Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/20161P 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. City Of ]qrWh6atRJc1pre PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting March 17, 2016 CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair BUCKNAM at 7:01 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 291h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Commission Members Absent: Staff Members Present: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Alan Bucknam Dirk Boden Emery Dorsey Donna Kimsey Janet Leo Scott Ohm Steve Timms Amanda Weaver Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Lisa Ritchie, Planner II Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner OHM and seconded by Commissioner TIMMS to approve the order of the agenda. Motion carried 8-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 3, 2016 It was moved by Commissioner DORSEY and seconded by Commissioner OHM to approve the minutes of March 3, 2016, as written. Motion carried 6-0-2 with Commissioners TIMMS and WEAVER abstaining. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 2016 No one wished to speak at this time. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-15-10 & WZ15-11: an application filed by Stor-All Storage for approval of a zone change from Planned Commercial Development (PCD) to Planned Industrial Development (PID) with an Outline Development Plan (ODP) and a request for approval of a Specific Development Plan (SDP) for property located at 12700 W. 44th Avenue. Ms. Ritchie gave a short presentation regarding the rezoning, Specific Development Plan and the application. She entered into the record the contents of the case file, packet materials, the zoning ordinance, and the contents of the digital presentation. She stated the public notice and posting requirements have been met, therefore the Planning Commission has jurisdiction to hear this case. The property is a vacant lot and has been since at least] 985. The current zoning is Planned Commercial Development (PCD) with a variety of zone districts surrounding the property, including: Agricultural -Two (A-2), Residential Two (R-2) and Commercial -One (C-1). An excerpt from the Comprehensive plan identifies this property as a part of a neighborhood buffer zone. The ODP and SDP process is as follows: A neighborhood meeting was held on July 14, 2015 with 12 members of the public in attendance; the I" request is for an ODP which is a zone change and the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to City Council; the 2"d request is for the SDP site plan and should conform to the ODP document; the 3'd request is for a subdivision plat which will be processed administratively. There are a number of challenges to the Mangone Office Park ODP that is currently approved for the site: it has great visibility from I-70, but poor access; higher intensity uses are allowed but not viable, development costs are expensive due to the irrigation ditch and it is an awkward site configuration to develop. The uses for the proposed ODP are limited to three: Mini -warehouse for inside storage, Warehouse/office and flex space and a Community Building. Architectural Standards will comply with the ASDM. The maximum building height is 50 -feet, although the applicant does not intend to go that high. The site design for the SDP is for a single structure with a 27,050 sq. ft. footprint and 104,000 sq. ft. total — four stories tall. Parking is to the north of the building and a detention area located to the north of the parking area. Access will be a primary point on the northern side off Youngfield Street, none off Xenon Street. The self -storage leasing office will be adjacent to the parking area with the upper floors elevator served. Public improvements will include and 6 -foot detached sidewalk with a 6 -foot amenity zone all along Youngfield Street. Landscaping will cover 44% of the lot with 15 trees and 356 shrubs which exceeds the requirement. Drainage for the site will include a detention pond on the north end of the site which is still being worked on by Public Works. The applicant is proposing to pipe and bury the existing irrigation ditch. There were no concerns from Agency referrals. Staff recommends approval for the zone change and the SDP with a couple of conditions. Planning Commission Minutes -2— March 2— March 17, 2016 Commissioner BODEN asked if there is an access easement for the adjacent property owners to park on, on the narrow strip of land on the east side by Xenon. Ms. Ritchie stated that none of the surveys have identified anything and there are still issues being worked on for the plat, but don't foresee an access easement being located there. Commissioner WEAVER asked for more information about the neighborhood meeting. Ms. Ritchie explained the neighborhood meeting was a very thoughtful discussion held on July 14, 2015 and the major concerns were related to the height of the building. Some concern was also related to traffic and possible circulating around the neighborhood if the entrance is missed. There were also concerns about fencing, lighting and security. Commissioner WEAVER asked if there were any lighting buffers in the plans. Ms. Ritchie stated the code is not specific about lighting, but it is not allowed to spill over into other properties. There is no lighting in the rear of the building, and most neighbors won't see light. Commissioner DORSEY asked where the entrance will be to the property and also asked about restriping of Youngfield and if there will be a turn lane added. Ms. Ritchie explained the entrance will be on the northwest side of the property off of Youngfield and she added Public works is looking into the final striping of Youngfield. Commissioner DORSEY also wanted to know what the dog legged piece of property near Xenon will be used for. Ms. Ritchie stated the utilities, except for water, will be accessed from that little piece of land. Commissioner KIMSEY wondered what the east elevation finishes are going to be. Ms. Ritchie stated the lower will be a split face CMU, in the middle will be an insulated metal panel with 3 different colors of architectural metal panels. Commissioner TIMMS wanted to know what other zone districts allow indoor storage facilities along with PID and where the closest industrial zoned districts are in relation to this property. Ms. Ritchie stated Commercial -2 and Industrial Employment also allow indoor storage facilities and most are north of I-70. Planning Commission Minutes -3— March 3March 17, 2016 Ms. Reckert added the closest is the 44`h Industrial Park to the west. Commissioner TIMMS asked if the residences to the east of the property are mostly one story homes, wanted to know what the rear setback for the PID zone district is and gave his concern for the architecture on the rear wall of the building being more of a warehouse than an office building with windows. He also wanted to know how many units will be inside the self -storage building. Ms. Ritchie said the homes are mostly one story and the setback is about 25 feet, but the site plan shows the building will back about 32.8 feet. The applicant will reply to the number of units. Commissioner LEO asked if this project is in conflict with the Urban Renewal Plan and also wanted to know if this property falls within a flood plain. Ms. Ritchie stated that Steve Art had been contacted and he said it is consistent with Urban Renewal and recommends approval in this location. Also, this property does not fall within a flood plain. Commissioner OHM commented that there are some nearby PIDs and with regards to rezoning the W 44`h redevelopment plan is commercial and this property is not being rezoned commercial; also, the definition of neighborhood buffering as written in the Comprehensive plan does not include storage or industrial zoning. He also asked if the Comprehensive Plan needs to be amended. Ms. Ritchie and Ms. Reckert explained that with regard to the 44`h redevelopment, this storage space is not the typical storage building/facility. The feel will be more like an office building with less traffic. This is a viable use for this property and looking at the zoning on the property over the last 30 years the question is asked, what would a good use for this property be; many businesses could have been put on this property and they weren't and typical retail uses wouldn't work on it. What constitutes a buffer can also be looked at in different ways and this building would provide the buffering needed especially with traffic increasing on I-70. It was also added the Comprehensive plan was amended in 2009 and will probably need to be looked at again as things change in the City. Commissioner OHM wanted to know if there are other I -E districts next to R-2 zone districts. Ms. Ritchie stated there may not be, there is more Industrial next to A-1, with some A- 2 adjacent to Industrial. Many of the A-2 are not used for agriculture, but have single family homes on them. Commissioner OHM was also concerned about the results if the rezone carries thru and for some reason the applicant pulls out. Planning Commission Minutes -4— March 4March 17, 2016 Ms. Ritchie stated there are only 3 possible uses in the ODP and an SDP would have to be approved. Commissioner OHM had concerns with the lighting and pointed out, albeit little, there is some lighting spilling out onto 4385 Xenon. Ms. Ritchie state that would be looked at and to remember there will be trees added in the landscaping plan. Commissioner OHM also wondered why the utilities weren't shown on the site plan, but appears on the Landscape plan as well as no wall signs in the plans Ms. Ritchie stated the utilities are left out for clarity on the plan, but can easily be added back in. The signage has to apply to code and that will be looked at later. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked if the current zoning would have the same amount of development opportunities and allowed uses in the PID seem very narrow which might hinder future redevelopment. Ms. Reckert stated that per code there can't be a zone change to a straight commercial zone district. A C-2 zone district would allow outside storage and with the PID there is more control by the Staff to see what is being built, to look at the architecture and the parking. Staff may not have supported a commercial zone change. Tim Nelson, Galloway 6162 S. Willow Dr., Greenwood Village, CO Mr. Nelson started by clarifying a few of the questions the Commissioners asked. He stated that one reason why the site may not have been developed was the original plan development anticipated to do a looped water line from Youngfield through the property and back out Youngfield. Unfortunately, this water line was abandoned. The plan now is to bring the water line from 44`h and have it exit through the dog leg to Xenon Street. The plan is not to pave over the water line on the dog legged portion, but to landscape it and have other utilities in that area also. Galloway will also work with Valley Water to repair the abandoned water line to make the infrastructure stronger. There are some neighbors who want fences and we want to work with them, as long as we can keep the area behind the building from becoming a hiding spot for transients. The lighting will be looked at and corrected so there is no spillover. The left turn lane will is a CDOT access and will require a permit. The storage unit count is still to be determined. Commissioner OHM commented on the site triangle and wanted to make sure the clear zoned is definitely kept at 3 -feet. He also asked if there is the possibility of placing an evergreen tree on the adjacent property to help stop the spillover of light. Mr. Nelson thought the applicant would not object. Planning Commission Minutes -5— March 5_March 17, 2016 Commissioner LEO asked what the average in and out traffic is at a facility like this, daily. Mr. Nelson replied 274/day with 16 in the a.m. peak hour and 18 in the p.m. peak hour. Commissioner TIMMS wanted to know the proposed hours for the facility. Mr. Nelson replied 24hrs/day and standard business hours for the store. Commissioner KIMSEY asked what the typical ceiling height of the storage units will be, due to the concern of the building height and wondered if they could be lowered. Mr. Nelson stated the building was designed to meet all the codes and 10 -feet for the ceiling height is the minimum. Commissioner DORSEY asked if the access to the building will be on the North side of the building, if an elevator will be used inside the building and how big trucks, loading or unloading personal items, will be able to turn around in the parking lot. Mr. Nelson stated the access will be on the northern end of the building which will be staffed during the day and the elevator will need a code to access upper floors. The regular sized moving trucks will be able to do a U-turn in the parking truck, but the large semi -trucks would need to back in to the parking lot. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked why four stories for the building instead of three stories. Mr. Nelson replied the lesser square footage leads to a concern for the return on investment, adding the project would not be economically viable if we lowered the building by one floor. Also, the site has challenges; it would be difficult if the building was spread out over the property due to the two ditches on the site. Commissioner BUCKNAM wanted to know why the three specific uses and not more open ended with commercial use in the proposed ODP. Mr. Nelson stated they were thinking Planned Commercial at the beginning, but then thought about the use of the building in 20+ yew. Also, commercial uses require more parking and that would be difficult on this site. Cyndi Beckfeld 4365 Xenon Street, Wheat Ridge Ms. Beckfeld explained that what she heard today was different then what was mentioned at the Neighborhood meeting and she is very disappointed. She was not Planning Commission Minutes -6— March 6_March 17, 2016 aware of the 24-hour times and trucks coming in and out at all hours. She feels she has been taken advantage of and wants an 8 -foot fence on her back property line. Esther Kettering, Kushman Wakefield 1515 Arapahoe St., Denver Ms. Kettering is the broker representing the owner of the property, the Mangone Trust and she gave a brief marketing history of the property over the last 3 years. It was realized the property would need some type of entitlement for the property to be developed. There have been inquiries from the auto industry for sales, budget level motels, manufacture of sporting goods and an industrial cleaning service for uniforms; this would also be a 24-hour business. Ms. Kettering stated the zoning which has been proposed is very accommodating and flex office space encompasses a large variety of different businesses. The Mangone Trust feels the storage building is palatable for the location. Catherine Murphy 12700 W. 42"d Ave., Wheat Ridge Ms. Murphy is from adjacent neighborhood and does not want to see the same thing happen to this this neighborhood as did in hers with the Johnston Building on W 42nd Avenue. She stated she is concerned about the possible lighting spillover from the building and sign similar to her property. Ms. Murphy explained she also has concerns about the sign height and 24-hour access. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked the applicant if the signage concerns could be addressed. Mr. Nelson explained a signage plan has not been done yet, but the plan is for the sign to be on the building, and the signs will be located on the north and west sides of the building. Commissioner TIMMS asked about the signage height if close to a interstate. Ms. Ritchie stated the height of a sign can be 50 -feet if the building is within a '/ mile of an interstate with deeper setbacks also the neighborhood is taken in to consideration. The building sign is related to the size of the building. There was some discussion about lighting and Mr. Nelson stated the lights will be full cut off lighting and the minimum safety requirements in a parking lot will be followed. Ms. Reckert reminded the Commission the will be flexibility with development standards. Commissioner OHM asked about fencing on the property and if there will be a gate at the front entrance. Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 2016 Mr. Nelson stated the only proposed fencing is on the southern end to protect the ditch, which has water rights, from our multi -layer landscaping. If the city wants to put bollards on the dog leg portion of the property adjacent to Xenon St. we will look into it. Also, we will be willing to work with the neighbor who would like some fencing. Mr. Nelson added there will be no front gate, but there will be security cameras in the parking lot. Commissioner OHM asked if there will be noise to the neighborhood from the building. Mr. Nelson stated this is not a traditional storage facility. All the storage units will be inside so the neighbors will not hear the bay doors opening and closing. Commissioner DORSEY asked if the store will also be the leasing office and what the hours will be. Mr. Nelson replied the store/leasing office will have standard business hours. Commissioner BUCKNAM wanted assurance that the neighbors privacy will not be invaded with the building and parking lot having 24/7 security cameras in different locations. Mr. Nelson stated the neighbor's privacy will be honored and the security around the building will be done appropriately. Discussion between the commissioners continued with concerns about the property becoming Industrial on the south side of I-70, close to the neighborhood. Other discussions were about the buffer zone. It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner BODEN to recommend DENIAL of Case No. WZ-15-10, a request for approval of a zone change from Planned Commercial Development to Planned Industrial Development with an Outline Development Plan for property located at 12700 W. 44`x' Avenue, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is not consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and other guiding documents by introducing industrial into a non -industrial area; 2. It will have a significant adverse effect on properties in the neighborhood through incompatible performance standards and architecture associated with industrial uses. Motion Tied 4-4 with Commissioners KIMSEY, BUCKNAM, TIMMS and BODEN approving and WEAVER, DORSEY, LEO and OHM denying. Therefore the motion failed to pass. Planning Commission Minutes March 17, 2016 It was then moved by Commissioner OHM and seconded by Commissioner DORSEY to recommend approval of Case No. WZ-15-10, a request for approval of a zone change from Planned Commercial Development to Planned Industrial Development with an Outline Development Plan for property located at 12700 W. 44`h Avenue, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and other guiding documents; 2. The proposal meets the zone change criteria; 3. The proposed uses and ODP plan are all less intensive than what could be allowed on the property currently and will serve as a neighborhood buffer; 4. All requirements for an Outline Development Plan have been met. Motion tied 4-4 with Commissioners WEAVER, LEO, DORSEY and KIMSEY approving and Commissioners BODEN, BUCKNAM, TIMMS and OHM denying. Therefore, the motion failed to pass. Ms. Reckert and Ms. Ritchie gave the Commission some options for coming to a decision one also being a motion for continuance. Commissioner DORSEY wanted to remind the Commission that we are looking at downsizing the zoning and there will be less impact to the property and neighbors. Ms. Reckert recommended taking a 10 minute recess. After the Planning Commission reconvened Commissioner BUCKNAM asked the applicant if they would be willing to consider a continuance until the April 7 meeting to develop more information to help the Commission make a decision. Ms. Ritchie also stated the staff could have more conversation with the neighbors as well. Mr. Nelson agreed to the continuance, but asked for questions and concerns from the commission to help them refine their ideas. It was moved by Commissioner WEAVER and seconded by Commissioner KIMSEY to continue Case Nos. WZ-15-10 and WZ-15-11 until April 7, 2016. Motion carried 8-0. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked for input from the Commissioners, to the applicant. Commissioner BODEN stated he understands the property is a buffer zone but want the height of the building to be taken into consideration with regards to the neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes -9— March 9_March 17, 2016 Commissioner WEAVER concern is the connection with the neighborhood, the building should be a buffer and not a conversion. Commissioner DORSEY thinks the zone change is a good thing and agrees with the use for Industrial zoning. Commissioner TIMMS thinks it is too specific of a zone change and is too industrial. Commissioner LEO would like to see the uses in a buffer zone defined. Commissioner OHM said he is ok with the use, but zoning he is concerned with and the buffer usage. He asked what the proposed use and how it ties into neighborhood buffer description. Commissioner BUCKNAM echoed the concerns of Commissioners TIMMS and OHM and wants the staff and applicant to look at the future uses of this property is zoned to PID. He thinks it is a very limited usage and would like to see the use expanded. 8. OTHER ITEMS A. Election of Officers Chair Elect is Scott Ohm Vice Chair Elect is Amanda Weaver 9. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner WEAVER to adjourn the meeting at 9:21 p.m. Motion carried 8-0. S(ott hm, Ch Tammy Od , Recording Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - 10 - March 0March 17, 2016