Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/20161. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ♦64I City of "�qW heat Ijdge PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting May 19, 2016 CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair OHM at 7:00 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 Emery Dorsey Donna Kimsey Scott Ohm Steve Timms Amanda Weaver Dirk Boden Janet Leo Staff Members Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Dave Brossman, Development Review Engineer Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner BUCKNAM to approve the order of the agenda. Motion carried 6-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — April 21, 2016 It was moved by Commissioner DORSEY and seconded by Commissioner WEAVER to approve the minutes of April 21, 2016, as written. Motion carried 5-0- 1 with Commissioner TIMMS abstaining. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) No one wished to speak at this time. Planning Commission Minutes May 19, 2016 7. 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. Before the hearing Commissioner OHM asked Commissioner TIMMS three questions to see if he is eligible to vote for the motion because he was absent from the previous meeting. First, whether he had reviewed the minutes from the April 21 s` PC meeting along with the agenda packet. Second, whether he had viewed the video from the April 21 PC meeting. Third, whether he feels like he can make an informed decision. Commissioner TIMMS answered yes to all three questions. Ms. Reckert gave a short presentation regarding the continuance of PBG -15-01. She briefly explained what has transpired since the April 21 meeting and stated the piece of land in primary focus is the northern lot of the property which currently has an 1100 sq. ft. building with detached garage on it. The southern lot is undeveloped with only a detention facility on it and there is also a connecting piece of land connecting the two lots. The property was rezoned a year ago to Industrial - Employment (I -E). She continued that at the conclusion of the previous meeting a list of photometric and landscaping concerns, from Commissioner OHM, were given to the aplicant; the applicant agreed to the ROW reservation for future construction of 50` Avenue; the drainage plan was modified to move the pond out of the ROW reservation; the internal drive aisles were not increased in width to 25 -feet, however the applicant said they will restrict trucks longer than 17 -feet, from entering the property with a sign at the entrance; modification were made to the landscape plan except species are still not specified; no changes were made to the PBG layout, photometric and building elevation sheets; and staff recommended again that an architect be hired to analyze the architecture and provide perspective drawings. Ms. Reckert explained that the applicant requests approval of the PBG with revised sheets with the following conditions: Commercial vehicles be limited to 17 -feet in length; architecture and building elevations be prepared by a licensed architect for the building permit submittal; and revisions will be made to the landscaping and lighting sheets prior to building permit submittal. She also stated that staff's recommendation is for denial for the following reasons: inability of staff to monitor truck sizes into the site and the potential negative impact on Parfet; circulation and interior aisle widths are substandard to industry standards; landscaping does not include species designation; building architecture has questionable fagade detail and articulation; primary and secondary material may not meet minimum coverage Planning Commission Minutes -2— May 2_May 19, 2016 percentages; and finally the unwillingness of the applicant to hire an architect to help resolve the former two issues. Commissioner DORSEY asked if the retention pond has been addressed on the southern lot. Also, he stated he had concerns with aisle widths. Mr. Brossman said he has received positive feedback, the pond will be moved out of the reservation area. Commissioner TIMMS asked how the City would monitor the length of trucks in and out of the property. Ms. Reckert replied that it will be difficult because there would have to be physical observation. Commissioner TIMMS asked if in the past an applicant hasn't listed the species of plants proposed to being used. Ms. Reckert added that a list of species has been given; it is just too open ended on where the plants will be placed. Commissioner TIMMS inquired about the architecture and asked if this level of architecture has been used before. Ms. Reckert stated the city has not seen this before and usually, at this point, City staff has an architect provide an analysis of all the materials being used. Due to the lack of detail and analysis makes it difficult to analyze the fagade articulation. Commissioner BUCKNAM had questions with regards to transparency and the Architectural and Site Design Manual's (ASDM) mandate of 15% transparency, but there is no mention of it. Ms. Reckert explained that faux glazing is allowed making it impossible to see into the western building. Commissioner OHM stated he did not think there is much change to the landscape plan and asked about the regulation for putting a tree next to curb and gutters. Also, he wanted to know if staff feels this submittal is complete. Ms. Reckert replied that staff does not believe the submittal is complete. She also stated that it is the applicant's choice to plant a tree next to curb and gutter and it is the chance they take if the curb cracks. Commissioner OHM asked whether sight triangles should be included on the plan. Planning Commission Minutes -3— May 3May 19, 2016 Ms. Reckert stated that the sight triangle requirement would only be by the entrance and since it is not a public street, the sight triangle is 15 -feet. Commissioner OHM asked if there is a revised lighting plan due to light spillage on to adjacent properties as shown on the original plan. Ms. Reckert stated there is not. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked about the properties to the south that are zoned Agricultural and whether they contain residences. Ms. Reckert confirmed that the adjacent property to the south contains a residence and a green house. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked about the 6 -foot fence on the southern end of the property and if it will be part of a sight triangle once it gets closer to Parfet Street. Ms. Reckert stated the fence will need to taper down to 4 -feet as it gets closer to Parfet Street. Commissioner WEAVER stated concern about drainage impacts to the property to the south. Mr. Brossman explained there will be curb and gutter to help catch the water so there is no runoff onto the neighboring property. Noah Nemmers — Baseline Engineering 1950 Ford Street, Golden Mr. Nemmers thanked the Commission for the continuance and gave a brief update from his perspective since the April 21 meeting. The applicant received language regarding the right-of-way reservation from Mr. Brossman and landscape comments from Commissioner OHM. He received an inquiry from staff about revising plans but no mention of drive aisle or architecture concerns. He indicated that he thought they met the criteria and had heard that staff's original recommendation was for approval. He then found out Staffs recommendation in the report was for denial, even though he thought they met ASDM requirements. Mr. Nemmers felt that bringing an architect on -board without understanding the architectural deficiencies would be ineffective. Mr. Nemmers stated the primary materials reflect 40% stucco and would begin above the foundations and would not be in direct contact with the ground. Secondary material will include a combination of corrugated metal panels, wood accent trim and spandrel glass. He explained the glazing reflected on the elevations meets the 15% transparency and gives the appearance of windows but provides no security risk to the tenants. Planning Commission Minutes -4— May 4—May 19, 2016 Mr. Nemmers explained the site plan layout was provided by Mako, an industry leader in self -storage planning and construction, and aisles were widened from 20 - feet to 22 -feet to meet the minimum requirement for commercial drive aisles. The fire lane on the south and east side of the property is 24 to 26 -feet wide. He stated a 30 -foot moving truck is well in excess of the largest truck most consumers can rent. These are private access lanes and the owner/operator accepts the risks involved and building corners will be constructed with steel bollards for protection. Mr. Nemmers stated the photometric plan was not revised because it uses full cutoff approved LED fixtures to control spill light. If need be, they could revisit the plan to add some shielding to control any spill light. With regards to the landscaping plan, it can be refined if there is still more information wanted, but would like to keep the species list loose. Mr. Nemmers indicated that he feels the application is consistent with the PBG approval criteria which includes regulations in the zoning/development code and the standards in the ASDM. He feels staff gave insufficient direction regarding deficiencies of the proposed architecture. Mr. Nemmers stated that if the Planning Commission decision is denial than the applicant can appeal to Jefferson County District Court. He requested the Commission approve the request with conditions contained in the staff memo. Commissioner BUCKNAM stated with regards to the ASDM he has concerns with the southern fagades which face a residential property. He would like to see the fagade on the southern facing building ends be similar to that of Building A. He requested clarification on the window glazing on Building A. Commissioner TIMMS asked how the applicant is going to enforce access to trucks only 17 -feet and under onto the site and would a Suburban towing a trailer be able to access the site. Commissioner TIMMS also wanted to know how many storage units will be part of this facility. Mr. Nemmers stated a moving truck which is about %2 ton or under, will be allowed and the manager will be keeping an eye on who enters the facility. Also, the applicant does not believe there will be large trucks accessing this site because the storage unit sizes are not going to be for large items like a car. Mr. Nemmers indicated that there will be 106 units. Commissioner TIMMS inquired about the resistance to hiring an architect. Mr. Nemmers stated that the owner Mr. Greg Herbers has been doing the architectural drawing to this point because he knows what he wants to see done. An architect will be hired to do the drawings for the building permit submittal. Planning Commission Minutes -5— May 5_May 19, 2016 Commissioner OHM expressed concerns about the landscape plan and asked if a licensed landscape architect had done the drawing for this site. Mr. Nemmers replied that one is not required per the code. Commissioner OHM stated that for a commercial property a licensed landscape architect will need to stamp the final plan before construction begins. He explained it is hard to keep a species list loose when it needs to be put on the plans to show caliper size of a tree or seed mix for grasses. Commissioner TIMMS asked how the structure plan to the south is designated. Ms. Reckert stated the property to the south is designated as Employment. She also explained to the Commission that she has worked with the applicant to upgrade the architectural drawings and to widen the drive aisles, but they have not wanted to move forward because it would be too expensive. Mr. Nemmers stated if the architectural design on the drawings is liked by all then they will move forward. Commissioner WEAVER stated she is not against this PBG, but she wants to see architectural drawing of exactly what the buildings are going to look like. She also wanted to know if the case is approved, can there be conditions for the drive aisles. Ms. Reckert replied that there definitely can be conditions, if approved. Commissioner BUCKNAM stated his primary concern is the southern elevations due to the residential home adjacent to the property. He also added that he wants to visit the transparency/ faux glazing issue with regards to the ASDM requirements. It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner BUCK -NAM to DENY Case No. PBG -15-01, a request for approval of a planned building group site plan on property zoned I -E at 5130 Parfet Street, for the following g reasons: 1. The modifications are still not sufficient to meet the intent and purpose of the Planned Building Group plan. 2. There are still concerns for interior circulation as the plan is substandard to industry standards. 3. There are still concerns regarding the architecture being proposed for questionable compliance with the ASDM and suitability for the site. 4. The plan does not comply with section 26-502.B.4b: the locations, types, sizes and quantities of proposed plant and other materials. Common and botanical names should be identified adjacent to all plant material or by use of a key and legend. Planning Commission Minutes -6— May 6_May 19, 2016 5. There is light spillage onto adjacent property. Motion passed 5-1, with BUCKNAM, DORSEY, OHM and WEAVER approving; Kimsey not supporting; therefore, the case was denied. 8. OTHER ITEMS Ms. Reckert mentioned a few items going before City Council Study Sessions including: Wadsworth EAS, 38`h Corridor design and ADU's. 9. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner WEAVER and seconded bN, Commissioner BUCKNAM to adjo rn the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Motion carried 6-0. Se Ohm, Chair Tammy Odean, Relcording Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -7— May 7_May 19, 2016