Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/2016I City of WheatR d c PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA January 21, 2016 Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on January 21, 2016 at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. *Agendapackets and minutes are available online athttp://www.ci.wheatridge.co.usl95/Plarming- Commission 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA (Items of new and old business may be recommended for placement on the agenda.) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — December 3, 2015 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda. Public comments may be limited to 3 minutes.) 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-15-12: an application filed by Equinox Properties for approval of a zone change from Residential -One (R-1) to Mixed Use -Commercial (MU -C) for property located at 3865 Kipling Street. S. OTHER ITEMS 9. ADJOURNMENT Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat 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. I CI(Y Of ]�9rWheatRoge PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting December 3, 2015 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 29a Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Alan Buckram 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 EIMSEY to approve the minutes of November 19, 2015, as written. Planning Commission Minutes - 1 — 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 32°d 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 32°d 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 32°d. Both Ms. Reckert and Mr. Westberg said that the best way to exit and go east on 32°d 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 32°d 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 38th Ave. and Kipling St. is designed because the access is from an interior entrance inside the Planning Commission Minutes -3— December 3— December 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 38th 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 32°d and the elevation change. Are there any concerns from a safety standpoint on quickly approaching traffic heading westbound on 32°d. 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 32°d 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 32°d 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 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 38th 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., 4300, 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 32nd 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 32nd Avenue Variance, a request for approval of a variance to the 0' to 20' build -to line in the Contemporary Overlay District adjacent to 32°d Avenue on property located at 12755 W. 32°d Avenue, for the following reasons: Planning Commission Minutes -6— December 6— December 3, 2015 1. The location of the drive-thrn 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°d 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 32°d 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 7— December 3, 2015 NON -AGENDA ITEM Mr. Westberg wanted to inform the commission about the 38th 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 38th Avenue. There will be meetings held on the 2nd 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 8— December 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-1 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 commissioi 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 - 11 — 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, Vice Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2015 - 12— City of Wheat,Rj ge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE OF MEETING: CASE NO. & NAME: ACTION REQUESTED: CASE MANAGER: M. Reckert January 21, 2016 WZ-15-12/Equinox Approval of a zone change from Residential -One (R-1) to Mixed Use -Commercial (MU -C) LOCATION OF REQUEST: 3865 Kipling PROPERTY OWNER: Equinox Properties, LLC APPROXIMATE AREA: 2.2 acres PRESENT ZONING: Residential -One (R-1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Mixed Use Commercial; Community Commercial Center; Primary Commercial Corridor ENTER INTO RECORD: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS ZONING ORDINANCE DIGITAL PRESENTATION All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST This application is for approval of a zone change from Residential -One (R-1) to Mixed Use — Commercial (MU -C) for property located at 3865 Kipling Street. The zone change is the first step of the process for approval for redevelopment of this site under MU -C zoning. If approved, and prior to any construction, a site development plan review will be required to confirm compliance with the city zoning code and the Architectural and Site Design Manual. A subdivision plat will be required as well. These reviews would be administrative with no additional public hearings required. The purpose of the rezoning is to modify the list of uses and to simplify the review and approval for future development on the property. (Exhibit 1, Applicant Letter) II. EXISTING CONDITIONS/PROPERTY HISTORY Subject Property The site is located at the northwest corner of 38th Avenue and Kipling Street. 3865 Kipling Street is zoned Residential -One (R-1) and has frontages on both Kipling Street and 38th Avenue. This irregularly shaped lot measures 99,361 square feet (2.28 acres) and has two vacant structures on it on the northern portion of the site. The parcel at the hard corner of 44u' and Kipling is excluded from the zone change request; this property is under separate ownership and contains a fueling station and convenience store. (Exhibit 2, Aerial Photo) The R-1 zone district was established to provide high quality, safe, quiet and stable low density residential neighborhoods. The only uses allowed on this property with the current zoning are single family residential and public uses (parks, schools, etc.). Surrounding zoning and land use The properties that surround the subject site include a variety of land uses and zoning designations. (Exhibit 3, Zoning Map) To the west is a dental office built in the mid -2000's with PCD zoning. Abutting the property to the south is the recently -developed Kipling Ridge center with Sprouts, Starbucks and Morningstar assisted living with C-1 zoning. Properties across Kipling include a gas station, auto repair and a retail center zoned C-1. To the north is the City of Wheat Ridge recreation center which is zoned C-1 and R-1. Separating the subject site from the rec center is Lena Gulch and the rec center drive (West 39u' Place). (Exhibit 4, Site Photos) III. PROPOSED ZONING The applicant is requesting the property be rezoned to Mixed Use — Commercial (MU -C). This zone district is generally located along major commercial corridors and at community and employment activity centers and is established to encourage medium to high density mixed use development. In addition to residential and civic uses, it allows for a wide range of commercial and retail uses. Planning Commission WZ-15-12/Equinox The purpose of the mixed use zoning districts is to create a flexible approach to land uses and to enhance the character of the City's commercial corridors by promoting development that accommodates a mix of land uses, is more urban in character, and is more pedestrian friendly. The applicant has no specific development scenario at this time. The following table compares the existing and proposed zoning for the property. Development R-1 zoning MU -C zoning Standard Uses Single family Residential and commercial residential, uses (office, service and retail, public uses restaurant) Gas stations and car repair as conditional uses. Drive- throughs if the mandatory separation from adjacent drive-throughs can be met Architectural None High quality architecture Standards required - Mixed Use development standards related to articulation, variation, materials, transparency Max. Building Height 35' "Mixed Use — 6 stories **Single use — 4 stories Max. Lot Coverage 25% 80% Min. Landscaping N/A Mixed use — 10% Single use - 15% Min. Front Setback 30' 0'-20' build -to lines along public streets If the rezoning is approved, the applicant would then submit for an administrative plan review and subdivision application, if required. Both the site plan and subdivision reviews would be administrative. The design for the property would be held to the standards set forth in the zoning code and the Architectural and Site Design Manual. IV. ZONE CHANGE CRITERIA Staff has provided an analysis of the zone change criteria outlined in Section 26-112.D.2. 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. Planning Commission WZ-15-12/Equinox The change of zone will not result in adverse effects on the surrounding area. While rezoning would allow uses beyond single-family residential, any new development will require site plan review through which traffic impacts, drainage and buffering will be analyzed. The MU -C zoning is expected to add value to the subject property and also to the surrounding community. The mixed use development standards will support compatibility between future development and existing land uses. The rezoning could result in a revenue source for the City through the collection of sales tax. The property with proximity to Kipling Street would be undesirable for low density residential development. 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. All responding agencies have indicated they can serve the property with improvements installed at the developer's expense. Prior to issuance of a building permit, an administrative site development plan application will be required and referred to all impacted utility and service agencies. The property owner/developer will be responsible for utility installation and/or upgrades. Staff concludes that this criterion has been met. 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. Envision Wheat Ridge, the City's 2009 comprehensive plan, identifies Kipling as a primary commercial corridor and is high on the City's list of redevelopment priorities. While a recreation focus is further north centering around the rec center and greenbelt, this portion of the corridor is appropriate for higher intensity uses with taller buildings and high quality design. Planning Commission WZ-15-12/Equinox Envision Wheat rl Ridge Structure Plan Fecr ation jation Primary Commercial Corridor i Community ! 1 Commercial �� Center Site ■[ommrdil Ffixedercli The Community Commercial Center designation is an area of focus with the goal of ensuring that these areas remain economically strong and serve community needs related to the City's fiscal health and social well-being. Goals met with the proposal include the redevelopment of and reinvestment in underutilized commercial areas with long-term infill with denser, high quality 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 zoning designation as it appears on the City zoning maps. Staff concludes that this criterion is not applicable. Planning Commission WZ-15-12/Equinox 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. Commercial development along the Kipling Street corridor continues to intensify with new redevelopment of and reinvestment in tired, outdated structures and sites. A prime example of this is the Kipling Ridge commercial center. The area is undergoing change and this rezoning application provides further opportunity for new development. The redevelopment of this parcel could act as a catalyst for additional redevelopment and property investment in the area Kipling is a state highway, is classified as a Principal Arterial and carries over 41,000 vehicle trips per day. As such, the use of the property as low density residential is not desirable. Staff concludes that this criterion has been met. 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 proposed rezoning does not relate to an unanticipated need. However, the rezoning to Mixed Use will aid in the progress to develop the property which will then provide services and goods to residents of Wheat Ridge, patrons of the rec center and commuters using the Kipling corridor. Staff concludes that this criterion has been met. Staff concludes that the criteria used to evaluate zone change support this request. V. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING Prior to submittal of an application for a zone change, the applicant is required to hold a neighborhood input meeting in accordance with the requirements of section 26-109. A meeting for neighborhood input was held on December 15, 2015. One person attended the meeting. Discussion topics are addressed in the neighborhood meeting notes. (Exhibit 5 Neighborhood Meeting Notes) 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 Fire Protection District: Can serve the property with improvements installed at the developer's expense to be assessed at the time of site plan review. Planning Commission WZ-15-12/Equinox Consolidated Mutual Water District: Can serve the property. Westridge Sanitation District: The property is located in the district but is not currently served by the district. Will need additional detail as the project moves forward. Wheat Ridge Economic Development: The Economic Development division and Urban Renewal fully supports the rezone application. The zone change does not conflict with the Kipling Corridor Urban Renewal Plan and therefore meets all the goals and objectives of the plan. Wheat Ridge Public Works: A drainage plan and traffic report will be required to be reviewed as part of the site plan process. Xcel Energy: No objections. Comments received relate only to the zone change request. A separate referral process would be required in the future if the zone change is approved and a site plan is submitted. VII. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff concludes that the proposed zone change promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the community. Staff further concludes that the proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Development of the property may serve as a catalyst for other property redevelopment or improvements in the area Because the zone change evaluation criteria support the zone change request, staff recommends approval of Case No. WZ-15-12. VIII. SUGGESTED MOTIONS Option A: "I move to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. WZ-15-12, a request for approval of a zone change from Residential -One (R-1) to Mixed Use — Commercial (MU -C) for property located at 3865 Kipling Street, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed zone change will promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. 2. The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. The zone change will prepare the property for redevelopment and may serve as a catalyst for other property redevelopment or improvements in the area. 4. The criteria used to evaluate a zone change support the request." Planning Commission WZ-15-12/Equinox Option B: "I move to recommend DENIAL of Case No. WZ-15-12, a request for approval of a zone change from Residential -One (R-1) to Mixed Use — Commercial (MU -C), for property located at 3865 Kipling Street, for the following reasons: Planning Commission WZ-15-12/Equinox Exhibit 1— Applicant letter Dear City of Wheat Ridge Equinox Properties, LLC is proposing a Rezonmg of the 2.2 acre property located at 3865 Kipling Street. Currently the property is zoned Residential -One (R-1), and is occupied by two storage bars, however the City of Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan calls for Community Commercial Center or Muted Use Commercial on the property. In accordance with the Comp Plan and given its location at a highly trafficked intersection, the property's highest and best use is for commercial development. Equinox Properties, LLC desires to rezone the property to Mixed Use— Commercial (MU -C). End users are not determined at this time. To allow flexibility on the site, the applicant is proposing to rezone the property from Residential -One, which allows only Single Family homes, to Mixed Use Commercial, allowing for a range of commercial and retail uses. Based on our research, we believe the proposal to change the zoning meets the following, per the criteria outlined in section 26-112 of the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code: L The change of zone promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the community and will not resuh in a significant adverse effect on the surrounding area, and 2. Adequate infrastructure are available to serve the types of uses allowed by the change of zone; and 3. The change of zone ism conformance with the City of Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan goals, objectives and policies. Sincerely, 7 Erika K. Shorter Representative for Equinox properties, LLC elkshorted@email.com 303-3249189 Planning Commission WZ-15-12/Equinox Exhibit 2 — Aerial Map Pl=ng Co=saov 10 WZ-15-12 Egwnox Exhibit 3 — Zoning Map vim^ ..'- LM Plam ng Co=saoo W&15-12 Egwnox Exhibit 4 — Site Photos Looking north from 38a` Avenue at the property frontage Looking northwest from 38a` Avenue to the adjacent dentist office Planning Commission 12 WZ-15-12/Equinox Looking east towards the adjacent fueling station Looking east along 38t` Avenue — property is to the left side Planning Commission 13 WZ-15-12/Equinox Looking west at property from Kipling Street Looking northwest from Kipling towards the City rec center Planning Commission 14 WZ-15-12/Equinox Looking north along Kipling — property is on the left Planning Commission 15 WZ-15-12/Equinox Exhibit 5 —Neighborhood Meeting Notes City �6.W oeatRc1ge CTyafWhMtRitlgMm,p,l3ua,,g 7500W29'Aee. Wire [Stlge,CO 60033-001 P: 3032352646 £303235265] Embog Sim Conditions;: The site is lomtedat Line northwest coma of38th Avenue and Kipling Street 3865 Kipling Street is zoned Resid®tial-One(R-1) and has frontages on both Kip�g Street and 38th Aveme. but does not ommss tire bred coma At the bred coma is a SheW irde K gas station mdconv®ence store (3805Kipling Street) This property is zoned Co®ariel-0ne(0.1), mdmay bepret ofthe 3865 Kipling Streerezowngmdfo edevdopmmt.pmdingmagemmtwiththepropMyoama. The befferson County accesses reports 3865 Kipling Street tobea vamntpazcol of bad Though. there we None seemingly mused structures nm Kipling Street between 38th Avenue and West 39th Avenue As previously mentioned. a SheW irde K gas station and convenience store is heated at 3805 Kipling Streetwith right (8) parts; mda mnopy_ All ofthe parts; mdthe convenience store we heated under the mnopy_ Aar wash is heated m therm (west md) of the property Planing Commission 16 WZ15-12/Equinox This irregularly shaped vaonat lot measures 99361 square fee (228 acnes) accorclingto thehfferson County Accessors office The SheWCirde Klot measures 33,915 square teen Togethq the lots robot 133 096 square feet(3 %acnes) These wenn®fly no mteri coanoirs or join access points republic streets. APpficantTisner Pretimmary Pro ak Scenario 1 SheWChde Kiodusioo Theapphonat ispmposing to reverse thetwopmpvties toMued-Use Commercial, aadcnear etwunew lots from one existing two lots(mrsfigmed mtfereatly) The she moll thin be developed to include astesdal beildfug toone north coda newly constructed canopy and larger convenience store inthe south®portion of the lot_ This scenvin assumes an agreement with the She irde Kto include clubs lot combined with one 3E65 Kipling Strect remising andfatme development The site would have two access points, one on 38th Avenue and strobes onMpling Street_ The apptiwrsts haveaheady re®ved an accec. permit. firm C➢GT to cnodmnan accea dnaxfinm Kipling Street Sccrueo 2 ShcWCtrdc Knot mdodcd If an agreement with theoume of the SheWChde K does not occur, theappliaats wooldblydy ewiththeredevdo mto13865Kfptiag Btrtathasumlm faahiombutwauldnotfrdudethe existing gas station. The foDoning is a surareary of the neighborhood messing: • In addition to the appliraat and staff one members of the public attended the neighborhood meeting_ Grcg Mur,, • Ms. Shone briefly mplained that at this time these are no final plans or and users for this site. but rather this is simply a r¢ening Goma low-density residential (R-1) property to a Meed -Use Commedal property for market purposes. • The attendee M- Moram had no objections, and once because he was nations of what was being prnpnsed Tin, foH sviugbaum wue diawaaed e,g,, i,g We 81IP eegomt ud p opined dwebpmeoL • None. Asideficm thefow neighbors atthemeetiag, staffrerdvedm co®car from others mthearea regardingtheproposal. Planning Commission 17 W&15-12/Equinox