Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-201. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Cily of ]qrWh6atPs�dge- PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting November 19, 2020 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 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Commission Members Absent Staff Members Present: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Melissa Antol Will Kerns Ari Krichiver Daniel Larson Scott Ohm Jahi Simbai Kristine Disney Janet Leo Lauren Mikulak, Planning Manager Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner LARSON and seconded by Commissioner ANTOL to approve the order of the agenda. Motion carried 6-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — October 1, 2020 It was moved by Commissioner KERNS and seconded by Commissioner LARSON to approve the minutes of October 1, 2020, as written. Motion carried 6-0. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2020 No one wished to speak at this time. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-20-07: an application filed by UFCW Local 7 Building Association for approval of an Outline Development Plan (ODP) amendment to change the sign standards on property zoned Planned Commercial Development (PCD) and located at 7760 West 38th Avenue. A recorded presentation from Ms. Tasneem was played regarding the ODP 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. After the presentation, Ms. Mikulak explained to the Commission that one of the posting signs blew away before the scheduled meeting and she mentioned that the Municipal Code anticipates these types of issues to happen; she read from the code noting that the code allows the Commission to proceed. The sign had been posted 10 of the 15 days and because this case was also posted in multiple other places staff recommends the Planning Commission hear and make a recommendation on this case. The applicant provided a brief presentation. Commissioner SIMBAI requested clarity on the staff report statement that it is "unclear" why the existing sign doesn't conform to the existing ODP sign Standards. Ms. Mikulak noted that because the City does not have a lot of older Building Permit records, it is unclear to staff why the current sign was allowed to be built larger than the ODP allows. Commissioner SIMBAI inquired if the Planning Commission should be reviewing more specific sign plans in order to approve the proposal. Ms. Mikulak explained the difference between an ODP amendment and a Master Sign Plan—another type of document the Commission often reviews. The ODP amendment does not require additional drawings or details of signs, particularly since it is proposed to follow the existing sign code standards. Drawings will be reviewed by staff through the permit process for conformance with code. Commissioner SIMBAI asked what the applicant meant by there being reinvestment in the property with this sign. Kevin Schneider, Applicant, Secretary Treasurer UFCW Local 7 Planning Commission Minutes -2– November 2– November 19, 2020 7760 W. 381h Avenue Mr. Schneider explained that more tenants will be drawn to the building and putting tenant's business names on the sign will benefit the tenant and the community. There are currently vacancies in the building. Commissioner SIMBAI asked if the current sign is powered by electricity. Mr. Schneider confirmed the sign has electricity and is internally illuminated, and he then showed a picture of the proposed new sign. Commissioner ANTOL asked staff to confirm that the amendment would result in the site being consistent with the current sign code. Ms. Mikulak concurred. Commissioner LARSON asked why an ODP amendment is required instead of a variance. Ms. Mikulak explained that the variance code is written for exceptions to specific provisions in the Chapter 26 Zoning Code, and an exception from the ODP's sign standards is not eligible for a variance. If the applicant wants a waiver from a standard in the ODP then the ODP standard itself must be changed. In response to a couple questions from Commissioner KERNS regarding the features of this sign including a video board Ms. Mikulak explained that in Article 7 of the Sign Code electronic message boards are allowed with limitations on how often the message can change and what the illumination requirements are. Electronic message boards are permitted. She added there are a few electronic message boards in the area around 38th and Wadsworth and along that corridor. Ms. Mikulak mentioned that the City cannot regulate the content of a sign but can address time, place and manner. Larry Godwin, Applicant, Front Range Sign -a -Rama 9011 N. Harlan St, Westminster Mr. Godwin explained that the electronic message board section will share information for the community and may include severe weather alerts, Amber Alerts, or vacancies for the building. Commissioner OHM asked if the sign will stay where it is currently located which is out of the sight triangle. Mr. Schneider said it will stay in the same place. Planning Commission Minutes -3— November 3— November 19, 2020 Commissioner KERNS also inquired if the members of the community have objected to a flashing sign in the neighborhood. Mr. Schneider said there are not many homes close to the sign and Ms. Mikulak added that per the Code the messages shall be static and a change in message shall be instantaneous. The code prohibits flashing signs. No one wished to speak during public comment. It was moved by Commissioner ANTOL and seconded by Commissioner SIMBAI to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. WZ-20-07, a request for an Outline Development Plan (ODP) amendment to change the sign standards on property zoned Planned Commercial Development (PCD), for the following reasons: 1. The proposed amendment does not result in an adverse effect on the surrounding area. 2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. The amendment will provide additional opportunity for reinvestment in the area. 4. The amendment aligns with the changing needs of the development. 5. The criteria used to evaluate an ODP amendment supports the request. Motion carried 5-1 with Commissioner KERNS voting against. B. Case No. ZOA-20-07: an ordinance repealing the reenacting Section 26-609 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning access to public streets and making conforming amendments. Ms. Mikulak gave a short presentation regarding the ordinance. She entered into the record the contents of the case file, packet materials, the zoning ordinance. Commissioner SIMBAI read from section I B of the ordinance and asked if the Planning Commission or City Council will do any approvals. Ms. Mikulak explained that staff will always work with the applicant to get a design, and yes Planning Commission and Council will be making approvals based on these considerations. Section C says the code applies to whomever is the deciding body and it will apply depending to any applicable review process. Commissioner KRICHIVER asked if there is anything in the proposed new section that would require the City to consider any of those factors. Planning Commission Minutes -4— November 4— November 19, 2020 Ms. Mikulak explained that the ordinance will memorialize the factors being considered and she gave examples. This will create some clear and transparent criteria. The City will have to make decisions based on the considerations. Ms. Mikulak clarified that the default is there is direct access to a public street and if a private drive is going to be entertained then the 8 considerations will be used to approve or deny a request. She noted that the applicant will not dictate whether there will be a private or public access design it will be up to the discretion of the City. In response to Commissioner KRICHIVER asking about factor number 3 and what a logical design means, Ms. Mikulak explained there will always be some subjectivity in some of these statements and there have been illogical designs presented to staff. She added that the current language in the code regarding the 4 - unit limit is too prescriptive and causing an issue, she then gave examples. Commissioner LARSON asked about Section 1 B numbers 5 & 6 and wondered if there is a rule of thumb for the number of homes that warrant a public street. Ms. Mikulak explained that staff reviewed a wide range of past projects. There is no right answer for how many units should necessitate that access be through a public street. There is a range in the mixed-use code for the length of a block. Staff explored different thresholds, but there are many variables with infill development and ultimately, it's those variables which are memorialized in the code. Commissioner KERNS asked if this ordinance is approved does it require the City to take on maintenance of any substandard roadway facilities. Ms. Mikulak clarified that no ownership will be changed for existing facilities, but the code will provide a better basis for the City to decide if access for new development should be from a public street as opposed to a private drive. Commissioner ANTOL understands there needs to be flexibility but wondered why the City needs this change. Ms. Mikulak explained this code amendment will be used to protect the City in instances where a developer wants to provide a substandard private facility, and this amendment gives a better code basis for the City to deny that kind of design. The code conversely would allow a private drive where it's appropriate—the 4 -unit limit is too prescriptive. Commissioner OHM asked about townhomes and if there's a maximum amount of lots that dictate if we use public vs. private facilities. He also asked about how walkability factors in. Planning Commission Minutes -5– November 5– November 19, 2020 8. 9. Ms. Mikulak noted there are existing code provisions to have pedestrian walkways through site design standards. The question of when a townhome subdivision warrants public streets, is more a factor of the size of the project than the number of units. She cited the Yarrow Gardens and Toll Brothers projects. The former is small in size despite the number of units and has private streets with sidewalks. The latter is much larger in acreage and needs public streets. She added that access should not dictate the number of units that are allowed; zoning dictates the number of units allowed. Access codes should make sure the site is functioning properly. No one wished to speak during public comment. It was moved by Commissioner LARSON and seconded by Commissioner KERNS to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 26-609 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning access to public streets and making conforming amendments. Motion carried 5-1 with Commissioner Krichiver voting against. OLD BUSINESS A. Ms. Mikulak gave an update on the Let's Talk program in Bel Aire and East Wheat Ridge. In response to a question from Commissioner Larson, she explained the three phases of engagement and how resident feedback would be used to create a neighborhood specific action plan. NEW BUSINESS A. Upcoming Dates December 3 and 17 Planning Commission meetings will have cases to hear. In response to questions from Commissioners, Mr. Mikulak noted that she did not know who the tenants would be for the old Lucky's or at Gold's Market Place. 10. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner ANTOL and seconded by Commissioner LARSON to adjourn the meeting at 8:09 p.m. Motion carried 6-0. Sco hm, Chair Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2020 T mmy Odean,, cording Secretary -6