HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/2004CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting
December 18, 2003
1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission was called to order by Chair
McNAMEE at 7:02 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West
29tb Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
2. ROLL CALL
Commission Members Present:
Staff Members Present:
Alan White, Community Development Director
Kathy Field, Administrative Assistant
Following is the official set of Planning Commission minutes for the public hearing of December 18,
2003. A set of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community
Development Department of the City of Wheat Ridge,
k. APPROVE ORDER OF AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner WEISZ and seconded by Commissioner WITT to
approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously-
5. APPROVE MINUTES — December 4,2003
It was moved by Commissioner McMILLIN and seconded by Commissioner WESLEY to
approve the minutes of December 4, 2003 as presented. The motion passed with
Commissioners WEISZ and WITT abstaining.
Planning Commission Page I
December 18, 2003
Commissioner McMILLIN suggested that language be added to clarify that if an RV is parked
on the side, but a portion of it extends into the front yard, it would be counted as an RV parked
in the front yard.
Commissioner McMILLIN referred to the 6-foot height limitation, and suggested that specific
MIN Mlwt-W-rdm , boat trailers because, while a boat trailer would not exceed the 6-
foot limitation, adding a boat would most likely exceed that 6-foot limit. Alan White
commented that this would come under the exempt status.
In response to a question from Commissioner McMILLIN, Alan it estimated that variance
fees would fall between $200 and $500. Commissioner McMILLIN then suggested that
variance fees be forgiven for a certain period of time to allow citizens to apply for a variance
without charge.
Commissioner WESLEY asked if there are height limitations for boats. Alan White explained
that height limitations presently apply only to structures.
Chair McNAMEE invited public comment at this time.
Tom Gillen
3250 Nelson St.
Mr. Gillen was sworn in by Chair McNAMEE. He thought the ordinance was a good
compromise. He thanked Alan White and staff for their work on the issue.
[Tanning COmmi Ss ion Page 2
December 18, 20031
Planning Commission Page 3
December 18„ 2003
and suggested that a waiver of variance fees be allowed for a period of up to two years. fie
further commented that the Commission should act upon the ordinance at this time.
It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner WEISZ to
recommend approval of an ordinance amending Section 26-621 of the Wheat Ridge Code
of Laws pertaining to parking in residential areas with an amendment to allow a waiver
of variance fees for a period of two years after the ordinance is adopted and that horse
trailers be eliminated.
The amendments were accepted by Commissioners PLUMMER and WEISZ. The motion
passed 5-1 with Commissioner WESLEY voting no.
• Commissioner McMILLIN asked about the status of an earlier request for staff to
investigate a lighting code based on objective measurements. Alan replied that this request
was taken to Council and they also requested staff to pursue the matter. Commissioners
Pl,.tJMN4ER and MeMll.[,,TN volunteered to prepare a report based on their research
9. NEW BUSINESS
Alan White advised the Commission that the next Planning Commission meeting falls on
January 1, 2004 (New Year's Day). It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and
seconded by Commissioner WEISZ that the January 1, 2004 Planning Commission
meeting be canceled. The motion passed unanimously.
to. COMMISSION REPORTS
There were no commission reports.
Planning Commission Page 4
December l8, 2003
11. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS
There were no committee and department reports.
12. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner WESLEY to
adjourn the meeting at 9:08p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
Marian McNamee, Chair Ann Lazzeri, Recording Secretary
------------- I
Planning Commission Page 5
December 18, 2003
i.. y� 3994
R -3 1 3", _ 3t45 3399 3t9tl
F „ 3a7d , 347) 3S9t}
All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear
this case.
Planning Commission
W - 03 11 "MarcEm
I. REQUEST
The applicant is requesting approval of a rezoning from Residential One-C (R- I C) to Residential
Three (R-3).
11. CASE ANALYSIS
The property in question is located at 3281 Chase Street, and is approximately 9,375 square feet
in area. The property is zoned Residential One-C and previously contained a single-family
structure. This structure has since been demolished and the lot remains vacant land. The
applicant is requesting a rezoning from Residential One-C to Residential Three to accommodate
a two-family dwellin .
1 9
For a multi-family structure, a property in the R- ) district must have a minimum lot size of
12,500 square feet and a minimum lot width of 100 feet. used on the current lot size, a multi-
family structure would not be allowed without a variance to both the lot size and width. A
variance that would increase density (add dwelling units) may not be approved administratively.
rather the requests must be heard by the Board of Adjustment,
Ill. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGIRE 'ER RAL
A meeting for neighborhood input was held December 9, 2003. A sign-in sheet and synopsis are
included for review (Exhibit 2, Neighborhood Meeting Summary and Exhibit 3 Sign-in Sheet).
There were two neighbors in attendance, and they seemed generally accepting of this proposal.
This request was referred to all affected agencies for comment. All outside service agencies that
currently serve the property will continue to serve the property, and have indicated that the
property owner will incur any associated costs of improvement.
The Wheat Ridge Water District indicated that a separate water tap would be required for the
additional unit. The Public Works Department has indicated a drainage report is not necessary.
Drainage will be reviewed upon submittal of the building permit for construction of the new
duplex,
IV. CRITERIA
Staff has the following comments regarding the criteria used to evaluate a change in zone:
I. That the existing zone classification currently recorded on the official zoning maps
of the City of Wheat Ridge is an error.
Planning Commission
WZ-03-1 11"MarcEni
The existing zone classification on the official zoning map is not in error, The property
currently has Residential One-C zoning,
5. That there will be social, recreational, physical and/or economic benefits to the
community derived by the change of zone.
This proposed zone change should create a benefit to the community. The property
contained a dilapidated single-family structure, The applicants stated the structure, as it
previously existed, was unfit for habitation as verified by a Wheat Ridge building
inspector. A new structure will be avast improvement for this property and the
neighborhood.
All responding agencies are able to serve the property, and the developer will incur the
cost and maintenance of any improvements, The Wheat Ridge Water District will require
the installation of an additional water tap.
8. That the change of zone will not create an isolated or spot zone district unrelated to
adjacent or nearby areas.
This change of zone will not create an isolated zone district. R-3 zoning is present to the
east. This property was zoned Residential Three when the City incorporated in 1969,
however the mass rezoning in 1984 changed the zoning to Residential One-C,
V. STAFF CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDED MOTION (S)
Staff concludes that the proposed zone change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed use will be compatible with adjacent land use and zoning. Therefore, staff recommends
APPROVAL of Case No. WZ-03-1 1.
welfare.
4, There are adequate public facilities to serve the use proposed.
OPTION B:
"I move to recommend DENIAL of Case No. WZ-03-1 1, a request to rezone from Residential
One-C to Residential Three for property located at 3281 Chase Street, for the following reasons:
Planning Commission
WZ-03-1 I /MarcErn
uj
z u
0
0
0
w 0 , '0 6U
> 0 z
ct cs 0 � r4
< 0 "4 <,4
0 J
X 0 0
U
0 z —
0
0 W
z q >
0
x
CZ>
Womm
0
u
0-
C D
Oc cu
'0 CL
0
m z N
"
spa
O
c 0
0
Ij,
0
>
fo 0
,/
c I j V ,�
c_
z
c c
t " 4)
V
1
O.0
0. 4 x
0
w CL
A C'
cc
0
n
,3 1
AD W
E
O c o -
0
U')
0
C4
O
a- -
z 0
0
to
: M 0
U4 v u
0
�4
uj
U
to
g
C,
-j �r to
0
14
0
0
;t
0
m
<
z
J H
u
u)
0 0 0)
u
w
tn
In
w
4
z
0
0)
54
—
uj
0
#
x
ui
a:
0
ct
,c (D
<
0
a a
x
0
ca
0 0
u
-00-
<
E 5
@
> - T';, b
t
' E
E
c 0 o
c = a)
0
c m,
H
it..
N,
m
uj
z u
0
0
0
w 0 , '0 6U
> 0 z
ct cs 0 � r4
< 0 "4 <,4
0 J
X 0 0
U
0 z —
0
0 W
z q >
0
x
CZ>
Womm
X /,7", ---
"O
0
u
0-
C D
Oc cu
'0 CL
0
m z N
"
spa
O
c 0
0
Ij,
0
>
fo 0
,/
c I j V ,�
c_
z
c c
t " 4)
V
1
O.0
0. 4 x
0
w CL
A C'
,3 1
AD W
E
0
41
O
0 E15
O' O'D >,
X /,7", ---
"O
0
u
0-
C D
Oc cu
'0 CL
0
m z N
"
O
c 0
0
0 X
0
>
fo 0
c_
z
c c
t " 4)
V
1
O.0
C-
1 1' Hog,
u
0-
C D
'to
or 11
"
0 X
0
>
'
m io c m
0
,Ln
c
-c C7- g
0 0 0 z pKi
ml
0 X
-C
s c c ,
0
t;
0. 4 x
0
w CL
A C'
.0
AD W
E
0
41
O
0 E15
O' O'D >,
'0
ct
2 c
5 c c
0 0 0)
54
—
C D a) 0-
Q E
,c (D
C >, c m
-00-
E 5
@
> - T';, b
t
' E
E
c 0 o
c = a)
0
c m,
H
it..
N,
m
0 a) c c a
> c
E o-o
3
0 0 Z, 0
0-0
0 0,2
Q
E 0 —0
HE
0- c to c
Ow
Z p
0
0
ml
Telephone (303)235-2846
Fax (303)235-2857
Date: 9 December 2003
City Staff Present: Travis Crane
Location of Meeting- Municipal Building, 2 " floor conference room
Property Address: 3281 Chase St.
Property Owner: Marc Cave
Applicant: Same
Existing Zoning: RAC
Property Owner Present? Yes
Comp Plan Designation: SF-6
Single Family-6
w
a
a
fi
IN
a
I
t
I
k�
w
0
m
Z
0
om
K)
o
Cl
- 0
C4
>
m
CL
0
W
z
Z
>
I
k�
w
0
cr
Z
0
om
K)
o
Cl
- 0
C4
M
z
0
I
k�
w
0
cr
Z
0
om
K)
o
Cl
,
C4
M
z
0
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
Memorandum tOR
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Alan White, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Case No. WPA 04-01, Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan W
DATA January 30, 2004
(NOTE: A I new packet and addendum has been prepared to replace what was distributed for the
January 15" meeting. Recommendations are indicated by bold italic type, and changes have been
made either to the appropriate text or map in the attached materials.)
Because of a lack of quorum at the January 15 meeting, this agenda item was not heard. Under the
Planning Commission bylaws, members were polled and the item was continued to the next meeting
date, February 5 1h
The Plan Amendments were distributed to the following agencies for review and comment:
• City of Arvada
• City of Golden
• City of Lakewood
• Jefferson County
• Denver Regional Council of Governments
A summary of comments and staff's responses follow:
The City of Arvada did not respond.
Response: It was never the intent to suggest redeveloping Applewood to a higher density,
The residential land use categories we have to work- with are 4.0 and 60 divelling units per
acre. Applewood is at 3.0 units per acre. Staff recommends deleting the area south of 32 nd
Avenue and west of Youngfieldfrom the urban growth area.
C,ACOMP PLANVeview comments pc rnemo,dm-
The large area west of 1-70 is the only large, vacant area adjacent to Wheat Ridge with the
potetitialto accommodate ,fziture level opriest. With the absence of vacant parcels of
significant site within the Cite, this area presents an opportunity for development of tax-
genet-citing uses.
The takes are important water sources for the Coors brewery. To think that the takes may
not be needed in the future is suggesting the demise ofone qf the largest companies and
employers in the state. This comment has no inerit.
The City of Lakewood and DRCOG commented that there is an overlap with Lakewood's urban
growth boundary. This overlap area is bounded by 32 Avenue, Youngfield, 20 Avenue, and 1-70.
Lakewood suggests developing an intergovernmental agreement to address the area.
Jefferson County commented about a number of items, mostly dealing with the future land use
designations and discrepancies with the North Plains and Central Plains Community Plans. Our
intent was to match as closely as possible the designations of the two plans with our existing
designations and not create new ones specifically for this addendum.
1. The density of Applewood is 3,0 units per acre. We show it as 4.0 units per acre.
Response.- Staff recommends deleting (lie area from the urban growth boundary. If it is
not deleted, change the designation to SF (4). Given the multitude oj'ownerships and
established nature of the neighborhood, it is unlikely that the area will redevelop, especially
to higher densities. The area would have to be rezoned to achieve higher densities, This is
not a zoning map, but merely a coinprehensive plan designation.
2. Neighborhood retail is shown for the shopping center south or 201h Avenue. A developer wants
to redevelop it as a mixed used area. Several comments were received by the County during their
planning process that this strip mall is not neighborhood serving.
Response: Not neighborhood serving? Maybe it doesn't meet the shopping needs of the
neighborhood, but it certainly isn't a community or regional shopping center.
CACOMP PLANVeview comments pe memo.doc 2
amendment to Chapter 2. We were trying to avoid changes to Chapter 2. Staff recommends
leaving the designation as NR.
3. The area south of Clear Creek and west of 1-70 is shown as Industrial on the County plan and
as Community Commercial and Business Park in our addendum. County comments were
that the area is zoned for mining, heavy industry, and water storage. Coors was concerned
about their land use recommendations, property rights, and expectations of Applewood
residents.
The Community Commercial designation of the area west of 1-70 and north of 32" Avenue
is contrary to the County's goal of preserving commercial and industrial land to improve the
jobs-to-housing imbalance in the County.
Response: Existing County zoning does not control future use if the area is annexed by the
City. The large area west oj'1-70 is the only large, vacant area adjacent to Wheat Ridge with
the potential to accommodatefWure development. With the absence of vacant parcels of
significant size within the City, this area presents an opportunity for development ()J' tax-
generating uses. The designation of Community Commercial mirrors the non-residential
designation of the County, so it is difficult to comprehend how this designation affects the
jobs-to-housing balance in the County. Keep the designation as Community Commercial.
4. A collector road is shown from McIntyre parallel to SH 58 at Eldridge, where it extends
southeasterly to connect eventually to 32 d Avenue. None of these road improvements is shown in
the Countywide Transportation Plan. The County is concerned about impacts on the 1-70132 d
Avenue interchange and disruption of the property owner's mining and water storage activities. The
area appears to be underserved with access points given its size,
Response: The I- 70132 " Avenue interchange is ivithin the City of Wheat Ridge. The plan
recommends improvements to the intersection. Any development impacting the interchange
and street system will need to mitigate those impacts,
5. Statements about the questionable benefit of annexing the enclaves north of the City were
responded to with a request to modify the language so as not to discourage land owners from
annexing. "It is at times impractical and inefficient for the County to deliver services to these
detached properties."
Response: The County originally zoned and approved these uses. The impracticalities and
inef
. ficiencies of service delivery should be considered before a county decides to approve
urban land uses.
6. Densities in Fairmount are shown in the County plan at 2 units per acre. Our Plan shows the
density at 4 units per acre.
CAC.OMP PLANVeview comments pe memo,doc 3
Response: The written comment contradicts what is shown as the plan recommendation.
The County map shows the recommendation as either residential up to 3.0 or up to 4.0 units
peracre. We could show the recommended, future land use asAER —Agricultural Estate
Residential. This is a recommended lot site of',/ acre which translates to a density of 2 units
per acre. Leave the designation as SF (4).
7. Consider "mixed use" designation along Ward Road rather than the Neighborhood Commercial
designation, There is already a small industrial park in the area and the neighborhood commercial
designation excludes residential uses.
Response: See response to #2 above concerning mixed use. Change the designation to 0 —
Small Office/Business Park. This is more in keeping with the existing uses in this area.
8. Consider "mixed use" designation along the east side of McIntyre between 44 h and 52nd. Owners
want to develop a mixed use development with residential and office uses.
Response: See response to #2 above. Leave the designations as shown on the map.
9. Change the designation of Mount Olivet Cemetery from Public/Semi-public. This designation
allows uses and facilities that that may not be compatible with the Fairmount area, such as schools,
hospitals, public works facilities, and fire stations.
Response: The adopted Comprehensive Plan includes cemeteries in the definition of public
and semi-public uses, In trying to avoid changes throughout the document and keep changes
confined to the addendum, existing definitions were used. Mide the designation doesn't fit
the County's definition, the intent is that the cemetery is recognized and will remain in the
fiaure. It is highly unlikely that use as a cemetery will change and that a hospital or public
works building would be built, unless ownership changed. In such event, an amendment to
the plan would be appropriate at that time. Keep the designation as PublielSemi-public.
10, The County does not have a minor collector category.
Response: While we tried to mirror the County plans, not every category we use matches
exactly with the County's catort es. This is another case. The streets shown as minor
collectors (ire Indiana and 4S" Avenue, The County plan shows them as collectors. Each
classification is one step above the lowest classification of local or neighborhood street.
Since the intent of the addendum is to include the area in the City's Comprehensive Plan,
the City's classifications should be used.
11. Arvada Fire does not provide service in the area.
Response.- This is correct. This statement should be deletedfrom the addendum.
12. The County suggests developing an intergovernmental agreement addressing future
development in areas of mutual concern.
Response: Staff supports developing intergovernmental agreements concerningfuture
development areas and issues with all surroundingjurisdictions.
CACOMP PLANVeview comments pc memo.doc 4
Staff recommends approval with the changes noted in this memorandum.
Suggested Motion:
I move to adopt Resolution No. 01-04, a resolution concerning adoption of amendments to the
Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan and forwarding said recommendation to the Wheat Ridge City
Council."
CACOMP PLANVeview comments pe memadoc 5
INTRODUCTION
.C\
ml
11051,11, e*
Em
Boundary Area
Map I
.0.;
cn U)
LAND USE
Existing land uses in the urban growth area are varied. To the northwest are areas of
low • medium density residential development and commercial development along
Ward Road.
• the west • Ward Road is Mount Olivet Cemetery and industrial development along
W. 44 th Avenue and State Highway 58. The area to the west • 1-70 between 32 Id
Avenue and 44 Ih Avenue contains a golf course, and several old gravel pits now used
for water storage. A majority of this land is vacant and undeveloped.
Land uses
• the south of 32n Avenue include low to medium density residential
development, commercial uses along Youngfield Street, and a country club.
116 Re I Wo 20 ON . 01 Offis lo o. 1 -. 0 0 . ANN.
Few natural hazard areas are present in the planning area. The Clear Creek •0
500-year fllains generally rallel SH58 • p • o
d in the center f the lannin area. N
other natural hazars exist in the area. •
oodp • pa
2330=
Because the urban urban growth area is currently unincorporated, Jefferson County
has jurisdiction over planning and zoning matters. The urban growth area lies within
two subareas the County has identified for planning purposes. The North Plains Plan
covers that portion of the urban growth area north of Clear Creek and the Central
Plains Plan covers the area to the south of Clear Creek.
H
Originally prepared in the late 1990's, these plans have recently been updated. The
process of updating these plans included extensive public meetings.
The Future Land Use map reflects the recommended land uses for the area as shown
in the County subarea plans. The recommended land uses were matched as closely
as possible to the land use categories contained in theVVheat Ridge �;oinpf ehensive
Plan.
The Future Land Use Map (Map 2) illustrates recommended land uses for the urban
growth area. The categories used and the definitions, desired character, and
attributes • the various land use categories shown are the same as defined in
Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan and are hereby incorporated as a part of this
Addendum.
3
I I I I , I I III III I I I 11 , 1 , 1111111111111 1 �! I I I! I I 11!! 1111!! 102UN=
X
I
83
HE
ca
TRANSPORTATION
The existing street network consists of the major nf uth connectors of Ward
Road and Youngfield on the eastern border of the planning area, and McIntyre Street th
• the western border. East-west connectors are W. 52 Avenue at the north, W. 44
Avenue, W, 32 Id Avenue, and 20 Avenue to the south.
MLZM go) &TA ft 0 FR Mr- I A E W1 At 0 11111WWAIIIIAZER SUR LTI K 1 #1 MAL
1-70 and SH58 will continue to serve the dual roles of providing access to the area and
carrying regional traffic.
13
III �ili�illillilill'l!!Iilll!ll!lll��il!lllllll!!Ill�iI �I=�
,
e .
. s.
ml
I,Tiffms
�
�
�
�
,
e .
. s.
ml
I,Tiffms
collector with an underpass at 1-70. This will provide an additional access to t
Community Commercial area. I
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Services in the planning area are currently provided by Jefferson County and sever
special districts. Jefferson County currently provides general governmental service
and law enforcement. Portions of the area are included in the Urban Drainage and
Flood Control District. I
Special districts serving the area are listed below.
* Fairmount
*----AP4ada
* West Metro
• North Table Mountain W& S
• Valley Water
• Fruitdale Sanitation
• Northwest Lakewood Sanitation
3nifl=
• large area in the central portion of the planning area is not currently served by a
water or sanitation district.
The City will provide general governmental services and police protection for any
areas annexed by the City.
I
1� Ipli � 11111 iiii lll�lilijiil 11111111 iiiiijill RIF 1111 111111111 Jill I I
low
Water and sanitation services will continue to be provided by districts currently
providing services within their respective boundaries, Within the area currently not
served by water or sanitation districts, there are three options to consider:
0
IN 1111 111 1 1 ; 1 1 1 11 1 11 11,11 1 1 11 111
I 11L I.A-11 - 1
Formation of a new water and sanitation district, or metropolitan district, with
provision of services • the new district.
Formation of a new water and sanitation district, or metropolitan district, with
provision of services by another district or districts by contract with the new
district.
(This Replaces the current Chapter 7 in its entirety.)
CHAPTER 7: REGIONAL PLANNING
AND COOPERATION
The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) adopted the Metro
Vision 2020 in 1995. It is currently being updated and expanded to the year
2030. The Plan emphasizes local control over growth and development
decisions, but also establishes a framework within which to make decisions that
affect the entire metro area. The plan establishes six core elements:
1 . Extent of Urban Development — will occur within 700 square miles by
2020, accommodating the expected population growth and adding 165
square miles to the existing area. The conversion of land should prevent
the unnecessary extension of infrastructure, reduce regional vehicle travel,
maintain air quality standards, and help preserve open space.
HE
is • provide mobility and accessibility to support the physical, social and
economic development of the region. Metro Vision promotes an efficient
transportation system by increasing capacity through public transit, syste
management, and providing for alternative modes in addition to roadway
widening. I
Metro Vision recognizes the fundamental link between land use, growth and
tevelopment patterns, transportation, and environmental quality, and that
Each core element provides a natural focus for addressing a wide variety of
issues. While they are broad in scope, each has a set of policy objectives that
more fully describe how they provide for growth while striving to protect the
regional qualities residents value.
us
EE
.. r ..
Goal: Participate in intergovernmental and regional organizations
1
accommodate and encourage planned growth and development, to
1
extend urban services in an orderly manner, to enhance the quality
of life, to protect the environment and to promote the economic
vitality of the communities within the Denver Metropolitan Region.
2. Goal: Annex and grow in a manner consistent with the goals and
policies of the Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan.
•
01
3. Goal: Coordinate and cooperate with other agencies in the provision
of infrastructure and services to City residents.
up
U If I'V 70 Ff — 1 TWE 7S 1
RESOLUTION NO.
Series of 2004
fal"il pill #Joe
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing as provided by Section 2-
60(b) of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws; legal notice thereof being duly published in the Wheat
Ridge Transcript and High Timber Times on January 8, 2004, said public hearing held on
February 5, 2004.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission
this 5th day of February, 2004:
1. The Comprehensive Plan amendments attached hereto as Exhibit A are recommended
for approval to the City Council.
2. A copy • this Resolution shall • forwarded to the City Council.
M01=1
MM
Secretary to the Commission
CADmunwnts and Setfin&%\k Docunients\Katb rcsJoc
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: 1 �Meredjth Reckert
SUBJECT: Case No. ZOA- 03 -17 /Expiration of Development Plans
DATE: January 29, 2004
This case was continued to February 5, 2004.
Summary of Ordinance Changes
The current regulations have been amended as follows:
1. The expiration term of one year for a preliminary development plan (now called outline
development plan) approval has been removed. These documents will remain in effect in
1
llfi�
2. The expiration term of one year for a final development plan approval has been removed.
These documents will also remain in effect in perpetuity. See discussion under "Staff
3. The expiration period for variances as specified in Section 26-115.4. has been included.
4. The terms for expiration of special use approvals have been modified to be consistent
with the changes to the special use procedures approved by City Council in 2003.
5. The section addressing building permits has been expanded to address cessation of
construction activity.
Staff Comments
The outline development stage is the rezoning approval. As with any zoning, it remains in effect
until such time as the landowner requests a change or the City initiates a citywide rezoning.
Outline development plans should not have an expiration timeframe.
Remember too, that all final development plans are required to have a construction schedule
which specifies approximate dates for project commencement and completion. If a building
permit is submitted for an approved development plan after the construction schedule has
expired, staff can require amendment to the plan to extend the schedule.
MIUMMMUME=
"I move that Case No. ZOA-03-17, a proposed amendment to Chapter 26 of the Zoning and
Development Code regarding the expiration of development plans, be forwarded to City Council
with a recommendation of APPROVAL for the following reasons:
IM
M
INHE
City of Wheat Ridge *HE,4
Community Development Department
Memorandum OR
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Meredith Reckert
SUBJECT: Case No. ZOA-03-171expiration of development plan approvals
DATE: November 28, 2003
Attached is proposed legislation amending Section 26-107 of the zoning and development code
relating to the expiration of development approvals. As always, new language is shown in bold
typeface and deletions are shown with st4ke-t �:,
However, many times once a final development plan public hearing process is completed, the market
for the approved development has changed and financing is not available. Is it reasonable to require
that a developer reapply to get the original final development approved again? Should this approval
be through a public hearing process or should it be an administrative approval?
Finally, should final development expirations be retroactive to old projects or should it apply to new
approvals only?
CASE NO. ZOA-03-17/expiration of development approval
Section 26-107. Expiration of development approval; reapplications.
A. Any pfe4mi*afy-of-fmal approval of a site development plan shall expire and
become null and void if:
{= (1) For planned development district final development plan approvals, a
building permit is not issued for the work authorized within oiie444-yeaf three (3)
i4s-eeased
years from the date of final development plan approval. -44
eeffiffille �-.
(2) For variances, a building permit is not issued within 180 days from the
date it was granted. See section 26-115.4.
(4) Any issued building permit shall expire if the work authorized is not
commenced within sixty (60) days from the date of issuance, or if the work is
ceased for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days or more at any time
after work is commenced.
B. After site development approval has expired, no work, shall be commenced
until the developer has received new approval pursuant to the procedures set forth
in this chapter.
C. A new application for substantially the same development process may not be
refiled for one (1) year after denial.
wriere ine
outline plan sets the standard for landscaping at 8% to 10%. The current requirement for
landscaping is 20%.
been developed, Alan White explained that most situations deal with the. last one or two
buildings within an old planned development. He estimated there are probably two dozen of
these situations.
Commissioner PLUMMER suggested a requirement that, if not developed within a certain
number of years, the plan must be reviewed which would involve new application fees.
Commissioner STITES suggested a requirement that the application must be brought up to
current code requirements after a certain time limit has passed,
Commissioner McMILLIN asked about an applicant's vested rights with prior development
approval. Alan White explained that the statutory limit for vested rights is three years.
However, a develoLer could come in and re*,uest a vested 6 bts
would have to be reviewed and approved by City Council.
Commissioner McNAMEE asked if there were time restrictions for a developer to begin or
complete his project. Alan White stated that there is the one-year restriction to begin building,
He noted that a provision in the code adopted two years ago stated that building needed to
begin within one year of adopting the code or their approval would expire. No notice to owners
was given of this requirement. No one responded to this action.
H M MH 1H UUMM.— M-1-1I
IffaM4111#1mmo
Mt
procedures were in place when the time limitation is up and indicated that she would contact
neighboring municipalities regarding this matter,
91
a
it was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner McMILLIN
that Cast No. ZOA-03-17, an ordinance amending Section 26-107 of the Wheat Ridge
Code of Laws concerning expiration of development approval, he continued to February
5,2004. The motion passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
• Alan White reported that the December 18 lb Planning Commission agenda will include RV
regulations.
Meredith Reckert reported that the interview process has begun to fill the planner
technician vacancy.
10
COMMISSION REPORTS
atMa",Ayw Wkwt"ifa
it
1114 sm
12. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner STITES to
adjourn the meeting at 7:55pm. The motion passed unanimously.
ff--ZMX WA A 9'*
Ann Lazzeri, Recor in tqretary
EM
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
Council Bill No. -2004
Ordinance No.
Series of 2004
(3) Any issued building permit shall expire if the work authorized is not
commenced within sixty (60) days from the date of issuance, or if the work is
ceased for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days or more at any time
after work is commenced.
B. After site development approval has expired, no work shall be commenced until
the developer has received new approval pursuant to the procedures set forth in this
chapter.
C. A new application for substantially the same development process may not be
refiled for one (1) year after denial.
Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Zoning
code or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjusted by
a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect application to other
persons or circumstances.
Section Q. Supersession Clause. If any provision, requirements or standard
established by this ordinance is found to conflict with similar provisions, requirements or
standards found elsewhere in the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge, which are in
existence as of the date of adoption of this ordinance, the provisions, requirements and standards
here shall supersede and prevail.
Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon adoption, as permitted by the Charter.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of - to
in this - day of , 2004, 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 , 2004, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council
Chambers, 7500 West 29"' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
N
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a
vote of - to -, this - day of , 2004.
SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 2004.
Pamela Anderson, City Clerk
GERAL DAHL, CITY ATTORNEY
I T publication:
"
publication:
Wheat Ridge Transcript
Effective Date:
I