Item at a future meeting. 8. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. PBG -15-01: an application filed by Parfet Storage for approval of a Planned Building Group to allow six proposed storage buildings and the existing office/home to be used as an office/home for the site manager for the property located at 5130 Parfet Street. Ms. Reckert gave a short presentation regarding the Planned Building Group and the application. She entered into the record the contents of the case file, packet materials, the zoning ordinance, and the contents of the digital presentation. She stated the public notice and posting requirements have been met, therefore the Planning Commission has jurisdiction to hear this case. Ms. Reckert stated the property is zoned Industrial -Employment (I -E) and consists of 2 parcels. The one to the north is developed with an 1100 sq. ft. office building and a detached garage; the one to the south is undeveloped and used as detention for drainage for the parcel to the north. Access to the site is off Parfet Street to the west and there is an adjacent right-of-way on the southeast side of the site off of 50`h Avenue. Ms. Reckert explained to the Commission that staff recommends denial due to the following concerns including: circulation and interior aisle width, landscaping does not include species, building architecture has questionable fagade detail, the minimum for primary and secondary material has not been met. Also, regarding the right-of-way, staff recommends dedication for 50`h Avenue to be built during development of Phase 2; the detention for this project should be shifted to not interfere with future construction of 501h Avenue and whether the drainage report indicates that the improvements are adequate to control erosion on the steep slopes. Planning Commission Minutes -3— April 3_April 21, 2016 Ms. Reckert stated staff met with the applicant and their representatives on April 20th regarding the concerns and would like to recommend a continuation until May 19, 2016. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked what the timeline is for the extension on 501h Avenue. Mr. Westberg stated there is not a timeline for the 50th Avenue construction; Public Works would like the right-of-way reserved for the development of Phase 2. Commissioner BUCKNAM also asked if the applicant knows what kind of material staff wants to see for the buildings to be ASDM compliant. Ms. Reckert replied there has been a discussion, but the applicant is hesitant to invest more money on architectural plans. Commissioner DORSEY's only concern at this time is the house in the middle of the property; it seems to hurt the development. Noah Nemmers Baseline Engineering 1950 Ford Street, Golden, CO Mr. Nemmers explained that refinements have been made and said the old house will be staying and will fit in with the architectural style of the rest of the buildings. All the development will be on Lot 1 and they are currently making refinements to Lot 2 to improve the drainage. With regards to staff's concerns, the applicant agreed to reflect the 20 -feet of ROW for 501h Avenue on all plans; ROW dedication will be required when Lot 2 develops; pond improvements will be modified; they hope to demonstrate substantial compliance with the architecture criteria; further analyzation of drive aisles. Mr. Nemmers explained that with regards to the materials, the code is being followed and will be amended for clarification on the final set. There is a I -foot offset that extends to the roofline that meets the requirement; the treatments are intended to embellish the street facing elevation; the level of fagade detail shown was prepared based on the ASDM requirements for both color and material. The primary materials reflect the 40 % hard coat stucco and it will be above the foundation by at least 6". The secondary materials do not exceed the 60% threshold; and the glazing reflected on the elevations meets the 15% transparency. Southern and eastern drive aisles widths will be 24 -feet and the interior drive lanes will be 22 -feet. The proposed landscaping is in accordance and the correct species have been chosen, just not put in the plan where they will be located. Finally, the tenants will not have access to a dumpster as it would encourage them to dispose of unwanted goods. Commissioner KIMSEY has concerns about the 22 -feet drive aisles. Planning Commission Minutes -4— April 4_April 21, 2016 Commissioner OHM asked about the hours of operation and if the landscaping square footage is 9,928 sq. ft. or 8,095 sq. ft. Mr. Nemmers said the hours of operation will be Monday through Sunday 6am to Spm, and the landscape plan is correct showing 8,095 sq. ft. Commissioner OHM also had numerous questions regarding the landscaping and lighting that he would like addressed on the landscape and lighting plans by the May 19 meeting. A copy of the list of questions will be given to Mr. Nemmers for review. It was moved by Commissioner WEAVER and seconded by Commissioner DORSEY to continue Case No. PBG -15-01 until May 19, 2016. Motion Carried 7-0 9. ADJOURNMENT It ,%,as moved by Commissioner DORSEY and seconded by Commissioner KIMSEY to adjourn the m eting at 8:01 p.m. Motion carried 7-0. ott Ohm, Chair Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 2016 Tammy Ode-Me,Recording Secretary -5—