Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/05/2009- 1. 41 City of ~ Wheat edge PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA March 5, 2009 Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on March 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 - February 19, 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. STUDY SESSION A. Development Standards for Residential Zones 8. OTHER ITEMS A. Joint Study Session with City Council - April 6, 2009 9. ADJOURNMENT 1I~ City of l W heat idEre PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting February 19, 2009 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair BRINKMAN at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29 h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present Commission Members Excused: Staff Members Present: Jerry Scezney Kim Stewart Steve Timms e~ Davis Reinhart Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner DWYER to approve the order of the agenda. The motion passed 7-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 5, 2009 It was moved by Commissioner DWYER and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to approve the minutes of February 5, 2009 as presented. The motion passed 5-0 with Commissioners BRINKMAN and SCEZNEY abstaining and Commissioner REINHART 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 February 19, 2009 There was no one to address the Commission. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-08-09 (continued from February S, 2009: An application filed by Longs Peak Metropolitan District to establish zoning of Agricultural-One for land being annexed into the City of Wheat Ridge (Case No. ANX-08-03) generally located east of 14802 West 44th Avenue. The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case. Prior to her presentation, she distributed copies of notes from the neighborhood meeting regarding this application. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. In order to comply with State statutes regarding annexation, the property must be zoned within 90 days. As this property is to be used only for infrastructure improvements, zoning of the property as A-1 is appropriate. For those reasons, staff recommended approval of the application. Commissioner CHILVERS commented that Asphalt Paving is using the area for parking trucks which is not an allowed use in A-1 zoning. Tim Paranto explained that when the property is conveyed to the city, the city could prohibit the use of the property for parking. Chair BRINKMAN asked to hear from members of the audience. The applicant spoke from the audience and indicated that he had nothing to add to the staff presentation. Bill Jones 14352 West 44th Avenue Mr. Jones owns a commercial building that will soon be surrounded by annexed land. He expressed concern that the City would annex his property in the future that he was opposed to such annexation. In response to a question from Chair BRINKMAN as to whether or not public services to those properties surrounded by annexation would be affected, Mr. Paranto stated that none of those services would be affected and, in fact, snow removal services should be improved. Flora Andrus 4790 Easley Road Ms. Andrus serves as Chairman of Prospect Recreation and Park District and is a member of the Board of Fairmont Improvement Association. She stated that those people living in the enclave to be surrounded by the annexed property are adamantly opposed to being annexed to the City of Wheat Ridge. She stated that about a year after the City installs landscaping on the north side of 44th Avenue, Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 19, 2009 Prospect Recreation has agreed in an intergovernmental agreement to perform maintenance of the landscaping. There are about a hundred homeowners in the enclave north of 44th Avenue who are very concerned about the impact on their properties. She expressed appreciation for the cooperation received from the City of Wheat Ridge and Cabela's in working together with Fairmont to address the community's concerns. Chair BRINKMAN asked if there were others who wished to address the Commission. Hearing no response, she closed the public hearing. It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to recommend approval of Case No. WZ-08-09, a request for approval of A-1 zoning for property being considered for annexation to the City located east of 14802 West 44th Avenue, including the rights-of-way for State Highway 58, the proposed interchange for Highway 58 and Cabela Drive, Cabela Drive between the new interchange and West 44th Avenue and right-of-way for West 44th Avenue from west of Holman Street extending approximately 4500 feet to the east for the following reasons: 1. Zoning must be in place within 90 days of annexation. 2. A-1 zoning is appropriate for infrastructure. The motion passed 7-0. B. Case No. ZOA-08-04: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 to require proof of adequate water supply for certain new developments. This case was presented by Ken Johnstone. He reviewed the staff report. The proposed zoning code amendment responds to legislation enacted by the Colorado Legislature and approved by the Governor in 2008. Colorado House Bill HB 08- 114 requires that through the development review and approval process, local municipalities make a determination that certain new developments will have an adequate water supply. Commissioner DWYER asked if the ordinance would prohibit well water from being used as water supply for a new development. Ken Johnstone explained that use of well water is already prohibited as a water supply for new development. Commissioner DWYER asked what the rationale was to prevent formation of new water districts. Mr. Johnstone explained that this was, in part, an attempt to eliminate the confusion from having so many existing water districts within the city. In response to a question from Chair BRINKMAN, Mr. Johnstone explained that this would not impact water districts who wish to merge. Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 19, 2009 It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws to require that certain development applications provide proof of adequate water supply. The motion passed 7- 0. 8. 9 OTHERITEMS A. A joint study session with the Board of Adjustment and Planning Commission is scheduled for March 5, 2009 in the City Council Chambers to discuss development standards for residential zones. B. The Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority has invited the Planning Commission and City Council to attend its meeting on March 3 at 6:00 p.m. The consultant who is working on future urban renewal plans for the City will be giving a presentation on the preliminary findings of a conditions survey. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner DWYER and seconded by Commissioner TIMMS to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m. The motion passed 7-0. - ff Ann Lazzeri, Secretary E Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 19, 2009 Anne Brinkman, Chai City of Wheat iidge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner FROM: Jeff Hirt, Planner DATE: February 26, 2009 SUBJECT: March 5 Residential Development Standards Study Session One of the proposed short term zoning code amendments was the revisions to front setbacks in residential zone districts. At the December 8, 2008 Planning Commission public hearing, a consensus was reached that all residential development standards - not just front setbacks - should be evaluated and staff should propose recommendations for changes. Staff has scheduled this study session to evaluate the issue and obtain feedback to move forward with these changes. Additionally, staff suggested that it would be beneficial for the Board of Adjustment to attend this study session, as the majority of the cases they hear deal with residential development standards. Planning Commission concurred. The purpose of this memo is to provide the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment with background on the issue and present recommendations to discuss as part of this study session. Based on the outcome of this meeting, staff will be bringing forward proposed ordinances for Planning Commission's review. The structure of this memo is as follows: 1. Executive Summary 2. Background/History - 2003 Residential Development Standards Amendments 3. Related Variance Case History 4. Comparable Jurisdiction Summary 5. Staff Recommendations Executive Summary Residential development standards are one of the most significant factors in shaping the built environment in Wheat Ridge's residential neighborhoods. The residential development standards being evaluated as part of this zoning code amendment include the following for both principle and accessory buildings: • Maximum Height • Maximum Building Coverage • Minimum Front Yard Setback • Minimum Side Yard Setback • Minimum Rear Yard Setback The city's residential straight zone districts are as follows, with development standards set forth in Sections 26-205 through 26-212 of the Code of Laws: 1. Residential-One District (R-1) 2. Residential-One A District (R-IA) 3. Residential-One B District (R-113) 4. Residential-One C District (R-1C) 5. Residential-Two District (R-2) 6. Residential-Two A District (R-2A) 7. Residential-Three District (R-3) 8. Residential-Three A District (R-3A) Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy The adopted Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy clearly outlines the need to update the zoning code to encourage improvements to existing residential properties to attract "strong" households. There are a number of obstacles in the current zoning code related to residential development standards to encourage desirable residential development and redevelopment in the current code: of the homes built in Wheat Ridge were not originally built with two car garages, a commonly demanded item in the current residential market. The current residential development standards, specifically setback requirements, often times are very restrictive in allowing any type of additions or expansions. In many cases the existing setback requirements do not reflect the existing conditions, particularly in residential neighborhoods east of Wadsworth. In other words, houses, garages, and sheds very often Wheat Ridge has, on average, significantly smaller homes than surrounding communities and the county as a whole.' With this, there is a demand for expansions to existing homes, which often includes additions and detached garages. For instance, the majority 1 See page 20 of the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS). 2 Typical Wheat Ridge residential structure encroach into required setbacks under current regulations. ' A major component of the NRS is also encouraging more pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.' Every residential zone district has required large front yard setbacks, higher on average than any surrounding jurisdiction in fact (see Attachment 2 of this memo). While it is perhaps appropriate to keep these larger front setbacks in some of the city's large lot residential zone districts, it may be beneficial to include some reductions in others. Summary of Recommendations In general, staff has recommended reduced front yard setbacks in all residential zone districts except for the R-1 district, which represents the city's large lot residential zone district. Additionally, staff has recommended reduced side and rear yard setbacks in some examples. These include corner lots (where there are essentially two 30' front yard setbacks), and setbacks for detached garages and sheds. More detail on the district-by-district recommendations is provided in the Recommendations section of this memo. Background 2003 Zoning Code Amendments Before presenting recommendations and analyzing existing conditions, it is important to summarize the similar zoning code amendment process undertaken in 2003. Initially, this specific issue was discussed as part of the comprehensive zoning code rewrite in 2001. As new issues emerged, subsequent meetings and research resulted in approval of the adopted ordinance taking place in 2003. The following general revisions were made at that time: • Reduced the allowable building height for accessory structures in all residential zone districts. The general intent was to limit the bulk and mass of the structures, and there were also concerns about living space above the structures. • Increased side and rear setbacks for accessory structures based on building height. • Increased side and rear setbacks for principal structures in some districts - some based on height (per story) and some an outright increase. • Establish a maximum size of 120 square feet for metal accessory buildings in all residential zone districts. • Revise the definition of an accessory building. Noted throughout the document; but see page 24 of the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS) for a specific example as part of the recommendations from this document. 3 The following specific district-by-district revisions were made in 2003 related to residential development standards: SUMMARY OF t200 3 CHANGES TO RESID ENTIAL DEVELO PMENT STANDARD Zone District Type of Structure Building Height Building Setbacks Residential One (R-1) Principle structures Detached garages 15' 2W Storage sheds 10' 2E3 Residential One A (R- IA) Principle structures Side: 10' Detached garages 15' 2W Side/rear: 5' if < 8' height, 10' if > 8' height 5' Storage sheds 10' 241 Side/rear: 5' if < 8' height, 10' if > 8' height Residential One B (R-IB) Principle structures Detached garages 15' 28' Side/rear: 5' if < 8' height, 10' if > 8' height Storage sheds 10' 2W Side/rear: 5' if < 8' height, 10' if > 8' height 5-1 Residential One C (R-IC) Principle structures Rear: 5' 4-9' Detached garages 15' 2W Side/rear: 5' if < 8' height, 10' if > 8' height Storage sheds 10' 2W Side/rear: 5' if < 8' height, 10' if > 8' height -5 Residential Two (R-2) Principle structures Detached garages 15' 2W Side/rear: 5' if < 8' height, 10' if > 8' height Storage sheds 10' 29° Side/rear: 5' if < 8' height, 10' if > 8' height -52 Residential Two A (R-2A) Principle structures Side: 5' per story Multifamily, Rear: 10' for one to two story buildings; 15' for three story buildings 4- Detached garages 15' 211 Side/rear: 5' if < 8' height, 10' if > 10' height Storage sheds 10' 2W Side/rear: 5' if < 8' height, 10' if > 8' height 5' Residential Three (R-3) Principle structures Side: 5' per story -5 Multifamily, Rear: 15' 4-& Detached garages 15' 2-W Side/rear: 5' if < 8' height, 10' if > 8' height 52- Storage sheds 10' 2El' Side/rear: 5' if < 8' height, 10' if > 8' height Residential Three A (R-3A) Principle structures Side: 5' per story Multifamily, Rear: 15' 4-W Detached garages 15' 2W Side/rear: 5' if < 8' height, 10' if > 8' height Storage sheds 10' 241 Side/rear: 5' if < 8' height, 10' if > 8' height The following revisions were made as part of the same process to other sections of the code: Sec. 26-611 "Building Setbacks" This section dealing with allowed encroachments into setbacks was revised to prohibit encroachments in nonresidential zone districts. Previously, structures such as porches, patios, chimneys, etc. were allowed some limited encroachments into setbacks in all zone districts. Section 26-123 "Definitions" The definition of accessory building was revised to list specific types of accessory structures such as storage sheds, detached garages, membrane structures, gazebos, etc. Section 26-204 "Zone District Use Schedule " This section was revised to clarify that accessory buildings are not allowed on vacant lots that do not have primary or main buildings. Related Variance Case History Staff conducted anecdotal variance case history research going back to 2000 as it relates to residential development standards. Note that there were some changes to the residential development standards in 2003 (as discussed above), specifically related to side and rear setbacks for accessory buildings. Attachment 1 summarizes in more detail all of the variance requests from 2000 - 2008. Some conclusions are listed below, as well as in tables and graphs. 2000- 2008 • 127 total variance requests from applicable residential development standards in R-series districts • 72% of all requests were approved • 36 were for side yard setbacks for accessory structures (garages, sheds) (28% of total) o The average side yard setback request was 5.86 feet into the required setback o The R-2 district had the most of these types of requests at 42%, with the R-1 district having 31 • 21 were for front yard setbacks for principle structures (17% of total) o The average front yard request was 8.13 feet into the required setback o The R-2 district had the most of these types of requests at 38%, with the R-1C district having 19% • 18 were for rear yard setbacks for accessory structures (14% of total) o The average rear yard request was 5.16 feet into the required setback o The R-2 district had the most of these types of requests at 38%, with the RAC district having 19% 2000 - November 2003 (prior to approval of new residential development standards) • 52 total variance requests from applicable residential development standards in R-series districts 62% of all requests were approved 10 were for side yard setbacks for accessory structures (garages, sheds) (19% of total) o The average side yard setback request was 5.5 feet into the required setback o The R-1 district had the most of these types of requests at 40% 11 were for side yard setbacks for principle structures (21% of total) o The average side yard setback request was 7.8 feet into the required setback o The R-1 district had the most of these types of requests at 36% • 11 were for front yard setbacks for principle structures (21% of total) o The average front yard setback request was 8.6 feet into the required setback o The R-2 district had the most of these types of requests at 45% November 2003 - 2008 (following approval of new residential development standards) • 77 total variance requests from residential development standards (61% of total from 2000-2008) • 77%n of all requests were approved • 24 were for side yard setbacks for accessory structures (garages, sheds) (31% of total) o The average side yard setback request was 6.5 feet o The R-2 district had the most of these types of requests at 50%, with the R-1 district having 29%. • 13 were for rear yard setbacks for accessory structures (17% of total) o The average rear yard request was 5.3 feet o The R-2 district had the most of these types of requests at 38%, with the R-1 district having 31% The following tables provide some general illustrations of trends in variance requests related to residential development standards: Number of Setback Variance Requests by Year (from applicable development standards - building setbacks, lot size, and lot coverage) 25 - 20 15 10 5 0 - 2C 22 6 Side Yard Setback Requests for Accessory Structures of total variance requests) 35% 31% 30% 25% 20% 19% 15% 10% i - 5% - - i 2000-2003 2003-2008 AVERAGE SETBACK REQUESTS, 20 00-2008 Type of Request Setback Average [encroaching Request into the required Side setback (principle building) setback] 5.4' Front setback (principle building) 8.1' Corner lot from right-of-way (principle building) 8.4' Side setback (accessory building) 5.9' Rear setback (accessory building) 5.1' Corner setback from right-of-way (accessory building) 11' Comparable Jurisdiction Summary Eight area jurisdictions were analyzed with regards to the residential development standards under consideration for this zoning code amendment. Attachment 2 includes a table with more detail on this research. In general, the conclusions are as follows: Wheat Ridge... • Has the highest front setbacks on average • Has lesser rear setbacks for principle structures on average • Has higher side and rear setbacks for detached garages on average - most do not base the setback on height • Generally is more restrictive for corner lot setbacks. Five of the eight have reduced side and rear yard setbacks for corner lots,for principle structures on average • Is consistent with regards to side setbacks for principle structures on average • Is consistent with front setbacks for accessory structures in that they are the same as the principle structure, but some jurisdictions simply require that they be behind the principle structure • Is consistent with accessory buildings of lesser height for side and rear setbacks on average • Is consistent with regards to building heights for principle structures on average • Is consistent with regards to building heights for accessory structures on average 8 z W ~G oho W U~ p z b O 1 ~ C C a~ 0 U x U 'O i T i U U LL CJ N _o U b c~ U 't3 N 0 a> bq C U U 'L7 O U O U ~ O U C ~ o c o U o ~ 0 o ~ U s}Lw _0 3 iti ^y ~ U y y e~ cL a+ u w v V V O O y "C C ~ ~ C 6) 6! C J". R C C C~ C3 C C ~ C ^O C _ u v O V +S+ ~ ~ am V O w y = ~ O L y = V V O L u ` ir, N M N z ovu.` ~~w C ~ ~ 0r ~~w C ~ y N . . r n 6J V O u C a C . v O a .G O Q . u a u C ~ ee C C C u eC C • ~ ~ • N /--a Lr G C~ f /1 Cp i 0+ v N o u o u w 6J O W co ow O L 'o v, R C m • N z z ~ .G W C. m~ G '.O c:~, C. v~ N w ^o w b or- • ` cc W p V p Y a~+ ~b u,C. C 'O u v VJ . ~^O u,a J C -O u u VI ~ L y tlo L ~ (n ~ T M in ~ L r~- aU ~ Wi bU C 'b ti C c3 C ~ O y U~ S_ O o h o o L1 Cf) ¢ U C'n W y Cl .U X C y ~ w y y 'O cry G c3 L C 3 'O T7 C O y ~ ~ y y bU C _T U CR. fl. G U y a s vi c x .L vyi ~ sT. y C y Q"-o U L 3 L x U y i, bL G y ~ O ~ y sT. N L Q ~ [n f y y U M U O S ~ C bG Q X C bfj y y -1" C O ~ ti C v~ L y w ~ o y W L cJ F" ~ y O U ^O z = L ~Q to - - VI o o Y o ~ -gyp y cC I I b v C ~ ~ ~ + w c ~ + w ; + ~n in ~n o o v~ o ~ ' ca .Y I A I A ca - in v) ~n " - v) zn Cn O O O - v-, C c T C5 kr) I I ~ G bA O bA • - ~n v) kn in M t-f) 0 0 0 3 -C ° _ ~ v; I I ro'O ' v z Ln .X vn kr) O O z O • I • " I • - I - 'n z Z in in ~n ~n z Z in ~ I A I cs ~ ~ - a, ¢ d ~ o, Q Q V Z z o z z c r-4 n • C ~ C O _ - I r 00 b V V r z z kr) z z bA bA 41 ' ' C ' bA w G bA w C bU 4, C C O ,L' bU c3 C G bA C bU 4y C C y .C Ob E3•o ~0 ~ ~ Q O-d E3-~-o ~-0 8 Q 44 C'n cn C y y F C: s bU y ~ ~ ~ C y ~ C D _y ya C O p O ~ ~ ~ c3 c3 3 0 ~ y > v •°yu c ~ y oA n y 7 y ~ ~yoo 44 c x y ~ c cCs s 8 -u y y c ° bU U `n y y rcJS T ~ -o c .a bA c ? r ~ U -5 in 7D c y C4 I y o y Q N ~ C ~ A~ `n c~ 7 cu L~ ~ ~ ,c, -c U o y 3 bbli O LO 7 p "D y CL C E N C -d C C s~~, . ~ ~ p ~ y x 0. y . i X ECG c3 ~ ,U7 y ~ y x ~ 'fl ~ y s ro n c ro U y 75 E~ 7~ C bA 'j T7 V1 y .C p, y ~ bU v~ C yy„ ~ c3 X ~ y 'O ..d y C1. 'a y C 0 0 buy Gia ,y W S W y y Gil ~ O O c o 0 z °z ~z ~zb -r J n c3 ~o s.. CZ,r ¢S O w w c~ c~ u w O i u w O L N N N .0 E. V G C e.R. m y w ~ u V O' C -O u ; C ^p v A u ~ u ~ V ~ N ~ N ~ N V ~ L L w d 1 ' y u" L L ) u i it ~ C u w "a C 7J O Gr +S+ O u _ a a -0 ~ -0 - a ~"C a~. o .O Z7 u. ~ VI 1/1 ~ GJ V" L L 6J V^'L 6i _ v v CO ~ C 'O V r C 'O V -0 A Q ~ J :1 A V L 6 ~ u V L . N N z e:Q C. .5 ai . Cr w 16 C1 _ _ } O V a~'+ M' O 61 G~ O~ L _ V O~ L • A A ¢ Q_ .1 ca CY, •L ~ inn = mot L VI z z . ~ + eia d ' V r e:Q Or u u w ~ - - - O u a~.+ p u x ~ ~ L A L a~ O O u ,a i u O ^p 6r .C i • C ^O v u ~ C b v u ~ N z z ~~w C. ~ ~.Cw d ~ 00 - ^C = ^C ~ n l l W • O u y O Gr ~ _ L _ V O L C ^C v u W •L L C 'O v u COY .L z z rr , o-0 71 > O 'O ^ y s O a o 0 8 H - x b c v ~ ~QG: ~ rx 'O L 4 ~ ,L O y s M T ~ T ~ U L ~ ~ O ~ b4 y y cA i C C'3 C y y y ~ ~ bA [i, v b O O y y cL3 p y L 3y. G sy- ~ T ~ ~ U O ~ L C y O y C n C ~ v~ y • ~ ~ v p 'C7 y G c y ' y. y o ~ c c y L y a~ E U C~ w U O Y C i L E y b-0 U v~ C ~ ~ 7 'O L 'O y X 'C~ . ~ ..0 b ~n 'O y O C C p O C y QL Y CL ~ L L yE~-~ ~ 3os y 'O .Y > O cJ cL3 y s `y^ J ~ O ' vii c3 ~ c3 y L y o- :c C L s C ~ T ,"d O V ~ 'O y '"a L L :J U "p L ~ _ -d "O O U c3 O C U y y ~ X ~ 'Y ~ ~ y c3 "O U N ~ c3 ~ .D bA "O J sy. U y i. ryn ~ ~ w ~U y c~JJ y y y ^ M, ^ C O CG L' ' ~ C F C3 ..U. L y y o ° N ° U c p~ o o 'U G U y 7 75 75 O V'~ cd o0 cLG T G S L ° c W y W y s W O O y Z U C S z 2 y cl- v-E 2 N 3 C City of Wheat j dJge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Miscellaneous Notes Vertical Additions, or "Pop Tops" with Nonconforming Setbacks Where there are existing nonconforming structures that encroach into required setbacks, property owners are allowed to "build in line" with the existing encroachment - meaning that they cannot increase the degree of the encroachment. The question of whether or not this applies to vertical additions, or "pop tops" has arisen, particularly with regards to setback requirements based on building heights. It has been department policy in the past to allow vertical additions in line with existing encroachments, as long as the setback is not based on building height and the setback would become nonconforming. Maximum Height for Accessory Structures Much discussion took place in 2003 to arrive at the current height limitations for accessory structures, particularly detached garages. The arrival at 15' had an intent of limiting the allowance for additional dwelling units or living space to be constructed above detached garages in the future. Number of Accessory Structures While it is not specified in the code, the department's policy regarding the number of accessory structures on a property has been to allow as many as a property owner would desire, as long as the square footage stays under the maximum allowed square footage. For instance, if the maximum allowable square footage for storage sheds is 200 square feet, then one could have two 100 square foot storage sheds. Nonconformities as a Result of Any Code Amendments The amendments proposed generally include less restrictive setback requirements, therefore if enacted they will actually substantially decrease the number of nonconforming properties in the city. Policy Questions In addition to the policy recommendations contained in the district-specific standards contained in this memo, there are the following general policy questions: Bulk Plane Does the Planning Commission/Board of Adjustment want to move more toward basing building setbacks based on height? If so, do we want to consider the possibility of implementing any type of bulk plan requirements? An example of a bulk plane standard where setbacks are based on the scale of buildings is provided below from Denver. !u! Go W Pim ` ' • ` ~ ~ Aita~dmam Neight b tt0' Side PL / Side PL t~ t _r1 _ .1` w ; 45• 45•, 17 Font View M ("W Plan K = Property line (mien line ~K 1tr bonl setback (L dsr Side View (1) of Aky 11) (1) M no *y esdsts the Shack b X bow Hie rear property Nne. The bait coebol om,*m, pmn throragh a pOW v 4bm the rew property mf. R-2-A Bulk Plane how no sherd abw generally ftmaes the Setback ad hilt kgAoOm for esast Wi dbp cow*" a we by NM. Mowe+ret for tpec~it>MiriYoes to hadiridrW preptks h>ttn'sted parties are adWed townw the & Ong AdmWwafim Ake_ l3 111"""111 F- .z W L cr O I \ W W U 0 `l U D' O O O O O LO N 0) N r, CO M C\j N 0 O (D V Co 00 N O CD N 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0- 0 0 0 Ln O Cl) f- o Cl) O N r M CD O O M In O co co M Cl) Cl) V co M Co N LO M JJ O O\o O O ' Lc) LO O O O O0 fl CD Lq M O LO N Lo ' N 0 0 0 0 N (o Lf? O O On LO Ln 0 0 0 CD f- co M O O • O Lo o~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 N O co ~ O co O d' LD r O Cl) r- N O • O C N N 0 E a c °7 a (n v ~ CD m m (D N C N V > M co 00 Q) co O N • Q LO 00 00 LD co LO co 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a 0 0 _ R CD It LO M (D LO M rl- to ^ LO I~ CD O O N ~ CD M N co V LO LO O N O O N N C U N C d U a > cc O O U) CD N V co co N N I- O N d Yk y Q O l0 Cl H > D r N U) Q a U 15 a O v c E E E Z E (D Q ¢ O co O p - U) Gl Y U Y U o Y U U (D Y 7 a U 7 m Y 7 U Y 0) U C U n7 OS C OS - C) co '6 cl, OS OY O _ 0 o N T N N N !n T 0) l ( n ash (n -2 ° (n 0 3 - E a o _0 ' ca `o (n -o o N 0 co - m m O m V) T N C,5 0 0) Y O N p U CL C U U C U W W C 0 ID C U U N ( p n a > F- (n i o i Q) t 0 U -s) N -0 U h c ) p U U CC L` U i J n 11 n o C m L.L. RS cif n tn F ~ N o LO Ln o Cl) o a) ~ E_ E > > r m O O O T a) N p U m , d Q L3 m a' N= ate) 2 C r ) a U C N Ln N • • co O_ -0 C U -0-0 • N O O C C C o C\j LO N o U o • a~ O O O -0 I n°a m a) O U) • Fz E in ` (n U Q) N a .i 7 U 5 .a _ U.m in O C\j CO U a) I o z ~ a~i ° E Y N E 0)-Q_D Oin 2 ~S 0 N co ~o ~ (n cl) • • C O • ON O ON N d 7 O I 6 N CO z E • Lo N N ( 6 LO Cf) N Cl) a N O v Y O a) U L -O aS tl3 O N a YO 7 ~O Q) Ln O (n N a0 a)~ O c6 r m- aN a) cn • p Q O co v N O. L cn ' o) m L~ a) N U mr LL C O ) (n M .2 • • Ln N • • m E D O 3 2 N w a) ° N N > C U) C > > i O N O 2 i N N O C V = m m N ? 0 • T C\j E ~ E • O c6 > LO I LO O ` a) LL U cU U) -0 ~ Q N U I a) O I O C O O C\j U O a) O O Lo a) a) Lo (D -0 . U a) co O N I a) n -0_ N r _O Lo ~N<n in cn ON Q C 7 N !?U Lo N I L!') N N • • • a) :S in O 5_ o Ln N O T In C O O U) E C E to E C O U) O m p E C cu .i Y C 'C "a' O co i I `n C _ Y N ~ _ . O (n u7 O O x' o Y (n N a) c v o Ln n E ° n E 7- 0 ° E 9 o N o c0 U) U) U) 0 _0 c o a) cz CD m 'L o ~ ` c o LL a CO II E m, a U) ca a in O LL O Y a) L) Q j Y O U (n c6 - U U co (n U a' ` a) C U ` (n LL N Cn N co m ~ ao N n . V L L eo n V L L a) O O In L r L O O O LO L r L • • • • O C`) co cis c: co te E m E m Q) E E ) E m a E o O O a) N j-0 U O V) NO 7 L 2 (n O -5 9 U O (Un . V VF) ('7 .C N A F LO CO N .C (MD ('7 OC a) .C (1) r Q) T ° O (D O N r U m N ~ L > > 22 . ~ N • • • L a) • • • L U ' U U 7 i n Q (n C O O CO U a) ~ E9 cz N C co (D (n M a) (D Co L a) • ~n U M L (D N U C CZ L U a) N 0) (D O) V) o) CO m Cn N O- O) Q U C (0 O U C Q Q (LY Q7 0 U L m O) U .E U N _C • E o u E a CO ca • U) L 0 U L CO r Cp r N V+ N V+ 0 C Q D c') m U % Z-) - v ~ Q m ) L m > G 16 CZ ~ 0 U L a) a U) cu > O U L C 7 L Q) O U L a) O E2 S0 C` U O • LL ,C ( n N N C3' ((n Q in U) LL a) C (n N c6 C.7 Q U) C ) C a - C O :3 • • • • Z o O n Cn L p O c6 C E CO r ~ O ~ `r C N U U na r a in E °a in E =3-0 ° o E m E U) 0 c U a ID a) m L 1 - a S 0 U) Cn (0 Q n a) a a L (1) L (1) N N m > -U U 0) O CO m U 0) N O p N V ( o E N O a) a) N a) Cn L ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) O O L O O CO 2 ❑ m r U) it ❑ CJ) (o r Cn N V a O i O CA aN O cn o n M p ) a)a- ro a c O U 7 a) C aS L p 7 Z E Cl r CO -0 a- m a) to N • • Y a) m > CO a) N 3 ' v Y N 0 U j co O N p y w n3 O > co O - C O o O (D a O ❑ m E c\j O 0 0 m C O • C O O N V , a) E • Lo O O b V E - C I 2 o w O C • Z o co o o ro 0 - `o ca E E 'O C co LO N Doi E N 7 U C 7 • I o X N ° cu U i p Z 0 Ch O E a) co O a) ° o Y r ° L a o 0 ns n ' as L Q) 0 a) (V ' "0 L CD U) • U) G) a 0 ( n • cLi a) Z ~ O N 1 c y4 t6 0 o Lo a) m a) a) ro • m 0 p N 10 J, o p co0(m o 2 02 u i co< n • • • • • o o a ° o c c c m >,-o> ~co m as (1) c (1) O L p) O ~ ~ a5 O) ~ N C CZ p_ C CY) 0) C j) C: 3 , Y 75 -5 -5 a C: C: aCi O (1) O U N CL cn L C U) L C O o U L Q- L C1 T co O O O O U O U O U U 0 O a) U O a) U °O 0- Ln Y c c 0 6 .L. 47 .L.-. N L E O a) ° a) 41 a) a) m • ❑3o❑3a0 no m o ro o • . • . U) Q) cn a CM U) a o 015 a m a) c 0 Oo720 C - - X C1 In ((S In i I C C [1 ' p O 5 (1) U) Ccn co M . C I) ME O aL C a L C . O a) -o a) - Q) C1 U 7 C U) Z co Co O O a) i Z o CY)i 2 -C ~ E° E Z m a) C O _ ° C O a) a) c c N a) a)~ a) h O N Q a)~ O a) a)E ~ m L Y o cn U Q Y L a) a 7 N Q) ~ E p -C N O (n . . a) U cm a) U U cp0 CO O D U a d) (U y a) D 7 a C U C U i C 0) C 't ~5 d Q x Q a) U c in w i O a ) in v a m v O 7 Z o ~o co • . • • • 0 c a) o a , C15 a) (D 0 ° co ( m 'O c :a C a) a3 Cn N cz `o ca > L L 0 U a) a) - L L E CA C_ CA C 7 E :2 L X :3 CO .5 m m C` T ro E w -0 CD 1-- a~ (n c o YU TD a)0,,Y a) ::l c -E a C O d > X L 2 LL N L 3 U O_ L N C ro N C O Tu m a~ ro L m U • N =p m C O N T C ro • E • ro N a) C 7 E E O U T C co N a) C 7 E E O U a) • a) • C N U N _ a O C O O N -2 ro O O 6 75 U Q U co 33cz C (3) Q L d 0 (n "O C '7 a C7 U Q • U o% U o d o • • m CD c ro T a) C C a) O C -0 O C O L N m-0 N O -U U U 3: -6 0 'o ro - C) C) (D 0 = Q) ca U) ro C ro T E-o ro~T) m ro O ro c a~ U m o U C C (SS y a) U a) a Q O -0 Z3 U) ro O Y C U 01 N a) a) -O O C ro a) C c0 o to m a) L O dL-. a) - O L O O O > O ` LL u) L a) L Li (nn4°cn °O a°Un-0 ro u0) a) a v ~ ro • • U O d L O y C C ro Q c O a` E N O (D N O_ U U) RS f` 7 N N a a) C ro L a) ~ L_ a) U W C ~ L . 0 3 o City of W heat P-4,ge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: PLANNING COMMISSION THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Kathy Field, Administrative Assistant DATE: February 26, 2009 SUBJECT: Joint Study Session with City Council You are invited to a joint study session with City Council on Monday, April 6, 2009, at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers for a discussion of the goals and policies for the Comprehensive Plan. Also, the second community meeting for the Comprehensive Plan Update is scheduled for Wednesday, March 25, 2009, from 6:30 - 8:00 p.m. at the Wheat Ridge Recreation Center.