Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/19/2009l1( 1, City of W heat idge PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA March 19, 2009 Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on March 19, 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 - March 5, 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. OTHER ITEMS A. Follow-up on Development Standards for Residential Zones B. Discussion of Off-Street Parking Requirements 8. ADJOURNMENT City of W heat~idJge PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting March 5, 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`" Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. Marc Dietrick (District IV) and Henry Hollender (District III) were introduced as new members of the Planning Commission. Ryan Fisher (District II) was introduced as a new member of the Board of Adjustment. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Anne Brinkman Jim Chilvers y John Dwyer Henry Hollender Dick Matthews Davis Reinhart ~y Steve Timms Staff Members Present Also Attending: 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director Jeff Hirt, Planner II Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary Tom Abbott, Board of Adjustment Janet Bell, Board of Adjustment Bob Blair, Board of Adjustment Alan Bucknam, Board of Adjustment Ryan Fisher, Board of Adjustment Planning Commission Minutes I March 5, 2009 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner DWYER and seconded by Commissioner CHILVERS to approve the order of the agenda. The motion passed 8-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 19, 2009 It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner CHILVERS to approve the minutes of February 19, 2009 as presented. The motion passed 5-0 with Commissioners REINHART, DIETRICK and HOLLENDER abstaining. 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) There was no one to address the 7. STUDY SESSION WITH BOARD A. Development Standards for at this time. 17 Tc'rAXV XTrr At Commission's direction, residential development Stan, item on the list of short-term inea in ine siair report. s after evaluating vent standards are one Jeff Hirt presented staff's it reducing side yard setbacks in the R-1 zone district, ion was to leave the R-1 standards as they are. n the R-IA district, there should be no distinction for setback standards, and a five-foot side setback if ess in height. Staff will take into consideration -evaluate the suggested requirement that detached must be located behind the front facade of the principal Comments were made that the recommended changes would allow larger structures to be built in the RAC district. Staff will take another look at the recommendations. There was consensus to leave the standards as presented in the R-2 district. The possibility of separate ownership for duplexes was discussed. Staff will look into the factors involved. There was consensus that as building height for duplexes increases, setbacks should also increase. There was consensus to leave R-2A recommendations as presented. Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 5, 2009 There was discussion aboi however the maiority ovir There was consensus that height to setback requirements should be consistent between the R-3 and R-3A districts. An issue to be reviewed at some time in the future is whether or not R-3 lots could be combined for multi-family development. 8. 9. The possible use of bulk plane regulations was discussed. There was comment that this is something that might be considered with larger developments. Building heights for principal and accessory structures were discussed. No changes were suggested. There was discussion about whether or not to combine accessory structures as one use whether they be garages, sheds, gazebo's, etc. Staff will consider comments and evaluate this possibility further. Processes for public comment and involvement concerning proposed zoning code changes were discussed. Staff will consider comments and bring back a plan for public outreach. OTHERITEMS A. Joint Study Session with City Council - April 6, 2009 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner CHILVERS and seconded by Commissioner DWYER to adjourn the meeting at 10:21 p.m. Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 5, 2009 City of " W heat -Midge MUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Planning Commission THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Jeff Hirt, Planner II DATE: March 13, 2009 (for March 19 study session) SUBJECT: Residential Development Standards, Parking, and Public Outreach The purpose of this memo is to follow up from the study session held on March 5, 2009 regarding residential development standards and to provide general information on staff's recommendations for revised parking regulations. More specifically, this memo discusses staff's recommended approach for public outreach, revised residential development standards based on the study session feedback, and parking revisions proposed. Throughout this document where Planning Commission policy direction is requested from staff it is noted. Public Outreach for Residential Development Standards Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment had mixed opinions as to the preferred approach for public outreach on this item. There were some suggestions of in depth outreach with multiple open houses and public meetings, while some felt the typical public hearings for the ordinances would be sufficient. Based on this, staff recommends the following as a "middle ground" between these two approaches: • Once the drafts are revised and ready, schedule the Planning Commission public hearing on the ordinance with a target date in late April or early May. All those who signed up for the August and September 2008 open houses for the zoning code amendments project will be directly notified, as well as the notice in the newspaper. • Prepare an article for the Wheat Ridge Connections (mailed to every household in the city) April/May/June issue that outlines the proposed changes, and a scheduled city council date(s) to be determined as we proceed. This issue is mailed out the week of either May 25 or June 1. The deadline to get an article in this issue is April 27tH • Based on any feedback received from this publication, proceed with first readings before City Council, or possibly have some type of public meeting to better inform the community of the project if the interest is there. • Throughout this process, information will continue to be provided on the city website regarding this process. Short Term Code Amendments 3/19/08 Recommended Changes for Residential Development Standards based on 3/5/09 Study Session There were a few outstanding issues that needed further clarification before the proposed changes can be in ordinance form. A few of the changes are straight forward within the individual zone districts, while others needed further discussion, particularly with regards to accessory structures and front/street setbacks. Classifying Accessory Structures There was some interest expressed at the study session to better classify accessory structures to account for all types - not only detached garages and sheds, but also greenhouses, barns, gazebos, studios, etc. The issue came up that the current code only accounts for sheds and garages, each with different standards for maximum size, height, and setbacks. Staff and applicants often have a difficult time fitting other types of accessory structures into these categories. Based on this, staff recommends the following: • Grouping accessory structures into two categories - major and minor • Major accessory structures would have the same standards for detached garages as proposed at the March 5 study session (included in the memo for that meeting). • Minor accessory structures would have the same standards for sheds as proposed at the March 5 study session (included in the memo for that meeting). • Staff would like some additional feedback from Planning Commission as to how to Direction define a major accessory structure. Staff is recommending the following: Reauested o First, based on size - if the structure is over 10' in height, and up to a maximum square footage similar to a detached garage from the current code it would be considered a major accessory structure. • The question comes up as to whether we should further define them by use - that is if the accessory structure is less than 10' in height or under the square footage for being categorized as major but of a specific use. What if the structure is a work studio, barn, greenhouse, etc. Do we want to classify these as major given that there would potentially be human occupancy or other impacts? Or do we want to rely simply on size? Accessory structures behind front fagade of principle structure This issue came up and there was much discussion as to the preferred approach. No consensus was reached, but staff informed the Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment that they would look into it further and propose changes. Based on the discussion at the meeting, there were the following concerns about the approach of having a front/corner lot setback for an accessory structure being simply behind the front fagade of the principal structure where it abuts a public street or is in a front yard setback: If the existing principal structure is set significantly back from the street, this requirement may have limitations on placing an accessory structure on a lot. For example, if the house is setback 50' from the street on a corner lot, the accessory structure must be 50' back or more from the property line under the proposed standards. This may be beneficial in preventing a shed or garage to be built in front of a house, but it may restrict the ability to have an accessory structure. If the principal structure is closer to the street, this may not leave adequate depth for a driveway to have a parked car without it interfering with the public right-of-way for 2 Short Term Code Amendments 3/19/08 detached garages. 18' is a typical minimum driveway depth staff prefers to allow a parked car, while there may be many structures closer to the street than this under the proposed regulation where there are existing setback encroachments. Staff Recommendations In order to address some of the above issues and provide flexibility for property owners while minimizing any new setback encroachments staff recommends the following. • Front and Side Setbacks from Street for Corner Lots, Detached Garages: I o Same as front/street setback for principal structure (ranging from 30' to 20' by district), OR o If there is an existing setback encroachment, the accessory structure must be behind the street-facing facade of the principal building but not less than 18'. o For the R-1C zone district: ■ 18' regardless in the R-1 C zone district for side setbacks from the street (typically smaller lots) 2 ■ For front setbacks in the R-1C district, the accessory structure must be must be behind the street facing fagade of the principal structure regardless 3 Front and Side Setbacks from Street for Corner Lots, All Other Accessory Structures: o Same as front/street setback for principal structure (ranging from 30' to 20' by district), or o If there is an existing setback encroachment, the accessory structure must be behind the street-facing fagade of the principal building 4 o For front setbacks in the R-1C district, the accessory structure must be must be behind the street facing fagade of the principal structure regardless ' NOTE: The rationale behind these proposed changes is to provide flexibility for placement of detached garages where there are existing setback encroachments from the principle structure into the side setback adjacent to a street - and where there are not these encroachments the accessory structure is treated the same as the principle structure. The "not less than 18"' provision is intended to address concerns that driveway depths may be too shallow along streets to where any parked cars would be in conflict with the public right-of-way. Requiring a straight 18' setback in the R-IC district would allow more flexibility with the smaller lots typical of this district. z QUESTION: Is Planning Commission in favor of allowing even more reduced setbacks in the R-I C district where there are existing encroachments? If we allow less than 18', there is the potential for cars to overhang onto the Direction right-of-way, but the lots are also typically only 50' wide, which leaves less room for usable backyard space the Reauested more setbacks are required. 3 QUESTION: There could be a potential issue with this where properties in the R-1C district have substantial front setbacks adjacent to alleys, which would prevent a property owner from being able to build a detached garages in many of these situations. Does Planning Commission want to rely on the variance process if these situations come up and stay with the philosophy of keeping new detached garages behind houses in R- I C, or should we provide the same flexibility in R-IC as in other districts? 4 NOTE: Staff recommends allowing further potential encroachment into setbacks where the existing principal structure already encroaches for other non-detached garage accessory structures. The rationale behind this is that only detached garages need a minimum driveway width to accommodate a vehicle, whereas other types of structures do not have this issue. If the impact of the principal structure is already there, it is staff's opinion that a new structure may build in line with the encroachment regardless as long as it is not a garage. 3 Short Term Code Amendments 3/19/08 District-Specific Revisions In addition to the above comments that apply across multiple zone districts, the following district-specific changes will be made to what was presented at the March 5 study session. Residential One A (R-1A) Staff will revise the side/rear setbacks for accessory structures to be 5' if the structure is < 10' in height, and 10' if > 10' in height. Residential One B (R-1 B) Allow a 5' side and rear setback for all accessory structures, whereas staff presented a 5' side setback and 10' rear setback. This revision is the case in all residential zone districts except R-1 and R-1 A. Residential Three (R-3), Residential Three A (R-3A) Standards between these two districts need to match with regards to setbacks. 4 Short Term Code Amendments Proposed Parking Revisions 3/19/08 Staff has also begun drafting revised parking regulations (Section 26-501) as part of the short term zoning code amendments. At the Planning Commission's July 17, 2008 study session, staff outlined the recommended approach that included the following, with the general intent of providing more flexibility for the city's many infill lots that may not meet current standards. • Generally, more flexibility for challenging parking situations, particularly for infill lots • Allowances for parking reductions • Improved shared parking provisions • Mandatory and incentivized bicycle parking • Improved organization and user-friendliness Before refining this draft and possibly bringing it forward to Planning Commission in ordinance form, staff would like to inform the commission in more detail of some the recommendations and receive feedback on preferred next steps. Additionally, if any members of the commission have ideas for inclusion in the parking standards staff would certainly like to hear them. Several of the more significant policy changes proposed with this ordinance are outlined below. Shared Parking There are some general shared parking provisions in the current code (Sec. 26-501.C.4), but staff is recommending more detailed standards. More specifically: • The current code simply states that shared parking may be utilized within 300 feet of the building to meet the required number of parking spaces for a use. • Staff is recommending specifying a calculation for shared parking based on a table or formula - both for property(s) under common ownership with mixed uses and across properties with different ownership. • This formula would be similar to what is used in the Architectural and Site Design Manual (page 23), that may include some modifications. • The intent of using this formula is to account for different land uses that may have different parking demand characteristics at different times (e.g., parking demand for a bank versus a movie theater at different times). Staff has presented two options below. • Option 1 is a more straight forward approach with fewer land use categories. • Option 2 is a more complicated calculation, but it does account for more land uses and specific times of day with different parking characteristics. Direction • Examples of the two approaches staff is evaluating is provided below in a hypothetical Reauested scenario. Staff would like to receive some feedback as to the preferred approach of these two options. Short Term Code Amendments 3119108 PROPOSED SHARED PARKING REGULATIONS, OPTION 1 1. Shared Parking Standards a. Calculation [option 1 ] 5 The number of shared parking spaces for two or more distinguishable land uses may be determined by using the following procedure: i. Step 1: Calculate the number of parking spaces required for each individual land use as set forth in Table (Schedule of Off Street Parking) ii. Step 2: Divide the total number of required parking spaces by the appropriate factor in the shared parking matrix (Table below). Land Use Table Residential - : Shared Parking Lodging Matrix Office Retail Residential 1 1.1 1.4 1.2 Lodging 1.1 1 1.7 1.3 Office 1.4 1.7 1 1.2 Retail 1.2 1.3 1.2 1 Example I of S Use hared Parking Calculation, Option Current Shared Parking Proposed Shared Parking (Option 1) Retail 50 spaces required 50 spaces required (1 space/200 square feet) Restaurant 40 spaces required 40 spaces required (1 space/75 square feet) Office (Second 17 spaces required 17 spaces required floor, 1 space/300 square feet) Total 107 spaces required (107 divided by shared factor of Required 1.2, with restaurant categorized as retail) = 89 spaces required Example 2 of S hared Parking Calculation, Option Use Current Shared Parking Proposed Shared Parking (Option 1) Retail 50 spaces required 50 spaces required (1 space/200 square feet) Residential (2 22 spaces required 22 spaces required spaces/2 bedroom unit) 5 NOTE: The following is taken from page 23 of the Architectural and Site Design Manual, slightly reorganized for clarity. 6 Short Term Code Amendments 3119108 Example 2 of S hared Parking Calculation, Option Use Current Shared Parking Proposed Shared Parking (Option 1) Restaurant 67 spaces required 50 spaces required (1 space/75 square feet) Office (Second 33 spaces required 50 spaces required floor, 1 space/300 square feet) Total 172 spaces required (172 divided by shared factor of Required 1.2, with restaurant categorized as retail) = 143 spaces required Under example 2 above with multiple uses, the shared parking factor producing the highest number is used; therefore the Residential/Retail category is used with a shared parking factor of 1.2. 7 Short Term Code Amendments 3119108 PROPOSED SHARED PARKING REGULATIONS, OPTION 2 b. Calculation [option 2] 6 The number of shared parking spaces for two or more distinguishable land uses shall be determined by using the following procedure: i. Step 1: Calculate the number of parking spaces required for each individual land use as set forth in Table (Schedule of Off Street Parking) ii. Step 2: Multiply the required number of parking spaces from Step 1 by the percentages in each of the six time periods in Table below. iii. Step 3: For each time period, add the number of spaces required for all applicable land uses to obtain a total for each of the six time periods. iv. Step 4: Select the time period with the highest total parking requirement and use that the total as the shared parking requirement. TABLE : Shared Parking Uses Matrix M-F M M-F 6pm- M-F m Sat. & Sun. m Sat. & Sun. ~ Sat. & Sun. m Residential 60% 100% 100% 80% 100% 100% Office/ Warehouse /Industrial 100% 20% 5% 5% 5% 5% Commercial 90% 80% 5% 100% 70% 5% Hotel 70% 100% 100% 70% 100% 100% Restaurant 70% 100% 10% 70% 100% 20% Movie Theater 40% 80% 10% 80% 100% 10% Entertainment 40% 100% 10% 80% 100% 50% Conference/Convention 100% 100% 5% 100% 100% 5% Institutional (non-church) 100% 20% 5% 10% 10% 5% Institutional (church) 10% 5% 5% 100% 50% 5% Example I i S hared Parking Calculation, Option 2 Use Current Shared Parking Proposed Shared Parking (Option 2) Retail 50 spaces required 50 spaces required (1 space/200 square feet) Restaurant 40 spaces required 40 spaces required (1 space/75 square feet) Office (Second 17 spaces required 17 spaces required floor, 1 space/300 6 NOTE: The following is another option for shared parking that takes into account times of day in calculating parking demand. 8 Short Term Code Amendments 3119108 Example I of S hared Parking Calculation, Option Use Current Shared Parking Proposed Shared Parking (Option 2) square feet) Total 107 spaces required 90 spaces required Required (calculation done in table below) Under option 2, the individual land uses are calculated based on specific times of day, and the timeframe with the most parking demand is used as the standard. The Sam - 5pm timeframe has the most demand at 90 spaces (see below), therefore this is the standard. Example Option I Calculations for Uses M-F M-F Sam-5pm 6pm- 12am M-F 12am- Gam Sat. & Sun. Sam-5pm Sat. & Sun. 6pm-12am Sat. & Sun. 12am-ham Office/ Warehouse 17 3 /Industrial 1 1 1 1 Commercial 45 40 3 50 35 3 Restaurant 28 40 4 28 40 8 TOTAL 83 8 79 76 12 9 Short Term Code Amendments 3/19/08 Example 2 of S hared Parking Calculation, Option 2 Use Current Shared Parking Proposed Shared Parking (Option 2) Retail 50 spaces required 50 spaces required (1 space/200 square feet) Residential (2 22 spaces required 22 spaces required spaces/2 bedroom unit) Restaurant 67 spaces required 67 spaces required (1 space/75 square feet) Office (Second 33 spaces required 33 spaces required floor, 1 space/300 square feet) Total 172 spaces required 138 spaces required Required (calculation done in table below) Under option 2, the individual land uses are calculated based on specific times of day, and the timeframe with the most parking demand is used as the standard. The Sam - 5pm timeframe has the most demand at 138 spaces, therefore this is the standard. Example Option 2 Calculations for Uses M-F M-F Sam-5pm 6pm- 12am M-F 12am- Gam Sat. & Sun. Sam-5pm Sat. & Sun. 6pm-12am Sat. & Sun. 12am-ham Residential 13 22 22 18 22 22 Office/ Warehouse 33 7 /Industrial 2 2 2 2 Commercial 45 40 3 50 35 3 Restaurant 47 67 7 47 67 13 TOTAL 136 34 117 126 40 10 Short Term Code Amendments 3/19/08 Parking Reductions Staff is also recommending some "by right" parking reductions in some situations. Some options being considered include: • Vehicular parking reductions proportionately for bicycle parking provided • Reduction allowances in proximity to transit • Reductions with proportionate increases in landscaping Bicycle Parking Staff is recommending bicycle parking standards as set forth below. Bicycle parking is a relatively low cost requirement that many surrounding jurisdictions mandate.7 Staff will also evaluate best practices on any allowances for scooter and motorcycle parking. Mandatory bicycle parking near existing or proposed bicycle facilities per the city's Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, in proximity to transit, and for most nonresidential uses (with some exemptions) Incentives for providing bicycle parking where not mandatory (reduced vehicular parking allowances) Stacking Requirements s Staff is recommending more detailed vehicle stacking requirements for drive-thru land uses, whereas the current code gives little guidance for these situations. Currently, there is a requirement for 6 stacking spaces per window for a drive-thru, regardless of the type of drive through (restaurant, bank, liquor store). Staff is proposing different stacking requirements by land use. Next Steps Residential Development Standards Staff will schedule the necessary meetings based on feedback received from the Planning Commission at this study session. This will either come in the form of a public meeting, or the public hearing on the proposed ordinance as outlined on page 1 above. Parking Staff will continue drafting the revised parking section, and include any recommendations and feedback received from the Planning Commission at this study session. This section contains a lot of substantive and policy changes, so it will take more time to refine the draft before it is ready for a public hearing. Also, staff would like to get some feedback as to any public outreach 'NOTE: One typical inverted U type bicycle parking space is $75-$100 according to the Wisconsin Bicycling Federation. a NOTE: A stacking space is an area for motor vehicles to line up in while waiting to go through a drive-through facility, or within a designed drop-off or pick-up zone. Short Term Code Amendments 3/19/08 for revised parking standards. Generally, the proposed standards are geared more towards flexibility rather than mandating additional parking standards. With this, it would appear opposition/concern would be minimal but its difficult to determine. Some degree of public outreach may also inform the business community that these tools are now available with regards to parking, whereas this has presented an obstacle for many nonresidential properties in the past. Short Term Zoning Code Amendments Status The following lists the short term zoning code amendments that have been discussed with City Council and Planning Commission as well as the current status of each. Section 1. Floodplain administrator duties St • atus New ordinance approved by City Council on 2/23/09 2. Zoning district boundary discrepancies • New ordinance approved by City Council on 2/23/09 3. Planned development amendments • New ordinance approved by City Council on 3/9/09 4. City-initiated zone changes • New ordinance approved by City Council on 3/9/09 5. Residential density in planned • Recommended for approval by Planning developments Commission on 2/5/09 • First reading held on 3/9/09 before City Council • Scheduled for second reading on 4/13/09 before City Council 6. Residential development standards • Initially focused on front setbacks, now taking comprehensive approach to all residential development standards • Study session (Planning Commission & Board of Adjustment) held on 3/5/09 7. Parking regulations • Staff has completed working draft • Revisions needed, review by city attorney needed • Need direction from Planning Commission as to any public outreach and preferred next steps 8. New mixed use zone district • Staff has begun preliminary research and analysis 9. Extended stay lodging • Discussed at study sessions with the conclusion that outreach to the hotel/motel community is the preferred approach 10. Assembly of R-3 land for development No drafts yet 11. Residential group homes No drafts yet 9 NOTE: This proposed amendment was originally not on this short term list, but staff has received direction to move forward with this amendment. 12