Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/01/2007 ORIGINAL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting February 1, 2007 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting ofthe Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order by Chair WESLEY at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers ofthe Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL Commission Members Present: Anne Brinkman Jim Chilvers John McMillin Phil Plummer Jerry Scezney Kim Stewart Scott Wesley Commission Members Absent: Cassie Spaniel Staff Members Present: Alan White, Community Development Director Sally Payne, Senior Planner Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 5. MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to approve the minutes of December 7, 2006 as presented. The motion passed with Commissioners CHILVERS and SCEZNEY abstaining and Commissioner SPANIEL absent. 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one present to address the Commission at this time. Planning Commission February 1, 2007 - 1- 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WPA 06-03: Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan The case was presented by Sally Payne. She entered the following document into the record: letter dated February 1, 2007 and signed by Robert J. Osborn, Executive Director of Wheat Ridge 2020 expressing support of the Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan. She introduced Jeff Winston of Winston and Associates. Jeff Winston Winston & Associates 4696 Broadway, Boulder, CO Mr. Winston reviewed the Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan and explained the process involved in formulating the Plan. Commissioner PLUMMER stated that he believed the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to incorporate the Subarea Plan. He expressed concern that the Subarea Plan not take priority over the Comprehensive Plan. He would also like the plan to address more specifics like height limitations. Jeff Winston responded by saying that the Comprehensive Plan is more general in nature than the Subarea Plan which is an attempt to take the general plan and supply more detail. The subarea plan approach was adopted by City Council in conjunction with the NRS. Commissioner CHIL VERS asked if it would be necessary to wait for CDOT to rebuild Wadsworth before proceeding with the Plan. Jeff Winston replied that if the plan is adopted, some property owners along Wadsworth could proceed to redevelop, consolidate parking lots, etc., while waiting for the CDOT process because they would have information regarding setbacks, etc. and could begin to create the frontage road. Commissioner CHIL VERS asked if there is a budget for this proj ect and what revenue streams will be available. Jeff Winston replied that a cost estimate has not yet been established. Most of CDOT' s budget has to do with property acquisition and they currently have just under $14 million budgeted for this project. He stated that there are a number of different funding sources that could be used such as DRCOG, city matching funds, and tax increment financing. Since this is about ten years out, it is difficult to know exactly at this time. It is anticipated that infill development will result in increased sales tax for the city. Commissioner BRINKMAN commented that she lives within the boundaries of this plan and has attended all the meetings regarding this plan. She expressed concern about the structure of the plan. The City Council and property owners need to look at the plan and know immediately what they are to do. Presenting alternatives before showing the preferred plan seems questionable and, further, policies and actions should be included at the beginning ofthe plan. She Planning Commission February 1, 2007 - 2- questioned the reasons for narrowing Wadsworth between 28th and 32nd when counts show that traffic flows are stronger than areas farther down. She commented that she thought it is a great plan but was concerned about how it's laid out. She wants actions that people can take and use to move forward. Jeff Winston explained that they wanted to present the history of formulation of the plan. He agreed that Commissioner BRINKMAN's points were well taken and he thought they could still tell the story while providing some of the meat up front. Commissioner SCEZNEY complimented Winston & Associates for the process and all the work that has gone into developing the plan. He did express concern about the increased density of businesses along a one-lane loop road and one lane of parking. He also expressed concern about the intersection plans. Jeff Winston explained that the frontage road would be supplemented by a lane behind the properties between 44th and 38th Avenues. There would be several ways of getting in and out. In response to a question from Commissioner SCEZNEY, Mr. Winston stated that experience in other cities has shown that this scenario has worked with higher densities. Commissioner McMILLIN agreed there is a need to edit the plan commenting that a simple idea is easier to communicate than a long report. He asked the reason for recommending that Wadsworth be decreased to four lanes rather than having six continuous lanes through the city. Jeff Winston stated that CDOT is not concerned about having six lanes through Wheat Ridge. He explained that a huge amount of traffic is brought onto Wadsworth from 38th and 44th Avenues. Commissioner McMILLIN commented that there is a big problem in getting people on and off frontage roads and loading up major intersections. He asked if mid-block ramps had been considered to enter the frontage road. Jeff Winston replied that these types of ramps were considered, but the difficulty lies in getting back onto Wadsworth. He referred to a book, The Boulevard Book, which addresses these different types of intersections. Commissioner STEWART commented that she would like to see some type of commitment that would keep density ranges from going higher because she believed citizens favored a mid-range density. Jeff Winston replied that he is envisioning ten to thirty years down the road. There is a trend toward urban living and he wanted to allow for those types of density to happen if the market was there. Commissioner STEWART agreed with others on the Commission that the plan should include a very short synopsis of history and place the focus on action. Commissioner BRINKMAN stated that she was averse to pointing out actual businesses in document. Planning Commission February 1, 2007 - 3- Chair WESLEY expressed appreciation for all the work done by Winston & Associates and city staff in preparing this plan, especially in the area of involving the public in the process. (Chair Wesley declared a brief recess at 8:23 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:34 p.m.) Chair WESLEY invited public comment at this time. Todd Hammond 7630 W. 39th Avenne Mr. Hanunond expressed appreciation for the opportunities for public participation in the development of the plan. He asked how zoning would be affected. Alan White stated that zoning would not be affected immediately. The city will work with property owners in the area to create some overlay zoning that would create some flexibility for things such as shared parking, reduction in landscaping standards, etc. These types of things will not be accomplished by this plan. Mr. Hanunond asked where buses would travel. Jeff Winston stated that ifthere is bus rapid transit on Wadsworth it would probably be on through travel lanes. Bus pullouts could be created in the planting strip. It is also possible that slow- moving buses could travel on frontage roads. Mr. Hanunond also commented that parking plans seem to be a little optimistic. Mr. Hammond asked if tonight's presentation was on a website. Sally Payne stated that the document is on the website but a link can be created to the presentation from the city's website. Shaun Pearman 4195 Wadsworth Boulevard Mr. Pearman owns the Wardle feed store on 3-Acre Lane. He stated that he was supportive ofthe plan. However, he did express concern about eliminating 3- Acre Lane and made the following comments: There are about 200 cars and trucks a day that use this access. Trucks coming in on 42nd A venue and going out on 3-Acre Lane is ideal. Eliminating 3-Acre Lane would also present serious safety issues by causing commercial traffic to merge with Wilmore Davis school traffic on Yarrow Street. There is a large amount oftraffic coming from the Big Lots parking lot making it almost impossible to turn left to go south on Wadsworth. Exiting onto 38th Avenue to go south on Wadsworth is equally difficult. He was not in favor of moving the light to 41 sl Avenue which would necessitate removing the park and a business.. He asked that consideration be given to leaving the light where it is. He also expressed concern about planting trees between the street and businesses that would eventually block out signage and visibility for the businesses. He believed that planting trees 40 feet apart is too close. He suggested other types of vegetation or planting trees farther apart. Planning Commission February 1, 2007 -4- Jeff Winston stated that a road is shown that comes out of central park with a light at 41 st Avenue. Part of the parking lot would be used to make the park larger than the present one. Alan White stated that moving the signal is a carry-over analysis from the 1999 plan. Rationale for moving the signal is to address congestion on this area of Wadsworth caused by the traffic light in its present location which makes it difficult to get signalization progression. Progression would work better ifthe light is located at 41 st Avenue. Jeff Winston explained that it would be possible to get from 41st Avenue to 44th Avenue via a new lane. There could even be a dedicated lane for certain types of vehicles. He stated that another reason to move the light to 41 st Avenue is that 3- Acre Lane is about two blocks long while 41 st Avenue is about 8-9 blocks long. The plan points out that there is still time to figure this out. Commissioner BRINKMAN commented that since Mr. Pearman's business is a destination business, training customers to the new access might be more feasible than adjusting the plan for one destination business. Further, since the business opens at 8:00 a.m., students should be in school by that time. Mr. Pearman responded that if a Yarrow connection is made, it will open the entire area for truck traffic. Roger Loecher 4599 Carr Street Mr. Loecher expressed concern that this plan would take out 15 to 25 feet of commercial space along Wadsworth and made the following comments: We want to keep our destination businesses and also capture the 44,000 cars that go by every day. We could attract more shoppers if we don't give up that amount of commercial space. Trees would hamper business by lessening visibility. The frontage road and traffic speed have not been properly addressed. There is no funding set aside for this. The $14 million set aside by CDOT will probably only pay for resurfacing of Wadsworth, so the cost will be borne by the developers. Parking behind stores is not practical. Development on the west side of Wadsworth will be between 44th and 3 Acre Lane and not 41 st Avenue. The plan lists thirty businesses as major retail competition on Wadsworth. Fourteen of those businesses are already gone and that happened in nine years. It's important to consider what is happening today rather than planning 15-20 years down the road. We have no idea what design concepts will be 20 years from now. We have to make the right decision for our children and grandchildren. Louise Turner 11256 W. 38th Avenue Planning Commission February 1, 2007 - 5- Ms. Turner expressed concern about density of structures and asked if anyone had calculated how many additional units would be put into Wheat Ridge in this area and made the following comments: Wheat Ridge already has a high number of high density rental units and this plan would most likely result in more high density rental units. Putting housing into commercial areas lessens quality of life. Ifwe are going to revise density of this area, we need to think about how many units we are going to cram in. Changes in the Comprehensive Plan involve much public input and she was sorry to see something as major as this go to Planning Commission in one meeting and then on to City Council one meeting. It is very disturbing that references are made to amending the charter. Row houses four stories high would be in violation ofthe charter. Parking in back of buildings is not feasible. Surveys have shown that citizens want to keep the quality of life preserved in Wheat Ridge. She hoped that consideration would be given to long standing feelings of citizens. Nancy Snow 11155 West 40th Avenne Ms. Snow agreed with Ms. Turner's comments. She expressed concern about the planned width of the road and made the following comments: This plan calls for business on the bottom with residential on the top and she believed that new urbanism is a fad. It also doesn't fit what she remembered as a direction for reducing density in the city and it is unfortunate to see this go the other way. She was in favor of the plan to provide loans for residential improvements throughout the city. She understood the city wanted less rental units but more single family residential homes. This plan will not attract families. She didn't agree with the rationale for higher density. There is not enough space for all the retail space that is planned. She questioned whether the new urbanism with commercial on the bottom and residential on the top would work in Wheat Ridge like it does in downtown Denver where there are many sports, cultural and restaurant venues. She expressed outrage about increasing density and increasing height limits for buildings. She would like to have all references to changing the charter removed from the plan. Since this plan involves major changes, she would like to see a city-wide meeting similar to those when Comprehensive Plan was changed. Chair WESLEY asked ifthere were others present who wished to address the Commission. Hearing no response, he closed the public comment portion of the meeting. In response to a question from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Alan White stated that this case is scheduled to go before City Council on February 12, 2007. Commissioner PLUMMER stated that he would vote against the plan because he was not satisfied with all parts of the plan. The plan needs more work and he doesn't see support from the community. IfC-470 is extended we have been told it would take some traffic from Wadsworth. He didn't agree with taking 162 feet Planning Commission February 1, 2007 -6- from the city for something that might happen in 5-20 years. He did not like the idea ofthis plan superseding the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner CHIL VERS expressed concern that many questions haven't been answered. He asked if 162 feet was really necessary. Jeff Winston replied that is necessary and it is feasible because the majority of businesses on Wadsworth have parking in front ofthem and parking lots will be substituted for the frontage road. This allows a greater density to happen in the setback area. Wadsworth widening is likely to impact businesses in any event. Commissioner BRINKMAN stated that she supports the plan in general but has concerns about the format of the plan as it is presented right now. There are a presently a lot of vacant properties in this area that really need some help. She stated she was in favor of the plan in concept but would not vote for it to go to City Council in its present format. Commissioner SCEZNEY stated that he also had issues with the plan as to its completeness. While the concepts are intriguing and worthwhile, he expressed concerns related to issues of capacities, densities, intersections and impact on secondary streets. He stated he would not be able to support it at this time. Commissioner McMILLIN recalled an earlier time when there was a request to declare Upham Street as blighted to make room for big box development and made the following comments: While he believed this is a better plan, he didn't think it was ready to move on to the next stage. He didn't think the plan threatens the rural character of Wheat Ridge but addresses a rather isolated area of the city that is highly impacted by traffic. While he wouldn't agree to increased density for the entire city, he is agreeable to creating a pocket downtown at the major crossroads ofthe city. More desirable rentals close to transit and shopping could be positive for the city and possibly hasten the demise of undesirable rental units in the city. He expressed concern about how the frontage roads would work. The frontage roads are a crucial part ofthe plan that needs more study. He would like to see a continuance to allow more study. Commissioner STEWART expressed concern about the possibility of changing the charter rather than finding other ways to address changes and made the following comments: Narrowing a portion of Wadsworth does not seem to make sense. She was also concerned about the impact on property owners behind the commercial development in this area as well as density in the future. Commissioner WESLEY commented that there is an immediate need to address issues on Wadsworth and this document addresses a lot of those needs and made the following comments: Comprehensive plans are more general plans for the entire city. Subarea plans are a little more mature and more specific in nature. This plan allows for fluctuation in the immediate and long term where we get an idea of where we want to go. He agreed that it needs a little more work and Planning Commission February 1, 2007 -7 - would be in favor of continuing it for more discussion. Although it's hard to project what will happen in twenty years, he thought a frontage road would work. Access issues need to be addressed and we should have cohesive lanes through Wadsworth. He commended those who have done so much work to get us to this point but he didn't feel comfortable in passing it at this time. Alan White commented that this plan is intended to be a guiding document and presents a vision that is possible for Wadsworth and made the following comments: The 1990 plan shows a very narrow right-of-way that wouldn't work if CDOT comes through and wants six lanes. What we are trying to do with the 162- foot plan is that if you redevelop your property with these setbacks there wouldn't be any taking of your structure by CDOT. The other major consideration concerns how businesses can survive on Wadsworth. Discussions of the frontage road concept have been taking place for the past nine months and a definite solution has not yet been determined. We thought it best to get the concept down on paper and then continue working on it. A width of 162 feet is a bare minimum for a major arterial. To continue this case to allow further study of a frontage road would probably take two years, but we have alternatives in the plan. We have suggested that traffic engineers be hired to study how frontage roads would fit into Wadsworth. Any follow-up actions will be taken by City Council, and Planning Commission's suggestions will be taken into consideration. It is up to City Council to decide whether the charter needs to be amended. This is being proposed as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to deal with specific issues along Wadsworth Boulevard to help the city deal with some of the owners who want to know what to do to improve their properties and not be impacted by future widening. We think we've addressed that question and, in working with the community in various meetings, have come up with a shared vision for what the core area of Wadsworth can become in the future. Jeff Winston agreed with Alan White and proposed that the plan be adopted in the sense of concept, vision, goals, policies and recommendations. There is flexibility to go back and reformat the document. Commissioner McMILLIN asked if approval of the plan would limit the frontage road to those three alternatives contained in the document. Alan White replied that he didn't think so stating that there are probably alternatives that no one has considered at this time. All of these concepts can be tweaked. Commissioner McMILLIN commented that he would still like to see a little more study on frontage road access before approving it at this time. In response to a question from Commissioner McMILLIN, Alan White stated that there are presently no redevelopment plans for this portion of Wadsworth. Jeff Winston suggested that the plan presents alternatives to six lanes down Wadsworth with aceVdecellanes in order to have more than a super highway through Wheat Ridge and have a dynamic downtown area. Planning Commission February 1, 2007 -8- Commissioner CHIL VERS commented that it was not appropriate for the Commission to design a frontage road, but he would be in favor of postponing sending this to City Council until it has been reworked in this area and is more like what the Commission wants. In response to a question from Commissioner PLUMMER, Alan White replied that Boston Market and Walgreens would not be in the right-of-way. Commissioner PLUMMER commented that it would remove some of their parking. He stated that he had a problem with the whole plan which seems like a bunch of platitudes with no specifics. Commissioner BRINKMAN commented that she was not sure what a continuance would achieve. Although there are concerns among the Commissioners, there is room for changes and she would not vote against it. She cautioned against throwing the baby out with the bath water. Commissioner McMILLIN asked if there was a map that shows the impact of a 162-foot right-of-way on existing businesses. Alan White referred him to page 59 of the plan that shows it. Commissioner McMillin expressed concern that there was no legend or caption on the maps and he didn't think the plan was ready for adoption. Jeff Winston commented that the Commissioners' points were well taken. However, he stated that the Commission's concerns could be conveyed to the City Council. A few changes and editing can take place before it gets to City Council. He commented that he wants Commissioners to be comfortable with the plan. Commissioner CHIL VERS would like to see changes made and have the Commission come to a consensus before passing it on to City Council. Commissioner SCEZNEY stated that he liked the concept and would be in favor of moving on if the Commission's concerns are passed on to City Council. He did have concern that it is alrnost like approving a draft document Commissioner STEWART commented that there are good concepts in the plan but would like to see a presentation that is more succinct and explains the vision and how to get there. Chair WESLEY commented that while we know it is a general document, it does lead to apprehension and feels like approving a draft document. He presented the following options: (1) move for denial; (2) approve it as it is; (3) approve with recommendations; or (4) continue the matter. It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner CHILVERS to continue this case until March 1, 2007 with the following recommendations: Planning Commission February 1, 2007 -9- 1. Edit the main document, making it shorter and putting the action plan up first. Place discussion of the process in the appendix so that action plans and how we got there can be given more clearly to store owners on Wadsworth. 2. Conduct more intensive discussion of the issue of entering and exiting the frontage roads including all available options that have been used in other places including the pros and cons. 3. Include a map in the main document that clearly shows how widening would affect existing buildings. 4. Further consideration would be given in the document for the needs and options for expanding Wadsworth south ofthis area to the Wheat Ridge city line. Commissioner BRINKMAN offered the following friendly amendment: On February 15, Planning Commission will review the document and work with staff to incorporate Commission concerns for presentation to City Council on March 1. The amendment was accepted by Commissioner McMILLIN. The motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner WESLEY voting no and Commissioner SPANIEL absent. 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Chair WESLEY closed the public hearing. 9. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 10. NEW BUSINESS . Alan advised Commissioners that a joint Colorado AP A1DRCOG training session for Planning Commission members is scheduled for March 10, 2007. If Commissioners are interested in attending, they should contact Alan. 11. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. I2MA/~ Ann Lazzeri, Secret y Planning Commission Planning Commission February 1, 2007 - 10-