Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/03/15City of Wheat �idge PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting December 3, 2015 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair BUCKNAM at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 291h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Alan Bucknam Emery Dorsey Donna Kimsey Scott Ohm Dirk Boden Steve Timms Amanda Weaver Commission Members Absent: Staff Members Present: Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Lisa Ritchie, Planner II Mark Westberg, Public Works Project Supervisor Tamara Odean, Recording Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner OHM to approve the order of the agenda. Motion carried 7-0 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — November 19, 2015 It was moved by Commissioner OHM and seconded by Commissioner KIMSEY to approve the minutes of November 19, 2015, as written. Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2015 Motion carried 7-0 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) No one wished to speak at this time. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case Nos. WZ-15-02 & WA -15-09: Ms. Reckert gave a short presentation regarding the zone change, variance process 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 these cases. The applicant is requesting approval of a Specific Development Plan (SDP) for a Starbucks Cafe with a drive-thru, with variances to the build -to line for the property located at 3210 Youngfield Street & 12755 W. 32"d Avenue. Ms. Reckert explained that a variance can be considered concurrently with a zone change, but there needs to be a separate motion. The site for the Starbucks Cafe drive- thru is located in Applewood Village Shopping Center. It consists of two parcels and is currently vacant but use to be a fueling station and a retail strip building. In 2012 the City completed a Capital improvement project (CIP) to 32"d & Youngfield which included installation of new curbs and gutters and an 8 foot wide pedestrian path and pedestrian lights. All access into the property was eliminated with the 32"d/Youngfield street project. Ms. Reckert stated that recently another SDP was approved for a King Soopers Fueling Station also in the same shopping center. Along with the construction of the fueling station there will be a traffic signal installed on 32nd at the major interior drive adjacent to the fueling station. The site plan shows the layout of the site, including a 2500 sq. ft. cafe with an attached covered patio on the west side of the building. The main access point to the site will be via an internal drive from 32nd Avenue which is also the loading access to Applejack liquor store (Applejack alley). Once entering this access point there are three options: the first option is continuing north into the Chili's rear parking area, the second is to go to the drive-thru on the north side of the proposed building, and the third option is to park on the south side of the proposed building to go inside. The access point from 32nd Avenue will be a right-in/right-out. An additional access point will align with the drive-thru exit on Youngfield for out -bound right -turns only. The applicant is desirous of having the drive aisle on the western side of the building accommodate two —way traffic. Staff does not support this design for a variety of reasons; primarily due to potential conflicting traffic movements both on-site and on Planning Commission Minutes -2— December 2—December 3, 2015 Youngfield. If the western drive is limited to one way south, this issue would be minimized. Included with the application are requests for variance to the 0' to 20' build -to requirement from adjacent streets. These requests are for the build -to lines on both 32"d Avenue and Youngfield Street. The variance on the 32"d side would result in a 65 foot setback. The variance on the Youngfield side is a 34 foot setback to allow for two-way traffic on the west side of the building proposed by the applicant. Other than the two setbacks not being met, all the other standards are compliant with the approved Outline Development Plan (ODP). If the variances are not approved than the SDP must be redesigned. Commissioner OHM asked how you would exit the site to go east on 32nd Both Ms. Reckert and Mr. Westberg said that the best way to exit and go east on 32nd is to drive through the shopping center. Commissioner OHM opined about the variance criteria; he felt the outdoor canopy would be best situated on the east side of the building instead of the west. He also felt the two-way on Applejack Alley would not allow for enough stacking space and is not a good circulation plan. He also questioned why there was no sight triangle at 32nd turning north onto Youngfield. Ms. Reckert stated that because it is a signalized intersection, there is less of a concern for the sight triangle. Mr. Westberg added that a sight triangle is not needed because the lane being turned into to go north on Youngfield is a merge lane. Commissioner TIMMS had a question about the variance on the Youngfield side that staff does not support. He wondered what staff would propose if not a two-way drive aisle. Ms. Reckert stated that staff would support a one way aisle south. Commissioner TIMMS asked if the variance is denied, would the applicant adjust the building accordingly or would there be a complete reconfiguration. Ms. Reckert stated the applicant could better answer that question. Commissioner Kimsey had questions regarding pedestrian access. She clarified that the only pedestrian access is from 32"d Avenue and indicated that she also preferred the outdoor canopy on the east side of the building instead of the west. Ms. Reckert said that a majority of the pedestrians will probably come from 32"d as opposed to Youngfield, but some will also enter from the shopping center. Commissioner DORSEY gave his opinion regarding the two-way lane on the west side of the building. He feels it is complicated and likes the way the Starbucks at 38'h Ave. and Kipling St. is designed because the access is from an interior entrance inside the Planning Commission Minutes -3— December 3December 3, 2015 shopping center. Commissioner DORSEY indicated that he would like to see the subject building moved to the south side of the property with the drive-thru relocated to the south side of the building. He also questioned when the new traffic light would be installed. Mr. Westberg stated the new traffic signal will take about 3-4 months for design and purchase of the poles. The traffic signal will not affect the Starbucks project. It is anticipated that the signal will be complete by the time the fueling station receives a Certificate of Occupancy. Commissioner WEAVER shared the same concerns as the other commissioners regarding the two-way drive adjacent to Youngfield St.; she is also concerned about bike and pedestrian access. Ms. Reckert stated that this property is different than the one at 38`h Ave. and Kipling as it is an infill lot. The developer has been conducting master planning exercises to look at internal access and how pedestrian and internal conflicts can be avoided. Commissioner BODEN asked about the variance on the 32"d Ave. side of the property. Ms. Reckert stated the proposed design would de -emphasis the drive-thru component and that there is a requirement for 10 stacking spaces. Commissioner BUCKNAM shared his concerns on the ODP referencing the ASDM and the 0'-20' build -to line. He would like to see the structure brought closer to the street. He also asked if there were any designs to eliminate the Youngfield exit allowing more one way circulation. Ms. Reckert stated that a multitude of different designs have been considered. Mr. Westberg added that Public Works is always concerned with traffic and there have been a lot of designs reviewed over the last year. The drive to and from Chili's is a late addition and will give another option for exiting or entering the site. Mr. Westberg also stated that once the vacant Wells Fargo to the east is demolished, than the ease of entering and exiting the site will be alleviated due to access to the new traffic light by the fueling station. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked why the sidewalk was not built as separated from the street anticipating there would be some sort of development on this site. Mr. Westberg stated at the time of the environmental assessment there was no emphasis on separated sidewalks. Commissioner BUCKNAM also asked that with regards to the sight line looking east on 32nd and the elevation change. Are there any concerns from a safety standpoint on quickly approaching traffic heading westbound on 32nd Planning Commission Minutes -4— December 4— December 3, 2015 Mr. Westberg said that the elevation drops off where the new signal will be installed so there is no concern. Commissioner DORSEY asked about the right -out onto 32nd Ave. and questioned if cars will have sufficient room to get into the left lane to go west on I-70. Mr. Westberg stated yes, but it may not be prudent and a much better idea would be to go through the Chili's parking lot to one of the traffic lights. Will Damrath, Regency Centers 8480 E Orchard Road, Greenwood Village, CO Mr. Damrath is the owners' representative for the property where the site is located. The property is very important to the shopping center, albeit a complicated site to work with. It is very narrow which can complicate the develop ability. Another challenge is to maintain the existing delivery location for Applejack Liquor who is the largest tax generator in town. Wayne Sterling, Sterling Design 7988 S. Bemis St. Littleton, CO Mr. Sterling stated that Sterling Design has been working with Starbucks on many different sites since 2006 and have been working on this site plan for over a year and a half. There have been numerous design scenarios considered and their client is comfortable with the most recent site plan with the exception of the variance for the two-way. Mr. Sterling continued to explain design features on the property including the 32" screen wall. He indicated that Starbucks is adamant about separating drive-thru customers from pedestrians. They are also required to have a 10 -car stacking lane. Regarding two-way circulation on the west, cars on the west side going north will have a stop sign so it doesn't seem to be a concern with the cars coming from the drive-thru. Mr. Damrath answered a question regarding master planning efforts for the southern portion of the shopping center which includes two additional developments. He indicated that while circulation issues may not be ideal today, but will be in the future. Discussion continued regarding parking and circulation on the site. Commissioner DORSEY asked if this new Starbucks will replace the Starbucks in the interior of the shopping center. Mr. Damrath stated that this is project is considered a relocation so the interior Starbucks will close. Commissioner BUCKNAM stated 32nd Ave. is one of the busiest bike routes from Golden to Denver and when discussing pedestrian connections what sort of bicycle connections are proposed? Planning Commission Minutes -5— December 5_December 3, 2015 Mr. Sterling stated bicyclists can enter with the vehicular traffic or from the sidewalk connection and there will be bike racks available. Commissioner BUCKNAM still had concerns with regards to the two-way and wondered why the building can't be moved closer to 32°d Ave. as the Starbucks is on 38`x' and Kipling. The dead-end and turnaround seem to work there. The applicants responded that the access is different at the two sites. Having the two- way on the west side of the building will give another option to exit and hopefully ease congestion at the alley. Mr. Damrath also stated that future plans with adjacent sites will open up and help circulation. Mike Haaf, Landscape Architect with Sterling Design 2009 W. Littleton Blvd., #300, Littleton, CO Mr. Haaf stated that the access points and this site plan helps with the traffic circulation on the southern portion of the shopping center. Ms. Reckert reminded Planning Commission that they are the approving authority in this situation and the applicant can appeal to City Council if the variances are not passed. Commissioner OHM asked if one variance does not pass, whether the SDP passes. Ms. Reckert stated that Planning Commission can ask the applicant to redesign and come back. The applicant can also work with staff to modify the design without the variances or the applicant can appeal to City Council. Commissioner OHM reiterated he is not in favor of the variance and has concerns over the circulation and the placement of the patio. He states a good option would be to move the building so the architecture can be seen and the circulation would be safer for traffic to move into the shopping center or on to 32"d Avenue. Commissioner Weaver asked what happens if the variance for the west side of Youngfield is denied. Commissioner BUCKNAM explained that the applicant would then have to build the building closer to the property line and there would be no two-way access on the western side. It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner WEAVER to APPROVE the 32"d Avenue Variance, a request for approval of a variance to the 0' to 20' build -to line in the Contemporary Overlay District adjacent to 32nd Avenue on property located at 12755 W. 32"d Avenue, for the following reasons: Planning Commission Minutes -6— December 6December 3, 2015 1. The location of the drive-thru lane along the north side of the building will act as a buffer de-emphasizing the auto use. 2. The criteria used to evaluate a variance have been met. The motion was carried 7-0 It was moved by Commissioner OHM and seconded by Commissioner WEAVER to DENY the Youngfield Street Variance, a request for approval of a variance to the 0'to 20' build -to line in the Contemporary Overlay District adjacent to Youngfield Street on property located at 12755 W. 32"' Avenue for the following reasons: 1. Approval of the variance may endanger the public welfare by creating conflicting turning movements both on the site and off. 2. It could serve as precedence for future requests for variances to the build -to line along Youngfield and 32nd Avenue. 3. The evaluation criteria do not support the request. And, that the specific development plan be modified to reflect the drive aisle on the west side of the building as one-way south. Motion carried 7-0. It was moved by Commissioner WEAVER and seconded by Commissioner BODEN to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. WZ-15-02, a request for approval of a Specific Development Plan for property zoned PCD located at 12755 W. 32nd Avenue, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is consistent with the City's guiding documents including the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy, Envision Wheat Ridge and the I- 70/Kipling Urban Renewal Plan. 2. The proposed SDP is consistent with the approved ODP document. 3. All requirements for an SDP have been met. 4. The criteria used to evaluate an SDP have been met. With the following condition: 1. Staff will provide guidance for the applicant to redesign the portion of the development plan where the variance was denied. Motion carried 7-0. 8. OTHER ITEMS Planning Commission Minutes -7— December 7December 3, 2015 NON -AGENDA ITEM Mr. Westberg wanted to inform the commission about the 38`h Avenue project going on right now called Ridge at 38. He stated that back in November there was a vote that denied the street width change so the city has hired a consultant, Britina Design to help us through this process: Cre8 Your 38. The City has sent out a project information handout trying to get a consensus from the community so we can move forward with the design of 38'h Avenue. There will be meetings held on the 2"d Thursdays in January, February and March. The first meeting in January will include brainstorming in small groups; the meeting in February will consist of group designing and the meeting in March the consultant will take all the information from the first two meeting and present it. Trying to have this be a citizen driven initiative. Commissioner BUCKNAM encouraged people to get involved with this and Commission OHM how this will be getting out to the public. Mr. Westberg stated there will be a postcard mailing, a Facebook page, flyers and QR code. STUDY SESSION A. Accessory Dwelling Units Ms. Ritchie gave a brief presentation regarding the consideration of a potential ordinance to permit accessory dwelling units as explained in the Memorandum in the Agenda. An ADU is a self-contained smaller living unit on a lot typically on a single family lot. An ADU can be attached; with either a side or rear entry, detached or even internal. ADUs are incidental and subordinate to the primary home, it is not a duplex and there are more restrictive standards. Staff recommends that the following topics be included in any potential ADU regulation and processes. Some of the regulations would include architecture, size, parking, density, zoning, owner occupancy, deed restriction or covenant, ongoing registration and service and fees. Commissioner DORSEY asked if the lots that were developed as single family properties are they going to become multi -family properties if ADUs are permitted. Ms. Ritchie stated that it will not necessarily be considered a multi -family property because it is not a duplex due to the size restriction of the ADU. A full family will not be able to occupy these ADUs; most likely it will be no more than a couple of people. Access to some of the ADUs might be difficult, but the intent usually is not to have a full drive to the dwelling. Planning Commission Minutes -8— December gDecember 3, 2015 Commissioner DORSEY stated that once you open the door there is the possibility of getting a family of five in an ADU. Ms. Ritchie stated this is something we recognize and it will be conversations like this that we have with Code Enforcement. Commissioner DORSEY stated that with the development of ADUs then property values will increase, but the City will get little from the property taxes. Ms. Ritchie said that ADUs can be expensive to construct and there may not be a huge proliferation right away. Other communities have seen less than what they expected. This is something we can do on a pilot program and see how it works or doesn't work. Commissioner BUCKNAM thought he could see ADUs being an attractive sales pitch in a new development if you didn't have the restriction on ADU in density. Also, regarding the occupancy limit of 2, does that include kids. I would hope there would be some flexibility since we are an older community. Ms. Ritchie stated that City Council said 2; similar to no more than 1 occupant for every 200 sq.ft. of space. Commissioner WEAVER wanted to voice her support for ADUs. She stated that some people with aging parents don't want to live in the same house with them again, but definitely want to be close; this is a perfect situation with ADUs. She had heard that ADUs have worked well in the Boulder area and hasn't adversely affected property values, but they can be expensive to build. Commissioner TIMMS asked if developments with an HOA, if the HOA will govern the ADUs. Ms. Ritchie stated that if the covenant says no than the City can't come in and change it, but the City can have discussions with the HOAs about how to go about having ADUs in their developments. Commissioner TIMMS stated he is supportive of ADUs, but no a big fan of what is proposed in terms of the density limitations. His concern is that one of the goals of zoning is an equity issue and he feels what is being proposed would make it only possible for the rich to have ADUs. Ms. Ritchie said that staff is not suggesting any density restrictions, they are just options. Commissioner TIMMS also commented on the registration of ADUs and is not sure if it is the right thing to do. Planning Commission Minutes -9— December 9— December 3, 2015 Ms. Ritchie stated that some communities choose to register ADUs, but again it is an option and one that needs to be discussed. Commissioner OHM wanted to know if there are any requirements for an ADU to have running water. Ms. Ritchie stated at that point it is not considered an ADU, it would be an accessory structure. Once there is a full bathroom and stove in the building it is then considered a dwelling. Commissioner OHM also agrees with Commission TIMMS that there should not be a cap, or restriction on density for ADUs; everyone should have the option. He also wanted to know how a basement can be an ADU. Ms. Ritchie explained that a basement is a basement, and the owner cannot make that basement a separate apartment. If there is a separate entrance or separate kitchen in the basement then that is not permitted in the R -I zone district. Commissioner OHM wanted to know if the 1-2 occupant restriction is related to the property, considering there is no more than 3 unrelated in the primary dwelling. Ms. Ritchie explained the 2 person occupancy is related only to the ADU, not the primary dwelling. Commissioner OHM wondered if COOPs compares to ADUs, because you lease a dwelling and the prices are kept lower. Ms. Richie said that would be a different discussion because COOPs are different than ADUs. Commissioner BUCKNAM wanted to know if ADUs could be considered in MU - N zoning as well. Ms. Ritchie said there can be pros and cons, but it is a very good question and one to be discussed. Commissioner Bucknam also had a comment about parking. He thinks the city should consider not requiring on street parking and only require it if a lot is a certain length or less or the lot frontage. Ms. Ritchie agreed and added that City Council requested of Planning Commission to really dig and guide staff through the crafting of these development standards. Planning Commission Minutes - 10— December 3, 2015 Commissioner OHM believes the ADU should be 40-50% the size of the primary dwelling, but everything needs to be based on conditions and staff should reserve the right to change and adjust parameters. Ms. Ritchie asked if the members had any questions regarding zoning or occupancy requirements. Commissioner BUCKNAM wants staff to look at including MU -N in the zoning requirements and Commissioner OHM felt ADUs will not work on small properties because it will be hard to meet setback requirements. With regards to the 1-2 occupancy requirement Commissioner DORSEY agrees, but Commissioner TIMMS is concerned because if a couple lives in the ADU, then has a child will they be forced to leave. Commissioner BUCKNAM feels that putting a low cap would limit growth of younger segments in the city. Ms. Ritchie appreciated the feedback and feels there is not total agreement among the members, but that is alright because it gives staff someplace to start. She also wanted to know how they felt about owner occupancy of one or both of the dwellings. Commissioner BUCKNAM felt that at least one of the dwellings, whether primary or ADU should be owner occupied. He wanted to make sure that the owner is on site and that both dwellings are not rented. The other commissioners agreed. Ms. Ritchie then asked how the members felt about Process, either a special review of each application compared to the regulations or as a by -right use without public review. All were in agreement that it should be by -right. Commissioner WEAVER feels the key is safety and the owner needs to be protected by regulations so they are not sued by renters, there needs to be permits and Code Enforcement needs to be involved. Commission OHM wanted to know if a group home wants to expand, can they build an ADU. Ms. Ritchie stated that a group home is not a single family home and the use for having an ADU is a single family home so it would not be permitted along with a group home. Commissioner OHM asked if and ADU would be allowed in a light industrial area. Planning Commission Minutes— December 3, 2015 Ms. Ritchie stated that there are residential homes allowed in some commercial and industrial areas already, for example caretaker units. The code already might cover that. Commissioner TIMMS wondered if the call a week that staff is getting is interested buyers in the City of Wheat Ridge or other. Ms. Ritchie stated the first kind of caller is for a property listed for sale and wondering if they can build an ADU. Second is from people who have a large lot, but the primary dwelling is too big for them and they would like to build an ADU and rent out the primary dwelling. The third caller is the property owners want to make some additional upgrades. We do not have a developed data base yet of people who have called, but I have a list started. Ms. Ritchie said staff needs to schedule some public meetings and staff will keep you apprised of when the meetings will be. Commissioner DORSEY asked what other communities allow ADUs. Ms. Ritchie stated that Lakewood, Boulder, Arvada, Denver and Golden all allow ADUs. Englewood and Littleton are under consideration and Westminster does not allow them. 9. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner WEAVER to adjourn the meeting at 9:58 p.m. Motion carried 7-0. Alan Bucknam, V*ft¢Chair Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2015 Tammy Odea cording Secretary -12—