Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/04/201011 ~ City of W heat Qdge PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA February 4, 2010 Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on February 4, 2010, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA (Items of new and old business may be recommended for placement on the agenda.) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 21, 2010 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda. Public comments may be limited to 3 minutes.) 7. STUDY SESSION A. Mixed Use Zoning 8. OTHER ITEMS 9. ADJOURNMENT :'I' City of W heat P,idge PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting January 21, 2010 1. 2. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair DWYER at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29`x' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Anne Brinkman John Dwyer Henry Hollender Dick Matthews Steve Timms Commission Members Absent Staff Members Present: Jim Chilvers Marc Dietrick Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner TIMMS to approve the order of the agenda with the addition of the following items: Appointment of new Planning Commission representatives and an announcement by Commissioner Hollender. The motion passed 5-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 19, 2009 It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner TIMMS to approve the minutes of November 19, 2009 as presented. The motion carried 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes 1 January 21, 2010 6. 7. 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. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-09-09 - An application filed by Arvada Fire Protection District for approval of an Outline Development Plan amendment to allow a fire station on property zoned Planned Industrial Development (PID) and located at 5250 Oak Street. The case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Staff concluded that the proposed modification to the original uses specified on the Skyline Estates Filing 3 ODP must be processed as a zone change and that criteria used to evaluate a change of zoning conditions supports approval of the modification for this lot only. A recommendation of approval was given with conditions as outlined in the staff report. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if staff believed parking to be adequate. Ms. Reckert replied that this is a different situation than most parking requirements and would be examined more closely at the time of specific design. Commissioner HOLLENDER asked what would happen to the existing detention ponds. Ms. Reckert stated that these ponds are regional and serve the developments. A drainage plan will have to be approved. J In response to questions from Commissioner TIMMS, Ms. Reckert explained that a photometric plan will be required at time of development. In regard to landscaping, she explained that irrigation would be required and native seed would be allowed. Commissioner DWYER expressed concern that there will be no access onto Ridge Road. Ms. Reckert stated that Ridge Road is a collector street, and it is policy not to have direct access onto collectors. A traffic analysis has been done. John Greer, Chief Arvada Fire Protection District Chief Greer stated that the proposed station would replace Station #2 and would be one mile closer to the busiest census area of Kipling and I-70 while allowing protection to the area provided by the present Station #2. This amounts to about 90 seconds less in response time. He stated that sirens and flashing lights are not activated until after trucks have left the station. Lights would be angled to prevent spillage into residential structures. There will be no hazardous materials stored on the site. Diesel fuel will be stored in an approved above-ground tank which will be enclosed in a bricked-in area. The station will have sleeping space Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 21, 2010 for 6 individuals and parking space for 13 vehicles. Extra vehicle storage will not be allowed. Commissioner MATTHEWS asked about access across light rail. Chief Greer explained that they will use Miller Street. In response to a question from Commissioner HOLLENDER, Chief Greer stated that he is satisfied with the Oak Street access. The station is a drive-through design so trucks don't have to back up. In response to a question from Commissioner TIMMS, Chief Greer stated that Station #2 currently gets about two calls per day. The amount of calls will be increased at the proposed station. He stated that it also looks hopeful that funding will be available and the station could be constructed in about a year. At the request of Commissioner TIMMS, Brad Bonnet, the architect, presented architectural renderings of the station. He commented that the station would provide a buffer from the Coors industrial park. In response to a question from Commissioner BRINKMAN, Chief Greer explained that the fire department contracts with Pridemark for ambulance services and those vehicles will not be stationed and dispatched at the firehouse. Commissioner BRINKMAN asked if there would be a future need for additional sleeping space at the station. Chief Greer explained that any future additional firefighters will be housed at Station #1. Joseph E. DeMott Wheat Ridge City Council - District IV Mr. DeMott stated that he lives in Skyline Estates near the proposed station. He stated that he is in favor of the station and, in talking with his neighbors, he has heard no negative comments. Chair DWYER asked if there were others who wished to address the Commission. Hearing no response, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner MATTHEWS commented that access onto Ridge Road is not for the Commission's consideration at this time. Commissioner TIMMS stated that he would vote in favor of the application. He commented that a fire station is a much better use at this location than some of the industrial uses allowed by the present zoning. Commissioner HOLLENDER stated that he strongly supports the fire station at this location, but suggested that the access question be reconsidered. Commissioner MATTHEWS commended the Arvada Fire Department on the pleasing design of the proposed station. Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 21, 2010 It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner MATTHEWS to recommend approval of Case No. WZ-09-09, a request for approval of an amendment to the Skyline Estates Filing #3 Outline Development Plan for Lot 1 of Block 4 to allow the additional use of a fire station on property located at approximately 5250 Oak Street for the following reasons: 1. The proposed use is less impactive than existing uses allowed on the property. 2. The proposed use will provide a buffer and land use transition from the industrial uses on the south side of Ridge Road to the residential neighborhood to the north. 3. The evaluation criteria support approval of the request. With the following conditions: 1. A preliminary drainage report be submitted at the time of specific ODP. 2. A traffic analysis be submitted at the time of specific ODP. The motion passed 5-0. 8. OTHER ITEMS A. Resolution Designating a Public Place for Posting of Meeting Notices It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by Commissioner HOLLENDER to approve Resolution No. 01-2010, a resolution establishing a designated public place for the posting of meeting notices as required by the Colorado Open Meetings Law. Commissioner BRINKMAN offered a friendly amendment to include the City's website as an additional location for the posting of meeting notices. The amendment was accepted by Commissioners MATTHEWS and HOLLENDER. The amended motion passed unanimously. B. Mixed Use Forum - Northwest Subarea Plan Update Meredith Reckert stated that a forum was held last week with about 35 people from the Wadsworth corridor area to discuss new regulations concerning a mixed use zone district. She invited Commissioners to attend another forum to be held regarding the TOD area around 50th and Ward. There will be a future forum concerning the Kipling north of 44th area. Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 21, 2010 Commissioner DWYER commented that Live Well Wheat Ridge is starting a committee to advocate for walkable spaces in mixed use areas. Commissioner TIMMS asked if there is a final report on the DOLA/Wheat Ridge 2020 38`x' Avenue seminar. Ms. Reckert replied that it should be available at the end of this month. C. Planning Commission Vacancies Commissioner HOLLENDER reluctantly announced his resignation from the Planning Commission due to the fact that he has moved out of the City. Meredith Reckert and fellow Commissioners expressed appreciation to Commissioner HOLLENDER for his service. Ms. Reckert announced that two other vacancies exist to replace Davis Reinhart, who was voted in as District I council representative, and Jim Chilvers, District II, whose term is up in March and is not reapplying. 9. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by Commissioner MATTHEWS to adjourn the meeting at 8:22 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. John Dwyer, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes 5 January 21, 2010 City of "A~ W heat R COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Planning Commission THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Sarah Showalter, Planner II DATE: January 28, 2010 (for February 4 study session) SUBJECT: Mixed Use Zone Districts In May 2009, planning staff presented a report to Planning Commission regarding the creation of mixed use zone districts. This report included a summary of the need for "straight" mixed use zone districts - as opposed to planned developments (PDs) - within the zoning code. It also highlighted research from ten jurisdictions, most within the Denver area, that already have mixed use zoning and presented an approach for moving forward with two basic mixed use districts: Mixed Use Commercial (MU-C) and Mixed Use Neighborhood (MU-N). Since that time, staff has continued to research best practices and refine the approach for creating mixed use zoning in Wheat Ridge. This memo will summarize staff's recommended approach, provide an overview of the proposed process and timeline for the project, and highlight policy items for which we would like feedback. At the meeting, staff will conduct a presentation with talking points and ask for direction on the important policy issues. This memo is structured as follows: 1. Overview of Approach 2. Overview of Process 3. Proposed Schedule 4. Policy Direction Requested Overview of Approach Districts The basic framework is to create two straight mixed use districts. One, Mixed Use Commercial (MU-C), will focus on areas envisioned for higher-intensity development and the second, Mixed Use Neighborhood (MU-N), will be for smaller-scale, more neighborhood-oriented development. A summary of the basic characteristics for each district is found below. Mixed Use Commercial (MU-C) Intended for the city's commercial corridors such as Wadsworth and Kipling (north of 44 th Ave), as well as the area around the commuter rail station. • Proposed for areas that were exempted from the City Charter restrictions on height and density. Will allow for higher building heights and densities. • Will allow for a fairly wide range of uses (including commercial, retail, and residential), with some limitation and/or special review for auto-oriented uses. Mixed Use Neighborhood (MU-N) • Intended for neighborhood commercial corridors like 38`h Ave (between Sheridan and Wadsworth) and 44`h Ave (between Sheridan and Wadsworth and west of Kipling). • Will be in areas that are subject to the City Charter restrictions on height and density. • Will allow for a range of uses - including commercial, retail, and residential - but with more limitations on auto-oriented uses. Sub-Districts Two geographic areas targeted for MU-C that may require special attention are: (1) the future transit-oriented development (TOD) around the Ward Road commuter rail station; and (2) properties around the Kipling/I-70 interchange. To address these areas, staff is considering the creation of sub-districts within the MU-C district (e.g. MU-C TOD and MU-C Interstate). This approach allows for simplicity and hopefully greater ease of use. Rather than creating an entirely new zone district for these unique areas, sub-districts allow for one underlying zone district with special requirements, standards, or exceptions spelled out only where necessary. For example, the TOD sub-district may have added parking reductions compared to other MU-C areas, and the Interstate sub-district may allow for more auto-oriented uses than base MU-C areas. Design Standards ("Form-Based Code") Part of the goal in developing straight mixed use districts is to create a streamlined review process so that, once the mixed use zoning is in place, development can proceed through administrative review only. In order fot this approach to work, city staff and elected officials will need to have confidence that the code requires a minimum level of quality design. Currently, the city places design requirements on new development through the Architectural and Site Design Manual (ASDM). After careful study of this issue, staff is proposing that the new mixed use zoning code contain its own design requirements embedded within the code. The proposed code would be a version of "form-based" zoning since it will place emphasis on the form and quality of buildings, with less emphasis on separating land uses, which tends to be the focus of traditional zoning. Staff recommends the form-based approach for the following reasons: • Ease of use: applicants will be able to find all requirements (permitted uses, development standards, and design requirements) within one location, rather than consulting both the code and then the ASDM • Applicability: modifying the ASDM - which already has traditional and contemporary overlays - to match the new mixed use districts' geographic boundaries and standards would be time-consuming and potentially confusing for applicants. With the proposed approach, the ASDM will remain in effect for any new development that is not under the new mixed use zoning. Examples of mixed use form-based codes include Louisville's Mixed Use Commercial Community District, Longmont's Mixed Use District, and Denver's Main Street District. 2 Development Standards and Permitted Uses Staff preliminarily recommends the following basic approaches to standards within the new mixed use code. Many of these items will be refined as input from stakeholders and the task force is received throughout the process. • Permitted Uses Generally, the code will be more flexible and simplified in terms of permitted uses. Addressing auto-oriented uses is an important issue. For now, staff proposes that some auto uses would not be permitted in the MU-N district (or MU-C TOD sub-district), and most would be allowed in MU-C as a special use. • Incentives for Mixed Use Some jurisdictions with mixed use zoning require a mix of uses. Staff preliminarily recommends incentivizing, rather than requiring mixed use development. Incentives might include higher allowed building heights or reduced parking requirements. One approach under consideration is to require more than one use for sites over a certain size. • Building Heights Within the MU-N district, building heights would not exceed the City Charter (35' for any building with residential, 50' for commercial buildings). Maximum building heights for the MU-C district will be calibrated based on input from developers, designers, property owners, and the public. It is also worth noting that many mixed use ordinances, especially those meant to promote TOD, require minimum building heights. • Density Within the MU-N district, residential densities would not exceed the City Charter (21 units per acre). Within the MU-C district, residential densities would be higher. Appropriate densities will depend on input from local experts, property owners, and other stakeholders. Some jurisdictions do not set maximum densities, utilizing other standards - including building height, open space requirements, setbacks, etc - to restrict overall density. Other jurisdictions set minimum densities in mixed use and TOD ordinances to promote a compact, walkable development pattern. • Setbacks Staff recommends mandatory build-to lines, very similar to those in the ASDM. Rear and side setbacks might be greater for mixed use development directly adjacent to low- density residential use (like single family homes). • Open Space Staff recommends requiring a minimum amount of a lot area for each development to have hardscaping and/or landscaping as useable open space. The typical range for required open space in similar mixed use districts are anywhere from 10-20%. • Parking Compared to most jurisdictions in the metro area, the parking requirements in Wheat Ridge's code are somewhat high. Such requirements can be prohibitive to promoting mixed use development. Staff's preliminary approach is to have separate parking requirements within the mixed use code, with ratios similar to those found in comparable mixed use districts, such as Lakewood's Colfax Mixed Use zone district. The general approach is to keep things simple. If minimum parking requirements are not too high, it is not necessary to have a long list of options for reductions. Shared parking would be allowed and encouraged. 3 Many jurisdictions also include parking maximums in mixed use zoning ordinances. This is an approach that could make sense in the TOD area, but is still up for discussion and input from the task force and stakeholders. The new parking ordinance adopted in 2009, which allows for shared parking and has other parking reductions available, would still apply to new development outside of the mixed use districts. • Nonconforming Uses and Structures The issue of nonconforming uses will need careful consideration within the mixed use districts, particularly if the city were to initiate a zone change along any commercial corridors. Staff's preliminary recommendations are: o Any existing use that becomes nonconforming as a result of the new district can remain in perpetuity, except for a nonconforming use that has been discontinued for a certain time period (currently 60 days in the code). Generally, the use will stay with the land, so other similar businesses can come in and operate the same use. o Limited expansions (such as up to 20%) of the square footage of the building for nonconforming uses might be allowed. Development Review Staff recommends relying on a process very similar to the current procedures for review of nonresidential, mixed use, and multifamily projects. This process would be as follows: o Pre-application meeting required with staff o Building permit/site plan review for compliance with all standards set forth in zoning code. o One option under consideration is to require a public hearing (or possibly two - before Planning Commission and City Council) for sites over a certain size. 2. Proposed Process As staff works to draft the new code, input from experts (developers, designers, real estate brokers), property owners, and the public will be essential. Staff proposes the following methods for gaining feedback throughout the process. Meetings with Property Owners A crucial first step is meeting with property owners in those parts of the city targeted for mixed use zoning. This outreach began in January, 2010 and will continue through March: • Wadsworth Summit -January 13, 2010 • Ward Road TOD Mixed Use Forum- January 26, 2010 • Kipling Mixed Use Forum- February 24, 2010 • 38th Avenue Mixed Use Forum - March 10, 2010 (tentative) At these meetings, staff presents information about the proposed mixed use zoning and asks for feedback on important issues, such as: • Should mixed use be required or incentivized? What incentives would work best? • What auto-oriented uses, if any, should be allowed? • What scale of development (building heights in particular) makes sense? • How should nonconforming uses be handled? 4 • How do property owners feel about the idea of city-initiated rezonings? Input is gathered through discussion, as well as a survey distributed to all meeting attendees. Mixed Use Zoning Task Force In order to solicit input from local experts - including developers and designers - staff is proposing to form a small task force, or working group, that will roll up their sleeves and help with many of the standards and requirements within the new code. Preliminarily, it is envisioned that this group will meet with staff 3-4 times, in the format of working sessions, to give input on drafts of the code. The intent is that the task force will help insure the code is sensitive to the market and that it is clear and easily understood by developers and designers, who are most likely to use it. Public Outreach Another important step in the process will be stakeholders, especially in terms of the appropriate Charter restrictions do not apply. The primary opportunities will be a website dedicated (www.wrmixeduse.com), which will be functioning visit the website to: soliciting feedback from all community scale of development for areas where City /chicle for both education and feedback to the mixed use zoning project by February 12"'. Anyone will be able to • Take a survey with questions that will impact the mixed use code, including questions about scale of buildings in the mixed use areas • Learn about what mixed use development is, including some of its benefits • Participate in a community photo journal, where people can upload and comment on photos of development types that they would like to see in Wheat Ridge. • View drafts of the code as they become available for review • View a calendar with the schedule for the process and Staff is also proposing to host one city-wide meeting in the spring, most likely after the second draft of the code, to answer questions and give residents, property owners, and business owners the opportunity to provide direct input. Another proposed component of public outreach will be to produce a Top of the Hour segment for Channel 8. Planning Commission and City Council As the process continues through the spring, staff will make reports to the Planning Commission (perhaps in conjunction with City Council at joint sessions) after important milestones. Staff has tentatively scheduled to report back to the Planning Commission in conjunction with the 3 drafts of the code so that Commissioners will have time to review drafts and give input at study sessions. 3. Proposed Schedule Below is a tentative schedule for the formation and adoption of the mixed use zone district. Dates may change as the process continues. • Meetings with Property Owners (Mixed Use Forums): January- March, 2010 • Formation of Task Force: February 2010 • Draft 1 of Code: March 2010 (published to website; task force working session) • Draft 2 of Code: April 2010 (published to website; task force working session) • City-wide meeting: Late April or early May • Draft 3 of Code: June 2010 (published to website; task force working session) • Final Draft of Code: July 2010 • Code Adoption (Planning Commission and City Council Public Hearings): August - early September 2010 4. Policy Direction Requested There are five main items for which we would like policy direction: (1) Input on General Approach: What are Planning Commission's thoughts about staff's proposed approach to creating a mixed use code with all requirements, including design standards, in one place? Is there specific input related to the concept of two main districts - Mixed Use Commercial and Mixed Use Neighborhood - which may be supplemented by smaller sub-districts, if needed, for unique areas like the TOD? (2) Residential Densities: For many people, even planners and developers, residential density limits (such as 21 units per acre) can be very difficult to visualize. Some mixed use and form-based zoning codes use standards such as building height, setbacks, and open space requirements to ensure the appropriate level of development, but do not specify maximum residential densities. It is often the height, form and design of a building - not the number of units per acre - that has the most noticeable impact. Given this context, staff would like input on the following questions: • How important is it to set residential density maximums in the new mixed use code? • If maximum residential densities are included in the code, would it make sense - at least for some areas like the TOD - to also include minimum residential densities? (3) Residential Densities and PDs: Planned Development zoning - including PMUDs - will still remain as an option in the zoning code. Currently, residential development in all PDs is limited to 21 units per acre (the maximum residential density set in the City Charter). Given the recent changes to the City Charter's restrictions on height and density: • Would it make sense to either remove the 21 unit/acre restriction from Planned Developments or increase it to a maximum more similar to what will be allowed for the Mixed Use Commercial (MU-C) zone? (4) Auto-oriented Uses: Preliminarily, staff has recommended prohibiting most auto uses, including sales and repair, in the MU-N district, and requiring an SUP for the MU-C district. Drive-throughs could be allowed as a special use, and the code would contain some special screening requirements. • Does this approach seem sensible to Planning Commission? • Are there certain auto uses that should not be allowed in any MU district, or some that should not be a special use within the MU-C district? 6 (5) Nonconformities: this is a sensitive issue since many of the areas targeted for the new mixed use zoning contain auto-oriented uses and - around the future Ward Road commuter rail station - industrial uses that could become nonconforming if the property was rezoned to the new mixed use zoning. • Does it make sense to allow some expansion of nonconforming uses (such as 25 or 30%)? • Currently the code does not allow nonconforming structures or uses to be rebuilt if they are destroyed involuntarily (from fire, for example). Staff would propose changing this provision in conjunction with adoption of the new code. • In order to provide time for owners with nonconforming uses to find new tenants - especially if their building is designed for a specific use, such as industrial - should the allowable time period for discontinued use be extended beyond 60 days? 7