Wheat Ridge staff present final engagement phase of City Plan — toolkit to guide where streets prioritize movement or 'staying places'

City planning staff and their consultants presented the fourth phase of public engagement on the Wheat Ridge City Plan at the March 3 study session, laying out a decision‑making “toolkit” to guide how the city will apply infrastructure and regulatory tools across different places.

In brief: The team proposed categorizing locations by function — “going places” (prioritizing mobility and through movement) versus “staying places” (prioritizing placemaking, on‑street activity and pedestrian amenities) — and showed how the two toolkits would mix use, form, street and staying/going treatments to shape future investments. Staff said the finished draft plan will recommend near‑, mid‑ and long‑term actions and include implementation steps covering frontage‑improvement pilots, zoning tweaks to reduce barriers for small business, a possible Business Improvement District feasibility study on 30th Avenue, and coordination on repaving to quickly implement bike‑lane and striping changes.

Why it matters: The City Plan shapes long‑range outcomes for land use, mobility and public investment. The toolkit is intended to give city decisionmakers and staff a shared framework so capital projects and developer review start with the same goals, and to help prioritize limited funding where it will have the biggest impact.

What staff presented: Ella (Lehi Divi), senior planner, summarized outreach to date (including an open house with more than 170 attendees and over 230 online responses in earlier phases and student engagement with Wheat Ridge High School). Consultants reviewed place‑type and street‑type frameworks and illustrated tradeoffs: for example, a 66‑foot right of way could host either a multimodal “going places” cross section with bike lanes and wider vehicle lanes, or a “staying places” cross section with on‑street parking, parklets and pedestrian‑scale lighting to support a walkable business district.

Council and public response: Council members generally welcomed the toolkit. Questions focused on whether additional destinations such as the recreation center or parks should be flagged as “gathering places,” how the city compares to peer cities in per‑capita walkable destinations, and whether thresholds will be provided to guide when to apply specific tools. Several councilors requested a dedicated mobility plan presentation before the draft plan returns, to ensure the mobility framework and place priorities align.

Implementation and next steps: Staff described near‑term actions (pilot frontage improvements on commercial corridors, zoning code “quick wins,” traffic analysis for 40th Avenue, coordination with Public Works on repaving opportunities) and mid‑ to long‑term priorities (a mobility plan update, potential code revisions, and coordination with Jeffco Schools on two closed school campuses). The draft plan is scheduled for public release for review in late spring–early summer; staff asked council to direct constituents to the phase‑4 survey open until March 25.

Sources: City planning presentation and consultant remarks during the March 3 study session, public‑engagement attachments in the planning packet.