HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/07/13City of
Wh6a f <i!jgc
AGENDA
March 7,2013
Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning
Commission on March 7,2013 at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City
of Wieat Ridge, Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in
advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance.
A. Case No. WZ-13-01: An application filed by Steven Pelletier for approval of a, zone
change from Restricted Commercial (RQ to Mixed Use Neighborhood (MU-N) for
property located at 6700 W. •4 Avenue.
The meeting was called to order by Chair TIMMY m. in the City Council
Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
Commission Members Present: Amanda Weave I
Anne Brinkman
e agenda. Motion carried 7-0.
ON,
UTES —February 7, 2012
It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner
DURAN to approve the minutes of February 7, 2012, as written. Motion carried 7-
0.
6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject n
appearing on the agenda.) i
No one wished to speak at this time.
Planning Commission Minutes
February 21, 20113
A. Case No. MS-12-03: An application filed by Thomas R. Hawn for approval of a 2-lot
minor subdivision on property zoned Agricultural-One (A-1) and located at 4900
Robb Street.
This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. Ms. Reckert introduced Mark Westberg,
who was present to help answer questions. Ms. Reckert then provided a brief
explanation on subdivision plats and the review procpss. She entered all pertinent
documents into the record and advised the Commastri there was jurisdiction to hear
this case. She reviewed the staff report and digi tesentation. Staff recommends
approval of the 2-lot minor subdivision,
Commissioner BRINKMAN asked what the allowable ius are for A -1 zoning. Ms.
Reckert replied single family residenti general fanning, uibn gardens and a variety
of special uses such as public horse "steles and fish hatcheries.
Commissioner BRINK AN asked why theAft&J)"'Othpany wasn't on' ,of the referral
agencies given the presence of a ditch on tbep,
mperty. Ms. Reckert stated typically
that isn't done unless some development was pi�sed. No development was
proposed. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked aboUtlbe position of the rear lot line in
relation to the ditch. Ms. Recken said the ditch is being,accon as is and the
lot line is placed where it is because the common l ine that runs north and sound is all
acre.
Commissioner MATTHEWS asked what triggers street improvements. Ms. Reckert
stated it depends on the nature of the request. With a plat, street width is reviewed and
if new construction is proposed, the City may require installation of curb, gutter and
sidewalk.
Commissioner WEAVER asked if the applicant would keep the A- I zoning for both
lots or if the vacant parcel would become a commercial property. Ms. Reckert stated
the A -1 zoning would not change and development on the rear lot would be difficult
due to the ditch and there is a substantial grade change (40 feet) which would require
fill. This is also a settlement of an estate. Discussion continued regarding the typical
treatment of ditches.
Commissioner TIMMS asked if tile proposed subdivision will make the existing house
or the accessory structures non-conforming. Ms. Reckert stated no.
Tom Hawn
4900 Robb St., Wheat Ridge, CO
The applicant stated the reason for the application is to settle an estate and he would
like to preserve the house and avoid it being tom down and developed as commercial
Planning Commission Minutes - 2 --
February 21, 2013
property. By putting it on one acre it will be less attractive to developers. A historical
designation may help too. Tlie applicant was unsure if the property would remain in the
family or be sold. There are no plans for development on the back property. It will
remain a community garden, horse stable, or an agricultural use.
Commissioner WEAVER asked if the applicant had considered creating a conservation
easement for the property. The applicant replied no.
Chair TIMMS closed the public hearing as no one wanted to speak on this case.
It was moved by Commissioner GUILDNER and,
to recommend a roval of C 0, n for approval of a 2-lot
V.
l (A-1) and located at 4900
*rr r r Iowing reasons:
1. All requirements of
been met.
r
2. The plat is consistent with
Motion carried 7-0.
M. Reckert stated that this case
March 25,
B. Case No. WS napplici(i t Carlson for approval of a 53-lot
major subdivisi t* f rt
1 d figg ions oriftp-R. yizoned4qpned Residential Development
(PRIM) and loci t II 88M 38' h AvQW
Hus,,_ c ase wa
wa s pres
b N
Ax-qe` - , r0ditli, RecIa*, Ms. Reckert entered all pertinent
_
t6-ibe reciar nand dI"'
c COmission there was jurisdiction to bear this
ca S he he reviewed the st do presentation. Staff recommends approval
............
e 53-lot major di i dedications. Ms. Reckert pointed out a correction to
bull inumber five 44 b ,44 reco motions on page 6 of the staff repo rt The bullet
should 4 `44
-1 "
d "The pro be ss ed for fees in lieu of parkland dedication based on
the appi-Aod, value of tla lend after land entitlements have been approved. Said fees to
be paid error q lac first ing permit issuance."
Commissioner Wfq7,R' asked why there is no proposed access to the greenbelt. Ms.
,7 ..........
Reckert outlined se �1111 t I reasons including a 60 foot change in grade which would make
construction of an access very difficult. Additionally there are wetlands and a threatened
plant species in the area which require protection. Commissioner WEAVER asked about
the location of any additional access points. Ms. Reckert replied there is social trail
access behind Kullerstrand Elementary. This case was referred to the Parks and
Recreation Commission who recommended fees in lieu of land dedication in the
subdivision or off-site trail improvements.
Planning Commission Minutes -3—
February 21, 2013
Commission MATTHEW S asked if the design criteria for detached sidewalks and street
profiles will remain in effect. Ms. Reckert replied yes.
Commissioner BRINKMAN asked about the storm, drain design for the project. Mr.
Westberg replied the stoirnwater is mostly piped; there is a pipe that is under Tabor Ct.
that goes from those inlets to the detention pond. The rational for the bore is that we
don't want to disturb the slope, which is another reason for not installing a trail to the
greenbelt
Discussion ensued regarding sanitary sewer service to the property. Ms. Reckert
indicated that the applicant has petitioned for inclusion to the Westridge Sanitation
District but the details for construction are still being worked out.
Commissioner BRINKMAN asked what staff will look for in the HOA covenants. Ms.
Reckert replied that staff is mostly concerned with adequate maintenance for the
common elements.
Commissioner DURAN asked what kind of privacy fencing will be between the existing
subdivisions on either side. Ms—Reckert replied that the approved ODP plan called for a
6' high vinyl or plastic fence WYtth,brick columns interspersed.
Chair TIMMS asked whether staff wotrl review the landscaping f
or the tracts. Ms.
Reckert indicated that staff will review the plans subsequent to plat approval and prior to
installation of pubI'tc"Itllproveni nts This woitl A, elude the emergency access located in
Tract E. It is anticipated tl at that it wt 111 1>6 fee asphalt or concrete and fenced.
Discussion continued regarding irregular draped lots acid location of the front property
lines. Ms. Reeked: replied the front lot lit is determined by the public street from where
access is gain.
Kent Carlson, 1246 0 1 greet, et, East CO 80614
Mr. Carlson stated the team"Ah,'Ottendance includes Russ Burrows, Civil Engineer with
Carroll & Lange-Manhard and"Ot'-Aig Campbell with Standard Pacific Homes. The
current property owners, Doug a 'hris Jenks, are in attendance as well. Mr. Carlson
indicated that he is familiar with the history of the zone change and negotiations with the
neighborhood and is trying to honor that plan. There are minor changes proposed due to
emergency access, street alignment and pond configuration. Mr. Carlson acknowledged
that the current sanitary sewer line in 38' Avenue does not have capacity to serve the
development and that they are continuing to work with Westridge Sanitation on inclusion
and line upgrades.
CHAIR TIMMS opened the public hearing.
Barry Knott, 3911 Simms Ct.
Mr. Knott asked if there was proposed fencing between the greenbelt and the lots on the
north end of the subdivision and in the detention pond. He expressed concern about
safety and easy access to these areas by children.
Planning Commission Minutes - 4 --
February 21, 2013
Steve Labriola, 11920 W.38 Ave.
Mr. Labriola emphasized to the Commission that this needs to be a quality development
consistent with the existing neighborhoods to the east, west and south. He would like to
see trail access to the greenbelt or a pocket park incorporated into the subdivision.
Ian Yewer, 11654 W. 40"' Circle
Mr. Yewer lives close to the detention area and had questions about fencing in this area.
He expressed concern about existing dead trees located on the ridge line.
Steve Treft, 11662 W. 39 Circle
Mr. Trefz lives in the subdivision to the east and
their views of the mountains. He would like to s(
proposed development off-set from property lire
detention pond may attract mosquito populq tlow
the greenbelt it could result in more use of ac
Tony DiPaolo, 11663 W. 39' Circle
Mr. DiPaolo lives in McLaughlin's Appl6ogd
the east. He indicated that during the zone cA'h',N
primarily with the residents on the west side, not
in McLaughlin's were adequately represented in
Kenneth Asbury, 3882 Union Ct.
Mr. Asbury lives in the subdivision to the west a
president was present during the
single and two story hornes coul
perimeter fence in place prior to
farnily. He
11
M
essed concern regarding impacts to
- lots on the east side of the
he east. He is concerned that the
finally, if no access is provided to
in their subdivision.
yrsion which is the subdivision to
ss in 2008, the developer worked
>ast. He was not sure that residents
at the McLaughlin's HOA
He wondered if both
He would like the
activity on the property.
of homes being built and whether they would all be
about the height, square footage and architectural
Commissioner DURAN asked if there was access to the greenbelt from the other housing
development to the west Ms. Reckert stated that there was not,
Commissioner BRIM KMAN asked about the proposed detention pond. Mr. Westberg
stated there is a drainage swale along the cast property line of the proposed subdivision
that will convey all the water from the cast down towards the pond.
Commissioner BRINKMAN inquired about the alignment of the lots and whether there
was any discussion with staff regarding the alignment. Ms. Reckert stated that this was
not one of the specifications on the approved ODP.
Planning Commission Minutes -5—
February 21, 2013
Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if the city can stipulate when the perimeter fence can
be required to be built. Ms. Reckert stated it depends on how much disruption there will
be to the fence during construction,
Commissioner BRINKMAN inquired about emergency access and how it will look. Ms.
Reckert replied that these are typically 20 feet in width and hard surfaced with either
concrete or asphalt and gated.
Commissioner GUILDNER asked how many access points are there were on 38 Avenue
to the greenbelt. Ms. Reckert stated one in the subdivision to the east and a social trail
behind Kullerstrand Elementary. There are also trailheads at Miller Street and
Youngfield. Access is also available from Prospect Park.
Commissioner WEAVER stated that there are issues related to lack of accesses to the
greenbelt and that it needs to be addressed. Mr. Westberg stated that it would be best
addressed by someone on the Open Space Management Team. The Parks Department
prefers trailheads that are designated with good access points. These questions could be
best answered by the City Parks Department but perhaps the fees in lieu of parkland
dedication for this subdivision, could be used to assist in this area.
Discussion continued regarding to the greenbelt and whether it is appropriate at
this location. Ms. Reekert stated is aticular area is designated as conservation area
and that there are different are the greenbelt for active recreation. They are also
federally mandatbd etions of te Lad' Tresses Orchid and wetlands.
c
I city has a tree preservation ordinance in place. Ms. Reckert
dead trees along the bluff will be removed due to equipment
Chair TIMMS asked about the depth of the pond. Mr. Westberg didn't know the depth
of the pond off -hand but it is planned to be a dry pond. The HOA will be responsible for
maintenance.
Planning Commission Minutes - 6 —
February 21, 21713
Discussion ensued regarding the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation
for fees in lieu of a parkland dedication. Ms. Reckert indicated that she feels staff and the
Commission should honor the Parks Commission's recommendation.
Commissioner BRINKMAN asked the applicant when the perimeter fence will be built.
The applicant stated the fence usually comes in after the overlot grading and street
improvements but prior to the building permits for the houses.
A question was asked about the depth of the detention pond. Mr. Burrows stated the
pond has been designed in accordance with Urban Draig
e's standards. It will be about
7' deep and will serve not only the proposed subdivis,
t existing subdivisions to the
South. uy
..........
�
I
Chair TIMMS asked the applicant if the roads M` s w ill initially. The
applicant stated yes. He also stated that the 38 Avenue seer line - t improvements are not
in front of the property but to the east extending from Simm try Babb, There will be no
disruption to the streets within the subdivisions east and west "Y
homeowners for their ingut,
additional basement opportunity;
estimated build out will be about
The values of the homes are mar]
range of $500,000 to $650,000.
hard work on this project and all the nearby
►,sed single story homes will be 2500 sq. ft. with an
V homes will be up to 3800 sq. ft.in size. The
that they will sell in the
pi I
HITIVIA11:11 U&MIANIUMN2,11
El"
It was moved by Commissioner WEAVER and seconded by Commissioner
MATTHEWS to recommend approval of Case No. WS-12-01, a request for approval
of a 53-lot major subdivision with dedications for property zoned Planned
Residential Development (PRD) and located at 11885 W. iW for the
following reasons:
Planning Commission Minutes -7—
February 21, 2013
1. The proposed plat is consistent with the design concept approved in the Doud
Overlook zone change and ODP approval.
2. All requirements of the subdivision regulations have been met.
3. Utility districts can serve the property with upgrades at the developer's expense.
With the following conditions:
91
10
1. Property addresses be added to Sheet 3 of the plat document prior to recordation.
2. The HOA covenants be provided for staff review prior to plat recordation.
3. The developer continue working with Jefferson Q,aunty Open Space and the City
regarding protection of the Ute Ladies' Tressespopulations and procurement
of ternporary and permanent casements in tl7e space area.
4. Prior to plat recording, adequate assure ih t be in place with Westridge
Sanitation District on their ability to serve., tht property
A,
5. Tile property be assessed for eu of p ark]b d. dedication based on the
appraised value of the land after la t p
imi lem t have 6 a Said fees to
be paid prior to the first building pt'iftut, issuance.
6. The developer enter into a City standards subdivision in ent agreement with
g
required security prior to recordation of ih , '�.subdtVi� o n p
7. Due to lack of current access to green and
ace in this area that park fees taken
from this subdivision stay between this 38' nue corridor area between Kipling
and Youngfield for the creation of new parks and "e upgrade of current parks and
open space.
Motion carried 7-0.
Ms. Reckert stated that this case will be heard by City Council on April 8, 2013.
Staff Business
Ms. Reckert informed the Commission that Sarah Showalter has resigned to accept a
position with the City of Denver as a Senior Planner and that her last day will be March
8 th .
Adjournment
It was moved by Commissioner Brinkman and seconded by Commissioner Duran to
adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Motion carried 7-0.
Steve Timms, Chair
Kim Waggoner, Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes - 8 —
February 21, 2013
City of
" W heat id e
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission CASE MANAGER: Lauren Mikulak
DATE OF MEETING: March 7, 2013
CASE NO. & NAME: WZ -13 -01 / Camaros Plus
ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a zone change from Restricted Commercial (RC) to Mixed Use -
Neighborhood (MU -N)
LOCATION OF REQUEST: 6700 W. 44` Avenue
APPLICANT(S): Steven Pelletier
PROPERTY OWNER(S): First Bank
APPROXIMATE AREA: 44,678 square feet (1.03 acres)
PRESENT ZONING: Restricted Commercial (RC)
PRESENT LAND USE: Professional offices and warehouse
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Commercial Corridor
ENTER INTO RECORD:
(X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION
LOCATION MAP
SITE:
Case No. WZ -13 -01 /Camaros Plus
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case.
I. REQUEST
Case No. WZ -13 -01 is an application by Steven Pelletier requesting approval of a zone change from
Restricted Commercial (RC) to Mixed Use - Neighborhood (MU -N) for property located at
6700 W. 44` Avenue ObA 1;.
The proposed rezoning area includes two parcels, the total area of which is approximately 1.03 acres.
The purpose of the zone change is to expand possible uses for the property including the option of an
indoor auto - oriented business. The applicant is proposing to purchase the property and relocate his
automotive restoration business, Camaros Plus, to the east side of the subject property.
The business is currently located in Arvada, but the applicant is seeking more space to provide
additional indoor storage. The business specializes in locating and providing specialty parts for
restoring early American cars and Camaros. Full vehicle restorations make up only a small portion of
the business; the applicant completes about 5 to 6 high end full restorations per year. While restoration
does entail painting and installation of arts, the business is not based on providing traditional auto
repair and maintenance
A zone change is the first step in the process for relocating the applicant's business. If the zone change
request is approved, the proposed auto restoration use will require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
with site plan. An approved rezoning does not guarantee approval of a CUP. Review of a conditional
use is an administrative process and includes consideration of site design, business operations, and
potential impacts on adjacent properties.
I1. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Subject Property
The property is located at 6700 W. 44 Avenue which is in the northeast quadrant of the City, between
Pierce and Otis Streets. The property is currently zoned Restricted Commercial (RC) which allows for
various types of office uses including administrative, professional and personal services. The RC zone
district also provides for a limited range of retail uses which are neighborhood oriented. Currently, the
west side of the property is used for professional offices. The east side of the building is now vacant,
but was most recently used by Lost and Found, Inc. for storage and warehousing. Code enforcement
records indicate at least three citations related to property maintenance issues since 2009.
The subject property is comprised of Lot 22 of Lillian's I" Addition Subdivision and Lot 21 of Lionel
Subdivision. Based on Jefferson County Assessor records, the total size of the property is 44,678
square feet (1.03 acres). The existing building spans both lots and was originally constructed in 1979.
The warehouse space to the east and the two -story office space to the west are connected by an
enclosed hallway. A dilapidated accessory structure is located on the southeast corner of the lot, and
the applicant has proposed to remove it.
The property has frontage on three public streets: Otis, Pierce and W. 44` Avenue. Separate parking
lots on the east and west sides of the property serve each use area. The remainder of the parcel is
landscaped. The a licant has ro osed improving the fence and landscaping along the southern
property line
Case No. WZ -13 -01 /Camaros Plus
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use
The site is currently zoned Restricted Commercial (RC) and is surrounded by a variety of land uses
and zoning. To the north, east, and west are properties also zoned RC. To the east is a small
commercial parcel with a cigar shop, to the west is a nonconforming self -serve car wash, and across
the street to the north is a multi - tenant commercial building. At the northwest corner of Pierce and
W. 44 Avenue is Al's Pine Garden and Nursery on a 3.5 -acre parcel with split zoning. Immediately
to the south is a residential neighborhood zoned Residential -Two (R -2) f, Zoning Maps.
III. PROPOSED ZONING
The applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned to Mixed Use - Neighborhood (MU -N), a zone
district that is generally located along neighborhood main streets and at neighborhood commercial
centers. The zone district is established to encourage medium density mixed use development in
which residential and civic uses are permitted, in addition to a limited range of neighborhood - serving
commercial and retail uses.
Permitted Uses
The MU -N and RC zone districts are very similar as they both allow neighborhood serving commercial
uses. A notable difference, however, is in the treatment of auto - oriented businesses and outdoor
storage. In the Restricted Commercial zone district, auto - related businesses are not permitted. The
following is an excerpt from the permitted use table of Section 26 -204:
Use
Auto service, repair, and maintenance, minor
Restricted Commercial
Not permitted
Auto service, repair, and maintenance, major
Not permitted
Automotive parts and supplies sales
Not permitted
Automobile and light -duty truck sales
Not permitted
Car wash, automatic
Not permitted
Car wash, coin operated
Not permitted
In the Mixed Use - Neighborhood zone district, automotive businesses are classified slightly differently
and are permitted on a limited basis. Auto parts sales is classified generally as retail sales which is
permitted based on the gross floor area of the existing building being under 20,000 square feet. Other
auto - related uses are permitted indoors as conditional uses. The following table is an excerpt from
Section 26 -1111, the permitted use table in the mixed use code:
t;' Se
Repair, rental and servicing of automobiles, no
outdoor storage
Mixed Use-Neigh
Conditional Use
Motor vehicles sales, outdoor display
Not permitted
Motor vehicle sales, indoor display
Conditional Use
Retail sales — up to 20,000 gsf per tenant space
Permitted
Car washes
Not permitted
Case No. WZ -13 -01 /Camaros Plus
In the Restricted Commercial zone district, outside storage is permitted if materials are screened in
accordance with Section 26 -631 of the zoning code. In the Mixed Use - Neighborhood zone district, no
outdoor storage of any kind is permitted.
The applicant's auto restoration business is not a permitted use under the current RC zoning, but would
be a conditional use under MU -N. The proposed business would occupy the eastern portion of the site
and would include a retail store, work area, and indoor storage of vehicles and parts. No outdoor
storage is proposed. If a rezoning to MU -N is approved the restoration component of the business
would require a Conditional Use Permit.
Development Standards
Other than improvements to landscaping and fencing, the applicant is not proposing any changes to the
site design or existing structure. If redevelopment were to occur in the future, however, the MU -N and
RC development standards are similar in terms of building height, build -to requirements, and
architectural standards. Subtle differences relate to setback, lot coverage, and landscaping
requirements.
The following table compares the existing and proposed standards that apply to the subject property:
P,
new residential, commercial, or
r
0
Allows limited commercial uses
ses
Does not allow automotive uses
automotive uses with CUP
Does not allow new residential uses
Architectural
Determined by mixed use code
Determined by Architectural and Site
Standards
Design Manual (Traditional Overlay)
Building Height
35 feet if building has residential use
35 feet if building has residential use
(maximum)
50 feet for all other buildings
50 feet for all other buildings
Build -to Al
0 -12 feet
0 -12 feet
plies along street
tages)
W. 44` Ave (primary frontage): 60% of
W. 44` Ave (primary frontage): 50 -60% of
build -to area contains building mass
build -to area contains building mass
Otis or Pierce (secondary frontage): 30%
Otis or Pierce (secondary frontage): 0 -25%
of build -to area contains building mass
of build -to area contains building mass
ar setback
10 feet for 1 -2 story
10 feet for I story
ed on height)
+ 5 feet for each additional story
+ 5 feet for each additional story
t Coverage
90% for mixed use
80%
aximum)
85% for single use
ndscape /
10% for mixed use
20%
en Space
15% for single use
Case No. WZ -13 -o1 /Camaros Plus
Given the proximity of single- and two - family homes south of the subject lot, it should be noted that
the mixed use code includes standards that protect existing residential properties. If the subject
property were to redevelop in the future under MU -N, the following regulations would apply:
• Screening is required wherever a parking lot abuts a residential use, including a 6 -foot
landscape buffer and a 6 -foot fence, wall, or hedge.
• The minimum rear setback is required to be landscaped.
• Buildings over 2 stories must provide a 5 -foot step back for each additional upper floor.
• Any portion of a building within 100 feet of a residential use may not be taller than 4 stories.
IV. ZONE CHANGE CRITERIA
Staff has provided an analysis of the zone change criteria outlined in section 26- 122.E. The Planning
Commission shall base its recommendation in consideration of the extent to which the following
criteria have been met:
1. The change of zone promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community and
will not result in a significant adverse effect on the surrounding area.
The proposed zone change promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community and
will not result in a significant adverse effect on the surrounding area. As outlined in the section
above, the existing and proposed zone districts have similar development standards and permitted
commercial uses.
The zone change will allow for limited automobile uses which are not currently permitted. While a
traditional auto - oriented business may be inconsistent with the adjacent residential uses, the MU -N
zoning requires business functions to occur primarily indoors and be subject to CUP review. These
requirements will help to ensure minimal impacts on the neighborhood if there is a change of use
subsequent to the zone change.
Staff concludes that this criterion has been met.
2. Adequate infrastructure /facilities are available to serve the types of uses allowed by the
change of zone, or the applicant will upgrade and provide such where they do not exist or are
under capacity.
Adequate infrastructure currently serves the property, and no new development is proposed at this
time. If the property is redeveloped in the future under MU -N zoning, a site plan application
would be required and referred to all impacted utility agencies. In the event that current capacity is
not adequate for future development or for a change in use, the property owner or developer would
be responsible for utility upgrades.
Staff concludes that this criterion has been met.
Case No. WZ -13 -01 /Camaros Plus
3. The Planning Commission shall also find that at least one 1 of the following conditions
exists:
a. The change of zone is in conformance, or will bring the property into conformance, with
the City of Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan goals, objectives and policies, and other
related policies or plans for the area.
The proposed zoning is consistent with the policies and goals of the City's 2009 comprehensive
plan, Envision Wheat Ridge.
West 44` Avenue is a primary east -west thoroughfare in the City which is classified as a minor
arterial and is commercial in character. The plan identifies the roadway as a Neighborhood
Commercial Corridor which is envisioned as a small - scale, pedestrian - friendly, mixed -use
1001 P&AW.
More specifically, the comprehensive plan identifies the intersection of W. 44` Avenue and
Pierce Street as a Neighborhood Commercial Center. This designation recognizes the area as a
commercial cluster which should have a mix of uses that promotes niche business
opportunities. The plan establishes a clear goal of attracting and promoting small businesses,
and the zone change would support this by potentially enabling the relocation of a specialty
business to Wheat Ridge.
In contrast to the commercial character of W. 44` Avenue, properties to the south make up an
established, low- density residential neighborhood. A stated goal in the comprehensive plan is
to maintain and enhance the character of the City's established neighborhoods. The Mixed
Use - Neighborhood zone district promotes this goal by incorporating standards which require
enhanced setbacks, additional landscaping, and upper story step backs for new development.
Staff concludes that this criterion has been met
b. The existing zone classification currently recorded on the official zoning maps of the City
of Wheat Ridge is in error.
Staff has not found any evidence of an error with the current Restricted Commercial (RC)
zoning designation as it appears on the City's zoning maps.
Staff concludes that this criterion is not applicable.
c. A change of character in the area has occurred or is occurring to such a degree that it is
in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changing
character of the area.
Staff finds no evidence of any significant changes in the area. The zone change request from
RC to MU -N neither responds to nor results in a notable change of character.
Staff concludes that this criterion is not applicable.
Case No. IVZ- -13 -01 / Camaros Plus
d. The proposed rezoning is necessary in order to provide for a community need that was
not anticipated at the time of the adoption of the City of Wheat Ridge comprehensive
plan.
The comprehensive plan identifies W. 44 Avenue as a Neighborhood Commercial Corridor
and the rezoning to MU -N supports this vision. The proposed rezoning does not relate to an
unanticipated need.
Staff concludes that this criterion is not applicable.
V. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
Prior to submittal of an application for a zone change, the applicant was required to hold a
neighborhood input meeting in accordance with the requirements of section 26 -109.
A meeting for neighborhood input was held on January 23, 2013. Six pe fro th e neighborhood
were in attendance and no specific concerns were expressed neighborhood Meeting Na�.
VI. AGENCY REFERRAL
All affected service agencies were contacted for comment on the zone change request and regarding
the ability to serve the property. Specific referral responses follow:
Wheat Ridge Public Works: No concerns.
Wheat Ridge Police: No concerns.
Xcel Energy: No objections, contingent upon maintaining all existing rights and ability for future
expansion.
Wheat Ridge Sanitation District: No objections; the applicant has been notified that the district may
require an oil /sand separator depending on proposed business operations.
Comments received relate only to the zone change request. No comment was received from the water
district. The applicant has been in direct contact with the fire district, Economic Development
Division, and Building Division regarding the proposed use. A separate referral process will be
required if a Conditional Use Pen-nit is requested.
VII. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff concludes that the proposed zone change promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the
community and will not result in a significant adverse effect on the surrounding area. Staff further
concludes that utility infrastructure adequately serves the property, and the applicant will be
responsible for upgrades, as needed, with future development or change in use. Finally, staff
concludes that the zone change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by promoting a mix of uses
along a neighborhood commercial corridor while still protecting adjacent residential development.
Case No. WZ -13 -01 /Camaros Plus
Because the zone change evaluation criteria support the zone change request, staff recommends
approval of the request.
VIII. SUGGESTED MOTIONS
Option A•
"I move to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. WZ- 13 -01, a request for approval of a zone change
from Restricted Commercial to Mixed Use - Neighborhood, for property located at 6700 W. 44`
Avenue, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed zone change will not adversely impact the public health, safety, or welfare.
2. The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
3. The proposed zone change is compatible with the surrounding area."
Option B•
"I move to recommend DENIAL of Case No. WZ- 13 -01, a request for approval of a zone change from
Restricted Commercial to Mixed Use - Neighborhood, for property located at 6700 W. 44` Avenue, for
the following reasons:
2.
3.
Case No. WZ -13 -01 / Camaros Plus
EXHIBIT 1: AERIAL
Case No. NZ- -13 -01 C'amaros Phis
EXHIBIT 2: LETTER OF REQUEST
To whom it may concern
1/24/13
This letter is to summarize my information for the Zone change request for 6700 w. 44` ave location.
I'm requesting a zone change from RC to MUN at this location for the purpose of owning and occupying
the building for my business Camaros Plus. We have been in business for 23+ years and would like to
move into the city of Wheatridge.The Zone change to MUN would allow for light Automotive which
would allow me to operate in this Iocation.There would be no physical changes to the exterior of the
building with minor changes on the inside.The zoning is consistent with other buildings along the 44 "'
corridor. Access for the current curb cuts and side streets is more than adequate and I won't be asking
for any changes to the current parking lot lay out. The impact on public services will be minimal since we
dispose of own garbage etc. The customer base is made up of older professionals requiring no visits or
help from local police in the last 23 yrs. (we don't have incidents at our business).AII delivery's and
customer interaction will take place in our own parking lot so there will be NO IMPACT to the
surrounding businesses or neighbors for parking or access on the side streets anytime, day or night.) also
understand that the RC to MUN change has no outdoor storage and I will not require any outdoor
storage being I own a storage lot in Arvada only 2 miles away. We run a low key business with 2 full
time/ 1 part time employee and myself at the location everyday.
Thank You
Steven T. Pelletier
Case No. WZ -13 -01 / Camaros Phis 10
EXHIBIT 3: SITE PHOTOS
xmdwk—
Case No. WZ -13 -01 /Camaros Plus
This panoramic image shows the subject property from W. 44 Avenue looking south. The eastern
(left) side of the property includes warehouse and office space which the applicant is seeking to
occupy. The western (right) side of the property is used for professional offices. The two buildings
are connected by an enclosed hallway.
V 1vw V1 LIM DuvJccL }nv}w11y 1uvKU1b wuul 110111 W. 1 + 1 + iAvcnuc uown Vtls Jtreet.
View of the east fagade of the building. This fagade includes several
and roll -up doors.
Case No. WZ -13 -01 / Camaros Plus 12
Looking west at the southern property line which is shared with a single family home zoned R -2. The
applicant has proposed an enhanced buffer in this area such as improved fencing and new landscaping.
EXHIBIT 4: ZONING MAP
Case No. WZ -13 -01 / Camaros Plus
EXHIBIT 5: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The following images are excerpts from the City's 2009 comprehensive plan, Envision Wheat Ridge.
West 44` Avenue is identified as a Neighborhood Commercial Corridor, and more specifically the
intersection at Pierce Street is described as a Neighborhood Commercial Center.
SITE
am Primary
Commercial
Corridor
Primary
Gateway
?
Neighborhooc
'
Commercial
��
Neighborhoods
Corridor .■„
O ll i - - r..c.r
A
Community
Neighborhood
Commercial
Commercial
Center
Center
yf'c
'
OEM_
am Primary
Commercial
Corridor
Primary
Gateway
?
Neighborhooc
'
Commercial
��
Neighborhoods
Corridor .■„
O ll i - - r..c.r
Community
Neighborhood
Commercial
Commercial
Center
Center
Case No. I1'/_-13 -01 Camaros Plus 14
EXHIBIT 6: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES
Meeting Date: January 23, 2013
Attending Staff: Lauren Mikulak, Planner I
Location of Meeting: City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building
7500 W. 29 Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Property Address: 6700 W. 44"' Avenue
Applicant: Steven Pelletier
Property Owner(s) Present? No (property is bank owned, applicant is under contract)
Existing Zoning: Restricted Commercial (RC)
Existing Comp. Plan: Neighborhood Commercial Corridor
Existing Site Conditions:
The property is located at 6700 W. 44th Avenue on the south side of the street between Pierce and
Otis. The site is zoned Restricted Commercial (RC) and is surrounded by a variety of land uses and
zoning. To the north, east, and west are properties also zoned RC. Immediately to the south is a
residential neighborhood zoned Residential -Two (R -2).
The subject property is comprised of Lot 22 of Lillian's 1 st Addition Subdivision and Lot 21 of Lionel
Subdivision. Based on Jefferson County Assessor records, the total size of the property is 44,678
square feet (1.03 acres). A two -story building spans both lots and was originally constructed in 1979.
The east side of the structure provides warehouse space and the west side is used as offices; the two
structures are connected by an enclosed hallway.
The property has frontage on three public streets: Otis, Pierce and W. 44th Avenue. Separate parking
lots on the east and west sides of the property serve each use area. The remainder of the parcel is
landscaped.
Applicant /Owner Preliminary Proposal:
The applicant, Steven Pelletier, is proposing to rezone the property in order to purchase the property
and relocate his automotive restoration business, Camaros Plus. The business is currently located in
Arvada, but the applicant is seeking more space to provide additional indoor storage.
Case No. WZ -13 -01 / Camaros Plus 15
The following is a summary of the neighborhood meeting:
• In addition to staff and the applicant, six neighbors were in attendance, including:
Delphine Medina and her daughter – business owner at 6690 W. 44` Avenue
John and Toni Alcamo – Owner and resident of 4365 -4375 Otis Street
John Trujillo – 4190 Pierce Street
Kris Shumwry – 4330 Newland Street
• Staff explained the existing conditions on the site, the current zoning, and the surrounding land
uses and zone districts
• The applicant provided a detailed description of his business history, operations, and proposed
improvements for the property.
• The members of the public were informed of the process for a zone change.
• The members of the public were informed of their opportunity to make comments during the
process and at the public hearings.
• No specific concerns were expressed by the attending neighbors; all expressed hope that the
applicant maintains the property better than the previous owner.
• Prior to the meeting, staff received two phone calls from neighbors who had received the meeting
notification in the mail. There were no objections to the applicant's proposal at that time.
The following issues were discussed regarding the zone change request:
Why does the zoning need to change?
The applicant has proposed a use that is not permitted under the current Restricted
Commercial zoning. The applicant is proposing to rezone to the Mixed Use - Neighborhood
(MU-N) zone district which would allow his business as a Conditional Use. In order to move
his business, the applicant would have to apply for a zone change, and then apply for a
Conditional Use Permit.
What is the difference in types of businesses that are allowed under the current and proposed
zoning?
The two zone districts are very similar —both allow lower - impact commercial businesses such
as offices or neighborhood - oriented retail. One difference is that the current RC zoning does
not allow any type of automotive use, but the MU -N zoning would allow auto - oriented
businesses which are indoors.
Will outdoor storage be allowed?
Outdoor storage is permitted in the current zoning if it is screened by a 6 foot fence. No
outdoor storage is allowed under the MU-N zoning.
• The applicant mentioned installing a new fence and landscaping, how will the City ensure that it is
installed?
Land uses applications can be approved, denied, or approved with conditions. If an
application was approved for a rezoning or a Conditional Use Permit, fencing or landscaping
could be required as conditions of approval.
Case No. WZ -13 -01 / Camaros Plus 16
• Even though the applicant isn't proposing new development, what type of new development would
be allowed on the property under the MU -N zoning?
The current and proposed zoning would allow similar types of development. Under MU -N a
building could be up to 50 feet if it was entirely commercial or up to 35 feet if it included
residential uses. There are strict architectural standards which outline requirements for
materials, transparency, and variation. If the site completely redeveloped a new building
would need to be closer to the street.
• What is the maximum building height in the existing and proposed zone district?
Under the current and proposed zoning a building could be up to 50 feet if it was entirely
commercial or up to 35 feet if it included residential uses.
• How long will the process take?
A zone change request typically takes about 3 to 4 months.
• Can the applicant install an 8 -foot fence along the southern property line?
City-wide standards limitfences and walls to 6feet in height. A variance application would
have to be submitted for a fence that exceeds 6 feet.
• How does a conditional use permit work?
Each Mixed Use Zone District lists permitted uses and conditional uses. Permitted uses are
allowed uses "by right. " Conditional uses are land uses that may or may not be compatible
with the surrounding area and require additional review of the proposed use and site design to
ensure that there will be minimal impact.
If the zone change were approved, the applicant's proposed use would require an application
for a Conditional Use Permit. These are reviewed administratively, and staff typically reviews
a written narrative and site plan to consider the design of the property, the operation of the
use, and any potential impacts on adjacent properties
What are the typical hours of operation?
The applicant explained that he has a small staff so hours vary slightly, but a typical schedule
is usually about 7a -5p. Sometimes the applicant stays later to complete office work.
Case No. WZ -13 -01 /Camaros Plus 17