HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/2011City of
]
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
May 19, 2011
Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning
Commission on May 19, 2011, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal
Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
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.
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 —April 21, 2011
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. STUDY SESSION
A. Accessory Structures in the Mixed Use Zone Districts
8. ADJOURNMENT
♦��4
City of
]�q� Wh6atR�idgc
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting
April 21, 2011
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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 29 Avenue, Wheat
Ridge, Colorado.
ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
Commission Members Present:
Anne Brinkman
Alan Bucknam
Marc Dietrick
Tracy Guildner
Dick Matthews
Scott Ohm
George Pond
Steve Timms
Staff Members Present:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Ken Johnstone, Community
Development Director
Sarah Showalter, Planner II
Kathy Field, Administrative Assistant
APPROVE THE-ORDER OF THE AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by
Commissioner OHM to approve the order of the agenda as printed. The
motion carried 8 -0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — April 7, 2011
It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by
Commissioner OHM to approve the minutes of April 7, 2011 as presented.
The motion carried 5 -0 with Commissioners TIMMS, DIETRICK and
BRINKMAN abstaining.
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)
Planning Commission Minutes 1 April 21, 2011
No members of the public wished to speak at this time.
7. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No. ZOA- 11 -02: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning
Urban Agriculture.
The case was presented by Sarah Showalter. She entered all pertinent documents
into the record and advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the
case. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation.
Commissioner BRINKMAN commented that in the hot summer months, many
people prefer to start gardening around 5:00 a.m. to escape the heat.
Commissioner BUCKNAM asked about parking requirements. Ms. Showalter
stated that no parking ratios are set forth. Code enforcement will manage any
complaints received from neighbors regarding temporary parking.
Chair BUCKNAM opened the public hearing.
Ted Heyd
917 South Cole Drive, Lakewood
Mr. Heyd is a member of Access to Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Task Force. He
spoke in support of the ordinance. Urban agriculture is part of a national trend.
He expressed concern about the special use fee of $300 per acre for property
owners who want to start a neighborhood or community garden on the same
property as a single- or two- family home.
Amanda Weaver
11100 W. 38" Ave.
Ms. Weaver is also a member of the Task Force. She spoke in favor of the -
ordinance but asked that the special use fee be revisited. She expressed concern
that the fees would be cost prohibitive in attempting to bring urban agriculture to
her 13 acres that are zoned R -3.
Tim Tindle
4300 Reed St.
Mr. Tindle is associated with the Task Force and spoke in favor of the ordinance.
He commented that Wheat Ridge could be on the leading edge of the urban
agriculture and food movement. He expressed concern about the special use fee.
He has started a business with Amanda Weaver called The City Mouse Garden
which will involve multi -plot gardening where they would garden a quarter of an
acre but also sell produce from other gardens. He expressed concern about the
single family limitation that could limit selling produce from the owner's garden.
Planning Commission Minutes 2 April 21, 2011
Ms. Showalter commented that they are trying to distinguish urban gardening
from "yard sharing" in that there is a person or group formally managing the
garden. The ordinance could be amended if these types of issues arise.
Andrew Horn
7175 W. 42 Ave.
Mr. Horn asked the price of a home occupation license. Mr. Johnstone replied
that the fee is $25 annually.
Tim Sabus
Mr. Sabus spoke in favor of the ordinance that could be a boon for Wheat Ridge
and set an example for other municipalities. He expressed concern that a 6 square
foot sign advertising a produce stand is too small. He suggested that square "
footage for accessory structures be the same size for commercial and residential
zones. He stated that he was in favor of hoop houses for growing fruits and
vegetables.
In response to a question from Commissioner POND, Ms. Showalter stated that in
looking at similar ordinances from other cities, there were none that differentiated
between yard sharing and urban gardens. She commented that clarifying
language could be considered.
In response to concern expressed by Commissioner POND regarding special use
permit fees for urban gardens, Mr. Johnstone explained that administrative fees
are set by the Community Development Director. Amendments to those fees
must be considered by City Council.
Commissioner OHM expressed concern that a permit could be required for a
home garden. Ms. Showalter stated that this was not the intent of the ordinance
and it may be necessary to tweak the language. The special use permit would not
be required for private home gardens.
Commissioner OHM suggested that special use fees should be reduced for small
plots.
It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by
Commissioner GUILDNER to recommend approval of the proposed
ordinance amending Chapter 26 to support urban agricultural uses and
activities, with the following conditions:
1. Urban gardens are allowed as a special use on residentially -zoned lots
where the primary use is a single or two - family home.
The motion carried 8-0.
Planning Commission Minutes 3 April 21, 2011
It was moved by Commissioner POND and seconded by Commissioner
OHM to amend the definition of urban garden to read as follows: An area of
land formally managed, organized and maintained by an individual or group of
individuals to grow and harvest food crops and/or non-food ornamental crops,
such as flowers. Urban gardens maybe divided into separate plots for
cultivation by one or more individuals or may be maintained and cultivated
collectively. Urban garden examples include community gardens where crops
are consumed or donated, market gardens where crops are sold for profit, and
community- supported agriculture (CSA), where crops are sold or donated for
shareholder consumption.
The motion carried 8 -0.
It was moved by Commissioner POND and seconded by Commissioner
OHM to recommend that staff look at substantially reducing the fees for
Special Use Permits related to urban gardens on residentially -zoned lots
where the primary use is a single or two- family home with the intent to
encourage urban agriculture moving forward.
Commissioner TIMMS offered a friendly amendment that when a decision is
made after it goes to Council to report results back to Planning Commission.
The amendment was accepted by Commissioner MATTHEWS.
The amended motion passed 8 -0.
8. STUDY SESSIONS (The regular meeting was adjourned to study session at 8:25
P.M-)
A. Potential Rezoning of 11100 W. 38 "' Ave.
Sarah Showalter reviewed the staff report for this item. The owner of this
property would like to add a variety of uses to the site. The front of the 12-
property is zoned R -3 and the back part is zoned R -1. There has been a small
farm component on this site since the original farm house was built in 1922. A
conservation easement was placed on this land in the 1990's to preserve the
agricultural use of the site. The owner is proposing a CSA or market garden for
the property as well as the ability to have a commercial kitchen/classroom space
in one of the buildings behind the existing farm house. The property owner lives
in the farm house which would allow use as a home occupation. Some
possibilities include allowing the uses under an SUP; the property could be
rezoned to A -1; or a planned development could be used.
Amanda Weaver
11100 W. 38 "' Ave.
Ms. Weaver, who owns the property with Louise Turner, stated that she is a
geographer specializing in urban agriculture and teaches at the University of
Planning Commission Minutes 4 April 21, 2011
Colorado at Denver. Because of the conservation easement placed in perpetuity
on the land, she is prohibited from building another dwelling on the property.
However, buildings related to agriculture could be constructed. She would like
to have a commercial kitchen to allow her to make and package cheese that she
could sell. She would also like to provide educational opportunities to the public
where people could observe the agricultural process and attend various classes.
She commented that A -1 zoning might not accommodate all of this.
There was discussion about home occupation requirements and the advantages of
planned development for the property.
B. 38 Avenue Corridor Plan
Ms. Showalter, Commissioner BRINKMAN and Commissioner OHM presented
updates on the 38 Avenue Corridor Task Force meeting.
9. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner POND and seconded by Commissioner
BRINKMAN to adjourn the meeting at 9:17 p.m. The motion carried 8 -0.
Alan Bucknam, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes 5 April 21, 2011
City of
at
" Whep,
�
0
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Memorandum
TO: Planning Commission
THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director
FROM: Sarah Showalter, Planner H
DATE: May 13, 2011 (for May 19 study session)
SUBJECT: Accessory Structures in Mixed Use Zone Districts
Introduction
In September 2010, City Council adopted new mixed use zone districts. The intent behind the
new mixed use zoning was to create flexible zone districts that would allow a streamlined
development review process and encourage mixed use development in targeted areas of the city,
including Wadsworth, 38 Avenue, and the future Transit - Oriented Development (TOD) area
near 50 Place and Ward Road. The mixed use code, found in Article XI of Chapter 26, includes
site and architectural standards to encourage high - quality development. The architectural
standards include requirements for fagade articulation, minimum transparency at the ground
floor, and material variation. As the code was written and adopted, these standards would apply
to any new structure — primary or accessory — developed under the mixed use zoning.
Staff has had the opportunity to test the new code through a couple of development proposals for
sites that have been, or are proposed to be, rezoned to mixed use. Staff has noticed a significant
difference between primary and accessory structures, indicating a need for separate design
standards. For example, the mixed use code contains build -to requirements that - encourage
buildings to be placed close to the street. While this makes sense for main buildings, such as
office or residential buildings, it does not make sense for accessory structures such as garages or
car ports. All other zone districts in Chapter 26 contain separate regulations for accessory
structures. Staff recommends taking a similar approach for the mixed use zone districts.
This memo is structured as follows:
1. Summary of Research
2. Proposed Approach
3. Policy Direction Requested
Summary of Research
Staff reviewed ten sample zoning codes to see how other jurisdictions treat accessory structures
within mixed use zone districts. A summary of this research may be found in the table in
Attachment 1. A few codes are similar to the current mixed use zoning in that they do not
contain separate mention or standards for accessory structures, implying that they would follow
the same standards as primary structures. Other mixed use districts — including those in Boulder,
Denver, Englewood, Longmont, and Louisville — contain separate standards for accessory
structures. It is a common theme to set distinct setback requirements for accessory structures so
that they are not located in front of the primary structure and so that they are not allowed
immediately adjacent to rear and side property lines. It is also common to require accessory
buildings to be made of materials that are compatible with the materials of the primary
building(s). A couple of jurisdictions place size restrictions on accessory structures. Denver, for
example, requires a maximum size of 1,000 square feet and a maximum length of 36 feet. Most,
however, do not place limits on the size of accessory structures.
Proposed Approach
Staff recommends adding a new section to Article XI that would establish separate setback and
design standards for accessory structures. Please note that Article XI already has a section with
separate design requirements for parking structures (Section 26- 1107.E). The proposed new
section would apply to single -story accessory buildings such as garages, carports, gazebos, and
storage facilities. Below is a summary of staff's proposed regulations for accessory structures:
Placement, Setbacks, and Dimensional Standards
• Accessory structures may not be located between a primary structure and the primary
street
• Setbacks:
o Front — must be located behind the rear wall of the primary structure
o Side — minimum of 5 feet. Minimum of 10 feet where adjacent to a street.
o Rear — minimum of 5 feet
o Require that the setback area between the accessory structure and property line is
landscaped. Where adjacent to a street, the setback area shall contain regularly
spaced shrubs and/or trees
• Maximum height
o May not be taller than one story and may not exceed 15 feet in height
• Maximum size — please see policy input section below
Architectural Requirements
• Require that all accessory structures are made of materials that are compatible with the
primary structure(s) on the site.
• Minimum transparency — no requirements.
• Where adjacent to a street:
o Any fagade that faces a street and is 100 feet or longer must contain a change in
material or color for each 8 feet of vertical feet of wall height
o Any fagade that faces a street and is 100 feet or longer must contain at least one
variation in plane depth of at least 1 foot for every 50 linear feet of the fagade
Policy Direction Requested
There are few items that staff would like input from the Planning Commission on, summarized
below.
2
(1) Size Limits
Staff generally does not want to set specific absolute size limits on accessory structures —
such as a maximum of 1,000 square feet per structure — since there is a wide range of sites
and uses covered under the mixed use zoning. It can be difficult to set a number that is
reasonable under different contexts and that will not create a burden for future potential
developments. As noted above in the summary of research, several jurisdictions do not have
area limits for accessory structures.
That said, there is some concern that a lack of a size limit could lead to large accessory
structures that could dominate a site. One option that staff considered is to require that the
total area of accessory structures cannot exceed 25% of the ground floor area of the primary
building(s) on site. Staff would like feedback whether to explore a relative size limit such as
a percentage of building or lot area.
(2) Setbacks and Architectural Requirements
Staff would generally like feedback from Planning Commission as to whether the proposed
regulations outlined above seem reasonable.
(3) Temporary Greenhouses /Hoop Houses
Based on the urban agriculture code amendments for which Planning Commission recently
recommended approval, urban gardening will become a permitted use within mixed use zone
districts. This means that there could be instances where a property owner would like to
construct a greenhouse or temporary greenhouse/hoop house as an accessory structure on
their property. Staff has some concern about treating this type of accessory building in the
same way as other structures. For example, the architectural requirement that the materials
must be consistent with the primary structure would not make sense for a greenhouse (made
of glass) or a hoop house (made of plastic or fabric). Also, staff is reluctant to allow a
situation in which hoop houses would be visible along major commercial corridors,
especially if there are no specific size limits for accessory structures since the hoop houses
could be quite large.
One potential solution would be to create a separate category under accessory structures for
hoop houses and greenhouses and set a specific size limit (such as 400 or 500 square feet
maximum). These structures could be exempted from the architectural requirements that
apply to other accessory structures, but might have stricter setback requirements to ensure
that they are not a dominant visual element from the street. Staff would like Planning
Commission's feedback on this issue.
Attachments
1. Summary Research Table
3
T
T
N
O
T ^^
LO
O
N
To
ca
F.
.c
i
(a
a)
ca
U)
T
C
N
0
G
P
• N
>' O
� � L
ca
> - m
O CD
0
L+
cu ca
c Q c ca
Co
d E U
s E 7
ca
m U
co a' m
3 ca � '
0 ca
m U
• M
^, 0(a
2 ca E V
m -
•
� n > CD
, c U ca
E 3�
m v
O
O O o >,
i ca m m 0.. N
Ec
N N
_
U L p
moomm
Q .� a :3
cn m U
O
7 ca c
+- a p
U U > c
cam ; 2 .0
CL =3 a a)
�� 0 2
U E
( n Q. w
Q
Q
c(n n
�v ° -0
zEa c
: z
z
•
c
m
m
as
O m
(D 0)
O
r U t
co
CO m
m
-a a r
ca
U c
T
i
- 0 a -. r - Q
m O
•
_
O m m �' II
ca U N
cts
-O - - fa a
N
O-
Cn :3 CrJ m ca
U} - X
5 m cn CL m
=3 t5 00 O
E; oo ca
��a) m m E
cu a) -O
E
c Em o 0 ;
m �`r N o
Y II II c (a
Y Y O
E�n�n
II Q II II
Y
Q •E � -0 W r .cn
m .EL c o 3 m a�
) 0 0�
—m c w o
�0W
_ �_ U
m 00 mE�,
c
•
N C m m c0 O O
C to cn c II N
m O m m 0 C0 �
— cn cn O T
Y m ° ca
—_ II � ca
m
i m -" .r_ O II rn II
ca c ca to
" to O II II
_
m
i N E a c0 O
E 15
O N L U cn
O N L
a i0 . t
n
E E E
y
E E E
E >, (
E ` `a
1
E E E E m
7 7 7 7 7 7 7
E .-.. E E 7
O �,E
0 7 E c E =3
E
E XX
C
•
a
C m .q .0 .0 C c ca
C_ L c C X X
(a ca ca -
�������
cn C N N >, • X
7 ca ca
•- -•- i •�
2 aE c'n(n E�
z
z
• • • • • • •
• • • • • • -
• •
O
0 co
O O C U O
_0
c m cn
O
m
O
a) y U to O O
O O O
.�
U
O U
L >,
N !n c w
fa 7 ca co 0 U U
c- Q
O U U m
c • c O
_
j O (a .� O O CO "
cc a)
w
C y
O
m 0 cQcn
O =
ca
c c w -� N c0 m 2+s 0
cn -0
O NQ �,>
•
'
U c O , 0
? U O-0 ° m m w a w 0
w 0 E U
4) a)
u0,
0w<
E m
occ`a
>,a) -c mo
w
co
�� �a>vi �c'�cncacn
uiDv U 0 a) E m m a
° 'c
��
N 2 c� 3 0 0 3:
O
zcaOoE3m�
c 3 m
m
moots — o o� c"i c y
}QU�n�scnQ m00—:3
m ca o o a
�C'3cn�sca --M
d C6
0
v
c
N
D
y
' d
a. N
O
x VN
O G
o
K
ov
��,
AA
c 0
3=
• �O
0
s o
'� d��
>
dQ
CL
3
O p =5
d C N
C xN
Q�QG
CO N��
C cc
W2�
0
q
0
LO
0
�
�
W
�
�
Cc%
@
$
cc
�
M
E
E
/
§
E
k
k
M
as
2¥
k\
(n E
a) a)
^ &k
2
�g ¢
.
�k�
00k(D
f
f
f
f
Z
2 .
2
2
,
§
\
a
:
cc p
° ca &
/ k
/
E �
0 .7
(
0 C :3
e m
m
m
/
ca £ m =
E
to
§
2 E f@
f
J
(n
2 e m-
® $ S
E ca
= « )
m%
R �
ca
k ) ®
0 / /
/
CD
/2
- o C\J _
@
\ «_
£a) $55
® - a)
%%J2
§a
a�
E
§ 7§ / f
f E ± 0 k\
S)
cts
k � a a CD
- —a / % �
2 =
0 �
-
/ - cm$
�§
L) a 2
/
-0-
k d
k /
\
/ 2 0 §.§
0 = - / §
m
E
_- 2 n E@
£.m e \
S% E
D m E� E E =
E E
f
>1cuU)
MIS
J \E -0EEx
kk.
2
@ 1 � : t o
- �. . ■ o
5 co
_0 c
2 2
' - -
2
�
/§3
§
� %m
:3
Fu E>1
2
�C: 2
_
0
k
2 f /
/
.�
. ®§ » o
E S
� -2_
E
- D k= 2
2
S
k
cn
w
m
- - 2 § %
§
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
o®
o®
0 k
�D
rO
CO
§�
5e
s
?x2c■
38 ���
���v
■
zM
M