Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/19/2009City of i~9WheatRjdge PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting March 19, 2009 2. 3. 4. 5. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair MATTHEWS at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29 h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Jim Chilvers Marc Dietrick Henry Hollender Dick Matthews Davis Reinhart Steve Timms Commission Members Absent: Staff Members Present: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Anne Brinkman John Dwyer Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Jeff Hirt, Planner II Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner REINHART and seconded by Commissioner TIMMS to approve the order of the agenda. The motion passed 6-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 5, 2009 Commissioner HOLLENDER requested the following amendment to the minutes of March 5,2009: Page 3, third paragraph, second sentence should read: "No changes were agreed to." It was moved by Commissioner REINHART and seconded by Commissioner HOLLENDER to approve the minutes of March 5, 2009 as amended. The motion passed 6-0. 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) Planning Commission Minutes 1 March 19, 2009 There was no one to address the Commission at this time. 7. STUDY SESSION A. Follow-up on Development Standards for Residential Zones Jeff Hirt reviewed the staff report which was a follow-up from the study session held on March 5, 2009 regarding residential development standards. The report contained staff recommendations resulting from study session feedback. Public Outreach for Residential Standards - Staff recommended scheduling a Planning Commission public hearing in late April or early May. Those who signed up for the 2008 open houses for zoning code amendments would be directly notified in addition to a newspaper notice. An article would be prepared for the Wheat Ridge Connections that would outline the proposed changes and any future public hearings on the ordinance. The Connections would be mailed out the week of May 25 or June 1. Based on feedback from that publication, staff would proceed accordingly with either a first reading before City Council or additional public outreach. Information would continue to be provided on the city website during the entire process. Commissioner REIN14ART agreed with staff s recommendation, commenting that he believed the public hearing process mandated by ordinance is adequate. Commissioner TIMMS stated that he would prefer to have the information appear in the Connections publication prior to a Planning Commission hearing on the ordinance. Commissioner CHILVERS commented that he would like to see the process move quickly. All of the information is presently on the website under the Community Development Department. Suggestions were made that the information be moved from the Community Development section of the website to the City's front page; the website presentation could include some of the photographs that were presented during the study session; and perhaps an article could be written in the mayor's newsletter concerning the proposed ordinance. There was a consensus (5-1 with Commissioner TIMMS opposed) to support staff's recommendations for public outreach. • Classifying Accessory Structures - Based on feedback from the study session, staff recommended grouping accessory structures into two categories, major and minor, with major structures having the same standards as detached garages and minor structures having the same standards as sheds. Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 19, 2009 There was discussion as to whether the structures should be further defined by use. Commissioner HOLLENDER commented that too much definition would make the process cumbersome, and it would probably be best to base the definitions upon size and let building codes regulate the use. There was consensus (6-0) to support staff s recommendations to regulate major/minor accessory buildings based on size and not use. • Accessory structure behind front facade of principal structure. Based on discussion at the March 5 study session, staff made the following recommendations: For front and side setbacks from the street on corner lots, detached garages would be the same as front/street setback for principal structure. If there is an existing setback encroachment, the detached garage must be behind the street-facing facade of the principal building but not less than 18'. For the R-1C district which has typically smaller lots, the setback would be 18' and accessory structures must be behind the street-facing facade of the principal structure where there are encroachments. For front and side setbacks from the street for corner lots, all other accessory structures would be the same as front/street setbacks for principal structures. If there is an existing setback encroachment, the accessory structure must behind the street-facing facade of the principal building. For front setbacks in the R-1C district, accessory structures must be behind the street-facing facade of the principal structure regardless. Commissioner REINHART discussed setbacks for garages and suggested that a garage could be close enough to the street that there would be no room for a car to park in front of the structure or the garage should be set back far enough to accommodate a parked vehicle. There was consensus to support staff s recommendations with language suggested by Commissioner REINHART that would allow some flexibility with driveway depths. B. Discussion of Off-Street Parking Requirements: Jeff Hirt presented this matter. Staff is in the process of drafting revised parking regulations to provide more flexibility for the city's many infill lots that may not meet current standards. Two options for a shared parking formula are being considered and outlined in the staff report. Commissioner MATTHEWS suggested that shared parking should be on the same side of the street. Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 19, 2009 Commissioner HOLLENDER expressed concern about having inadequate parking as a "trade off'to having more landscaping. 8. 9. Commissioner TIMMS suggested allowing parking reductions in targeted areas such as for businesses along 38th Avenue. Regarding the two shared parking options presented by staff, discussion was generally in favor of the second option. This option would calculate parking spaces on the basis of specific times of day and the timeframe with the most parking demand. Mr. Hirt thanked the Commission for their comments. Staff will be bringing the parking requirements back for more discussion at a future study session. OTHERITEMS There were no other items to be considered by the Commission. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner REINHART and seconded by Commissioner TIMMS to adjourn the meeting at 8:04 p.m. Motion passed 6-0. Dick Matthews, Vice Chair r Ann Lazzeri, Secretar Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 19, 2009