Planning Commission Agenda Packet 1/21/16

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.
*Agenda packets and minutes are available online at http://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/95/PlanningCommission
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.
8.
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.
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 29th 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
-1–
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 Café with a drive-thru, with variances to the build-to line for the property
located at 3210 Youngfield Street & 12755 W. 32nd 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 Café drivethru 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 32nd & 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 32nd/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. café 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
December 3, 2015
-2–
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 32nd Avenue and Youngfield Street. The variance on the 32nd 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 32nd 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 32nd 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
December 3, 2015
-3–
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 32nd 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
December 3, 2015
-4–
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
December 3, 2015
-5–
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 32nd 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 twoway 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 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 32nd Avenue on property located at 12755 W. 32nd Avenue, for the
following reasons:
Planning Commission Minutes
December 3, 2015
-6–
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. 32nd Avenue for the following
reasons:
1.
2.
3.
Approval of the variance may endanger the public welfare by creating
conflicting turning movements both on the site and off.
It could serve as precedence for future requests for variances to the build-to
line along Youngfield and 32nd Avenue.
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.
2.
3.
4.
The proposal is consistent with the City’s guiding documents including the
Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy, Envision Wheat Ridge and the I70/Kipling Urban Renewal Plan.
The proposed SDP is consistent with the approved ODP document.
All requirements for an SDP have been met.
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
December 3, 2015
-7–
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
December 3, 2015
-8–
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
December 3, 2015
-9–
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 MUN 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
December 3, 2015
- 10 –
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
- 11 –
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
Planning Commission Minutes
December 3, 2015
_______________________________
Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary
- 12 –
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
CASE MANAGER: M. Reckert
DATE OF MEETING:
January 21, 2016
CASE NO. & NAME:
WZ-15-12/Equinox
ACTION REQUESTED:
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
ZONING ORDINANCE
CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS
DIGITAL PRESENTATION
SITE
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 44th 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 39th 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
2
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
Standard
Uses
R-1 zoning
MU-C zoning
Single family
residential,
public uses
Architectural
Standards
None
Max. Building Height
35’
Max. Lot Coverage
Min. Landscaping
25%
N/A
Min. Front Setback
30’
Residential and commercial
uses (office, service and retail,
restaurant) Gas stations and car
repair as conditional uses.
Drive- throughs if the
mandatory separation from
adjacent drive-throughs can be
met
High quality architecture
required - Mixed Use
development standards related
to articulation, variation,
materials, transparency
**Mixed Use – 6 stories
**Single use – 4 stories
80%
Mixed use – 10%
Single use - 15%
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
3
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
4
Envision Wheat
Ridge Structure Plan
Site
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
5
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
6
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
7
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:
1.
2. …”
Planning Commission
WZ-15-12/Equinox
8
Exhibit 1 – Applicant letter
Planning Commission
WZ-15-12/Equinox
9
Exhibit 2 – Aerial Map
Site
Planning Commission
WZ-15-12/Equinox
10
Exhibit 3 – Zoning Map
Site
Planning Commission
WZ-15-12/Equinox
11
Exhibit 4 – Site Photos
Looking north from 38th Avenue at the property frontage
Looking northwest from 38th Avenue to the adjacent dentist office
Planning Commission
WZ-15-12/Equinox
12
Looking east towards the adjacent fueling station
Looking east along 38th Avenue – property is to the left side
Planning Commission
WZ-15-12/Equinox
13
Looking west at property from Kipling Street
Looking northwest from Kipling towards the City rec center
Planning Commission
WZ-15-12/Equinox
14
Looking north along Kipling – property is on the left
Planning Commission
WZ-15-12/Equinox
15
Exhibit 5 – Neighborhood Meeting Notes
Planning Commission
WZ-15-12/Equinox
16
Planning Commission
WZ-15-12/Equinox
17