Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/2002In answer to a question from Commissioner SNOW, Alan White stated that the land owner in question is Ketelsen Camp e'rs. There is another possible situation on the east side of 35 th and Wadsworth, It is proposed to repeal portion of the ordinance relat I ing to the storage of recreational vehicles f or period of # then revert back to the original c R 11 1 11 11 1; 11 � JR. 11111p In answer to a question from Chair McNAMEE, Alan White stated that the temporary use for Ketelsen Campers was issued in 1996, however the TUP was not renewed each year even though the property was used for storage. C ommissio ner i # if the . # t t h e o on • .• recreati Commissioner THOMPSON asked if there were any consequences for the landowner when vehicles were b e i ng st ored state that monit infre quent due to high turnover in staff during that tirne. Commissioner THOMPSON expressed concern about relaxing the i•' fo certa in es illeg i ,g ha • # R an dy °` ! 1 • i ii So sw orn Mr. Ketelsen was b y stat He that he has been b usiness UM 161 - te state I e •• no me Fese for the applicant to go to the Board • Adjustment for another TUP. — expressed concern that revising the ordinance in this situation would set a precedent. 17ie expressed his opinion e purpose • city s: city counci R IF should work together to make changes to increase economic development within the city. He spoke in favor of changing the ordinance. In response to a question from Commissioner COOPER, Mr. Loecher stated that, the car rental business would pay a use tax to the city. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner BRINKMAN that the Planning Commission make a strong recommendation to City Council that this ordinance not be passed; that the 1500-foot separation was logically designed and passed 1 .3 1 ".5 1.1 wo ! &ROOM=-IN 5M. a 10 In IN AN �Mc N AME , h air Ansx �Lazzeri, ecord' cretary WATAM, Moro Fruri TO: Planning Commission 1111111piIIIIIIIIIq gillipyll 1111111 1 mm• - • RIMAIIIIIX61 Attached is an ordinance prepared in response to Council's direction to create legislation Ad reLw,ire• o • oa L 4a&Yeer nt �t; • s f szles. rewtal. r str ue Laiv k-i- d IM9. The intent of the 1,500 -foot spacing requirement is to limit the proliferation sales, rental and storage lots in the City, These are land p a considerable amount of commercial zoned property, are difficult to control aesthetically, and provide a small economic benefit to t City. The intent of this spacing requirement should be maintained with any proposed code change. I The 1,500 -foot separation either needs to repealed • maintained. There is no middle ground that addresses all • the concerns of these land uses. C:\Myfiles\WPFiles\Projects\zoning amendmentO,500 feetwpd There was a consensus of the Commission that the existing ordinance was written for good reason and should be left as it is. (Chair McNAMEE declared a brief recess at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:40 P.M.) rather than amending the PRD regulations. 1111�11111qiiiiii�111111111 11111�1111111111q�111 9. COMMISSION REPORTS There were • commission reports. 10. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS There were no committee and department reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner COOPER to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. _U _l-VWG,!MN Ann Lazzeri, Rec'ording$acretary Planning Commission Page - - 4 September 20, 2001 I • I N F • I I I 11111�gii� I � 1 1 1 • 1. All requirements of the City's Subdivision Regulations have been met. 2. The minimum lot size requirements of the R-I zoning district have been met. I The development standards of the R-I district have been met for the existing sin family home. I The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner BRINKNUN absent. B. Case No. ZOA-01-02: An ordinance amending Sections 26-206, I 26-207, 26-208, 2 20• , 26-210, 26-211, 26-212 and 26-611 ♦ the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertai i to required setbacks for residential structures and exceptions thereto. Meredith Reckert - o resented this matter which is an ordinance containini chanLyes to the K I a WWI I Oro I" &M WN KMKU I #W1010411MINIUM I Planning Commission Page 3 September 20, 2001 PUBLIC HEARING !. t 1 An ordinance amending • 26-205, • !• • 1 • 1: 26-209 26-210, a 6 and 26-611 of Ridge Code of pertaining to required setbacks for • • exceptions thereto. Commissioner SNOW • -• •• setback • w apply to all •- zones • not commercial • • -• that it is covered in Section r • to residential or commercial. Alan White asked if it was their intent to change Section s to differentiate between residential and commercial. Planning Commission Page 2 August 16, 2001 Alan White commented that Cambridge was unique for the fact that it was a I 00-lot subdivision and those will be rare in the City due to the lack of large vacant parcels. Staff is dealing with individual builders and sometimes citizens who are acting as their own contractor. He also predicted that with this ordinance we should expect a lot of variance cases. , Alan White commented that not permitting a row of bricks to encroach into a setback only an inch or two is ridiculous. Commissioner NOW suggested that they needed to narrow down what zone districts it should apply to. Commissioner COLLINS stated that the issue seems to be having a two-story building buit iext to a one-sto6 buildina with onli 5 feet between and the two-sto dwarfling or Planning Commission Page 3 August 16, 2001 setback and the language would read with the footprint starting on the farthest setback. Footnote D would still apply; but for every story after the first story setback, an additional 5 feet would apply to the original setback and the house footprint must be fixed at the farthest setback from the property. Alan White asked for clarification. StIrry, S+ UIUL C sluc stay S ic ulf--twor si'tc' L11VTCS Ill,) I each additional story, Commissioner COLLINS suggested the City of Denver's method of using bulk plane where you can go from either property line 5 feet then use a 45 degree angle for 2 or 3rd stories for the setback. Alan White commented that if there is a 20-foot separation between houses, what does it matter if a bay window extends 6 inches into the setback. Louise Turner 11256 W, 12 Ayne Planning Commission Page 4 August 16, 2001 required setback areas shall not be permitted except by a variance granted by the Board of Adjustment." Commissioner SNOW suggested adding to the language under "Building Setbacks" See. 26-611 that after such encroachment (by fireplace, bay window, porch or patios, etc.), the setback cannot be less than 5 feet. be living areas while a fireplace chimney is not; and she did not believe any living spac should be closer than 5 feet. She also commented that a large bay window could also b considered a living space. I Commissioner SNOW stated that a chimney encroachment would decrease the amount of space between houses and could cause fires from flying sparks, Alan White stated that fire code requires that chimneys • no closer than 3 feet. Alan White asked for clarification regarding rear yard setbacks in relation to adding stories. (Chair McNAMEE declared a recess at 8:55 pm. The meeting was reconvened at 9:10 P.M.) There was discussion about discrepancies between the chart and the footnotes for R-3 and R-3A zone districts. It was moved by Commissioner SNOW and seconded by Commissioner THOMPSON that in the R-3 zone district the chart match the language in footnote A to provide that side and rear yard setbacks shall be fifteen (15) feet for the first two stories and an additional five (5) feet for each additional story over two stories. The motion passed unanimously. rRISOMM 410 W1 W=101 Planning Commission Page 5 August 1 6, 2001 and rear yard setbacks shall be fifteen feet for the first two stories and an additional five feet for each additional story over two stories. The motion passed unanimously. B. Case No. ZOA-01-03 - An ordinance amending Section 26-1004 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to violations of the Zoning and Development Code. Commissioner SNOW suggested that no. I and no. 2 be combined and reference be made to flapproval or denial." Commissioner BRINKMAN requested clarification of wording to make it understood that the applicant must abide by the decision of the authority having final jurisdiction in the case. Commissioner THOMPSON requested that a typo be corrected in item no. 7 to read ".... structures or land is contrary to I YAW1 - 171�1177 , M1 IMUCIN rr ffil 44 F11 # ff should be addressed. Commissioner THOMPSON questioned whether or not changing the character of a waterway, such as a wetland area, is addressed. Alan White suggested that under wording should be added that would say "as approved by the planning and development department or the public works department" in regard to grading permits, fill permits, etc. The Class I flood plain permit should also be under public works. Planning Commission Page 6 August 16, 2001 TO: Planning Commission I 11 !1 , lq�1111111��Ii� I I I I 1 W I JUICE 1 11, , i 11111 1 1 111 lI i IRTIATM • Page 1 of 3 At a minimum, staff recommends to keep the exceptions for eaves and porches, decks, patios and balconies as currently written. While changing the setback requirement to the 57story standard sounds easy, it is difficult to write and make clearly understood. Regulations should be simple so that they are easy to understand, explain and administer. Adding this requirement will create a confusing set of setback standards. For example, the change would be implemented by adding a footnote to the development standards chart for R- 1 A as follows: For new construction, the setback is I Ofeet or 5feet per story, whichever is greater. For additions, either ground level or second story, the required setback is the setback of the existing structure or the required minimum of 10 feet, whichever is smaller. What is the setback for a two-story addition to an existing one story structure situated 7' from the side lot line in the R-113 zone district? If you can answer this question, we'll sign you up to do volunteer work answering setback questions at the front counter. The information you were presented as to the number • variances granted • the Board of Adjustment appears to be dated. Last year, the BOA heard 6 setback variance requests. Fi were approved. Generally, the approved requests involved garages and c"orner or irregularl shaped lots. This year, five setback variance applications have been submitted. One was I withdrawn, two were approved and two were denied. Six of eight BOA meetings this year have been canceled due to lack of any cases to hear. Staff Recommendations: Change the • I A side setback to 10'. Do not change any other setback requirement except as noted below. Do not change any • the setback exceptions. CANIyFiIes\WPFiIes\C0DE\res setback revs PC. pd N � The amendment was accepted by Commissioners COLLINS and SNOW. T T�e arow i Jf. -A&,QP'rf Chair McNAMEE stated her opinion that front porches which are not enclosed should be allowed to encroach into a setback. She expressed concern that the R- I C zone district has smaller lots and severe setback restrictions, would make it impossible for homeowners to expand their houses. Commissioner BRINKMAN stated she would not have a Yroblern with more restrictive setbacks for new construction and less restrictive setbacks for a "pop-top" to an existing structure, Alan White commented that he would interpret the provision allowing an addition to be built in-line with the existing wall to mean vertically as well as horizontally. Planning Commission Page 3 July 19, 2001 In response to a question from Chair MINA 1, Alan White explained that the proposed setback regulations would, for example, prevent the addition of a chimney on an existing structure if it would encroach into the setback. Commissioner WEISZ stated that she was in agreement with the five-foot setback requirement. Commissioner SNOW commented that citizens would still have the option to go before the Board of Adjustment. It was moved by Co d seconded by Commissioner BRINKMAN that fy* -Grc-etit'r N"r4ag bl&-" less than five feet. such as someone wanting to encroach into a 30 -foot setback to build a front porch on their home. A vote was taken on the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-2 with Commissioners McNAMEE and COLLINS voting no and Commissioners THOMPSON and MILLER absent. large lots included in the R- I A zone district. Planning Commission Page 4 July 19, 2001 1, OF WA FRIFIR WMAW,21, • m1porml IMMMEM FROM: Alan White, Planning and Development Director W M11 At the Council hearings held on the adoption of Chapter 26, two recommendations for changes were made by Wheat Ridge United Neighborhoods: 1) revise the required minimum side and rear setbacks in the residential zone districts and 2) eliminate the exceptions to setbacks in Section 26- 611. Council directed staff to work with Planning Commission to review VvrRUN's recommendations and propose any Code changes. WRUN's recommendations are attached. Two recommendations are not discussed. Council decided that no changes should be made to the way variances are handled. No direction was given to address the Public Facilities height regulations. 'M'MT s re • 71-7-1-07UTL Ofull IIVV lvevfuf� story above the first story for single family homes and duplexes in all residential zone districts. Some form of this requirement is currently in place for some, not all, yards in the R- I C, R-2A, R-3 and R-3A zone districts. All of the development standards in the newly adopted Chapter 26 are as they were in the previous version • Chapter 26. No changes were made to any of the setback, lot size, lot width, building coverage, or height requirements in any of the zone districts. The setbacks required in the residential zone districts are shown in the following chart. Minimum lot widths are also shown since they will be an item of discussion later in this memorandum. N Residential Setback Requirements Zone District Side Setback Rear Setback Lot Width R-I Single Family 15 15' 100' R-IA Single Family 15' 75' R-IB Single Family 15' total 2 sides 10 60 1 R-IC Single Family 5'/story 10 50' R-2 Single Family 15' total 2 sides 10 75' Duplex 1 5' total 2 sides 10 100 R-2A Single Family 5/story 10 60'(80'comer lot) Duplex 5/story 10 75(80'comer lot) Multi-Family 5/story 10' (+ 5'/story > 2) 100 R-3 Single Family 5' 10 60'(80' comer lot) Duplex 5 1 10 75'(80'corner lot) Multi-Family 15'(+ 5/story > 2) 10' (+ 5/story >2) 100 R-3A Single Family 5 1 to 60'(80'corner lot) Duplex 5 1 10 75(80'comer lot) Multi-Family 15'(+ 5'/story > 10' (+5'/story > 2) 100 Staff Analysis The existing required side and rear yard setbacks are fairly standard and workable for the R-1 zone district. Lots are required to be 100'minimum in width. The 15'setback results in homes being at least 30 feet apart. The side setback decreases to 5in R-IA, but then increases as the required lot sizes and lot widths decrease. The following setbacks would be required of a two-story single family house in each of the zone districts: 15'in R-1, 5'in R-lA, 7-Yz'in R-lB (assuming equal N setbacks for each side yard) and 10' in R- 1 C. This scheme of setback requirements runs counter to what would seem logical: as lot sizes and widths decrease, so should setback requirements. Our setbacks increase as the lot size and width decrease. RMM� 4 4� The residential setbacks need to be revised to be consistent with lot sizes and lot widths and to be consistent among the same uses in different zone districts. The S' per story additional setback should be used sparingly. The setback exceptions should remain. M The Current Requirements The setbacks required in the residential zone districts are shown in the following chart. Minimum lot widths are also shown since they will be an item of discussion later in this memorandum. N Residential Setback Requirements Zone District Side Setback Rear Setback Lot Width R-1 Single Family 15' 15 100 R-IA Single Family 15',/ 15' 75' R-1B Single Family 15' total 2 sides 10 60' R-IC Single Family 5/story to 50' R-2 Single Family 15' total 2 sides 10 75' Duplex 15' total 2 sides 10 100 R-2A Single Family 5/story to 60'(80' comer lot) Duplex 5'/story 10 75' (80' comer lot) Multi-Family 5'/story 10' (+ 5/story > 2) 100 R-3 Single Family Y 10 60' (80' comer lot) Duplex Y 10 75 (80' comer lot) Multi-Family 15' (+ 5'/story > 2) 10'(+ 57story >2) 100' R-3A Single Family 51 51 60'(80'corner lot) Duplex 5 5' 75'(80' comer lot) Multi-Family 15'(+ 5'/story > 2) 10' (+5'/story > 2) 100' The existing required side and rear yard setbacks are fairly standard and workable for the R- I zone district. Lots are required to be 100'mimimum in width. The 15'setback results in homes being at least 30 feet apart. The side setback decreases to 5in R-lA, but then increases as the required lot sizes and lot widths decrease. The following setbacks would be required of a two- story singlefamily house in each of the zone districts: 15'in R-1, 5in R-lA, 7-Yz' in R-113 -2- (assuming equal setbacks for each side yard) and 10 in R- I C. This scheme of setback requirements runs counter to what would seem logical: as lot sizes and widths decrease, should setback requirements. Our setbacks increase as the lot size and width decr Staff Recommendations -- P" - AJIAVIL'IOIVCIjI7r=' 0 - 'J U j KY-j W-U - TNT M. ..zes iv vriatas ant to 57 i consistent among the same uses in different zone districts. The 5per story additional setback should be used sparingly. The setback exceptions should remain. CAMyFiIes\WPFiIesNCODE\res setbacks.wpd -3- III C A A, rundown of selbacKs goes as follows: The f janj__y� setback in all residential districts is 30 (except in cul de sacs). And there is a provision for keep inq new homes in line with those that exist. This is good hn�pvpr P, exceotions and unlimited vari nces can .vpr PslaLlished eyceotions and unlimited vFri nces cani change it. I (2) care "exceptions" which 'This of course doesn't take o the a are Section 26-611 A 1-4,and this is attached below: Sec. 26-611 Building setbacks. 4. Fire escapes, open stairways. Afire escape or open stairway may extend into any front, side or rear yard provided the width of such yard . is not reduced • less than three (3) feet. You can see how easily many Setbacks can be rerl'uced ministratively to just 3 and vv:ithoutt a he L To ad rosy tA th r�rl ost-ir followitr r,�Otion.l (3) Als formerly 2 was « limit e: \0% for the Board ■' A djustment but with pressure from developers this was remo ved <and unlimited variances can gr anted. < WRUN wo uld like to see the 10 limit reinstatei .�• � «.�� :* e: � ��■ $ » -� The fourth motion proposed by WRUN pertains to PF—I which gives the height limit as 50 Since this mighi be anywhere,, the following change, is proposed: ' Thank you for this opportunitj Wheat Rid e United Neighborhoods UZ, Joan Fields, Pres.