HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/17/2008
City of
WheatRi~dge
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
July 17, 2008
Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning
Commission on July 17, 2008, 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 YVheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Off cer 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 - June 5, 2008
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.)
PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No. ZOA-08-03: An ordinance amending Article IX of the Wheat Ridge Code
of Laws concerning historical landmark designation.
8. STUDY SESSION
A. Short Term Code Amendmenfs
9. OTHER ITEMS
A. State APA Conference
10. ADJOURNMENT
City of
]~q~WheatRjdge
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting
June 5, 2008
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
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°i Avenue, Wheat
Ridge, Colorado.
ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS
Commission Members Present:
Commission Members Absent:
Staff Members Present:
Anne Brinkman
Jim Chilvers
John Dwyer
Dick Matthews
Davis Reinhart
ICiin Stewart
Jerry Scezney
Steve Timins
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner
Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by
Commissioner REINHART to approve the order of the agenda. The motion
passed unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 15, 2008
It was moved by Commissioner REINHART and seconded by Commissioner
MATTHEWS to approve the minutes of May 15, 2008 as presented. The
motion passed 4-0 with Commissioners DWYER and CHILVERS abstaining,
and Commissioners SCEZNEY and TIMMS absent.
PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not
appearing on the agenda.)
There was no one present to address the Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes 1 June 5, 2008
7. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No. WZ-08-02: An application filed by Shaw Sigi and Awning
Company for United Presbyterian requesting approval of an Outline
Development Plan amendment for the Highland South Planned Residential
Development located at 6340 West 38`" Avenue to allow a 10-foot 4-inch
freestanding sign.
This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. The purpose of the amendment is
to allow for a freestanding sign which exceeds residential standards of Article VII
of the zoning and development code in an existing plannedresidential
development district. Ms. Reckert entered all pertinent documents into the record
and advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed
the case file and digital presentation.
The request was reviewed by the Community Development Director for
administrative approval and was denied based on an increase in the intensity of
use and the increase in structure height. Therefore, the request must be heard by
the Plaruiing Commission who will give a recommendation to City Council.
Staff concluded that there are options available for signage on the property which
are consistent with the existing ODP document and sign code. The sign could
easily be modified to be consistent with the seven foot height limitation while
providing adequate visibility for the development. Because the proposed sign is
not consistent with "human scale" design recommended in the Architectural and
Site Design Manual and because precedent could be set for similar requests, staff
gave a recommendation of denial.
Ms. Reckert noted the following conditions which were not included in the
Commission packet:
• Title needs to be corrected to reflect an ODP amendment.
• Legal description needs to be corrected.
• A note needs to be added that all other provisions of the existing ODP are still
in force. '
• Site data table on page one relates only to lot one.
Commissioner REINHART commented that the subject development could be
considered commercial rather than residential.
In response to a question from Commissioner DWYER, Ms. Reckert explained
that the subject property consists of two developments with the same owner.
l
Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 5, 2008
Lisa Brown
Property Managerfor Highland
Ms. Brown stated that, as part of updating their campus, it is necessary to replace
the outdated sign with one that would be proportionate to the size of the high rise
building. The sign would be pleasing and helpful to the community. Although
the property is zoned residential, it is serviced as a commercial property.
Johnathan Harshaw
Shaw Sign and Awning
Ft. Collins, CO
Mr. Harshaw stated that his goal is to design a sign to benefit the customer as well
as the community. He believed the sign, as designed, would have no negative
impact and the sign would provide economic benefit to customers and the
community as a whole in an area that is being revitalized. He believed the
"hmnan scale" element in the Architectural and Site Design Manual is a
subjective determination. The sign would not look out ofperspectiue, would be
easily recognizable 200-300 yards down 38th Avenue and would provide far
public safety in legibility and clearly recognizable access to the development.
In response to a question from Commissioner DWYER, Mr. Harshaw explained
that the time and temperature portion of the sign is 1 foot 7 inches.
In response to a question from Commissioner CHILVERS, Mr. Harshaw
explained that the sign would simply give tiine and temperature and would not
change colors or give other messages.
Lisa Brown retunied to podiwn to state Uiat they do not want the sign to be
distracting in any way. The time and temperature element would probably be
added at a later date. In the meantime, the numerical address would be in the
space.
Chair BRINKMAN asked to hear from members of the public.
The following individuals indicated they were in favor of the application but did
not come forward to address the Cominission:
Sarah Loughrey
Anne Conklin
Judy Jester
Ann Myers
Ruth Breckon
Jim Niquette
3860 Everett Street, Wheat Ridge
Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 5, 2008
Mr. Niquette approached the podium and stated that he was in favor of the
application.
Commissioner DWI'ER asked about staff's distinction between a commercial and
residential development in this case. Ms. Reckert explained that staff is of the
opinion that it is a residential development even though it is a rental situation that
produces income. The development is very well maintained and staff likes the
sign for many reasons. However, the objection to the sign is based on the
proposed height. She also stated that she was not aware of any other residential
developments in the city that have signs that exceed the 7 foot height limit.
In response to a question from Cominissioner REINHART, Ms. Reckert stated the
code provides no distinction between small multi-family developments and large
complexes such as Highland West. The city is trying to move away from tall
sigus to monument signs. She also stated that no comments have beerr received
from adjacent property owners.
Commissioner STEWART commented that there are commercial developments
on both sides of the street near Highlands West thatihave as large or larger signs.
Jonathan Harshaw returned to podiuin and submitted a drawing of an 8-foot 8
inch sign as a compromise. This sign would not have the time and temperature
element.
Commissioner STEWART asked if the base size could be reduced from two feet
to one foot. Mr. Harshaw explained that two feet is the minimum in order to
decrease vandalism;'damage bymowers, etc.
Commissioner CHILVERS commented that the intent of the sign is to provide
visibility for drivers. If the base is too low, it wouldn't be as visible.
Commissioner REINHART stated that he would vote in favor of the application
because the sign is appropriate for the intended use; the sign is consistent with
long term planning for the corridor and the size of the building. The sign is also
consistent with a complex that has a commercial use.
It was moved by Commissioner REINHART and seconded by Commissioner
MATTHEWS to recommend approval of Case No. WZ-08-02, a request for
approval of a change in zoning conditions and an amended Outline
Development Plan for property located at 6340 West 38n' Avenue for the
following reasons:
1. The sign is an appropriate amendment for the site.
~
Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 5, 2008
With the following conditions:
• The title shall be corrected to reflect an ODP amendment.
• The legal description shall be corrected.
• A note shall be added that all other provisions of the existing ODP remain
in force.
• It be noted that on the site data table on page one relate only to lot one.
The motion passed 5-1 with Commissioner BRINKMAN voting no and
Commissioners SCEZNEY and TIMMS absent.
8. OTHER ITEMS
Meredith Reckert informed the Commission that no cases are scheduled for the
June 19th meeting.
It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by
Commissioner REINHART to cancel the meeting of June 19, 2008. The
motion passed unanimously.
The next scheduled meeting would be July 3, the day before a holiday.
It was moved by Commissioner STEWART and seconded by Commissioner
REINHART to cancel the meeting July 3, 2008. The motion passed 5-1 with
Commissioner DWYER voting no.
9. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner DWYER and seconded by Commissioner
REINHART to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. The motion passed
unanimously.
Anne Brinkman, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 5, 2008
City of
V`Theat ~dge
GOM~IUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION
LEGISLATIVE ITEM STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: July 17, 2008
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE IX OF CHAPTER 26
OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING
HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION
CASE NO. ZOA-08-03
F;J PUBLIC HEARING
❑ RESOLUTION
Z CODE CHANGE ORDINANCE
❑ STUDY SESSION ITEM
Case Manager: Meredith Reckert
Date of Preparation: July 9, 2008
This Case is:
Quasi-judicial
X Legislative
Proper notice was given for this public hearing.
SUMMARY:
The attached ardinance amends the historic landmark designation regulations of the City which
were adopted in 1997. All changes to Chapter 26 require review and a recommendation from the
Planning Cominission.
Notice for this public hearing was provided as required by the Code of Laws.
BACKGROUND:
At the June 2 City Council study session, Council directed staff to draft an ordinance making
certain changes to Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws relating to Historic Preservation. Council's
direction was to bring forward a draft ordinance that would reduce or eliminate the role of the
Wheat Ridge Historical Society in the local landmark designation process. Council requested the
draft ordinance be prepared for further consideration at the June 16 study session.
At the Juue 16 study session, City Council reviewed the ordinance as drafted by staff and
requested it be forwarded to City Council as a 1 st reading ordinance. The ordinance as drafted
for lst reading would eliminate the ability of the Wheat Ridge Historical Society to nominate or
make recommendations for or against local historic landmark properties. It was also suggested
that Staff consider modifications to the alteration permit process and removal of a designation.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES:
Chapter 26, Article 9 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertains to Historic Preservation. It
establishes the procedures for designating local historic landmarks, including defining a role for
the Wheat Ridge Historical Society in that designation process. The Historical Society is given
three roles: 1) they have an ability to apply for a local historic landinark designation of a
property or improvement; 2) upon application for a historic landmark designation, the City is
required to refer said application to the Historical Society Board for review and comment; and 3)
they are provided an opporiunity to review and comment on any "major change" alteration
permits for projects that have a local historic landmark status. The Historical Society also plays
the same roles in the process for removing a historic landmark designation status from a
property.
The Wheat Ridge Historical Society is a local not for profit meinbership group. The membership
of the group and the election of its board officers are established at the sole discretion of the
Historical Society. The City has no role in establishing the board or the Society's membership.
Typically, Boards and Commissions that have a role in making policy recommendations to City
Council are appointed by the Mayor, City Council or a combination thereof. Staff is not aware
of any other instances in the municipal code of laws where a body that is not appointed by the
Mayor or City Council has a formal role in providing a recommendation to City Council or
playing a role in an official City process.
Given the unofficial nature of the relationship between the Wheat Ridge Historical Society and
the City of Wheat Ridge, the ardinance as drafted would eliminate the Historical Society from
any role in the official City processes and procedures pertaining the designation and regulation of
local historic landmarks.
The following minor modifications were also made:
l. Removal of references to the city "preservation specialisY";
2. Modification of City Council approval from ordinance to resolution;
3. Inclusion of a provision that upon change in property ownership of a city-designated historic
landmark, the new owner may have the designation removed if no public financial assistance has
been granted for exterior improvements related to the historic elements of the property.
This case is scheduled for City Council public hearing on July 28, 2008.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Article IX of Chapter 26
of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning historic landmark designation."
Exhibit:
1. Proposed ordinance ~
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
Council Bill No. 12-2008
Ordinance No.
Series of 2008
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE IX OF THE WHEAT
RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING HISTORICAL
LANDMARK DESIGNATION
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 weifare;
and
WHEREAS, in the exercise of this authority, the City Council has
previously enacted Article IX of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws
(the "Code"), concerning the designation of historical landmarks; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds and determines that the role of the Wheat
Ridge Historical Society as set forth in Article IX of Chapter 26 is unnecessary;
and
WHEREAS, the Council wishes to make other conforming changes.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 26-903 of the Code is amended by the deletion of the following two
definitions:
26.903. Definitions.
EXHIBIT 1
Section 2. Section 26-904.13 of the Code is amended to read:
B. The City, 'rt--G911 h '+h 4h Wh + o•d u•S+,,.,..,i e„ iot.,
in its discretion, may write recommendations for such grants or
monies and/OR assist property owners in applying for state or
national historic designation.
Section 3. Section 26-905 of the Code is amended to read:
Sec. 26-905. Process for designation of historic landmark.
A. Any individual structure or building within the city is eligible for
designation as an historic landmark.
B. Inclusion of any property in the National Register of Historic Places as
provided in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 shall mean that
the landmark is automatically designated a local historic landmark subject
to the protections of this article.
C. An application for historic designation may be submitted by the
property owner. isterieal SeGi
„#d;FeC49FS-or by a member of city council. The arr'' a*'^^ °h^" ^
L- II G. .I d 4 L. r1..4' F..r rl....'a1
D€. Upon receipt of a AN APPLICATION. ..............d_!:_..
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
rlna-' r.nnf'nn
h h'4
shall schedule a city council public hearing.~,
aprylie2tieRs: Notice of the public hearing shall be sent to the owner of the
property via certified mail, shall be published in a newspaper of general
circulation and be posted on the property by a sign, which conforms with
the requirements of section 26-109C., at least fifteen (15) days before the
date of the public hearing. SuGhTHE notice shall state the time and place of
-2-
the public hearing, state that an application has been filed for historic
designation of the structure and describe the location of the landmark by
street address, legal description, map and/or other descriptive information
sufficient to reasonably advise the public and/or any interested persons of
the pendency of the application.
Section 4. Section 26-906 of the Code is amended to read:
Sec. 26-906. City council designation.
A. Following public hearing, city council may designate by
RESOLUTION .,Fd;.;a„se historic landmarks in the City of Wheat
Ridge to accomplish the purposes of this article. In making such
designations, city council shall consider E"e
, the testimony and
evidence presented at the public hearing and the following criteria:
1. No structure or building shall be granted historic designation
unless city council determines that the property owner will retain
the ability to earn a reasonable return on the property which is the
subject of the application; and
2. The city council shall consider whether the structure is of
particular historical, architectural, cultural or archaeological
significance which:
a. Exemplifies or reflects the broad cultural, political, economic
or social history of the nation, state or community; or
b. Is identified with historic persons or with important events in
national, state or local history; or
c. Embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural
type inherently valuable for the study of a period, style, method
of construction or of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or
d. Is representative of the notable work of a master builder,
designer or architect whose individual ability has been
recognized.; er
e i hi + y
B. The city council may grant historic designation in the presence of
one (1) or more of the criteria set forth in 2.a. - 2.de., above, but
need not find that all of those criteria are met.
3
C. It shall be unlawful to demolish, destroy or undertake any major
change to a structure which is the subject of a pending historic
designation application until such time as city council has determined
whether such designation shall or shall not be granted.
E. The CITY
shall maintain an inventory of all designated historic landmarks and
all structures which are the subject of pending applications for
historic designation.
rl I'+' f + + histeree I-..,dmarL
. No permit shall
be issued or request granted TO CARRY OUT ANY NEW
EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION, REMOVAL OR
DEMOLITION OF A STRUCTURE ON OR IN AN HISTORIC
LANDMARK OR ON A STRUCTURE WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF
A PENDING APPLICATON FOR HISTORIC DESIGNATION by-said
d^^^R;t,,,entsbefore a landmark alteration permit has been issued-#y
e•,~m,er ,~~Fese ,.•i •.;rS+ „urc-i{ or until a
determination has been made by city council not to grant historic
designation.
Section 5. Section 26-908.A of the Code is amended to read:
A. No person shall carry out or cause to be carried out on any
historic landmark any EXTERIOR construction, alteration, removal or
demolition, or make any changes that wouid impair the historic
nature of the historic landmark without first obtaining a landmark
alteration permit therefor in accordance with this articie.
-4-
Section 6. Section 26-909 of the Code is amended to read:
Sec. 26-909. Initial processing of applications for landmark
alteration permits.
A. Applications for a landmark alteration permit shall be submitted
to the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ,,resePVat:a^
and
shall contain such information as required to assure full presentation
of the facts necessary for proper consideration of the permit.
B. Landmark alteration permit applications for minor changes shall
be determined by the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
in accordance with this article. Landmark
alteration permit applications for major changes shall be determined
by city council in accordance with this article.
C. The COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR preseafatiea
sryesialist shall determine whether the landmark alteration permit
application requests a"major change" or a"minor change" to the
historic landmark.
Section 7. Section 26-910 of the Code is amended to read:
Sec. 26-910. Minor change landmark alteration permits.
A. In determining whether to grant an application for a minor change
landmark alteration permit, the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
pr~'cse..,.. r„~_.^ _ + shall grant the permit if the requested alteration to a
.
historic landmark would preserve, enhance or restore the exterior
architectural features of the landmark or site. The proposed work shall not
adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or
archaeological nature of the landmark or site.
B. IF THE OWNER MAY APPEAL THE
determination of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
pr2se..... to grant or deny a minor change landmark alteration
permit to the city council within ten (10)
working days of the date of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR'S ,,.ese^"'~~.u!.°'•'° determination by filing an appeal
with the office of the city clerk. S~ ..rr_-..! ..`.a±_ g"^_.^''°
appeal, Within thirty-five (35) days of the date the appeal is received
ff•^e. nf ±hp the city council shall set a date for a hearing eR
. ,
~~aPPeal, which hearing shall be held no later than sixty (60) days after
° ^
the date the appeal is received. ''h .,.":~P. o.""_ _.'y '^°F The city
council shall have the power to overrule the COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S,.re.,_-r:,a':o^ s;.^=.''.°+'° decision. by-a-vete
of aT f*tio ^•t, ^ The determination of the city council
--~rt,y---~~~~
following the appeal hearing L. ~II hp. 's~~ .i 'ih' f r4r., f\oir. /AG\ rl~~io ..f
~
+"^heaFing d shall be aTHE final determination OF THE CITY.-fer
Section 8. Section 26-911 of the Code is amended to read:
Sec. 26-911. Major change landmark alteration permits.
permit.
AS. The city council shall schedule a hearing on sueh--major change
landmark alteration permit applicationS. Notice of the hearing shall be as
set forth in section 26-905D€., except that the notice shall state that an
application has been filed for a major change landmark alteration permit.
Such notice shall be sent to the permit applicant via first class mail and
shall be published as in section 26-905D€.
68. During the city council hearing .,,,t,he-..aj.F Gha"ye !a"''"'="''
alt,•~~„-pe,,,,;t app',;Ga!;o^, city council shall consider ilae
rpPemmeRd2tinR F Fh h• MAFO^~~ the evidence or testimony
presented ';9, and whether the proposed work will materially
adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or
archaeological nature of the historic landmark. City council shall make its
determination to grant or deny the major change landmark alteration permit
within sixty (60) days of the date of the hearing. a^^' sha" ^^+r„
Section 9. Section 26-913 of the Code is amended to read:
Sec. 26-913. Removal of historic designation.
A. An application for removal of historic designation may be submitted by
the owner of the property which holds such designation,:^~-'
or by a member of
city council as in section 26-905C. The application shall be processed in
the same manner as in section 26-905C. through 26-905D€., and section
26-906 except that the criteria for removal of historic designation shall be
that:
1. The property has ceased to meet the criteria for historic designation
because the qualities which caused it to be originally listed have been
lost or destroyed; OR
-6-
2. Additional information shows that the structure or property no longer
meets any of the criteria for historic designation contained in section 26-
906; OR
3. UPON A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP, AT THE REQUEST OF THE
NEW OWNER, BUT ONLY TO THE EXTENT PUBLIC FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED TO BENEFIT THE
EXTERIOR HISTORIC ELEMENTS OF THE PROPERTY.
B. Properties removed from the state register or the National Register of
Historic Places shall not be considered to have been automatically
removed from the city's historic inventory without formal action of the city
council.
C. ir fh •4 i MPMhPF ,,,tio. ,.f +tio Wh .,t o d,.
,
4V. ce . f......... rFL... .4 f+h 4' '4y n'I
u___ _ - .
a oh
Section 10. Section 26-915 of the Code is amended to read:
Sec. 26-915. Violations and penalties.
A. Any person who is an owner as defined in section 26-903 or a manager
of property subject to any provision of this article shall be responsible for
compliance with all provisions of this article. Historic designation may be
subject to a review for loss of designation as a result of a conviction of the
owner for a violation of this article.
B. Any person violating any provision of this article shall be subject to a
fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding
one (1) year, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each and every day
during which a violation continues shall be deemed a separate offense and
shall be prosecutable and punishable as a separate offense.
C. The imposition of any penalty hereunder shall not preclude the city e4:
aRy from instituting any proper action or proceeding to
require compliance with the provisions of this article. In case any building
or structure is erected, constructed, externally reconstructed, externally
altered, added to or demolished in violation of this article, the city er--any
pFeper-persea-may institute an appropriate action or proceeding to prevent
any unlawful erection, construction, reconstruction, exterior alteration,
addition or demolition.
Section 11. Severabilitv• Conflictinq Ordinances Repealed. If any section,
subsection or clause of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall
not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the
provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
7
Section 12. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days after
final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to
on this day of , 2008, ordered published in full in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on
final passage set for , 2008, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council
Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by
a vote of to , this day of 12008.
SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of , 2008.
Jerry DiTullio, Mayor
ATTEST:
Michael Snow, City Clerk
Approved As To Form
Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney
First Publication:
Second Publication:
Wheat Ridge Transcript
Effective Date:
-8-
City of
Wheat~dge
COMMUNIIY DEVELOPMENT
Memorandum
TO: Planning Commission
THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director
FROM: Jeff Hirt, Planner II
DATE: July 11, 2008 (for July 17 study session)
SUBJECT: Short Term Code Amendments
Background
A major implementaUOn component of the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS)
recommends additional amendments to Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code, the City's zoning
code. At the January 7, 2008 City Council study session, Community Development staff
requested general City Council direction regarding a project to pursue a vaziety of amendments
to the City's zoning code (Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws) to further meet that NRS
implementation goal. City Council voiced its general support for this effort at the study session.
In the intervening time, Community Development Department staff has been working with WR
2020 to develop a more detailed list of the proposed changes and a short, mid and long term
schedule for unplementing those changes. Many of the proposed changes relate to the City's
land use approval processes and provide opportunities to make those processes more streamlined
and predictable. Another group of the proposed code amendments relate to the land use mix,
densities and development standazds contained in our zoning districts. Over the past year in
working with WR2020 and looking at redevelopment opportunities in the City, staff believes that
our existing zoning district standards in some instances may not support the types of mixed use,
residential and commercial development projects that could be appropriate in areas such as the
proposed town center at 44th and Wadsworth and in our Northwest Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) planning azea.
Community Development Department staff presented these proposed changes to City Council at
their July 7, 2008 study session and received general support to move forwazd with the project as
proposed in this memo. The direction received indicated a desire for the Planning Commission '
to work with staff to manage the substance and details of the project, including the process for
public involvement.
Staff acknowledges and appreciates that many of the changes that we aze proposing represent
significant change and that the process of achieving that change needs to involve the community.
Over the past several months we have had opportunities to begin that conversafion through
presentations to the WR2020 Planning Academy, WR2020 Planning Committee and the City's
Planning Commission. During the recent Planning Commission and City Council public hearing
process of adopting the NRS as part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the zoning code issues
Short Term Code Amendments
7/11/08
were also discussed in general terms. We anticipate that additional public outreach will be
unportant as part of the process of moving forwazd these recommended zoning code changes.
Ideally, any substantial revisions to the zoning code should follow the adoption of the
Comprehensive Plan and the direction received in that document. As you aze awaze, the City is
currently in the eazly stages of selecting a consultant to begin the process of rewriting the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff certainly understands that there will likely be specific
recommendations from that document related to the zoning code. Given the timeframe of that
process however, the direction received from City Council is to move forwazd with this project
with the intent of addressing the items cleazly in conflict with the goals of the NRS. The
sentiment has been that the NRS provides a solid foundation for these proposed code
amendments.
Considering the complexity and potential controversy of some of these amendments we are
recommending a phased 'unplementation approach and have grouped them into four categories:
1) short term, 2) mid term, and 3) long term amendments. The general intent of this list is to
iden6fy sections of the zoning code that aze prohibitive to achieving the goals of the NRS. A
summary table of the proposed amendments for consideration is set forth at the end of this
memo.
Next Steps
Staff sees this Planning Commission study session(s) with the following general format:
1. Overview of project and approach
2. Discussion of public involvement and schedule
3. Review and analysis of the substantive issues with each short term amendment
Once the items have been discussed at the study session(s) to the satisfaction of the Planning
Commission, staff would proceed with scheduling the necessary meetings to facilitate public
involvement in the process. It is anticipated that the short term amendments will be a 3-6 month
process. An additional study session may be needed to finish the discussion.
Requested Planning Commission Direction
We look forward to receiving Planning Commission direction at the July 17 study session.
Specifically, we are looking for your support on the following:
• Are there things that we aze missing on our short, mid and long term lists?
• Are there additional amendments that the Commission believes we should address sooner
and move to our short term list?
• An approach for public involvement.
• Input on the substance of the proposed amendments.
After receiving the Commission's initial direction at the study session, the next step would be to
schedule an open house to allow community input. At that point staff would begin drafting
ordinances that would be processed through the normal Planning Commission/City Council
public heazing process. Staffls intent would be to have those public hearings in late 2008.
Attached is an analysis of each of the proposed short term code amendments.
2
City of
`~Wheat~dge
COMMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT
ANALYSIS OF SHORT TERM CODE AMENDMENTS
Each of the short term amendments proposed are summarized in this memo as follows:
A. Issue Suunnary
B. Summary of Current Code Regulations
C. Summary of Research from Comparable Jurisdictions
D. Proposed Amendments
A comprehensive list of the proposed amendments broken down by short, mid, and long term
amendments is provided with the executive summary.
Research from Comparable Jurisdictions
Reseazch was conducted on 16 compazable jurisdictions related to some of these issues,
including density, residential front setbacks, and parking regulations. The communities surveyed
are as follows:
~
1. Arvada
7. Englewood
13. Louisville
2. Aurora
8. Golden
14. Northglenn
3. Boulder
9. Jefferson County
15. Thornton
4. Broomfield
10. Lafayette
16. Westminster
5. Centennial
11. Lakewood
17. Wheat Ridge
6. Denver
12. Litdeton
Density ~
A. Issue Summary:
Wheat Ridge has one of the lowest density maacimums in the Denver metro area.
Density in this context is defined as the number of dwelling units allowed per acre in
the city. Having this in place has been successful in preserving some of the lower
density, more "rural" feeling suburban neighborhoods in the city. It has also made it
difficult for desirable development and redevelopment to occur in some azeas of the
city that may benefit from higher densities. Having such restrictive density standards
makes it difficult to promote the type of development the Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy (NRS) recommends - walkable and mixed use neighborhoods. Additionally,
the financial and economic realities of development many times cannot be met with low
density maximums. Allowance for higher densities may not be appropriate in many
areas of the city, but there may be areas that could benefit from it (e.g., Transit-
Oriented Development azea around 52"d and Ward, town center redevelopment at 44~'
and Wadsworth). Our neighbors for example (Arvada, Lakewood, and Denver) all
allow higher densities and have benefited from this with the type of development and
redevelopment that the NRS is trying to promote.
B. Current Code:
Both the city charter and zoning code (Chapter 26) specify maximum densities. The
highest density straight residential zone district is the R-3 district, and higher density
allowances are provided for Planned Residential Developments. The zoning code
currently does not allow maximum densities that are near or exceed the city charter
limitation of 21 dwelling units per acre.
Short Term Code Amendments
7/Il/08
TABLE i: Maximum Densify in Base Zone Dislrids
Note: Higher densifies rypicdly dlowedin PlmmedUnii Developmentz
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
PJtoc oJC,A;~`~,~o~~~o~QOP~aa~e ooJ ~oJ`aeaoJ`y,`o~ ec,~~,eoec~e~o\aoceo~`aAz
.41
0 t5° C'
Ne~
City charter maximum density: 21 dwelling units per acre in any zone district or
planned development. [Sea 5.10.1 of the charter]
Zoning code specifies maximum densities as follows:
o ResidenUal-Three (R-3) zone district (highest density base zone district): 12
dwelling units per acre [Sea 26-211]
o Planned Residential (PRD) and Planned Mixed Use (PMUD)
Developments: A maacimum of 16 units per acre. [Sec. 26-303, 26-306.5]
C. Research Summary: 1
All 16 jurisdictions surveyed have higher density allowances than Wheat Ridge. None
of the jurisdictions have any density provisions in their charter except Wheat Ridge.
The average maacimum densityZ (excluding Wheat Ridge's 16 units/acre) from the
survey of 16 jurisdictions was 31. Note that these densities aze for straight zone
districts, not any Planned Unit Development (PUD) districts, which aze the compazable
jurisdiction's version of Wheat Ridge's planned development districts. Neazly all
communities have higher density allowances in PUD districts, many without any
maximum amounts specified in their code. Table 1 above is a summary of the
jurisdictions and their respective density maximums in straight zone districts.
'NOTE: Density figures for compazable jurisdictions were either stated as a density maacimum in their zoning
codes, or calculated based on minimum lot size requirements per dwelling unit For example, in the 4R district in
L,akewood, 1,750 sqaaze feet of lot azea is required per dwelling unit, which equates to 24.89 dweiling units per acre
(1/(1750/43560), where 43560 = one acre). In the R-3 district in Wheat Ridge, 3,630 squaze feet of lot area is
required for each dwelling unit = 12 dwelling units per acre.
2 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 distdct (R2A) is 21.8 units per acre but higher density districts aze dictated by FAR.
Only the density numbers were used in calwlating this average.
4
Shon Term Code Amendments 7111108
D. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
As this project is for proposed amendments to the zoning code (not the city charter) the
discussion of eliminating density restrictions from the charter is not inciuded in this
memo. Staff does however recognize that any amendment to the charter related to
density is relevant to the zoning code. At this time however, staff is focused on
working within the current regulations set forth in the charter. The proposed short term
amendment is as follows:
1. Increase the masimum density allowance in Planned Residential Developments
(PRD) and Planned Mixed Use Developments (PMUD) to match the city charter at
21 dwellina units per acre.
A. Issue Summary:
Front setbacks are the distance from the front property line to the front of the structure
on a lot. In a11 of the city's residential straight zone districts, the minimum front
setback is 30 feet. One of the major goals of the NRS is to create walkable, pedestrian-
friendly neighborhoods. Having such a substantial front setback minimum stands in
contrast to this goal in many cases, where structures are mandated to be pushed back
from the street and sidewalk.
B. Current Code:
• All residential zone districts (excluding Planned Residential Developments): 30 foot
front setback.
C. Research Summary:
All 16 jurisdictions surveyed have lesser front setbacks allowed in at least one
residential straight zone district than Wheat Ridge. Figure 1 below provides a summazy
of the jurisdictions surveyed related to residential front setbacks.
5
Short Term Code Amendments 71I1108
1. Figure 1: Typical Front Setbacks in Other Denver Jurisdictions in Straight
Residential Zone Districts
2s'
Boulder
Broomfield
Centennial
Englewood
2'
Lakewood
Aurora
Littleton
Denver
Louisville
Golden
30' Northglenn
Jefferson County 18, 15'
Wheaf Ridge Westminster
Lafayette Arvada Thomton
0
5'
20'
18'
Ss _
3
.
2
D. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
1. Evaluate front residential setbacks and propose reductions in some strai h~ t zone
districts. This evaluaUOn will look at existing conditions in various residential
neighborhoods in the city and any potential impacts.
Parking
A. Issue Summary:
Like a lot of the city's suburban counterparts, Wheat Ridge has an abundance of large,
underutilized, and unattractive pazking lots. One of the main reasons is the city's
zoning code and its lack of attention to reduced parking ratios as well as the location
and aesthetics of parking lots. Certainly a zoning code should appreciate a residential
or commercial developmenYs need to provide parking for its residents and patrons, but
it should also provide allowances for reduced parking in instances where the land use
simply does not need that much parking. Additionally, the NRS recommends attracting
more pedestrian friendly and mixed use developments and the city's parking standazds
should be updated accordingly.
B. Current Code: [Sec. 26-5011
• Parkin rg atios (examples)
o Restaurants: 1 space/75 squaze feet
o Drive-in restaurants: 1 space/100 square feet
o Office and Retail: 1 space/200 square feet first floor, 1 space/300 squaze feet other
floors
6
Shon Term Code Amendments
7/11/OS
• Parking reductions
o None allowed, except in planned developments
• Shared pazkin¢
o Shazed parking allowed "off-IoY' within 300 feet of property with shazed parking
agreement
• Parking lot landscavine
o Landscape buffering required for parking lots adjacent to street and residential
areas
o Landscaped "islands" required for groupings of 30 spaces or more
C. Research Snmmary:
Pazking ratios in Wheat Ridge on a cityv✓ide basis for particulaz land uses are generally
consistent with most jurisdictions in metro Denver. Where Wheat Ridge is not
consistent with nearly all jurisdictions surveyed is in the lack of allowance for pazking
reductions, whether it be for particulaz districts (e.g. transit oriented development
overlay districts) or citywide. In other words, while most other jurisdictions have
citywide standards generally consistent with Wheat Ridge's they provide much more
flexibility and in many cases encourage reductions in the number of pazking spaces.
Table 2 below provides a summary of the research on this topic.
Pazking reductions allowed in
specific straight zone districts
'or b locatiori °
,
Puking reductions
allowed by sepazate
rocedure 5
No pazking reduc6ons
allowed in straight zone `
districts or rocedwe
1. Aurora
1. Aurora
1. Broom£ield
2. Arvada
2. Boulder
2. Northglenn
3. Boulder
3. Centennial
3. Wheat Ridge
4. Denver
4. Englewood
5. Englewood
5. Jefferson
6. Golden
Counry
7. Lakewood
6. Lafayette
8. Littleton
7. Louisville
9. Louisville
8. Thornton
10. Thomton
9. Westminster
Other issues as part of the short term amendments relating to the unplementation of the
NRS include shared parking, bicycle pazking, and establishing masimum pazking
amounts. Wheat Ridge is generally consistent with other jurisdictions relating to shazed
parking but more flexibility may be beneficial. A summary of the comparable
jurisdictions in metro Denver relating to bicycle parking and maximum parking is
provided in Table 3 below.
3 NOTE: Pazking reductions here aze either in the form of zone districts that require less pazking than the citywide
standazds (e.g., mixed use districts) or a specific pazking reduction or deferral procedure where applicants can
request waivers/reductions to the number of pazking spaces.
4 N01'E: These do not include Planned Unit Developments (PUD) but aze for straight zone districts. "By location"
means for example that parking may be reduced within a certain distance to a transit statioa
5 NOTE: Most of these procedures aze administrative.
Shon Term Code Amendments
7/11/08
Bic cle`'Parlrin
Ma~mnm
P,arlrin ;
Mandatory bicycle
'No mandatory bicycle
Required in certain'
Not,required at any
parking
parking
locations or zone distdcts
b
locauon
1.
Arvada
1.
Broomfield
1. Arvada
1.
Aurora
2.
Aurora
20
Centennial
2. Lakewood
2.
Boulder
3.
Boulder
3.
Golden
3.
Broomfield
40
Denver
4.
Jefferson County
4.
Centennial
50
Englewood
5.
Lafayet[e
5.
Denver
60
Lakewood
6.
Louisville
6.
Englewood
7.
Lit[leton
7.
Northglenn
7.
Golden
8.
Westminster
8.
Thornton
8.
7efferson County
9.
Wheat Ridge
9.
Lafayette
10.
Littleton
11.
Louisville
12.
Northglenn
13.
Thornton
14.
Westminster
15.
Wheat Rid e
Other issues for consideration as part of the short term amendments include:
• Pazking lot landscaping
• Location of parking azeas
• Counting public lots and on-street parking
D. Proposed Short Term Amendments
Staff proposes to revise this section to be better organized and implement the
recommendations set forth below. Existing language will be carried forward where no
amendments aze proposed. The recommended amendments include:
1. Evaluate narkine ratios of snaces required for various land uses) and nropose
reductions.
2. Evaluate land use list ("schedule of required off-street pazkin2" in Sea 26-
501.D) and add/revise uses where needed with corresponding parkin ratios.
3. Provide parking reductions for tazgeted areas that may include:
o Within area in and around a transit station (end of Gold Line)
o For redevelopmenUnew development along 38th Avenue
o In traditional overlay areas per the Architecture and Site Design Manual
(ASDM)
4. Provide pazking reduction procedure (administrative, or requiring public
hearing) with review criteria
5. Provide incentives for locating parking areas on the side and reaz of the
buildin . Some areas per the ASDM already cannot have parking in the front of
the building. Incentives may include reduced parking ratios and reductions in
required parking lot landscaping.
6. Revise shazed pazkin lan uaee to allow more flexibility for applicants.
6 NOTE: Arvada requues a I10% maximum for its "ac6vity centers", which are lazger shopping centers. Lakewood
requires a maximum for some overlay districts, including the'u TOD overlay district.
Short Term Code Amendments
7/11/08
7. Require bicycle parking consistent with surrounding jurisdictions.
8. Require maximum pazking ratios (e.g., 125% of the required spaces) in targeted
azeas - traditional overlay in Architectural and Site Design Manual (ASDM)
and in and around a transit station (end of Gold Line)
9. Evaluate countine public nazking lots and on-street RarkinQ towards required
arp kinQ. This may be particularly beneficial to properties along 38' and 44d'
Avenues.
Other Short Term Amendments Proposed
There aze various other potential short term amendments proposed. Reseazch has not
been conducted from other jurisdictions on these topics. Most do not require substantial
re-drafting, but rather cleaning up existing language to address particular issues.
A. Extended Stay Lodging
1. Issue Summary:
The zoning code currently does not define this land use. Some hoteUmotel
properties can morph into short term housing solutions of a sort that they were not
intended for. The city has experienced crime and property maintenance issues on
these sorts of properties.
2. Current Code: [Sec. 26-1231
Extended stay lodging is not defined in any manner in the current code.
HoteUmotel is defined as follows:
A building containing sizteen (16) or more transient guest rooms in which
lodging for compensation is provided, with or without meals.
3. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
Define short term lodeinQ to address this use so it can be adequately regulated in the
zoning code.
B. Zoning District Boundary Discrepancies
L Issue Summary:
There aze numerous properties in the city that contain multiple zoning district
boundaries. Some boundaries even run through buildings. This presents substantial
challenges to developing or redeveloping these properties. If one half of a property
is zoned for residential and the other for commercial it is nearly impossible to
accommodate any type of development that will conform to the zoning regulations
without a rezoning. Just during the month of May 2008, planning staff has had two
such instances where applicants are interested in redeveloping property and aze
realizing how limited their options are.
9
Short Term Code Amendments
7/11/08
2. Current Code:
There is limited language in Sections 26-115.E and
26-203 that give some relief for zoning map errors,
either administratively or at a public hearing before
the Board of Adjustrnent. In order to qualify for an
administrative correction it must be shown that there
is a"verifiable error" in the zoning map, which has
been difficult to achieve given that the city adopted
the Jefferson County zoning map when it was
incorporated in 1969. There has not historically been
a widely used or effective manner of dealing with
these properties.
3. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
Create a clearer, expedited process for dealing with
parcels with "split zonine". To this date, most
applicants that have encountered this problem have
either walked away from their plans to improve the
property or had to wark around the boundazies
creatively.
C.
Assembly of multi-family land in the R-3 zone district
2 recent examples of
properties with split zoning.
One property owner adjacent
to the Top example stated
that property has been mostly
vacant and in disrepair for "8
to 10 years:"
1. Issue Summary:
Section 26-117 of the code restricts the ability for an applicant to consolidate lots
for multi-family development. Most types of lot consolidations are administrauve
without requiring a public hearing. This section requires any lot consolidation for
multi-family to go before planning commission and city council under the same
procedure as a planned building group. There are also additional restrictions in
certain zone districts for multi-family lot consolidations. This makes land assembly
in azeas where multi-family development may be desirable and appropriate difficult.
2. Current Code: [Sea 26-117]
• Most lot consolidations are administrative (no public hearing required).
• Any lot consolidation for multi-family development however requires public
hearings before planning commission and city council under the same procedure
as a planned building group.
• Lot consolidations in the R-3 and R-3A zone districts are not allowed in some
instances, depending on lot sizes.
3. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
Evaluate the need to provide less restriction on multi-familv development as it
relates to lot consolidation, and propose revised laneuage.
10
Shon Term Code Amendments
7/11/08
D. City-initiated "up-zoning"
1. Issue Summary:
The city can initiate zone changes on property per Section 26-113 of the code.
These zone changes, however, can only be to a"less intensive" zone district. For
example a zone change from residential to commercial is not allowed under this
procedure, but a zone change from commercial to residential is allowed. Tlus
restricts the city's ability to initiate zone changes to zone districts that may be
appropriate to provide an incentive for redevelopment.
2. Current Code: [Sec. 26-113]
The city cannot initiate a zone change from a"less intensive" zone district to a more
intensive district. For example a zone change from residen6al to commercial is not
allowed under this procedure, but a zone change from commercial to residential is
allowed.
3. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
Potentially eliminate the 3rd and 4th sentences in 26-113-A.
E. Amendments to planned zoning districts
1. Issue Summary:
There is a substantial amount of property in the city with planned development
zoning (see map below). Property that is zoned as a planned development in the
city, whether it is Planned Residential, Planned Commercial, or Planned Industrial,
contains a unique set of development standards and allowed land uses specific to
that planned development. Often times market conditions change from when the
original development plan was approved and new types of development may be
proposed that do not fit within the confines of those standazds. In order to vary
significantly from these standazds, an amendment to the development plan must be
processed. This process is essentially the same as a rezoning. Often times there are
multiple properties, and multiple property owners involved in one planned
development. Under the current regulations, any amendment to a planned
development must have the written consent of all property owners within the
planned development. This may present an obstacle to encouraging investment in
many of the city's planned developments.
11
Shon Term Code Amendments
7/11/08
2. Current Code: [Sec. 26-311]
Any amendment to a planned development district must be approved of in writing
by all property owners within the area approved for the district.
3. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
a. Allow citv council or some minimum amount of affected propertv owners to
submit applications for amendments to development plans. Provisions should
be incorporated to account for any agreements (e.g., access, drainage, pazking)
that may be part of the planned development that may be affected by the
amendment.
b. Evaluate the need for greater flexibility for vaziances to planned developments.
Currenfly, variances to planned developments without processing an
amendment are only allowed for single and two family planned residential
developments.
F. Floodplain Administrator Duties
1. Issue Summary:
Many properties in the city lie within a floodplain, which presents a challenge to
developing or constructing anything on that property. To use a recent example,
something as simple as constructing a fence to enclose a dumpster can be a
challenge with required floodplain permitting and miUgation to address any
flooding occurrence. The Floodplain Administrator (Public Works Director) has
limited authority to use discretion to approve construction that cleazly will not
impact the floodplain.
2. Current Code:
There aze two types of floodplain permits for any construction in the floodplain:
12
Planned Develoument Districts (shaded)
Short Term Code Amendments
7/11/08
• Class I: Structures for non-human occupancy (e.g., fences, sheds), additions to
structures for human occupancy, and fill and deposit material.
• Class II: ConstrucUOn or "substantial improvemenY' to existing structures for
human occupancy.
Class I permits can only be approved upon finding "that the structures do not create
a negadve unpact on the base flood elevation or flow velocity". This means for
example a shed in the floodplain may have to be elevated a certain distance where it
clearly is not in a flood prone azea.
3. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
Provide laneuaee allowine the Floodplain Administrator to use discretion in
allowing some Class I permits. Permits may be allowed that cleazly will not have a
detrimental impact on the floodplain without any need for mitigating the impacts on
the "base flood elevation or flow velocity". Because Class I pernuts are for non-
habitable structures, there will be no resultant negative impact to the city's CRS
rating (community rating system that dictates cost of flood insurance) or
relationship with FEMA.
G. Residential Group Home Densities
1. Issue Summary:
The residential zone district regulations recognize the following classifications of
group living situations:
• Residential group homes for children as a special use permit.
• Residential group homes, nursing homes, and congregate care facilities for 8
or fewer elderly persons as a permitted use.
• Residential group homes, nursing homes, or congregate caze facilities for 9 or
more elderly persons as a special use pernut.
• Single family homes for residents considered to be a"protected class" have no
limitation on the maximum residents permitted in a single housekeeping unit.
These protected classes of citizens include the following: developmentally
disabled, mentally ill, physically impaired, and persons undergoing drug or
alcohol treatment.
While clearly this group living arrangement does not meet the traditional definition
of a household, these classes aze protected by federal law and are exempted from
the city's definition of "family".
In the past, it has been departsnent policy to limit the maximum number of
occupants for these group facilities to 16 as that is considered a change in
occupancy codes in the International Building Code (IBC). Pursuant to the IBC,
group living situations for 16 or less persons are considered a residential occupancy.
Any number of residents over 16 will require the structure to be built in accordance
with the institutional occupancy requirements dictated by the IBC.
A group home for sixteen people would be a very lazge structure which may be
13
Shon Term Code Amendments
7/l1/08
inconsistent with the chazacter of a low density neighborhood. If there are two
residents per bedroom this would require an eight bedroom home and would need to
include common space such as dining rooms, rooms for live-in caze takers and 12
off-street pazking spaces.
2. Current Code: [Sec. 26-123]
The definition of family from the current code (Section 26-123) is as follows:
One (1) or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption, or legal
custody plus domestic servants employed for service on the premises, or a
group of not more than three (3) persons who need not be so related living
together as a single housekeeping unit. Five (5) people over the age of sixty
(60) years sharing one (1) housekeeping unit shall also be deemed to be a
family. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a family shall be deemed to include four
(4) or more persons that are not related by bloocl, marriage, adoption, or legal
custody occupying a residential dwelling unit and living as a single
housekeeping unit if the occupants are handicapped persons as defined in title
III of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing
Amendments Act of 1988, or disabled persons as defined by § 24-34-301,
C.R.S. A family shall not include more than one (I) person required to register
as a sex offender pursuant to § 18-3-412.5, C.R.S., as amended, unless related
by blood, marriage or adoption.
A household that includes four (4) or more persons identifzed above shall not
be excluded from the definition of 'family" by the residence in the household of
additional necessary persons (and their families) employed in the care and
supervision of such handicapped or disabled persons.
3. Proposed Short Term Amendments:
a. Amend definition of family to limit the number of protected class occupants
able to live toeether in a home as a sinele housekeeping unit•
14
Short Term Code Amendments
7111108
1 CODE 1
° Amendment
~ . .a .
Minimum off-street parking requirements
L,esser parking ratios and allowances foi parking reductions may encourage
: establish high minimum requirements and
more redevelopment, help create more pedestdan friendly environments, and
the code does a poor job of allowing for
make it easier for redevelopment to occur.
cteative shared pazking, mixed use
' azkin , and azkin reductions
Extended Stay Lodging is not defined in
Some hoteUmotel properties can morph into short term housing solutions of a
? the zoning code
sort that they were not intended for. The city has experienced crime and
ro er maintenance issues on these sorts of ro erties.
' Planned Residenual Developments (PRD)
Align zoning maximum with charter maximum to give flexibility on
`and Planned Mixed Use Developments
redevelopment projects in appropriate areas.
' j(PMUD) allow only 16 dwelling
units/acre, less than the Charter limitation
'bf 21
Front setback in all straight residential
30 feet is a fairly suburban standazd and may not provide for the pedesuian
districu is 30 Feet, which may be
friendly neighborhood context that is desired in some of the city's more urban
lexcessive for some districts
nei hborhoods.
s Planned zoning districts cannot be
This policy makes it very diffiwlt over ume to adapt to ever changing realities
amended without the consent of all
of the real estate market and adjust to new land uses and development patterns.
affected ro er owners
City cannot initiate any "upzoning"
City-initiated up-zoning of property can be a very proactive activity to create
incentives for redevelo ment b the rivate sector.
' Zimitations on the ability to assemble
New high quality multi-family may be appropriate in certain azeas of the city
mula-family zoned land (Residential
with appropriate zoning. Current process discourages such assemblages to
Three)forredevelo ment
occuc
"Zoning district boundary discrepancies
Many proper[ies in the city have "split zoning" - meaning more than one zone
district boundary on the property. This makes developmendredevelopment
very difficult without a rezonin on these ro erties.
Residential group home density
The current regulations for group homes for "protected classes" per federal
law of individuals does not address the number of occupants allowed for these
facilities. Such group homes aze allowed in all residential zoning districts.
Having no limitation on the number of individuals allowed for such facilities
allows lazge strucwres with a substantial amount of residents (e.g., 16
residents) in residential zone districts.
: Floodplain adminis[rator decision-making
Floodplain adminisuator has limited authoriTy to make administrative
'authority
determinations/waivers to certain standazds for floodplain permits. This
makes improvements to property in floodplain azeas difficult where it cleazly
will not have a detrimental impact on the floodplain.
Amen7ment
Mt~ 4 Gd Y:(il) S~V'~> ~d / (1 ) l.,
=Streamlining vazious land use applicadons
Streamlining of land use entitlement processes is a recommendation of the
NRS and will better facilitate redevelopment activities in the city.
A lications ma include some subdivision lattin rocedwes.
Evaluate yazd and bulk reqairements in
If higher densities aze implemented, the yazd and bulk requirements in
iesidential districts (setbacks, hei ht)
residential districts shoald reflect this.
Reduce reliance on planned developmenu
Planned zoning districts require a very discretionuy negotiation process
:in favor of new straight zone districts
between developer and city, with no predictability or cer[ainty in the end
? (e: mixed use disVict)
result.
Allow vested rights to occur eazlier in the
Vested property rights often occur eulier in the entitlement process, such as
enritlement process
upon approval of a final development plan. The current vested property
rights provisions do not provide much certainty for a property
owner/developer who might incur substantial expense to go through an
ODP/FDP entiUement rocess, and still not have a vested ro erry right.
15
Short Term Code Amendments
7/11/08
Evaluate rieed for neighborhood meeangs, '
Neighborhood mee8ngs may not be needed for all applications and the '
for some land use applicaaons
timing of the meeting could be modified so that it is not a precursor to even
fdin an a lication.
Tree protection ordinance
Protect the city's mamre tree canopy when new development and
redevelopment ocwrs. Currendy, there aze no regulations restricting any
and all mature trees on a site from being removed. Regulations could allow
removal of trees where infeasible to retain them, but new trees of certain
caliper must be provided elsewhere on site. Further consultation is needed
with the Pazks De artment.
Evaluate subdivision desigastandazds
The current subdivision design standazds provide litUe guidance for the city
to ensare logical block and lot layouts as well as road and pedestrian
connectivit .
Revise subdivision technical submittal
Ensure consistency between Public Works submittal requirements and
re uirements
rocedures and lan ua e in zonin code.
Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
`overlay district
Evaluate the need for an overlay district encompassing the azea azound the
proposed light rail stadon at 52nd and Wazd. District-specific standards may
include increased allowances for density, reduced pazking, and other
incentives for desirable develo ment.
Accessory strucmres in residenpal
No accessory strucmres (e.g., storage shed, gazage) aze allowed by right in
districts
commercial districts. A Planned Building Group process must be
undertaken, with a minimum size of 1,000 squaze feet for the shvcture.
More allowance may be needed for such structures to acwmmodate the
needs of businesses.
Amendment
t '
~ Lack of mixed use or medium to higher
If the city were to reduce its reliance on planned development dist~icts, it
density straight zone districts
would need to develop new zoning disvicts that encompass the land use and
development chazacteristics recommended for redevelopment azeas and to
im lement new subazea lans
Overall;poor code organization
A Unified Development Code or Form Based Code might be more "user
friendly" and create more desirable urban form as redevelopment ocwrs
-
over time.
Evaluatedot azea and yazd and bulk
Want to encourage reinvestment in quality duplex and quality mulp-family
ie uuements in R-2 and R-3 disuicts
ro'ects on a roriatel zoned land.
Address nouconforming duplexes in R-2
Want to encourage reinvestment in quality duplex properties so that existing
er minimum lot size of 12,500
ro erties do not de[eriorate.
Evaluate radius (e:g., 600 foot) for public
Consider diffetent distance for certain meetings or for minor applications.
nouce
Evaluate legal protest provision that
In addition the practical diffiwlty of the greater voting requirements, the
triggers, supetmajority vote on ]and use
provision sends a message to the development community that the city will
applications
defer to neighbors when it comes to making difficult land use decisions.
Not "o en for business".
Evaluate group.home reguladons
Modify goup home regulations to be consistent with what is required by
state and federal law.
Provide allowances and tegulations
Allowances for ADUs are increasingly common in cities to encourage infill
addressing Accessory Dwelling Units
reinvestment, allow for diverse family housing situations in an aging
`(ADU). '
population, and to increase housing affordability. Carriage houses aze a
common form of an ADU.
16