HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/17/2003CITY *F
Minutes of
April 3, !l
1. CALL THE .MEETING TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the Wheat Ride Planning Commission was called to order by Chair
ISZ at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal. Building, 7500 West 29th
Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
6. PUBLIC FORUM
There were none present to address the Commission during this portion, of the meeting.
Planning Commission Page 1
April 3, 2003
7.
Daniel Charleton
11440 West 44 1h Avenue
Mr. Charlton, Best Friends Kennels, was sworn in by Chair WEISZ. He stated the front portion
of the new building will be used for operational purposes and not for public access.
commissioneTUNVIS We • I y to u ering was •
Mr. Charleton explained that there is an 8-foot fence on the west and additional landscaping
would not be visible to the public. He stated that additional beautification would be provilded
along 44 Avenue.
Commissioner McMILLIN asked if the applicant had considered rezoning the property thereby
eliminating the need for a special use permit. Mr. Charleton stated they had considered
rezoning but decided to stay with the existing zoning and keep the kennel on the portion of the
property which is zoned A-2. He also stated that part of the reasoning for not pursuing a
Planning Commission Page 2
April 3, 2003
rezone or planned commercial development included a desire to proceed as quickly as passible
on the expansion in order to meet immediate needs of the business.
Alan V4iite explained that kennels require a special use permit in all zone districts.
question In response to a r -a that sales tax is
collected on of • toys, a on kennel fees.
It was a by Commissioner DAVIS I seconded by Commissioner to
recommend approval of Case No. 1 2-02, a request for approval of a special
permit to expand an existing pet care facility for property zoned
located at 1 West 44 Avenue, for following reasons:
With the following conditions:
1. That a special permit shall be of
removed 2. That any existing trees that are for the proposed expansion I
along the southern property Prospect Park from the
development.
property should provide
Commissioner proposed
public parks should be protected ar possible.
The motion passed r -1 with Commissioner WITT vo a and Commissioner
PLUMMER absent.
Planning Commission Page 3
April 3, 2003
1. The request will not alter the essential character of the locality.
2. The split zoning of the property does constitute a hardship.
3. The request will not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood or
community.
Commissioner McMILLIN stated he would vote against the motion because the applicant could
still build a 52-unit addition to his kennel without going into the setback. Secondly, the
variance would "_ pact a public park.
The motion passed 6-1 with Commissioner McMILLIN voting no and Commissioner
PLUMMER absent.
B. Case No. ZOA-03-04: An ordinance amending the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws in its
entirety changing references to "Planning and Development" to "Community
Development."
Alan White reviewed the staff report
Following brief discussion, Chair WEISZ asked if there were individuals present who wished
to address this matter.
Robert Wallace
3749 Sheridan
Mr. Wallace was sworn in by Chair WEISZ. He asked f o r clarification on t h e n ame change.
He asked if this meant that the Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority would now be
associated with the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Page 4
April 3, 2003
Alan White explained that the ordinance would not affect the Urban Renewal Authority in any
way. Planning Commission and Urban Renewal Authority are separate entities. Mr. White
will continue to provide staff support to the Urban Renewal Authority.
Mr. Wallace thanked Mr. White for his explanation.
It was moved by Commissioner DAVIS and seconded by Commissioner BERRY that
Case No. ZOA-03-04, a proposed amendment to the City of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws
changing references
r" and Development to Community Development, be
The motion passed 7-0 with Commissioner PLUMMER absent.
S. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to come before the Commission.
9. NEW BUSINESS
A. Neighborhood Commercial Study Session
Commission members discussed the list of uses allowed in the neighborhood
commercial zone district.
Alan White will provide additional information, including comparisons to the old code,
for the Commission's future consideration. Commissioner McMILLIN requested that
the additional infon include rationale for not including alterations and dress
making in the neighborhood commercial zone district.
Election was held for Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair. Marian McNamee
wMs elected Chair and Paula Weisz was elected Vice Chair.
At the request of Commissioner McMILLIN, Alan White gave a brief recap of the sessio
he and other staff members attended during the national planning conference held in
Denver last week. I
1 COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS
There were
• committee • department reports.
Planning Commission Page 5
April 3, 2003
12. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner PLUM ER and seconded by Commissioner DAVIS to
adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
Paula Weisz, Chair
Ann Lazzeri, Recordhig Secretary
:Page -6
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Travis Crane, Planner"P6
SUBJECT: MS-02-■ 4/Br'auer
DATE: I I April 2003
UNT n
meeting. Staff recommends that this case ■ continued until Thursday, May 1, 2003. The staff report
and associated exhibits will be included in the May I packet. If you have any questions, feel ..to
give me a call. I can be reached at 303.235.2849.
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Y'��eredith Reckert
SUBJECT: ZOA-03-05/Foster Family Definition
DATE: Apri 3, 2003
Attached is the city attorney's recommended change to the definition of "family foster home" in
Section 26-123. Definitions. • the Code • Laws. The current code definition limits the number of
children unrelated to the, caretaker to four. The proposed amendment removes that limitation.
GORSUCH KIRGIS LLP
ATTORNEys AT LAw
TOWER L SUITE 1000 1 1515 ARAPAHOE STREET I DENVER, COLORADO 80202 1 TELEPHONE (303) 376-5000 1 FAcs)MILF (303) 376-5001
CARMEN N. BEERY DIRECT DIAL: (303) 376-5064
February 13, 2003 email cbeeryftorsuch,com EL
Alan White, Director • Community Developme
City
• Wheat Ridge
7500 W. 29 Avenue
Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033
Enclosed are the following: (1) an ordinance amending the definition of "family
foster home" for zoning purposes, in light • the recent Colorado Supreme Court lbarra
decision; and (2) a council cover sheet for the same.
Please review the enclosed. If they meet your approval, we think they are ready
• be scheduled before the Planning Commission. Certainly feel free • call if you have
any questions.
[C191 1 "1 - I a I a C-1 jill I I
•
WHEREAS, in light • the lbarra decision, the City Council desires to amend
the definition • "family foster home" provided • Section 26-123 • the Code •
Laws
• the City of Wheat Ridge ("Code of Laws") to remove the current limitation
on the number of unrelated foster children who may be part of one foster home for
zoning purposes.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO:
Section 1. The definition of "family foster home" provided by Section 26-
13 of the Code of Laws is amended as follows:
CNB\53027\433617 1
further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper
legislative object sought to be attained.
Section 4. Effective IM Ordinance shall take effect immediately
upon final adoption, as authorized by Section 5. 11 of the Charter.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by
a vote of - to , this day of ,2003.
SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of r 2003.
Gretchen Cerveny, Mayor
First Publication:
Second Publication:
Wheat Ridge Transcript:
Eff ective Date: I
CNB1530271433617 2
City of Wheat Ridge
Community Development Department
Memorandum OR
TO: Planning Commission
URM
Alan White, Community Development Director")NIO
Membrane structures, setbacks, building heights, and number of buildings
DATE: Apti 19, 2003
Based upon a concern expressed by staff about membrane structures, Council directed staff to look
at not only the issue of membrane structures, but building heights, setbacks, and number of buildings
allowed in residential zone districts. Attached are some pictures illustrating the types of issues that
should be addressed.
Also attached are a chart summarizing the development standards for the various residential zone
districts (Exhibit 1) and a list of what is and isn't allowed in setback areas (Exhibit 2).
Council's direction included looking at a number of individual, but interrelated standards. In order
to frame the Commission's discussion on these topics, what follows is a list of questions/comments
relating
• the topics. For some of you certain topics will be d6j� vu — we discussed residential
setbacks two years ago, but no changes were made to the Code.
Membrane Structures fSee attached photo, Exhibit 3.1:
These structures are more properly called "frame covered structures." A frame covered structure is
d framework to support tensioned membrane that provides the weather barrier." A membrane is
a thin, flexible, impervious material and is distinguished from a tent.
These structures have become increasingly popular since they can be used as relatively inexpensive
garages or carports. Until recently, they could not meet building code requirements for snow and
wind loading and were not issued permits, They now met these requirements and permits are being
issued for these structures, provided the setbacks are met. The setbacks for detached garages or
carports are applied.
The issue surrounding the use of these structures is aesthetic. Should they be allowed? If
allowed, are there other setback or height standards that should be applied? Should there be a
size limitation as with detached garages and sheds?
0
Setbacks:
Setbacks in residential areas were discussed two years ago, without any resolution of the issue. The
same inconsistencies still exist in the Code, and these should be changed. See attached memo
(Exhibit 4) for Planning Commission and staff recommendations.
Included in the discussion this time should be the setbacks and heights of allowed accessory
structures, or detached garages and carports and sheds. Note in Exhibit I that the side and rear
setbacksfor these structures in most zone districts are 5 feet. These regulations result in the situation
shown in Exhibit 5.
Most side and rear setback areas are also utility easements, meaning no permanent structures can be
located in the area anyway.
Consideration should be given to lowering the maximum permitted height for accessory
structures so that they are one-story in height. Another option would be to increase the setback if
the accessory structure is over 10 or 12 feet in height.
about vehicles and play equipment? See Exhibits 6 and 7.
Consideration should De given to adopting tne recommentallons conronel=M
2001 memo. These involve setbacks for primary structures (dwellings) and clean up existing
inconsistencies in the Code. Retaining the existing language regarding permitted encroachments
is recommended.
Related to the setback issue are the definitions of building height and story. These will need to be
revisited.
One issue that needs a recommendation is the "building-in-line" rule of the non-conforming
provisions. This states that for one and two family structures that don't meet setbacks, the
structures can be enlarged as long as the existing setback is maintained. Last time there was
discussion that for a "pop-top the setback should be increased for the second story.
A related issue is the use of metal garages and sheds. Metal buildings are not permitted in
commercial and industrial zone districts. No such protion exists for residential districts.
Should they be prohibited?
Currently there is no limitation on the number of structures permitted on a residential lot. However,
there are two regulations that control how much of a lot can be consumed by buildings. One is the
maximum building coverage percentage. This includes structures, but does not include
improvements such as driveways, sidewalks, tennis courts, other paved surfaces, or decks.
N
The other limitation is the maximum permitted size of a detached garage or caMort and a shed.
Garages are permitted to be from 600 to 1,000 square feet and a shed can be a rnaximum of 400
square feet. The square footage counts towards the building coverage maximum, but the 400 squa
feet of shed can be used up with four 100 square-foot sheds. I
Should the number of accessory structures be limited? Or should the size per structure be
limited, with only two or three structures permitted? Would the impact of the garage in Exhibit
5 be any less if there were, two or three separate structures?
Should the practice of allowing the use of the combined square-footage for detached garages
and sheds be expressly prohibited in the Code?
Non-conforming Structures:
Any changes in regulations dealing with setbacks, heights, allowable square-footages, and materials
will result in the creation of structures that do not meet the new requirements. Decisions will need to
be made to deal with these situations.
Setbacks, heights, and square-footages are all development standards for which variances can be
requested. If the number of structures is restricted, it will need to be decided if a variance to the
number can be obtained.
MMMMUUT - Uk
requested and thus increase staff workload,
There are two options in dealing with non-conforming situations:
1. Allow the non-conforrning situation to exist in perpetuity (grandfather the situation).
2. Require the non-conformity to be brought into compliance within a specified period
• time (amortization). This will be extremely difficult with permanent structures or
where residents have invested in something on their property that they can no longer
use.
3
V
M
*Md
iW
r
GCS
tai
tSi
.0
V
co
c
U2
G
C
t
85 _o
0
5 lT C
C7 C
r �
Fo
U7 tlJ
CC0 W
_ G ;
v '
CL C3 ,
T
0— co �
OZ 0
3
O C
0 C U
442 .r-
G2
0
ON co
C ft2
o
c� 3sz
L
0'0
C Ca
h•*
a�
is
o
0
0
0 la
o R C
Q Q Ck ��}y
a o e
Q ' � �
o G 0
�`^ A O
t yi
Q
y a
Q Q
a �t ya
#
N 4
Cl)
r
v t{ r
y
W
S7
C7
G's
O
C9 t7
4 U
4 p
lg2
tit
f CC25
N $
41 412
CG 49
E
C
G
E C
E E
0
Ck
0
0 0
U C?
0 U
co co
co
CD
0
2�l
u7 t:,7O
u"}OG'1
0Q0
ORO
tC2 u9 C7 C2
Cl) 04
Ci7 L, Z, 0747
C"9 mC*')C N
0 to0Q0
C"?V)M N
U In 0QC2
0mmNN
f?NN
mNN
Cl) CV
4"7CV
cq
*
A
A
O
A
t�4
`?
O
N
C13
0 0
r iC2 4)
.- *- 0
*° *- 0 at?
---
.- r- r-
G7 Ct
0 0
OC9C?.
*-- *^ *- cC) ttl'#
C
C C
E
ali
if}
ill
A
A
f�t1
Ct9
c+a
o w
N
N
N N
a^C
ctl
,t
L0
ll7
O
Q
Q
Q CI
p C3
t
k
41 to
in
zo
4° tFx
GJi
w %C - .
w
u) 40
zo za
in u} 0
v- r U") all
to at'S 0 0 0
r
to 0 - 0 0
.-
0 0 to ill
C
C
C.2
U
L7
U
0
,
�
m
Cb
LL
U. �
t4 �
LC �
LL �
E
U- N �
LL �
1i.. m
tt �
CA
CA
379
U9
2 0 c -p
M a
� � ,�"-,
— +.
� G2 �
a .-=
PV
tt
LL
iC
tC
CC
ddC
CC
.0
V
co
c
U2
G
C
t
85 _o
0
5 lT C
C7 C
r �
Fo
U7 tlJ
CC0 W
_ G ;
v '
CL C3 ,
T
0— co �
OZ 0
3
O C
0 C U
442 .r-
G2
0
ON co
C ft2
o
c� 3sz
L
0'0
C Ca
h•*
�.
1. awwi rr
Residential Setback Requirements
Zone District
Side Setback *
Rear Setback "
Lot Width
R -1
57story
10"
60'(80' corner lot)
Single Family
15'
15'
100°
R -1 A
57story
10'(+ + 5'/story > 2)
100'
Single Family
15' total 2 sides; 5' rain.
15'
7'
R -18
5'
10°
60" (80' corner lot)
Single Family
16total 2 sides; 5' mini.
10'
60'
R -1 G
15' (+ 57story > 2) :•
10'(+ 57story >2) *•
100'
Single Family
57story
10'
so,
R -2
Single Family 15' total 2 sides 10' 75' (80' corner lot)
Duplex I 15' total 2 sides 10' 1 100"
R -2A
Single Family
57story
10"
60'(80' corner lot)
Duplex
57story
10'
75' (80' corner lot)
Multi- Family
57story
10'(+ + 5'/story > 2)
100'
R =3
Single Family
5'
10°
60" (80' corner lot)
Duplex
5'
10'
75' (80' comer lot)
Multi - Family
15' (+ 57story > 2) :•
10'(+ 57story >2) *•
100'
R -3A
Single Family
5'
10'
60' (80' oomer lot)
Duplex
5'
10'
75' (80' comer lot)
Mutts- Family
15'(+ 57story > 2) '*
10'(+5/story > 2) '"
100'
' The setback is increased to 0' when adjacent to a public street.
" Footnote to the chart is contusing and doesn't reflect the requirements listed in the development standards chart.
3, Reconcile the footnotes and figures in the tables for multi-family dwellings in the R-3
and R-3A districts • changing the side and rear setbacks to 15 feet for the first 2 stories
plus 5 feet per story for structures above 2 stories.
4. Change the setback exceptions to limit the permitted encroachments into required side
yards to 5 feet. (Any permitted encroachment must be a minimum of 5 feet from the
property line.)
Staff recommendations are:
(Changing setbacks in one districts should be done only after careful consideration.
Once changed, there will be structures that will become non-confortning. However, the
non-conforming provisions of the Code exempt one- and two-family structures from the
giro enlargement, alteration, or addition restriction. ' This is not the case fear multi-
family divellings.)
1. Originally staff recommended changing the R-IA side setback to 10 feet. A footnote
was overlooked in the chart and the actual required side setback is 15 feet total both sides,
with a minimum of 5 feet on one side. (It is shown correctly in the table on the first
page.) 10 feet still makes sense from the standpoint of having decreasing setbacks as lots
get smaller, but the current requirements aren't as out of line as originally presented.
3. Reconcile the footnotes and figures in the tables for multi-family dwellings in the R-3
and R-3A districts • changing the side and rear setbacks to 15 feet for the first 2 stories
plus 5 feet per story for structures above 2 stories.
IMI Wou " , I I Is TO i on
TWific 11117171-71u?� iungtlage to ku). privVive's, 1107V--vel mat fir, 1 UWM em to a7sile
rear yard is allowed in the NC, RC, C-1, C-2, or I zone districts when adjacent to a
residentially zoned property."
C: k4yFileskWPFties\Projtcts\zoni,ag anvadmutsVe setbacks cc ss nrmo.*1A
EM
Ad
'Y
x
t 2
3
r hi t§
y
4
I =b'A 0 - 11 tl In Iff.9
YFIIU� M
IIIIW •