Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/20091I~( City of W heat idge PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA February 5, 2009 Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on February 5, 2009, 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 - January 15, 2009 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-08-07: A request for approval of a zone change from Commercial-One (C-1) and Residential-Two (R-2) to Planned Commercial Development (PCD) and approval of an Outline Development Plan for the property located at 10403 West 44th Avenue. B. Case No. WZ-08-09 (to be continued to February 19,2009): An application filed by Longs Peak Metropolitan District to establish zoning of Agricultural-One (A-1) for land being annexed into the City of Wheat Ridge (Case No. ANX-08-03) generally located east of 14802 West 44th Avenue. C. Case No. ZOA-09-01: An ordinance amending Article III of Chapter 26 concerning residential density in planned development districts. 8. OTHER ITEMS A. Amended Resolution Designating a Public Place for Posting of Notices of Public Meetings 9. ADJOURNMENT City of W heat ~ge PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting January 15, 2009 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair MATTHEWS at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 291h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. 3. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Commission Members Absent: Jim Chilvers John Dwyer Dick Matthews Davis Reinhart Kim Stewart Steve Timms 4. 5. Brinkman Staff Members Present: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner y . y Jeff Hirt Planner II , Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner STEWART and seconded by Commissioner REINHART to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 18, 2008 It was moved by Commissioner CHILVERS and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to approve the minutes of December 18, 2008 as presented. The motion passed 6-0 with Commissioners BRINKMAN and SCEZNEY absent. 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) Planning Commission Minutes I January 15, 2009 There was no one to address the Commission at this time. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. ZOA-08-07 (continued from December 18. 2008): An ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning amendments to development plans. The case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. The amendments would affect the consent required from property owners in planned developments to submit an application for any type of amendment. Commissioner DWYER questioned the lang (only the property owner for the property wl requested...) and asked what would happen i property who did not agree. He expressed a the decision even though all owners are not i would follow-up on this matter and possibly It was moved by Commission CHILVERS to recommend a Chapter 26 concerning am carried 5-1 with Commissi BRINKMAN and SCEZNI B. Case No. ZOA-08-0 ge in Section 26-311, paragraph A "e the amendment is being the case of multiple owners of a cern that one person could make agreement. Mr. Hirt stated that he ,ek the city attorney's opinion. and seconded by Commissioner roposed ordinance amending vent plans. The motion no and Commissioners amending Chapter 26 concerning The case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. The amendments relate to current minimum acreage limitations and restrictions on what type of zone change the process may be used for City-initiated rezonings. Currently, the subject property must be at least five separate parcels or five acres in area and the City- initiated rezoning process may only be used for a zone change to a less intensive zone district. In response to a question from Commissioner STEWART, Mr. Hirt explained that while the property owner wouldn't have to consent to making the application, the application would still have to go through the public process. This is the same as the current code. Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 15, 2009 Commissioner STEWART expressed concern about possible misuse of this type of ordinance. She would like to see more safeguards for property owners. 8. Mr. Hirt commented that one of the biggest criteria to be used would be the future land use map and the comprehensive plan. Mr. Johnstone commented that the intent of the ordinance is to help the city do a good job of adopting land use plans and, when appropriate, rezoning properties to be consistent with those plans. It was moved by Commissioner DWYER and seconded by Commissioner TIMMS to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning city-initiated zone changes. The motion passed 5-1 with Commissioner STEWART voting no and Commissioners BRINKMAN and SCEZNEY absent. OTHER ITEMS = A. Resolution designating a public place for posting of notices of public meetings. This resolution identifies the bulletin board it the lobby of the municipal building as the designated place for posting meeting notices. It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to pass Resolution 01-2009 designating a public place for posting of notices of public meetings. The motion passed 6-0 with Commissioners BRINKMAN and SCEZNEY absent. B. Postponement of Case No. WPA-08-02 - A resolution adopting an amendment to the City of Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan. This case will not be presented at the January 15, 2009 Planning I Commission meeting as published in the Wheat Ridge Transcript on January 8, 2009. Once rescheduled, it will be republished. It was moved by Commissioner REINHART and seconded by Commissioner CHILVERS to postpone Case No. WPA-08-02 to a date to be determined in the future. The motion passed 6-0 with Commissioners BRINKMAN and SCEZNEY absent. C. Comprehensive Plan Open House Ken Johnstone reported on the Comprehensive Plan Open House held on Tuesday of this week. The open house was well attended and valuable input was received from the public. The Citizen's Advisory Committee will be meeting again next week to discuss results of consultant interviews and the joint study session. Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 15, 2009 D. Mixed Use Zoning for 44th and Wadsworth Mr. Johnstone stated that he and Mr. Hirt met with the city attorney to discuss options regarding development of the 44th and Wadsworth property presently owned by the Urban Renewal Authority. There are options of using mixed use districts and increasing density up to 21 dwelling units per acre. A straight zoning district is also an option. Staff will do more research and come back to the Commission in late February for follow-up discussion. Commissioner REINHART commented that he is more concerned about design than he is about density. He asked if the staff's proposal would include design options for use within the mixed use district. Mr. Johnstone commented that tools include the Architectural and Site Design Manual as well as an administrative site design review process. These tools would be useful for a streamlined approval process subsequent to Commission and Council action on rezoninL,. Commissioner REINHART commented that he felt that the present Architectural and Site Design Manual may not have sufficient design controls. He would like to consider whether it needs to be amended to apply to the circumstances now being proposed. E. Joint study session with Board of Adjustment There was consensus to have a joint study session with the Board of Adjustment to discuss development standards for residential zones. 9. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner DWYER and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Dick Matthews, Vice Chairman Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 15, 2009 OF WHEgT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE \ m PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT c04 O R PLO TO: Planning Commission CASE MANAGER: Jeff Hirt CASE NO. & NAME: WZ-08-07/Irpinia DATE OF MEETING: February 5, 2009 ACTION REQUESTED: A request for a rezoning from Commercial One (C-1) and Residential Two (R-2) to Planned Commercial Development (PCD) and approval of an Outline Development Plan LOCATION OF REQUEST: 10403 West 44`h Avenue APPLICANT (S): Cory and Sabine Burris OWNER (S): Asterix & Obelix LLC APPROXIMATE AREA: 14,802 square feet (.34 acres) PRESENT ZONING: Commercial One (C-1) and Residential Two (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Transitional Residential (TR) ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) ZONING ORDINANCE Location Map Subject Property 10430 All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. Planning Commission 1 Case WZ-08-07/lrpinia I. CASE ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a rezoning from Commercial One (C-1) and Residential Two (R-2) to Planned Commercial Development (PCD) and approval of an Outline Development Plan (ODP) (Exhibit 1, Letter of Request). The ODP will rezone the property and set forth the development standards and allowed uses. With the submittal of a detailed ODP, the Final Development Plan (FDP) may be approved administratively if the ODP is approved. The applicant wishes to rezone the property to allow a custom cabinetry showroom and office. The property is approximately 14,802 square feet in size. The property is Lot 3 of the Hylands Ranch Subdivision, approved in 2004 (Exhibit 2, Subdivision Plat). There is an existing approximately 3,800 square foot structure on the property. The applicant proposes to utilize the existing structure, with no additions/expansions or any changes to the configuration of the lot. The property has historically been used as a residential dwelling. Subdivision Plat The Hylands Ranch Subdivision was a 4 lot subdivision approved in 2004 per Case No. MS-04-05. The result of the subdivision has been approved building permits for three new two-family dwellings surrounding the subject property. Split Zoning The property currently has two zoning classifications - Residential-Two (R-2) and Commercial-One (C-1). The boundary essentially runs through the middle of the subject structure (Exhibit 3, Split Zoning Illustration). With this, making improvements to the property becomes problematic. The R-2 district typically only allows residential uses and requires residential development standards, while the C-1 district typically only allows nonresidential uses and requires nonresidential development standards. Essentially 4 options are available to an applicant in this situation with proposed improvements, as set forth below. In consultation with the applicant, staff determined that the best course of action was to pursue a zone change to PCD. The options can be summarized as follows: 1. Use only the C-1 portion of the lot and the structure for a commercial use, and use the R-2 portion only for parking and noncommercial/residential uses. Given that the zone district boundary runs through the building and parking area, the applicant would not be able to utilize the property fully for a nonresidential use with strict adherence to this standard. 2. Per Section 26-119.A.1 of the Code, request an administrative correction to the zoning map where a "verifiable error" exists. While the zone district boundary may appear to be in error in how it was drawn, staff did not locate any "verifiable error" that would allow the applicant to administratively correct the boundary. The Official Zoning Map that the city currently uses had its boundaries drawn with the city's incorporation in 1969, utilizing the then existing Jefferson County zoning map. 3. Per 26-203 of the Code, request an interpretation to the Official Zoning Map before the Board of Adjustment to allow one zone district to exist on this property. 4. Request a zone change to Planned Commercial Development (PCD). Planning Commission 2 Case WZ-08-07/Irpinia Building Permit/Work to Date The applicant currently has an active approved building permit for work done under the current zoning regulations. The work is being done in the interior space, generally involving demolition of walls, a new staircase, new flooring, cabinets, etc. The plans were reviewed by both the planning and building divisions under current residential standards, including residential building codes. In consultation with the applicant, staff expressed concern that the improvements appear to be to accommodate a future commercial use prior to the outcome the zone change. Staff advised the applicant that they would be proceeding at their own risk with any investment in a property pending a future zone change decision. Staff required written acknowledgement of this issue as a condition of approval of the building permit with a signature from the applicant (Exhibit 4, Building Permit Approval Memo). As the building permit was approved under residential building codes, the occupancy of the building for commercial purposes (i.e., issuance of a business license and certificate of occupancy) will likely require an additional building permit for adherence to commercial building codes and subsequent inspections. In other words, if the zone change is approved, the applicant will have to file for a business license and new building permit prior to opening the business. The applicant has not yet received required certificates of occupancy or approval of any business license to occupy the structure and operate the business. Comprehensive and Subarea Plan Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for this property is Transitional Residential (TR). The proposed allowed uses (with implementation of staff's suggested conditions of approval) in the Outline Development Plan are consistent with the intent of this classification. The TR category is listed under commercial land use types, and several of the desired uses and attributes reflect consistency with the proposed ODP, including: • Small retail uses and professional services with residential uses in the same structure • Live/work developments • Small convenience or specialty retail establishments • Professional and convenience services Fruitdale Subarea Plan The property is also located within the Fruitdale Subarea Plan boundaries. The proposed zone change is also consistent with the goals and objectives of this plan. Additionally, the subject property is within an area shown as commercial in the Future Land Use Concept Map (Exhibit 5, Fruitdale Future Land Use Concept). Specifically, some of the characteristics of the development adhere to the recommendations in the Fruitdale plan as follows: • Encourage commercial development for properties on W. 44`h Avenue, focusing on redeveloping the existing single family homes. • Encourage the rezoning and redevelopment of single family properties fronting on W. 44`h Avenue to uses more appropriate for a minor arterial. Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is surrounded on two sides by relatively new two-family dwellings (West and North), and on the east side with a single family dwelling and a nonresidential use (hair salon). To the south across 44`h Avenue is a multi-family residential complex. Planning Commission Case WZ-08-07/Irpinia II. OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Outline and Final Development Plan Steps As part of a relatively new set of procedures, applicants for zone changes to planned developments have essentially two options for processing the ODP and FDP - a detailed ODP, which typically includes building footprints, landscaping, parking, etc. or a more conceptual ODP with general standards and parameters. The conceptual ODP or "bubble plan", if approved, would constitute an approved rezoning, however the applicant would still have to gain approval of the detailed ODP prior to moving forward to the FDP stage. With the detailed ODP, as the applicant has provided, the applicant may proceed to the FDP stage if approved. The FDP may be approved administratively, and would be the applicant's next step if the ODP is approved. Allowed Uses The allowed uses on the proposed Outline Development Plan generally reflect that of the Transitional Residential future land use in the Comprehensive Plan, and the land uses for 44th Avenue in the adopted Fruitdale Subarea Plan (Exhibit 6, Outline Development Plan). These uses generally include lower intensity nonresidential uses (professional office, design studios, art galleries) with a prohibition on any type of manufacturing use. Uses that are not allowed include car washes, any drive-thru use, auto repair and sales, and many types of retail that would likely create increased traffic. The intent of the allowed uses (with staff's recommended conditions) is to allow for transitional land uses between the two-family dwellings and single family areas to the north and west and the subject property and the more commercial 44th Avenue. Development Standards Development standards relating to building size and orientation generally reflect the characteristics of the Residential Two (R-2) zone district. Development standards relating to such things as parking, landscaping, and signage generally relate to that of a nonresidential use - more in line with the development standards of the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) district. For instance, setbacks, lot coverage, and building height requirements reflect the R-2 district, while other development standards reflect a nonresidential use in the NC zone district. Accessory structures may be allowed, provided that they are not constructed of metal, are located behind the front of the building, and conform to the R-2 district development standards. The intent of the standards is to accommodate the proposed use and any future improvements within the parameters of a low impact nonresidential use. Architecture The applicants have made significant upgrades to the existing structure as part of their approved building permit as discussed above. These include new decorative columns and other accent features to the fagade of the building (See Exhibit 6, Outline Development Plan, page 3 of 4). The city's adopted Architectural and Site Design Manual (ASDM) does have applicability as part of the review criteria for zone changes (see part II below). The current improvements however were done with the property as a residential use, which does not have applicability for the ASDM. As a commercial use, the ASDM would still not be applicable as the improvements do not constitute a "major addition". Major additions are defined as those that exceed 50% of the existing square footage of the building. If staff enforced the ASDM fully for this property and this application, the requirement for "four sided architecture" would be deficient as the north and west elevations contain little architectural variation or treatment. However, these elevations are generally not visible from public rights-of-way. If only a building permit were required for the proposed use, the applicant's upgrades to the south and east facades would not have been required. Planning Commission 4 Case WZ-08-07/Irpinia Signage The applicant did not propose any freestanding signage on the ODP, but the document does allow for freestanding signage in accordance with the Code of Laws. The ODP specifies that only monument style signage is allowed. The applicant has proposed a wall sign on the south elevation of the structure that meets the applicable standards for wall signage for nonresidential uses in the Code of Laws. Agency Referrals Only one service agency responded to the request. The Arvada Fire District indicated there are no issues with serving the property and the proposed use. All applicable requirements were also met with the Public Works Department, who also reviewed the referral. Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting was held on July 21, 2008 (Exhibit 7, Neighborhood Meeting Notes). Comments received at that meeting indicated a concern more about the potential for future land uses not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Additional concerns included whether or not the products would be manufactured on site, the hours of operation, and lighting. III. ZONE CHANGE CRITERIA Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a change in zone: 1. The existing zone classification currently recorded on the official zoning maps of the City of Wheat Ridge is in error. Staff has not found any evidence that there is a "verifiable error" with both the Residential Two (R-2) and Commercial One (C-1) zoning as depicted on the city zoning map. 2. 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, A change in character has occurred in the immediate vicinity within the last 5 years with the Hyland's Ranch Subdivision and the subsequent construction of three duplexes surrounding the subject property. The result has been more dwelling units in the vicinity, however there is still a nonresidential use immediately adjacent to the east. Additionally, 44th Avenue along this stretch will likely continue to become more commercial with the adoption of the Fruitdale Subarea Plan and the commercial nature of the corridor to the east and the west of the subject property. 3. The Planning Commission shall also find that the evidence supports the finding of at least four (4) of the following: a. 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 Plan map in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Transitional Residential. The proposed zone change is consistent with the desired land uses within this category. The subject property is also within the boundaries of the Fruitdale Subarea Plan that designates the subject property within a commercial area. The proposed use is also generally consistent with the desired uses set forth in that plan. Planning Commission 5 Case WZ-08-07/Irpinia b. The proposed change of zone is compatible with the surrounding area and there will be minimal adverse impacts considering the benefits to be derived. The proposed change of zone is compatible with the surrounding area as a low impact nonresidential use, and the Outline Development Plan only allows generally low impact nonresidential uses and development standards consistent with the surrounding area. c. There will be social, recreational, physical and/or economic benefits to the community derived by the change of zone. The proposed zone change should be a benefit to the community. The applicants propose to make improvements to the property and propose a land use that generally will have low impacts on the surrounding area. Additionally, going from a residential to a commercial use has potential economic benefits to the community. d. 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 have indicated that they can serve the property. e. 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 of zone will not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare. Regarding traffic congestion, the applicants have expressed that their operation is by appointment only and increased traffic would be minimal. The majority of the land uses allowed in the proposed Outline Development Plan would also likely have minimal increased traffic, with the exception of an medical office use that may create increased traffic. Regarding drainage and light and air, the applicants are not proposing to make any additions or expansions to the existing building or increase the impervious area on the site, therefore staff concludes there will be no increased impacts related to this. 4. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Planning Commission 6 Case WZ-08-07/lrpinia The applicants have made upgrades to the front fagade, and propose upgrades to the eastern fagade. The proposal does not comply with the principle of "four sided architecture" from the Architectural and Site Design Manual. However, the ASDM is only applicable to commercial "major additions", and this project does not qualify as this. IV. STAFF CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDED MOTION(S) Staff concludes that the proposed zone change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Fruitdale Subarea Plan. Staff concludes that the proposed zone change will be compatible with the surrounding area with a low impact nonresidential use, and only the allowance for generally low impact uses in the future. Staff further concludes that the proposed zone change will not adversely affect public health, safety, or welfare. Because the zone change evaluation criteria support the zone change request, a recommendation of approval with conditions is given. OPTION A "I move to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. WZ-08-07, a request for approval of a rezoning from Residential Two and Commercial One to Planned Commercial Development, and an Outline Development Plan for property located at 10403 West 44`h Avenue, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the Fruitdale Subarea Plan. 2. The proposed zone change is compatible with the surrounding area as a low impact nonresidential use. 3. The proposed zone change will not adversely impact the public health, safety, or welfare. With the following conditions: 1. Under the allowed uses on page 1 of the Outline Development Plan, insert the uses "single and two family dwellings" and "single and two family dwellings as ancillary to an allowed nonresidential use" as allowable uses and eliminate the phrase "all uses allowed in accordance with Section 26-204 for the Residential Two zone district". 2. The applicant must receive a certificate of occupancy for a commercial use to operate the business, which may include application for an additional building permit and interior modifications 3. The applicant must receive a business license to operate the business." OPTION B: "I move to recommend DENIAL of Case No. WZ-08-07, a request for approval of a rezoning from Residential Two and Commercial One to Planned Commercial Development, and an Outline Development Plan for property located at 10403 West 44`h Avenue, for the following reasons: 2 3." Planning Commission 7 Case WZ-08-07/Irpinia EXHIBIT 1: LETTER OF REQUEST Land use application A. Our reason for requesting a zone change to 11PCD" is to allow us to operate a custom cabinetry showroom. We are asking that this property be zoned to allow the following types of businesses to operate: Showroom, Commercial offices, Administrative offices, Design studio, and retail. B. It is our intent that the building and surrounding property will be used as is with minor cosmetic and landscaping upgrades which are detailed in the attached submittal. C. Irpinia kitchens is a high end custom cabinet manufacturer based in Toronto Canada. All cabinets arc produced at the factory and shipped directly to the jobsite. There will be no unbinet production at the showroom located at 10403 West 441h Ave. A The showroom will contain multiple kitchen and bath displays. There will also be an area designated for customer consultation and offices for the two designers (Sabine "owner/designer" and Val "designer/sales"). Please see attached drawings detailing interior layout. E. Irpinia Kitchens of Denver is an exclusive dealership which will be open Monday through Friday 10:00am to 5:00pm by appointment only. F. The property will be used exclusively as a commercial showrooms / design studio. This property will no longer be used for housing. Planning Commission Case WZ-08-07/Irpinia Z O Mw..l cn a~ O J Z CL J Z LL MWA o z `.I L lu' uu~ 0 0 O fV .J Zzu Sao ~x N ,O-K 0xcn a o N ~cx ZtnW ".3tLL i ~m7 w zwo ~ix z C o= zcnou) or) J ~ d' LL,L OX< C 3~ 0 ~HLL H V of e LLP ~ L1 - ut LL s N ~ ~I a - W ~1 ~!ff 9 ssr :YYd 31 714 I I I I ~I U t~ ~I =I FI ~I ~I ~I I . * 1333 1S B319 IN w_ Ila $ I iP.rroie.m c-a P^°Z M 1• J tea; . L ~ s i ° • O v.._.~ ♦y n-. ,~ry.ry11 666 _ •9~LiS° = -Sv 4 1 • i s s e ` r•: M ~ 8 "7 °A $ is o~^ gsa ~~zBxR C nV~~ a s B 3: yrnsy . ~g 3LlE:SS a- a au.,.~~ r I Y I < v ~ a LL rot N ` ,S UL i H 2 0. • _ d Ya I`S U la a~ -O. o ~~I .V la e0 pZG e . I° t q.-: o Yz ~ 6 d-moo en N d x o r N Q V = Mr ~Q es; IW LL o~a'~ O ` oast. Y w . •WR~ - .o~asi:o ' o. o `L. ga nz - S .~p L n ° ~ . n . _ i = T:yM~o- NI'4AIM `•ej••- t1 W - CC$ ~ r..y ro UMn O CCS ~ Q, U - 9 < <1 EXHIBIT 3: SPLIT ZONING ILLUSTRATION w F , 11~11 Planning Commission 10 Case WZ-08-07/lrpinia EXHIBIT 4: BUILDING PERMIT MEMO eat 'd Memorandum TO: Building Permit File MOM: Jeff Ifirt, Planner DATE: September 5, 21011 suii cr: 10403 West 44 6 Avenue (Permit 0 08-0290) The purpose of this memo is to clarify the status of the building permit for the improvements proposed at 10403 West 44`h Avenue. Tho propeAy currently has taro zoning classifications - Commercial One (C-1) for the approximately eastern half, and Residential-Two (R-2) for the western portion. While a small portion of the existing, st=ture lies within the C-1 classification, the majority of the structure is within the R-2 classification. The structure was enlarged in 2004 and was issued a Ccrtillcate of Occupancy for a single family residential stcudure, Regulations vary bmveen the two zoning districts, including allowed uses and development standards. The subject property currently has a pending zone change applicatlon (Case Nu. WZ-48-07) to allow for the proposed use, which is a custom kitrftn design office utilizing the existing structm. While staff is supportive of the proposed impmvcmcnts to the property and the zone change, the application is still pending through a public hearing process. Before the outcome of this case is final, the prop is subject to the existing residential zoning regulations. While the intent of the building permit may be to acoommodate a future nonresidential ww, the plans as shown mcct all applicable current residential zoning regulations. With this, the above permit is approved with the following terms and conditions: 1. If approved by the Building Division, the Certificate of Completion may be exclusively for a residential uw. If the zone nhangc is approved for a nonresidential use a new Certificate of Completion will be required to occupy the building as such. 2. The plans am being reviewed by the Building Division based on residential building aide requirenmts. If you intend to utilize the structure for nonresidential purposes pending the outcome of the zone change, all commcrcinl building code requirements must be met in order to obtain a new Catificaw of Completion. 3. The shv plan from the original petmit indicating the striping of parking spaces and landscape plan was not included with the resubmittal, therefore it is not considered approved as pert of this permit. This plan cannot be approved with this permit as the zone orange application oould potentially involve modifications to this plan. By signing below, the property owner agrees to the terms and cond'hkm of this building permit. Cory 81 1 Date ~ ,a~i 1 r' I;fie 1~ i i 4 tP l ~ ~ U ~ ii? 5 ~L 7. !ii 7 ~ ~ L 1 L rv~ ~ 1 .r. + r 1 IR w , if CL 06 +Q V I •~•I V UL A. am I 1 -1: 1~ 9 'R SL 7~- I ~1II ~ O ~l _I'~ p o0 1!111 Il a]~%i t~J !IG i ~1~ 9 l ui It: ,'.!a' ~sYr-: ~1 C3 a U t0 q i7~m cn~ O' 0 2 0 0 i~ iJ - L r (O _ N. y.+ i..l W rN rl i U A'~ I 1~1 i O G U U 0 c} U tL y ~i 5 T U s g as xa. X o. Gsg y~ ~ ~~e ~ a E yf o r a'i 3S 2 Ei E~3 ~ ~ d 1 SL R 'C16--.5 ul v R R? °55 '3 ~1 2g 5_ 9 2' 3 _E Q ~ 2 a~3~~ a I d - CWG t eE 3 6 "S99 ~ Ey _ S 335 ~ - IND 9 - 3 8 3 y 3 ~ 3 L£9 ~~Sq zx ~'2 2 , 7, A I b9 ~ ~ C G ~ ro r. U O U O O u, s 0 O ~ O s tG. _ n aq` --t o~ i U 0 y I i ~ I s z ~ o ~ z. ~ E V O O 0 3 i i mo vo I ~t Eo _ vz E 'u O F 6 T C E ~ 17 ma ~ ~U II , va o~_ i s Ry oE I - - O Q Q F- U OC/) J / o a E U o C3 C:~ o~ 0 0~ = U ~ N O 00 ~ O j 2' i 03 ~~m u I O Q v v 3 p O U ~ U = I, I F I cJ~ q C I c I io p L O fir' d' T G 'T Uloj o u - 'A, - C ~.I 0 ~ o Q Gi. I, y ~ F O V A C a of oro I a I ~ U l a i U _Se 5~ E; e,. r Sv~p• ;~Y API z n €x f3 3i I I Trl 1111,11 I I + I III ~ I c IIII I IIII IIII ICI I I~ VIIIII II 'IIII :!ITjll k I IIII i 111111 I II ~ N i III I I. I yl III I ,~IIIIL I IIII IIII I I L, I'i l ~ 3 'I IIII III IIII IIII III' III IIII III IIII IIII 1 IIII 1 III I IIII I I I IIII i I I jl I, ' I Ill l 11111 jll IIII Ili IIII11i IIII IIIIi 1;111 III I 11 :dl I'I ~I i AilIIII Iltl~ Ills I Illgl ~ i IIIIIIII dill''. Jill III''II hlllplul',Il~l~~ilill .IIIIII jll!Ii I (IIIIII ' ~.I I I i Ill lll~~~llgl' I 'TrLL IIII ~~IIIII'IpiIIIIIIII l1 IIII IIIIII!~II IIIIIIIIII I I In I tlll I V I I I I I I I' I I I I' I I I I: VIII llllil Ili I I II I I I III'!I I II IuI,II 1 1 1 IIIIII! .'I I III I II I ,I IIII' II'illslll I Illiu I ' II I lil ~ Illli illll, lil'll lilll'la IIII I,II till III I ~IIIL ~Iq III I II dll,~llll!' jllla!I II' I illl,l'II' II'~ I VIII' ' I III I;i li III I i Dili Ss; 5: eon s, gi I 0 W 0 z 0 0 > N W A I z ~ v C 'b M O ~ 7 00 m 1 UI ~ ~a c U ° cn Z C> 4. O ~ C A a U O Mw O yl U A U ~I y O O L U `c 3 c c T ` J F u \1 EXHIBIT 7: NEIGHBORHOOD 0I MEETING NOTES n-._~ r -rn ~n 'i°•o Sti a:F~L,e;,iuicipalRuldtng 133 1' '~i+ n ._s2 ~ u ~.e F.i3_e.Cl~ $~„+4n~-SOvI F:F: 3',13 ?35 225- City of RC Wheat~ge MMLINITY DEVELOPMENT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING -NOTES Date: City- Staff Present: Location of meeting: Property address: Property owners: Property Owner(s) present" .applicants: July 21. S P:feredith Recker.. Senior Planner .=edam Tietz. Planner .403 W. 44-' Ave :L-hea- Ridze. CO 80033 C4C,u W. 44'-' A.•e 'tz: hea:1.idge. C: O 80033 Sabine Buechner C'or; Bur-is Y e5 Sabine Bueehner 250 Steele St.. Suite 2w0 Denver. CO 80206 Existing Zoni.n_: C-1. C'onimercial One and R-_'. Residential Two Comprehensive Plan Designation: TR_ Transitional Residential rruitdale Sub-area Plan: Commercial Existing Usersite conditions: The property is loca ed -0 the west of 1-filler St on W- 44E Ave. This property is unique in :ha- nvo different zone districts bisec- the parcei resu.-ing in -Flit zonin _ The nvc zone dis: icts are C- I C 1 and R-2. a c.n:mercial and a residential zone district. Sph- zoning is fair'v unique and is a remnant of Jefferson Counv zoning that was ass:-lied -e the land l:rior to :he incorporation of The City of Whea- Ridge. The sph: zonlne on :he lot creates a hardship tin the property; because it :imits the ability of the lot be used for an;- Oven use. The area has a mix of different zone district.. The ma onty of the area is zoned comn_erciail as --he intersection of :z'. 44= Ave- and tripling 5:. is in c ore prcxinui %r to the site and is a mijor intersection v. ith comme.cial uses extending cut along both W. 44'~'A:•e and Kip:ing St_ There is also large areas of residen-ial uses in the area t': hich cctit<un a mix of single fami*.v. duplexes. apar-menu and land used for agricul-iual Furposes. vnv,.v.d.,.vheatTidg#.co.us Planning Commission JAY Case WZ-08-07/lrpinia The prop en has been deg eloped in-a a larse single fimil horse that sits Lack off -he front of -he In which is accessed from 1,1'. r=te .A.Ve. The to:s directly' to the lest consi-:t of :wo. two family dwelling units while a small cciumercial shop is located on :he lot to the eas:. Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposni4 :o rent: are the home on the lot into a kitchen shoa-rooni :ti•ith accompaui .ne offices. The exterior of the building i ill have some changes but v.- I' be rsintmal and made only tc allow- for show widows fcr the kitchen p:oducts_ If :he Ict was zoned completely C-1. the saov,:ooin wculd be an allowed use. Since this is no: the case. the apphcati: must first rezone the proper' :o PCD to allon for this use before it can be used in this manner. The following issues were discussed regarding the zone change request and proposed development: • Other than the applicant and staff. one member of the public. C:hrrs Bretz. was in at:endance a: this neishboraood meeting. `'.Ss. Bretz resides imniedia:e:: to :he wes: o= the proper iu Zues-ion_ She was there to better understand of -he scope of-he project. `~,is. Bretz was also the:e to express some concerns her neighbors to the north had about the propcsa . They ere unable :o a:lend on the account of being on vaca7on_ • Staff discussed the site. its zoning and f ure land use. • The applican: and members of the public were informed of the process that will be required to rezone the propertE-. • The members of the public were informed of .heir chances to take comment: in :he process and a: the pubic hearings. • 1: the business were not s iiccessfiil and had to close: could anv other commercial tenant. such as a carxash. move to this locution'' 1772en a piece of land goes thrmTh rite °C Yeconing process, ie capphcanr cr•eares a tier ofz-pec lc land fuses zii at uiii be allowed on titeprovern. If a c:ar'ns h is not one of the uses U.-red in tho_-e thar are aficni-ed, it Zw'OUlfi' flOr epel'art rtet2 1 he gPP1icmitwail itol°k'h'atH sta.~Tto deielop a hstof uses t,i at rake,- into the accotoIt Y; a PP-OXFn1.n- of the dupieres t0 the nest. T be lirr rh ar -"Ifl be deveioped uitt ensure slut irfile ki;c4n shoo romp sholdd close, on i corrirller•cial uses :Mort xould be conPuarible xith r►ie duplexes xouid he per?niated, -glob as office uses. • :t: here is lipinia currently located? Iapilua is cumentl located in. Chern Creek ar 259 Steele S:7-eet. • :Z.-hat `rill the ;pours be'' The howl's of oa?e arion will be l,o:ndai'-"ridgy and cite shouroom itili be open bl appoinrineni of llv Tie zhowroont Fill no; be open on the wee.kendz Tratric cotnina ill and Our will be Pninimal and inip •oved landscaping in addition to signage will help cha?"ele to berrer iden7fj' the enmance ro Irpinia. There will on!.- be ' entpto'lees working at This ioca:ion so riie impact u lit even be Less a ripical v..tce. On rrla"I occa.,ioYns. one Ot' both ofrhe entpio..ees tnca be gone to 0J-sire locations to consuirwirh c he.n re e. +s: ill any- windows be ins:alled on second le,-el cn the western side of the building" Ifso:hewi3ldc%vsl,-ok down into the yards of the duplexes. No itnprovemenis are beangprcoposed fol'rhe 14e„re171 eiel'ation rilEYe{or'e no it'indOit'' it ill be added ro side of ripe 5uitdirrg. For now .",iis potion of the budding it lit be used fo!-,lie storage and o:►'ier »iiseellc~neoils iients.:4tsontepoin: this circa could becolrie rrri0thero ~lce ay'rtr ylra}' area out rip uirrdoit are exvec,ed to be Nn railed ifeirHer o These rake place WiL anyone be living at this location' T Mere-wiil not be an'1-one U,,'io itili lave rr thi.'; tocari on It ii ill sri7C r11' be-for oM e Use. i lie OnIl rmae someone iw'oidd be ar the o~ice fare or on weetiend it otild be if one of Me etnpiolees Here wort'dna care or Planning Commission 15 Case WZ-08-07/lrpinia doi!1g thi;ias such as sleeping books o!' other uAx. o j',ce titans :Vil: the biuldinz be lit at niaht^ 1 lie. exlerlto1. O€Ow bTiiidinFTuU no: be :ii after C~ar-,. There will be h pe,L-piepaz.'i!1~' by to sea inro the building -o the'.' 14 iii be abie ro -ee File kfrr ien. on d pi r~. i~ If TS 4'.'. 1 ri E Li eT.. f7 tncii 14il' be iise .-bout nor be roo bY.'ghi Ol' Srii1?6' In ME 14'iiiC1Oti4S Of arty qi .`.i?E' lleiPk;'JO!l. %V 11 the cabinets a. my o-he: ccrponen: be made a: thin. lccation? 2-.70. All tiirchens, ca7binet° and Orher : ompo!ISnZS it iil be butir, njantlfactured ffn a.-Irc nbled at a dtf.reren iOCa:ion more suirabi' for Mar n Pe a"Open-e Lion. The ►;rchen it iil i!?e?i be L-hi ped tO and xse►JTble at i!?e:. i:E' O tfi'e !'Oi€Ci. y j,e ti;ii?.' thin Thai xill be done at!hts iocaTion itili be -;ie designing ~f!;ic n'IY; IE'JT. and constfiring it it!? :lienm Once R'e'igned, p.a!u vv'T be ro the TNa'rtti{I.^i?Jl"e!' It llf -will then build rheni Ofr`ire. Planning Commission 16 Case WZ-08-07/Irpinia City of dge CMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meredith Reckert DATE: January 30, 2009 SUBJECT: Case No. WZ-08-09/Long's Peak Metro District Please be advised that Staff is recommending a continuance of Case No. WZ-08-09 until February 19, 2009. The impacted property owners in the neighborhood will be renoticed and the property will be reposted for the new hearing date. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue the public hearing for Case No. WZ-08-09, an application by Long's Peak Metropolitan District, to the February 19, 2009, Planning Commission meeting." City of W hea-W,dge PLANNING COMMISSION CoMmumr-y DFVFL.OrMENT LEGISLATIVE ITEM STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: February 5, 2009 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS (ZOA-09-01) CASE NO. ZOA-09-01 ® PUBLIC HEARING ® CODE CHANGE ORDINANCE Case Manager: Jeff Hirt Date of Preparation: January 30, 2009 SUMMARY: The attached ordinance proposes amendments to the regulations for maximum residential density in planned developments, specifically the Planned Residential Development (PRD) and Planned Mixed Use (PMUD) districts. Staff has also proposed related revisions to the Planned Hospital (PHD) district. Staff is also evaluating the potential for related revisions to the residential uses in commercial zones section. Currently, the maximum density in any planned development district is 16 dwelling units per acre. Per Section 5.10.1(b) of the Code of Laws (home rule charter), the maximum density in any zone district is 21 dwelling units per acre. The proposed ordinance matches the charter based maximum density for the PRD and PMUD districts, as well as the PHD district. Notice for this public hearing was provided as required by the Code of Laws. ZOA-09-01/ Residential Density in Planned Development Districts BACKGROUND: Current Code Planned development districts are differentiated from "straight" zone districts (e.g, R-1, R-2, C-1, I) in that they each contain their own unique set of characteristics including development standards, uses, and architectural standards. Each planned development is approved as part of a rezoning process, whereas the straight zone districts have a baseline set of standards and uses without the specific parameters a planned development may have such as building footprints, landscaping, and parking. As stated in Section 26-301A of the Code of Laws, the intent of planned developments is to provide "greater flexibility and innovation in land development based on a comprehensive, integrated plan". There are primarily two types of planned developments that contain standards for maximum residential density - the Planned Residential (PRD) and Planned Mixed Use (PMUD) districts at 16 dwelling units per acre. There is not however any zone district in the current code that allows new development with a residential density that matches the city charter limitation of 21 dwelling units per acre. History To the best of staff's information, the current density provisions of 21 dwelling units per acre in the city charter have been in place since the inception of the charter. The PMUD district was enacted in 2001 per Case No. ZOA-01-07. The primary concern at that time related to density was how to calculate it - in other words how residential density could be calculated where there were commercial or mixed use buildings on the site. The end result is the language in Sec. 26-306.5 that specifies how land area and building footprints may be used to calculate density the PMUD district. See Exhibit 1 for further discussion and analysis of these provisions. Since the adoption of this zone district, there is only one development that utilizes this zoning, located at the southwest corner of 38`" Avenue and Depew Street. This property has not yet been developed. To the best of staff's information, the arrival at 16 dwelling units per acre in the PRD and PMUD districts came from the recommendation in the city's comprehensive plan, last updated in 2000. In that document, the land use classification "planned residential development" from the Future Land Use Map had a maximum of 16/acre at select locations throughout the city. It is noteworthy that the city is currently undertaking a rewrite of the comprehensive plan, and that the adopted Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) recommends limited allowances for higher densities while it does not arrive at specific numbers. It is also important to note that there was a ballot question to eliminate the density and height provisions in the city charter on the November 2008 ballot that did not pass. Approval of this initiative would have eliminated the density maximum of 21 dwelling units per acre in the city charter, thereby permitting the Code of Laws to be modified to allow increased density in individual zone districts perhaps exceeding 21/acre. With the failure of this initiative, no provisions in the Code of Laws may exceed this 21/acre figure. Surrounding Jurisdictions Sixteen Jurisdictions in the Denver metro area were surveyed with regards to density provisions in their municipal codes and charters as part of anecdotal research done by staff. All 16 have higher density allowances than Wheat Ridge. None of the Jurisdictions have any density provisions in their charter ZOA-09-01/ Residential Density in Planned Development Districts 2 except Wheat Ridge. The average maximum density in base zoning districts i (excluding Wheat Ridge's 16 units/acre in PRD and PMUD) from the survey of 16 jurisdictions was 31 dwelling units per acre. Note that these densities are for base zone districts, not any Planned Unit Development (PUD) districts, which are the comparable jurisdiction's version of Wheat Ridge's planned development districts. Nearly all communities have higher density allowances in PUD districts, many without any maximum amounts specified in their code. TABLE 1: Maximum Density in Base Zone Districts Note: Higher densities typically allowed in Planned Unit Developments 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 °F' ~ a a a 9' J\ ~t c c a e Jtot °J~` \Z, fie, as ° -X1 e k eX :cz C9° aka~e, P ~>t` ~e Pig \0~ ~k e RATIONALE FOR AMENDMENT The intent of this amendment is to better accommodate desirable development and redevelopment at strategic locations in the city. The adopted Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) clearly spells out the recommendation for increased density allowances to further this goal throughout the document, specifically in Section C.3, recommendation #3 where it states: Presently it is not possible under the City's density restrictions to develop housing above retail in densities needed to support upscale shops. Nor is it possible to build mixed-income housing in densities needed to breathe new life into commercial corridors. While the recommended changes do not propose a significant increase in any density allowances in the city, this modest increase is all that is allowed in the city's current regulatory environment. It is important to note that staff is not initiating this amendment with the philosophy that higher density 1 NOTE: This number comes from the maximum densities allowed in a straight zone district, excluding PUDs, and does not include any allowances for density bonuses. In some communities, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is used as a baseline for density that exceeds the maximum density in some zone districts. For instance in Denver, the maximum density specified in a base zone district (R2A) is 21.8 units per acre but higher density districts are dictated by FAR. Only the density numbers were used in calculating this average. ZOA-09-01/ Residential Density in Planned Development Districts 3 allowances would be beneficial in all areas of the city. On the contrary, the intent is to accommodate higher densities in areas where it may be appropriate - such as in and around any potential transit- oriented development (TOD) with the Gold Line coming through the city and near commercial corridors such as possibly Wadsworth Boulevard. There is no intent to accommodate increased densities in any of the city's established single-family, more "rural" character neighborhoods. Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map It is also noteworthy that the city is undertaking a comprehensive plan update this year. As part of this process, a new Future Land Use Plan Map will be created. This map is a key element in the process for any type of land use decision. The map will likely identify the aforementioned key areas where increased density allowances may be desirable, and where existing low density single family neighborhoods should remain as such. Any proposed rezoning would have to rely on this Future Land Use Map in the final decision, as well as meeting the criteria relating to the character of the surrounding area. Market and Economic Conditions The NRS clearly states that while surrounding jurisdictions have updated their regulations to accommodate desirable residential and mixed use development, Wheat Ridge has fallen behind in this regard and may have missed out on development opportunities. For example, page 1 of the NRS under "A.1" sets this forth. A key component of these regulations is the allowance for higher densities to meet the financial and economic realities of development in today's market. Design vs. Density It is noteworthy that at the time when all the current density maximums were established in the city charter and the Code of Laws, there were minimal design standards in place to regulate the appearance of any type of medium- to high-density multi-family residential and mixed-use development. There were (and are) the baseline standards regarding minimum landscaping, parking, setbacks, and height for example. But there were no standards for architecture, building orientation, and other measures to alleviate the aesthetic concerns of any multi-family or mixed use development. In 2003, the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual (SADM) was adopted with applicability to multi-family and mixed use development. In 2007, the Architectural and Site Design Manual (ASDM) was adopted to work in tandem with the SADM with upgraded standards and more clear procedures. Comments received from elected and appointed officials as well as citizens during the adoption of the NRS and the open houses for the zoning code amendments project reflected the importance of design standards. Several comments taken from the Appendix of the NRS indicated the understanding that increased density allowances would be beneficial if designed properly, for example: • "Need higher density for homes if done right and increase our draw like other cities" • "Standards - appearance - mish/mosh - higher density with design standards - supports developing a broad strategy" • "Apply density requirements where it would make sense and blend into surrounding area" • "Would support high-end, high density housing" • "Places where higher density makes sense - high quality" All applications for Planned Residential Developments and Planned Mixed Use Developments are ZOA-09-01/ Residential Density in Planned Development Districts 4 subject to the criteria for approving final development plans set forth in Section 26-308 of the Code of Laws. Regarding design specifically, Section 26-308.D.4.b.4 (approval criteria) states that the application must comply with the applicable standards of the Architectural and Site Design Manual. Calculating Density in the Planned Mixed Use (PMUD) Zone District The current code has specific provisions for how to measure residential density in the PMUD district as it relates to any mixed use or commercial buildings. Essentially, any land area used for the commercial or mixed use must be deducted from the overall lot area in calculating residential density. This effectively reduces the allowed residential density proportionately to the amount of commercial square footage on a PMUD site. For a further explanation of how this number is calculated, please refer to Exhibit 1 of this memo. Staff is recommending that the residential density be calculated based on overall lot area, as is stated in the city charter (also further explained in Exhibit 1) and eliminating these provisions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Article III of Chapter 26 concerning residential density in planned development districts." Exhibits: 1. Planned Mixed Use (PMUD) Density Calculations 2. Proposed Ordinance ZOA-09-O1/ Residential Density in Planned Development Districts 5 EXHIBIT 1: PMUD DENSITY CALCULATIONS The purpose of this exhibit is to clarify how residential density is calculated in the current planned mixed use (PMUD) zone district, and to illustrate how staff's recommendation impacts any proposed density calculations. Staff is recommending that residential density in the planned mixed use district be calculated based on total lot area. First, it is important to understand that the city charter contains restrictions on residential density, specifically related to how the density is calculated. The following language is taken from Section 5.10.1 of the charter: b) Density Limitations. The city shall not, by ordinance, resolution, motion, variance, permit or other action, allow the construction of residential buildings in any zone district which exceed a maximum of twenty-one (21) family units per acre, except that nursing homes shall not be required to meet this density maximum. In order that land required to support a previous building permit not be used again as a means of circumventing the above maximum, the following shall apply: No subdivision, variance, rezoning or permit shall be approved or granted on said land which subtracts the supporting land and thereby leaves the existing building nonconforming by these standards. The maximum of twenty-one (21) units per acre shall apply to the total parcel, including both existing and proposed construction. Calculating residential density in the PMUD district from the current code Section 26.306.5 reads as follows: E. Density. Maximum of sixteen (16) units per acre. Land used for commercial uses, excluding parking, may not be used to calculate the maximum of sixteen (16) units per acre. If the commercial and residential uses are mixed in the same building, the land attributable to the commercial use shall be considered to be one-half (1/2) of the building footprint. If the commercial and residential uses are in separate buildings, the land attributable to the commercial use shall be considered to be the entire commercial building footprint. This provision has only been applied once, as there is only one PMUD zoned property in the city. Essentially, the calculation can be summarized as follows with different scenarios: • Separate commercial and residential buildings: The building footprint of the commercial building is deducted from the total lot area in calculating the residential density. • Separate mixed use and residential buildings: '/z of the building footprint of the mixed use building is deducted from the lot area in calculating the residential density. • One mixed use building: 1/a of the building footprint is deducted from the lot area in calculating the residential density. • Multiple mixed use buildings: '/z of the building footprint of all the mixed use buildings is deducted from the lot area in calculating the residential density The following examples illustrate how the current code and proposed changes would apply in different specific situations. Ultimately, the more nonresidential or mixed use building footprint on a site, the less residential units are allowed under the current code. ZOA-09-01/ Residential Density in Planned Development Districts Calculating Residential Density i Example 1 Separate commercial and residential buildings Lot Size 100,000 Commercial land area/building footprint 20,000 Residential land area/building footprint 30,000 Maximum allowable Current code 29 units allowed residential dwelling units (subtracting (16 du/acre = 1 unit/2,722 commercial building square feet) footprint = 80,000 lot area If calculated based on 36 units allowed overall lot size Calculating Residential Density i Example 2 Separate commercial and residential buildings Lot Size 100,000 Commercial land area/building footprint 50,000 Residential land area/building f ootprint 30,000 Maximum allowable Current code 18 units allowed residential dwelling units (subtracting (16 du/acre = 1 unit/2,722 commercial building square feet) footprint = 50,000 lot area If calculated based on 36 units allowed overall lot size Calculating Residential Dens ity in PMUD: Example 3 Separate mixed use and res idential buildings Lot Size 100,000 Mixed use land area/building footprint 20,000 Residential land area/buildin g foot rint 30,000 Maximum allowable Current code 33 units allowed residential dwelling units (subtracting mixed (16 du/acre = 1 unit/2,722 use building square feet) footprint/2 = 90,000 lot area If calculated based on 36 units allowed overall lot size Calculating Residential Dens ity i Example 4 Separate mixed use and resi dential buildings Lot Size 100,000 Mixed use land area/building footprint 50,000 Residential land area/buildin g foot rint 30,000 Maximum allowable Current code 27 units allowed residential dwelling units (subtracting mixed (16 du/acre = 1 unit/2,722 building footprint/2 = square feet) 75,000 lot area If calculated based on 36 units allowed overall lot size %hod M" ZOA-09-01/ Residential Density in Planned Development Districts EXHIBIT 2: PROPOSED ORDINANCE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. -2009 Ordinance No. Series of 2009 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 26 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IN PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS (CASE NO. ZOA-08-10) 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 the proposed amendments implement recommendations from the adopted Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1: Section 26-303 of the Code is amended to read: Sec. 26-303. Planned Residential Developments (PRD) regulations.2 A. Area: No minimum. B. Density: Maximum twenty-one (21) . ice,-(ice dwelling units per acre. C. Height: Maximum thirty-five (35) feet. D. Landscaping: In accordance with section 26-502, otherwise as established by the outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved final development plan. E. Parking: In accordance with section 26-501, otherwise as established by the outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved final development plan. F. Fences and walls: In accordance with section 26-603, otherwise as established by the outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved final development plan. G. Signage: In accordance with article VII, otherwise as established by the outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved final development plan. H. The requirements of this section shall not apply to impose a density requirement of less than twenty-one (21) units per acre, with respect to the reconstruction of residential dwelling in the PRD district, where such structures and their reconstruction meet all of the following requirements: 1. The structure was legally in existence on September 8, 1997; 2. The structure is located upon a lot which does not meet the then-applicable minimum lot area and/or minimum land area per unit requirements for such proposed reconstruction; and 2 NOTE: The following suggests increasing the density allowance for the PRD district to match the city charter. We have also suggested striking the nonconforming provisions below. With the new 21 dwelling units/acre provision, any PRD may be rebuilt up to 21 dwelling units an acre with the applicable procedure. ZOA-09-0 1/ Residential Density in Planned Development Districts 8 3. Such reconstruction is restricted to replacement of the structure which has been destroyed. This exemption shall not apply to: 1. New construction where no replacement of a preexisting structure takes place; or 2. Reconstruction of structures which were not legally in existence (as distinguished from legal nonconforming structures). L All planned residential developments shall meet the residential site design standards of article V unless specifically varied on the outline and final development plan. J. A planned residential development shall be required for any mobile home park and must meet the standards for mobile home park design in section 26-506. (Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01; Ord. No. 1241, § t, 1-28-02; Ord. No. 1319, § 1, 4-12-04) Section 2: Section 26-306 of the Code is amended to read: Sec. 26-306. Planned Hospital District (PHD) regulations. A. Allowable uses. The following uses hereinafter listed shall be permitted only as specifically designated on the approved final development plan: 1. Public and private general hospital. 2. Hospitals or sanitariums for contagious diseases, or the mentally disturbed or handicapped. 3. Independent living units, homes for the aged, nursing homes, congregate care homes, hospices or similar residential facilities which are accessory to a hospital or sanitarium principal use. 4. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted uses as shown on the approved final development plan. B. Area. Each Planned Hospital District shall be a minimum of five (5) acres, except as provided below. C. Lot width. Two hundred (200) feet minimum. D. Setback requirements: 1. Front: Fifty (50) feet minimum. 2. Side: Twenty-five (25) feet minimum plus ten (10) feet for each story. The intent is to provide a minimum twenty-five-foot landscape buffer adjacent to residential zoned property. 3. Rear: Twenty-five (25) feet minimum, plus ten (10) feet for each story. The intent is to provide a minimum twenty-five-foot landscape buffer adjacent to residential zoned property. E. Height: 1. Hospital buildings: Fifty (50) feet maximum, except as follows: a. Sixty-five (65) feet where the lot on which the building is to be constructed is at least fifty (50) acres in size. b. Additions attached to existing hospitals may be built to a height not to exceed the height of the existing building. 2. Offices: Fifty (50) feet maximum. 3. Residential: Thirty-five (35) feet maximum. 4. Accessory: Thirty-five (35) feet maximum. F. Residential density. No residential development, excluding congregate care homes, nursing homes or intermediate nursing care facilities, shall exceed twenty one (21)t, (16) dwelling units per acre.3 G. Landscaping: 3 NOTE: Staff does not see this provision being used often, but our recommendation is to allow the same flexibility in our PHD district as in other districts. ZOA-09-01/ Residential Density in Planned Development Districts 9 1. Minimum twenty-five (25) percent overall site requirement. 2. Twenty-five-foot landscape buffer required along property lines adjacent to residential zoned property. 3. Unless otherwise specifically provided for on the approved plan, all landscaping shall meet the requirements set forth in section 26-502. H. Parking: In accordance with section 26-501, otherwise as established by the outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved final development plan. I_ Fences and walls: In accordance with section 26-603, otherwise as established by the outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved final development plan. J. Signage: In accordance with article VII, otherwise as established by the outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved final development plan. (Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01; Ord. No. 1319, § 1, 4-12-04) Section 3: Section 26-306.5 of the Code is amended to read: Sec. 26-306.5. Planned Mixed Use District. A. Purpose. This district is established to provide a zoning classification to allow the integration of residential and commercial uses and development which is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods and which meets the intent of the comprehensive plan and the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. It is not intended to be used solely to permit a higher density than allowed in the planned residential development (PRD) district nor to circumvent other specific standards of the planned residential and planned commercial districts. Instead, it is intended to create a zone district which will allow flexibility in use, design, and orientation while maximizing space, community interest and protecting nearby and adjacent residential neighborhoods. B. Permitted uses. Permitted uses shall be a mixture of residential and commercial uses governed by approval of the outline development plan. C. Area. No minimum. D. Height. Maximum fifty (50) feet for freestanding commercial buildings only; thirty-five (35) feet for structures containing commercial and residential uses; thirty-five (35) feet for freestanding residential structures. E. Density. Maximum of twenty-one (21)sixteen ( units per acre.a r and use f f °em°r°i uses, exeluding par-kifig, fflay tiet be ased te ealetilate the maximufn ef sixteen (16) units pef aefe. I the eemmefeial and residential uses afe mi*ed in the same bailding, the land attfibutable to the eemfflefeial use shall be eonsidefed to be one half ( 1/2) ef the building fqotpfifit. if th- and residential uses ar-e in sepafate buildings, the land attf4butable te the eeffiffiefeial tise shall be F. Landscaping. In accordance with section 26-502, otherwise as established by the outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved final development plan. G. Parking. In accordance with section 26-501, otherwise as established by the outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved final development plan. Allowances may be made for shared parking spaces if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the person or approval body 4 NOTE: We have suggesting revising this language to calculate residential density based on overall lot area, consistent with the city charter. Further discussion and analysis of this is provided in Exhibit I and the body of the staff report. Staff requests direction from planning commission as to either using the existing language and clarifying the calculation, or moving forward with the revisions as proposed by staff. ZOA-09-0I/ Residential Density in Planned Development Districts 10 designated as having final approval authority that parking demand for different uses occurs at different time. H. Fences and wall. In accordance with section 26-603, otherwise as established by the outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved final development plan. 1. Signage. In accordance with article VII, otherwise as established by the outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved final development plan. (Ord. No. 1239, § 1, 1-14-02; Ord. No. 1319, § 1, 4-12-04) Sec. 26-626. Residential uses in commercial zones; conditions. A. The amount of total floor area devoted to commercial use must exceed that devoted to residential use. B. Residential use shall not be located on the ground floor, and if so, restricted to the rear half of the building. C. Residential use density shall not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per five thousand (5,000) square feet of lot area.' D. Residential dwelling units shall be no less than five hundred (500) square feet each. E. Parking shall be supplied at the rate of one (1) space per three hundred (300) square feet of floor area. F. Where the applicant intends to convert an existing residential structure, either partially or wholly, to a commercial use, commercial development standards shall be applied for parking, landscaping and residential buffering. Any changes to building floor area shall fully comply with all commercial development standards. G. No new residences as a primary or principal use shall be allowed. 5 QUESTION: Does Planning Commission feel that the density provisions in this section should be modified as well? As it stands, this density requirement comes to 8.7 units/acre. Allowing up to 21 dwelling units/acre for example would be I unit12,074 square feet of lot area. ZOA-09-01/ Residential Density in Planned Development Districts 11 's City of W heat ~ge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: PLANNING COMMISSION THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Kathy Field, Administrative Assistant DATE: January 30, 2009 SUBJECT: Amended Resolution Designating a Public Place for the Posting of Notices of Public Meetings Pursuant to legislative amendments to the Colorado Open Meeting Law as Section 24-6- 402(2)(c), Planning Commission is to annually designate at its first meeting for each calendar year a public place for the posting of notices for meeting. By properly designating a place for posting meeting notices, a public entity will be deemed to have given full and timely notice of any meeting so long as notice thereof was posted as the designated place at least twenty-four hours in advance thereof. Attached is Resolution 01, Series of 2009, which identifies the 'inlet" board it the lobby of the Municipal Building as the designated place for posting of meeting notices. Attachment 1. Resolution 01, 2009 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISION RESOLUTION NO. 01 Series of 2009 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A DESIGNATED PUBLIC PLACE FOR THE POSTING OF MEETING NOTICES AS REQUIRED BY THE COLORADO OPEN MEETINGS LAW WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, deems it in the public interest to provide full and timely notice of all of its meetings; and WHEREAS, the Colorado state legislature amended the Colorado Open Meetings Laws, Section 24-6-401, et seq., C.R.S. to require all "local public bodies" subject to the requirements of the law to annually designate at the local public body's first regular meeting of each calendar year, the place for posting notices of public hearings no less than twenty-four hours prior to the holding of the meeting; and WHEREAS, "local public body" is defined by Section 24-6-402(1)(a) to include "any board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or formally constituted body of any political subdivision of the state and any public or private entity to which a political subdivision, or an official thereof, has delegated a governmental decision- making function but does not include persons on the administrative staff of the local public body". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, that: 1. The lobby of the Municipal Building shall constitute the designated public place for the posting of meeting notices as required by the Colorado Open Meetings Law. 2. The Community Development Director or his designee shall be responsible for posting the required notices no later than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the holding of the meeting. 3. All meeting notices shall include specific agenda information, where possible. DONE AND RESOLVED THIS day of , 2009. CHAIR, PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission e: \plann ing\forms\rescc