Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/05/2003CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting May 1, 2003 Planning Commission Page 1 May 15, 2003 6. PUBLIC FORUM There were none present to address the Commission during this portion of the meeting. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. WZ-03-04 fcontinued from M#j, 1, 2003): An application filed by Excell Fund LLC for Family Dollar for approval of a rezoning from Restricted-Commercial (R-C) to Planned Commercial Development (PCD) and approval of an outline and final development plan for property located at 6090 West 44 Avenue. call for a wooden, rather than vinyl, fence. Planning Commission Page 2 May 15, 2003 about snow being plowed onto her property, he commented that a wooden fence would be more substantial in this situation than a vinyl fence. In conclusion, he stated the use proposed by the applicant would renew the property and generate additional, sales tax for the city. Chair McNAMEE asked if there were others present to address this matter. The following individual appeared before the Commission: Jocelyn Lang 4375 Harlan Street Ms. Lang was sworn in by Chair McNAMEE. She asked if the fence would extend across the entire property without any gaps. U Planning Commission Page 3 May 15, 2003 With the following conditions: 1. The wall sign as proposed on the Final Development Plan be reduced to a maximum of 69 square feet in size t with the City's sign code. 2. The fence, built to match existing wood fences, shall be extended north to the adjacent property owner's fence if approved by the adjacent property owner. B. Case No. ZOA-03-08: An ordinance amending Section 26-115 Variances/Waivers/Temporary Permits/Interpretations of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. This case was presented by Meredith Reckert. She advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case and she reviewed the staff report. Alan White suggested that perhaps the definition of "active restoration" could be clarified to include a parts car. Planning Commission Page 4 May 15,2003 Commissioner PLUMMER commented that he would not like to live next door to someone who had several non-operative vehicles in their yard. Chair McNAMEE asked if there were individuals present who wished to address this ordinance. There was no response. It was moved by Commissioner PLUMMER and seconded by Commissioner STITES that Case No. ZOA-03-08, an ordinance amending Section 26-115 Variane v e C4111?"f La- lit% 11UNHINH U61#11111y Its U MIJIX11 W. Ili lianx # �U-t ,ctive restoration as defined in Section 3, subsection (k) shall include parts cars being used for other vehicles that are under restoratiftA. A vote was taken on the amended motion. It passed 7-0 with Commissioner BERRY absent. C. Case No. ZOA-03-06: An ordinance amending Section 26 of the 'Wheat Ridge Code of Commissioner PLUMMER questioned the elimination of the legal protest provision. Alan White explained that under the current code, any adjacent land owner could file a legal protest • AIWI CO "a I roxi NO Planning Commission Page 5 May 15, 2003 Commissioner McMILLIN asked about the impact of eliminating neighborhood meetings. Alan White stated there has been very little response to neighborhood meeting notices which are sent out within a 600- foot radius of the subject property. commisslo It (at I e if any protests are registered at a neighborhood meeting. If no protests are registered at the meeting, an administrative approval could be granted, He expressed concern about the Planning Commission being removed from the special use process. Commissioner STITES stated that he was in favor of the proposed ordinance because it will streamline the process without hurting anyone. Individuals would still have opportunity for input at the City Council hearing. There were no individuals present in the audience to address this matter. A vote was taken on the original motion which passed 6-1 with Commissioner McMILLIN voting no and Commissioner BERRY absent. There was no old business to come before the Commission. There were no Commission reports. Planning Commission Page 6 May 15,2003 In In There were no committee or department reports. MRIM77"J"Of T% "77� adjourn the meeting at 9:08 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Marian McNAMEE, Chair N= Planning Commission Page 7 May 15, 2003 WIMIN-0 MI FROM: PM r eredith Reckert ss — ion fi7efd a pn(5ffq tor a proposed ordinance amendmerrt related to the city's definition of "Family Foster Home". The proposed legislation was recommended for approval by Planning Commission, however, there were issues brought up regarding group homes for children that staff thought needed further consideration, Attached as Exhibit 'I' which are a copy • the minutes from the Commission's April 2003 meeting. . PUBLIC FORUM There were none present to address the Commission during this portion of the meeting. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to come before • I GORSUCH KIRGIS ttp ATTORNEys AT LAW 1000= DATE: May 13, 2003 RE: Revised "Family Foster Home" ordinance Mgm --- Sec. 1. Definition of Family Foster Home was amended to mirror language of the lbarra decision. CNB\5302'n442399 EX Ono 1 *0* 1 T 2 • Sec. 3. Adds Group home, residential definition to section 26-123. • Sees. 4 & 5. Unifies references to elderly group homes in Use Tables. Other municipalities: We located only two communities that have taken formal action in response to the lbarra decision: Lakewood and Arvada. Copies of their respective ordinances are attached for your reference. We address them briefly below: ARVADA: Like Wheat Ridge, Arvada specifically defines Fosterimomes in its zoning code. Foster homes are a subset of "Family." The one sex offender per "family" language is retained, but an exception is added for registered sex offender foster children, as required by lbarra. LAKEWOOD: Lakewood does not separately define foster families. Foster families are an implicit subset of "households." The ordinance therefore amends the definition of "household" to provide that the one sex offender per household limitation does not apply to "children who have been placed in foster care, as defined by the Colorado Revised Statutes." CNB1530M441864.01 2 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 26 OF THE CODE OF LAWS OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE CONCERNING "FAMILY FOSTER HOMES" AND "RESIDENTIAL GROUP HOMES." Section 1. The definition of "family foster home" provided by Section 26- 123 • the Code • Laws is amended as follows: CN8153027143361102 1 E " Ak" H I mu'l T " 036 REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED, AND WHOM THE STATE OR ITS AGENT HAS PLACED IN STATE-CREATED FOSTER CARE FAMILIES. Section 2. Paragraph (a) of the definition of "residential group home provided by Section 26-123 of the Code of Laws is amended as follows: I Section 3. Section 26-123 of the Code of Laws is amended by the addition of a new definition to be placed alphabetically within the list of definitions provided by said section and to read in its entirety as follows: Group home, residential. • residential facility for children, the elderly or persons unable to care for themselves that also meets the definition of a group home, congregate care home or nursing home provided under Residential group homes in this Section 26-123. Section 4. The following category of use under the "Uses" column of the Residential Table of Uses provided by Section 26-204 of the Code of Laws is amended as follows: Residential group homes, nursing homes, of AND congregate care faeility FACILITIES for 6-8 OR FEWER elderly persons Section 5. The following category of use under the "Uses" column of t Commercial and Industrial Districts Table of Uses provided by Section 26-204 the Code of Laws is amended as follows: I C9UE3153027\433617M 2 Residential group and nursing homes and congregate care facilities for 6-t-G 8 OR FEWER elderly persons Section 8. Effective Date. This 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 2003. Gretchen Cerveny, Mayor Z Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney CNB1530271433617,02 3 First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript: Effective Crate: CW5302714 36IT0 4 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, OFT1113 CITY OF ARVADA, COLORADO, BY AMENDING SECTION 10.3.133, FAMILY, Or- ARTICLE 10, RULES FOR MEASUREMENT & DEFIWrioNs • IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL Or THE CITY OF ARVADA, COLORADO: Section 1, ArfiOe 10 Rules forMeasuremcnt & Definitions, of the Land Development Codc of the City of Arvada, Colorado, is hereby amended by r-anending the definition of" amily," Section 10.3,133, to read as follows: 10.3.133 Family Section 2. This ordinance shall take cffect fifteen (15) days aftcr publication following final passage. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this _ day of _, 2003. PASSEL), ADOPTED, AND APPROVED this __ day of -2003. Ken Fclhnan, Mayor- 0 4 AMENDING SECTION 17-2-2(164) OF THE LAKEWOOD ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DEFINITION OF HOUSEHOLD SECTION 2. Subsection 17-2-2(164) B • s of •o• Zoning • inance is ar'nended to read as follows: � � - ^ IRMPIPM SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect forty-five (45) days after final ~°°� Emu ephen A. Burk older, Mayor rney�L Date4Z���e�61. TO. Planning Commission FROM: ' Meredith Reckert SUBJECT: Case • . ZOA-03-1 I/Floodplain Control DATE: May 27, 2003 The Federal Emergency Management Agency has completed • o • insurance study and designations for Ridge, adopted by r • i to the 1971 study • Adoption of t maps must be completed by June 17, or the city can no longer participate front of r to be held on June 9, 2003. Pursuant « al code, all zoning code revisions public hearing in front of Planning Commission. Attachment 1 is a copy of the proposed legislation. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. 21-2003 Ordinance No. TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-803 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, CONCERNING FLOODIPLAIN CONTROL WHEREAS, the Council has previously adopted Article Vill of Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws, pertaining to floodplain control; and 'WHEREAS, amendment of the description of the Flood Regulatory District is needed to reflect current information. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Subsections A and G of Section 26-803 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws are amended to read as follows: ma 0 The location and boundaries of the Floodway and Flood Storage Distri shall be as shown in the following engineering reports and accompanyi maps: 1. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels dated June 17, 2003 for portions of the City of Wheat Ridge. 2. Clear Creek: Flood hazard area delineation, report, prepared by Gingery Associates for Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, November, 1979. GEDN530271442%&j ATTACHMFNT of Section 3. Severabll!bG Conflicting Ordinances Rep2aled. If any section, subsection or clause of this ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or M therwise invalid, the validity • the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts • ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repeated. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after final publication, as provided 5.11 of the Charter. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading a vote • of to , this _ day of 2003. 1 / I SIGNED by the Mayor on this — day of 2003. GEDW027144296&1 Lem M a , M- m- IM # M kyj Wanda Sang, City Clerk First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney GED\53027'A42968.1 -3- TO: Planning Commission FROM: Alan White, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Case No. 03 -09, Residential Setbacks, Accessory Structures and Number of Structures DATE: May 30, 2003 Planning Commission recommendations from two years ago were: 1. Change the R -1A side setback to 10 feet. 0 2. In all other residential zone districts for single family and duplex structures, change the side yard setback requirement to require 5 feet per story. 3. Reconcile the footnotes and figures in the tables for multi-family dwellings in the 1 -3 and R-3A districts by 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 were and still are: 2. Reconcile the footnotes and figures in the tables for multi-family dwellings in the R-3 and R-3A districts by changing the side and rear setbacks to 15 feet for the first 2 stories plus 5 feet per story for structures above 2 stories. P 3. The setback exceptions in Section 26-611 should remain as currently written, except add the following language to (b): "provided, however, that no encroachment into a side or rear yard is allowed in the NC, RC, C-1, C-2, or I zone districts when adjacent to a residentially zoned property." Setbacks for Accessory Structures Note that although the requirements for some jurisdictions for garages and sheds appear to be the same, the jurisdiction may treat both structures under an umbrella category of "accessory structure. Blanks in the chart indicate that no information could be found for the particular development standard. The standards for these structures vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as can be seen from the charts. Due to the impacts these structures may have on adjacent properties, consideration should be N Number of Structures: The Commission requested that limitations on the number of allowed accessory structures be researched also. Exhibits 2 and 3 include the restrictions of the surveyed jurisdictions and, as with the other standards, they vary. In Wheat Ridge there are two regulations that control how much of a lot can be covered 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, The other limitation is the maximum permitted size of a detached garage or carport and a she Garages are permitted to be from 600 to 1,000 square feet and a shed can be a maximum of 400 square feet, The square footage counts towards the building coverage maximum, but the 4 feet of shed can be used up with four 100 square-foot sheds. �A - - 7 7M shed or larger garage) as long as the building coverage is not exceeded and the square footage remains below the combined total allowed, With a percentage of lot as a maximum and the maximum building coverage, a homeowner could use the square footage for whatever kind of structure was desired. 1= 1. Change the side setbacks in the R-2A, R-3 and R-3A districts to require 5 feet per story for one- and two family structures. Maintain the existing interpretation ■ "building in line" so that the new setback requirement doesn't apply to pop-tops, 2. Reconcile the footnotes and figures in the tables for multi-family dwellings in the R-3 and 3A districts by changing the side and rear setbacks to 15 feet for the first 2 stories p fe lus 5 per story for © above 2 stories. I 9 1 Keep the setback exce tions, in Section 26-611 as currently written, except add the following language to (b): "provided, however, that no encroachment into a side or rear yard is allowed in the NC, RC, C-1, C-2, or I zone districts when adjacent to a residentially zoned property." 4. Lower the maximum permitted height for sheds to 10 feet and for garages to 15 feet. Increase the side and rear setback such that if the shed or detached garage/carport is less than X feet in height, the setback is 5 feet; between X and Y feet in height, the setback is 10 feet; and over Y feet up to the maximum height, the setback is 15 feet. The height and setback requirements should be the same in all residential zone districts. 5. Limit the combined square footage of sheds and detached garages/carports to a percentage of the lot, The building coverage percentages should remain unchanged. 6. Prohibit the use of metal buildings greater than 120 square feet in size in residential zone districts. "I move • continue the public hearing on Case No. 03-09 to -_(Aate)— and to request staff to prepare an ordinance with the following recommendations for changes: 1 . ...... In rw Ri W- m c` C\lcv c` C Cl) Nit Cl) t c�v r` C14 c` r` , c c e s' cq M C � ♦ « • r • f a w s + • « � A n c o o w et ut n LO +'t7_ u7 en in.. �- xn yr C3_ .- arx 4) CJf _ 9- ,-- Kra Csp„ .•- .°- cn to ' CYOC9. .-- .-- �- u> in O- C3 C;J Ca„ Nt —_ r- - .° c c c E E a o c? in c o in 4) 0 o 0 o ' v m ID iy cv n a E to vi � cn ua pp N cv p G3 88 to s 2:, Ul) fn m a 99 o g a o R 2 � in in in us _ 4, +� in in r� � `� ' c u s an in Zo u) Ln u) 0 cn in Zo in Cn r ;n 4) zo 4, in zo U') r co'r` cn c` C\lcv c` C Cl) Nit Cl) t c�v r` C14 c` r` , c c e s' cq M C � w ♦ « • r • f a w s + • « � A n A o o w et ut n LO +'t7_ u7 en in.. �- xn yr C3_ .- arx 4) CJf _ 9- ,-- Kra Csp„ .•- .°- cn to ' CYOC9. .-- .-- �- u> in O- C3 C;J Ca„ —_ r- - .° c c c E E in in in 4) ' v m ID iy cv n a to vi � cn ua cv N cv to s 2:, Ul) fn m a a o g a o � in in in us _ 4, +� in in °? � `� ' yr u��i u s an in Zo u) Ln u) 0 cn in Zo in Cn r ;n 4) zo 4, in zo w ♦ « • r • f a w s + • « w et • + w « w t «r + w w �* w « « + Mt G z F E» W C� r4 F� W� E� r Q va U U 4 o 4- t.. CL W V a a� 0 *� x ' 2 F 0 00 .c -g ra c c Z " i5 " v F u 1 cM v 9 vi B "t z C% a cl C> xn z tn A V c c CL G o EE" . z cn 0. .o 4 o 4- t.. CL W V a a� 0 *� ca 2 F w 00 " F cs vi B tn C> xn z tn 4 4- t.. 4 4- w W V • 4 21 an 4) 45 ca cs VAS > o a E — ;o CS Z7 U Z as an 4) 45 ca cs VAS an 4) 45 > ;o CS Z7 U Z as V CL tn V) az 0 o Cr) w cx > cz c ON ca t tm C4 00 an 4) FROM: Alan White, Community Development Director 60 SUBJECT: Case No. ZOA 03-10, Code Amendment Pertaining to Development Applications DATE: May 30, 2003 3. The site development approval shall expire 60 days after being granted unless the agency provides proof that it has acquired ownership of the property. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. Ordinance No. TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-103 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING THE SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATIONS SUBJECT TO THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS WHEREAS, The Code of Laws provides that application for site developmenil ?pproval may only be made by the record title owner (or agent) of the subject propel �znd WHEREAS, the Council wishes to provide for limited circumstances in which sil fevelopment applications may be made by governmental or quasi-government agencies prior to their being in title to the subject property. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-103 of the Code of Laws is amended by the addition of a new subsection D, to read: III I III I A.... Section 2. Conflicting code section regealed. The following subsections of the Code of Laws are repealed and their subsection numbers or letters held as "reserved:" Sec. 26-112. C.2 Sec, 26-308.C.1.d & e Sec. 26-308. D. 1. b & e Section 4. Severabili!y; Conflicting Ordinances RWealed. 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 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after final publication, as provided • Section 5.11 of the Charter. 9 READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of _ to this _ day • 2003. SIGNED • the Mayor on this day • F.11im'11 Ver; M, ro: I Swen • First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: 91