Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/1511 0 U 0 City of Wh6atfkOchgc PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting May 7, 2015 The meeting was called to order by Chair BUCKNAM at 7:02 pm. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29"' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Commission Members Absent Staff Members Present: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Dirk Boden Alan Bucknarn Emery Dorsey Scott Ohm Pam Olson Amanda Weaver Donna Kimsey Steve Timms Lauren Mikulak, Senior Planner Kim Waggoner, Recording Secretary It was moved by Commissioner OHM and seconded by Commissioner WEAVER to approve the order of the agenda. Motion carried 6-0. 5, APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 5, 2015 It was moved by Commissioner OHM and seconded by Commissioner WEAVER to approve the minutes of March 5, 2015, as written. PJIT M J2 4 abstaining. Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2015 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) No one wished to speak at this time. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WS -15-01: Commissioner BO EN disclosed that he had ail interaction with the applicant's father when he took a site visit before the hearing which was strictly factual. He stated lie can remain impartial. It was moved by Commissioner OHM and seconded by Commissioner WEAVER to allow Commissioner SODEN to hear and vote on the case based on the disclosure. Ms. Mikulak presented the case. She entered into the record the contents of the case file, the zoning ordinance, the subdivision regulations and the digital presentation. She stated the public noticing and posting requirements have been met. Planning Commission will make a recommendation to City Council which is the final authority. Three -lot subdivisions are typically administrative cases but because there are two requests for lot width variances with the subdivision plat it is processed as a major subdivision and both Planning Commission and City Council will hear the case. The existing farmhouse is on Lot 2 and will accommodate the parents of the applicant. Lot 3 is eligible for a new single family home where the applicant will reside. Lot I is sized to accommodate a single family or a duplex. It is currently being used as a garden. She stated Lots 2 and 3 are the subjects of the lot width variances. Lot I is conforming with all R-2 standards. Lot 3 has a two -loot variance request as it is 73 feet in width instead of 75. Lot 2 is 68.5 feet in width along 32" d Avenue instead of 80 feet. The developable areas of both lots are still substantial as both are oversized. Staff is supportive of both variance requests and the subdivision plat with conditions. The variances are necessary to accommodate preservation of the existing farmhouse. Mr. Mann stated the property was purchased for his family's long term residences. lie and his wife will live in the existing home, and his son and his family will live in a new home on Lot 2. Commissioner BUCKNAM opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -2 — May 7, 2015 Dorothy Archer 3640 Marshall St. Ms. Archer expressed her concern for the number of lots being proposed. She stated she did not understand the variances. She referenced the PelTin's Row townhome project on 38"' Avenue and expressed concerns about the density. Sam Ms. Dunlap expressed her concern about the three -lot subdivision and the lot width variances. Based on her comments it appeared she thought a zone change was part of the application. She expressed hope that the family would preserve the yard space. She urged the Commission to uphold the R-2 lot width standards, Chair BUCKNAM stated it was his understanding that the subdivision and variance proposal does not impact the zoning. Ms. Mikulak confirmed there is no change in the zoning. Larry Matthews 3851 Hoyt St, Mr. Matthews stated he would be more in favor of the subdivision without the variances. He is concerned about the comer lot being less than 80 feet wide. He also expressed concerns about increasing residential densities across the City. Nila Mann 7193 W. 32ndAve. Ms. Mann stated this is an opportunity to bring her family together. Brent Metz 3802 Union Ct. Mr. Metz stated the yard would still be a generous size. He was glad to see that the existing farmhouse is being preserved. He observed that although the lots are not quite as wide, they do have significant depth. David Mann 3540 Quivas St. Mr. Mann stated the variances are needed to preserve the old farmhouse. He indicated that the property is large enough to plat into three lots as an administrative application if the farmhouse were demolished. If the variances are not approved, the farmhouse may have to be removed. Moira Nolan 7145 W. 32 Pl. Ms. Nolan suggested the subdivision could be two lots instead of three. She was concerned about a possible third house or duplex on Lot I and the associated driveway Planning Commission Minutes -3— May 7, 2015 and additional on street parking. She was also concerned that Lot 1, would become a rental property. She is opposed to the proposal. 11arless Elliot Cone 7075 W 32nd pl, Mr. Cone encouraged the Commission to not approve the request because of the associated variance requests. Thomas Slattery 6869 W. 32"d Ave. Mr. Slattery stated he feels the proposal negatively impacts the character of tile neighborhood. He objected to the comer lot being proposed at 68.5 feet in width. He asked if the right-of-way dedication was five feet. Ms. Mikulak indicated the right-of-way dedication is eight feet. Mr. Slattery stated he objected to the right-of-way dedication if it meant that all properties on W. 32nd Avenue would eventually have to dedicate right-of-way, Laurie Milton Ms. Milton is the wife of the applicant, and she stated the proposed Lot I is currently a garden and will remain a garden for the foreseeable future. A substantial investment has already been made in the garden. If a duplex is built, it would be a high quality property. She said the family does not want to sell Lot 1. Chair BUCKNAM closed public hearing. Commissioner OHM inquired about the maximum lot coverage requirement for the R-2 zone district. Ms. Mikulak replied 40% of the lot area can be covered with building footprint in the R-2 zone district. Chair BUCKNAM asked why the Commission is hearing variance instead of the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Mikulak replied that the Board of Adjustment reviews stand-alone variances. However, the code requires that if a variance is associated with another land use application, the two cases have to be heard together. The Board of Adjustment does not have the authority to hear any type of land use case other than a variance. In this case the variance is to be heard with the subdivision plat as they are related to each other. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to City Council on the variances and the subdivision plat. Chair BUCK NAM inquired what could be done if the farmhouse did not exist, Planning Commission Minutes -4— May 7, 2015 Ms. Mikulak responded the property could accommodate three lots for certain and potentially a fourth lot. Chair BUCKMAN asked Ms. Mikulak to explain why Lots 2 and 3 were not platted at the same width so the variance requests would be equal for each lot. Ms. Mikulak stated the minimum side setback in the R-2 zone district is five feet and the farmhouse needs to meet this minimum. Because Lot 3 is adjacent to a conforming lot, it was made just 2 feet less in width. It made more sense that the comer lot absorb the difTerential as there is not a neighbor on the western side. In response to a question from Chair BUCKNAM, Ms. Mikulak stated the zoning on the property is not changing. The density of the proposed development is still less than what currently exists in the neighborhood. Chair BUCKNAM stated approval for the variance requires a supenmkjority which would be 5 positive votes. It was moved by Commissioner WEAVER and seconded by Commissioner OJIM tA recommend approval of an 11.5 -foot variance from the lot width requirement for Lot 2 and a 2 -foot variance from the lot width requirement forLot 3 to allow single-family lots zoned Residential -Two (R-2), for the following reasons: 1. The application is in compliance with the majority of the review criteria. 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property which may not be possible without the variance. 4. The proposed investment is consistent with the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy and other documents supported by the city that encourage property imprA vements and provision of new housing stock. 5. The proposed lot layout is logical and enables preservation of the existing farmhouse. 6. The request would not be detrimental to public safety or welfare. Commissioner WEAVER stated she is going to support the proposal as she would like to see the farmhouse preserved and the property can accommodate a three -lot subdivision. Commissioner OHM agreed with Commissioner WEAVER. He stated the request appears to comply with the code and he will be voting yes. Motion approved 5-0-1 with Commissioner OLSON abstaining. Ms. Mikulak asked Commissioner OL ON to state for the record why she was abstaining from the vote. Planning Commission Minutes -5— May 7, 2015 Commissioner OLSON indicated this was her first public hearing as a Planning Commissioner and she needed more time to process the proceedings and consider the case. It was moved by Commissioner DORSEY and seconded by Commissioner OIINI to recommend approval of Case No. WS -15-01, a request for approval of a three - lot subdivision glat on terty zoned Resider G, Teller Street, for the following reasons: 1. All agencies can provide services to the property with improvements installed at the developer's expense. 2. The requirements of Article IV of the zoning and development code have been met. With the following conditions: 1. Curb and gutter improvements shall be constructed along Teller Street and W. 32 "d Place. 2. Fees -in -lieu of sidewalk construction be provided at the time of recordation if the sidewalk is not otherwise to be constructed by the applicant. 3. Fees -in -lieu of parkland dedication be provided at time of recordation. In response to a question from Chair BUCKNAM, Ms. Mikulak clarified the requirement for curb, gutter and sidewalks and fee -in -lieu. Iqt i"UW a6staining] Commissioner OLSON indicated that she was not comfortable abstaining from one case and not the other because they are so closely related. Staff later reminded commission members that abstentions were only appropriate in the presence of a real conflict of interest. B. Case No. ZOA-15-02: Ms. Mikulak presented the case. She entered into the record the contents of the case file, zoning code and the draft zoning ordinance, and the digital presentation. The code amendment would apply to all residential zone districts but would likely only affect a small group of substandard comer lots, primarily in East Wheat. She stated City Council directed staff to study the issue of street -facing side setbacks which may be inhibiting residential reinvestment and East Wheat Ridge. Residential lots in this area are among the smallest in the city, and very few existing homes in East Wheat Ridge conform, to street -facing side setback standards. Current setback regulations may create a burden, particularly for redevelopment on substandard lots particularly comer lots. The goal of this amendment is to reduce the setback burden on Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2015 substandard properties. The proposal is to reduce the street facing side setback by half for corner lots that are less than sixty feet wide. Staffis recommending approval. City Council is scheduled to hear this case on June 22. In response to Commissioner OHM's question Ms. Mikulak stated the proposed radius to determine the average neighborhood setback would be 300 feet. The intent of the average is to determine what is visible within a certain distance of a specific property. Commissioner OHM asked what about the existing setbacks and if there would be an issue with sight distance for these comer properties. Ms. Mikulak stated that existing setbacks vary, but no development would be allowed to impact site distance visibility. Commissioner DORSEY asked why the code amendment should apply to the entire City if the issue is focused in East Wheat Ridge. Ms. Mikulak stated there are about six different zone districts in East Wheat Ridge. The city does not utilize geographic or overlay zoning. Because the code amendment only applies to comer lots that are less than sixty feet or less in width it is unlikely to impact other parts of the City. Commissioner WEAVER stated the previous case would not qualify for the exception, Ms. Mikulak concurred. Chair BUCKNAM asked how this street -facing setback standard compares to surrounding municipalities like Denver. Ms. Mikulak stated that the Denver zoning code is more complex but tends to have smaller lots and setbacks. She did not know if there are any such exemptions for street -facing side yards. Commission OHM asked how the code amendment would apply to a townhome with an interior lot line that separates the units. Ms. Mikulak indicated that interior lot lines for townhornes are treated differently. Zone district setback standards apply to the overall development parcel on which the townhomes sit. Ms. Mikulak also noted that the zoning code has a provision that prohibits consolidation of multiple substandard R-3 lots for multi -family development unless multi -family development is the predominant adjacent land use. Chair BUCKNAM asked for examples of this issue in East Wheat Ridge. Planning Commission Minutes -7— May 7, 2015 Ms. Mikulak replied there were citizens interested in scraping older nonconforming homes. New homes must meet current setback standards which creates a burden. Commissioner BUCKNAM opened public hearing. Larry Matthews 3851 Hoyt St, Mr. Matthews observed that in lieu of a code amendment, developers could obtain variances from setback standards. He observed that a City Council priority has been to provide low income housing and that the code amendment seems to contradict this by allowing bigger and more expensive housing stock. Mr. Matthews referenced the Perrin' s Row townhomc project on 38'h Avenue and expressed his opposition to increasing residential density. Ms. Mikulak explained the Perrin's Row development and the difference in the zone district and the 3 81h Avenue corridor. She also explained the difference in lot sizes in East Wheat Ridge compared with the western part of the City. She described the pattern of properties that were created in the 1800's that were not platted with consideration for current zoning standards. Commissioner OHM inquired about the housing market demand. Ms. Mikulak explained the variety in housing options that is desired in today's market. The project on 38'h and Depew was completely sold out before construction has been completed. It was moved by Commissioner DORSEY and seconded by Commissioner WEAVER tn. 11 and VI of Chapter 26 of the code of laws, concerning residential side and rea yard setbacks. Motion carried 6-0. 8. OTHER ITEMS Ms. Mikulak stated the meeting scheduled for May 21" has been canceled. She also informed the Commission of staffing changes. Sara White, Planner 11, has moved on to the City of Denver and Josh Botts, Planner 1, has decided to pursue a different career route. She stated the position opening is posted on the website. Chair BUCKNAM welcomed new Commissioners BODEN and OLSON to the Planning Commission. 9. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2015 It was moveM by Commissioner DORSEY and seconded by Commissioner OHM to adjourn the meeting at 8:34 p.m. Z Mo *0 'Buck am. -h an e7kn.--,t —air Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2015