Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/02/2006AGENDA CITY OF WIlEAT ffiDGE PLAIVNING COMiVIISSION March 2 2006 Notice is hereby given of a Pubiic Meeting to be heid before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on March 2, 2006, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 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 MINIJTES - February 16, 2006 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. WORK SESSION A. Case No. WZ-05-13: An application filed by Jefferson County Housing Authority for approval of a rezoning from Residential-Two (R-2) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) and approval of an outline development plan for properties located at 7671 West 32°d Avenue and 3299 Wadsworth Blvd. 8. OLY3 BUSYNESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. COMMISSION REPORTS 11. COMNIITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS 12. ADJOiJI2NMENT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting February 16, 2006 1. 2. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order by Chair McMillin at 7:07 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue; Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL Commission Members Present: Commission Members Absent: Staff Members Present: 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Anne Brinkman Jim Chilvers John McMillin Phil Phirxuner Jerry Scezney Kim Stewart Scott Wesley Cassie Spaniel Alan White, Community Development Director Tim Pazanto, Public Works Director Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Following is the official set of Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing of Februazy 16, 2006. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the CommuniTy Development Deparhnent of the City of Wheat Ridge. 4. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner WESLEY and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to approve the order of the agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 2, 2006 It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by Commissioner PLUMMER to approve the minutes of February 2, 2006 as presented. The motion passed 5-0 with Commissioners WESLEY and CHILVERS abstaining and Commissioner SPANIEL absent. 6. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one to address the Commission at this tune. Planning Commission Februazy 16, 2006 7. WORK SESSION ON THREE-MILE PLAN State statutes require cities to adopt a Three-Mile Plan annually. This plan is required pribr to a city annexing any area. Board members of homeowners associations in the affected county areas were invited to join the Planning Commission in this work session in order to hear their concerns prior to conducting public hearings to adopt the plan. Alan White reviewed the planning/growth area map, the future land use maps, the roadway classification map, and the open space and trails map for the azea from 32°d Avenue to 44ffi Avenue between McIntyre and Youngfield. Rhonda Tietelbaum, Applewood Property Owners Association representative to the Cleaz Creek Neighborhood Council, voiced opposition to annexation of the area mazked in yellow on the future land use map north of 32"d Avenue. She was appreciative of open space components of 1he plan and would like to be able to provide input on the open space areas in the future. She requested an update on fire, police, water, and sewer services for the subject area. She gave Alan White a copy of a letter the Council sent to CDOT regarding trails and asked that alignment of trails be included in the plan in accordance with CDOT proceedings. She would also like to see the community commercial area along the northern edge of the south creek bank be changed to open space so it won't unpact the trail. Flora Andrus, representing Fairmount District, requested that 58~' Avenue, rather than 32ad Avenue, be the front door to development in the azea. She also expressed concern about a connection from 44t' Avenue that would impact the residential area there. She also expressed a desire for continued cooperation with the City of Wheat Ridge. Edna Miklos expressed concern about the collector street from Cabela's down to 32"d Avenue. She would like to see it made smaller so it doesn't dump so much iraffic onto 32°d Avenue. Jean Osborne, representing the Cleaz Creek Neighborhood Council, expressed concern about the Cabela Drive connection to 32"d Avenue which would put all the traffic onto 32°d Avenue and Youngfield until such tnne as the I-70, Highway 58 interchanges are completed. These interchanges could take years and she asked that the city take mitigation measures to control the amount of traffic flowing onto Youngfield and 32"d Avenue in the meantime. Tim Paranto reviewed the present traffic plan for this area. Chair McMILLIN expressed appreciation to the citizens for expressing their views. The Commission requested that another work session be scheduled with staff prepazing recommendations for changes or additions based upon the comments received tonight. The work session should be scheduled on a night with no other items. 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before the Commission. l. Planning Commission Page 2 Februazy 16, 2006 9. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. 10. COMMISSION REPORTS There were no commission reports. 11. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS There were no committee and department reports. 12. AD30URNMENT It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner CHILVERS to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. John McMillin, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Februazy 16, 2006 3 A~oF W"E^'q,o CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE ~ m PLANNIlVG DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE MANAGER: Travis Crane CASE NO. & NAME: WZ-05-13/JCHA DATE OF MEETING: March 2, 2006 ACTION REQiTESTED: A request for a rezoning from Residential Two to PYanned Residential Development including an Outline Development Plan. LOCATION OF REQiJEST: 7671 W. 32n8 Avenue & 3299 Wadsworth Boulevard APPLICANT (S): Jefferson County Aousing Authority OWNER (S): Same APPROXIMATE AI2EA: 151,256 sq. ft. (3.4 ac.) PRESENT ZONING: Residential Two (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Planned Residential not to exceed 12 units per acre (PRD 12) and Single Family not to exceed 6 units per acre (SF6) All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. Planning Commission 1 WZ-05-13/JCHA ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) COMPREI3ENSIVE PLAN (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) DIGTTAL PRE5ENTATION ( ) SUBDIVISION REGiJLATIONS L REQiTEST The applicant is requesting a rezoning from Residential Two to Planned Residential Development. An associated Outline Development Plan is included with the request. An Outluie Development Plan will rezone the property and set development standards. The applicant wishes to construct for-sale housing for moderate income families. The property is 151,256 square feet in size. Comprehensive Plan Because the request is for a rezoning, the Comprehensive Plan must be used as guidance. The Comprehensive Plan contains desired character and attributes for future land use classifications. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map gives two designations for this property: The property adjacent to W. 32"a Avenue (7671 W. 32"a Avenue) is designated Planned Residential Development, not to exceed 12 units per acre (PRD 12). The larger property adj acent to Wadsworth Boulevard (3299 Wadsworth Boulevard) is designated Single Family, not to exceed 6 units per acre (SF 6). The Comprehensive Plan states that the desired character of PRD 12 areas as: "A mix of well-maintained residential including single family, duplexes or multi family units, located near shopping, recreational and transit opportunities for those who wish to decrease their dependency on the car and provide a transition between residential neighborhoods and higher uses. " The Comprehensive Plan lists the desired attributes of the PRD 12 areas as: . Well maintained dwellings/properties. . Well landscaped properties with landscaping along all perimeter lot lines. . Parking should be subordinate to the use. s Multi-family comnlexes will be required to have off-street parking in garages or in landscaped parking. Parking will be allowed along the front lot line behind an adequate landscaped buffer strip in order to allow usable amenities elsewhere on the property. . Waste disposal areas, maintenance equipment and storage sheds shall be screened and located so as not to be visible from any public way. . Common azeas with adequate amenities will be required for multi-family complexes. . Adequate transition between uses will be required. An adequate transition between uses will require sufficient spacing between units and screening with plant materials and/or plant materials and fencing (fencing alone is not sufficient). • Compatibility with adj acent use - multi-family residential (structures with three or more attached units) developments will be required to go through a planned residential developmerit process to ensure high quality design and amenities. . Open space and parks nearby. . Owner occupancy of individual units is encouraged. . 8- 12 units per acre. Planning Commission WZ-05-13/JCHA The Comprehensive Plan states the desired character of SF(6) areas as: "Stable, well established neighborhoods made up primarily ofsingle family detached houses and some existing duplexes that can be easily preserved and whose character ' can be reinforced through the future land use plan. " The Comprehensive Plan lists the desired attributes of the SF (6) areas as: • Well maintained dwellings. • Well landscaped lots. • Variety ofhousing styles. . The scale and siting of the residential unit should be appropriate to the lot size and configuration. • Off-street parking in private driveway or garage. • Garages should be visually subordinate to the primary structure. • At least 50% of the land between the primary structure and the street shall be landscaped. • No externalities that adversely impact residents such as non-residential use that creates traffic voluxnes in excess of commonly generated traffic volumes in such neighborhoods. • Open space and parks. • 1- 6 dwelling units per acre. • Curbs, gutters and sidewalks only if the majority of owners on a particular street want them. Existing Neighborhood Conditions The neighborhood currently contains a mix of residential densities. Directly to the south and east of the subject properties (7669 W. 32"d Ave.) is an existing aparhnent building containing 33 units on 1.82 acres. Given the property size and number of dwelling units, this property has 18 dwelling units per acre. This apartment building is owned by the 7efferson County Housing Authority. Directly north of the subj ect properties is another apartment compiex at 3445 3Jadsworth Boulevard. This complex contains 40 dwelling units on 1.74 acres, for a density of 22.9 dwelling units per acre. Directly to the west aze the Hillside Apartments at 7740 W. 35`h Avenue. There are 41 units on 1.75 acres, giving a density of 23.42 dwelling units per acre. Just west of the Hillside Apartments is yet another aparhnent complex at 7800 W. 35th Avenue. There aze 24 units on 0.85 acres, for a total density of 28.2 dwelling units per acre. Directly west of the subject properties is a well-established neighborhood which contains single- and two-family dwelling units. The neighborhood extends from W. 32"a Avenue to W. 34th Drive, between Yarrow Street and Zephyr Court. These properties have historically been zoned R-2. There is one Planned Residential Development located between W. 32"d Avenue and West 33`a Avenue, just west of Yarrow Street. This development was rezoned to PRD in 1978 and contains 16 dwelling units on 2.6 acres, giving a density of approximately 6 units per acre. H. OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Outline Development Plan (ODP) will set all allowed uses and development standards for the property (Exhibit 1, ODP). The ODP also contains a general concept plan which labels areas of landscaping, parking, building footprints, and access points. The ODP describes a phasing plan which will stagger the development of the main buildings. Phase I will include the Planning Commission WZ-05-135CHA construction of the internal access drive. Eachphase thereafter will include one residential building, developing the site from south to north, as units are sold. There is no riming established for the phasing. Allowed Uses The subject property is currently zoned Residential Two (R-2). The R-2 zone district allows single- or two-family dwelling units (depending on lot size), foster care homes, governmental and quasi-governmental buildings, fire stations, and public utility buildings, pazking of automobiles for adjacent commercial or non-residential uses, parks and residential group homes. The applicant wishes to allow multiple family dwelling units, open space, accessory structures (such as garages, caxports and sheds), and home occupations as defined by Chapter 26. The ODP establishes a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre. This density would allow a maximum of 55 dwelling units on these properties. The applicant has indicated that 42 units would be constructed with this development. A note has been added to the ODP which indicates the development will comply with the minimum required handicapped accessible or adaptable units, as defined by State statute.. Site Layout Page 2 of the ODP details the site layout, which consists of 8 residential buildings, 9 groupings of detached garages, parking areas and landscape azeas. The 8 residential buildings aze arranged around the access drive, which essentially circulates around the perimeter of the site. The architect has designed the layout to ensure that emergency vehicles can maneuver throughout the site. However, in Staff's opinion, the layout is somewhat problematic as it creates a segmented feel to the site. The design of the site is a product of the access drive and location of the detention azeas. Because these two items are static and basically cannot change, the buildings are situated around the serpentine access drive. The subject properties do not haue a traditional rectangular shape, which makes design more difficult. Adding to the difficulty is the constrained budget the applicant has to wark within order to provide affordable housing. The applicant has indicated that the units will sell for between $180,000 and $200,000 each. Landscaping The ODP sets standards for minimum landscaping. The ODP specifies that a minimum of 30 percent of the site must be landscaped. Based upon a site of 151,256 square feet, 45,376.8 square feet of landscaping must be installed on the properties. Page 2 of the ODP details 62,672 square feet of landscaping. A ten foot buffer is being proposed along the western property line. This ten foot buffer will contain an eight foot tall fence and one tree every 30 feet. All other landscape requirements shall refer to Section 26-502 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. Specific quantities and materials will be detailed on the Final Development Plan. As a comparison, the Code of Laws specifies that a multifamily property should have a minimum of 30 percent landscaping, with no more than 60 percent of the landscaped area to be comprised oftur£ Planning Commission ~ . . WZ-05-13/JCHA There are two areas labeled as `open space' on page 2 of the ODP. These areas are intended to be used as detention areas and possibly playground facilities for the residents. All of the common j areas will be maintained by a homeowner's association, which will be established prior to recordation of the Final Development Plan and piat. Building Coverage A maacimum building coverage of 40 percent is proposed on the ODP. Based upon this maximuxn lot coverage, a total of 60,502 square feet building area may be constructed. The site plan on page 2 details a total of 33,832 square feet of building area. Building Height/Setbacks The maacimum building height for residential structures is being established at 35 feet. The maximum height for the detached garages is being established at 12 feet. Each of these standards is consistent with the development standards in the residential zone districts. The ODP establishes minimum setbacks for the residential structures and the accessory shuctures. The setback standards for the residential zone districts have been used as a guide, but the required setbacks have been modified on the ODP to meet the design of the site. Typically, siructures in any residential zone district must be setback from the street right-of-way a minimum distance of 30 feet. The minimum setbacks established on the ODP are as follows: • 30 foot minimum setback when adjacent to street right-of-way . 25 foot setback from the western property line for residential structures • 10 foot setback from the westem property line for accessory structures (garages) . 5 foot setback for residential structures & accessory structures in all other situations Architecture The ODP includes a detailed description of the allowed architectural treatments. The ODP discusses roof forms, minimum fagade treahnents and ar[iculation, materials allowed, entryways and garages. The ODP requires an articulated roof form consisting of gables, hips, gabled ends, with a minimuxn 4/12 pitch and 12" overhang. At least 25% of the building facades must be masonry, wrapped at least 6 feet around the corner to the side facades. The remainder of the facades must be constructed of cementitious siding (not vinyl siding), with articulated entryways and recessed porches, with a minimum of two openings per faqade (per unit). Additionally, the garages must be attached in groupings of at least 3 garages, and not to exceed 6 garages. The minimum size of these garages groupings must be 750 square feet, not to exceed 1,500 square feet. Parking/Traffic The ODP specifies that parking shall be in conformance with Section 26-501 of fhe Code of Laws. The Code states that pazking stalls shall be supplied based upon the number of bedrooms in each dwelling unit. The Final Development Plan will detail the amount of parking required and supplied. A traffic study was submitted and reviewed with this Outline Development Plan. The study indicated an increase of 246 total hips per day as a result of this development, with 19 during the a.m. peak hour and 22 during the p.m. peak hour. Planning Commission WZ-05-13/JCHA Access/Circulation The property will utilize an existing access point on the neighboring property located at 7669 West 32"a Avenue. This neighboring property is also owned by the applicant. There is an existing access point located on the neighboring property which provides emergency access to Wadsworth. This access point will continue to be used for emergency puxposes only. Cross access easements will be established on the future plat, which will be submitted and reviewed at the time of the Final Development Plan. A private access drive will serve the units, circulating around the site and connecting to the neighboring access drive. Utilizing the existing access points is beneficial, as no new curb cuts are being introduced to Wadsworth or W. 32"d Avenue. Lighting The ODP refers to Section 26-503 of the Code of Laws for lighting regulations. Any lighting must conforxn to this section of the Code. The Code allows freestanding lights, not to exceed 18 feet in height. All lighting must be contained onsite. Signage All signage shall conforxn to Article VII, Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws. The Code states that freestanding signs are allowed for multi-family uses. For these properties, a 32 squaze foot sign would be allowed with a maximum height of 12 feet, located at least 10 feet from any property line. Any, signage must be shown on the Final Development Plan and must conform to the Code requirements. Fencing The ODP refers to Section 26-603 of the Code of Laws for perimeter fence regulations. An eight foot fence is being proposed for the westem property line. Staff suggests that some additional language be added to the ODP which acknowledges this 8 foot fence, vvhich is two feet taller than the Code allows. Staff suggested that an 8 foot fence be used on the westem property line in response to comments received at the neighborhood meetings. IIL CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a change in zone: 1. That the existing zone classification currently recorded on the official zoning maps of the City of Wheat Ridge is an error. The existing zone classification on the official zoning map is not in error. The properties cunently have Residential Two zoning. 2. That a change in character in the area has occurred due to installation of public facilities, other zone changes, new growth trends, deterioration, or development transitions, and that the evidence supports the finding of the following. There has been no recent change in chazacter to the area. There is an existing multi- family complex directly south and east of the subject parcels (7669 W. 32"d Ave.) which contains 33 units on 1.82 acres, for a total density of 18 units per acre. A PRD Planning Commission WZ-05-13/JCHA development exists to the west of Yarrow Street, between W. 32d Avenue and W. 33Ta Ave. This property was rezoned to PRD in 1978, contains 161ots on 2.6 acres, for a total ` density of just over 6 units per acre. The properties directly to the west are ali single- or two-family dwellings, and have historically been zoned R-2. 3. That the change of zone is in conformance, or will bring the property into conformance, with the City of Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies, and other related policies or plans for the area. The Future Land Use map in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Planned Residential Development, not to exceed 12 units per acre and Single Family, not to exceed 6 units per acre. The proposed density will exceed the masimuxn density established by the future land use designation. The Future Land Use Map is one component of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan also contains goals and policies that need to be considered in finding consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning meets the following desired attributes of the Planned Residential Development classification: landscaping around the perimeter of the property, off-street parking located in garages which is subordinate to the main use, two major common azeas to serve the residents, the development will provide a transition from Wadsworth and the units will be owner-occupied. The rezoning meets the following attributes of the Single Family (6) classification: off- street parking in garages, garages aze visually subordinate, location of open space and the installation of curb and gutter. 4. That the proposed change of zone is compatible with the surrounding area and there will be minimal adverse impacts considering tue ueneri4s to be der',v2u. The request is for a rezoning to PRD. A maj ority of the properties in the surrounding azea have some sort of residential zoning desigiation. The property directly to the south and east of the subject properties is zoned Residential-Three, and contains an apartment building with 33 units. A number of properties directly to the north (across Rocky Mountain Ditch) are also zoned Residential-Three. Another property to the west is zoned Planned Residential Development. The residences on Yarrow Street, Yarrow Court and Zephyr Court are all single family or two-family detached dwelling units. The proposed rezoning will be in character with a portion of the surrounding neighborhood. 5. That there will be social, recreational, physical and/or economic benefits to the community derived by the change of zone. This proposed zone change should create a benefit to the community. The applicant is proposing moderate income for-sale housing units, which should benefit the community. This development will provide housing stock for qualified first time home buyers. The City suffers from a high residential rental rate. Owner occupied units should foster a strong sense of community and pride in the neighborhood. Planning Commission WZ-05-13/JCHA 6. That adequate infrastructure/facilities are available to serve the type of uses allowed by the change of zone, or that the applicant will upgrade and provide such where they do not exist or are under capacity. All responding agencies aze able to serve the property, and the developer will incur the cost and maintenance of any improvements. 7. That the change of zone will not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare by creating excessive traffic congestion, creating drainage problems, or seriously reducing light and air to adjacent properties. The change in zone will not affect public health, safety or welfare in the area. Traffic will increase from existing conditions, but the increase will not substantially affect the levels of service on West 32a Avenue or Wadsworth Boulevud. The amount of traffic generated by the intended use will not overburden the roadway system, as indicated in the submitted traffic study. This proposed development should not reduce air or light to adj acent properties. 8. That the change of zone will not create an isolated or spot zone district unrelated to adjacent or nearby areas. This change of zone will not create an isolated zone district. There is a PRD development located directly to the west of the subject properties. The properties directly to the south and east are zoned Residential Three, and contain a multi-family apartment building. The proposed development will function in a similar fashion to the existing multi-family properties. IV. AGENCY REFEI2RAL All responding agencies have indicated that they can serve the property, and the applicant will bear the cost of upgrading any service to the property. The Public Works Department has reviewed a preliminary drainage report, and has found this report to be acceptable. A full drainage report will be reviewed at time of submittal of the Final Development Plan and Final Plat. A traffic study was reviewed by the Public Works Department. V. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING The required neighboxhood meeting was held prior to submittal. There were approximately 22 attendees from the neighborhood at this meeting. A meeting synopsis has been included as Exhibit 2. The neighbarhood was not entirely receptive to the request. Questions ranged from the type of housing which would be constructed to the type of buyers who would purchase these units. A letter in opposition was received from a neighbor who could not attend the meeting. Attached to the letter aze signatures from other neighbors. (Exhibit 3, Neighbor Letter, et al). Another letter in opposition was attached to the signature list (Exhibit 4, Neighbor Letter). A second neighborhood meeting was held in January 2006. Jefferson County Mediation attended and conducted the meeting. A synopsis of this follow-up meeting is included as Exhibit 5. The comments were focused on traffic and design of the proj ect. The neighborhood was a bit more receptive to this meeting, with a large portion of the discussion revolving around traffic, not the intended use. Planning Commission WZ-05-135CHA VL STAFF CONCLU5ION & RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Staff concludes that while the proposed density does exceed the maximums established in the future land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan, the development will serve as a transitional use and provide a buffer from Wadsworth Boulevard. Additionally, the development will provide a benefit to the City in the form of owner occupied units for first time home buyers. OPTION A: "I move to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. WZ-05-13, a request for approval of a rezoning from Residential Two to Planned Residential Development, and an Outline Development Plan for properties located at 3299 Wadsworth Boulevard and 7671 W. 32"a Avenue, for the following reasons: 1. The change in zone will provide a benefit to the City in the form of owner- occupied units for first time home buyers. 2. The change in zone will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfaze. 3. The change in zone substantially meets the desired attributes of the Planned Residenrial Development classification in the Comprehensive Plan. With the following conditions: The following language shall be added to the Outline Development Plan: "An eight foot tall fence will be located on the western property Zine to serve as a buffer to the neighborhood. All other fencing must comply with Section 26-603 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws." OPTION B: "I move to recommend DENIAL of Case No. WZ-05-13, a request for approval of a rezoning from Residential Two to Planned Residential Development, and an Oufline Development Plan for properties located at 3299 Wadsworth Boulevard and 7671 W. 32"a Avenue, for the following reasons: Plamning Commission 9 WZ-05-13/JCHA 7500 West 29h Avenue Cily of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 Wheat Ridge Telephone (303)235-2846 Fax(303)235-2857 Date: 30 August 2005 City Staff Present: Travis Crane, Jeff Hirt Location of Meeting: Municipal Building, police training room Property Address: 3299 Wadsworth Blvd./7671 W. 32"a Ave. Property Owner: Jefferson County Housing Authority Property Owner Present? Yes Applicant: same Existing Zoning: R-2 (Residential Two) Comp Plan Designation: SF (6) + PRD (12) Single family (not to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre and Planned Residenrial Development not to exceed 12 units per acre Existing use/site conditions: Vacant Applicant proposal: Would like to apply for a rezoning to Planned Residential Development to allow the construction of 42-44 new dwelling units. The property would contain seven four-plex structures and two seven-plex structures. Access would be gained from West 32"a Avenue, wit'i an emergency access point on Wadsworth Blvd. Each unit would have one gazage parking space. Additional onsite parking would be provided. Attention will be given to a western buffer to minimize impact to the existing neighborhood. Issues discussed: There were approxunately 20 neighbors in attendance. There were many questions regarding the size and number of peopie in each structure. There were comments regarding the density and number of structures. There was some discussion regarding the architecture of each building, and how they would blend with the neighborhood to the west. Many adjacent neighbors were concerned about the buffer on the western property line. They felt the garages did not provide an adequate buffer, and would like to see dense landscaping or a tall fence. A majority of the conversation revolved around the potential owners of the units. The neighborhood was concemed with the target market for the units. The active participants preferred owner occupied to potential rentals. Several questions were asked about deed restrictions and the control over who can buy the units. EXHIBIT 2 There was some discussion about the effect this development will have on adjacent property values. ~a City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W 29" Ave Wheat Ridge, Co 80033 Attn: Meredith Reckert, AICP _ Attn: Travis Crane, Planner To Whom It May Concern: We aze submitting this letter in protest to the proposed Planned Residential Development located at 7671 W 32nd and 3299 Wadsworth Blvd. The properry in question is all zoned R2, which would allow for one-story duplexes. This would conform to the exisring surrounding properties. All the property owners have worked hazd for approximately the last 40 yeazs to keep and maintain the quality of our homes high. Allowing low-income high density housing to be built will drasfically reduce our home valuafions. As the proposed plans show, all of the townhouses wil] be looldng right into our backyazds and take away any privacy that we now have. West 32"d Avenue can hazdly handle the 4affic as it is. We can't imagine 42 units with an average of 2 cazs per faarily equafing 84 cazs plus visitors onto an exit and entrance road dumping on to 32"a. All exits and entrances should be on Wadsworth Blvd. The state is widening Wadsworth Blvd up to ten lanes including turn lanes and traffic control. This is being done for existing and future businesses. The CiTy should concentrate on clean businesses to help the taz base and take the load off homeowners. Because Ihe zoning is all ready R2, we would much rather see the ground developed into one-story duplexes for assisted living for the elderly. (No group homes) Our property at 3300 Yarrow Sheet and all the existing properties on the line will experience high pollution and nqise and will take away any of the clean open air we have now. Our immediate azea consists of high quality custom homes and one-story duplexes. Low income and high density housing increases ctime and puts an overload on our police depaztrnent and all oity facili6es including parks and personnel. We just passed a bond to improve our city and this will definitely not be an asset to our community. We should take note of Exempla Lutheran Medical Center which is our best neighbor as they work closely with the surrounding neighborhood in building and design. Sinber ly, t iz ~ William J and l J G eene 3310 Yarrow Street Wheat Ridge, Co 80033 EXHIBIT 3 NANffi ~ ~ AIIDRESS --------2~--~ , 7 9 Y"7 w• 33'~ 157 v~ ,~,JJ5-~__a - ZZ- .33-33 A! OJ4-La_s- _L~---- 337 S _ 7fi 69 yY_3.3 -toL ~1'~------ 3~ 81 car ro c~ _:~f~~(-.LP1 ~ Pog - - ~ ar.~----- -31:? ADDRESS 3352 yAeenW c.r_ ~_7? ~~~P~ 3 3~st~ sST ~~O ,33 6 3 5? 32, ce _ ----~'-~~-~-1----- / NANE ADDRESS -W -___~_8_ae* ~ ~~t.~ ~,1 S ~~"J liv 5 ---~~'`_`-rl_j 322S A22c~w ~-T, - ~ ~ G> 6 L'~~~ tl~(~-~ \ t 3 C3~-------- ~ z72 --3--~ 4y--------- - 32s S ~a.vr~ Gt{-'. - 3as~ --~=P~L'~--~---~--~----5 NANIE ADDRESS - 8~~3 -uf f-la!.J._s~ 3a o y___A-zL,ss1 - 7_US 331 4_2e?_~.~~f Z4~~___~~ 33 - ~ 1l Zl__~ ~----G- ~ Z , -----------7~---~~~----- , lv-~I - -~~3~!~~~-~~v c~- ~~3 Tj / 'e~ 4J k 3 ~3G = NATiltF. ADDRESS 10/02l2005 10:37 2099E~93662 GRENHILLS PAGE 01 . r.GC s CSCSt BF WISm EtidgC 7504 W 20 Ave. WheatRidgeCO 8W33 .4ttn: Maeddh Reckat, AICP . Attn: Travla CxA'"„ Plamer City of Wlroet Ridge end 7efFcraon C.mmry Housing AutFpricY. We are submiltiqg dns lrtter in pcvNee to tLe peopaxd PLiwad ~ial Devdomleat locued at 7671 W 32'4 Ave. end 3299 VYadsworcb Blvd, and t[x raooniog.ofdut prqpelty Erom RZ, West 32°WAve, wq hatdty handtt t6e traffle amgmdmes it is_ Addiog 42 unit3 will avaage 84 add'id'aW cam Tbe trEa 11101 at 31" Ave. aad WadawW'th B►vd. is t,wymrtty mmequaw ta #utWk the vobrriw of tra8'io on 32id Ave-, eWciaUY siax tt cloas nc►t huve kR tua attavvs Som 32"' Ave. Bacicup ia the tet tum lane will cswse peoplE to tnanr edghbarbood as a totaaf~s mmo 32i1 Ave. Meu~y remadenti eua Abiaon to fai►we i#~e ~ b~ 32"' Avais so aongeued. Trotfio flaw ia md out cE'the meig3boeitoodis outtcdlY limued ta two *rem. Addiopc tMa unita wodd worxn this uyffis ghafian. Ti" is s~a mwem as to 6aa snow rc.movat "uiptnent and acF►ool6uses wiR be eble te meeeuta in ault cowded cparkt'sc►n. Tham wRI be se mW ae 66 tn 80 more cW7dnee 3n dIC91M. W!oalrtlwtitthri9PCly0F2ber.hiidren? 9ViAthe9hlvelor4gnaatedangwouw 32'"' Ave. ttafficlaSttbttteirbus mp? 'i7ap"crlyar]terdy zeuWlt2 ww3d bt belter uaed ua tme sMery devdopmeafor asoi rwin faeft ededy- fttMp#F ApWima mduetioun~o4't4e dansil3' ut'this popmd w+eeld atte.wiate uagFir congestian and slluw fiar waottbw traffic t1ow tbxon,gla *x . (ompwablG Mdldiag mawmts; am6 ee 6ridt or pmial bciek ah7[ gMo wctrftte ta t6r_ 61oa&a6 vftHt vm*bborhood. Yrnn'wcrw owtsWastion Q3 ttaae and aU athw matters cqptdi"g wo arvoopmo* #*boon* 4V"94*01L. Tiwkymk . i ~ ye+ t../. 3~•¢° ~,L, TOT€x. P.e2 EXHIBIT 4 7500 West 29`' Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80215 Telephone (303)235-2846 Faac(303)235-2857 Date: 31 January 2006 4F WHEqT City of h ° Po U m Wheat Ridge °ocoRPOo City Staff Present: Trauis Crane Location of Meeting: Municipal Building, police training room Property Address: 3299 Wadsworth Blvd./7671 W. 32°d Ave. Property Owner: Jefferson County Housing Authority Property Owner Present? Yes Applicant: same Existing Zoning: R-2 (Residential Two) Comp Plan Designation: SF (6) + PRD (12) Single family (not to exceed 6 dwelling units per acre and Planned Residential Development not to exceed 12 units per acre Existing use/site conditions: Vacant Applicant proposal: This is a foilow-up neighborhood meeting. City staff felt it appropriate to hold another neighborhood meeting in response to the public reaction to the first meeting and subsequent submittal. Jefferson County Mediators attended and facilitated the meeting. The applicant still intends on conshucting 42 moderate income housing nnits. The applicant has redesigned the site slightly since the first . neighborhood meeting; and has created a landscape buffer on the west side of the property. Issues discussed: There were approxnnately 20 neighbors in attendance. The following is a list of questions, answers and comments from the meeting: l. What size will the units be? 2 bedroom units wzll be 900 square feet, and the 3 bedroom units will be 1,100 square feet. 2. Wkat will be the average price of each unit? $180, 000-190, 000 3. The six-foot fence on the westem property line is not tall enough. 4. Our neighborhood is nice now - if this development occurs, we EXHIBIT 5 will not be able to rent out our duplexes. 5. Has the density changed? Still proposing 42 units. 6. Some of the language on the Outline Development Plan is discretionary, i.e. "should" vs. "musY'. The Zanguage on the ODP can be modified to include strong control mechanisms. Traffic in the neighborhood will get bad. Cars should exit onto Wadsworth - don't want any more traffic on W. 32"d Ave. Adding 42 trips during the peak hour as a result of this project. 8. There are going to be too many units - they will never be able to tuxn left (westbound) onto W. 32°d Ave. 9. The trip generation sounds too low (42 cars at peak hour). The site should be producing about 1.5-2 trips per units during the peak hour, since each unit will most likely have two cazs. 10. The Wadsworth Corridor Study identified no major improvements between 38th-32°d - there is too much traffic and the development is too dense. 11. Traffic at the signal at 32"a and Wadsworth is bad - need a left (northbound) turn anow. 12. How long were the traffic counters out? For a 2-day period 13. 2 days is not long enough to count traffic - the counters lied. 14. The citizens have contacted CDOT in reference to getting a left tum arrow at 32"d/Wadsworth, but CDOT did not see a need for one. 15. Will there be a limitation on income for the people buying the units? Depending on number ofpeopZe in the household - $40,000-5 7, 000 per year. 16. The intersection at 32"a/Wadsworth is a problem now. 17. You haue to tum northbound on Wadsworth while the light is red. The applicant should widen W. 32a Avenue all the way to ` Lutheran (to the west). The buses are also a problem - they back up traffic. 18. Traffic is bad - people will have road rage if they cannot tum onto Wadsworth. 19. Like the architecture proposed - although, have a concern about the traffic now. 20. Have you accounted for the traffic generated by Cabela's? Future traffic has been accommodated in the traff c study. 21. How many trips are generated by the Hilltop Aparhnents? Don't know 22. What is wrong with keeping the existing R-2 zoning? Would like to see the applicant construct one story brick duplexes just like ours. 23. The decision should be up to us (the neighborhood) - iYs our City. 24. The water pressure is low now - how will we be impacted with the addition of these units? The water district is using a looped system - should not impact your current situation (won't make it any worse). 25. Wheat Ridge Water wiil serve the property (not Consolidated Mutual) - there is a pump at 32"a and Yarrow. 26. The new plan shows the buiidings `squashed in'. Are there sti1142 units? Yes. 27. What is the green triangle on the pians (on north side of site)? Open space and detention. 28. Need to cut down the number of units. 29. Who will get to use the open space? If it is open to the general public, traffic will get worse. Open space areas wi11 be for the owners use only, not public parkland. 30. Would like a masonry fence around the perimeter of the properry. 31. Don't want a playground in the open space areas - can you comxnit to not putting any playground equipment in the open space now? No - cannot commit to not installing playground equipment in open space. 31. Would like the new units to match the azchitecture of our neighborhood (the duplexes). Will take it into consideration. 32. How many people live in the Hilltop Apartments? 33 units. 33. Can a school bus navigate through the site? The site has been designed for fire truck access, which should accommodate school buses. 34. People use their neighborhood (32"a & Yarrow) as a school pick up and drop off area - don't want any more school traffic. 35. Can the school district handle the additional students? Don't know - the school was not part of the referral process. 36. If the struchues looked like ours (32"d/Yarrow duplexes), we wouldn't mind the proj ect. 37. Can there be a lower density (less than 42 units)? No - 42 units is the lowest density. 38. If you build nicer places, you can charge more for the units. 3y. Has ihe rire Disirici reviewed tha plans? Yes. 40. I don't think the fire access wili work. 41. What are you proposing to solve traffic problems? The traffic study doesn't ideritify a problem. 42. Can you mazket this housing to the Lutheran workers? We are trying - would love to market to Lutheran so the workers can walk to work. 43. Will there be another traffic study? The traffic engineers can observe again. 44. Do you (ApplicanYs traffic engineer) have leverage with the City to change the signal timing at 32"d /Wadsworth? Regulated by CDOT, City's Traffic Engineer would have to discuss signal timing with CDOT. 45. If another traffic study is performed, you should leave the traffic counters out for one week. 46. Do you lrnow how much traffic comes from Lutheran Hospital in one month? No. IYs about 100,000 cars per month. 47. The State will not be able to minunize curb cuts on Wadsworth. 48. We are not hying to stop the project, we just want it to be better.