Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/18/1998CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting June 18, 1998 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chair THOMPSON at 7:30 p.m. on June 18, 1998, in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL: Commission Members Present: Staff Members Present: Ann Brinkman (Arrived at 7:50 p.m.) Jerry Collins Jim Dunn Dean Gokey Tom Shockley Nancy Snow Janice Thompson Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Bob Goebel, Public Works Director Ann Lazzeri, Minutes Specialist 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The following is the official set of Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing of June 18, 1998. A set 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. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner GOKEY requested that discussion concerning Club Corner be added to the agenda under Old Business. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS to amend the agenda as requested. The motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner BRINKMAN absent. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the June 4, 1998 Wheat Ridge Planning Commission were presented for approval. Planning Commission 06/18/98 It was moved by Commissioner DUNN and seconded by Commissioner COLLINS to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried by a vote of 5-0 with Commissioner SHOCKLEY abstaining and Commissioner BRINKMAN absent. 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one signed up to speak before the Commission. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. CUP 98-02: A request by Glory of God Lutheran Church for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a 4,000 square foot expansion for the property located at 12200 West 38th Avenue. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She presented overhead projections of the site plan and slides of the subject property. She entered the zoning ordinance, case file, packet materials and exhibits into the record which were accepted by Chair THOMPSON. She informed that the property was within the City of Wheat Ridge, all notification and posting requirements had been met and there was jurisdiction to hear the case. Ms. Reckert informed that the applicant applied for the conditional use review to allow for expansion of the nursery, Sunday school rooms and storage. She informed that all public improvements, access and parking were in place; that no changes would occur to the rear portion of the property; and that all minimum requirements for a conditional use in the R-1 zone district had been met. She stated.that a neighborhood meeting was held on March 17, 1998 and that, although the meeting was well publicized, there was no one from the surrounding neighborhood in attendance. Ms. Reckert reviewed the agency referrals and informed that all agencies could serve the property. She informed that comments from the Wheat Ridge Police Department regarding crime prevention were forwarded to the applicant, and that the Wheat Ridge Public Works Department approved a revision to the drainage report and required no additional public improvements. She stated that the applicant will be meeting with the city forester to move two mature specimen trees on the property. Ms. Reckert reviewed the conditional use permit criteria and informed that, because the expansion would have minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood and the proposal far exceeded the zone district development standards, it was staff s conclusion and recommendation that the request be approved. Questions and discussion followed. Chair THOMPSON asked if there was an alternative to moving the trees if it presented a financial hardship to the applicant. Ms. Reckert replied that moving the trees was not a requirement of the conditional use, however, the City Forester had visually inspected the property and felt that the two trees in question were worth saving. Planning Commission Page 2 06/18/98 (Commissioner BRINKMAN arrived at 7:50 p.m.) Representatives of the applicant appeared before the Commission: Dale Catlin Rick Scheuber 3117 Owens Court 2965 S. St. Paul, Denver Mr. Catlin and Mr. Scheuber were sworn by Chair THOMPSON. Mr. Catlin stated the reason for the request was to support the current congregation in the areas of nursery and education space. In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Mr. Catlin replied that the sanctuary will seat approximately 200 people. In response to a question from Commissioner GOKEY, Mr. Catlin replied that it was the applicant's intent to work with the city forester to save the two mature trees. In response to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Mr. Catlin informed that the church does not operate an outside nursery or daycare service nor does it rent the church for public use. Commissioner SNOW asked if the applicant would consider adding another handicapped parking space on the west side of the building even though the required number of handicapped spaces were already met. Mr. Catlin replied that they would be agreeable to adding another handicapped space. There was no one signed up to speak before the Commission concerning this matter. It was moved by Commissioner SHOCKLEY and seconded by Commissioner SNOW to approve Case No. CUP-98-02, a request for a conditional use permit for property located at 12200 West 38th Avenue for the following reasons: 1. The evaluation criteria support approval of the request. 2. There will be minimal impact to the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The proposal far exceeds the zone district development standards. With the following condition: The applicant work with the City Forester to move specimen, mature trees. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. B. Case No. MS-98-02: A request by C. Holstein for approval of a minor subdivision of an R-3 zoned property into two lots. Property is located at 10911 West 44th Place. Planning Commission Page 3 06/18/98 The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She presented slides of the subject property and entered into the record the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, case file, packet materials and exhibits which were accepted by Chair THOMPSON. She informed that the property was within the City of Wheat Ridge, all notification and posting requirements had been met and there was jurisdiction to hear the case. Ms. Reckert reviewed the case history and informed that the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed and approved a right-of-way vacation for a portion of West 44th Place running in front of the subject property with conditions that a utility easement be reserved over the entire twenty feet being vacated and that the property owner dedicate right-of-way for West 45th Avenue. She stated that the purpose of the vacation and subsequent dedication was so the physical street improvements would fall within official right-of-way, and the platting of the property would accomplish that dedication. She informed that the owner has indicated that he will either sell or develop Lot 2 which is currently vacant. Ms. Reckert informed that all agencies are presently serving Lot 1 and could serve Lot 2 with certain improvements as follow: (1) The Arvada Fire Protection District requested that the turnaround at the southeast corner of Lot 2 must remain in place and that a fire hydrant be required at the end of 44th Place upon development of Lot 2. (2) Valley Water District requested easements be in place along the southern and eastern property lines and that water taps and service lines would be required when Lot 2 develops. (3) Public Service Company requested a ten-foot wide non-exclusive utility easements along the southern and northern property lines. (4) A drainage report, grading and erosion control plan and street construction plan would be required by the Public Works Department before a building permit would be issued for Lot 2. (5) The City of Wheat Ridge Parks and Recreation Commission recommended a 5% land value contribution in lieu of land dedication. Ms. Reckert reviewed the subdivision design showing the existing four-plex on Lot 1 with enough land area on Lot 2 for construction of another four-plex. In conclusion, she informed that the plat document would fulfill the conditions of vacation Ordinance 1106 which would allow the eastern portion of the property to be developed; that the subdivision regulations had been met; and staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision. Commissioner SNOW asked for clarification regarding the turnaround requested by the Arvada Fire Department. Ms. Reckert replied that since 44th Place is a dead end at the eastern property line, a 40-foot right-of-way has been left in what was Owens Street right-of- Planning Commission - Page 4 06/18/98 way to allow emergency vehicles to turn around. Mr. Goebel informed that the area would be posted with no parking signs to leave it clear for emergency use and that there would be enough room for a fire truck or trash truck to pull in, back up and drive out. Commissioner BRINKMAN commented that parking was presently occurring in the turnaround area and that there was a weed problem on the property which needed to be addressed by Code Enforcement. The applicant appeared before the Commission: Chester Holstein 3995 Way, Golden Mr. Holstein was sworn by Chair THOMPSON. He informed that he intends to sell the lot and addressed Commissioner BRINKMAN's concern about the weeds and informed that he had made arrangements with San Juan Landscaping to cut the weeds as often as necessary beginning the following day. Commissioner GOKEY asked if new construction would be consistent with the new patio homes existing in the area. Ms. Reckert replied that any new construction would have to meet all city requirements and would be consistent with other new development in the area. Commissioner BRINKMAN requested assurance that the fire hydrant would be installed before construction above the foundation takes place. Commissioner COLLINS asked about drainage. Mr. Goebel replied that the applicant would be required to provide a drainage study at the time a building permit is requested. He also noted that the ground in the area is very good for drainage since it is located on the ancient bed of Clear Creek. Commissioner GOKEY asked if requirement could be made that drainage be installed before construction of buildings takes place. Mr. Goebel replied that he would not have a problem with that. There were no individuals signed up to speak on this matter. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner SHOCKLEY that Case No. MS-98-2, a request for approval of a two-lot minor subdivision on property located at 10911-17 West 44th place, be recommended to the City Council for APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. It will fulfill the conditions of vacation Ordinance No. 1106. 2. It will allow the eastern portion of the property to be developed. 3. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. Planning Commission Page 5 06/18/98 With the following condition: That the fire hydrant requested by the Arvada Fire District be placed no later than after the foundation has been constructed. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. (Chair THOMPSON declared a recess at 8:20 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:30 P.M-) C. Case No. MS-98-03: A request by Saulsbury Properties for approval of a minor subdivision of four lots for residential apartments and duplexes. Said property is located at 3195 Saulsbury Street. Meredith Reckert distributed copies of the following exhibits which were then entered into the record and accepted by Chair THOMPSON: Exhibit A: Letter dated June 9, 1998 from Lynn Yehle, 1235 Everett Court, Lakewood, expressing his desire to see the subject property rezoned to single family residence and that all vegetation on the subject property between 32nd Avenue and the ditch be preserved. Exhibit B: Site and grading plan for Happy Landings Apartments. Ms. Reckert presented slides and overhead projections of the subject property. She entered the zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, case file, packet materials and exhibits into the record which were accepted by Chair THOMPSON. She informed that the property was within the City of Wheat Ridge, that all notification and posting requirements had been met and there was jurisdiction to hear the case. Ms. Reckert informed that the applicant was requesting approval of a four-lot minor subdivision on the subject property which is split-zoned R-3 on the north half and R-2 on the south half. She presented a history of the case and informed that the property was formerly subject to a zone change request from R-2 and R-3 to Planned Residential Development (Case No. WZ-97-1). The application, a request to construct sixteen multi-family units, six duplex units and two single family lots was made on December 18, 1996, but was never forwarded to Planning Commission or City Council for public hearing. On February 22, 1997, Ordinance No. 1066 became effective which placed a moratorium on rezone applications to R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-2A and PRD zones. A series of ordinances were passed in the fall of 1997 which reduced the densities in R-3 from 21 units per acre to 12 units per acre. She informed that the application was subsequently withdrawn. Ms. Reckert stated that in May of 1998 the owner applied for and was granted a building permit for the construction of twelve multi-family units on the property zoned R-3 which was consistent with density established by Ordinance No. 1090. She informed that if the Planning Commission Page 6 06/18/98 single family residence stays on the property, the buildable density for multi-family units would be reduced to nine units. She stated that the applicant had applied for approval of a subdivision to plat the southern portion (zoned R-2) into three duplex sites. Ms. Reckert reviewed the agency referrals and informed that all outside service agencies could serve the property with improvements paid for by the developer. She informed that Consolidated Mutual Water Company would require looping of a water main line between Teller and Saulsbury within the thirty-foot access way (private street); that the Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District would require a fire hydrant to be installed at the southwest corner and would not allow perimeter fencing to occur along the eastern side of Lot 1; and that Public Service requirements would have to be met. She informed that the Wheat Ridge Public Works Department required improvements to be constructed along the Teller and Saulsbury Street frontages, and that a drainage report was in the review process. She advised that the Parks and Recreation Commission had requested a 5% land value contribution in lieu of land dedication. Ms. Reckert reviewed the subdivision design. A common drive/private street would provide access to all four lots by way of a 30-foot easement located on the northern 24-foot portion of the R-2 lots and the southern six feet of Lot l and the access way had not been used to calculate allowable density. The utility easement/private street would span between Teller and Saulsbury. The Teller Street entrance would be gated for emergency access only with no parking allowed, and maintenance of the drive area would be responsibility of property owners. A 5-foot right-of-way dedication occurs along Saulsbury Street. All trees over one foot diameter which are in good health have been shown on the face of the plat and cannot be removed without review and approval of the City. The City Forester has worked with the applicant to evaluate health of trees on the property. The setback for duplex units would be measured from the property line and it was recommended that driveways and setbacks be at least twenty feet on the southern edge of the access way so off street parking would be assured. Ms. Reckert informed that it was staff s conclusion that a subdivision is required to allow construction on the southern R-2 portion of the property and that the private street/access way would be the best option available for internal access. Since all requirements for the Subdivision Regulations had been met, recommendation for approval was given with the following conditions: 1. Note #6 be corrected to accurately reflect existing zoning (150' vs. 165') 2. A note be added that no perimeter fencing be allowed along the eastern side of Lot 1 for fire protection purposes. 3. The private street/access way be posted "no parking" for fire lane purposes and maintained by the owners within the subdivision. 4. A note be added that driveways for Lots 2, 3, and 4 be at least 20 feet long from the southern edge of the private street. Planning Commission 06/18/98 Commissioner SNOW expressed concern about maintenance of the private street if any of the duplexes or apartments were to be sold. Ms. Reckert replied that it would be appropriate for the Commission to require a homeowners association with protective covenants which would ensure maintenance of the roadway. Chair THOMPSON expressed concern about guest parking for duplexes. Ms. Reckert informed that the building permit required at least three guest spaces for the multi-family units which is consistent with code. She noted that there was no guest parking requirement for single family residences. Commissioners BRINKMAN and GOKEY discussed sidewalks for the development. Ms. Reckert advised that the building permit required sidewalks to be installed on both frontages. Commissioner BRINKMAN expressed concern about dead-end sidewalks. Commissioner GOKEY asked if the sidewalks would be consistent with ADA requirements. Mr. Goebel replied that they would meet the ADA standards. Commissioner COLLINS asked about the fence along 32nd Avenue. Mr. Goebel informed that some residents have expressed concern about sight distance as they are pulling out onto 32nd Avenue and the City is requesting that the fence be moved back onto the property line. Commissioner GOKEY asked if a neighborhood meeting had been held concerning this development. Ms. Reckert replied that neighborhood meetings were not required for subdivisions. Chair THOMPSON asked about irrigation ditch. Mr. Goebel replied that it would remain open with a 4-foot chain link fence at the top between the ditch and the multi-family units. In response to a question from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Mr. Goebel replied that a traffic light for the entrance would not be required. Commissioner COLLINS asked about the retention pond. Mr. Goebel replied that the design is required to retain a 100-year storm. The applicant addressed the Commission. Alec Garbini 1546 Cole Boulevard, Suite #227, Golden Mr. Garbini was sworn by Chair THOMPSON. He stated that he was the architect for the project and was appearing on behalf of Saulsbury Properties who originally planned to remodel the existing converted horse stall apartments but have now decided to replace them with the present plan. He informed that the applicant planned to save as many of the trees as possible and that the plan would allow more open space than presently exists. He submitted plans and elevations for the buildings for the Commission to review. These plans were then Planning Commission Page 8 06/18/98 offered to members of the audience who wished to review them. He stated there is no access planned onto 32nd Avenue and that there would be an emergency gate at the end of the 24- foot wide private street which would allow fire trucks to break through in case of emergency. He commented that trash trucks could be given a key to the gate by the manager allowing them to drive through, or a hammerhead configuration could be constructed. In reference to guest parking, he stated that the duplexes have a two-car garage design with one parking space in front of each duplex which would provide three parking spaces for each duplex which was in excess of the requirements. He stated there would be an extension of the white picket fence the entire length of the property and that a new sidewalk would be installed on Saulsbury that would connect to 32nd Avenue. In reply to a question from Commissioner GOKEY, Mr. Garbini replied that each multi- family unit will have two bedrooms and the duplexes would average three bedrooms. Commissioner GOKEY asked about the well on the site. Mr. Garbini replied that it was an adjudicated well that would be used in conjunction with ditch rights to irrigate the lawns and landscaping on the property. THOMPSON expressed concern regarding children's safety with large vehicles such as moving vans having to back out 300 feet to get from Teller to Saulsbury. Mr. Garbini replied that the gate could be used in such instances. He commented that the gate is to be installed to satisfy neighborhood concerns that it not be a through street. Mr. Garbini replied to Commissioner SNOW'S concern about maintenance of the street if the property were sold and stated that a homeowners association would be formed and new owners would be subject to the covenants and maintenance agreement of the association. During discussion of parking, Ms. Reckert suggested that parking restrictions for RV, trailer and boats could be instituted. The applicant was agreeable to this. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked about curb, gutters and sidewalks. Mr. Garbini replied that they are required to extend the sidewalk for the apartments and would like to end the sidewalk at the point where the private street enters back into the property rather than extending it to a dead-end. Ms. Reckert advised that only City Council has the authority to waive curb, gutter and sidewalk requirements. During discussion on drainage, Mr. Garbini advised that the engineers for the project have concluded that, even with paving and improvements on the site, there will be less water leaving the site than is presently the case. The following individuals were signed up to speak before the Commission Thomas Slattery 6869 West 32nd Avenue Planning Commission 06/18/98 Mr. Slattery was sworn by Chair THOMPSON. Mr. Slattery questioned the legality of the R-3 zone designation. He commented that, since no construction was occurring on the property, that it was misleading to indicate that there would be a hardship to the applicant if subdivision was not granted. He expressed concern that Lot 4 would not be buildable with. the required drainage easement. He did not believe the development fit in with the established character of the neighborhood and believed there was a precedent for denial of any R-3 use in the area because an application made in the 1980's was denied by City Council on the basis of incompatibility with the neighborhood. He did not believe that the developer had proven conformance with the zoning and subdivision code and asked that the request be denied. Discussion followed. Mr. Slattery felt that if the units were to be sold, single ownership would no longer exist. Commissioner GOKEY asked Mr. Garbini if the property were owned by one individual at this time and if development would be by one individual. Mr. Garbini replied that this was the case and, if sold, the property would be subject to covenants set forth in the homeowners association and responsible for all improvements. Ms. Reckert commented that the homeowners association would be responsible for maintenance of the detention area. Commissioner BRINKMAN referred to the subdivision regulations that require drainage areas to be left in a natural state with no encroachments on the natural channel areas and requiring that any land subject to a 100-year flood should not be platted for occupancy unless adequate provisions were made to eliminate and control flood hazards as they apply to area being developed. She also clarified that the R-3 property was not being addressed at this meeting other than where it directly affects the R-2 subdivision request. Commissioner SNOW commented thafthe applicant already has the building permit. Mr. Slattery felt the building permit was not legal. Lisa Hamilton Fieldman 7125 West 32nd Avenue Ms. Fieldman was sworn by Chair THOMPSON. She expressed concern about losing trees on the property. She did not believe the Lot 4 would be buildable with the drainage easement. She asked the reason for the single family residence on the property being up for rent when the applicant had indicated it would be torn down after being used for a construction office. She expressed concern about parking and increased traffic which would be generated by the development. In regard to the gate, she suggested that the end of the street be widened to more than 30 feet, and that the street be placed around a traffic island which would allow delivery trucks, etc. to turn around. Chair THOMPSON asked if the detention pond area could be used for play structures, trees, etc. Meredith Reckert replied restrictions on the plat would not allow that to occur. During discussion of the retention pond, Mr. Goebel stated that the exact size of the grass Planning Commission - Page 10 06/18/98 pond would not be determined until final drainage review was completed. Commissioner GOKEY asked if the structure on lot 4 would be in danger of a 100 year storm. Mr. Goebel replied that they are working to allow more space between the structure and the pond to ensure that the structure would not be in danger. Catherine Dunlap 7160 West 30th Ms. Dunlap was sworn by Chair THOMPSON. She stated that there is no storm sewer system in the area at all and a large pool of water forms at 30th and Saulsbury and stays for several days. She expressed concern that there would be no traffic light at the entrance to the unit from Saulsbury. She also expressed concern about car lights shining into neighbors windows as they enter and exit the development as well as increased traffic flow in the area which would be generated by the development. She was concerned about the possibility of lowering water tables for neighborhood wells if the developer used his well for irrigation. She was also concerned about the possibility of decreased public water pressure which is already low in the area. She stated her opposition to building an apartment complex in the middle of low density housing and expressed her opinion that the developer didn't care about the neighborhood but was only interested in making money. Commissioner SNOW commented that the only decision that was before the Commission was to decide how to subdivide the land. She asked Ms. Dunlap if she had any suggestions about the traffic. Ms. Dunlap felt that it would be the best plan to exit onto 32nd Avenue. She indicated that she was in agreement with the plans as far as the border of trees on the perimeter of the property was concerned. Albert Holland 1633 West 78th Place Mr. Holland was sworn by Chair THOMPSON. Mr. Holland owns the lot adjacent to the south of the subject property and spoke in favor of the plan. He expressed concern about the retention pond interfering with his plans to build a driveway on his property and how water from the ditch running along the east side of Teller would be brought onto his property. He felt that installation of curb and gutter would be a hindrance in that regard. He was also concerned about increase in traffic. In response to a question from Commissioner GOKEY, Mr. Holland replied that he wanted to see some infrastructure built into the plan to allow him to take water from the ditch. Mr. Goebel replied that this matter would be addressed. Mr. Holland also indicated agreement with the installation of the gate at the end of the street. Margaret Parry 3060 Teller Street Planning Commission Page 11 06/18/98 Chair THOMPSON stated that Ms. Parry has indicated to the City that she is in opposition to the subdivision. Chair THOMPSON then asked if there were individuals who had not signed the public hearing roster but wished to speak. The following individuals addressed the Commission: Martin Burrows 7200 West 31st Place Mr. Burrows was sworn by Chair THOMPSON. He stated that he lives directly across the street from the proposed development and expressed concern about increase in traffic. He did not believe there was a place for any safe entrance into the development. He also expressed concern about lowering water tables and decreased water pressure. He expressed opposition to the project because it would have a negative impact on the neighborhood, and asked that the Planning Commission research the subdivision laws before making a decision. Chair THOMPSON asked Ms. Reckert if the proposed development complied with all subdivision regulations. Ms. Reckert replied that it did. In response to a question from Chair THOMPSON, Mr. Goebel advised that the subdivision regulations and street design guide require 125 feet between streets if they are offset and that it would not be a good idea to have three access points onto 32nd Street all within 300 feet of each other. Chair THOMPSON asked if additional parking could be required on the 12-unit side to alleviate parking needs for the duplexes. Mr. Goebel replied that there would be an area designated as common area which could be used for extra parking. Commissioner GOKEY commented that using the common space for parking could result in the loss of some of the more mature trees on the property. Joann Howard 7260 West 31st Place Ms. Howard was sworn by Chair THOMPSON. She stated that it was her understanding the owner had previously indicated he was building a development for senior citizens and now his plans have changed. She was concerned about increased traffic in the area. She said there was an existing driveway on 32nd next to the RTD bus pad. She did not want to see an access onto Teller. She was also concerned that the development would not be maintained. Commissioner SNOW asked Mr. Goebel about a right-in only entrance from 32nd. He replied that it would be necessary to have right turn lane installed for this to happen. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked for clarification as to whether construction on the multi- family units could proceed even if the subdivision plat were not approved at this time. Ms. Planning Commission Page 12 06/18/98 Reckert replied that it could proceed and that if the application is denied, the applicant could come back with a different subdivision plan or appeal to the City Council. Mr. Garbini returned tothe podium to respond to concerns raised by the previous speakers. In regard to the retention pond, Mr. Garbini stated that the engineer felt this was the best solution and would result in saving more trees and reiterated the applicant's sincere desire to save as many trees as possible. He commented that there will be some offsite improvements which will benefit the neighborhood such as the widened street, curb and gutter. He stated that the reason there is no construction taking place at the present time is that, although they have already paid for the fire hydrants, they are waiting to get them installed which is a requirement of the fire department before any demolition or construction can take place. In regard to water pressure, he stated the required looping would increase the size of the water line on Saulsbury thereby increasing water pressure. In regard to the well, he indicated he would check to see if a permit had been obtained. He estimated the number of residents on the property to be around fifty and clarified that they were never planning to build a senior' citizen development but wanted to build a development that would be attractive to people in the Wheat Ridge area. He noted that half of the apartments are ground floor and handicapped accessible as are the duplexes He stated that the site could handle ten single family units, but would not allow as much open space as the present plan. He also stated that he was not aware of the ditch issue concerning Mr. Holland's property but would work with the City and adjacent land owners to provide a swail across the property and would be in agreement with asking the City Council to waive the curb and gutter requirements. In regard to traffic, he commented that he has worked with the City's recommendations. He informed that the picket fence will be rebuilt rather than using chain link fence. In conclusion he informed that, because of vandalism to the property, the house has been rented for a 4-month period in order to have some security on the premises. In response to questions from the Commission, Ms. Reckert stated that average household size in Wheat Ridge in the 1990 census was 2.2 persons per household. In response to comments regarding low density, single family housing in the neighborhood, Mr. Garbini noted that five of the adjacent properties already contained duplexes or group housing. Catherine. Dunlap addressed the commission on behalf of the previous speakers who were in opposition to the subdivision. She again expressed concern about the traffic and noted that 32nd Avenue handles a lot of funeral home traffic also. She stated that the majority of people in the neighborhood did not want to see the development take place. She felt that the Saulsbury exit would be preferable to other options. She asked that the City look into installing a stop sign at 30th and Saulsbury as well as the possibility of installing storm drains in the area. It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by Commissioner SNOW that Case No. MS-98-3, a request for approval of a four-lot minor subdivision on property zoned R-2 and R-3 located at 3195 Saulsbury Street, be recommended to the City Council for Planning Commission Page 13 06/18/98 APPROVAL for the following reasons: 1. Zoning on the property is R-2 and R-3. 2. A subdivision is required to allow development of the south half of the property. 3. All requirements of the Subdivision Regulations have been met. With the following conditions: 1 Note #6 on the front page be corrected to accurately reflect existing zoning (150 feet versus 165 feet.) 2. A note be added that no perimeter fencing is allowed along the eastern side of Lot 1 on Saulsbury Street. 3. The private street/access way be posted "no parking" for fire lane purposes. 4. A note be added that the access way be posted as a fire lane and that property owners are responsible for maintenance. 5. A note be added to the front page that driveways for Lots 2, 3 and 4 be at least 20 feet long from the southern edge of the private street. 6. That a homeowners association be formed to cover maintenance of the private street, ditch and detention areas. 7. That the private street be blocked by a gate on the western end adjacent to Teller Street and that the parking on Teller adjacent to the private street be posted as no parking. 8. That the plan be revised to devise a plan for continuing the ditch flow and provide diversion boxes for all nearby residents who have ditch rights, and that existing ditch be maintained. 9. That a hammerhead turnaround be installed at the end of the private street as approved by the Public Works Department. 10. A line should be clearly delineated on the plan showing the division between R-2 and R-3 properties. Commissioner COLLINS moved that the plan be amended to require a catch basin at the end of the retention pond to connect to the storm sewer. The motion died for lack of a second. Discussion followed. Chair THOMPSON expressed concern about driveways being used for parking and asked if additional parking could be added to the plan. Ms. Reckert replied that they will work with the applicant in this regard. Commissioner GOKEY commented that if more asphalt is required, wiping out more vegetation, more problems could be created than solved. He expressed his opinion that the developer did admirable job which addresses most of the issues. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Commissioner COLLINS voting no. 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair THOMPSON declared the public hearing portion of the meeting closed. Planning Commission Page 14 06/18/98 9. OLD BUSINESS Club Corner - Commissioner GOKEY stated that he noticed construction of new structure at Club Corner that he didn't believe was authorized. Ms. Reckert explained that a permit was issued for an extension to the east which is part of the R-3 and the owner cannot use it commercially until he obtains the commercial zoning for that portion of the property. She also informed that the applicant had not, at this time, withdrawn the application which was heard at the June 4, 1998 Planning Commission. Planning Commission Workshop - Commissioners BRINKMAN and GOKEY indicated that they would be attending the workshop. Meredith Reckert informed that staff is planning a study session regarding procedures, etc. in the near future. 10. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 11. DISCUSSION ITEMS There were no discussion items. 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS There were no committee or department reports. 13. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner GOKEY that the meeting be adjourned at 11:35 p.m. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Ann Lazzeri, Recording Snice Thompson, Chair Planning Commission Page 15 06/18/98