HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/05/2006AGENDA
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COIVIlVIISSION
October 5, 2006
Notice is hereby given of a Publie Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning
Commission on October 5, 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
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 NIINUTES - September 21, 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. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No. WPA-06-04: A resolution adopting the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
8. OTHER ITEMS
A. Briefing on X-Process
9. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING CONIMISSION
Minutes of Meeting
September 21, 2006
2.
3.
4.
5.
CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The regulaz meeting of the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to
order by Chair WESLEY at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the
Municipal Building, 7500 West 29`h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
ROLL CALL
Commission Members Present:
Jim Chilvers
John McMillin
Plul Phmimer
Jerry Scezney
Cassie Spaniel
Kim Stewart
Scott Wesley
Coxnmission Members Absent:
Staff Members Present:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Anne Brinkman
Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner
Joyce Manwaring, Pazks & Recreation
Director
Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
Meredith Reckert suggested that Item 10(A) be removed from the agenda due to
the absence of Travis Crane who was scheduled to present the matter.
It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner
SPANIEL to remove Item 10(A) from the agenda. The motion carried 7-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 3, 2006
It was moved by Coinmissioner STEWART and seconded by Commissioner
McNIILLIN to approve the minutes of August 3, 2006 as presented. The
motion carried 4-0 with Commissioners PLUMMER, SCEZNEY and
WESLEY abstaining and Commissioner BRINKMAN absent.
Planning Comxnission
September 21, 2006 - 1 -
6. PUBLIC FORUM
There was no one present to address the Commission at this time.
7. STUDY SESSION
A. Parks and Recreation Master Plan
7oyce Manwaring invited comments from the Commission on the draft Pazks and
Recreation Master Plan. The Plan was approved with minor amendments by the
Pazks and Recreation Commission. She introduced Janna MacKenzie from
EDAW (consultants who helped prepaze the plan.)
Ms. McKenzie reviewed the draft master plan that included survey responses as to
the type of uses citizens prefer for the parks.
Commissioner PLUMMER stated that he would like to see the Miller Street
parking area deleted; a.puking area added southwest of Clear Creek and Kipling;
and two footbalUsoccer fields added southwest of Clear Creek and Kipling
(Zarlengo property).
Comxnissioner McMILLIN expressed concern about noxious weeds in city pazks.
Commissioner CHILVERS would like to see better access to Johnson Park and
better identification for trailheads throughout the city.
Comxnissioner STEWART expressed concern about pedestrian safety when
crossing 44`t' Avenue to access Prospect Park. A traffic light is needed
somewhere between Kipling and Wazd on 44th Avenue.
Commissioner SCEZNEY stated that he believed there is a need for more public
art and pocket parks throughout the city.
Commissioner McMILLIN commented that many people swim and tube in Clear
Creek during the suimner and the dam below Anderson Pazk presents a real
danger as a"drowning machine." He would also like to see the sledding hill
retained at Everett School.
There was discussion about better utilization of Cleaz Creek for water sports such
as kayaking.
Commission comments will be considered and a resolution will be brought
forward recommending approval of the draft plan with changes at a public hearing
on October 5`h.
Plamvng Commission
September 21, 2006 - 2 -
8. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No. ZOA-04-04 - An ordinance amending Chapter 26 of
the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to outdoor lighting
standards.
Since there were no members of the public present to address the matter, Chair
WESLEY closed public comment.
It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner
McMILLIN to recommend approval of Case No. ZOA-04-04, an ordinance
which will amend Section 26-503 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, for the
following reasons:
1. The existing lighting standards are not quantifiable and are difficult
to enforce.
2. A problem concerning light pollution has been identified and staff
feels stricter regulations are needed.
3. The proposed changes should ditninish light pollution and allow staff
to identify offenders.
With following changes:
1. Allowable bulbs for lighting should include LED's.
2. Amortization deadlines for items (b) and (c) on page 7 should be
changed to be effective one year after ratification; and items (a) and
(d) should be changed to be effective two years after ratification.
The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner BRINKMAN absent.
9. OLD BUSINESS
. Commissioner WESLEY expressed appreciation for the tum light at 32"a and
Wadsworth.
• Meredith Reckert encouraged Commissioners to attend the Wadsworth subazea
meeting on Tuesday night. Commissioners were also encouraged to attend a
meeting the last week in October concerning the Orchard District subarea plan.
10. NEW BUSINESS
A. Traditional Schools vs. Trade Schools (This item was removed from
the agenda.)
11. COMMISSION REPORTS
There were no Commission reports.
Planning Commission
September 21, 2006 - 3 -
12. CODMIITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS
There were no committee and department reports.
13. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner STEWART and Commissioner SPANIEL to
adjourn the meeting at 8:39 P.M. The motion carried 7-0.
Scott Wesley, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
Planning Commission
September 21, 2006 - 4 -
City of Wheat Ridge ~oF WHEq J,p
Community Development Department ~ °
Memorandum ~~~oRA~~
TO: Plamiing Commission
FROM: Meredith Reckert
SUBJECT: Case No. WPA-06-04/Parks and Recreation Master Plan
DATE: September 28, 2006
This memo is in regard to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan which was reviewed at study
session on September 21. Planning Commission must take final action on the plan by holding a
public hearing and adopting a resolution with a recommendation to be forwazded to City Council.
Included as Attachment 1 is the proposed Planning Commission resolution giving a recommendation
of approval of the plan. The resolurion references two exhibits. Exhibit `A' will be the draft of the
Pazks and Recreation Master Plan. Eachibit `B' will be a memorandum prepared by EDAW outlining
recommended changes to the plan by Planuiug Comxnission.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
"I move that Case No. WPA-06-04, the proposed draft of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, be
recommended for APPROVAL far the following reasons:
1. Chapter 2-60 of the Code of Laws authorizes Planning Commission to give
recommendations regarding amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and other
supporting docuxnents.
2. The proposed Pazks and Recreation Master Plan will supersede outdated documents
currently in place."
\
CITY OF WfIEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO.
Series of 2006
A RESOLUTION BY THE PLANNING COMIVIISSION OF THE CITY OF
WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN AND BY SUCH
ADOPTION, AMENDING THE WFiEAT RIDGE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge adopted a Parks and Recreation Master
Plan in 1991 and a Comprehensive Plan in 2000; and
WHEREAS, C.R.S. 31-23-206 (2) provides that a comprehensive plan, or parts
thereof, may be adopted and amended by the City from time to time; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Wheat Ridge, when necessary, to
undertake review of the existing documents and update these documents; and
WHEREAS, the consultant to the Parks and Recreation Deparhnent, in
conjunction with a technical advisory committee, has produced a plan which was
forwarded to the Planning Commission for review; and
WHEREAS, Planning Commission reviewed the plan at a study session on
September 21, 2006 and recommended changes to the plan; and
WHEREAS, Planning Commission has held a public hearing on October 5, 2006
as provided by C.R.S. 31-23-208 and Section 2-60 (b) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws;
legal notice thereof duly published in the Wheat Ridge Transcript on September 21,
2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado as follows:
That 2006 Paiks and Recreation Master Plan attached as Exhibit A, along
with the recommended changes attached as Exhibit B, is hereby
recommended to City Council for approval.
2. The Commission further recommends that the 2006 Parks and Recreation
Master Plan supersede the 1991 Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the
Pazks and Open Space sections of Chapter 4, Community Amenities and
Services, of the Comprehensive Plan.
DOPiE AND RESOLVED THIS day of October, 2006.
Scott Wesley, Chairperson
ATTACHMENT I
EXHIBIT `A'
COPY OF WHEAT RIDGE
PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN
TO BE INSERTED HERE
EDAW I AECOM
EDAW Inc
240 East Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524
T 970.484.6073 F 970.484.8515 www.edaw.com
Memorandum
Date: September 27, 2006
To: Meredith Reckert, AICP
Senior Planner, City of Wheat Ridge
From: Chad Schneckenburger
Jana McKenzie
Subject: Planning Commission Amendments to the Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Distribution: Meredith Reckert; Joyce Manwaring.
Meredith,
Below please find a bulleted list of comments from the Planning Commission regarding the City of
Wheat Ridge Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan from the September 21, 2006 Planning
Commission meeting. Listed after each comment is a formal response indicating the action that will
be taken in regards to each item. All comments and suggestions have been considered and taken
under advisement. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact either myself or Jana
Mckenzie.
Yours sincerely,
Chad Schneckenburger
Comments and Responses from the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission Regarding the Wheat
Ridge Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Addifional Sports Fields
Commenf:
• There was concern by one member that there are not enough fields in the city for football and
soccer. It was his suggestion that 2 fields be added to the open space on what was formerly
known as the Zarlengo property located on the west-side of 41 ~ Ave. and Kipling St.
Response:
This property has been formally designated by the City of W heat Ridge as a Conservation Area,
which is protected open space property and therefore not suitable for development as a park.
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan does, however, propose the addition of one multi-purpose
field at Fruitdale Park.
EXHIBIT B
EDAW I AEGOM
EDAW Inc
240 East Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524
T 970.484.6073 F 970.484.8518 www.edaw.com
Wheat Ridge Greenbelt
Comment:
• There was concern from some members of the commission about the proposal to remove
access to Johnson Park from Wadsworth Blvd. and transition the property to greenbelt
acreage. It was suggested that additional pedestrian access be provided to this park.
Response:
The Plan recognizes that there are currently safety and vehicular access issues with Johnson
Park. Additionally, Johnson Park does not adequately serve the surrounding neighborhoods as a
neighborhood park. As such, it is recommended that vehicular access from Wadsworth Blvd, be
removed and the park transitioned to Greenbelt acreage. The Plan will, however, acknowledge
the need for increased pedestrian access to the Greenbelt, including the Johnson Park area.
Furthermore, the plan will propose a separate Greenbelt Master Plan that will address specific
sites in more detail, which will include Johnson Park.
Commenf:
• One commission member mentioned that trailheads within the city need to be made more
visible and accessible.
Response:
The Plan currently addresses the need for trailheads in the city to be made more visible and
accessible. The Plan will also propose the creation of a Greenbelt Master Plan that will address
the need for additional trailheads along the Greenbelt in detail.
Comment:
. One commission member felt that it should be noted in the plan that Clear Creek acts as a
recreational water amenity within the city of Wheat Ridge and is very important in that
respect. He feels that it is a tremendous resource for the city for such activities as kayaking
and tubing.
. The same member also mentioned that the dam downstream of 44th Ave. is very dangerous
and presents a hazard and should be removed or enhanced to be safer.
Response:
The Plan will recognize the importance of Clear Creek as a recreational amenity and resource
within the City of Wheat Ridge. The Plan will also propose the creation of a Greenbelt Master
Plan that will be more specific regarding possibilities for increased water recreation in Clear
Creek, including access, safety, and supporting amenities.
Commenf:
• One commission member felt that the property currently being identified as Miller Trailhead
should not be a trailhead due to its location next to the former waste water treatment facility
and that it should not be a recommendation within the plan.
Response:
The Plan currently acknowledges that Miller Trailhead is a vital and fundamental resource along the
Clear Creek Trail. The Plan also recognizes the strategic importance of acquiring the wastewater
treatment facility as a critical step in further developing this trailhead as per the desires of the
community for more access to the Greenbelt.
EDAW I AECOM
. . EDAW Inc
. 240 East Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524
. T 970.484.6073 F 970.484.8518 www.edaw.com
PUBIiC Art
Comment.,
• One commission member felt that there should be mention of the importance of public art in
Wheat Ridge and mention of the existing public art ordinance.
Response:
The Plan will recognize the importance of public art within Wheat Ridge and suggest that appropriate
locations for public art within the parks be identified.
Community Development
Comment.,
• One commission member felt that it was important to mention the importance of including
visual green space, urban plazas, and pocket parks as part of future community
redevelopment projects.
Response:
The Plan currently recognizes the importance of integrating future park projects with current
community development planning efforts, including sub-area plans. The Plan will further elaborate on
the need for inclusion of visual green space, urban plazas, and pocket parks as part of the Wheat
Ridge community planning and development process.
Comment.,
• One commission member expressed concern about the safety of crossing 44th Ave. to access
Prospect Park and feels that crossing enhancements are needed. It was suggested by
another member that street crossings in Wheat Ridge should be made on pedestrian needs
as well as traffic issues.
Response:
The Plan currently identifies the need for crossing enhancements along 44Ih Ave. to access Prospect
Park. The Plan will further elaborate on the need for Community Development and Public Works to
consider pedestrian needs in addition to vehicular needs when planning for street crossings.
Park and Recreafion Operations
Comment.,
• One commission member felt that there should be mention of the sledding hill at Everitt
Middle School as a public recreation amenity within the city.
Response:
The Plan has not addressed or provided for sledding opportunities within Wheat Ridge due to liability
issues.
Comment.,
• There was a question by one member regarding the effectiveness of the weed management
plan in the city that was addressed by Joyce Manwaring.
Response:
This issue is beyond the scope of study for this Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
EDAW I AECOM
EDAW Inc
240 East Mountain Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80524
T 970.484.6073 F 970.484.8518 www.edaw.com
Comment:
. There was concern by one member about the total cost of all projects listed in the plan. This
member then asked about the total revenue for the Parks and Recreation Department that
was answered by Joyce Manwaring.
Response:
The Plan recognizes that all proposed projects can not be funded with the current Parks and
Recreation budget and suggests that alternative funding will be necessary. The Plan also suggests
that projects could be prioritized and phased in as funding becomes available.
City of Wheat Ridge oF WHEAT
~ a
Community Development Department ~ m
Memorandum ~o~oRAO~
TO: Pla.mning Commission
FROM: Alan White, Community Development Director (SW
SUBJECT: X-Process (X-Zone)
DATE: September 23, 2006
For about the past year, we have been working with Winston Associates to develop the regulations
implementing the X-Zone concept described in the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. We have
undertaken a thorough review of the objectives of the X-Zone and our cunent regulations. After
severai "false starts," we have arrived at a package of changes to our regulations that we think meet
the objectives of the NRS recommendations and will be embraced by the development community.
The changes will eliminate conflicting and redundant requirements and processes, speed up the
development review process, and foster quality development througliout the City.
The X-Zone was originally conceived as an experunental set of regulations and development review
processes designed to wark in an infill development environment. Our uutial discussions were about
creating some kind of overlay zone where the experimental requirements and processes would'apply.
This evolved into applying the X-Zone to certain uses, or making some uses eligible for the X-Zone.
In evaluating and re-evaluating these approaches, we asked the following questions. Why apply the
X-Zone only to certain areas of the City, or to certain uses? Conversely, why apply lesser standazds
to certain uses or areas? Where would those azeas be? Why shouldn't all development in the City
be of high quality, regazdless of the type of land use or area of the City? If we're trying to raise the
bar, why only raise it on one side and give some developers the opportunity to slide over the low
side of the bar?
The development process boils down to two basic processes: 1) current zoning on a properiy allows
a use and a11 the owner needs is a building permit, or 2) current zoning does not allow a use and the
owner must request a rezoning of the property. Rezoning usually requires Planned Development
zoning, with an ODP and an FDP. Eventually a rezoning request leads to a building permit. There
aze other processes such a variances and special uses, but they are usually precursors to the building
permit process.
In trying to figure out the X-Zone, our attention focused on how to address both the building permit
and rezoning processes without adding hundreds of pages to the development code. Our analysis
concluded that the key document is the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. It contains
site and building design requirements and guidelines that currently apply to all commercial and
industrial zone districts and is used both in the review of building permits and rezonings.
TYu-ough our analyses and discussions, the X-Zone concept evolved into the X-Process. Rather than
creating an overlay zone, we are proposing amendments to the Streetscape and Architectural Design
I:\ComdevIX Zone\PC Sludy Session Memo.doc
Manual (and renaming it the Architectural and Streetscape Design Manuao which will ciarify
requirements, eluninate internal conflicts and conflicts with the development code, and apply to
muiti-family development (three units or more). In addition, we are proposing amendments to our
development regulations to require conformance with the principles and requirements of the
Architectural and Streetscape Design Manual in all development processes, including building
permits, and other amendments to streamline processing, create greater flexibility in infill situations,
and reduce development review time.
Rather than providing the draft ordinance at this tixne, the proposed code changes are summarized in
the attached table.
Changes to the Manual will include a reorganization of the material with architectural standards
coming first, delerion of redundant secfions, creation of design principles to be followed, and more
and clearer illustrations of what is required by the standazds. The Manual will refer to processes in
the Code (Chapter 26) rather than creating sepazate processes for review. The maintenance
standazds and appendices dealing with plant maintenance and materials will be published as a
separate document.
The other policy decision we are seeking direction for is the requirement for instaliing streetscape
improvements. The current provisions require adjacent developers to construct improvements such
as detached sidewalks,lree lawns, pedestrian lights, benches, trash receptacles, and other street
fiuniture, all without benefit of a design plan. These requirements aze burdensome to owners of
small parcels and when required only when redevelopment occurs, results in a piecemeal, disjointed
street scene. Streetscape requirements might better be provided through a business improvement
district, a local improvement district, or the City's CIP. A tandem approach would be to require
installation of streetscape improvements only if the development pazcel is X acres in size ar has X
feet of frontage. Council will consider this issue at a subsequent study session.
\
I:\ComdevVC ZoneNPC SNdy Session Memo.doc
X PROCESS
PROPOSED CODE CHANGES SUMMARY
Land Use Process
Current
Pro osed
Building Permit & Site Plan
• Administrative Review
• Administrative Review
• Conform to zoning
• Conform to zoning
standards & Streetscape
standards & revised
Manual
Streetscape Manual
Rezoning
• Planning Commission &
• No change to process (See
City Council hearings
Planned Development
• Must meet 8 criteria for
below)
approval
• Reduce criteria to 6
• Meet 4 of 6 criteria
• Add Streetscape Manual
conformance
• Delete "spot zoning"
criterion
Special Use
• Administrative approval,
• No change to process
unless objection received,
• Minor re-wording of criteria
then City Council Hearing
• Add Streetscape Manual
• 9 criteria for approval
conformance
Variances
Administrative
• Up to 10% variance
• Up to 50% variance
• Post property; approve
• No change to process
administratively if no
• Revised criteria
objections. Objections or
• Add Streetscape Manual
appeal require BOA
conformance
hearing
Non-Administrative
• BOA hearing
• BOA hearing
• Revised criteria
• Add Streetscape Manual
conformance
Planned Building Group
Administrative
• Administrative review
• No change to process
(Up to 4 structures on
• Must meet 5 criteria
• Revised criteria
commercial and
• Appeal to Planning
• Add Streetscape Manual
industrial lots only)
Commission
conformance
Non-Administrative
• Planning Commission
• No change to process
(More than 4 structures
hearing
• Revised criteria
on commercial and
• Must meet 5 criteria
• Add Streetscape Manual
industrial lots; more than
conformance
1 structure on residential
and a ricuitural lots
I:\Comdev\X Zone\X PROCESS TABLE.doc
Planned Developments
ODP
• Planning Commission &
• No change to process
City Council hearings
• Require more detailed ODP
to include conceptual
building layout &
architecture, pedestrian
links, parking, courtyards,
buffering, etc.
• Add Streetscape Manual
conformance
• ODP & FDP cannot be
submitted concurrently
FDP
• Planning Commission &
• Administrative review
City Council hearings
• Eliminate FDP for single
.
family PRDs
PD Amendments
ODP
Administrative
• Minor change must meet
• Meet 3 criteria: No increase
10 criteria, including no
in floor area above
increase in floor area
maximum permitted on
beyond 10% of approved
ODP; no additional uses; no
maximum, or up to 10,000
increase in density or
s.f.
intensity of use
Non-Administrative
• Planning Commission &
• Planning Commission &
City Council hearings
City Council hearings
FDP
Administrative
• Minor change must meet
• Meet 7 criteria.
10 criteria, including no
increase in floor area
beyond 10% of approved
maximum, or 10,000 s.f.
Non-Administrative
• Planning Commission &
• Eliminated (If the
City Council hearings
amendments exceed
maximums prescribed by
ODP, a non-administrative
ODP amendment is
needed)
Subdivision
Minor (5 lots or less)
• Planning Commission
• No change to process
hearing
• Add approval criteria
Major (More than 5 lots)
• Planning Commission &
• No change to process
City Council hearings
• Add approval criteria
I:\ComdevVCZoneVCPROCESSTABLE.doc