The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/18/200841 City of l WheatWidge PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA December 18, 2008 Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on December 18, 2008, 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 - November 20, 2008 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-08-08 (rescheduled from December 4, 2008 due to lack of a quorum): An application filed by Coors Brewing Company to establish zoning of Agricultural- One (A-1) for land recently annexed into the City of Wheat Ridge generally located west of Lot 9 of Cabela's/Coors Subdivision, north of Clear Creek and south of State Highway 58 at Indiana Street extended. B. Case No. ZOA-08-09: An ordinance amending Chapter 26, Article VII concerning floodplain administrator decision-making authority & floodplain development standards. C. Case No. ZOA-08-06: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning zoning district boundary discrepancies and interpretations. D. Case No. ZOA-08-07 (to be continued to January 15.2009): An ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning amendments to development plans. E. Case No. ZOA-08-08 (to be continued to January 15.2009): An ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning City-initiated rezonings. City of l~WheatRidge 8. STUDY SESSION A. ZOA-08-07 B. ZOA-08-08 9. OTHER ITEMS A. Comprehensive Plan Update - January Meetings B. Cancellation of January 13t meeting 10. ADJOURNMENT ♦~~1( City of ~Wheat~dge PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting November 20, 2008 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair BRINKMAN at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 299a Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Jim Chilvers John Owyer Commission Members Absent: Davis Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Tim Paranto, Public Works Director Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary 3. 4. 5. 6. AGENDA It waoved by Commissioner STEWART and seconded by Commissioner MATTIIIEWS to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed APPROVAL; OF MINUTES - October 16, 2008 It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to approve the minutes of October 16, 2008 as presented. The motion passed with 5-0 with Commissioner SCEZNEY abstaining and Commissioners TIMMS and REINHART absent. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) There was no one to address the Commission at this time. Planning Commission Minutes 1 November 20, 2008 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No's. MS-08-01 and WA-08-14: An application filed by Davis Reinhart for approval of (A) a 2-lot minor subdivision plat with a lot width variance and a side yard setback variance for an existing garage and (B) a waiver of street dedication requirements for property zoned Residential- One and located at 2690 Pierce Street. The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She enter all ertinent documents into the record and advised the Commissere was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the staff report and dial prentation. Staff recommended approval for reasons, and with conditions, outlined in the staff report. Commissioner DWYER asked if setbacks for the existing structures wizld become nonconforming if right-of-ways and itunroyeinents are made Ms. Reckert replied that setbacks would be reduced on'both existing structures; V;. however, because it would be a..city acquisition;' ariaiices would not be required. In reply to a question from Corm that current city policy allows the become available This property east side of Pierce Strand the ier,JBRINKMAN yTim Paranto explained o a~sight.of-way parcels as they lrepresenY4ie first improvements to the side of West 28s' Avenue. Commissi&R-MRINKMAN asked if this-area had been identified as having pft critical drainage f'&s1 e r r nto earned that it was not. The installation of curb guttered sidewalk was berngequired because it is standard and there is gmdsting curb ittter and sidewalk on the west side of the street. Reckert expled that Whenever a property is subdivided, the city requires theM veloper to bu improvements at the time of subdivision or place money in escrow %r. re unprovements. For residential properties, the escrow would be retumelar a peod of ten years if no city project occurs. In response t` question from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Mr. Paranto stated that periodic traffic counts have not shown a significant change in traffic on Pierce Street in this area. Marcus Pachner Mr. Pachner, representing the applicant, read the following statement from Davis Reinhart into the record: Dear Commissioners: 1 regret not to be presenting my project to you tonight. While I have complete faith in the Planning Commission's objectivity, stafffelt my presence may unduly influence you or at least create the appearance of undue Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 20, 2008 influence. I believe I am putting forth a project that is consistent with good planning and the goals of the City of Wheat Ridge as stated in the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. I am disappointed that I was unable to come to an agreement with staff on how this plat should move forward. Mr. Pachner referred to a question from Commissioner MATTHEWS, and explained that the small lot to the east of the property was an illegal subdivision done by a previous owner long before Mr. Reinhart purchased the property. He asked the Commission to consider that the required rigofay dedication would cause the removal of many mature trees to be replace A ~r th sidewalk, curb and gutter. Removal of the trees would not only affeci the subject property but the character of the entire neighborhood. Mr. Reinhart met with Travis Crane of t] purchased the property in 2005. Staff be conforming but a variance would be i on the second lot. He stated that there remove a solid brick garage l-Je.did not necessary because both streets e'ifull and capacity. The widened righiof`vsay there are no community plans for°mpro` in the past, there was no need for tl~e ri therefore vacated Staf£is now reausfir feet be grant df length, there gutter and sidew east side entire inning Departmenfli fore he at thktime that the lot~lif would ed tq feeep the garage t`rts location benefit to the public to v height-of-way dedications were atiorib correct number of lanes Id resulf nv inconsistent setbacks and sin this ea. He also noted that, on 28th Avenue and was that the vacation be rescinded and ten . Since 28th Avenue is only 750 feet in old be changed by installing curb, ;rty. Regarding the request for a d be inconsistent because there are no entirety of Pierce Street. The nearest sidewalk on fix blocks away from the subject property. Mi`Machner stated that the cost to bond the improvements would be approximately $20,00. This cost in addition to other costs such as park dedicatiot9uve~ etc., would make this project cost prohibitive. The ten year escrow regtifetems to be unreasonable because there are no plan s to Improve 28t Avenue fierce. He stated that th eapplicant is ve ry sens it i e v to public safety but it is difficult to understand how installation of a detached sidewalk on Pierce along this one property would create safer passage along the street. Mr. Pachner concluded by stating his belief that the requirements for a variance request have been met and should be granted. He also requested approval of the plat without conditions. Ms. Reckert advised the Commission that it would be appropriate to consider the right-of-way dedications in separate motions. Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 20, 2008 Mr. Pachner commented that if the sidewalk were to abut the trees on Pierce Street, the trees would most likely not survive. Commissioner CHILVERS commented that the long term value of the trees would be determined by the species of the trees and their condition. In response to a question from Commissioner DWYER, Mr. Pachner explained that the garage could be kept with a side setback variance and there would still be space to build a primary structure on the lot. Ms. Reckert commented that without a variance the existing house would be affected. In response to a question from CommissioneL°BRINKMAN, explained that a sediment control plan w~ be necessary w and gutter is installed. It would be requi ftwhen the lot is d erosion into adjacent properties. In response to a question from-Commissioner B that he did not know if there were dinaize issues Chair BRINKMAN asked to Scott Ernest 2670 Pierce=s; Mr. Ernest sti He stated his Hughes stated the rear setback of not curb Mr. Pachner stated the house directly to south of proposed variance. riance~ecause the lot could be subdivided ition to the application. Walter 10@eigh r 6680 West 2}b Mr. Kelleigh- stioned the necessity of installing curb and gutter along 28s Avenue. Mr. Paranto explained that the citx has a policy to ultimately have sidewalks on all streets, including West 28 . Because the property is requesting a land use approval at this time, it is an opportunity for the city to acquire right-of- way for future sidewalk installation. Donna Hartley 6710 West 28~ Avenue Ms. Hartley expressed her opposition to the variance and the installation of curb and gutter which would cause the removal of so many trees. Removal of the trees would destroy the character of the neighborhood. She also noted that there is no Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 20, 2008 traffic on 28`h other than from the residents on the street. She was opposed to a patchwork of sidewalks, curb and gutter. Lester Hartley 6710 West 28th Avenue Mr. Hartley stated his opposition to the installation of curbs and gutters. He lives directly east of the applicant and had no concern with what the applicant builds. His concern centered around the effect of curb and gutter 28t' Avenue and the subsequent removal of mature trees. He stated the only _placeAhere has ever been a water problem is where curbs and gutter are in Avenue. Cliff Selby 2785 Pierce Mr. Selby stated his opposition to the removal of mature trees. His l and there has never been a drainage problemIr-11 suggested that the lot should be conforming wh problem. He did not believe ft a ge had that Commissioner DWYER asked if r the property if the xight-of-way rec that he would nofbeentirely satisf conforming. -A, believe s garage around it. the north side of 28`h expressed c6fif-%an about his family forany years nt of the property. He ald eliminate the variance Adtisfied with subdividing t granted. Mr. Selby replied the lot should be cause problems in designing a house ichn&H~ ed f t V podium to explain that a variance will be required for the housesetback or the garage setback. He also commented that the ant has work - staff to formulate his plan. ked if there were others present who wished to address the no response, she closed the public hearing. CommissionfATTHEWS stated that he was in favor of the right-of-way dedication along Pierce but not along 28`h Avenue. He was also conflicted about having an uneven lot line in order to accommodate a building that may or may not be saved. Commissioner STEWART commented that much of Pierce Street does not have curb, gutter and sidewalk so she doesn't see the pressing need for one along the subject property. She was not in favor of the dedication on 28`h Avenue. The city would always have the right to install sidewalks at some time in the future. She also favored a straight property line division. Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 20, 2008 It was moved by Commissioner DWYER and seconded by Commissioner SCEZNEY to recommend approval of Case No. WA-08-14, a request for approval of a 6-foot lot width variance and a 4.3-foot side setback variance for Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision, for the following reasons: 1. Granting of the variance would not alter the character of the area. 2. There are numerous lots with nonconforming widths and setbacks in the area, including several approved as variancegkequests by the Board of Adjustment. 5=~' 3. Granting of the variance should not impaiefle amount of light and air to adjacent properties, increase conge'sfionthe public streets or increase fire danger. A request for variance requires a supeei approval. Therefore, the motion faile6d Commissioners STEWART and CHIL Since the variance request was--denied, the subdivision plat could not be corsdeed. of five affirmative votes for of 4 to 2 with dedications and (The meeting was recessed from B. 05: An of Laws Section 26-803 of the The case was Flood to floodplain control. :rt and Tim Paranto. Coors recently to the Clear Creek railroad bridge east the floodplain downstream. Therefore the Clear ration should be modified to reflect those It wa-91' ved by Commissioner SCEZNEY and seconded by Commissioner STEW that base No. ZOA-08-05, a proposed amendment to Section 26- 803.G of A'eIII, Floodplain Control, of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, t be forwarded#o City Council with a recommendation of approval for the following reasons: 1. The proposed legislation adopts the new study. 2. It will allow the City to administer activities within the correct floodplain boundaries. The motion passed 6-0 with Commissioners TIMMS and REINHART absent. Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 20, 2008 8. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Anne Brinkman, Chair Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 20, 2008 of WHEAT PLANNING COMMISSION m LEGISLATIVE ITEM STAFF REPORT C ORP00 MEETING DATE: December 18, 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE VIII OF CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR DECISION- MAKING AUTHORITY & FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CASE NO. ZOA-08-09 ® PUBLIC HEARING ❑ RESOLUTION ® CODE CHANGE ORDINANCE ❑ STUDY SESSION ITEM Case Manager: Jeff Hirt Date of Preparation: December 18, 2008 SUMMARY: The attached ordinance proposes amendments to some of the floodplain administrator authorities and floodplain development standards. Specifically, the current regulations lack flexibility with regards to fences in the flood storage district (floodplain). Additionally, the title of "city engineer" should be removed in favor of the current titles of Director of Public Works and Floodplain Administrator. The changes can be summarized briefly as follows: The current regulations require all fences to be at least one foot above base flood elevation in the flood storage district. This has been problematic for developed properties in the floodplain with regards to repairing existing fences and constructing new ones where there is no adverse impact on the flood storage district. The Floodplain Administrator is currently defined as the "city engineer" which is not an active title. This term has been replaced with "Director of Public Works". Notice for this public hearing was provided as required by the Code of Laws. ZOA-08-09/Floodplain BACKGROUND: There are two types of flood designations that make up the Flood Regulatory District - the Floodway District and the Flood Storage District. Per Section 26-802 of the Code of Laws, they are defined as follows: Flood regulatory district. The area adjacent to a watercourse which is subject to flooding as the result of the occurrence of the 100-year flood. Thus, the area is so adverse to past, current or foreseeable construction or land use as to constitute a significant hazard to public health and safety or to property. The term includes, but is not limited to, mainstream floodplains; debris- fan floodplains; and dry wash channels and dry wash floodplains. The flood regulatory district is composed of the Floodway District and the Flood Storage District. Flood storage district. The fringe portion of the Flood Regulatory District in which flows are characteristically backwater and areas of shallow flooding. Floodway district. The portion of the Flood Regulatory District required for the reasonable passage or conveyance of the 100-year flood which is characterized by hazardous and significant depths and velocities. STORAGE FLOOD DISTRICT REGULATORY DISTRICT REGULATORY DISTRICT FLOODWAj~ DISTRICT WATERCOURSE FIGURE25-804.1 Per Section 26-805, no structures are allowed in the Floodway District, including fences. There are some limited allowances for structures in the Flood Storage District with approval of a special exception pen-nit. There are two types of special exception permits - class I and class II. Class I permits must be approved by the Floodplain Administrator. A class I permit is required for any fence. Per Section 26-806.F.16, "all fences shall be designed so that the bottom portion, except for supporting fence posts, are elevated one (1) foot above base flood elevation or in a breakaway design if approved by the floodplain administrator." For properties in the Flood Storage District, specifically developed properties, this presents challenges to having privacy fences, fences for screening (as is required by the Code of Laws), or making repairs to existing fences. Staff is recommending that any fence in the Flood Storage District still must obtain a class I exception permit, but it is at the Floodplain Administrator's discretion as to whether or not it must be elevated one foot above base flood elevation or of breakaway design. Staff is not recommending any changes related to any other type of structures in the Flood Regulatory District. ZOA-08-09/Floodplain "I move to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Article VIII of Chapter 26 concerning floodplain administrator decision-making authority & floodplain development standards." Exhibits: 1. City Floodplain Map 2. Proposed Ordinance ZOA-08-09/Floodplain b 0 0 w 0 91 ro 0 Q N N EXHIBIT 2: PROPOSED ORDINANCE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. -2008 Ordinance No. Series of 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS ARTICLE VIII OF CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY & FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge is authorized by the Home Rule Charter and the Colorado Constitution and statutes to enact and enforce ordinances for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge finds that more administrative flexibility is desirable with regards to floodplain development standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge wishes to make other conforming changes. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1: Section 26-802 of the Code is amended to read: Sec. 26-802. Definitions. Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in these regulations shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage, so as to be consistent with the definition given the term in other portions of this zoning code, and to give these regulations their most reasonable application. Floodplain administrator. The Director of Public Works ' e-ity engineer or his designee is assigned the responsibility to coordinate and deal with all aspects of these regulations. Section 2: Section 26-803 of the Code is amended to read: Sec. 26-803. General provisions. A. Jurisdiction. The provisions of this article shall apply to all lands within the Flood Regulatory District as defined on the official maps and engineering reports of the City of Wheat Ridge. 1 NOTE: The term "city engineer" is no longer used, therefore we have replaced this with either the Director of Public Works or the Floodplain administrator throughout this Article. ZOA-08-09/Floodplain 5 B. District types. The Flood Regulatory District covers the area inundated by the 100-year flood. The Flood Regulatory District has been divided into two (2) subdistricts: The Floodway District and the Flood Storage District. The Flood Regulatory District, the Floodway District, and the Flood Storage District are not separate zoning districts, but are overlay districts over existing zoning districts. In addition to meeting the conditions of the underlying zoning district, any property to be developed in the Flood Regulatory District must meet the conditions of the applicable overlay flood district. C. District determination. All properties within the boundaries of the 100-year flood as shown on the current flood insurance rate map for the City of Wheat Ridge, shall be in either the Floodway or Flood Storage District and shall be subject to the requirements of sections 26-805 Floodway District, or 26-806 Flood Storage District, respectively. D. Boundaries. The boundaries of the Flood Regulatory District, Floodway District and Flood Storage District have been defined by computing the 100-year flood limits under existing channel and floodplain conditions as shown on the official maps and engineering reports. The boundaries of the Flood Regulatory District, Floodway District and the Flood Storage District shall be as they appear on the official maps and engineering reports kept on file in the office of the Floodplain Administrator eity engiftee . The boundary lines on the map shall be determined by the use of the scale and other surface features appearing on the map. When there is a conflict between the boundary lines illustrated on the map and the actual field conditions, the dispute shall be settled according to section 26-808. G. Official maps and engineering reports. The location and boundaries of the Flood Regulatory District shall be as identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in 'The Flood Insurance Study for Jefferson County, Colorado', dated June 17, 2003, and any amendments or revisions thereto are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this article. The location and boundaries of the Floodway and Flood Storage Districts shall be as shown in the following engineering reports and accompanying maps: 1. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels dated June 17, 2003 for portions of the City of Wheat Ridge. 2. Clear Creek: Flood Hazard Area Delineation of Clear Creek by Icon Engineering For the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, April, 2007. 3. Clear Creek: Clear Creek Floodplain Revisions at McIntyre Overflow -Letter Report by Icon Engineering dated October 27, 2008. Z 2 NOTE: This subsection added per ZOA-08-05. ZOA-08-09/Floodplain 4. Lena Gulch: Flood Hazard Area Delineation Lena Gulch (Lower) by George K Cotton Consulting for the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, October, 2007. The flood insurance rate map and the above-mentioned engineering reports constitute the current flood insurance study for the City of What Ridge and are hereby adopted by the above reference and declared to be part of these regulations. The flood insurance rate map and the above- mentioned engineering reports, which constitute the flood insurance study are on file at the Wheat Ridge Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, (Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01; Ord. No. 1293, § 1, 6-9-03; Ord. No. 1411, § 1, 3-24-08) Section 3: Section 26-806 of the Code is amended to read: Sec. 26-806. Flood Storage District. F. Development standards. The following regulations shall apply to all permitted development and uses within the Flood Storage District: 1. All new structures which are walled and roofed and greater than one hundred twenty (120) square feet in size must be elevated one (1) foot above the base flood elevation. 2. All development shall be evaluated based on any analysis of an equal degree of encroachment based on conveyance of the 100-year flood extending for a significant reach on both sides. 3. No Flood Storage District uses shall adversely affect the efficiency of or unduly restrict the capacity of the channels or floodways of any tributaries to the main stream, drainage ditches, or any other drainage facilities or systems. 4. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure and to withstand hydrodynamic loads. 5. All new construction, and substantial improvements, and fences shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. t th b tt 4i n exee t for su o ll b d i d th 16 All f h fenee ests afe rtin e o om pei e , p pp e es gne se a . ences s a k d i l i i b g p , if d b oea away es g eleva+ed one (1) foot above base fleed e evEA efi or n a 3 n approve y. s NOTE: In consultation with the Floodplain Administrator, the application of standards for fences in the floodplain is the primary source of inflexibility in these standards. With this, we have suggested removing this provision and adding language in subsection 5 above to ensure that fences do not have an adverse impact on the floodplain. ZOA-08-09/Floodplain 7 Section 4: Section 26-808 of the Code is amended to read: Sec. 26-808. Administration. A. Floodplain administrator. The Director of Public Works e-ity engineer of the City of Wheat Ridge or his designee shall be the floodplain administrator. The duties of the administrator shall include, but not be limited to: 1. Coordination between departments and divisions: a. Coordinate the application, permit, review, appeal, certification and enforcement processes between the office of the Floodplain Administrator eity engineer and the department of community development's divisions of planning, building, and code enforcement as appropriate to ensure compliance with these regulations and an efficient use of staff. ZOA-08-09/Floodplain 8 of wHeyr Po PLANNING COMMISSION V m LEGISLATIVE ITEM STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: December 18, 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY DISCREPANCIES AND INTERPRETATIONS CASE NO. ZOA-08-06 ® PUBLIC HEARING ❑ RESOLUTION ® CODE CHANGE ORDINANCE ❑ STUDY SESSION ITEM Case Manager: Jeff Hirt Date of Preparation: December 18, 2008 SUMMARY: The attached ordinance proposes amendments to how the Code addresses properties with multiple zone district boundaries or zone district boundary discrepancies. There are numerous properties in the city that contain multiple zoning district boundaries or have zone district boundary discrepancies. This presents substantial challenges to developing or redeveloping these properties. Current Code Currently, there are multiple sections of the Code that address these situations: • 26-203 "Rules for Interpretation of Zone District Boundaries", • 26-119 "Zoning and Mapping Corrections", and • 26-115.E "Interpretations". None of the above sections have historically provided adequate direction for staff to rectify these situations. There is limited language in Sections 26-115.E and 26-203 that give some relief for zoning map errors, either administratively or at a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment. hi order to qualify for an administrative correction it must be shown that there is a "verifiable error" in the zoning map, which has been difficult to achieve given that the city adopted the Jefferson County zoning map when it was incorporated in 1969. There has not historically been a widely used or effective manner of dealing with these properties. Recommendations Consolidate Sections 26-119 and 26-203 into one section, repealing 26-203. Provide limited administrative options for property owners to use their property if it is "split zoned". ZOA-08-06/Zoning Boundaries These options include -1) using the portions of the property with their respective zoning classifications, 2) using the entire lot for the zone district that encompasses the majority of the land area, provided that it is not to a "higher intensity" zone district; or 3) request an "administrative adjustment"to the Official Zoning Map to adjust the zoning district boundary. The administrative adjustment procedure proposed is generally as follows: o The Community Development Director may approve the adjustment if it meets certain criteria; o The adjustment cannot extend the boundary by more than 50 feet; o The property cannot exceed 1 acre in size; and o The adjacent property owners are notified and given the opportunity to object - similar to the administrative variance process. BACKGROUND: The city adopted the official Jefferson County zoning map when it was incorporated in 1969. The methods for how precisely the zone district boundaries were drawn relative to streets and property boundaries at this time is not certain. How these boundaries were drawn has resulted in a substantial number of properties with zone district boundaries that are not consistent with property boundaries and existing improvements on the property. An example of two properties with this issue is provided to the right. The current code provides limited ability to rectify these situations. Essentially there are two options for dealing with these properties: 1. The Board of Adjustment may interpret and adjust the district boundaries by a decision at a public hearing "where physical or cultural features existing on the ground are at variance with those shown on the official zoning map" per Section 26-203.G. 2. Where there is a "verifiable error" in the Official Zoning Map, the Director of Community Development may make and administrative correction to the map per Section 26-119. properties with split zoning. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: There are two main issues with "split zoned" properties and the current code: 1. Each zone district contains its own unique set of development standards and allowed uses. For instance, a property with residential and commercial zoning (see above graphic example) contains two completely different sets of standards. Any type of improvements proposed on these properties presents a significant challenge for the property owner and staff to accommodate under current regulations. 2. The current regulations typically require an applicant to undertake a process with a public hearing to correct a zone district boundary issue they were not responsible for, unless a "verifiable error" can be found in how the district boundary was drawn. If this verifiable error can be found, the process may be administrative. As the district boundaries were drawn in 1969 at the time the City incorporated, finding any verifiable error has been extremely ZOA-08-06/Zoning Boundaries 2 2 recent examples of difficult. It has been staff's observation that the combined effect of a substantial number of properties with this issue and the lack of a clear process for dealing with them has contributed to many of these properties sitting in disrepair and/or being difficult to make improvements to. An exhibit is attached to this staff report for a recent land use case involving a "split zoned" lot for a specific example of a property owner dealing with this situation and attempting to make improvements to a property in relative disrepair. Please note that footnotes have been inserted into the proposed ordinance to explain specific changes proposed, deletions, and where language has been moved and consolidated. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws concerning zoning district boundary discrepancies and interpretations." Exhibits: 1. Proposed Ordinance 2. Case No. WA-08-04, Interpretation of the Official Zoning Map ZOA-08-06/Zoning Boundaries EXHIBIT 1: PROPOSED ORDINANCE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. -2008 Ordinance No. Series of 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY DISCREPANCIES AND INTERPRETATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge is authorized by the Home Rule Charter and the Colorado Constitution and statutes to enact and enforce ordinances for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Wheat Ridge finds that more flexibility is desirable with regards to zoning district boundary discrepancies and interpretations; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Wheat Ridge finds that providing flexibility, options, and a clear procedure for dealing with zoning district boundary discrepancies and interpretations creates an incentive for making improvements to property; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Wheat Ridge finds that this amended ordinance provides sufficient parameters and public involvement to deal with zoning district boundary discrepancies and interpretations; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1: Section 26-119 of the Code is repealed and reenacted to read: Section 26-119 Zoning and Mapping Cor-r-eetions A. Purpose 2 1 NOTE: The following new section is intended to consolidate the current Sections 26-119 and 26-203 that both address zoning and mapping discrepancies. Language has been carried forward as noted, but much of the language proposed is new (shaded). 2 NOTE: Proposed new purpose statement. ZOA-08-06/Zoning Boundaries 4 B. Zoning District Boundaries Uncertain 3 Where uncertainty exists as to the boundaries of zoning districts as shown on the Official Zoning Map, the following shall apply: 1. Boundaries indicated as approximately following the centerline of streets, highways, or alleys shall be construed to follow such centerlines. 2. Boundaries indicated as approximately following platted lot lines shall be construed as following such lot lines. 3. Boundaries indicated as approximately following city limits shall be construed as following city limits. 4. Boundaries indicated as approximately following railroad lines shall be construed to be midway between the main tracks. 5. Boundaries indicated as approximately following shorelines shall be construed to follow such shorelines. Boundaries indicated as approximately following the centerlines of streams, rivers, canals, lakes, or other bodies of water shall be construed to follow such centerlines. In the event of a natural change in the shoreline or centerline, the district boundary shall be construed as moving with the actual shoreline or centerline. In the event of a change directly or indirectly the result of human actions, the district boundary shall not be construed as following the new shoreline or centerline. 6. Boundaries indicated as parallel to or extensions of features indicated in subsections 1. through 5. shall be so construed. Distances not specifically indicated on the Official Zoning Map shall be determined by the legal description as contained in a rezoning ordinance or resolution adopted by the city council, or, if the zoning pre-dates the adoption of Ordinance No. 98, adopted on May 2, 1972, shall be determined by measurement of the Official Zoning Map currently in effect. 7. Where physical or cultural features existing on the ground are different than those shown on the Official Zoning Map, or in other circumstances not covered by this ,section subse4aons A. tbfeugh F. the Commnuity Development Director beat' of a nt shall interpret the district boundaries in accordance with procedures set forth in Seaton 26=119:E see= o~ -143. 8. Boundaries indicated as approximately following section lines or division lines of sections (i.e. quarter-section lines) shall be construed to follow such land lines. (Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01) 3 NOTE: Taken from Section 26-203 of the current code (all of B.) 4 NOTE: The following (all of subsection C.) is proposed new language to clarify how zoning district boundaries relate to platting where lot lines are adjusted. We anticipate that this provision will not be used often, but there may be situations where this language would be helpful. For instance, where a portion of right-of-way is vacated along a zoning district boundary we would want the zoning district boundary adjusted accordingly. ZOA-08-06/Zoning Boundaries be. construed as moving simultaneously with the property line if the Community Development Director determines that each of the following apply: a: ` The property line adjustment is minor in nature; b: The corresponding adjustment in the zoning is consistent with the goals, objectives, and intent of the Comprehensive Plan; and C". The adjustment is consistent with the general zoning pattern in the area. ;.above requisite conditions are satisfied, the mity Development Director may direct that the I Zoning Map be adjusted pursuant to Subsection E If any of these conditions are not satisfied, the district boundary may only be moved pursuant to the g process set forth in Section 26-112. Two or More Zoning Districts 5 Vining district boundary line divides a lot that has lership at the time of the passage of this Code, zoning the lot shall be governed by one of the following as elected by the Community Development Director, e.26-119.1): tshall be considered to be in the zoning: district in the majority of the land area of the lot falls, provided -slower intensity zone district is utilized in accord ancf igure 26-119.2 and the zone district to be utilized is ent with the Comprehensive` Plan at the sole ion of the Community Development Director, or untli me as a rezoning is sought pursuant to Section 26-1 Code; or E-22 Example 1: Three options are available to resolve this "split zoning" subject to Section 26- 119.1). 1) The entire lot maybe considered R-2, 2) each portion of the lot may be used as R-2 or C-1 within the respective boundaries, or 3) an administrative adjustment to the map may be requested. Example 2: Two options are available to resolve this "split zoning". C-1 is considered a "higher intensity zone district; therefore it may not be utilized for the entire lot even though it encompasses the majority of the lot. 1) Each portion of the lot may be used as R-2 or C-1 within the respective boundaries, or 2) an administrative adjustment to the map may be requested. Figure 26-119.1: Interpretation of zoning district boundaries i Development Director may make an admuwstrat j,'0e~adlustinent to the, Map in accordance with the procedures set forth t Section 26 119 under one ownership that exceed I acre in ction 2 above.6 'NOTE: The following (all of subsection D.) is proposed new language to address split zoned lots. 6 NOTE: This provision has been inserted to place a maximum size a split zoned lot can be to be eligible for the administrative process. Further discussion is needed as to the exact size. ZOA-08-06/Zoning Boundaries adjustment in accordance with this Subsection E. dministrative Adjustments r an adjustment to the Official Zoning Map r initiated by the Community Development immunity Development Director may, upend the Official Zoning Map under the a. The adjustment does not extend the zone district boundary more than 50 feet; b. The property subject to the adjustment does,not exceed 1 acre in size;8 c. The adjustment is consistent with and does not violate this Code, the City Charter, the Comprehensive Plan, or any other applicable rules and regulations of the City; and )perty owners by letter not t least ten (10) days priori id that no objections have i ten-day period. Any objet writing and be directly reL )undary adjustment. Genei xisting land use conditions t the boundary adjustment valid objections for purpoi adjustment, d above shalt thin 30 day with sub Figure 26-119.2: Zone district levels of intensity. 7NOTE: This section, as proposed, replaces Section 26-119.A.1. that sets forth administrative corrections to the zoning map. This process has been set up to be comparable to the administrative variance process in Section 26-115, where there is a 10 day public notification window for comment. The language requiring a "verifiable error" to be found has been placed into subsection E.3 below. 'NOTE: The one acre and 50 foot provisions here have been suggested by staff to establish a size threshold for these cases. Further discussion may be needed as to the exact number. v NOTE: Subsections i-ii below are generally taken from Section 26-119.A. La of the current code relating to zoning map discrepancies. ZOA-08-06/Zoning Boundaries f. 2. Appeals 3. a. Subdivisions Corrections to name of subdivisions, locations of lot lines and boundary lines, location and names of streets and alleys and railroads. b. Base map Corrections to watercourse locations or names, location or names of lakes, names or location of street or railroads. c. Zoning information Corrections to names of planned developments, case numbers, and closure of zone districts in accordance with the most recent record of zoning action where there is no zoning line separation between two (2) different zone districts. d. Verifiable Errors u Where a verifiable error is discovered in the zone classification of any particular parcel as displayed on the Official Zoning Map, or as represented in a rezoning ordinance, the Community Development Director shall notify the current property owner by certified mail of the error and shall inform the owner of the intent to correct the error based upon the record of the last rezoning action. The Director shall also notify City Council of the proposed correction by memorandum, including documentation which supports the corrective action. If within thirty (30) days of the date of notice to the property owner, he or she fails to submit a written protest to the correction, the Director may correct the error and shall publish a legal notice of the correction. However, if the owner does file a written protest, a rezoning action shall be initiated. The rezoning action shall be subject to the provisions of section 26-112 except that no fee shall be assessed. 10 NOTE: The following is taken from Section 26-119.A.2 of the current code, with the introductory statement being new (there is not one currently). "NOTE: The following language in d-e is taken from 26-119.A.1 of the current code. This language sets forth the procedures for correcting the zoning map where a "verifiable error" has been found and some other minor corrections. ZOA-08-06/Zoning Boundaries e. Miscellaneous Corrections At any time minor corrections to the Official Zoning Map which do not affect the zoning of any parcel may be made with the approval of the Community Development Director and with a note added under the "revisions" box on said map, indicating that an "administrative correction" has been made, a case file shall be created with a case number assigned for each correction, with information contained in the file which gives the location and nature of the correction. (Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01; Ord. No. 1288, 1, 2, 5-12-03) Section 2: Section 26-203 of the Code is repealed to read: Sec. 26-203. Rules for interpretation of district boundaries 12 [Repealed] Section 3: Section 26-115 of the Code is amended to read: Sec. 26-115. Variance/waivers/temporary permits/interpretations 13 1. Interpretations The board of adjustment is empowered to hold public hearings to decide upon requests for interpretation of certain of the provisions of this chapter in such a way as to carry out their intent and purpose. This authority shall extend only to the following: 1. The basic intent and purpose of words, phrases or paragraphs as applied to a specific proposal or instance. 2. Use of property as an "other similar use;" however in no instance shall the board make an interpretation that a particular use may be permitted in a zone district where that use is specifically enumerated in a higher; that is more intensive, zone district. 3. RelafiensWp of physieal improvemen4s, streets, ri&s of way, streams, property e ete., Section 4: Section 26-106 of the Code is amended to read: Sec. 26-106. Review process chart. 14 12 NOTE: As noted above, we propose consolidating this section with Section 26-119. With this, this section would be eliminated. t3 NOTE: The only change proposed in this section is shown below in Section 25-115.E.3 (shown as a strikethrough) to remain consistent with the new language proposed. 14 NOTE: The administrative adjustment procedure has been added to the review process chart below. ZOA-08-06/Zoning Boundaries TABLE INSET: Pre-Application Final Approval Requested Notes Staff Neighborhood Staff PC CC BOA URPC Site Plan 4 A A § 26-111 x Major Subdivision X H H URA § 26-404.C Minor Subdivision X H H URA § 26-404.13 (w/dedications) Minor Subdivision Appeal to (w/o dedications) X H URA CC § 26- 404.13 Minor Plat Correction, Amendment, X A § 26-409 Revision Lot Line Adjustment X A § 26-410 Consolidation Plat X H H URA 1 § 26- (w/dedication) 404.1) Consolidation Plat 4 A URA § 26-117 (w/o dedication) X Planned Development: Outline Development X X H H URA 2 ART III Plan (ODP) Planned Development: Final Development X A URA ART III Plan (FDP) Planned Development: Outline Development X X H H URA 2 ART III Plan Amendment Planned Development: Final Development X A URA ART III Plan Amendment Rezoning, Private x X H H URA 2§ 26-112 Rezoning, City X H H URA 2 § 26-113 ZOA-08-06/Zoning Boundaries Pre-Application Final Approval Requested Notes Staff Neighborhood Staff PC CC BOA URPC § 26-114 Special Use x X A H URA Appeal to CC Appeal to Variance-- A A BOA § 26- Administrative 115.C Variance--Non- H URA § 26-115.C administrative Temporary Permit H A § 26-115.1) Appeal to Interpretation A BOA § 26- 115.E Administrative Appeal to Adjustments to the, A CC § 26- Official Zoning Map. 119.E Historic Designation H URA ART IX Planned Bldg. Group 4 A H A 3§ 26-116 X Floodplain Permit-- A § 26-806 Class I Floodplain Permit-- 4 H § 26-806 Class II X Right-of-way X H H URA § 26-118 Vacation ZOA-08-06/Zoning Boundaries EXHIBIT 2: WA-08-04 STAFF REPORT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: CASE NO. & NAME: Board of Adjustment WA-08-04/Adams C.Ity Ot Wheat,R COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Case Manager: Jeff Hirt DATE OF MEETING: June 26, 2008 ACTION REQUESTED: Interpretation of the Official Zoning Map in accordance with Section 26-203 of the Code of Laws LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4390 Hoyt Court APPLICANT (S): Stuart Adams, GIA LLC OWNER (S): The Rock Trust LLC APPOXIMATE AREA: 7,266 square feet PRESENT ZONING: Residential Three (R-3) and Commercial One (C-1) PRESENT LAND USE: Vacant residential structure ENTER INTO THE RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION ZOA-08-06/Zoning Boundaries The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge, and all notification and posting requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. 1. REQUEST The applicant, Stuart Adams of GIA LLC, is making this request on behalf of The Rock Trust (owner) (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). The request is for an interpretation to the Official Zoning Map in accordance with Section 26-203 of the Code. The property in question is located at 4390 Hoyt Court and currently contains a vacant residential structure. The property has two zoning classifications - Commercial One (C-1) to the north and Residential Three (R-3) to the south (Exhibit2 Zoning Map). The Board of Adjustment is empowered to decide on requests for interpretations to the Official Zoning Map in accordance with Section 26-203 of the Code where physical or cultural features conflict with zoning district boundaries. The procedure referred to in that section is set forth in 26-115.E, "Interpretations". In this instance, there is a zoning district boundary running through the subject property, and in fact through an existing building constructed prior to the city's incorporation in 1969. The intent of the request is to gain approval from the Board to modify the zoning district boundary so that the entire property may contain C-1 zoning, whereas only the northern portion currently has this zoning classification. If approved, the Official Zoning Map will be modified to reflect this and the entire property will be subject to the regulations set forth in the C-1 district. R. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant wishes to make improvements to the structure and the property to convert the house to a professional office. Having both residential and commercial zoning has presented significant challenges to having aviable use ofthe subject property. Regulations are substantially different between the two districts - from the allowed uses to development standards such as parking and landscaping. On the R-3 portion of the subject lot, the allowed uses are primarily residential although is could be used for parking and landscaping for the commercial use. On the C-1 portion of the subject lot, the only allowed uses are nonresidential with some allowance for residential uses subordinate to the commercial use. The following summarizes this zoning district boundary issue based on the information available to staff. Existing Properly and Original Subdivision Plat In accordance with the Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) submitted by the applicant (Exhibit 3,,ILC), the subject property is 69' wide by 105.3' deep. There is a portion of land included as part of this property that was conveyed by deed that includes the southern 19 feet. There is an existing structure constructed in 1940 per the Jefferson County Assessor's Office that sits on this property. The property boundaries reflected on this ILC and on the city's Official Zoning Map have changed significantly since the original subdivision plat for this area in 1960 (Exhibit;4, ;Phillips Subdrvis oq . This can be explained by various conveyances of land by deed that have taken place over time. Based on staff and the applicant's research on ownership, platting, and land conveyances on this property, it appears that land was conveyed in 1969 and 1973 to create the current subject property :(Exhrbit S, Proper)y F~~story). There is no indication that any kind of plat was filed or any city approval given to formally establish this parcel. They are however lots of record as the land conveyance and legal descriptions were recorded with Jefferson County and they currently recognize the lot as it stands today, as does the city on its Official Zoning Map. Relationship to Official Zoning Map Staff has concluded that the most logical explanation as to why the zone district boundary does not follow any property boundary is because these lots were created in 1969 and 1973 only through Jefferson County, not the city. With this, ZOA-08-06/Zoning Boundaries there was likely not any consideration of the zone district boundary as it related to the existing structure and/or the new property boundaries. In creating the Official Zoning Map, staff uses the Jefferson County parcels electronic database to display property boundaries in relation to zone district boundaries. It is important to note that subsequent to when the city incorporated in 1969, the existing Jefferson County Official Zoning Map was adopted by the City of Wheat Ridge. As a result, the records prior to this as to why district boundaries were created as they were are not attainable. Other Options Considered for the Applicant hr order to accommodate the desired use on the property, or any single use for the entire property there are essentially four options for the applicant in the Code. Each option was discussed with the applicant and the most viable alternative is the case as it is being heard. The implications of each are discussed below: 1. Request a zone change to Planned Commercial Development Involves typically a minimum 6-9 month process with multiple public hearings and submittal of an Outline Development Plan (ODP) and a Final Development Plan (FDP) 2. Use only the C-1 portion of the lot and the structure for a commercial use, and use the R-3 portion only for parking and noncommercial/residential uses. This alternative was discussed with the applicant; however it became problematic to provide adequate parking and use of the existing structure for the business. 3. Per Section 26-119.A.1 of the Code, request an administrative correction to the zoning map where a "verifiable error" exists. Staff was unable to find a "verifiable error" as it relates to the Official Zoning Map. While clearly there should not be a zone district boundary running through a property and/or a building, there is no documentation that has been found to verify that an error was made directly related to this zone district boundary. The information related to land conveyances by deed (per Exhibit 5, Property History) were not deemed to be a "verifiable error" in this context by the Director of Community Development. 4. Per 26-203 ofthe Code, request an interpretation to the Official Zoning Map before the Board ofAdjustment to allow one zone district to exist on this property. Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding land uses consist of nonresidential and multi-family uses (Exhibit 6, Surroundr&Land Uses); • North: Auto repair (zoned C-1) • South: Parking lot (zoned R-3) • East: Car wash and multi-family (zoned C-1) • West: Office (zoned C-1) and multi-family (zoned R-3) "Split Zoning" as a Disincentive for Development/Improvements to Property Following the publication and mailings for this case, multiple calls were received regarding the property's state of disrepair over the last several years. Property owners in the area stated that the property has been vacant for much of the time, and has suffered from a lack of maintenance (Exhwl Pr erCj Images). The zone district boundaries on the subject lot can be described as "split zoning". Having "split zoning" is unfortunately not that uncommon among properties in the city. Staff occasionally has conversations with those who own or are interested in properties with "split zoning". It presents a substantial obstacle to development, redevelopment, and often renovations on these properties; thus in many cases these properties may remain vacant or in disrepair. Outcome of the Interpretation if Approved If this request is approved, the Board would essentially conclude that the Official Zoning Map should have been revised appropriately when these new property boundaries were created in 1969 and 1973. Whether or not the boundaries would ZOA-08-06/Zoning Boundaries have been revised to reflect an entirely R-3 zoned or C-1 zoned property is unclear given the timing of the land conveyance. Although the current structure is considered a single-family structure per the Jefferson County Assessors Office and the city's records, it is surrounded by nonresidential and multi-family uses. Staff has concluded that given this, extending the C-1 zoning is more viable than extending the R-3 zoning relative to the property and existing structure. Additionally, the applicant would not be able to conduct his business if the entire property were zoned R-3. Impacts of R-3 vs. C-1 Zoning Staff has concluded that extending the C-1 zone district boundary is more appropriate than extending the R-3 boundary on this property based on surrounding land uses and the viability of the two districts on this property. It is important to note again that the north portion of the property with the C-1 zoning contains most of the existing structure and may already be used within the regulations of the C-1 district. C-1 Zone District Allowances Some phone calls were received by surrounding residents and business owners, primarily for clarification as to what the case entailed, but also to discuss the implications of having the entire property zoned commercially in the future. Having the entire property zoned commercially will allow a variety of uses on the southern portion of the property in addition to the northern portion. Uses allowed in the C-1 district are set forth in Section 26-204 (table of allowed uses) of the Code for commercial and industrial districts. A variety of uses are allowed that include many types of retail and office. Auto uses for example (repair and sales) generally require a special use permit. R-3 Zone District Allowances Uses allowed in the R-3 district are set forth in Section 26-204 (table of allowed uses) of the Code for residential districts. The subject property would only be allowed to have a single family dwelling however based on its lot size. The R-3 district allows primarily residential uses with some allowance for nonresidential uses such as government buildings, day cares, and group homes. However per Section 26-211 (R-3 district standards), most nonresidential uses require 1 acre of land, and the subject parcel is well short of this. Single-family dwellings require at least 7,500 square feet of lot area, more than the current 7,265 square feet of the existing property. Any use other than a single-family dwelling requires at least 9,000 square feet of lot area. III. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis of the property, its history, and the surrounding neighborhood staff concludes that the Official Zoning Map should be modified to include Commercial One (C-1) zoning for the entirety of the subject property as shown on the Improvement Location Certificate. The Official Zoning Map should subsequently be modified to reflect the new zone district boundary. The Board of Adjustment is empowered to make this interpretation per Section 26-203 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. Approval of this request does not constitute approval of a specific land use or development plan, it only relates to the zoning district boundary on the subject property. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of Case Number WA-08-04 for the following reasons: 1. A substantial portion of the existing property, including most ofthe existing structure, is currently zoned Commercial One (C-1). 2. Based on surrounding land uses and the location of the property, staff has determined that Commercial One (C-1) zoning is appropriate for the southern portion of the subject property in addition to the northern portion. 3. Making improvements to the property has been, and will continue to be difficult if both Commercial One (C-1) and Residential Three (R-3) zoning district boundaries remain in their current state on the property. ZOA-08-06/Zoning Boundaries 4. Interpreting the zoning map to include Commercial One (C-1) zoning for the entire property will ensure a more viable use of the property in the future. 5. Interpreting the zoning map to include Commercial One (C-1) zoning for the entire property will provide an incentive to make improvements to a property that has been in disrepair for a significant period of time. ZOA-08-06/Zoning Boundaries ♦t de City of wheat Ridge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Planning Commission THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Jeff Hirt, Planner II DATE: December 12, 2008 (for December 18 meeting) SUBJECT: Case Number ZOA-08-07 Staff is recommending continuance of Case Number ZOA-08-07, and ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning amendments to development plans to the January 15, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing. The purpose of the continuance is to allow adequate time for input from the city attorney before bringing it forward in ordinance form. Staff suggests the following motion: "I move to continue Case No. ZOA-08-07, and ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning amendments to development plans to the January 15, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing". City of Wheatclge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Planning Commission THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Jeff Hirt, Planner II DATE: December 12, 2008 (for December 18 meeting) SUBJECT: Case Number ZOA-08-08 Staff is recommending continuance of Case Number ZOA-08-08, and ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning City-initiated zone changes to the January 15, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing. The purpose of the continuance is to allow adequate time for input from the city attorney before bringing it forward in ordinance form. Staff suggests the following motion: "I move to continue Case No. ZOA-08-08, and ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning City-initiated zone changes to the January 15, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing". City of Wheatl Ac COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Planning Commission THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Jeff Hirt, Planner II DATE: December 12, 2008 (for December 18 meeting) SUBJECT: Short Term Zoning Code Amendments Several of the short term zoning code amendments are in ordinance form and ready for public hearing. Two of these are on the agenda for the December 18 Planning Commission public hearing. Policy recommendations on several of these amendments are requested by staff from Planning Commission prior to bringing them forward in ordinance form. The Community Development Department scheduled a study session before City Council on December 1, 2008 to obtain policy feedback on several of the short tern code amendments proposed before proceeding to a public hearing before Planning Commission. From that meeting, the consensus from City Council was for staff to obtain recommendations from Planning Commission on these items, followed by an additional study session before City Council presenting these recommendations. For this meeting, the following two have been brought to Planning Commission in ordinance form: 1. Case No. ZOA-08-06: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws concerning zoning district boundary discrepancies and interpretations. 2. Case No. ZOA-08-09: An ordinance amending Article VIII of Chapter 26 concerning floodplain administrator decision-making authority & floodplain development standards. POLICY DIRECTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting policy direction from Planning Commission on the following 6 items. The items are set forth below, with a general discussion of the proposed amendment and the policy direction requested. For each item, please note the "Policy Direction Requested" heading. Additionally, proposed drafts are provided for three of the proposed amendments as an addendum to this memo for Planning Commission's consideration, and containing staff's specific recommendations. 1. Extended Stay Lodging (draft ordinance attached) 2. Planned Development Amendments (draft ordinance attached) 3. City-Initiated Rezonings (draft ordinance attached) 4. Accessory Buildings on Commercial Property 5. Residential Density 6. Residential Zone District Development Standards Short Term Code Amendments 12118108 NEXT STEPS Once planning staff receives direction to move forward with these amendments, Planning Commission public hearings will be scheduled as soon as possible. Several are in draft ordinance form so it is staff's expectation that they will be ready for the next available hearings. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1. Extended Stay Lodging (Draft ordinance attached) Issue Summary: • Current zoning code does not account for extended stay lodging - only "transient" hotel/motel rooms. • Based on discussions with the Police Department and Chief Building Official, 3 of the city's 9 hotels/motels are utilizing extended stay lodging in some of their rooms. • It is estimated that anywhere from 10-20% of overall rooms in these facilities are for extended stay lodging. • The new regulation proposed will make these rooms nonconforming relative to zoning requirements - meaning they will not be considered a hotel/motel room for "transient" occupancy any longer. Staff Recommendations: • Define extended stay lodging as a separate land use fi-om hotels/motels. Extended stay lodging units will be for occupancy in excess of 30 days, and must contain a bathroom, cooking facilities, 24 hour desk service, and housekeeping services. Building codes also mandate cooking facilities for units where lodging is in excess of 30 days. • Existing rooms being rented for extended stay lodging will be in violation of these regulations. • It is staff and the city attorney's opinion that if rooms have been rented for extended stay prior to the adoption of these regulations; they would not be "grandfathered" in. The facilities were approved as hotels/motels for "transient" occupancy, and having tenants in rooms for over 30 days is not considered transient. • Staff feels that this regulation will not discourage use of rooms and businesses specifically designed for extended stay (e.g., Residence Inn by Marriot), but there will be oversight to ensure they have adequate facilities in place. Policy Direction Requested: • Is Planning Commission in support of how to handle existing extended stay rooms that will become in violation of the new code per the above staff recommendations? This is clearly a source of revenue for these hotels/motels, but the rooms have proven to create issues with crime and property maintenance. • Additionally, the rooms are likely in violation of building codes for extended stay occupancy. • Does Planning Commission wish for staff to conduct outreach to the hotel/motel community on these proposed changes? 2 Short Term Code Anvendments 12118108 2. Planned Development Amendments (Draft ordinance attached) Issue Summary: • There are two types of amendments to approved planned developments - outline (ODP) and final development plan (FDP) amendments. Criteria and thresholds for each are established. • Variances (administrative or board of adjustment) to standards within a planned development are also allowed for single-family and duplex lots. • ODP amendments require approval from all original property owners, or by alternative arrangement from city council (Sec. 26-311.A). For large multiple property ODPs it could be extremely difficult to approve minor ODP amendments in the future. • FDP amendments require approval from all property owners in the parcel or phase of the planned development where the amendment is being requested (Sec. 26-31 LA). Staff Recommendations: • Allow any property owner within a planned development to apply for an ODP or FDP amendment. • Require approval in writing only from the property owner where the amendment is proposed for both FDP and ODP amendments. • Insert language requiring approval in writing from other property owners in the planned development where they are affected as part of an ODP amendment. There is some existing language addressing drainage, access, utilities, and circulation. We may want to add language stating that any amendment that generally affects the whole planned development - not just a specific property - requires consent from those affected property owners as well. Policy Direction Requested: • Does Planning Commission feel that other property owners (other than the subject property) should have to provide approval in writing for proposed ODP amendments? • If so, how many? All? 50%? 3. City-Initiated Rezonings (Draft ordinance attached) Issue Summary: • The current code has two types of rezonings, private (Sec. 26-112), and city-initiated (Sec. 26-113). • The city-initiated rezoning procedure may only be for large areas - defined as at least 5 separate properties or 5 acres. • The city-initiated rezoning procedure may only be to a less intensive zone district (e.g., C-1 to R-2, not R-2 to C-1). • Many cities are using city-initiated zone changes as a proactive way to implement subarea plans and encourage private sector redevelopment. Short Teem Code Amendments 12118108 Staff Recommendations: • Allow for city-initiated rezonings to any zone district -in line with surrounding jurisdictions. • Possibly eliminate minimum size threshold for city-initiated zone changes when the city owns the property. Policy Direction Requested: • Is Planning Commission in favor of eliminating minimum size thresholds for city- initiated zone changes on city-owned property? • Is Planning Commission in favor of allowing city-initiated "up-zonings"? 4. Accessory Buildings on Commercial Property (Language has not been drafted) Issue Summary: • Accessory buildings are any building subordinate to the principal building on a lot. Examples include sheds and detached garages. • Accessory buildings are not allowed outright on any non-residentially zoned property in the city. In order to have them allowed one must either obtain a temporary use permit or a planned building group application (which requires a minimum 1,000 square foot size for the structure). • This has presented challenges for commercial property owners and tenants in need of additional space. For many it is not feasible to add on to their buildings or accommodate the necessary space on their property without an accessory building. Staff Recommendations: • Provide more flexibility for accessory buildings on commercial property. • This may come in the form of limited allowance for accessory buildings (size, number) and restrictions on the materials of the structure (no metal, compliance with the Architectural and Site Design Manual). Policy Direction Requested: • Is Planning Commission in favor of staff moving forward with proposing some limited allowances for accessory buildings on commercial property? • If so, are there any recommendations for these allowances? 5. Residential Densitv (Language has not been drafted) Issue Summary: • One of the short term zoning code amendments proposed was an evaluation and increase in residential density in planned developments, and possibly in some base zone districts. • Staff held off on moving forward with these amendments pending the results of the November ballot questions regarding height and density. • Since the charter amendment did not pass, increased density allowances are limited - but there is still some ability for increased density within the existing charter Short Tern? Code Amendments 2118108 regulations. The current zoning code regulations allow a maximum of 16 units per acre in the Planned Mixed Use (PMUD) and Planned Residential (PRD) districts, less than the 21 units per acre in the city charter. Staff Recommendations: • Increase density allowance in Planned Mixed Use (PMUD) and Planned Residential (PRD) developments to 21 dwelling units/acre from 16 dwelling units/acre, matching the city charter. Policy Direction Requested: Is Planning Commission in support of moving forward with increased density allowances as mentioned above or would the preference be to wait for additional discussion and education on density to occur through the Comprehensive Plan process? 6. Residential Zone District Development Standards (Language has not been drafted) Issue Summary: • One of the short tern amendments proposed is the reduction in front yard setbacks in some residential zone districts. The current setback requirements do not allow for the pedestrian-friendly neighborhood context the city is trying to achieve in some of its more urban neighborhoods. • Mid and long term amendments also include an evaluation of all yard and bulk requirements (setbacks, height). • Development standards such as building heights and setbacks should work together to achieve a logical set of regulations for different zone districts. • While it will take longer to implement, taking a comprehensive approach to revising these development standards may be the most desirable course of action to achieving this logical set of standards. Staff Recommendations: • Take a comprehensive approach to revising development standards in residential zone districts. • This includes evaluating all setbacks and building height restrictions for all types of structures in all residential zone districts (e.g., principle structures and accessory structures). _ • This will take longer than the anticipated short tenn amendment focusing on front setbacks, but staff feels these standards should be evaluated and revised comprehensively. Policy Direction Requested: • Is Planning Commission in favor of taking the comprehensive approach discussed above to residential development standards? • Or would you like to move forward with the residential front setbacks to expedite the process, and focus on other standards as part of the mid and long tern amendments? Short Term Code Amendments 12118108 1. EXTENDED STAY LODGING Sec. 26-123. Definitions. Hotel/motel. A building or.groiu" f buildings containing si (16) six (6}~ or more transient guest rooms in which lodging for compensation is provided, with or without meals. Eo, r NOTE: Six transient guest rooms, as opposed to the current 16 appears to be a more common definition locally and nationally for hotels and motels NOTE: This provision regarding cooking has been added to differentiate the units from those of extended stay occupancy. s NOTE: The following is suggested new language to further clarify what is required for extended stay lodging facilities. We have suggested adding it to the "supplementary regulations" section of Chapter 26. 6 Short Term Code Amendments 12118108 Sec. 26-204. Zone district use schedule. Table of Uses--Commercial and Industrial Districts TABLE INSET: Uses Notes NC RC C-1 C-2 1 Extended Stay I origin See § 26=635 S S S Hotels or motels for There shall be 1,000 square feet of gross lot S S S transient occupancy. area for each unit See. 26-501. Off-street parking requirements. F. Schedule of required off-street parking: TABLE INSET: Use Standard Requirement Hotels and motels 1 space per guest room plus parking for associated uses such as including cXtended stay restaurant or lounge, based on their requirements, plus I space per lodging employee on maximum shift Short Term Code Amendments 12118108 2. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS See. 26-311. Amendments to development plans. A. The procedures and requirements for amending an approved development plan (outline or final) shall be the same as prescribed for original approval, except as provided for under subsection (C) below. All applieatiens fe n ffi °nt to outline development plan st b e f feel property contained within the a nall.... ,0.7 B. Outline development plan amendments. Amendments to the underlying outline development plan are required and will be processed the same as prescribed for original approval if any one (1) of the following is proposed: 1. Increase in the gross floor area of structures beyond the authorized maximum allowed on the approved outline development plan. 2. Proposed land uses are not permitted on the approved outline development plan. 3. Increase in density or intensity of use. 4. Decrease in perimeter setbacks. 5. Reduction in required buffer areas. 6. Increase in height of any structures. C. Final development plan changes. A final development plan may vary from the approved outline development plan so long as the thresholds for an outline development plan amendment are not met as set forth in subsection B above. Variations include, but are not limited to, re- orienting buildings and parking lots, changes in landscaping areas, changes in architectural details, changes to interior setbacks and similar changes that do not affect neighboring properties or the overall character of the development. At no time can approval of a final development plan result in any increase beyond a maximum development standard or any decrease below a minimum development standard listed on the outline development plan. If any of these conditions occurs, the outline development plan must be amended as described in subsection B. "NOTE: This requirement creates a significant obstacle to amending an outline development plan where ownership has changed hands through time and/or there is fragmented ownership within the planned development - as is often the case. It basically states that where it is not possible to have approval from all original property owners within a PD, city council must approve an alternative arrangement. We suggest eliminating this statement. We have also posed the question regarding outline development plans and consent - we have suggested removing required consent from all property owners, but direction is needed as to whether or not this is acceptable. If some consent is needed, should it be all property owners in the planned development? 50%9 5 NOTE: With the statement "must be approved in writing by all owners of real property contained within the parcel or phase..." this requirement creates a significant obstacle to amending a final development plan where ownership has changed through time and/or there is fragmented ownership within the planned development - as is often the case. We suggest eliminating this statement. e NOTE: We suggest keeping this statement in to cover any relevant easements or agreements (access, utilities, drainage, etc) that may affect adjacent property. We may also want to add language addressing other situations that may affect other properties. 8 Short Term Code Amendments 12118108 Once a final development plan is recorded, any amendment requested that complies with the limitations of this subsection B shall be processed in the manner prescribed for original approval. D. Any changes or revisions to an outline or final development plan which are approved, either administratively or by city council action, must be recorded with the Jefferson County Recorder as amendments to the original recorded development plan subject to the deadline provisions of subsection 26-308.D.4.d. E. Variances. Variances to the strict application of development standards established by an outline development plan may be requested only for properties within single- and two-family planned residential developments, following the applicable administrative or non-administrative variance process as prescribed in section 26-115. (Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01; Ord. No. 1319, § 1, 4-12-04; Ord. No. 1383, § 6, 5-14-07) 9 Short Term Code Amendments 12/18108 3. CITY-INITIATED REZONINGS See. 26-113. City-initiated rezoning.7 A. Applicability. This rezoning procedure applies to city-wide and large-area, multiple- property rezoning initiated by the city council. To be eligible for this procedure, large-area, multiple-property rezoning must include at least five (5) separate ownership parcels or at least five (5) acres in total combined area.8 Large multiple r pe ft e r°z^^i^^ is petzfnitted under this seetien enly in efder te fezetie propet4y te a less intensive (lower) zene efftegefy; fb example, from Commereial Otie (G 4) te Restrieted Gemmereial (RC), Of from Residential Thr ee (R 3) to Residential One (R 1). Rezening te any agrieultural zene distfiet from an), other n digt_4. et S1'°11 net be r sidered n rezoning to a loss inteftsiye Zene e ategerv B. Procedure and notice: 1. General. The city council may, at a regular or special meeting, initiate this rezoning procedure by adoption of a resolution setting forth the general area of the proposed rezoning, stating the intended purpose and objectives to be achieved by the rezoning, and referring the matter to the planning commission for a public hearing and recommendation. a. Prior to any public hearing before the planning commission, the city shall be required to hold a neighborhood meeting according to the requirements of section 26-109A. (See section 26- 109A. for requirements). b. City-wide rezoning: Where a city-wide or comprehensive rezoning has been initiated by the council, notice shall include publication of a public hearing notice in a newspaper of general circulation at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the public hearing, which notice shall include a description of the proposed rezoning and a snap which illustrates the geographic extent of the proposed rezoning. c. Large-area, multiple property rezoning: A large area, multiple property rezoning shall, in addition to the newspaper notice required by subsection a. of this paragraph, be noticed by certified mail notice sent to all owners of record of real property included within the area to be rezoned at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of public hearing. 2. Planning commission action. The planning commission shall hear and consider any evidence or statement presented by city staff or by any person in attendance at the hearing. The planning commission shall make a recommendation to city council to approve, approve with modifications or deny the rezoning proposal. The commission's recommendation shall be based upon the facts presented in the public hearing in consideration of the criteria for review specified in section 26-112(d). 3. City council action. Upon receipt of the planning commission's recommendation, the city NOTE: The current code does not allow for the city to initiate a rezoning to any nonresidential district (in most cases) as a strategy to encourage redevelopment. Based on some anecdotal research done by staff on adjacent jurisdictions, Wheat Ridge is the only city with such restrictions. In fact, each of the three cities looked at (Arvada, Golden, and Lakewood) allow for city-initiated zone changes to any zone district on an individual property basis. We have suggested removing the restriction that the city cannot initiate a zone change to a more intensive district simply by eliminating the last two sentences from this paragraph. s QUESTION: Is this too large? Should we suggest a lower threshold for allowing city-initiated rezonings on city- owned property? 10 Short Term Code Amendments 12118108 council shall hold a public hearing on the proposal. The hearing conducted on second reading of the proposed rezoning ordinance shall satisfy this requirement. Notice of the hearing shall be the same as for the planning commission hearing; however, publication of the ordinance on first reading, together with the required map, shall meet the newspaper publication requirement. The city council, in addition to consideration of the planning commission record, shall hear additional evidence and testimony presented and either approve, approve with modifications, or reject the ordinance. The city council shall base its decision upon all evidence presented, with due consideration of the criteria for review set forth under section 26-112D. In the event of a protest against such change of zone, signed by the owners of twenty (20) percent or more of the area: 1. Of the property included within the proposed change; or 2. Of those immediately adjacent to the rear or any side of the property, extending one hundred (100) feet from the property; or 3. Of those directly opposite across the street from the property, extending one hundred (100) feet from the street frontage of such opposite property, such change shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of three-fourths (3/4) of the entire city council. Where land within the area proposed for change, or adjacent or opposite land, as defined above, is owned by the City of Wheat Ridge, such property shall be excluded in computing the required twenty (20) percent, and owners of non-city land within the one-hundred-foot limit, as defined above, shall be considered adjacent or opposite despite such intervening city land. The written protest to such change shall be submitted to the city council no later than the hearing on the proposed rezoning. (Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01; Ord. No. 1316, § 2, 1-12-04) II eels City of Wheatj~idge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: PLANNING COMMISSION THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Kathy Field, Administrative Assistant DATE: December 11, 2008 SUBJECT: Joint Study Session with City Council You are invited to a joint study session with City Council on Monday, January 5, 2009, at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers for a discussion with and presentation by the consultants, Clarion Associates, on the Comprehensive Plan Update. Also, the first community meeting for the Comprehensive Plan Update is scheduled for Tuesday, January 13, 2009, from 6:30 - 8:00 p.m. at the Wheat Ridge Rec Center.