Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/15/2010
' City of � W heat�idge PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA July 15, 2010 Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on July 15, 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 — June 3, 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. WS- 10 -01 An application filed by Jones Engineering for the Seniors' Resource Center for approval of a 28 -lot consolidation plat for property located at 3227 Chase Street and zoned Residential -One C (R -1C). B. Case No. ZOA- 10 -04 An ordinance amending Article I of Chapter 26 concerning the provision for conditions of approval in the zone change process. C. Case No. ZOA- 10 -03 An ordinance amending Articles II and VI of Chapter 26 concerning accessory buildings on properties with commercial and industrial zoning. 8. STUDY SESSIONS A. Streetscape Design Manual B. Bike/Ped Master Plan 9. OTHER ITEMS A. Mixed Use Zone District Project Update B. Planning Commissioners Workshop (DRCOG) 10. ADJOURNMENT .` /. City of W heat -Midge PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting June 3, 2010 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair MATTHEWS at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29 Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. 3. 9 6. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Anne Brinkman Alan Bucknam Marc Dietrick John Dwyer Dick Matthews George Pond Steve Timms Commission Members Absent Staff Members Present: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Dean Gokey Meredith Reckert, Sr. Planner Sarah Showalter, Planner II APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner DWYER and seconded by Commissioner BUCKNAM to approve the order of the agenda. The motion carried 7 -0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 20, 2010 It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner DWYER to approve the minutes of the May 20, 2010 meeting as presented. The motion carried 6 -0 with Commissioner DIETRICK abstaining. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) There was no one present who wished to address the Commission at this time. Planning Commission Minutes 1 June 3, 2010 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. ZOA- 10 -01 An ordinance amending Article VII of Chapter 26 concerning off - premise identification signs, community event/sponsorship banners, and signs in the public right -of -way. This case was presented by Sarah Showalter. She entered all pertinent documents into the record and informed the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case. She reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. Commissioner POND asked how size criteria was developed. Ms. Showalter replied that sizes were determined primarily on actual requests and determining a size that would fit best with them and similar future requests. Staff was reticent to set a standard that would allow any large commercial sites in the city to put up off - premise signs, so the size for major activity centers was intended for large, regional shopping centers only. Master sign plans for developments would be reviewed by Planning Commission. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked if staff had consulted with the Jefferson County School District regarding size and duration of banners. Ms. Showalter explained that school properties were not part of the original ordinance and it might be a good idea to consult with the school district regarding time and size limitations. Private schools are exempt. Commissioner BRINKMAN expressed concern about time limitations for banners and stated that she believed that the 7 -acre requirement should be reduced. She also recommended considering lowering the 150 -acre requirement. Ms. Reckert reminded the Commission that businesses and quasi - public uses are allowed to have one banner at all times. Commissioner TIMMS asked if the city attorney had reviewed the language in the amendment as it relates to Colorado Revised Statutes. Ms. Showalter stated that the city attorney did review the language but would make sure he also reviewed it in light of CRS statutes. Commissioner TIMMS expressed concern that exceptions for signs in the public right -of -way could turn into becoming the norm. Ms. Showalter stated that while most jurisdictions have no criteria for this situation, Wheat Ridge has a set of specific criteria in the proposed code to restrict these types of signs so that they are only allowed in limited circumstances. Commissioner DWYER expressed concern that criteria seemed to be developed based on actual situations and not necessarily on all the possible scenarios that could arise in the future. He also asked why highway signage is not allowed for urban renewal areas. Ms. Showalter explained that it was an attempt to reduce the Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 3, 2010 amount of highway signs. Ms. Reckert also explained that any business within '/4 mile of a freeway is allowed a 50 -foot sign in the current code. Commissioner BUCKNAM suggested removing the words "wood or metal" in describing material used in a pole supporting a sign. The type of pole material should not be designated. Commissioner POND asked if the ordinance allows for variances. Ms. Showalter stated there is language in the master sign plan that allows flexibility for Planning Commission to make exceptions to the standards. Commissioner MATTHEWS expressed concern about acreage criteria. When there is only one site in the entire city that meets those criteria, it is getting close to quasi-judicial. He suggested that there should be at least two or three sites that would meet that criteria. Commissioner MATTHEWS asked how regulations apply to bus benches on public rights -of -way. Ms. Showalter explained that the sign code has specific regulations for bus benches that would not be changed. Public Works Department works with RTD on these issues. It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner BUCKNAM to divide the question and vote on the following issues separately: (1) Off - Premise Identification Signs; (2) Community Event /Sponsorship Banners; and (3) Signs in the Public Right -of -Way. The motion passed 7 -0. Commissioner TIMMS expressed concern about the balance between community aesthetics and the rights of businesses to advertise in an effective way. It is important to be flexible but he was not sure if the ordinance adequately addresses the issues. He stated that he would not support numbers 1 and 3. He agreed with Commissioner POND that pole sign regulations could result in more monument signs that are more permanent. It was moved by Commissioner BRINKMAN and seconded by Commissioner DWYER to recess the meeting at 8:05 p.m. The motion carried 7 -0. (The meeting was reconvened at 8:15 p.m.) • Off - premise identification signs were discussed. Commissioner POND stated that the flexibility allowed through master sign plans lessen his concern about acreage criteria. Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 3, 2010 Commissioner BRINKMAN expressed concern about the arbitrary nature of acreage designations. Commissioner BUCKNAM shared her concern. He would be more comfortable if there were a map or listing of multiple sites where this designation would be applicable. Commissioner DWYER expressed similar reservations as Commissioners BRINKMAN and BUCKNAM. The entire first section seems targeted to a very limited number of places. He would like to see this matter studied further. It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner DWYER to deny the amendment to Article VII, Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws regarding off - premise identification signs. The motion carried 5 -2 with Commissioners BRINKMAN and POND voting no. • Community Event/Sponsorship Banners were discussed. Commissioner BUCKNAM stated that he would be in favor of this item with the condition that staff consult with the School District to create appropriate size, time and event restrictions for banners placed on district property and to include the District's recommendations regarding final specifications. This would allow the District to better meet its needs. Ms. Showalter commented that any modifications made as a result of discussions with the School District could be added to the proposed ordinance before it goes before City Council for discussion. It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner DWYER to recommend approval of the amendment to Article VII, Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws regarding community event /sponsorship banners with the following condition: In order to allow the Jefferson County School District to meet their needs, and to maximize the opportunity to generate awareness of school programs, events and sponsorship opportunities, staff must consult with the Jefferson County School District to create appropriate size, time and event restrictions or banners placed on School District property and include the School District's recommendation in any final specifications regarding the same. The motion carried 7 -0. • Signs in the public right -of -way was discussed. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked what would happen with existing pole signs in the right -of -way. Ms. Showalter stated that they would be legal nonconforming signs. It was moved by Commissioner DWYER and seconded by Commissioner BRINKMAN to approve the amendment to Article. VII, Chapter 26 of the Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 3, 2010 Wheat Ridge Code regarding signs in the public right -of -way as written. The motion carried 5 -2 with Commissioners TIMMS and DIETRICK voting no. 8. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chair MATTHEWS closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. It was moved by Commissioner DWYER and seconded by Commissioner POND to adjourn the regular meeting to study session. The motion carried 7 -0. The regular meeting was adjourned to study session at 8:28 p.m. 9. STUDY SESSIONS A. Mixed Use Zoning (continued from 5- 20 -10) Staff started an update and discussion on the second draft of mixed use zoning at the 5 -20 -10 meeting. Since there was not sufficient time to finish the discussion, it was continued to this meeting. Staff requested discussion and feedback from the Commission on the following items: 1. Auto- oriented uses 2. Gas stations and build -to requirements 3. Mixed use requirements for mixed large sites over five acres. 4. Residential transitions: height restrictions 5. Development review process: fully administrative 6. Parking maximums 7. Provisions for nonconforming properties There was agreement that it makes sense to keep gas stations as a conditional use in MU -C interstate. Where gas stations are allowed, "build -to" can be met through a combination of a perimeter wall and a canopy. There was some uncertainty about leaving gas stations as non - permitted use in TOD areas. There was general discussion about whether all of 38 Avenue, or just certain nodes, should be designated MU -N. Regarding mixed use requirements, there was general agreement that "mixed use" really means a mix of uses. It was suggested that there should be a notification period and neighborhood meeting for developments over ten acres. It was agreed that it makes sense to keep parking maximums. There should be requirements for bicycle parking. Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 3, 2010 B. Commercial Accessory Structures There was agreement that shipping containers would be allowed in industrial zones but must be screened. Shipping containers would not be allowed in commercial zones. Small sheds up to 120 square feet would be allowed on commercial properties. It was recommended that they do not have to be consistent with the primary building materials. Types of building material should be flexible rather than restrictive. Maximum height should be twelve feet. Sloped roofs could be recommended but not required. Sloped roofs are mainly a concern in residential zone districts, but not commercial or industrial. 10. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner DWYER and seconded by Commissioner BRINKMAN to adjourn the study session at 10:25 p.m. The motion carried 7 -0. Dick Matthews, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 3, 2010 City of "� `�I Ii atjdge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE OF MEETING: CASE NO. & NAME ACTION REQUESTED CASE MANAGER: M. Reckert July 15, 2010 WS -10 -01 /Seniors' Resource Center Approval of a 28 -lot consolidation plat LOCATION OF REQUEST APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: 3227 Chase Street Steve Villano /John Zabawa for Seniors' Resource Center Seniors' Resource Center PRESENT ZONING CURRENT USE: R -1C, Residential -One C Seniors' Re source Center/Wheat Ridge Public Library ENTER INTO RECORD: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ZONING ORDINANCE CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS DIGITAL PRESENTATION Planning Commission 1 WS- 10- 01 /Sr. Resource Center All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting approval of a 28 lot consolidation plat for property zoned R -1C located at 3227 Chase Street. The purpose of the request is to combine individual parcels comprising the site to allow for expansion of the existing building and installation of site improvements. (Exhibit 1, Applicant letter) Because this involves consolidation of more than five parcels, Planning Commission will be giving a recommendation to City Council who will have final authority for approval. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS/HISTORY The Seniors' Resource Center (SRC) is a private, non - profit corporation that provides a wide range of services to seniors in the community. Included in their services are transportation, adult day care and respite services, in -home care services, mental health outreach, job training and care management services. The applicant has expressed that expansion of the existing facility is essential to serve the growing demand for the services provided and has been fund raising since 2006 to finance the expansion. The new building will house the adult day program and enable the SRC to expand its current customer base from approximately 40 to 80 people. The property is 89,617 square feet or 2.06 acres in size and is bounded by W. 32 Avenue on the south, Chase Street on the east and Depew Street on the west. Zoning on the entirety of the property is R -1 C, Residential -One C. Governmental and quasi - governmental buildings without outside storage are permitted uses in all of the residential zone districts. The SRC is considered a use by right. The property currently has the Seniors' Resource Center facility attached to the Wheat Ridge branch of the Jefferson County library. In addition to the SRC and library, the site contains surface parking areas and a vacant grassy lot at the north end. There is a drop -off area and parking lot for the library (both employees and patrons) at the southern end of the property, close to 32 Avenue. Parking for the SRC is located to the west and north of the building. (Exhibit 2, Aerial photo) The structure currently used by the SRC was built in 1930 as the Columbia Heights school. Additions were constructed in 1950 and 1960. The land was part of the Columbia Heights Subdivision which was platted in 1889 and is comprised of 25' wide lots. (Exhibit 3, Plat of Columbia Heights). The applicant is proposing to construct a two -story 17,800 SF addition to the north end of the existing structure. The proposed addition will cover the existing vacant lot and parking area north of the SRC. The new building will have an entrance on Chase Street. The addition will be connected to the existing SRC structure via a second -level walkway. The walkway will cover an access drive and bus /van drop - off area. Currently, there is a bus drop -off area on the west side of Chase Street which will be converted to on- street parking. There will also be an access drive from Depew that will serve as a fire lane and connect to the alley coming from the north. The parking lot west of the existing building will be restriped to increase the amount of parking available. Planning Commission 2 WS- 10- 01 /Sr. Resource Center Due to the location of the original building, variances were required. Variances were granted by the Board of Adjustment in 2006 pursuant to Case No. WA -06 -03 for a 13 -foot front yard setback variance and an 11 -foot rear yard setback variance. Typically variances expire within 180 days if no building permit is issued; however, extensions were granted to accommodate fund raising for the project. The surrounding zoning is R -1 C, R -C, and R -3 and the neighboring land uses are single family homes, apartments, and some limited commercial uses at the southeast corner of Chase and 32 Ave. The historic Ye Olde Firehouse, a City -owned facility, is located directly west of the property on Depew Street. III. PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION PLAT The proposed plat will consolidate the existing 28 parcels created by the Columbia Heights Subdivision. (Exhibit 4, aerial with parcel overlay) Drainage easements corresponding with the submitted drainage report have been shown on the document. The existing alley running south from 33 Avenue to the north end of the property was previously vacated. Emergency access will be provided from the vacated alley to Depew Street. This area has been shown as an access easement. (Exhibit 5, Consolidation Plat). No right -of -way is required for the streets adjacent to the property. Typical utility easements have been delineated. The City's language for maintenance of storm water quality ponds and detention easements has been included on page one as notes 13 and 14. Note number 16 on page one allows for cross access through the property. Staff concludes that the proposed consolidation plat is compliant with Article IV of the zoning and development code. IV. AGENCY REFERRALS All affected service agencies were contacted regarding the ability to serve the property. All have indicated that they can serve the property subject to required improvements constructed by the property owner. Specific referral responses follow Wheat Ridge Water District: No response. Wheat Ridge Sanitation District: No response. Wheat Ridge Fire Protection District: Can serve. Fire lanes have been provided via the parking lot accessed from Depew Street. These fire lanes must be maintained in perpetuity. Xcel Energy: Can serve. Planning Commission 3 WS- 10- 01 /Sr. Resource Center Wheat Ridge Public Works: Has reviewed and commented on the proposed plat and drainage report. Adequate easements have been provided to accommodate storm water detention. The legal description for the property must be corrected prior to City Council public hearing. V. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff concludes that the proposed consolidation plat meets the requirements of Article IV of the zoning and development code. Staff further concludes that proposed consolidation plat will facilitate building permit approval and construction. For these reasons, Staff recommends approval with one condition included in the recommended motion. VI. SUGGESTED MOTIONS: Option A: "I move to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of Case No.WS- 10 -01, a request for approval of a 28 lot consolidation plat on property zoned R -1C located at 3227 Chase Street, for the following reasons: 1. All requirements of Article IV of the zoning and development code have been met. 2. It will facilitate the expansion of the existing facility. With the following condition: 1. The legal description be corrected to be on current city datum including section ties prior to City Council public hearing." Option B: "I move to RECOMMEND DENIAL of Case No.WS- 10 -01, a request for approval of a 28 lot consolidation plat on property zoned R -1C located at 3227 Chase Street, for the following reasons: 1. 2. Planning Commission 4 WS- 10- 01 /Sr. Resource Center SENIORS' RESOURCE CENTER Building a foundation For Independent Living Since 7978. Date: May 17, 2010 To: City of Wheat Ridge Community Development From: Seniors' Resource Center, Inc. 3227 Chase Street Denver, CO 80212 Re: Lot Consolidation Seniors' Resource Center (SRC) is requesting a lot consolidation on their existing property to consolidate from twenty -six (26) lots, two (2) partial lots and a vacated alley down to one (1) lot. We are also dedicating utility easements, an access easement and a detention pond easement. This lot consolidation is necessary due to the proposed 17,800 sf addition they are planning to add to the north side of the building. The new addition will house the adult day program and enable the SRC to expand its current customer base from approximately 40 to 80 people. Transferring the adult day care to the new addition will enable SRC to convert the existing building to administrative offices in the future. 3227 CHASE STREE A\ (303) 238 -8497 EXHIBIT 1 ' I f � 6EPEW SS Am k i 1 I 0 b opl, P, Am F EXHIBIT 2 Y BeeK I PAGE 3if. ass Z�2._.x.44. 1111_1:_'t__&V_� 'Dr I I 1 21 21 2'r C dam_ �- �-� � 2""�,� : �� � � � _ ks 46 5 — 4 - 4 kc 40 10 39 to 13 36 If J4 4 ej 30 20 21 22 26 23 At, LAT or -. . ,�0 BEIKTHES-U-4 OF THEN-U-4 OFSEC.25TUA.69W. sqk'�g 0 C& 1z us 10 _33 20 to Aw to 41 10 12 t 1 24 72 12 19 30 2p 20 44 1.4 41 k3 -A–z- n 60' A1 0 10 j n _ 10 21 22 � - -, � _ 10 3 3 31 31 - 30 _ 2 _ � kY 2-4 ai e _ tf � ; _ 3w . All 3 Me 2Z Pit j r 10 11 4z 13 if 20 22 10 - ----- It is 6 1z � 20 2z 3 If 'I 0; EXHIBIT 3 21 28 EXHIBIT 3 21 28 A 8 Si 1 w Lo • C3 • -� 4 -4 V V L o 0 OD Y w CHASE ST � 1 _ I .k l O 1 p ,p ? fi. i j � •• N N N N I N N N s s ti cn C� m rn C�+ C3 o o �o 0 0 EXHIBIT 4 PURPOSE STATEMENT THE PURPOSE OF THIS PLAT IS TO CONSOLIDATE ALL THE LOTS WHICH ARE CURRENTLY OWNED BY THE SENIORS' RESOURCE CENTER, AND TO DEDICATE EASEMENTS TO THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE. LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND DEDICATION WE, SENIORS' RESOURCE CENTER, BEING THE OWNERS OF REAL PROPERTY CONTAINING 2.0594 ACRES DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOTS 11, 12 AND THE EAST ONE -HALF OF LOTS 13 AND 14, AND LOTS 15 -20 TOGETHER WITH THE WEST ONE - HALF OF THE VACATED ALLEY ADJOINING SAID LOTS AND LOTS 25 THROUGH 42, TOGETHER WITH THE EAST ONE -HALF OF THE VACATED ALLEY ADJOINING SAID LOTS, AND LOTS 40 -42, ALL IN BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS AS PLATTED IN THE RECORDS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO IN BOOK 1, AT PAGE 34B, SITUATED IN THE NORTHEAST ONE- QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE EAST 1/4 CORNER, SECTION 25; THENCE S89 °41'42 "W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NE 1/4, SECTION 25, A DISTANCE OF 1028.71 FEET; THENCE NO' 18' 18 "W, 30.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 25, BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS; THENCE NO` 14'05 "W ALONG THE WEST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF CHASE STREET, 451.23 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 42; THENCE S89'46'02 "W ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LAST SAID LOT, 125.04 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 42, BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS; THENCE SO" 1342 "E ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOTS 40 -42, BLOCK 1, COLUMBIA HEIGHTS, 75.20 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 40; THENCE S89 °46'09 "W, 8.01 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE ADJOINING ALLEY; THENCE SO`13'49 "E ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, 25.08 FEET TO THE EXTENSION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 11; THENCE S89 °45'34 "W ALONG SAID EXTENSION AND NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 11, A DISTANCE OF 133.08 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF DEPEW STREET; THENCE SO 13'31 "E ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 50.35 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 12; THENCE N89'42'58 "E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LAST SAID LOT, 62.54 FEET; THENCE SO' 13'40 "E, 50.14 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 15; THENCE S89'42'58"W ALONG LAST SAID NORTH LINE, 62.54 FEET TO SAID EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF DEPEW STREET; . THENCE SO' 13'31 "E ALONG LAST SAID EAST LINE, 150.42 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 20; THENCE N89'42'51 "E ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 20, A DISTANCE OF 133.09 FEET; THENCE SO* 13'48"E, 100.32 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF W. 32ND AVENUE; THENCE N89'41 '42 "E ALONG LAST SAID NORTH LINE, 133.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL AS DESCRIBED CONTAINS 89,707 SQUARE FEET OR 2.0594 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. AND HAVE LAID OUT, SUBDIVIDED AND PLATTED SAID LAND AS PER THE DRAWING HEREON CONTAINED UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF SENIOR'S RESOURCE CENTER, A RESUBDIVISION OF A PART OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO AND BY THESE PRESENTS DO DEDICATE TO THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE AND THOSE MUNICIPALLY OWNED AND /OR MUNICIPALLY FRANCHISED UTILITIES AND SERVICES THOSE PORTIONS OF REAL PROPERTY SHOWN AS UTILITY EASEMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT FOR ALL SERVICES. THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO TELEPHONE AND ELECTRIC LINES, GAS LINES, WATER AND SANITARY SEWER LINES, HYDRANTS, STORM WATER SYSTEMS AND PIPES, DETENTION PONDS, STREET LIGHTS AND ALL APPURTENANCES THERETO. SENIORS' RESOURCE CENTER BY: JOHN ZABAWA, PRESIDENT STATE OF COLORADO ) )Ss COUNTY OF JEFFERSON) THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS _DAY OF A.D. 20 BY WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL, MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Ma wamm, • NOTES UR NIORS CE CENTER VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=2000' 1. ACCORDING TO FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 0805900218 E, THE PROJECT SITE LIES IN ZONE X (UNSHADED), WHICH IS DEFINED AS, "AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. 2. ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY REMOVES, ALTERS OR DEFACES ANY PUBLIC LAND SURVEY MONUMENT OR LAND BOUNDARY MONUMENT W. 41ST AVENU CLASS TWO (2) MISDEMEANOR PURSUANT TO STATE STATUTE 18--4 -508, C.R.S. W. 38TH AVENUE w w cn u' w Q Q i y W. 33RD AVENUE W. 32ND AVENUE SITE a Of `t W. 29TH AVENUE D N d m z d a w W. 24TH AVENUE SLOAN LAKE VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1"=2000' 1. ACCORDING TO FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 0805900218 E, THE PROJECT SITE LIES IN ZONE X (UNSHADED), WHICH IS DEFINED AS, "AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. 2. ANY PERSON WHO KNOWINGLY REMOVES, ALTERS OR DEFACES ANY PUBLIC LAND SURVEY MONUMENT OR LAND BOUNDARY MONUMENT OR ACCESSORY, COMMITS A CLASS TWO (2) MISDEMEANOR PURSUANT TO STATE STATUTE 18--4 -508, C.R.S. 3. NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. 4. BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE SOUTH LINE, NE 1/4, SECTION 25 BEARS S89'41'42 "W PER THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE DATUM. IT IS MONUMENTED AT THE CENTER CORNER (CITY CONTROL POINT 16909) BY A FOUND 3-1/4" BRASS CAP ON ALUMINUM MONUMENT IN RANGE BOX LS 28279) AND AT THE EAST 1/4 CORNER (CITY CONTROL POINT 16901) BY A FOUND 3-1/4 ALUMINUM CAP ON MONUMENT IN RANGE BOX ,LS 29421). 5. THE COORDINATE SYSTEM IS THE STATE PLANE MODIFIED COORDINATE SYSTEM, CENTRAL ZONE 0502. 6. THE VERTICAL DATUM IS THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88). 7. THE GROUND TO GRID COMBINED SALE FACTOR IS 0.99974780300, SCALED FROM BASE POINT PHAC 1 (PERMANENT HIGH ACCURACY CONTROL POINT #1) WHICH HAS THE FOLLOWING COORDINATE VALUES PHAC 1: NORTHING: 1701258.75 EASTING: 3118217.58 ELEVATION: 5471.62 8. PER COLORADO '''REVISED STATUTES SEC. 38 -51 -106 (L), ALL LINEAL UNITS DEPICTED ON THIS LAND SURVERY PLAT ARE U.S. SURVEY FEET. ONE METER EQUALS 39.37 DIVIDED BY 12 U.S. SURVEY FEET ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY. 9 ALL COORDINATES ARE MODIFIED STATE PLANE COORDINATES PER CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PUBLISHED VALUES. 10. THE GEODETIC POINT COORDINATE DATA SHOWN HEREIN HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM THE COLORADO '''COORDINATE SYSTEM OF 1983, CENTRAL ZONE 0502, AND HAS A HORIZONTAL ACCURACY CLASSIFICATION OF 0.04 U.S. SURVEY FEET AT THE 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL, AS DEFINED IN THE GEOSPATIAL POSITIONING ACCURACY STANDARDS OF THE FEDERAL GEODETIC CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE (FGDC- STD - 077.2- 1998). 11. TEN -FOOT (10') WIDE EASEMENTS ARE HEREBY GRANTED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO ALL PUBLIC STREETS. FIVE -FOOT (5') WIDE EASEMENTS ARE HEREBY GRANTED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO ALL SIDE LOT LINES OF EACH LOT IN THE SUBDIVISION OR PLATTED AREA. THESE EASEMENTS ARE DEDICATED FOR THE INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT OF ELECTRIC, GAS, TELEVISION CABLE, DRAINAGE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES. UTILITIES SHALL ALSO BE PERMITTED WITHIN ANY ACCESS EASEMENTS AND PRIVATE STREETS IN THE SUBDIVISION. PERMANENT STRUCTURES AND WATER METERS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED WITHIN SAID UTILITIY EASEMENTS. 13, THE STORMWATER QUALITY POND TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE DETENTION POND EASEMENT SHOWN ON THIS PLAT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER AND SUBSEQUENT OWNERS, HEIRS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. IN THE EVENT THAT SUCH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE IS NOT PERFORMED BY SAID OWNER, THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENTER SUCH AREA AND PERFORM NECESSARY WORK, THE COST OF WHICH SAID OWNER, HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNS AGREES TO PAY. NO BUILDING OR STRUCTURE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE DETENTION AREA AND NO CHANGES OR ALTERATIONS AFFECTING THE HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DETENTION AREA WILL BE MADE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS. 14. THE STORM SEWER INLETS AND PIPES TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT SHOWN ON THIS PLAT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER AND SUBSEQUENT OWNERS, HEIRS, SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. IN THE EVENT THAT SUCH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE IS NOT PERFORMED BY SAID OWNER, THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO ENTER SUCH AREA AND PERFORM NECESSARY WORK, THE COST OF WHICH SAID OWNER, HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNS AGREES TO PAY. NO BUILDING WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND NO CHANGES OR ALTERATIONS AFFECTING THE HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STORM SEWER WILL BE MADE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS. 15. THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED R -1C, RESIDENTIAL -ONE C 16. THE OWNER, HIS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS GRANTS LIMITED RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES TO ACCESS AND TO FREE MOVEMENT THROUGH THOSE AREAS INDICATED AS 'CROSS - ACCESS /INGRESS- EGRESS EASEMENTS', AS ILLUSTRATED UPON THIS PLAT. SUCH GRANT OF EASEMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE OWNERS, TENANTS, CUSTOMERS, AND GUESTS OF THE OWNERS, AND SHALL FURTHERMORE GRANT ACCESS TO AND FREE MOVEMENT THROUGH SAID EASEMENTS TO THOSE ENTERING SAID EASEMENTS FROM SIMILARLY RECORDED EASEMENTS FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND /OR FROM ABUTTING PUBLIC STREETS. 17. UTILITY COMPANIES MAY HAVE CERTAIN PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHTS TO ENTER THE BOUNDARY OF THIS PROPERTY TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING UTILITIES FOR WHICH NO RECORDED EASEMENTS MAY EXIST. 1, JAMES T. JONES, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARY OF SENIORS' RESOURCE CENTER WAS MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE COLORADO STATUTES, CURRENT REVISED EDITION AS AMENDED, THE ACCOMPANYING PLAT ACCURATELY REPRESENTS SAID SURVEY_ SIGNED THIS DAY OF 20 4a.. RE GIS 19606 ,t ' •.......... c,- JAMES T. JONES, PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR P L REGISTRATION NUMBER 19606 FOR AND ON BEHALF OF JONES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC CITY CERTIFICATION APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2010, BY THE WHEAT RIDGE CITY COUNCIL ATTEST CITY CLERK MAYOR DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL THIS DAY OF , 2010, BY THE WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION. PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON CLERK AND RECORDER'S CERTIFICA'T'E STATE OF COLORADO ) SS COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER OF JEFFERSON COUNTY AT GOLDEN, COLORADO, AT O'CLOCK —M. ON THE DAY OF A.D., IN BOOK , PAGE , RECEPTION NO. JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER BY: DEPUTY CASE HISTORY: WS -10 -01 WA -06 -03 FINAL. PLAT SE NIORS' RESOURCE CENTER JOB No 7123 DATE: JULY 6 2010 SHEET I OF 2 / JONES ENGINEERING ASSOC., INC. \L00 2120 W. Littleton Blvd., Suite 205 Littleton, Colorado 80120 Phone: 303- 738 -01283 Fax: 303 -738 -0285 ��CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CONTROL POINT PHAC 1 LATITUDE 39*45'28.83495"N LONGITUDE 105*04'46.27094"W N 701687.91 E 11 9004.18 (CURRENT CITY DATUM) o L CENTER, SECTION 25, COWR #16909 T.3S., R.69W. OF THE 6TH P.M. (FOUND 3-1/4 BRASS CAP ON ALUMINUM MONUMENT IN RANGE BOX LS 28279) (CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CONTROL POINT 16909) N 703194.06 E 123740.48 0) C! F _T_ t_cVUk,1151A j4ji�l-�-4T'�' 10' UTILITY I HEREBY DE D 13Y THIS PL T 4 - I w� � I I I � I l A UY-1 I ED IN THE SE I/Ar 1/4 OF SECTION 25, T3S R69 W, I 6TH PM CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE JEFFERSON COUNTY� COLORADO DEPEW STREET (60' R.O.W.) Vic 1'13'31 "E 150.42' T I 50'13'31 "E 50.35' I Q) I c � oi I tj i ! ! ! ! OF ^ 00 100 i { CN C4 1 1 :t 0 10 co 00 z w C. - LL'''' - �,'-- - IlclI IT'S vf SO 4 1 3'40 " 501.14' 1 I tf) zo 0 0) Zj co 5 L , Q a. >- ILLJ t V _ LQ to ca cy) 00 UTILITY EASEMENT 1z ER THIS PLAEBY DEDI CATqD 11 Y 24' ACCESS A-r90*12'06" EASEMENT 1 R=3.00' HE EBY L=4.73' A490'1 2'06' DEDICATED CH=N44*53'51"E "' R=20.00' BY TH PLAT CHL=4.25 _501 49E L= 31.50° 20.65 25 CH=N4c53'51 "E NO 2*1 2"W1 L— P L OTS Z I mf7C, 0E CHL=28.35 I n*A =An"Ut ALLEY V ACATE D -1 rlu A L L E Y S89'59*54"W 7 . _S89* 9'47"W 1OVED BY THIS PLAT SO*0'6"E- 5.46' - - - - - - 8.01' 1750 1135' t3-5 -I 501 , 75.20' 3.49' T N01 2'1 2"W _127.96 NO*12'12"W io 56.76' C'4 [-- 5' UTILITY E . r i 489'49*47"E--/! I I I ' o n ): c - 5 DRAINAGE EASEMENT 14.64' ASEMLNT LOT I, BLOCJ� I z n I HEREBY DEDICATED HEREBY DEDICATE- 00- BY THIS FLAT 89,707 SF Z' BY THIS PLAT 12.0594 AC 589-59-54-W 110 t1l ' NO*0'6"W-/ 8.26 ;tp 13.35 3. 9 8-� 01\: J.LO 24-92 1 I Uj \4_ co ! ! ! I ! f ! I I i i I to co ; 0 06 (n W CC). DETE Z' NTION POND E4SEMENT T5 /V(;. � /4 '.�HEREBY DEDICATED R_ 7C BY THIS PLAT I I I I i i i { � i� � I -- - - ---_ _- -^ - - - - - - - - - -_ - -- - - - - - - — - - - - S i ---- -- - - -- 10' UTILITY EA --- ----- HEREBY N01 4105 451.2� DE 1BY THIS PLAT 39.34' M - - - -------- — — -------- ------- CHASE STREET (60' R.O.W.) rr . ! W—A 20 10 0 20 40 SCALE: 1" = 20' LEGEND 0 SET #5 REBAR WITH ALUMINUM CAP LS #19606 0 FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED PLAT BOUNDARY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE EXISTING LOT LINE - - - - - - - PROPOSED UTILITY OR ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT FINAL PLAT SENIORS' RESOURCE CENTER JOB NO. 7123 DATE: JULY 6, 2010 SHEET 2 OF 2 JONES ENGINEERING I ASSOC., INC. \Lj 2120 W. Littleton Blvd., Suite 205 Littleton, Colorado 80120 Phone: 303-738-0283 Fax: 303-738-0285 w LO C.4 cr) 00 Z 15' UTILITY EA�EMENT IHEREBY DEDICATED PY THIS PLAT L ------- S0*1 3'48"E 100.32' ALL INTERV 04 ----------------------- HEREBY RE T U-1 0 " V) 0 LLI < Z U-1 Uj M LA_ "' P I I I I I �_ 10 U_ U) ; L Z < N N) z 04 wj.:t b w Mw Q) 14- V7 Wt-- cn < in 00 > w C' to to cq L Ij z ; f I I C I I L � - - - - - -- - - - - - - I - - - - - - - , TRUE PO R T NO'18*18"W 30.00' I co N 0 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT COWR #16901 EAST 1/4 CORNER, SECTION 25, T.3S., R.69W., OF THE 6TH P.M. (FOUND 3-1/4" ALUMINUM CAP ON MONUMENT IN RANGE BOX LS 2942 1) A (CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CONTROL POINT 16901) N 703208.15 F -E-T2 6.15 A UY-1 I ED IN THE SE I/Ar 1/4 OF SECTION 25, T3S R69 W, I 6TH PM CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE JEFFERSON COUNTY� COLORADO DEPEW STREET (60' R.O.W.) Vic 1'13'31 "E 150.42' T I 50'13'31 "E 50.35' I Q) I c � oi I tj i ! ! ! ! OF ^ 00 100 i { CN C4 1 1 :t 0 10 co 00 z w C. - LL'''' - �,'-- - IlclI IT'S vf SO 4 1 3'40 " 501.14' 1 I tf) zo 0 0) Zj co 5 L , Q a. >- ILLJ t V _ LQ to ca cy) 00 UTILITY EASEMENT 1z ER THIS PLAEBY DEDI CATqD 11 Y 24' ACCESS A-r90*12'06" EASEMENT 1 R=3.00' HE EBY L=4.73' A490'1 2'06' DEDICATED CH=N44*53'51"E "' R=20.00' BY TH PLAT CHL=4.25 _501 49E L= 31.50° 20.65 25 CH=N4c53'51 "E NO 2*1 2"W1 L— P L OTS Z I mf7C, 0E CHL=28.35 I n*A =An"Ut ALLEY V ACATE D -1 rlu A L L E Y S89'59*54"W 7 . _S89* 9'47"W 1OVED BY THIS PLAT SO*0'6"E- 5.46' - - - - - - 8.01' 1750 1135' t3-5 -I 501 , 75.20' 3.49' T N01 2'1 2"W _127.96 NO*12'12"W io 56.76' C'4 [-- 5' UTILITY E . r i 489'49*47"E--/! I I I ' o n ): c - 5 DRAINAGE EASEMENT 14.64' ASEMLNT LOT I, BLOCJ� I z n I HEREBY DEDICATED HEREBY DEDICATE- 00- BY THIS FLAT 89,707 SF Z' BY THIS PLAT 12.0594 AC 589-59-54-W 110 t1l ' NO*0'6"W-/ 8.26 ;tp 13.35 3. 9 8-� 01\: J.LO 24-92 1 I Uj \4_ co ! ! ! I ! f ! I I i i I to co ; 0 06 (n W CC). DETE Z' NTION POND E4SEMENT T5 /V(;. � /4 '.�HEREBY DEDICATED R_ 7C BY THIS PLAT I I I I i i i { � i� � I -- - - ---_ _- -^ - - - - - - - - - -_ - -- - - - - - - — - - - - S i ---- -- - - -- 10' UTILITY EA --- ----- HEREBY N01 4105 451.2� DE 1BY THIS PLAT 39.34' M - - - -------- — — -------- ------- CHASE STREET (60' R.O.W.) rr . ! W—A 20 10 0 20 40 SCALE: 1" = 20' LEGEND 0 SET #5 REBAR WITH ALUMINUM CAP LS #19606 0 FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED PLAT BOUNDARY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE EXISTING LOT LINE - - - - - - - PROPOSED UTILITY OR ACCESS EASEMENT PROPOSED DRAINAGE EASEMENT FINAL PLAT SENIORS' RESOURCE CENTER JOB NO. 7123 DATE: JULY 6, 2010 SHEET 2 OF 2 JONES ENGINEERING I ASSOC., INC. \Lj 2120 W. Littleton Blvd., Suite 205 Littleton, Colorado 80120 Phone: 303-738-0283 Fax: 303-738-0285 _ V City of WheatR A PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LEGISLATIVE ITEM STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: July 15, 2010 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING THE PROVISION FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN THE ZONE CHANGE PROCESS CASE NO. ZOA -10 -04 ® PUBLIC HEARING ® CODE CHANGE ORDINANCE Case Manager: Meredith Reckert Date of Preparation: June 28, 2010 SUMMARY: The attached ordinance proposes an amendment to the zoning code to establish a provision for conditions of approval during the zone change process. Currently, the zone change process provided for in Section 26 -112 (private rezoning) recognizes recommendations from the Planning Commission and approvals by City Council for only approval or denial of a request. The proposed language will allow for approval with conditions. BACKGROUND See attached memorandum from the City Attorney labeled as Exhibit 1. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of Case No. ZOA- 10 -04, a proposed ordinance amending Section 26- 112 (private rezoning) concerning conditions of approval during the zone change process." Exhibits: 1. City Attorney memo 2. Proposed ordinance ZOA -10 -04 /Conditions of approval . MURRAY EDAHL KU E:r-"ENMErSa -r E NA, U O LLP TO: Wheat Ridge: Planning and Zoning File FROM: Gerald Dahl DATE: February 23, 2009 RE: Conditions on Rezoning Applications: Planned Development Districts QUESTION: May the City impose density restrictions (not agreed to by the applicant) on an application to rezone property to a Planned Development District (PDD)? ANSWER: The general police power to rezone property includes the power to impose conditions when such conditions are reasonably related to the purposes of the zoning regulations and the Code of Laws allows approval with conditions. Density restrictions likely serve at least some of the stated purposes of the City's PDD regulations. Express authority to impose conditions on such approvals, in addition to the (current) simple approval or disapproval in Code Sec. 26 -112 should be included in the PDD zoning regulations at Section 26 -302. DISCUSSION: There is not consensus among state courts concerning municipal authority to impose conditions on rezoning applications. Rathkopf's The Law of Zoning and Planning, (4 ed. 2005) notes that enabling statutes vary from state to state, and the question of whether statutes delegate the power to impose conditions is left to judicial interpretation. Rathkopf § 44:2. Connecticut and Maryland have held that site - specific conditions on rezoning are ultra vices and therefore invalid. Rathkopf § 44:3. Placing conditions on a request to be included in a particular zone district that do not apply to other properties in the same zone district is, in effect, amending the zoning ordinance as applied to that particular property only. Creating such "mini" districts seems in contravention of one of the purposes of zone districts — to create groups or properties uniform in their treatment of buildings, structures and land uses. State courts in Connecticut and Maryland have cited this degradation of uniformity as one reason why site - specific rezoning conditions are generally invalid in those states. Id. However, several more states, including Colorado, have upheld the imposition of site - specific conditions on rezoning. Rathkopf, § 44:4. Two Colorado Supreme Court cases offer the leading authority in Colorado on the subject. In King's Mill Homeowners Association, Inc. v. City of Westminster 557 P.2d 1186 (Colo. 1976), the plaintiff filed an application with the City of Westminster to, among other things, annex and rezone a parcel of property from a residential to a commercial zone district. The city approved the annexation rezoning request subject to the condition that the rezoned property "be developed as a regional shopping center, and for no other purpose." Other uses were permitted as a matter of right in the commercial zone district. Plaintiffs challenged the city's imposition of conditions in this manner as impermissible "contract zoning." EXHIBIT I After noting that this was an issue of first impression in Colorado, the King's Mill court cited, with approval, cases from New York and California upholding the imposition of site - specific conditions on zoning applications: "The power to impose conditions on rezoning is an exercise of the police power and such conditions are valid as long as they are reasonably conceived." King's Mill at 1191. The court noted that the stated purpose of zoning, as expressed in Westminster's zoning regulations, is "to preserve and promote the public health, safety and welfare . . . and to encourage and facilitate the orderly growth of the city." Id. Significant facts in King's Mill included that the rezoning request was part of a proposed annexation, and that the Westminster Code required the Planning Commission to forward one of three recommendations to the Council: (1) approval; (2) approval with conditions; or (3) denial. Following King's Mill the Colorado Supreme Court again considered the validity of the imposition of conditions on rezoning applications in City of Colorado Springs v. Smartt 620 P.2d 1060 (Colo. 1980). In Smartt plaintiff landowner applied to rezone property from a garden home zone district to a multi - family residential district together with a conditional use of the property as an office park. The plaintiff also sought approval of a variance from the zoning requirement that a dimensionalized plot plan be filed prior to the grant of a conditional use. The City approved plaintiff's rezoning and conditional use requests but imposed a condition that the only access to the property be from a specific street. The Court reasoned that an access restriction was reasonable given the lack of information provided by the applicant via a plot plan concerning traffic flow and safety needs. As authority to impose an access restriction, the City pointed to the stated purposes of its zoning regulations, among them: "to lessen congestion in the streets" and "to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation." Smartt at 1062. The Court also found that the City Code concerning conditional uses applicable: Section 14.81.1 of the City's Code recognizes the occasional need for allowing special, or conditional, uses of land which differ from the principal permitted uses in a particular zone. The section authorizes the City Council to grant a conditional use and to effectuate amendment of the zoning map accordingly. These two ordinance sections empower the City Council to rezone a parcel of property and to do so subject to conditions to facilitate transportation. The Smartt court disagreed with the plaintiff and upheld the City's imposition of access restrictions. It is significant that Smartt involved a conditional use permit and a request for waiver from the City's requirement of a dimensional plat plan along with the rezoning request. Wheat Ridae Code of Laws The Code, at § 26- 301.6, requires that the procedure for review of Planned Developments is that set forth at Section 26 -112. That section, in turn, provides, in part: E. Planning commission review. The planning commission shall . . . make a recommendation to city council to approve or deny the application ... 2 F. City Council review. City council shall review and decide upon all requests for change of zone, upon recommendation of the planning commission for approval, or for denial by the planning commission The Colorado Supreme Court has also held that in order to exercise a specific authority inherent in the police power, the local government must provide in its own regulations for that exercise, sufficient to place others on notice of the scope of the requirement. In Beaver Meadows v. Board of County Commissioners 709 P.2d 928 (Colo.1985) the court held that while Larimer County had the inherent police power authority to require certain road improvements as a condition of a PUD approval, it had not detailed the basis for those requirements in its land use regulations, and therefore the attempted condition was void. While Code § 26 -302 does state that requirements for, among other things, density in a Planned Development District may be "more or less restrictive" than other districts, the reference to the procedure in Code § 26 -112 appears to limit the Council's role to approval or denial of the application as presented, without Council — imposed modifications. A simple amendment to Section 26 -112 E and F, specifically permitting "approval with conditions" would address this issue. While a Council- imposed density condition on a Planned Development District might survive judicial scrutiny, in order to be in line with the Beaver Meadows decision, I recommend the amendment described. In the case of a Wheat Ridge application to rezone property to a PDD zone district, any unilaterally imposed condition should further a stated purpose of the PDD regulations to be valid. If the City wished to impose density restrictions on such an application, such restrictions could theoretically be tied to the following stated purposes of the PDD reg& to promote the efficient use of land to facilitate a more economic arrangement of building, circulation systems, land use and utilities; to preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and to minimize impacts on other natural features of the site; to promote flexibility in design and permit diversification in the location of structures; to ensure that adequate public utilities and facilities are available with in the area, to serve the specific development. Code § 26- 302.B. Any of these stated PDD purposes could be served by a density restriction, depending on the facts. The Wheat Ridge PDD regulations recognize "the great variety of land use intensities, densities, and environmental and land use interfaces which are possible." WR Code §26- 301.C. The regulations also authorize Council to consider requirements for density that are more or less restrictive than such requirements" in zone districts similar to the requested PDD. Sec. 26- 302.B. These provisions also suggest that density restrictions should directly relate to the purposes and goals of PDDs. 3 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. ? ?- 2010 Ordinance No. Series of 2010 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING THE PROVISION FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN THE ZONE CHANGE PROCESS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge is authorized by the Home Rule Charter and the Colorado Constitution and statutes to enact and enforce ordinances for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, in the exercise of this authority, the City Council has previously enacted Article I of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws (the "Code "), concerning zone changes; and WHEREAS, the Council finds and determines that provisions must be in place to allow approval with conditions during the zone change process. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26 -112 of the Code is amended to read: Sec. 26 -112. Private rezoning. A. Purpose. A change of any zone district as shown on the official zoning map is permitted only when it is consistent with the goals and policies of the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan and promotes the general welfare of the community. If a proposed amendment is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, then the request may only be approved if the applicant demonstrates that the request is justified because of changed or changing conditions in the particular area or in the city in general, or the rezone is necessary to correct a manifest error in the existing zone classification. A manifest error may include, but may not be limited to, one (1) or more of the following: 1. Mapping errors, including incorrect boundary location or incorrect zone designation, or 2. Ordinance errors, including incorrect zone designation, legal description error or typographical errors. The final decision on a change of zone expressly rests in the exercise of the discretion of the city council EXHIBIT 2 and all applicants are advised there is no right to a change of zone of property. E. Planning commission review. The planning commission shall hear and consider any evidence or statement presented by the applicant, city staff, or by any person in attendance at the hearing. The planning commission shall then make a recommendation to city council to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application, basing its recommendation upon the facts presented in the public hearing in consideration of the criteria for review as specified above. F. City council review. City council shall review and decide upon all requests for change of zone, upon recommendation of the planning commission for approval, approve with conditions, or for denial. Change of zone may only be approved by passage of an ordinance following the city's standard ordinance adoption procedures. Notice of public hearing shall be by publication, letter and site posting in the manner provided in section 26 -109 hereof. City council, in addition to consideration of the planning commission record, shall hear additional evidence and testimony presented and either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the ordinance. City council shall base its decision upon all evidence presented, with due consideration of the criteria for review. Section 2. Safety Clause: The City of Wheat Ridge hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety and welfare of the public and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3. Severability; Conflicting 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. Section 4. 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 , 2010, 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 2010, 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 , 2010. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of , 2010. 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: City of WheatR idge PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT LEGISLATIVE ITEM STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: July 15, 2010 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLES II AND VI OF CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON PROPERTIES WITH COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONING CASE NO. ZOA -10 -03 ® PUBLIC HEARING ® CODE CHANGE ORDINANCE Case Manager: Sarah Showalter Date of Preparation: June 24, 2010 SUMMARY: The attached ordinance proposes an amendment to the zoning code to allow the construction of accessory buildings and structures on properties with commercial or industrial zoning. Currently, the zoning code does not allow any property within a commercial or industrial zone district to construct an accessory building, such as a storage shed or garage. The proposed code amendment would allow accessory structures on such properties, subject to regulations regarding size, placement, maximum number, and design/screening. The proposals in the attached ordinance represent input from a study session with Planning Commission on June 3, 2010. Notice for this public hearing was provided as required by the Code of Laws. BACKGROUND Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code does not allow any property with commercial or industrial zoning to have an accessory structure on site. This provision has been in place since 2001. There are several commercial and industrial property owners in Wheat Ridge who have expressed interest in building an accessory building, most often to meet storage needs. Currently, the only option for such owners is to receive a Temporary Use Permit, which lasts for a period of one year only. There are some commercial and industrial properties in the city that already have legal nonconforming or illegal accessory structures, often shipping containers, on their property. A provision in the code allowing for accessory structures in commercial and industrial zones would provide a viable, legal option for property owners to construct accessory buildings. Several jurisdictions in the Denver metro area allow for accessory structures on commercial and ZOA- 10 -03/ Accessory Structures industrial properties. Of 12 local municipalities researched by staff, 11 allowed for accessory buildings within commercial and industrial districts. Most jurisdictions include regulations on the size, maximum number, placement, and design of accessory structures to ensure that they do not dominate a property or have an aesthetic impact on neighboring properties and adjacent streets. RATIONALE FOR AMENDMENT The intent of the attached ordinance is to provide 'a viable option for property owners in industrial and commercial zone districts to build accessory structures on their property. The proposed ordinance would set minimum standards for accessory buildings to ensure that they are appropriately placed and designed and that they do not have a negative visual impact on the surrounding area. Enabling the construction of accessory structures in commercial and industrial districts would meet the needs of many existing and future businesses in the City, and was a recommended code amendment based on the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy (NRS). The proposed regulations include the following items: • Size limit: the total floor area of all accessory structures may not exceed 50% of the floor area of the primary structure. In no case may an individual accessory structure exceed 500 SF. • Max number: 1 for commercial districts; 2 for industrial districts • Location: May only be located in the required rear or side yard areas (not allowed in side yard areas adjacent to a public right -of -way). • Required setbacks: 5' side; 10' rear • Minimum required building separation: per building code • Maximum height: 12' • Materials: the structure must have materials that are architecturally compatible with the primary structure • Storage units /shipping containers: o Not allowed in commercial districts o Maximum of 1 allowed in industrial districts, but must be screened by a wall or opaque fence that is at least as tall as the unit (maximum of 8 feet tall) The proposed ordinance would also allow the option to construct a small accessory structure — 120 square feet or less — that would not be required to have materials compatible with the primary structure. These structures could be composed of any material except metal and would allow a business owner to keep a small shed for storage on their property. New language in the proposed ordinance is bold and highlighted. Deleted language is strike - through and highlighted. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Articles II and VI of Chapter 26 concerning accessory structures on properties with commercial or industrial zoning. Exhibits: 1. Proposed Ordinance ZOA- 10 -03/ Accessory Structures 2 EXHIBIT 1: PROPOSED ORDINANCE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. Series 2010 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLES II AND VI OF CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS ON PROPERTIES WITH COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ZONING. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge is authorized by the Home Rule Charter and the Colorado Constitution and statutes to enact and enforce ordinances for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge finds that there is a need to allow for accessory buildings and structures on properties with commercial or industrial zoning. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Se ction 1: Section 26 -204 of the Code is amended to read: Sec. 26 -204. Zone district use schedule. A. The following schedule of permitted and special uses allowed within the various zone districts is hereby adopted and declared to be a part of this Code and may be amended in the same manner as any other part of this Code. In each zoning district, any uses not expressly permitted (P) or allowed as a special use (S), or as an accessory use (S) shall be deemed to be excluded. The director of community development shall render the final administrative decision concerning the scope, application and meaning of the terms in this section. B. The director of community development has authority to determine that a use not specifically listed as permitted, allowed as a special use or an accessory use should be so permitted or allowed on the basis of its being similar to a listed use, compatible in character and impact with other uses in the zone district, consistent with the intent of the district, and which would not be objectionable to nearby property by reason of odor, dust, fumes, gas, noise, radiation, heat, glare, vibration, traffic generation, parking needs, outdoor storage or use, or is not hazardous to the health and safety of surrounding areas through danger of fire or explosion. The director's decision may be appealed to the board of adjustment. C. Upon application or on its own initiative, the city council may by ordinance add to the uses listed for a zone district, conforming to the conditions set forth in the following special findings: 1. Such use is appropriate to the general physical and environmental character of the district to which it is proposed to be added, and 2. Such use does not create any more hazard to or alteration of the natural environment than the minimum amount normally resulting from the other uses permitted in the district to which it is added, and 3. Such use does not create any more offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare, or other objectionable influences or more traffic hazards than the minimum amount normally resulting from the other uses permitted in the district to which it is proposed to be added, and 4. Such use is compatible with the uses existing and permitted in the district to which it is proposed to be added at the time of adoption. ZOA- 10 -03/ Accessory Structures TABLE INSET: Commercial and Industrial District Accessory Uses Notes Accessory buildings and structures See § 26 -625 Electric transmission or other public utility lines and poles, irrigation channels, storm drainage and water supply facilities Primarily for the occupants of a building containing Food services a permitted use when located within the same building Residential uses in commercial zones See § 26 -626 Outside storage or display See § 26 -631 Key: P = Permitted Principal Uses S = Special Uses (Ord. No. 2001 -1215, § 1, 2- 26 -01; Ord. No. 1273, § 2, 1- 13 -03; Ord. No. 1274, § 2, 1- 13 -03; Ord. No. 1288, §§ 1, 2, 5- 12 -03; Ord. No. 1301, §§ 2 - -4, 7- 28 -03; Ord. No. 1302, §§ 4 - -6, 7- 28 -03; Ord. No. 1313, § 10, 10- 27 -03; Ord. No. 1322, § 1, 5- 10 -04; Ord. No. 1348, § 1, 7- 11 -05; Ord. No. 1370, § 1, 8- 28 -06; Ord. No. 1375, §§ 1, 2, 10 -24- 06; Ord. No. 1387, § 2, 6- 11 -07; Ord. No. 1413, §§ 2, 3, 6 -9 -08) Section 2: Section 26 -625 of the Code is amended to read: Sec. 26 -625. Accessory buildings and structures. A. Purpose and scope. The purpose of this section is to allow accessory buildings that are incidental and subordinate to the principal use and structure on a property and to set forth standards that help to minimize adverse impacts of these buildings on adjacent property. The purpose of this section is also to allow flexibility to construct accessory buildings on challenging residential properties relative to size and existing physical improvements while minimizing adverse impacts on surrounding properties. The terms building and structure are used interchangeably in this section and all regulations herein apply to buildings and structures, irrespective of the term used. B. Applicability. All accessory buildings on residentially zoned PFOpeFty shall be subject to the provisions set forth in this section, and those in sections 26 -205 to 26 -244- -220 (zone district regulations). In the event of a conflict between the accessory building standards in this section and any other requirements of this Code, this section shall control. C. Accessory building standards for residential and agricultural zone districts 1. General standards. a. Location. i. No accessory building shall be located on a vacant lot devoid of any primary or main building. ii. No accessory building shall be located within any platted or recorded easement or over any utility, except as otherwise expressly agreed to in writing by the city or utility provider, as applicable. b. Size and height. The size and height of accessory buildings shall be as set forth in the residential and agricultural zone district regulations, as applicable, in sections 26 -205 to 26 -214. c. Miscellaneous provisions. i. Metal accessory building restriction. Metal accessory buildings over one hundred twenty (120) square feet are not permitted in any residential zoning district. Frame -built ZOA- 10 -03/ Accessory Structures residential accessory structures over one hundred twenty (120) square feet in size may be allowed to have metal siding as long as the material has a textured wood grain appearance similar to horizontal clapboard. Vertically placed vinyl -clad siding is not allowed. ii. Buildings housing animals. Any building that houses animals, except a residence, shall be setback a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from property lines and at least thirty (30) feet from a residential structure on an adjacent property, except as otherwise specified in any zone district. iii. Gates and guard houses. Gates and guard houses are only allowed as part of an approved planned development. iv. Dwelling unit restriction. Except as otherwise expressly allowed, no dwelling unit shall be located in any accessory. 2. Major and minor accessory buildings. Major and minor accessory buildings shall be as defined in sections 26 -205 to Section 26 -214 based on size and height. 3. Allowable setback encroachments for accessory buildings. Accessory buildings may encroach into required setbacks as set forth below: a. Front yards and side and rear yards abutting public streets. Where an existing principal building that lawfully existed at the time of the adoption or amendment of this section encroaches into a required front yard setback or a required side or rear yard setback abutting a public street, an accessory building may encroach into the required setback as follows, provided that there shall be no encroachment into the minimum sight distance triangle as set forth in subsection 26- 603.B: Detached garages and carports. Detached garages and carports may build in line with the nonconforming principal building, as long as the detached garage is located behind the front or street - facing facade of the principal building, except as follows: a) Where the garage door or main vehicular access is located parallel to the street, the setback cannot be between five (5) feet and eighteen (18) feet. The purpose of this regulation is to allow setback encroachments where there will be not be the possibility of vehicles parked in the driveway in conflict with public rights -of -way. (See Figure 26- 625.1) ZOA- 10 -03/ Accessory Structures i s b) Where the garage door or main vehicular access is located perpendicular to the street, the detached garage or carport may be built in line with the principal building. The purpose of this regulation is to allow setback encroachments where there will be not be the possibility of vehicles parked in the driveway in conflict with public rights -of -way. c) Where the garage door or main vehicular access is located parallel to and accessed off of an arterial street, the detached garage may not encroach into the required setback. d) The community development director may require modified setbacks in these instances where there may be potentially hazardous conditions. ii. All other accessory buildings. Accessory buildings that do not have any vehicular access may build in line with the nonconforming principal structure in front yards and side and rear yards abutting public streets, as long as the accessory building is located behind the front or street - facing facade of the principal structure. D. Accessory building standards for commercial and industrial zone districts 1. General standards. a. Location. i. No accessory building shall be located on a vacant lot devoid of any primary or main building. ii. No accessory building shall be located within any platted or recorded easement or over any utility, except as otherwise expressly agreed to in writing by the city or utility provider, as applicable. iii. Accessory buildings shall only be located in the side or rear yard. Accessory buildings may not be located in side yards that abut a public right -of -way. b. Maximum number. i. In commercial zone districts, a maximum of one accessory building shall be allowed. ii. In industrial zone districts, a maximum of two accessory buildings shall be allowed. ZOA- 10 -03/ Accessory Structures Size. The total floor area of all accessory structures on a single property may not exceed 50 percent of the floor area of the primary structure located on that property. In no case may a single accessory structure exceed 500 square feet in floor area. d. Setbacks. i. The required side yard setback shall be a minimum of five feet. ii. The required rear yard setback shall be a minimum of 10 feet. e. Height. The maximum height of any accessory structure shall be twelve (12) feet. c. Materials. The accessory structure shall have exterior materials that are architecturally compatible with the primary structure, with the following exceptions: i. An accessory structure that is 120 square feet or less. Such accessory structures may not be constructed of metal, but are allowed to have metal siding as long as the material has a textured wood grain appearance similar to horizontal clapboard. Vertically placed vinyl -clad siding is not allowed. iii. On industrial zoned properties only, one or both of the allowable accessory structures may be industrial shipping containers or storage units that do not have exterior materials compatible with the primary structure. Such containers must be screened from view of adjacent properties and streets by an opaque wall or fence that is at least as tall as the container and that does not exceed eight (8) feet in height. E. Accessory buildings in Planned Development Districts. 1. Accessory buildings shall only be allowed in a Planned Development District if accessory structures are expressly permitted in the approved Outline Development Plan. All standards for accessory buildings in a Planned Development District shall be established in the approved Outline Development Plan. (Ord. No. 1448, § 5, 8- 24 -09) Section 3: Safety Clause The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety and welfare of the public and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 4: Severability; Conflicting Ordinances Repealed If any section, subsection or clause of the 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 the ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 5: Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen 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 , 2010, ordered it published with Public Hearing and consideration of final passage set for , 2010 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29" Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, and that it takes effect 15 days after final publication READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to this day of 2010. ZOA- 10 -03/ Accessory Structures SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 2010. ATTEST: Jerry DiTullio, Mayor Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: _ Wheat Ridge Transcript: Effective Date: ZOA- ]0 -03/ Accessory Structures City of � W heat -Midge MUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Planning Commission THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Sarah Showalter, Planner II DATE: July 9, 2010 (for July 15 study session) SUBJECT: Streetscape Design Manual Introduction In order to create streetscape design standards that correspond with the new Bicycle- Pedestrian Master Plan, and to update the outdated Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual (2001), staff is drafting a new Streetscape Design Manual. The new manual will serve several purposes, including: • Creating uniform design standards for sidewalks and streetscapes that correspond with the street cross sections established in the Bicycle- Pedestrian Master Plan, to be adopted in 2010 • Ensuring quality streetscape design that will complement planned mixed use development on major commercial corridors • Replacing the largely outdated Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual This memo is structured as follows: 1. Background 2. Streetscape Design Manual Overview 3. Proposed Timeline Background In 2001, the City adopted the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. This document contains design guidelines for both streetscapes and new buildings. The portion of the manual that addresses building design was replaced by the Architectural and Site Design Manual (ASDM), adopted in 2007. The portion of the manual that addresses streetscape design is still in effect, however it has not been updated since 2001 and has rarely been implemented. Lack of implementation is based on several issues, including: • Lack of objective standards (i.e. minimum sidewalk widths) in the manual • Outdated street classifications • General lack of significant new development on commercial corridors to trigger major streetscape improvements. Some smaller redevelopment projects in the past few years have created an escrow for future streetscape improvements, but did not build them as part of the project since the project's frontage on a corridor was so small Starting in 2009, the Department of Public Works, with input from other departments including Community Development, started work on Phase II of the Bicycle- Pedestrian Master Plan. This phase will result in a comprehensive document that includes standard cross sections for various street classifications in the city. The new cross sections are focused on multi - modal, or "complete" streets, and include accommodations for pedestrians and bikes in most cases. Upon adoption of the master plan, Public Works will be updating their standard street sections to match the master plan. One of the primary reasons for replacing the former Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual with a new Streetscape Design Manual is to create consistency with the Bicycle - Pedestrian Master Plan so that all regulatory documents pertaining to right -of -way widths and design standards are compatible and easy to understand. Streetscape Design Manual Overview The format and structure of the proposed new manual will be similar to that of the Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual. An overview of the proposed outline follows, and a more detailed outline is attached. Chapter 1 - Introduction • Establish intent and purpose of the Streetscape Design Manual • Applicability: only applies to arterials and collectors. Does NOT apply to local residential streets. Any new development, or redevelopment that expands SF by more than 50 %, will need to meet the standards and guidelines in the manual. The manual will also apply to any City - funded streetscape improvements. • Revise street classifications to match Comprehensive Plan and Bike -Ped Master Plan Chapter 2 — Design Standards and Guidelines • Establish minimum widths for sidewalks and amenity zones — the area between the sidewalk and the street curb — that are consistent with the cross sections in the Bike -Ped Master Plan • Provide design standards and guidelines for street plantings and street furniture, including street trees, shrubs, benches, fences, lights, and monument signs. The overall intent is to create design guidelines that set a minimum level of quality but that are flexible and can apply to a variety of the City's arterial and collector corridors. Standards and guidelines will encourage pedestrian- friendly design, especially in more urban, retail districts. Chapter 3 — Maintenance and Irrigation This chapter will establish maintenance requirements, which are crucial for the long -term value of a streetscape. Project Timeline A first draft of the new Streetscape Design Manual is currently underway and will be reviewed by staff from various departments, including Public Works and Parks and Recreation, in August. 2 We plan to have a draft for review by Planning Commission for discussion in a study session at the September 2nd meeting. After that meeting, staff will revise the draft and hopefully have a final version ready for adoption by early October. Attachments: Streetscape Design Manual Outline City of Wheat dge )kA DEVELOPMENT Wheat Ridge Streetscape Design Manual Outline July 6, 2010 I. Chapter 1 - Introduction A. Historical Context B. Purpose 1. Guidelines for new development 2. Consistent with Bike -Ped Master Plan 3. Consistent with zoning code and Comp Plan 4. Reference former Arch and Streetscape Design Manual C. Applicability: apply to any new development along existing arterials or collectors, development of existing sites where floor area increases by 50% or more, where new arterials or collectors are proposed, and for all city- funded street improvement projects. Not included in this manual: 1. Local streets 2. Semi -urban typologies D. Review Procedure E. Definitions F. Street Types 1. Arterials 2. Collectors II. Chapter 2 - Design Standards and Guidelines A. Sidewalks 1. Width 2. Surface B. Amenity Zones 1. Width 2. Landscaped 3. Hardscaped C. Street Trees 1. Design 2. Location and spacing 3. Size and form 4. Planting area and soil volume 5. Tree selection D. Groundcovers and Shrubs 1. Groundcovers 2. Shrubs 1 E. Street Furnishings 1. Benches and seating 2. Tree grates 3. Trash receptacles 4. Bollards 5. Bicycle racks 6. Planters and planting pots 7. Fencing and railings 8. Newspaper racks and enclosures 9. Community announcement boards 10. Transit bus stops 11. Fountains and water features 12. Public art 13. Walls and screens 14. Gateway markers and monument signs 15. Utilities Lighting 1. Overhead street lighting 2. Pedestrian lighting G. Crosswalks and Curb Ramps 1. Crosswalks 2. Curb ramps III. Chapter 3 - Maintenance and Irrigation A. Maintenance B. Irrigation IV. Bibliography V. Appendices A. Recommended Plant List B. Other Resources 2 -- City of W heat �idge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: PLANNING COMMISSION THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Kathy Field, Administrative Assistant DATE: July 8, 2010 (for July 15 Study Session) SUBJECT: Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan Attached is an update from Tim Paranto, Director of Public Works, on the status of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan. A draft of the plan is included for your information. No recommendation is required of Planning Commission. It is scheduled for a public hearing before City Council on August 9th. City of W heat -Midge PUBLIC WORKS Memorandum TO: Patrick Goff, City Manager FROM: Tim Paranto, Director of Public Works DATE: July 7, 2010 SUBJECT: Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan Phase 2 Update The City's current bike and sidewalk network is best described as scattered and inadequate. Sidewalks are absent along many collector and arterial streets in the City. The network is neither continuous nor connected to the adjacent communities. Connectivity to common destinations and park trails does not exist and is not emphasized. In 2006, Staff was directed to develop a bicycle and pedestrian master plan. While it was recognized that there was no available funding to implement a bike /ped master plan, an approved plan would provide guidance concerning street right -of -way needs and desired improvements as proposed developments are reviewed and as City projects are designed. The first phase of the Wheat Ridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was completed in 2007, identifying routes throughout the City. In October 2009, The City received a grant from the Colorado Association for Local Public Health Officials (CALPHO) in the amount of $25,000 to fund the second phase of the master plan. Felsburg Holt & Ullevig was then engaged to perform the Wheat Ridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Phase 2 Project. The project included identification of proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the proposed routes, developing an implementation plan and establishing priorities for the development of the proposed bike and pedestrian system. Staff from the Public Works, Community Development, Parks and Recreation and Police Departments, as well as a Livewell Wheat Ridge representative, comprise a working group that has been providing information and feedback to Felsburg Holt & Ullevig as the project has advanced. Public meetings were held in the City Council Districts to obtain input and suggestions on the proposed route facilities. The Public was also invited to voice their priorities for route development. The final Wheat Ridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Phase 2 report is now complete. Ultimately, a preliminary design plan will be developed for each route in a Phase 3 project. These preliminary plans will identify pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the routes and provide more detailed guidance for future City improvement projects and private developments. The preliminary plans will be developed as resources become available. DRAFT Cit 01 Bicycle and t id a �W �g Pedestrian Master Plan N . 4 FELSBURG r HOLT & ULLEVIG , engineering paths to transportation solutions LiveWell Wheat Ridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Prepared for: City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W. 29 "' Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Funded by: LiveWell Wheat Ridge Prepared by: Felsburg Holt & Ullevig 6300 S. Syracuse Way, Suite 600 Centennial, CO 801 1 1 FHU Reference No. 09 -162 July 7, 2010 City of W heat k ge Table of Contents DRAFT I Page Introduction ........................................................................................................ ..............................1 Purpose of Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ............................................................. ............................... 1 PlanningProcess ............................................................................................... ............................... 1 Planning for Bicyclists and Pedestrians ............................................................... ..............................4 UserTypes .......................................................................................................... ............................... 4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................................ ............................... 6 ExistingConditions .............................................................................................. ..............................8 Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................ ............................... 8 KeyOrigins and Destinations ........................................................................... ............................... 10 RegionalRoutes .............................................................................................. ............................... 12 Bicycleand Pedestrian Plan .............................................................................. .............................13 CommunityNeeds .......................................................................................... ............................... 13 Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ...................................................... ............................... 13 DesignStandards ............................................................................................ ............................... 15 Implementation ............................................................................................... ............................... 25 EvaluationCriteria ........................................................................................... ............................... 25 Prioritization Matrix and Results ......................................................................... ............................... 25 PotentialFunding Sources ............................................................................... ............................... 30 NextSteps ....................................................................................................... ............................... 32 Appendix A, References Appendix B. Summary of Public Comments Appendix C, Phase 1 Inventory Appendix D. Scoring Methodology FELSBURG HOLT 8 ULLEVIG DRAFT �Whcat ic�gc I Bi cyc l e an Pede strian List of Figures P age Figure 1. Existing Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities ................................................ ............................... 9 Figure 2. Key Bicycle & Pedestrian Origins and Destinations ........................... ............................... 1 1 Figure 3, Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ............................................................ ............................... 14 Figure 4. 5 -Lane Arterial Cross - Sections .......................................................... ............................... 16 Figure 5. 3 -Lane Arterial Cross - Sections,..,.,,,,,,, ........ ............................... 17 Figure 6. 3 -Lane Collector Cross - Sections ...................................................... ............................... 19 Figure 7. 2 -Lane Collector Cross - Sections ....................... ............................... 20 Figure 8. 2 -Lane Collector Cross - Sections with Roadside Ditches ................... ............................... 21 Figure 9, Local Street Cross - Sections .............................................................. ............................... 22 List of Tables Table1. Regional Routes ............................................... ............................... 12 Table 2. Evaluation of Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Routes . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... ............................... 26 FELSBURG MOLT & ULLEVIG c1t� 01 W heat icjgc Bicycl • ' Pedestrian Master Pla Introduction Its an exciting time for biking and walking enthusiasts in the City of Wheat Ridge and throughout the metro area. As sustainable and healthy lifestyles are becoming more popular, so too are active forms of transportation. This desire for active transportation, in combination with the forthcoming Gold Line FasTracks commuter rail line, will likely significantly increase the demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Wheat Ridge, The benefits of walking and cycling are far - reaching. By opting to walk or bike rather than drive, you can reap the health rewards of increased physical activity, feel more connected to your community, help protect the environment, and save money that you normally spend on gasoline and parking costs. The City of Wheat Ridge wishes to enable its residents and visitors to realize these benefits and therefore has committed to developing a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Purpose of Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan The primary goal of this Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is to present a framework for a practical and comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network throughout the City that promotes safe, sustainable, and healthy travel options for residents and visitors, In support of this primary goal, this Master Plan outlines the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, identifies specific facility types for all proposed routes, and provides a prioritized list of bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The City of Wheat Ridge updated its Comprehensive Plan (Envision Wheat Ridge) in 2009. The document defines four goals and supporting policies and strategies that relate to transportation. The goals and policies address the City's desire to offer expanded travel options, improve the bicycle and pedestrian network, provide multi -modal connections, and identify funding sources to implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The goals and policies outlined in Envision Wheat Ridge served as a guide in developing this Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Planning Process Previous Planning Efforts The City completed the first phase of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan in 2007. The focus of that effort was to conduct an inventory of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities and to identify future routes based on input from the public and City staff and integration with the Parks Master Plan. The products from Phase 1 include a series of 22 maps documenting the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, DRAFT The primary goal of the Wheat Ridge Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is to present a framework for a practical and comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network that promotes safe, sustainable, and healthy travel options. FELSBURG HOLT 8 ULLEVIG Page 1 qty 01 W hcat ic19c including classification, signage, and amenities, along with a citywide map showing existing and proposed bicycle /pedestrian routes. Subsequently, the City updated its Comprehensive Plan (Envision Wheat Ridge) including a Transportation Plan component. The Transportation Plan expands on Phase 1 of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan by identifying three priority locations for multi -modal improvements: ► Wadsworth Boulevard ► 38 Avenue (Main Street area) ► Kipling Street The Comprehensive Plan recommended that the City develop new typical cross - sections for principal corridors that would include all modes of transportation and identified Phase 2 of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan as an important implementation step. Phase 2 Overview The City received a grant from LiveWell Wheat Ridge in late 2009 to complete Phase 2 of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. LiveWell Wheat Ridge is a community coalition funded by LiveWell Colorado. LiveWell Wheat Ridge implements policies, environmental changes and programs to increase residents' access to active community environments and fresh fruits and vegetables to prevent and reduce obesity. The primary objectives of Phase 2 were to: ► Identify key origins and destinations for bicyclists and pedestrians, ► Identify regional routes (both existing and proposed) surrounding Wheat Ridge, ► Refine the proposed routes (identified in the first phase) to ensure connectivity with the key origins and destinations and regional routes, ► Develop multi -modal typical roadway cross - sections, ► Identify specific facility types for each of the proposed routes, ► Evaluate and prioritize the proposed routes, and ► Identify potential funding sources to implement the Plan, Phase 2 was led by a Project Advisory Committee consisting of key City staff from the Public Works, Community Development, Police, and Parks and Recreation Departments, and LiveWell Wheat Ridge representatives. The Project Advisory Committee met at four key milestones of the project, DRAFT FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 2 C 11N of W heat F icIge To supplement input from the Project Advisory Committee, the project team conducted interviews with key bicycle and pedestrian stakeholders in the Wheat Ridge area including representatives from LiveWell Wheat Ridge, Bicycle Colorado, and Wheat Ridge Cyclery. These stakeholders provided input early in the planning process about the key origins and destinations and the desired routes for bicyclists and pedestrians in the City. The City hosted a series of four public meetings in April, 2010 at which the public was invited to review the preliminary bicycle and pedestrian plan (proposed routes and facility types) and provide input on what they feel should be the highest priorities for implementation. A total of approximately 40 people attended the public meetings, 22 of which provided written comments (refer to Appendix B). The public input was a key element in the evaluation and prioritization of the bicycle and pedestrian routes, as described in the Implementation chapter of this document, DRAFT I a Public Meeting Summary District 1 - Wednesday, April 14, 2010 (City Hall) District 2 - Thursday, April 15, 2010 (City Hall) District 3 - Wednesday, April 21, 2010 (WR Recreation Center) District 4 - Thursday, April 22, 2010 (WR Recreation Center) FELSBURG HGLT 8 ULLEVIG ;M Page 3 C ii of W hcat icigc Planning for Bicyclists and Pedestrians The accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian travel is integral to the community's vitality and quality of life. Planning for the interaction of bicyclists /pedestrians with other modes of travel is essential not only for safety but also for the convenience of these active travel modes. While bicycling and walking levels fell 67 percent between 1960 and 2000 in the United States, obesity levels have increased by 241 percent. And during the time period from 1966 to 2001, the number of children who bicycled or walked to school fell 68 percent, while childhood obesity rose 367 percent. States with the highest levels of bicycling and walking have the lowest levels of obesity, hypertension and diabetes, and have the greatest percentage of adults who partake in at least 30- minutes of physical activity per day. (Source: Alliance for Biking & Walking 2010 Benchmarking Report) Not only does providing a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian network support healthy lifestyles, it also benefits the community by: ► Supporting the conversion of vehicle trips to bicycle or walking trips, ► Improving air quality through the reduction of emissions that result from vehicular travel, ► Reducing congestion on the roadway network, ► Reducing travel costs for residents (money that would otherwise be spent on gasoline and parking costs), and ► Increasing livability and supporting economic development (Source: Economic Value of Walkobilily, Victoria Transport Policy Institute) User Types DRAFT 1 Bicyclists and pedestrians can vary greatly in their ability and their level of The transportation system should ideally comfort in using different types of facilities, Ideally, all types of bicyclists accommodate all and pedestrians should be accommodated by the transportation types of bicyclists and system. pedestrians. 40 Type A Bicyclists are advanced or experienced riders who generally use their bicycles as they would a motor vehicle, often for commuting. They are riding for convenience and speed and want direct access to destinations with minimum detour and delay. They are typically comfortable riding with motor vehicle EELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 4 c qty 01 W heat icl traffic; however, they need sufficient operating space on the travel way or shoulder to eliminate the need for either themselves or a passing motor vehicle to shift positions. 40 Type B Bicyclists are basic or less confident adult riders who may also use their bicycles for transportation purposes (e.g., commuting) or for recreational purposes. They may prefer to avoid roads with fast and busy motor vehicle traffic unless there is ample roadway width to allow easy overtaking by faster motor vehicles. Thus, basic riders are comfortable riding on neighborhood streets and shared use paths and prefer designated facilities such as bike lanes or wide shoulder lanes on busier streets, CD Type C Bicyclists include children, riding on their own or with their parents, who may not travel as fast as their adult counterparts but still require access to key destinations in their community, such as schools, convenience stores, and recreational facilities. Residential streets with low motor vehicle speeds linked with shared use paths and busier streets with well defined pavement markings between bicycles and motor vehicles can accommodate children without encouraging them to ride in the travel lane of major arterials, Ped Pedestrians can range in a multitude of characteristics including age (e.g., children, adults, and the elderly), speed, ability (e,g., ambulatory or visual impairments), and purpose (e,g., recreational walking, running, commuting). These characteristics often dictate the type of facility a pedestrian is comfortable using. Wider, detached sidewalks with a landscaped or amenity zone buffer generally serve the greatest number of pedestrians by providing a buffer between the pedestrian and vehicular traffic and adequate space to accommodate passing and wheelchair use. Multi -use trails primarily serve recreational pedestrians. DRAFT FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 5 cit ( 11 W heat Ri1919C Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities A bicycle and pedestrian network typically consists of a variety of different facility types to accommodate the various user types and to harmonize with the adjacent land uses and roadway conditions (e.g., functional classification and level of vehicular traffic volume). The following terms are used to define the bicycle and pedestrian facilities in this Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Shared Lanes are nearest the curb and are typically wider than a standard (12 -foot) lane, providing additional space so that the lane may be comfortably shared by motor vehicles and bicycles, Shared lanes can be designated by pavement marking "sharrows." Shoulders are the portion of the roadway to the right of the rightmost travel lane, excluding curbs, buffers, and sidewalks. While shoulders can be paved, gravel, dirt, or grass, those that are paved are often used by bicyclists as a travel way. Bike Lanes are designated with pavement markings as well as signs along streets. The pavement markings delineate the right of way of both motorists and cyclists. Delineation of bike lanes should be carried through street intersections. DRAFT FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 6 Shared Lane with "Sharrow" Marking Shoulder on 38"' Avenue Bike Lane on 32 Avenue CAIN of W heat Idgc- Multi -Use Trails are physically separated from a street and designed for two -way travel, Multi -use trails can be in exclusive right of way or within a dedicated street, utility, railroad, or floodplain right of way. Hard - surface multi -use trails can accommodate bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, in -line skaters, wheelchair users, etc. Soft surface (unpaved) multi -use trails typically have a more limited set of users including pedestrians and some bicyclists. Sidewalks are within a street right of way and can be either attached to the curb or separated from the curb by Hard Surface Multi -Use Trail trees, grass, landscaping or other streetscape elements such as a hardscaped amenity zone, Sidewalks are generally limited to pedestrian use; however they are sometimes used by Type B and /or Type C Bicyclists when designated bicycle facilities are not provided in the immediate vicinity. Neighborhood Trails are multi -use trails located within a neighborhood, park or development. They provide local continuity and often provide access to the regional trail system, Pedestrian -Only Trails are off - street trails that have been specifically designated for pedestrian use only through the use of signing; vehicle and bicycle traffic is prohibited. Pedestrian -only trails are often soft- surface, FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 7 Sidewalk with Landscaped Buffer on 38 Ave Pedestrian Only Trail Attached Sidewalk on Kipling Street L.' Ar i oily of W heat iclgc Existing Conditions Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities In order to understand the degree to which bicycle and pedestrian facilities are now provided to Wheat Ridge residents, an inventory of the existing system was conducted as a part of Phase 1, This is an important part of the planning process since it becomes the starting point in identifying areas in need of improvement. Figure 1 depicts the existing bicycle and pedestrian network in Wheat Ridge. Wheat Ridge is fortunate to have a regional multi -use trail that extends through the City along Clear Creek and acts as the east -west spine for bicycle and pedestrian activity through the City, providing connections to a trail system that extends throughout the Denver metropolitan area, Aside from the Clear Creek Trail, the existing bicycle and pedestrian network in the City is sparse and discontinuous. Both 26 Avenue and 32 Avenue are heavily used by cyclists; 32n Avenue west of Wheat Ridge provides access to Lookout Mountain, a common destination for metro -area cyclists. Although the 26 Avenue and 32n Avenue corridors carry significant bicycle traffic, bike lanes are striped on only portions of these routes. The City lacks north - south continuity in bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The sidewalks along the arterial and collector roadway system in Wheat Ridge are generally sparse and segmented. Rather than showing every short section of sidewalk on the city -wide mapping, Figure 1 focuses on the sidewalk facilities of substantial length. The City conducted a thorough inventory of sidewalk facilities as a part of the Comprehensive Plan effort; a map showing the existing detached and attached sidewalks along local, collector, and arterial streets throughout the City is provided in Appendix B (Figure B -13) of Envision Wheat Ridge. The detailed inventory that was conducted during Phase 1 of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is provided in Appendix C, The inventory includes: ► Facility type ► Bicycle and Pedestrian - related signage ► Surface type and width ► Condition (e.g., poor, fair, excellent, etc.) ► Hazards along existing bicycle /pedestrian routes I I I FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 8 Clear Creek Trail 26' Avenue Bike Lane CD 3I �� •� — ` - - 1 PalaUEPOLIs— _.�_ - -- - -_ - 61 R w ea o Is UPM CD af• � 4 2 3 W Y. -a is IRL"Yf of a 'm LL e2 c { z 3 a PM84UOxrspeM t1 C3 i p 9 O S IS nuo IS moo m U U 4x IS uosuin ± IS P�?b91 IS BulldDi = P + _ Z! ` .t # E °� a i 9 h .1 �3 -9 � N v7 m D IS MW!S �- IS MQel �d PV PMM IS Plmjou -k J .a ` IS06OV13 is A wn � k� L qty 01 W scat Ridgc Key Origins and Destinations The project team completed an origin /destination inventory to identify activity centers in Wheat Ridge that are likely to generate or attract significant bicycle and pedestrian use, as shown on Figure 2, Key bicycle and pedestrian activity centers in Wheat Ridge include; ► Trailheads along the Clear Creek Trail ► Parks ► Transit facilities such as RTD transfer stations and park -n -Ride facilities and the future Gold Line commuter rail stations at Ward Road and Kipling Street ► Civic and community centers such as City Hall, the senior /community center, the recreation center, schools and libraries ► Major employment centers such as Lutheran Hospital ► Existing and future major retail centers, mixed use developments, and bicycle shops The proposed bicycle and pedestrian routes identified in Phase 1 were developed primarily based on input from the public and City staff. The key origins and destinations were used to validate the proposed routes and ensure that proper facilities are planned for access to major activity centers. The proposed bicycle and pedestrian connections are also shown on Figure 2 to depict the accessibility to the key activity centers. The proposed routes are described in more detail in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan chapter of this report, DRAFT I. FELSBURG HOLT & ULLENG Page 10 Trailhead to Clear Creek Trail Wheat Ridge Recreation Center RTD Light Rail Transit 1� `s is JAM" yI °p 41 .a .-r 6 • a • • • yy 4 too ; • • • . ...........a; U +_ H PRM • • a. • • • •..•....0•. u • S.•S • • • • 9r� 000000 o0di • • • • e� • • • IS ue� �•..• • : y c F ac � � J . ♦ yy��� E � � IS 4qel 0. ••� 4 too ; • • •i • . 3 U +_ H PRM • a. • • • 9r� c F ac � � J . ♦ yy��� E � � IS 4qel 0. ••� 4 too ; • ' • •i • A....A.. »••® • +_ H PRM B , .. • •..�.•r•••.. •.• 5 • • • • • • • • i • I$ebP!ipl3 • -a V F • • • i i i L a • • • u I S I yy E W ee oo a sa p 2i lia g¢ E su�i 8.3 a y� �3�3 O y A = yr .� y ++ =0 . 01 6) = d dJ � 61 � uy� ma 3 v C V y � T � 0 = 3 L � Q Q •m E LL 0 B$ LL 2 Q41 � r � o ® C3 0 3 v J � N I� y J f � O I1. w ff C 11N of W heat 1119-0 Regional Routes Both recreational and commuter bicyclists in the Denver area travel relatively long distances, extending beyond the City limits of Wheat Ridge, The project team compiled information and coordinated with staff from the jurisdictions surrounding Wheat Ridge, including Denver, Lakewood, Arvada, and Jefferson County, to identify existing and proposed regional routes. The purpose for this effort is to ensure that Wheat Ridge's bicycle and pedestrian network is integrated with that of the surrounding jurisdictions and to provide continuity for longer distance travel, Jefferson County is currently in the process of developing a countywide bicycle plan, which will include mapping of all existing and proposed bicycle facilities in the county, Table 1 provides a general summary of the regional bicycle and pedestrian routes /corridors identified by the surrounding jurisdictions that extend to the Wheat Ridge City limits. The routes listed in the table start at the northeast corner of Wheat Ridge and continue in a clockwise direction. Each jurisdiction uses slightly different classifications to designate facility types. Table 1. Regional Routes DRAFT Regional Bicycle/ Pedestrian Route Jurisdiction Facility Type Existing vs. Proposed Clear Creek Trail Denver /Adams County Multi -Use Trail Existing 35' Avenue Denver Designated Bike Route Existing 26 ' Avenue Denver Designated Bike Route Existing Harlan Street Lakewood Bike Lane Proposed Pierce Street Lakewood Bike Lane Existing Wadsworth Boulevard Lakewood Bike Path Proposed Carr Street Lakewood Shared Lane Proposed Kipling Street Lakewood Bike Path Proposed Simms Street Lakewood Bike Lane Existing /Proposed Youngfield Street Lakewood Bike Lane Existing Clear Creek Trail Jefferson County Multi -Use Trail Existing Ward Road Arvada Off - Street Trail Existing Kipling Street Arvada Bicycle Accommodation Proposed Independence Street Arvada Bike Lane Proposed Garrison Street Arvada Shared Lane Proposed Carr Street Arvada Shared Lane Proposed Wadsworth Boulevard Arvada Bicycle Accommodation Proposed Marshall Street Arvada Bike Lane Proposed Sheridan Boulevard Arvada Bicycle Accommodation Proposed FEISBURG BOLT 8 ULLEVIG ;M Page 12 c 1ty of W heat t_ Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Community Needs As described in the Introduction, this Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan has been developed with input from the public, City staff, and key bicycle and pedestrian stakeholders in the communities, The written public comments received during the planning process are included in Appendix B, and following is a general summary of the needs expressed by the community; ► Provide connections to the future Gold Line commuter rail stations ► Provide better north /south connections and access to the Clear Creek Trail ► Create a pedestrian friendly environment along the Citys "main street" (38 Avenue between Wadsworth and Sheridan) ► Provide continuous on- street facilities in the east -west direction for commuters and sport- bicyclists who prefer not to use Clear Creek Trail Proposed Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Wheat Ridge's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, shown on Figure 3, is intended to provide a comprehensive system of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that addresses the needs of the community. The proposed routes were identified by the public, key stakeholders, and the Project Advisory Committee to provide access to the key bicycle and pedestrian origins and destinations and to ensure integration with the regional routes identified by the jurisdictions surrounding Wheat Ridge. Figure 3 specifies the desired facility type(s) for each proposed routes, In some cases (sections of Youngfield Street, Kipling Street, Wadsworth Boulevard, 32n Avenue, and 38 Avenue) two facility types are recommended to maximize the user types that can be accommodated along the corridor. Multi -use trails have been identified along Cabela Drive, 44 Avenue, and Kipling Street. Bike lanes are proposed along many of the arterial and collector streets in the City that provide considerable continuity. Shared lanes are proposed along several collector streets that carry lower volumes of vehicular traffic and do not necessitate designated bike lanes. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan does not specifically identify all desired sidewalk locations but rather focuses on the major corridors where DRAFT t -- FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEUIG Page 13 i d R •L 3 � P ^i8 x • • • • � CA 47 _ - t • W = e e• 3 ........ ......r.�•••••�:••••••;.•••.••i �. >c • LL. Co CL • S 3 • q� 'q.•� •N..N�N•w �wN.•N •.N N�.; N�NN•NN�N •N•NN•.•�•�• ;P'49 WO-SPeAJ• •• ; • • •• •£ • • F t J • IS ue9 =NN• ; IS Jfflo r —z �•••••1••••••07 • • p i. • • 1 • •••.•••• • • • o U P X �,�I""JJII } �• • • � A F t h•f••NN•• • a` �' )) z a • � : • •. • • • r A • p 4 •• F : • Is swwiS m 4 is b4g1 : � cR _all • ••• • cT o m • • ti•• E : • 4 : : PV PAM . • • • ISPR9�nOA • i 2 • m O • •• • - c i cA !C'1 s• •• 0.' I • i Ll�� e • � IS a6pJP13 is aswm � x DRAFT c1tv 0I a W heat icic I Bicycle and Ped estrian continuous sidewalk provisions are critical (e,g., Youngfield Street/Ward Road, 38 Avenue, and Wadsworth Boulevard), All of the roadway cross - sections (described in the next section of this chapter) include sidewalks with buffers separating them from the curb, The buffer could be landscaped or hardscaped and may serve as an amenity zone with benches, lighting, planters, etc„ as appropriate for the adjacent land uses. As roadway improvements are made and as development or redevelopment occurs, sidewalks should be constructed in conjunction with the roadways. Design Standards Typical Cross - Sections Historically, Wheat Ridge's roadway cross - section standards have included provisions for sidewalks on local, collector and arterial facilities, but bike lanes were not included in the typical cross - sections, Through this planning process, the project team has developed typical cross - sections to transform the City's streets into "complete streets," with "Complete Streets" provisions for all users and modes within the public right of way. Many of safely accommodate Wheat Ridge's streets do not currently comply with these standard cross- all users and modes sections; the intention of these cross - sections is to serve as a standard for within the public right future improvement projects. These cross - sections should be used in of way. combination with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. The project team, in coordination with the Project Advisory Committee, has developed recommended typical cross - sections for arterial, collector, and local roads. In addition to identifying and quantifying the amenities (vehicular travel lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, buffer /amenity zones, medians, curb and gutter or roadside ditches), the cross - sections also identify the bicycle and pedestrian user types (refer to the Planning for Bicyclists and Pedestrians chapter of this report for definitions) that would be accommodated within the right of way. For Wheat Ridge's arterial street system, five typical cross - sections are presented on Figures 4 and 5. All arterial cross - sections include minimum six -foot sidewalks with a minimum six -foot landscaped or amenity zone buffer. Figure 4 illustrates two options for 5 -lane arterials; one with one street bike lanes and one without, Figure 5 depicts the cross - sections for three -lane arterials, The first two cross - sections have an urban character with curb and gutter and a raised median. They differ in that one provides on- street bike lanes and the other does not, Figure 5 also includes a cross - section with roadside ditches and a center left turn lane, but without a raised median. This cross - section maintains provision for sidewalks and bike lanes. FELSBURG HULT 8 ULLEVIG ;W Page 15 . ' . City of • W heat �idge Ped estrian 88' Minimum ROW 6' Min. 6' Min. 2.5' 12' 12' 11' 12' 12' 2.5' 6' Min. 6' Min. Side- Buffer/ Lane Lane Left Turn Lane Lane Buffer/ Side- walk Amenities Lane or Median Amenities walk Cross - Section A5: 5 -Lane Arterial ( Pe i ) 96' Minimum ROW 6' Min. 6' Min. 2.5' 4' 12' 12' 11' 12' 12' 4' 2.5' 6' Min. 6' Min. if if if it Side- Buffer/ Bike Lane Lane Left Turn Lane Lane Bike Buffer/ Side- walk Amenities Lane Lane or Median Lane Amenities walk ilia Cross - Section V' 5 -Lane Arterial with Bike Lanes ® (: (Pi ok LiveWell Figure 4 5 -Lane Arterial Cross - Sections 0 00,0 FELSBURG HO _ . . W,B:ic:y:cle and Pedestrian Master Plan 64' Minimum ROW 6' Min. 6' Min. 2.5' 12' 11' 12' 2.5' 6' Min. 6' Min. Side- Buffer/ Lane Left Turn Lane Buffer/ Side- walk Amenities Lane or Median Amenities walk f Cross - Section 3 -Lane Arterial ( 72' Minimum ROW 6' Min. 6' Min. 2.5' 4' J, 12' 11' 12' 4' 2.5 6' Min. 6' Min. Side- Buffer/ Bike Lane Left Turn Lane Bike Buffer/ Side- walk Amenities Lane Lane or Median Lane Amenities walk i Cross - Section V 3 -Lane Arterial with Bike Lanes OB Ped 67' Minimum ROW 6' Min. 6' Min. 4' 12' 11' 12' 4' 6' Min. 6' Min. it it Side- Roadside Bike Lane Left Turn Lane Lane Bike Roadside Side- walk Ditch Lane Lane Ditch walk 4 1 W Cross - Section A3BC 3 -Lane Arterial with Bike Lanes and Roadside Ditches OA OB Ped LiveWell Figure 5 3 -Lane Arterial Cross - Sections A i iy of W heat ic19e Figures 6, 7, and 8 depict the cross - section options for collector streets, All collector cross - sections include minimum six -foot sidewalks with a minimum six -foot buffer. The three -lane collectors shown on Figure 6 include a raised median, with and without bike lanes. The two -lane collectors on Figure 7 display options for bike lanes, shared lanes, and no bicycle facilities. Figure 8 provides options for collector streets with roadside ditches; one with bike lanes and one with shared lanes. With adequate width, the shared lanes shown on Figures 7 and 8 could be used for vehicular travel, bicyclists, and on- street parking. Figure 9 illustrates the cross - section options for local streets, Since local streets generally carry minimal vehicular traffic, designated bike lanes are not necessary, The local street cross - sections offer the options for shared lanes (again, for vehicular traffic, bicyclists, and parking) and roadside ditches. Design Guidelines When the corridor improvements in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan are designed and implemented, two design manuals should be referenced to provide guidance in developing safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities; ► Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (AASHTO, 2004), and ► Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO, 1999) The Bicycle Facilities Guide provides design standards related to bike lane treatment at intersections, appropriate signing and pavement markings, structures and underpasses, among other items, Chapter 3 of the Pedestrian Facilities Guide outlines design guidelines for sidewalk facilities including treatment at intersections, lighting, grade- separated crossings, and lighting. DRAFT . . I Page 18 City of WheatR�idge 64' Minimum ROW 6' Min. 6' Min. 2.5' 12' 11' 12' 2.5' 6' Min. 6' Min. Side- Buffer/ Lane Left Turn Lane Buffer/ Side- walk Amenities Lane or Median Amenities walk Cross - Section C3: 3 -Lane Collector OC Ped 72' Minimum ROW 6' Min. 6' Min. 2.5' 4' 12' 11' 12' 4' 2.5' 6' Min. i 6' Min. if it it Side- Buffer/ Bike Lane Left Turn Lane Bike Buffer/ Side- walk Amenities Lane Lane or Median Lane Amenities walk Cross - Section C^ 3 -Lane Collector with Bike Lanes (!!F:) OB CO (Pi i I' LiveWell Figure 6 3 -Lane Collector Cross - Sections 0 Ci W he of at 1�idg B i c ycle Ped e strian P lan 53' Minimum ROW 6' Min. 6' Min. 2.5' 12' 12' 2.5' 6' Min. 6' Min. Side- Buffer/ Lane Lane Buffer/ Side- walk Amenities Amenities walk WNW <_ Y Cross - Section C2; 2 -Lane Collector CO Ped 61' Minimum ROW 6' Min. 6' Min. 2.5' 4' 1 12' 12' 4' 2.5' 6' Min. 6' Min. Side- Buffer/ Bike Lane Lane Bike Buffer/ Side- walk Amenities Lane Lane Amenities walk Cross - Section C2F 2 -Lane Collector with Bike Lanes ® OB ( (Pei 61' Minimum ROW 6' Min. 6' Min. 2.5' 16' 16' 2.5' 6' Min. j 6' Min. Side- Buffer/ Shared Lane Shared Lane Buffer/ Side- walk Amenities (Thru Traffic, Bicyclists, (Thru Traffic, Bicyclists, Amenities walk Parking) Parking) A NMI f. Cross - Section C? 2 -Lane Collector with Parking 1 Shared Lane C BO ( (Pei N& I' LiveWell Figure 7 2 -Lane Collector Cross - Sections r 0 � I City of ' Wheat �Idge Bicycle and Pedestrian Master • • Sidewalk Roadside Ditch 56' Minimum ROW Bike Lane Lane L Lane Bike Roadside Sidewalk Lane Ditch Cross - Section C2B1' 2 -Lane Collector with Bike Lanes and Roadside Ditches (D (i) CD ( 60' Minimum ROW 6' Min. if 6' Min. 18' 18' 6' Min. 6' Min. Side- if Roadside Shared Lane Shared Lane Roadside Side- walk Ditch Thru Traffic, Bicyclists ( y (Thru Traffic, Bicyclists Ditch walk and Parking) and Parking) Cross - Section C2PD: 2 -Lane Collector with Parking 1 Shared Lane, and Roadside Ditches OA O O Ped LiveWell Figure 8 2 -Lane Collector Cross - Sections with Roadside Ditches 0 0 FELSBURG HO City of WheatRidge Cross - Section L2: 2 -Lane Local CD Ped 55' Minimum ROW 5' Min. 5' Min. 2.5' 4' 11' 11' 4' 2.5' 5' Min. 5' Min. Side- Buffer) Parking Lane Lane Parking Buffer/ Side- walk Amenities Amenitiesl walk f 4 47' Minimum ROW 5' Min. i 5' Min. 2.5' 11' 11' 2.5' 5' Min. 5' Min. Side- Buffer/ Lane f Lane T I Buffer/ Side- walk Amenities I Amenitiesi walk 6 Cross - Section L2F 2 -Lane Local Street with Parking 1 Shared Lane (D O O (Ped 1` I M 56' Minimum ROW 5' J , 6' J 6' 11' 11' 6' J , 6' J, 5' Sidewalk Roadside Parking Lane Lane Parking Roadside Sidewalk Ditch Ditch 6 l Ik Cross - Section L2PD: 2 Lane Local with Parking 1 Shared Lane and Roadside Ditches • W) ( ( LiveWell Figure 9 Local Street Cross - Sections UK 01 W heat F id9c Multi -Use Trail Considerations Multi -use trails should be a minimum of 10 feet wide to safely accommodate bicyclists, pedestrians, and other users (e.g., in -line skaters and wheelchairs) in both directions. The Bicycle Facilities Guide outlines common behavior of multi -use trail users that need to be considered in the design and determination of the appropriate facility type. Multi -use trail users may have very low delay tolerance, a strong desire to maintain momentum, little traffic knowledge (particularly children), and sometimes a 'regulations don't apply to me" mentality. Trail users are looking for a continuous, minimally interrupted facility. Counter to the common perception that multi -use trails are the safest bicycle and pedestrian facilities, recent research (Sidepath Safety Model - Bicycle Sidepath Design Factors Affecting Crash Rates, TRR 1982, TRB, 2006) indicates that the safety of a multi -use trail versus on- street bicycle facilities depends upon several factors including the width of the trail (a surrogate for speed), the distance between the trail and the roadway, the speed limit of the adjacent roadway, and the number of through lanes on adjacent roadway. Given the typical behaviors of trail users, the safety of a multi -use trail (as quantified in the Sidepath Safely Model) should be a major consideration in implementing a trail rather on- street bicycle facilities, Drive -way access across multi -use trails should be minimized. Where intersections or drive -ways exist, the trail design should: ► Include provisions to slow both motorists and trail users in advance of conflict points, ► Provide clear warning signs of the approaching intersection ► Clearly assign right of way, and ► Increase visibility for motorists and trail users, Level of Service Calculations Historically, bicycle and pedestrian level of service (LOS) calculations have been based on the density of bicycle and /or pedestrian traffic within a particular bikeway, walkway or shared use path. The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board) is expected to be published by the end of 2010. The new HCM will incorporate bicycle and pedestrian level of service calculations that quantify how well a facility operates from the traveler's perspective, I � _ FELSBURG HOLT 8 ULLEVIG ;M Page 23 L i t % of W heat idgc Conditions that Affect Bicycle Level of Service: ► Effective travel width for the bicyclists (how much space is available to maneuver within the bikeway) ► On- street parking encroachments (drivers opening the door of their parked vehicles is a hazard for bicyclists) ► Volume of motor vehicles and percent heavy vehicles (less vehicular traffic and fewer heavy vehicles creates a more comfortable environment for the bicyclist) ► Speed of traffic (slower vehicular speeds create a more comfortable environment for the bicyclist) ► Pavement surface condition (poor surface conditions require bicyclists to maneuver around pot holes and cracks) Pedestrian Level of Service Width of the sidewalk (a wider sidewalk allows pedestrians to travel two or more abreast and pass comfortably) Width of buffer separation and presence of barriers within buffer (a buffer increases the distance between pedestrians and vehicular traffic creating a more comfortable and safe walking environment; the presence of trees or other barriers with the buffer further enhances pedestrians' feeling of separation from vehicular traffic) ► Amenities on adjacent roadway (a wider outside vehicular travel lane, the presence of bike lanes and on- street parking increases the separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic, creating a more comfortable environment) ► Presence of bike lanes (physical separation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic results in a more comfortable environment for pedestrians) ► Volume and speed of motor traffic (less vehicular traffic and slower speeds create a more comfortable environment) A first step to ensure that facilities are designed to improve bicycle and pedestrian level of service would be for the City to require before and after bicycle and pedestrian LOS calculations when conceptual plans are developed, Based on the LOS calculations, adjustments may be required to further improve the bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • i FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG :M Page 24 Bike Lane adjacent to on- street parking Sidewalk with Hardscaped Amenity Zone and On- Street Parking Buffers Lit� of W heat F idge Implementation Since there is limited funding for transportation improvements the corridors identified for future bicycle and pedestrian facilities have been evaluated and prioritized. The prioritization of the corridors is intended to help the City focus efforts and funding on those projects that are of the highest importance to the community. Evaluation Criteria The following eight evaluation criteria were developed to facilitate the prioritization of bicycle and pedestrian improvement corridors: ► Does the facility serve local or regional destinations? Is it a regional or local facility? ► Does the facility provide access to a school? ► What is the estimated population adjacent to the facility? ► Is the facility located within or adjacent to one of the geographic priority areas as established in Envision Wheat Ridge? ► Would the facility serve multiple user types? ► Would the facility provide connectivity to other modes of travel? ► Will the facility be a part of an existing route or trail? ► Is there a public desire for the facility? Prioritization Matrix and Results With guidance from the Project Advisory Committee, the project team developed a methodology for "scoring" how well an improvement corridor meets each of the eight evaluation criteria. The scoring methodology is documented in Appendix D. This documentation should be used as a companion to the evaluation presented in Table 2. The evaluation in Table 2 is based on a maximum score of four for each evaluation criterion; all evaluation criteria have been given equal weight, and the corridors have been ranked according to the total score. The prioritization results should be used as a guide in selecting projects for which to pursue funding. Depending upon the funding source (discussed in the next section), one or more of the evaluation criteria may carry a heavier weight than others. For example, if the City were to pursue Safe Routes to School funding, the "Access to School" evaluation criterion could be weighted more heavily (or the list could be limited to those routes with a four in this category) to focus on the relevant improvement projects. An adjustment to the evaluation criteria weighting would likely change the ranking of the bicycle and pedestrian corridors, placing more emphasis on those projects that scored higher in the heavily weighted evaluation criteria, D RAF-i FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 25 LL � c _ � � � � � I 0 0� § k � m 0. 'D c co 0 @ � Q � 2 0 CL 0 CL 0 0 t � � LLJ CN @ � 0 - Nuo e # 2 » g m c @off |m01 k q q 04 q q �7 �7 0 ' 0 ' ,&lgO m qnd v s a # r a # t c a Ioj £mno 8misix spueR]a doe o g! |a dmoo o # c o o a s# a pon 2 mO41M A4! «!�Oa uuoD s m e e r a e m s d lasnmdmnV4 same t m r m e a a e r sD A4!JO'd @qdDi S000 t m # a t a c m e uR!lgndo Weomp # # t t r# r a loot4os m #900 m # a t m m a m a |DU qea 'm poo # t # t # t t t # \ \ \ \ \ \ a � / \ \ \ / \ e \ 2 \ \\ c c e@ \/ e \ o \ \ o\ 0 o c \ % ± / \ / / $ U f ± ± \ \ s 3 a a m a a e a a a s e c c 2 co \ \ 2 � (D \ 0 > © / / § ® U 0 § » o � / \ $ 7 c Z \ / \ / > % 2 / @ } @ c a « e c $ @/ _ t 0 m c 0 U- > < > < o * _ \ > < % 9 o * U @ > < £ / £ / / c \ \ ® / o / £ % f - 0 \ \ c j o f \ \ \ 0 9 Lo ) \ < 2 < Q) < U / ƒ 0. R o \ y $ z \ / / / / c\/ / C ± k 0 D 0 CL _ LL � c _ £ � }\ $ � NuDd % % / 2 2 2 \ / \ \ \ \ / &off IDJOI k CO f - - 2�: f 2' ' 2 2 f *&|saQ mmnd V - a m & c o n e« c c c Im£mn eeupi]k s ua]]jo doe osela dwoD e t a a c o m o a c a c c o pon QqO 4lM «l�oeuu a s % t r r a- a ## - a s d 1,a n aldillnVq SOAJOS a m n m r m - - m Cl) CO e r sDGJV a |d� m ydDi Boae c t a m a m a t m a o o m uRl�Rndo IUOODFPV ## e t a m r m m 9oyOS q SSOOOV v o o c a# a o c c # t t t pugea •b 10001 t o # m a#### m a t m k ƒ \ 5 / m / \ \ \ o e@ e U- o e o m o \ @ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ T ƒ 2 / / \ } / / / / / / \ \ m m e m e m e e e m m m m m \ / / ° \ % $ \ / R / } 0) \ \ \ \ \ / / \ \ _ \ \ \ \ \ % ± \ \ £ \ \ z £ £ £ / ƒ O \ R } 4 C,4 \ \ / \ \ \ \ \ (D D % ƒ \ R c / R � c / ƒ R � ® ® > < » 0 « U » 0) > < > > < > u \ t 2 y E/ b££\ £ \ 6 / z / \ � 7 / } / \ 7 5 0 / ƒ o 0 j\ \ j/ j \ 0 3 ° > < / 4 \ < > < 3 g \ < 4 \ \ / / g ± % -C I 9 § £ £ m £ / ® ƒ / ° 6 / / / / \ / / / / / / / / \ \ D 0 � � : � : � � JU° / N / N N \ \ \ \ \ \ / Cl) &o S|mo q 2 f 0 0 cn 04 C14 4s Q mmn 7 o 0 0— 0 0— 0 0 0 0 Ioj £mno §ups! q s ue@]a doe o so4eldwoo 0 0 a t a c 0 a 0 a c 0# pow aq0 ilk A4! «l�oauuoD ¢ — e r r— m a e 0 gd 1 a ■n mdmnw s qa .1 m e CO r a CO a a a Cl) m e sDejV A4!a A m t4dDj §o e a m a 0 a a t c a a a a c uRl�gndo maao& m r a CO r # t— m— 10oy0S m SS933V 0 0 0 0 0 # 0 0 pu0188 'SA p30 ] 1* a a t# a a a# m# a m# 0 \ OL \ \ � > \ \ / \ / / a_ / / e \ o o / c c LL 2 2 2 2 2 7 0 2 0 2 \ \ \ D � _ \ \ \ / / / / \ / / ± / 2 / ± / m e a m m e s a o no m a e > o \ � / / - j _\ 2 _D 2 } D c c \ _0 \ \ \ \ \ \ / % \ % £ # % % § -C 6 § % \ / 4 / } Q / % \ / 7 / & 2 \ \ � \\ T c 0\ § \ c « c \ c\ / \ 5 < « o > 4 0 4$ c 4 \ » < / C ( O D \ £ ° 2 6 \ p ± £ 2 0 \ ƒ \ CO \ / / / / \ CO / \ f ' c \ / § c « e e 2 % /— c o\ 2 \ o c o m c c e 6 c R « a ° > 3 2 y o / a) c / k ° # ® > « c » > < g 2 > 4 % z ® 5 ƒ < < \ / \ >0 \ / ƒ / 0 \ / \ \ / e 0 a LL � £ � / � �UD?j / $ $ $ $ % % $ % \ \ \ \ &off 1010i q - 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ol Ol Ol 10 ,a|gO morn w* c o o- c c 0 o 0 c o o t IDj £mno Bmmq s uOM jo doe os ! |e dwoo V c c a c c 0 m m m 0 c 0 0 pow 2440 UlM A4! nl�oeuuoa 3 e r o a o- - - a a s d! asn mdmnIN SGAMS n e a CO e r e m M e Cl) e ■oaJV A4! m'd� @ydDJ §o # m c o c c# o c c c 0 c uRl,Rndo IUGOD(PV q a r m- m r a m a s 9 m SS900V v 0 0 0 0 c c o c c m o o s puq§a •s 1000 1 a a# a t a m a a m a m a \ \ \ \ A ° \ D / \ o � / \ / \ \ ' U / \ e o§ \ c c£\ \ c c c \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ s $ a ± a 0 \ / / s \ \ / / / ± a e m e a m m a m \ \ ° c R _2 = $ \ % \ / / / / ƒ > 4 / > < / / \ > < > < > < > < > < / £ \ £ § e / \ 2 / s z z B e 7 / \ / O / 2 \ \ / ƒ / S \ \ \ / / m e \ \ $ $ % I c / c \ 00 0 c \ > _ \ _ \ -0 c \ e \ 3 4 £ < \ 0 \ 2 \ 0 < £ -0 c 4 z£ < / O d \ \ \ y O \ n \ 7 0 / \ / \ g > / } \ ± 2 / \ \ § o \ y 0 / �O _J \ < 2 / \ \ % >- 6 \ CL \ : ƒ -C / / / \ - \ / \ > 9 / 2 \ ƒ / / / / / 0 \ 0 } E / \ § 0 \ ( ƒ \ ) { \ 0 2 \ g e / \ \ E f 0 E ) / \ £ E 2 \ 0 0 / \ 0 0 0 IN K @ D CL CL l it" ul I cat Rk l LTC Potential Funding Sources Like most communities in Colorado, Wheat Ridge is facing a challenge of how to fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements, Based on information provided in the Alliance for Biking & Walking 2010 Benchmark Report, 10 percent of all trips in Colorado are made by bike or foot, while only 1.2 percent of federal transportation funds are spent on bicycle and pedestrian projects. This disparity spurs the need to identify and establish consistent funding sources for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Following is a summary of funding options that might be considered, individually or in combination, by the City to fund the bicycle and pedestrian improvements identified in this Master Plan. Each funding source has a unique set of eligibility requirements that will need to be matched with the appropriate improvement projects, Transportation Enhancements (TE) The Transportation Enhancement (TE) program is administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and is intended to expand transportation choices and enhance the transportation experience through 12 eligible TE activities, three of which relate directly to bicycle and pedestrian improvements or programs. The bicycle and pedestrian activities eligible for TE funds include: 1) provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles, 2) provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists, and 3) preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use of the corridors for pedestrian and bicycle trails), TE funds require a local match and are distributed to local jurisdictions through the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) The federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program is administered by FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and funds transportation projects or programs that will contribute to attainment or maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Bicycle and pedestrian projects that may be eligible for CMAQ funds would include those which could demonstrate a reduction in single occupant vehicle (SOV) travel. CMAQ funds typically require a local match and are distributed to local jurisdictions through the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). Safe Routes to School (SRTS) SafeRautes The purpose of the federal Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program is to empower communities to make walking and bicycling to school a safe ®® and routine activity. The program provides grants for projects that build FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 30 DRAFT qty �,i W heat iclLJc Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan � safer street crossings and sidewalks and programs that encourage children and their parents to walk and bicycle to school. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) administers Colorado's SRTS program. Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) The Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) program was established in 1978 by the National Park Service to provide federal funding to urban areas for rehabilitation of recreational facilities, including trails, among others. The program is focused on providing incentives for economically distressed urban communities, and only cities and urban counties that meet the established criteria are eligible for assistance. Although Wheat Ridge does not meet the eligibility requirements, up to 15 percent of the program funds annually may be granted to local governments which do not meet eligibility criteria. The UPARR program initially authorized $725 million; however, it has not been funded since 2002, Recreational Trails Program (RTP) The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) is a federal program established by FHWA; Colorado's funds are administered by Colorado State Parks. The program provides funds to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail - related facilities. Trail grants are offered once a year through the Colorado State Trails Program. Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) was established in 1992 to use a GRUT portion of Colorado Lottery dollars to fund projects that help preserve, oum protect, enhance and manage Colorado's wildlife, park, river, trail and 0 open space heritage. Trail grants are offered once a year through the Colorado State Trails Program, Bikes Belong Bikes Belong is a coalition that was established in 1999 with the goal of putting more people on bicycles more often, They offer grants for bicycle facilities such as bike paths, trails, and bridges, Bikes Belong accepts applications from nonprofit organizations as well as from public agencies, They encourage municipalities to align with local bicycle advocacy groups to help develop and advance the project. Bikes Belong grants are awarded quarterly and require local or federal (or other) funding for at least half of the project's total budget. FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG Page 31 DRAFT Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan ""' 0' Wheat Ridge General Fund The City uses its general fund for many local transportation improvement projects, The City could opt to dedicate a certain portion of its annual transportation spending toward bicycle and pedestrian improvements, Since many of the federal funding sources require a local match, the dedication of a portion of the general fund to bicycle and pedestrian projects would help to leverage other funding sources. Next Steps The intent of this Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is to ensure that the City of Wheat Ridge has a plan in place to effectively upgrade the bicycle and pedestrian system. The following list provides a summary of actions the City of Wheat Ridge should consider taking to fund and implement the desired bicycle and pedestrian improvements. ► Adopt the multi -modal typical cross - sections as part of the Cifys roadway standards, ► Require bicycle and pedestrian level of service calculations for conceptual designs of all roadway improvement projects (before and after the subject improvements). ► Complete conceptual level corridor designs for the top ranking bicycle and pedestrian corridors. ► Pursue federal, state, local and non - profit funding to implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements, Page 32 DRAFT rIt „i Wheat iclgc Bicycle • ' Pedestrian Appendix A. References Bicycle Level of Service: Applied Model, Sprinkle Consulting, April 2007. Countywide Transportation Plan, Jefferson County, April 1998. Denver Bike Map, City and County of Denver, September 2006, Economic Value of Wolkobility, Todd Alexander Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, May 21, 2010, Envision Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan, City of Wheat Ridge, October 2009. Guide for Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), July 2004. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 1999. Modeling the Roadside Walking Environment: A Pedestrian Level of Service, Bruce W, Landis, PE, AICP, Vankat R. Vattikuti, MS', Russell M. Ottenberg, AICP, Douglas S. McLeod, Martin Guttenplan, TRB Paper No. 0 1 -051 1, January 2007, Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report 616. Parks & Open Space Trail Map & Guide, City of Arvada. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Plan for the Sheridan Boulevard, Olde Town Arvada, and Arvada Ridge Transit Oriented Development Sites, City of Arvada, December 1, 2009. Planning For Pedaling, Lakewood Bicycle System Master Plan, City of Lakewood, September 2005. Sidepath Safety Model - Bicycle Sidepoth Design Factors Affecting Crash Rates, TRR 1982, TRB, 2006, Streetscape and Architectural Design Manual, City of Wheat Ridge, January 10, 2003. 2010 Benchmarking Report, Alliance for Biking & Walking, www. PeoplePoweredMovement, org /Benchmarking. FELSBURG HOLT 8 ULLEMG Appendix A c it y of r W heat loge Appendix B. Summary of Public Comments DRAFT �7 4 Appendix B DRAFT �.r or W 1 iclgc Bicycle and ' Appendix C. Phase 1 Inventory Appendix C DRAFT ut y of W heat iclge Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Appendix D. Scoring Methodology The following criteria and methodology have been used to prioritize the proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities in Wheat Ridge. This documentation should be used as a companion to the evaluation table (Table 2). ► Does the facility serve local or regional destinations? Is it a regional or local facility? o Regional route and /or regional destinations - 4 points • Routes/Trails that extend beyond Wheat Ridge • Lutheran Medical Center • Wheat Ridge Recreation Center • Wheat Ridge City Hall • Greenbelt o Local route and local destinations - 2 points ► Does the facility provide access to a school? • Direct access to a school - 4 points • Indirect access (within 1 14 mile) to a school - 2 points ► What is the estimated population adjacent to the facility? o Population within 'A mile buffer on both sides of the facility (source; 2000 Census data). For each proposed route, the percentile population relative to the maximum population within any corridor was calculated, ■ 75 l 00 percentile - 4 points • 50 - 75th percentile - 3 points ■ 25 - 50th percentile - 2 points ■ 0 - 25' percentile - 1 point ► Is the facility located within or adjacent to one of the geographic priority areas as established in Envision Wheat Ridge? • Within one of the geographic priority areas - 4 • Wadsworth Boulevard from 35 Avenue to 44 Avenue • 38' Avenue from Wadsworth to Sheridan • Kipling Street through entire City • 50 Avenue/Ward Road (Future Commuter Rail Station) Area • Cabela's (Crossing at Clear Creek) Area • Within 'A mile of the geographic priority areas - 2 ► Would the facility serve multiple user types? • Facility would serve Type A, B, and C Bicyclists, and Pedestrians - 4 points • Facility would serve three of the four user types - 3 points • Facility would serve two of the four user types - 2 points • Facility would serve one of the four user types - 1 point o Bike /shared lanes on arterial - A and B FELSBURG HOLT 8 ULIEVIG ZM Appendix D DRAFT W heat ic�gc ' :. • Bike /shared lanes on local or collector - A, B, and C • Sidewalk on arterial - Pedestrians • Sidewalk on local or collector - C and Pedestrians • Multi -Use Trails - B, C, and Pedestrians ► Would the facility provide connectivity to other modes of travel? • Provides direct access to future commuter rail station, park -n -Ride, or transfer station - 4 points • Provides indirect access to future commuter rail station (within 1 /2 mile), park -n -Ride facility or transfer station (within 1 14 mile) or has 250 or more RTD buses per day along and crossing the facility - 3 points • 100 - 250 RTD buses per day along and crossing the facility - 2 points • Up to 100 RTD buses per day along and crossing the facility - 1 point • No buses along or crossing the facility - 0 points ► Will the facility be a part of an existing route or trail? • Completes a gap in an existing route /trail - 4 points • Extends an existing route /trail - 2 points ► Is there a public desire for the facility? o Based on the number of people who "voted" for each facility during the public outreach process • 7 or more "votes" - 4 points • 5 or 6 'votes" - 3 points ■ 3 or 4 'votes" - 2 points ■ 1 or 2 'votes" - 1 point FELSBURG HOLT 8 ULLEVIG Zia Appendix D M FELSBURG ( 1 HOLT & ULLEVIG engineering paths to transportation solutions 6300 South Syracuse Way, Suite 600 • Centennial, CO 80111 • p: 303.721.1440 • f: 303.721.0832 • www.fhueng.com 6 +L City of W heat Midge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Planning Commission THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Sarah Showalter, Planner II DATE: June 25, 2010 (for July 15` Planning Commission Meeting) SUBJECT: Mixed Use Zone Districts - Project Update Since our last study session on the topic of mixed use zoning, held June 3` staff held a study session with City Council and made significant progress finalizing Draft 3, which should be released for public review on July 2 We would like to follow -up on a few items that will be in Draft 3 and update the Planning Commission on the conversation about legislative rezoning that staff had with City Council at their June 21 S ` study session. Mixed Use Requirements for Large Sites At the June 3` study session, staff requested input from Planning Commission on a requirement in Draft 2 that required mixed use development for sites 5 acres and larger. The mixed use task force expressed concern that this was too restrictive and could potentially preclude development that the city might like to see on certain sites (even if the development was all one use, such as office), and could also make leasing difficult over the life of a project. The task force encouraged staff to either remove the provision or at least expand the size cut -off to sites larger than 5 acres, perhaps larger than 10 acres. After much consideration on this topic, staff decided to remove the requirement for mixed use for large sites (of any size) for the following reasons: - The approach of the code has been to incentivize, and not require, mixed use. Draft 3 has three primary incentives for mixed use development that we believe will be effective, including reductions in open space, a 2 -story height bonus, and exemptions from drive - thru separation requirements. It could be very difficult to enforce mixed use requirements, especially over the long term. Many large mixed use developments will be split into smaller parcels. For example, for a two - parcel site: if one parcel had office use developed on it as a first phase of development, then the second parcel would only be able to have a non - office use. Staff had difficulty figuring out how this could be enforced, especially over several years. Deed restrictions or other legal methods to ensure mixed use within the same development could be complicated to administer and could ultimately make the leasing of certain buildings very difficult. - Finally, given the possibility of legislative rezoning in some areas (see more below on this topic), staff thinks it is important to retain flexibility for sites that currently do not have mixed use requirements. Public Input Process Based on input received from the Planning Commission on June 3 staff added a few opportunities for public comment on large development sites. The following items will be incorporated in Draft 3, for sites over 10 acres only: - Neighborhood Meeting: there will be a neighborhood meeting prior to submittal of the concept plan for property owners within a 600' radius (to follow the process of the current neighborhood meeting requirement in the zoning code). - Public Comment Period: after a concept plan is submitted, everyone within a 300' radius will receive written notification that the plan is available for review at the Community Development Department. The public will have a 15 -day period to review the development proposal and submit comments. A sign with this information will also be posted on site for the 15 days, so that others have the opportunity to view the plans and comment. These provisions for public input were presented to City Council at the June 21 St Study Session and staff received positive feedback from City Council. Legislative Rezoning Process In meetings held earlier this year with property owners in areas prioritized for mixed use redevelopment, staff included information on the possibility of city- initiated, or legislative, rezonings. In some areas, particularly the Wadsworth corridor, property owners expressed significant interest. Staff made it clear to property owners that the mixed use code would be written and adopted as a first step, with any legislative rezonings occurring as a separate process with further property -owner input. Currently, we hope to have the new code adopted by early September. Given this timeline, staff proposed the following process to move forward with potential legislative rezonings to City Council: - 38 Avenue: no immediate action at this time. Community Development will be conducting a Subarea Plan for 38 between Sheridan and Wadsworth this fall. The findings in the plan can help inform what areas of the corridor — whether it is the whole stretch, or just certain nodes — make the most sense for possible legislative rezoning. - Kipling corridor: no immediate action at this time. Renewal Wheat Ridge (RWR) is completing its strategic planning. Kipling is one of its priority areas, so planning staff recommends waiting to move forward with any city- initiated rezoning until there are more concrete plans from RWR for this area. - Wadsworth corridor (between 38 and 44 Aves): hold a meeting with property owners in September, after adoption of the code, to show them the final version of the code and have a conversation about the potential advantages of legislative rezoning. After the meeting, owners would have a set period — most likely one month — to ask questions and let staff know their interested in being rezoned by the city. After that input is received, staff would propose a rezoning map to City Council at a study session in the fall. 2 - TOD area: owners in this portion of the city are generally supportive of the new zoning, at least in the long term. There is at least one major land owner interested in city- initiated rezoning, and potentially others. Staff proposes meeting with the owners in this area in September and following a process similar to that for Wadsworth, depending on owner input received. City Council was supportive of the above proposals and gave staff approval to move forward with meetings on Wadsworth and the TOD area after adoption of the code. Next Steps /Code Adoption Draft 3 should be released for public review on July 2 Staff will forward copies of Draft 3 to Planning Commission as well. The intent is that this is the last draft, with most content in its final form. Staff will use July to finalize the ordinance and has tentatively set the following schedule for adoption of the mixed use code: - August 5 Planning Commission Public Hearing - August 23` City Council First Reading - September 13 th : City Council Second Reading/Public Hearing Date: Saturday, August 7 ( Registration closes on July 30 - -or when capacity is reached) Time: 8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m. Location: 1290 Broadway, Independence Pass Conference Room, First floor Fee: $75 includes a continental breakfast and box lunch. Please contact Suzi Walker at 303 480 -6730 for special dietary requests. The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), in conjunction with the Colorado Department of Local Affairs - Office of Smart Growth and the Colorado Chapter of the American Planning Association (APA) is offering an exclusive workshop for local government planning commissioners. This day -long workshop is committed to providing both newly appointed and seasoned planning commissioners with information to help them in the essential job they perform in their communities. Following a plenary session on new federal sustainability initiatives, workshop attendees have the opportunity to choose between two diverse training tracks: Planning Commissioner Training; providing information on the roles, responsibilities and fundamentals of being a planning commissioner (recommended for newly appointed commissioners). Special Topics: including one session on regional planning and a second session introducing and highlighting the relationship between public health and planning This workshop is open to all, but space is limited to 70 registrants, with preference given to planning commissioners. The workshop should also appeal to Board of Adjustment members, zoning hearing officers, planning department staff, city attorneys, elected officials, and planning, engineering, and public administration students. Take a look at the list of speakers and the agenda Note: Please make sure you register for the track you'd like to attend, either the Planning Commissioners Training Track or the Special Topics Track. If you are driving to our location, construction of the new Ralph L. Carr Justice Center is changing parking availability around DRCOG's building, however, there are many nearby meters and lots. Check the map of DRCOG's location to find convenient parking. Add this event to your calendar!