Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/21/20161. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. .`A41 City of ]��Wh6atRich-ye PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting July 21, 2016 CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair OHM at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 291h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present Commission Members Absent: Staff Members Present: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Dirk Boden Alan Bucknam Emery Dorsey Donna Kimsey Amanda Weaver Scott Ohm Janet Leo Steve Timms Kenneth Johnstone, Director of Community Development Lisa Ritchie, Planner II Zack Wallace, Planning Technician Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner DORSEY to approve the order of the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 16, 2016 It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner KIMSEY to approve the minutes of June 16, 2016, as written. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2016 No one wished to speak at this time. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-16-05: an application filed by Squareroot Construction for approval of a zone change from Residential -One C (R -1C) and Residential -Three (R-3) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) with an ODP for the property located at 2826 Eaton Street. Ms. Ritchie gave a short presentation regarding the zone change process and the application. She entered into the record the contents of the case file, packet materials, the zoning ordinance, and the contents of the digital presentation. She stated the public notice and posting requirements have been met, therefore the Planning Commission has jurisdiction to hear this case. Ms. Ritchie explained the City of Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan designates this property as a neighborhood and currently has split zoning between R -1C to the North and R-3 to the South. The property consists of two homes and a large detached garage. There was a neighborhood meeting held on November 4, 2015 in which 12 neighbors attended and there was an in depth discussion about the project; the project has changed slightly, but not to a great degree. There will be a major subdivision plat which will remove the existing lot lines and reconfigure the property to realign the property to fit the proposal. The uses in the Eaton Street Cottages PRD zone district would allow single family dwellings, both attached and detached, common parking areas, storage, community gardens and active and passive recreation. The Architecture will be traditional with covered front and rear porches and the maximum building height will be 28 feet which is lower than the City standard of 35 feet. The site design will include 9 dwelling units with small private yards around common courtyard with a parking area at the north end of the site. Public improvements will include a 5 -foot attached sidewalk with bulb -outs to define parking spaces. There were no concerns or comments from outside agencies and staff recommends approval of the zone change. Andrew Gibson, Squareroot Inc. 4250 Urban Street, Denver 80211 Mr. Gibson stated that he and his partners will be the developers and builders of this property; they live in the area where they work. He explained a pocket neighborhood is what they would like to develop and said it is built to encourage community. Houses are built on a much smaller scale, approximately 800-1,300 sq. ft. Walkability in the neighborhood is also important to this concept. The site will include five single family dwellings and two duplexes with covered and uncovered parking to the north with 1.5 spaces per unit. Commissioner BODEN asked about the evaluation process to reduce parking issues. Planning Commission Minutes -2— July 2_July 21, 2016 Ms. Ritchie explained there was a trip generation study done by the applicant and reviewed by Public Works and these homes are smaller units reducing the amount of cars. There will also be on street parking available on Eaton Street. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked about the 10 -foot setback for 20% of the frontage and a 20 -foot setback for the remainder and wondered where the 10 -foot setbacks will occur. Mr. Gibson stated the 10 -foot setbacks will be the portions of lot 1, 3 and 5. Portions of those houses are less than 20 -feet from the setback. Commissioner BUCKNAM wanted to know the theory around the parking pockets. Mr. Gibson explained the pockets help with neighborhood traffic calming and they also define the neighborhood. Commissioner KIMSEY asked about the location of the community gardens and the fence line on Eaton Street. Mr. Gibson stated the landscaping plan has not been detailed yet, but the gardens will either be in the southwest corner of the property, north between the houses and parking area or part of the shared common area. The fence on Eaton Street will be on the property line and will be a 4 -foot picket fence. Chair WEAVER wanted to know why the parking on the north side as opposed to the south side. Mr. Gibson explained there is a possibility of putting solar panels on top of the car ports and this would work better on the north end of the property. Janet Ryan 2825 Depew Street Ms. Ryan stated she is concerned about the back side of the project, the impacts on her fence during construction and if the powerlines that are currently above ground will be moved underground and if this will affect her. She also likes the parking on the north side of property. Steve Pflug 2845 Eaton Street Mr. Pflug is concerned with the street bulb out and wonders if it is going to take away from on street parking. Maryann McNamee Planning Commission Minutes -3— July 3July 21, 2016 2809 Eaton Street Ms. McNamee commented that there are garages on the back sides of the homes on west side of Eaton Street. Joe Woods 2875 Depew Street Mr. Woods stated he really likes the idea of this neighborhood and wondered what the height limit will be. Mr. Gibson explained that it is Squareroot's intent is to be good neighbors and will give adjacent homeowners the phone number to the property manager if there are any comments or concerns. He explained there should be nothing done to Ms. Ryan's fence during constructions. He also explained that all the power to the property will be underground; this will come from the upper powerlines, but should not affect adjacent property owners. Mark Davis, Squareroot 8319 Cole Street Mr. Davis explained that Xcel will work with Synergetic Design to determine how the power lines will go underground; it is usually done through a pedestal. If they think adjacent neighbors' powerlines should go underground as well then Synergetic Design will contact the property owner. Mr. Gibson then explained the bulb outs on the street and said yes there will be a few on street parking spaces lost. Ms. Ritchie added that the City is not to the point yet of looking at street design, but all the pros and cons of bulb outs will be taken into consideration. Commissioner BUCKNAM sees one curb cut for the parking lot and wondered how many curb cuts exist now. Mr. Gibson said there is one large curb cut currently. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked if there is additional parking other than the carports on the north end of the property. Ms. Ritchie state there are 8-9 spaces covered in the carport and an additional 5 parallel spaces in the parking area. Mr. Gibson stated the maximum height limit of the homes will be 28 -feet. The tallest house will be about 25 -feet tall and the ranch units will be no taller than 15 - feet in height. The homes are modeled after 1 % story Victorians. Planning Commission Minutes -4— July 4_July 21, 2016 Chair WEAVER asked how neighbors can stay informed about the development. Ms. Richie stated letters will be sent out when cases related to the property go to City Council and other Planning Commission meetings. Also, they can call staff in Community Development at any time. The Commissioners all agreed that they like the ODP and think it is a great plan, reminding some of the 30's and 40's era and the way Denver use to be. It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner KIMSEY to recommend APPROVAL of case No. WZ-16-05, a request for approval of a zone change from Residential One -C (R -1C) and Residential Three (R-3) to Planned Residential Development (PCD) with an Outline Development Plan for property located at 2826 Eaton Street, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and other guiding documents; 2. The proposal meets the zone change criteria; 3. The proposed site design and scale of the proposed homes are consistent with the neighborhood; 4. All requirements for an Outline Development Plan have been met. Motion carried 5-0. 8. STUDY SESSION A. Residential Development Standards Mr. Wallace gave a brief introduction about redevelopment and infill projects in the city and how they relate to the neighboring communities. The City has received numerous calls regarding setbacks and height requirements with regards to new development. In 1969 when the City of Wheat Ridge was incorporated the 35 -foot height maximum requirement, in residential zone districts, was adopted. This maximum height allowance remains unaltered to this day. Due to the calls received regarding development standards and the new development, the Community Development Department found it appropriate to research neighboring jurisdiction's development standards to utilize as a starting point in assessing our own development standards. Mr. Wallace stated that the City's setback requirements are generally in line with the neighboring communities with the exception for the rear yard setback in the R -1C zone district; it is 5 -feet compared to 8 to 15 feet in other cities. Mr. Wallace then explained that height requirements are a little more complex. The City is in line with most of our neighboring communities which have 30-35 height requirements, but out of line compared to other communities because there are no additional height standards to limit the massing of structures. Planning Commission Minutes -5— July 5_July 21, 2016 Mr. Wallace then explained the bulk plane standard and how it can be used differently in lower or higher intensity uses. Typically, the bulk plane begins at a specified height above the property line, and then extends over the site at a 45 degree angle until it meets the height limit. Bulk plane requirements are enforced in three of the City's neighboring communities. Mr. Wallace gave different examples from other communities in his digital presentation. City Council had this same discussion on July 18 and came to a consensus that Staff should move forward on addressing bulk plane requirements, measured from each property line, and setbacks. Commissioner BODEN thought bulk plane requirements work well and is respectful to neighbors. He also liked the transition buffer from Commercial to Residential Properties. Commissioner BUCKNAM also liked the transitional buffer and understands the bulk plane as long as it is liberal and allows for a second story and not a McMansion. He is also concerned with bulk plane because he believes it will mandate the type of architecture that is possible in both residential and nonresidential buildings and he does not want all the buildings to look the same. Commissioner DORSEY would like to see the bulk plane requirements on all four property sides go into effect, as it would help integrate new development with the existing development. He feels currently the big buildings are hard to integrate. Commissioner KIMSEY would also like to see the bulk plane used on all four property sides so there is light, air and circulation. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked what is driving this discussion. Mr. Wallace stated the discussion is being driven by community interaction with Staff and several councilmembers regarding the smaller setback requirements in some zone districts, the residential building height allowance, massing, and neighborhood character: modern vs. traditional. Commissioner BUCKNAM feels it is not the City's job to set the architectural or aesthetic standards. He thinks there should be different height standards per neighborhood. The 35 -foot height limit should be revisited and the neighborhoods character looked at. Commissioner DORSEY believes the City should have architectural standards for single family homes so there are no eye sores in a neighborhood and cause people to move out of a neighborhood. Chair WEAVER does not believe regulating design standards is going to stop bad taste, different people have different tastes. She asked if there is something that Planning Commission Minutes -6— July 6_July 21, 2016 can be done without restricting people and their architecture so we don't have the homes looking like pyramids if there is a bulk plane requirement. Mr. Johnstone stated we don't know what drives builders and owners design decisions. Setbacks might be forced back by bulk planes; so on smaller lots there may be a mix of 2 -story and 3 -story homes and on larger lots 3 -story homes. Chair WEAVER feels the bulk plane makes everything restrictive and Commissioner BUCKNAM added that if there is to be a bulk plane on all sides what is the base height going to be and that neighborhood characteristics needs to be recognized in that discussion. Mr. Johnstone explained that City Council was also divided on the neighborhood by neighborhood analysis on the building height which became a third priority because it can be hard to define neighborhood character and heights that are cohesive with that character. It will be a longer term effort. It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner DORSEY to recommend APPROVAL to move forward with setbacks and bulk plane research. Motion carried 5-0. 9. OTHER ITEMS Next meeting to be held on August 18, 2016 10. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner DORSEY and seconded by Commissioner KIMSEY to adjourn the meeting at 8:41 p.m. �KL Sco hm, Ch51r Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2016 Motion passed 5-0. Tammy Odean, ecording Secretary -7—