The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/21/2016,I City of Wheatf"I ge PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA July 21, 2016 Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on July 21, 2016 at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. *Agenda packets and minutes are available online at http://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/95/Planning-Commission 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA (Items of new and old business may be recommended for placement on the agenda.) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—June 16, 2016 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda. Public comments may be limited to 3 minutes.) 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-1605: an application filed Squareroot Construction for approval of a zone change from Residential -One C (R-lC) and Residential -Three (R-3) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) with an ODP for the property located at 2826 Eaton Street. 8. STUDY SESSION A. Residential Development Standards 9. OTHER ITEMS 10. ADJOURNMENT Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Carly Lorentz, Assistant to the City Manager at 303-235-2867 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. ♦SII �I'y or Wheatfz oge PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting June 16, 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 29a Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Commission Members Absent: Dirk Boden 14,6 Alan Buckram Emery Dorsey Donna Kimsey Janet Leo Scott Ohm Steve Timms Amanda Weaver Staff Members Present: Lisa Ritchie, Planner II Mark Westberg, Engineering Project Supervisor Gerald Dahl, City Attorney Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner EIMSEY to approve the order of the agenda. Motion carried 8-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 2,2016 It was moved by Commissioner DORSEY and seconded by Commissioner LEO to approve the minutes of June 2, 2016, as written. Motion carried 6-0-2 with Commissioner BUCENAM and WEAVER abstaining. 6. PUBLIC FORUM (TMs is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) Planning Commission Minutes - 1 — June 16, 2016 No one wished to speak at this time. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-16-03: an application filed by FIRE Development, for approval of a zone change from Residential -One (R-1) to Mixed Use -Commercial Transit Oriented Development (MU -C TOD) and Mixed Use -Neighborhood (MU -N) for the property located at 11818 W. 52°d Avenue. Ms. Ritchie gave a short presentation regarding the zone change 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 that what is under consideration is a two zone classification and will be split around where 51" Avenue will be extended. The northern half will be zoned MU -N which is a lower intensity mixed use district and the southern half will be zoned MU -C TOD which is a higher intensity district intended for transit oriented type development. When evaluating zoning applications staff looks at the Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in 2009, and identifies this location as a TOD site and proposes a mix of uses that are pedestrian friendly. In addition, the Northwest Subarea Plan is looked at which indicates an area of residential transition along Tabor Street and encourages a grid system of internal streets with pedestrian amenities. A neighborhood meeting was held on February 9, 2016 in which 30 attendees were present. Discussion topics included height, number of units proposed. There were no concerns from city departments or agencies during the referral process. The next steps will be a City Council public hearing on August 8, 2016, concept plan, specific development plan and a building permit. Staff does recommend approval. Commissioner TIMMS asked if the applicant had submitted a concept plan yet and if it will administratively reviewed. He also asked if a neighborhood meeting will be included with these plans. Ms. Ritchie said there has not been a concept plan submitted yet, and both the concept plan and site plan will be administratively reviewed and there will not be any more neighborhood meetings, per the code. Ethan Watel, Baseline Engineering 1950 Ford Street, Golden, CO Mr. Watel gave a brief explanation of the zoning in the area and added that the applicant was drawn to this 6.6 acre site because it is next to the Gold Line at the Planning Commission Minutes -2— June 2— June 16, 2016 Ward Road station and it supports a TOD site. There is also likely a detention pond on southeast corner of the lot. Commissioner TIMMS asked what type of density is being proposed and what the dwelling unit per acre will be. Mr. Watel replied they are still in the preliminary stages, but there will be approximately 150 apartments on the southern end and approximately 60 townhomes on the northern end. Ms. Ritchie added the dwelling unit per acre will be 15.6 to the north and 56.4 to the south, given those estimates. Commissioner TIMMS also asked about the unincorporated area north of 52°d Avenue and whose growth boundary that belongs to or if it will remain unincorporated. Ms. Ritchie explained she did not know at this time. Commissioner TIMMS asked if there will be more traffic intensity on Taft Court than on Tabor Street. Also, he asked if Ridge Road is a collector street. Mr. Westberg explained that more will be known once atraffic study is done and he added that Ridge Road is a collector street. Commissioner LEO asked if there was any objection at the neighborhood meeting. Ms. Ritchie stated there was concern about both height and traffic. Commissioner WEAVER shared her concerns about a height shadow in the adjacent neighborhood and wondered where the nearest TOD is located to compare what could potentially be at this site. Mr. Watel explained that due to the cost of construction the apartments will be no more than 3-4 stories in height and there is no demand for a more expensive product in this area.. Patrick Henry, Cushman and Wakefield 787 S. Washington Street, Denver Mr. Henry stated the nearest comparable TOD would be the apartments at Kipling and Ridge Road. He agreed with Mr. Watel about the height of the proposed apartments and said the demand for high rents is very low in this area and to construct a six story building is very expensive. Those two items will keep the height to 3-4 stories. Commissioner BODEN asked if the city will be incurring the cost of the sidewalk improvements to the south of the property. Planning Commission Minutes -3— June 3— June 16, 2016 Ms. Ritchie stated the improvements have already been completed along with the RTD project and the applicant will be responsible for the west side of Tabor and the north side of 52°d Commissioner WEAVER asked about the average price point for the potential units. Mr. Henry stated the average rent will be around $1250 and the townhomes will average the low $300s. It will be a perfect entry level place. Chair OHM asked how the portions were determined for the MU -N and MU -C TOD zoning. Ms. Ritchie explained that it was determined to split the zone districts along the conceptual extension of 51" Avenue because the MU -N zoning provides more of a natural residential transition on the north end of the site. The potential drainage area in the southeast corner also serves as a bit of a buffer for the MU -C TOD zoning from the residences to the east on the southern portion of the site. Commissioner TIMMS asked about the height restriction in I -E and R-2 since this property is between the two. Ms. Ritchie stated the maximum height for I -E is 50 -feet and for R-2 it is 35 -feet. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked where the next closest MU -N is located. Ms. Ritchie said the closest MU -N is located at the south side of 44th near Ward and then 441' and Moore. It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner LEO to recommend APPROVAL of case No. WZ-16-03, a request for approval of a zone change from Residential -One (R-1) to Mixed Use - Commercial TOD (MU -C TOD) and Mixed Use -Neighborhood (MU -N) for property located at 11818 W. 52nd Avenue for the following reasons: 1. The proposed zone change will promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. 2. The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and objective of the City's Comprehensive Plan and other guiding documents, including the Northwest Subarea Plan. 3. The criteria used to evaluate a zone change support the request. Motion carried 8-0. Planning Commission Minutes -4— June 4— June 16, 2016 B. Case No. WZ-16-04: an application filed by Sit Means Sit Denver Dog training, for approval of a zone change from Commercial -One (C-1) to Industrial - Employment (I -E) for property located at 4949 Marshall Street. Ms. Ritchie gave a short presentation regarding the zone change 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 stated the Comprehensive Plan considers this property as an employment zone which will support industrial uses. There will be no physical redevelopment proposed at this time, only minor upgrades to the existing building. A Special Use Permit will be required to use the property as a dog training and dog boarding facility as the applicant intends. The zone change request responds to redevelopment in the area. There is a 50 -foot easement on the north end of the property to access the billboard sign and Xcel tower on the property to the west. There will likely be public improvements done in the ROW by the City once they are started on 4901 Marshall Street which will provide good access to Clear Creek Trail. The development standards are relatively similar between the C-1 and I -E zonings. There were no concerns from outside referral agencies. A neighborhood meeting was held on April 27, 2016 and there was only one attendee, the west property owner and there were no concerns. Staff supports this request and recommends approval. Commissioner BODEN asked if dog training is allowed in the C-1 zone district. Ms. Ritchie said dog boarding is not allowed in C-1 and that is part of the application. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked about the zoning in the neighborhood and if the zoning across Marshall Street is still Commercial. Ms. Ritchie explained that some of it is C-1, but it is the parking area for Creekside Park. Chair OHM asked about the vacation of the ROW at 4901 Marshall Street. He wondered if the same should be done with this property and if not will there be any issues. Ms. Ritchie explained there should be not issues but assured Chair OHM that Public Works is looking into it. Anthony Bracciante, Sit Means Sit Dog Training 2050 Applewood Drive, Lakewood, CO Planning Commission Minutes - 5— June 16, 2016 Mr. Bracciante explained the northern part of the property where the easement is located is not allowed for any development and will be used as an access easement only. It was moved by Commissioner WEAVER and seconded by Commissioner KIMSEY to recommend APPROVAL of case No. WZ-16-04, a request for approval of a zone change from Commercial -One (C-1) to Industrial - Employment (I -E) for property located at 4949 Marshall Street, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed zone change will promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. 2. The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and objective of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 3. The zone change will provide additional opportunity for redevelopment in the area. 4. The criteria used to evaluate a zone change support the request. Motion carried 8-0. L J C. Case No. ZOA-16-01: an ordinance amending sections 11-218, 11-293, 11-401, 11-404, 11-415, 26-204, 26-640 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws to adopt regulations governing medical marijuana testing facilities. Mr. Dahl gave a brief explanation about medical marijuana testing facilities and this ordinance amending portions of the zoning code. This is a new form of licensing done both locally and by the state and should be allowed as a use by right. There are standards for these facilities that need to be regulated, and that is why the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws needs to be amended. _Commissioner WEAVER asked for an explanation of why the testing is being done. Mr. Dahl explained the medical marijuana will be tested for contaminants and reviewed the process for testing as stated in Senate Bill 15-260 which is found in the Agenda Packet. Chair OHM questioned if the facility could be more than a lab and maybe a grow lab. Mr. Dahl stated if a testing facility also includes a grow, then it would be subject to the marijuana cultivation use chart. Chair OHM also asked who can access the facility to have marijuana tested. Planning Commission Minutes -6— June 6— June 16, 2016 Mr. Dahl stated the customer base will be retail and medical outlets, this would include the local store or their supplier. It probably is not likely for a private individual to walk in the facility. Commissioner LEO asked what the asset is to the City for having a marijuana testing lab in it. Mr. Dahl explained there will be a business license and a business that employs high tech jobs that would not be low wage. It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner BUCKNAM to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapters 11, and 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the regulation of medical marijuana testing facilities. Motion carried 7-1 with Commissioner LEO voting against. 8. OTHER ITEMS Next Planning Commission meeting will be held July 21, 2016. 9. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner DORSEY and seconded by Commissioner WEAVER to adjourn the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Motion carried 8-0. Scott Ohm, Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -7— June 7— June 16, 2016 City of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission CASE MANAGER: Lisa Ritchie DATE OF MEETING: July 21, 2016 CASE NO. & NAME: WZ-16-05 / Eaton Street Cottages ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a zone change from Residential -One C and Residential -Three to Planned Residential Development with an Outline Development Plan to allow the construction of 9 single- and two-family homes. LOCATION OF REQUEST: 2826 Eaton Street PROPERTY OWNER: Squareroot Inc. APPROXIMATE AREA: 31,172 square feet (0.72 acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential -One C and Residential -Three COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood ENTER INTO RECORD: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS ZONING ORDINANCE DIGITAL PRESENTATION 014110111LIMO!\G All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST Case No. WZ-16-05 is an application for approval of a zone change from Residential -One C (R - 1C) and Residential -Three (R-3) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) and an Outline Development Plan (ODP) for property located at 2826 Eaton Street. The purpose of the request is to permit development of a 9 single and two-family cottage styles homes around a common courtyard. The City's planned development approval is a two-step process. The first step is for the zone change to PRD and an approval of an ODP. The ODP document will set allowed uses and development standards for the property. The ODP also contains a general concept plan which labels areas of landscaping, parking, building footprints and access points. Should the zone change and ODP be approved, the second step is approval of a Specific Development Plan (SDP) which focuses on the details of the development such as final drainage, street improvements, architecture and final lot layouts. A subdivision plat will be required as well. The applicant is requesting a two-step approval, which is permitted in the code pursuant to Sec. 26-302. The first process for the ODP approval requires a public hearing in front of both Planning Commission and the City Council. If the zone change and ODP are approved, a future second application for an SDP is reviewed and approved by Planning Commission only, with no hearings before City Council. (Exhibit 1, Applicant Letter) II. EXISTING CONDITIONS/PROPERTY HISTORY The property is located in southeast Wheat Ridge. It is located mid -block between 28t' Avenue and 29th Avenue on Eaton Street. The site consists of ten (10) 25 feet wide lots across two (2) parcels, all with the address 2826 Eaton Street. The site currently houses a single-family home, carriage house, and detached garage. The three structures are located in the southern portion of the lot. The northern portion of the lot is vacant According to the Jefferson County Accessor, the house and carriage house were built in 1941, and the garage was built in 1949. The subject property is currently zoned R -1C and R-3, both residential zoning districts. The R -1C district allows for medium -density single-family residential, while R-3 allows for medium density multi -family residential neighborhoods. The site is surrounded predominantly by residential uses, with a mix of R -1C, R-2, and R-3 zone districts. There is also some commercially zoned (C-1) property along 29th Avenue with neighborhood serving commercial businesses. The surrounding land uses are fairly consistent with the zoning designations. Single-family homes are predominate in the entire area, with some multi -family housing units present, generally located along 28th Avenue, south of the subject site. (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map, Exhibit 3, Aerial Photo, Exhibit 4, Site Photos) III. OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN Attached is a copy of the proposed Outline Development Plan which contains four sheets. The ODP is a zoning document that will establish allowed uses and development standards for the property. The ODP also contains a general concept plan which includes a conceptual site layout, proposed lots, building footprints and general architectural themes. (Exhibit 5, Reduced copy of ODP document) Planning Commission WZ-16-05 — Eaton Street Cottages The applicants, Squareroot Construction, have proposed a `pocket neighborhood' concept, which would accommodate five (5) single-family dwelling units and two (2) two-family units on the site for a total of nine (9) units. The 1 story and 1 '/z story homes would be oriented around a common courtyard in the center of the site. The site is designed to accommodate both common open area and small private yards that will be separated by fences. The common area will include both a covered parking area and an uncovered parking area and drive aisle, a common storage shed, and a common courtyard area. The homes are not proposed to include garages, and all on-site parking is proposed to be on the northern end of the site. Allowable Uses The property is currently zoned R -1C and R-3. The portion zoned R -1C allows for the City's smallest lot single-family dwellings, foster care homes, governmental buildings and group homes. R-3 allows single-, two-, and multi -family dwellings. The proposed uses are limited to single- and two-family dwellings, home occupations, household pets, and common area uses include parking, courtyard open space, storage, community garden, and active and passive recreation. Lot Size, Setbacks, Lot Coverage and Height Lot sizes proposed are a minimum of 1,850 square feet. Specific lot sizes are not included on the ODP document. Small lots are proposed for the home sites, with a large common area for shared use by the residents. Building footprints are shown, along with minimum setbacks. The proposed front setback (Eaton Street) has two standards. Up to 22% of the frontage has a 10 foot minimum setback, and the remainder has a 20 foot setback. It should be noted that there is roughly 15 feet between the existing edge of street pavement and the front property line. Side (north and south) and rear (east) setbacks for the homes are proposed to be 10 feet, and 6 feet for the accessory structures. The maximum building coverage is proposed to be 43%, which is slightly greater than the current zone district requirement is 40% for both R -1C and R-3. The maximum height for homes is proposed to be 28 feet, which is less than the current zone district allowance of 35 feet. The proposed height for the carport is a maximum of 22 feet, and 16 feet for the storage shed. Access and Parking The ODP proposes a common parking area on the northern end of the site that will include both covered and uncovered parking. The applicant intends that the HOA will manage and maintain the parking, with some dedicated spots for each unit, and some that are non -dedicated for use by visitors and guests. The applicants are proposing a reduced parking ratio than what is typically required in the code. The smaller unit sizes, availability of on -street parking along Eaton Street, and relative walkability of the area are the primary reasons for this request. Approximately 7 to 9 on -street parking spaces could be available, depending on final streetscape design. Homesite Configuration The ODP proposes to orient the homes around a common courtyard that may contain shared amenities, such as an outdoor fireplace and community gardens. This area will be owned and maintained by the HOA. Each home will be located on its own lot, and will likely be fenced in Planning Commission WZ-16-05 — Eaton Street Cottages to separate the private yards from the common areas. The homes that front Eaton Street will be designed to not appear closed off to the street; rather they will have porches and architectural features that are oriented toward both the street and the interior courtyard. Drainage and Public Improvements The ODP proposes multiple drainage areas on the site, comprised of smaller areas between the carport and the homes, and a larger area on the southwestern corner of the site. The proposed streetscape will comply with the Streetscape Design Manual, and will include a new attached sidewalk. To further define the parking areas, the applicant proposes bulb -outs at the parking area entry and near an existing large evergreen on the site. Proposed Density and Relationship to Surrounding Area The proposed density for the project is 12.6 dwelling units (du's) per acre. The existing neighborhood currently contains a mix of residential densities. The property immediately to the south contains a two-story multi -family building with 10 units and a density of 22.3 du's per acre. There are nine single-family homes along the west side of Eaton Street between 281 and 291h Avenues with an average density of 6.5 du's per acre. If the ODP were to be approved, the average du's per acre for the east side of Eaton Street between 28th and 29u' Avenues would be 13.5. Beyond this block, mixed densities continue, with additional two-story multi -family buildings and single-family development. The project proposes a scale and mass for the homes that is consistent with the smaller existing homes along Eaton Street. Staff believes that the proposed density is consistent with the area. In addition, the proposed homes are roughly 800 square feet and 1,300 square feet, which are consistent with the smaller existing homes in the area and will not have the same impact on the neighborhood as larger homes. Architecture The applicant has provided renderings in the ODP of the proposed cottage style architecture with homes that are 1 and 1 1/z story in height. Details include covered front and rear porches, and materials will primarily include painted lap siding. Additional architecture will be required and reviewed at the time of the SDP. Comparison Table of Development Standards Standard R -1C R-3 Eaton Street Cottages Single-family Single, two, and Attached and detached single-family homes and multi -family homes dwellings, home occupations, Uses accessory uses, and accessory uses, household pets. Common area uses such as home such as home include parking, storage, community occupations occupations garden, active and passive recreation Per the ODP, "Architecture will be Architectural traditional and will feature covered None None front and rear porches, lap siding, and Standards detailing not typically found on production homes." Planning Commission WZ-16-05 — Eaton Street Cottages Standard R -1C R-3 Eaton Street Cottages Max. Building 35 feet 35 feet 28 feet Height Max. Building 40% 40% 43% Coverage Setbacks, Homes Front 20 feet 25 feet 10 feet for no more than 22% of the frontage, 20 feet for the remainder Side 5 feet 5 feet 10 feet Rear 5 feet 10 feet 10 feet Setbacks, Ace. Front 20 feet 25 feet 10 feet Side 5 feet 5 feet 6 feet Rear 5 feet 5 feet or 10 feet 6 feet IV. ZONE CHANGE CRITERIA The zone change and ODP application require analysis relative to the zone change criteria outlined in Section 26-112 E. Staff provides the following analysis: 1. The change of zone promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the community and will not result in a significant adverse effect on the surrounding area. The change of zone will not result in adverse effects on the surrounding area. Portions of the property are currently vacant and the proposed plan is consistent with the neighborhood and will not result in a significant adverse effect on the surrounding area. The new homes should have a positive impact on the neighborhood both aesthetically and from a property value perspective. Staff concludes that this criterion has been met. 2. Adequate infrastructure/facilities are available to serve the types of uses allowed by the change of zone, or the applicant will upgrade a provide such where they do not exist or are under capacity. All responding agencies have indicated they can serve the property with improvements installed at the developers' expense. Should the zone change be approved, a more detailed review will occur at the time of the Specific Development Plan. Staff concludes that this criterion has been met. 3. At least one 1 of the following conditions exists: Planning Commission WZ-16-05 — Eaton Street Cottages a. The change of zone is in conformance, or will bring the properly into conformance with, the City of Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan goals, objectives and policies, and other related policies or plans for the area. in Envision Wheal Ridge Structure Plan Neighborhoods s mn.-..�xwoneomooarve•+ J �1 m LU r- -----�J i Site Location Envision Wheat Ridge, the City's 2009 Comprehensive Plan, identifies this area as Neighborhood, which is a designation for areas to be the places for people to own homes and tiuive and where residents of all ages can live safely and comfortably. The plan includes the following goals for the Neighborhood designation associated with this location: 1. Maintain and enhance the quality and character ofWheatRidge's established neighborhoods. 2. Increase housing options. 3. Increase investment and stability in Neighborhood Revitalization Areas. The proposal provides homes with a compatible scale and style for new homes in an established neighborhood. Under the current code, the applicants could construct large homes up to thirty five feet tall in a style that is architecturally different than the existing context. Rather than taking this approach to maximize their investment in the property, they are proposing homes that are similar in scale and style to the surrounding area. This proposal will maintain the current architectural character while enhancing the neighborhood through the investment in the property. Planning commission WZ-16-05 —Eaton Street Cottages The proposal also provides an increase in housing options for the City. The applicants envision a pocket neighborhood with a design that encourages interaction between the residents. In addition, it is anticipated that potential owners will understand that parking provided is less than a typical single-family home. This type of development has been constructed in areas throughout the United States and has proven to be desired by some. Staff concludes that this criterion has been met. b. The existing zone classification currently recorded on the official zoning map of the City of Wheat Ridge is in error. Staff has not found any evidence of an error with the current R-1 C and R-3 designations as they appear on the City's zoning map. Staff concludes that this criterion is not applicable. c. A change of character in the area has occurred or is occurring to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changing character of the area. There is evidence of some residential redevelopment pressure in the surrounding area. Over the past few years, a number of land use applications and building permits have been sought by homeowners and developers to remodel, scrape and rebuild, or develop vacant land for residential use in the area. If this application is not approved, the applicants indicate that they would likely build fewer, but larger, single- and two-family homes under the current zoning. The proposal is for a unique development type that the current zone district regulations do not contemplate, but may be more appropriate and compatible with the area. Staff concludes that this criterion has been met. d. The proposed rezoning is necessary in order to provide for a community need that was not anticipated at the time of the adoption of the City of Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan. The proposed rezoning does not relate to an unanticipated need. Staff concludes that this criterion is not applicable. Staff concludes that the criteria used to evaluate a zone change support this request. V. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING The required pre -application meeting for neighborhood input was held on November 4, 2015. There were approximately 12 members of the public in attendance. (Exhibit 6, Neighborhood Meeting Notes) Planning Commission WZ-16-05 — Eaton Street Cottages VI. AGENCY REFERRAL All affected service agencies were contacted for comment on the zone change request and the ODP regarding the ability to serve the property. Specific referral responses follow: West Metro Fire Protection District: No concerns with the proposal. Wheat Ridge Water District: No comments. Wheat Ridge Public Works: No concerns at this time. The applicant is continuing to work with Public Works to finalize their drainage plan and traffic studies. Wheat Ridge Sanitation District: No objections with the proposal. Xcel Energy: No concerns. Wheat Ridge Police Department: No concerns with the proposal. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff concludes that the proposed Planned Residential Development zoning and accompanying Outline Development Plan are consistent with the goals and policies of the City's guiding documents, including Envision Wheat Ridge. In Sec. 26-301.C. of the code, the purpose of a planned development is discussed and includes the following: 1. To accommodate extraordinary or unique development proposals that are not feasible under standard zone districts. - This proposal could not be accommodated through the existing zoning on the property due to its unique configuration of home sites around a common courtyard and consolidated parking area. 2. To accomplish compatible development with adjacent commercial, residential and/or industrial land uses through proper land use transitions and buffering techniques. - While the existing zoning could result in compatible development, the planned development process requires that this be taken into consideration for each unique site. 3. To promote flexibility in design and permit diversification in the location of structures. - The planned development process for this project would result in a site with structures not in typical configuration for single- and two-family homes through a flexible approach to design. 4. To promote the efficient use of land to facilitate a more economic arrangement of building, circulation systems, land use and utilities. - This project proposes a drainage plan and parking area that is consolidated and efficient for the site. 5. To preserve to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and to minimize impacts on other natural features of the site. - It is the intent of the applicant to save the large existing evergreen on the site. Planning Commission WZ-16-05 — Eaton Street Cottages 6. To combine and coordinate architectural styles, building forms and building relationships within the planned developments. - The planned development process will result in a project that has considered an appropriate architectural style for the area, and how the buildings and site configuration will impact the social lives of the residents and surrounding area. 7. To promote conformance with the adopted comprehensive plan, established policies and guidelines for the area and for the community. - As provided in the analysis above, the planned development process would result in a project in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy. Staff further concludes that the proposal provides a housing option that is not currently available within the City of Wheat Ridge. The style and scale of the proposed housing is consistent with the existing area and more appropriate than larger single-family or two-family homes. The neighborhood is relatively walkable and a reduced parking requirement should not cause harm to the surrounding area, particularly when factoring in available adjacent on -street parking. Because the proposed zoning and ODP meet the criteria for evaluation, a recommendation for approval is given for Case No. WZ-16-05. VIII. SUGGESTED MOTIONS Option A: "I recommend APPROVAL of Case No. WZ-16-05, a request for approval of a zone change from Residential One -C and Residential -Three to Planned Residential Development 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. Option B: "I recommend DENIAL of Case No. WZ-16-05, a request for approval of a zone change from Residential One -C and Residential -Three to Planned Residential Development with an Outline Development Plan for property located at 2826 Eaton Street, for the following reasons: 2. ... Planning Commission WZ-16-05 — Eaton Street Cottages Exhibit 1— Applicant letter ROSSCHAPIN ARCH ITECT5 Port Office Box 230 - 195 Second Street Langley, Washington 98268 h (360) 221 2375 - E rossprosschapincom r W. vowsrosschapin. con, -mwv,pocket neighborhoods net Eaton Street Cottages 2826 Eaton Street • Wheat Ridge, Colorado May 10, )016 OVERVIEW Eaton Street Cottages is a development of 9 homes on sla of an acre, gathered around a shared communitygreen space with parking clustered to the side. Each cottage has its own private yard, surrounded by a low fence and garden gate. Fostering neighborly connections is a keynote in the design of this development. While small by today's standards (809 to 1325 square feet), the homeswill be designed to live large and bewell crafted and detailed beyond typical market homes. TABULATIONS Dwellings: 9 approximately 800 SF to 1325 SF Parkingspaces: 9 covered— on site (assigned) 5 uncovered— on site (unassigned) 5 on street 19 total parking 1.85 spaces per uniton site 2.1 spaces per unittotal Site Area: 31,255± SF Building Coverage: 12,360 SF 39.6% of Site Area DESIGN FOR COMMUNITY The most significant aspect of the Eaton Street Cottages site plan is that it's designed with the neighborhood in mind. While most subdivisions have flanks of garage doors facing the street and homes oriented to private back yards, this is a pocket neighborhood of small houses with large porches open to a common courtyard. There are no garage doors facing the street There is only one driveway to a clustered parking area and the 1 and 11/2 -story cottage homes along the street offer a friendly face to surrounding neighbors and passersby. Parking is deliberately placed so that residents walkfrom their car doors to their front doom through the shared commons, offering a chance to enjoy the garden and chat with a neighbor. These informal meetings encourage casual connections to become friendly neighbors and perhaps even long-term friendships. And when neighbors know one another, they tend to look after each other. They care. In this day and age, this is a valuable security. F2hw 5t eet Cottages Narrative page 1 of 4 Planning Commission 10 WZ-16-05 — Eaton Street Cottages Balancing Community and Privacy Community can be wonderful, but too much community can be suffocating. On the other hand, with too much privacy, a person can feel cutoff from neighbors. Creating multiple 'layers of personal space' will help achieve the right balance between privacy and community. In the design of Eaton Street Cottages, there is a narrowed passage hetween the public street and the semi-public commons, creating a sense of entry and territorial ownership. Between the commons and the front door, there are five additional layers: a border of shrubs and flowers at the edge of the sidewalk/ a lowfence / the private yard / a covered porch with a low railing and flowerboxes / and then the front door. With this layering, residents can feel comfortable being on the porch — enough enclosure to be private, with enough openness to acknowledge passersby. Layers of personal space continue on the interior of the homes. Active living spaces are oriented toward the shared commons and the more private, personal spaces, are at the back of the house or upstairs. Most of the cottages also have a secluded garden out the back door to retreat to. The house plans have three 'open' sides and one 'closed' side so that they 'nest' together, ensuring privacy between dwellings. The open sides have windows facing the commons and private yards, while the closed side has high windows and skylights. Through the use of a landscape easement, the side yard of each cottage extends to the face of the neighboring building, offering more usable garden space. PARKING, STREET DESIGN, BICYCLES AND STORAGE Given the relatively small size of the homes (806 and 1325 SF) and proximity to public transit and local amenities like restaurants, retail and parks, it is anticipated than many residents will have one car. At Eaton Street Cottages, each resident will have one designated covered parking space, and the community has an additional five un- designated open parking spaces for shared use. In addition, there are five on -street parking spaces for public use. On street parking spaces are in parking pockets. This is achieved by replacing existing road pavement outside of the drive lanes with landscaped planting beds. This street design calms traffic by narrowing the visual width of the street, clarifies where parking is/ is not allowed, preserves standard drive lane widths, reduces heat island effect and softens the appearance of the project from the street. In addition to covered parking for cars, there is covered storage space for resident's bicycles. Adjacent to the covered parking is an accessory building for multiple uses: recycling and refuse, community toolshed and storage, and individual resident storage units. SIMPLE MATERIALS, RICH DETAIL In this packet are two cottage home plans: Erin (11/rstory detached) and Willows (single story duplex). Each has gabled roofs and room -sized porches. While the materials are Eaton Street Cottages Narrative page z of 4 Planning Commission 11 WZ-16-05 —Eaton Street Cottages common - vinyl windows, painted fiber -cement sirling, exposed arterial Is there is careful attention to detail, proportion, and scale. A PATTERN LANGUAGE FOR EATON STREET COTTAGES llie following is a list of guiding patterns and relationships that underlie the design of this community and its cottages. POCKET NEIGHBORHOOD This isthe basic building block forstrong and vibrammmmunitles. Pocket neighborhoods are clustered groups of homes gathered around ashared open space such as a garden courtyard or pedestrian street. Pocket Neighborhoods are sized around the scale of soclnblllty 410 19 nearby noighboswho rclareona dailybasis. COMMONS AT T11E IIEART Tho .shared open spam Is a key elemant of a ponkoa neighburhacd. It is an intermediate zone between private dwellings (hems, yard) and public space (street, park). Resident, surroundingthis Stene share in Its caro and ovrssight, thereby enhancing a felt and actual sense of securityand identity. Because of its location and design, this spacefosters casual iraeractlon among neighbors, which, In time, can grow Into cadngfrlendshlps and a meaningful avow, of,.urnrt a City. LAYERS OF PERSONAL SPACE Just outside the front door of a home is a zone of space that is bath Private and public. Left undefined, a person is apt to feel exposed. Too enclosed, a person will feel cut offfrom neighbors Finding the right balance is the keyto cultivating community. A pocket neighborhood may have several layers of personal space that are clearly defined M1ansi[ions from private to publics closest In may bA a covered front porch with a low 2ilfng and a band of flowerboxes, then a small private yard with a low fence, a border of shrubs and flowers at the edge of the commons walk. ACI1Vh ROOMS FORWARD, PRIVAFF ROOMS BACK AND ABOVE Leyrs of Pemnnal Space continue on the interior of the homes, too: the more active living spaces are toward the shared commons; the mato private, personal spaces am toward the back of the bouseand upstairs. Nb't ED IJOUSES I laving a neighbor !rig house penring loan one's private living space can be uncomfortable and claustrophobic Therefore, design houses With three'open' sides and one 'cEased' side w that neighboring houses 'nest' together with no window looking into a neighbor's living space. High windows and skylights on the closed side can bring in ample light. Variations nn this can work 1'nr atrv�chul dwel linyf. fULI USI-SIDI-YARDS Achlevc this with"landscape ememenu":dlowing use to (sue of neighboring building, SECLUDED OUDOOR SPACE Sometimes, having a secluded garden is just what is needed to recharge' a busy life. fecata this space at the rear uftlre dwolling, or on a roofterrace Tor the Wrest privacy. PLACE FOR PLANTING Most people find satisfaction being able to work with the soil and grow planta so Include some private ground space for each dwelling: a small yard, a planting bed, or even flowerboxes. Locate at Icust some of the private garden iu vktw of the shared common area — 4 will be a personal touch that contributes tothe character of thecemmons, as well as a way of fostering connections with neighbors. FRONT PORCII Aliving sized bant and, is perhaps the key elcnent ln(nsaering nolght ly connections. While it gives charm to a house, it should not be a "cause porch appliqu6d justfor looks. A good Porch f ,noktus as an outdoor living ruom, whether For reading it beok, gathering for amidsummer supper, or lingering in cgnvemolon whit several friends. Locate It within sight and sound of the pedesn'ian public space. EYES ON PUBLIC SPACE The first line of defense for personal security is a strong network of Eaton Street C'ortages Narrative page 3 o1`4 Planning Cornmission 12 WZ-16-05 —Eaton Street Cottages neighbors who know and care for one another; but they need to see who is cam Ing and going to be effective. I Fre,lure, bast[, active interior spaces with a view to the courtyard, lane or street This can also be helpful to keep an eye out for young children in the commons, and to be watchful for personal emergencies. ENUF STORAGF Make sure households have enough storage space. Small Is beautiful, but it can ger onumsd if there's not room for the residual duff of His: s ucasns, holiday ornaments, Nd photo albums, turkey pans, snow tires, bicycles, camping gear, hand tools, and what not. Storage places inside the house can be closets, cabbies, cabinets, shelves and attics; Outside storage may be served in a dedicated building. CORRAL TI1F CAR Cars are essential fur many pnplo, but that doosn't mrnn they nu. xl to dominate the pedestrian spar Stan tlrsf by oazting parklrg to he a good neighbor; don9 have garage doors greeting guests! Instead of streets with wide driveways and garage doors, create atucss lanes for parking and sor vices atthe rear ofthe house. RFMOTF PARKING Whon residents walk from Ih, car door to the front door through the shared commons, they have more opportunities to say "hello° to a neighbor along the way, or Just enjoy the garden. Remote parking can also allow more flexible use of a site and decrease the amount of hard surface. UNASSIGNED PARKING Every residence should have one assigned parking space, but more than that can be u,, asslgnud. This way, nndflple residents may use It at different times, effectively hwoasing tlm puking uffwicncy. MAIIBO%CLUSTFR When mailbozns are.clustered near lhamainenUance to the shared open space or commons house,'chance' meetings among neighbors are Increased. COMMU W IY BICYCLE SHELI ER Blkesshould not be on porches, which Is where may nod up without an ahernalive. Build a shared bicycle sheher near the entrance for ease of use. GARDEN SHED There is no need for every home to have a lawn mower, weed-whacker and tiller. Build a gerden shed for shared tools, as wrdl as ultra gbrden tables, cheLs evd ganes. CONNFCTIONRCONTRIBUTION This should be the FIRST pattern to nousim,, When designing any project, take note of the larger context you're building in (the block, neighboring buildings, etc Ask: What works wet li What doesn't? Are dr,re m issing'teetli' in the rhythm of buildings or tries along the, stro V Ihon ask, how can this project cenena:r and contribute to making the larger conmxt stronger /ricirur /more. wholes In other words, ba a gond nelghlwr. [ema 51"N [oust,,, Planning Commission 13 WZ-16-05 —Eaton Street Cottages Exhibit 2 — Zoning Map Planning Commission 14 WZ-16-05 —Eaton Street Cottages Exhibit 3 — Aerial Photo Planning Commission 15 WZ-16-05 —Eaton Street Cottages Exhibit 4 — Site Photos This photo is taken along Eaton Street looking north. A large existing evergreen is intended to be saved by the applicants. Planning Commission 16 WZ-16-05 — Eaton Street Cottages This photo is taken from the southwestern corner of the property, looking along the southern property line at Eaton Street. The southern existing home is shown. This photo is taken near the center of the property from Eaton Street. The home on the right is the existing southern home, the small home behind the fence in the rear is also on the property. The large existing garage is shown on the right. Planning Commission 17 WZ-16-05 — Eaton Street Cottages This photo is looking northeast at the vacant portion of the property where the parking area will be located. This photo is taken from near the southern property line of the subject property, looking at the properties along Eaton Street on the west side. Planning Commission 1$ WZ-16-05 — Eaton Street Cottages This photo is taken near 281' Avenue on Eaton Street looking at the existing multi -family dwelling immediately south of the subject property. Planning Commission 19 WZ-16-05 — Eaton Street Cottages Exhibit 5 — Eaton Street Cottages Outline Development Plan Planning Commission 20 WZ-16-05 — Eaton Street Cottages I, RICHARD E. HEINZ, DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WAS MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE COLORADO STATUTES, CURRENT REVISED EDITION AS AMENDED, THE ACCOMPANYING PLAN ACCURATELY REPRESENTS SAID SURVEY. RICHARD E. HEINZ, P.L.S #16116 OWNER'S CERTIFICATE / UNIFIED CONTROL STATEMENT THE BELOW SIGNED OWNER(S) OR LEGALLY DESIGNATED AGENTS THEREOF, DO HEREBY AGREE THAT THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED HEREON WILL BE DEVELOPED AS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE USES, RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PLAN, AND AS MAY OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED BY LAW, I (WE) FURTHER RECOGNIZE THAT THE APPROVAL OF A REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND APPROVAL OF THIS OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DOES NOT CREATE A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT. VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS MAY ONLY ARISE AND ACCRUE PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26-121 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS. Andrew E. Gibson, for Squareroot Cottages, LLC STATE OF COLORADO ) SS COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) THE FOREGOING INSTRUMENT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF A.D. 2016 BY WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: NOTARY PUBLIC 167111110Qr6l10 THIS OUTLINE DEVEOPMENT PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENTS SUCH AS SITE LAYOUT AND BUILDING ARCHITECTURE HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED ON THIS DOCUMENT. AS A RESULT, A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF WEHAT RIDGE PRIOR TO THE SUBMITTAL OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY OR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION AND ANY SUBSEQUENT SITE DEVELOPMENT. �Zi111Q1rYNIq1414F-AQIej14a1010]179]gC7WK61:1 4191a107G\1e ) SS COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER OF JEFFERSON COUNTY AT GOLDEN, COLORADO, AT O'CLOCK .M. ON THE DAY OF 2016 A.D., IN BOOK PAGE , RECEPTION NO. JEFFERSON COUNTY CLERKAND RECORDER L -M ALLOWED USES: 1. INTENT: THIS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS ESTABLISHED TO PROVIDE FOR A HIGH QUALITY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY CONSISTING OF SMALL ATTACHED AND DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE USES. 2. USES: A. ALLOWED USES ATTACHED AND DETACHED ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS B. COMMON AREA USES COMMON COURTYARD OPEN SPACE COMMON PARKING AREA COMMON STORAGE AREA COMMUNITY GARDEN ACTIVE AND PASSIVE RECREATION C. ACCESSORY USES HOME OCCUPATIONS HOUSEHOLD PETS QUASI -PUBLIC AND PUBLIC UTILITY LINES, STORM DRAINAGE, SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DETACHED STORAGE SHED AND COVERED PARKING, DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE NOT ALLOWED RV AND BOAT STORAGE ARE NOT ALLOWED EATON STREET COTTAGES PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT An Outline Development Plan in the City of Wheat Ridge Colorado Part of the SE 1/4 SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 3S, RANGE 69W., OF THE 6TH P.M. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO _^ W 33rd Ave A[133"1 AVP n F 0 29th Ave. II e � o 0 Eaton Street Cottages m N O rn 'W29thAvw- — W29th A.;. p ?... c - n'- - -W46th Ave- -- -� W 2fiL• VICINITY MAP - NOT TO SCALE .::: • ► .:x:.0091 THE EATON STREET COTTAGES COMPLIES DIRECTLY WITH THE WHEAT RIDGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY PRESERVING AND ENHANCING THE NEIGHBORHOOD, PROVIDING HOUSING DIVERSITY, AND ENHANCING COMMUNITY CHARACTER FURTHERMORETHE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SITE MANUAL. THE PROJECT IS PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED, IS CREATIVE AND UNIQUE, CLEARLY DEFINES PEDESTRIAN AND PARKING AREAS,AND WILL BE VISUALLY ATTRACTIVE USING WELL THOUGHT OUT LANDSCAPING, FACADES, STREET PRESENCE, AND APPROPRIATELY SCALED HOUSES. ARCHITECTURE WILL BE TRADITIONAL AND WILL FEATURE COVERED FRONT AND REAR PORCHES, LAP SIDING, AND DETAILING NOT TYPICALLY FOUND ON PRODUCTION HOMES. THERE WILL BE 1.55 PARKING SPACES PER HOME ON-SITE, WITH ADDITIONAL STREET PARKING. THE SITE WILL BE THOUGHTFULLY LANDSCAPED TO DEFINE PUBLIC, SEMI -PRIVATE, AND PRIVATE OUTDOOR AREAS. THIS PROJECT WILL REQUIRE AZONE CHANGE FROM R -1C AND R-3 TO PRD. PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION: RECOMMENDED FORAPPROVAL THIS DAY OF BY THE WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION. CHAIRPERSON CITY CERTIFICATION: APPROVED THIS DAY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITY COUNCIL. ATTEST: CITY CLERK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 2016 BY THE ILTA I_VLel:7 2016 m LAND USE TABLE TOTAL LOT SIZE: MAX. BUILDING COVERAGE MIN. OPEN SPACE, DETENTION AND YARDS MAX. UNCOVERED PARKING, DRIVES AND HARDSCAPE TOTAL DWELLING UNITS: DWELLING UNITS /ACRE 31,172 SF 13,403 SF (43%) 10,910 SF (35%) 6,859 SF (22%) 9 HOMES 12.6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 1. EXISTINGZONING: RESIDENTIAL -ONE C AND RESIDENTIAL -THREE 2. PROPOSED ZONING: PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 3. MIN. LOT SIZE: 1,850 SF 4. SETBACKS: A. Buildings from side and rear property line 10' MIN B. Parking lot from property line U MIN C. Storage shed from property line U MIN D. Separation between buildings when not attached 10' MIN E. No more than 22% of total street frontage will have buildings set back from Eaton St. at a MIN. of 10'. Remainder of buildings fronting Eaton St. will have setbacks of no less than 20' MIN. 5. BUILDING HEIGHTS: 28' MAX Height of buildings shall be determined by measuring the vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the finished grade of the building to the mean hight level between eaves and ridge for a gable, hip, gambrel, or other roof. 6. PARKING REQUIREMENTS: MIN. 1.5 OFF-STREET SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT. 7. DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: 2 PERMITTED. A. STORAGE SHED MAX. SIZE 800 SF, MAX. HEIGHT 16'. B. COVERED PARKING MAX. SIZE 3000 SF. MAX HEIGHT 22' 8. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 26-502 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS. 9. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 26-503 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, 10. ALL FENCING SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 26-603 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS. 11. ALL SIGNAGE SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ARTICLE VII OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS. 12. ARCHITECTURAL, SITE AND STREETSCAPE DESIGN SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN MANUAL (ASDM) AND STREETSCAPE DESIGN MANUAL. PHASING: THIS PROJECT IS ANTICIPATED TO HAVE ONLY ONE PHASE. HOWEVER, FUTURE PHASING, IF REQUIRED, WILL NOT REQUIRE AMENDMENT TO THIS PLAN. CASE HISTORY TABLE: V\2-96-08 V\2-16-05 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Legal Description Provided: (BY TITLE COMMITMENT) Parcell: The North I Ofeet of Lot 26 and All of Lots 27 to 30, in clusive, and All of Lot31 Excep t the North 22 feet S g ll 3 r e r 0 0 Block 5, al - OPD TITLE PAGE LU .--i Lakeside Resubdivision of Blocks one to seven and N'!z 3 3 W OfBlock 8, in the original platting of Lakeside, a3- NIGHBORHOOD OVERVIEW County of)efferson, a4- PERSPECTIVE VIEWS (A i0 a w H O W n C7 CALCULATED AREA=14.985.7SQ. FT (0.34ACRES ±) J n F 0 29th Ave. II e � o 0 Eaton Street Cottages m N O rn 'W29thAvw- — W29th A.;. p ?... c - n'- - -W46th Ave- -- -� W 2fiL• VICINITY MAP - NOT TO SCALE .::: • ► .:x:.0091 THE EATON STREET COTTAGES COMPLIES DIRECTLY WITH THE WHEAT RIDGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY PRESERVING AND ENHANCING THE NEIGHBORHOOD, PROVIDING HOUSING DIVERSITY, AND ENHANCING COMMUNITY CHARACTER FURTHERMORETHE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND SITE MANUAL. THE PROJECT IS PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED, IS CREATIVE AND UNIQUE, CLEARLY DEFINES PEDESTRIAN AND PARKING AREAS,AND WILL BE VISUALLY ATTRACTIVE USING WELL THOUGHT OUT LANDSCAPING, FACADES, STREET PRESENCE, AND APPROPRIATELY SCALED HOUSES. ARCHITECTURE WILL BE TRADITIONAL AND WILL FEATURE COVERED FRONT AND REAR PORCHES, LAP SIDING, AND DETAILING NOT TYPICALLY FOUND ON PRODUCTION HOMES. THERE WILL BE 1.55 PARKING SPACES PER HOME ON-SITE, WITH ADDITIONAL STREET PARKING. THE SITE WILL BE THOUGHTFULLY LANDSCAPED TO DEFINE PUBLIC, SEMI -PRIVATE, AND PRIVATE OUTDOOR AREAS. THIS PROJECT WILL REQUIRE AZONE CHANGE FROM R -1C AND R-3 TO PRD. PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION: RECOMMENDED FORAPPROVAL THIS DAY OF BY THE WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION. CHAIRPERSON CITY CERTIFICATION: APPROVED THIS DAY OF WHEAT RIDGE CITY COUNCIL. ATTEST: CITY CLERK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR 2016 BY THE ILTA I_VLel:7 2016 m LAND USE TABLE TOTAL LOT SIZE: MAX. BUILDING COVERAGE MIN. OPEN SPACE, DETENTION AND YARDS MAX. UNCOVERED PARKING, DRIVES AND HARDSCAPE TOTAL DWELLING UNITS: DWELLING UNITS /ACRE 31,172 SF 13,403 SF (43%) 10,910 SF (35%) 6,859 SF (22%) 9 HOMES 12.6 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 1. EXISTINGZONING: RESIDENTIAL -ONE C AND RESIDENTIAL -THREE 2. PROPOSED ZONING: PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 3. MIN. LOT SIZE: 1,850 SF 4. SETBACKS: A. Buildings from side and rear property line 10' MIN B. Parking lot from property line U MIN C. Storage shed from property line U MIN D. Separation between buildings when not attached 10' MIN E. No more than 22% of total street frontage will have buildings set back from Eaton St. at a MIN. of 10'. Remainder of buildings fronting Eaton St. will have setbacks of no less than 20' MIN. 5. BUILDING HEIGHTS: 28' MAX Height of buildings shall be determined by measuring the vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the finished grade of the building to the mean hight level between eaves and ridge for a gable, hip, gambrel, or other roof. 6. PARKING REQUIREMENTS: MIN. 1.5 OFF-STREET SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT. 7. DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: 2 PERMITTED. A. STORAGE SHED MAX. SIZE 800 SF, MAX. HEIGHT 16'. B. COVERED PARKING MAX. SIZE 3000 SF. MAX HEIGHT 22' 8. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 26-502 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS. 9. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 26-503 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS, 10. ALL FENCING SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 26-603 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS. 11. ALL SIGNAGE SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ARTICLE VII OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS. 12. ARCHITECTURAL, SITE AND STREETSCAPE DESIGN SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN MANUAL (ASDM) AND STREETSCAPE DESIGN MANUAL. PHASING: THIS PROJECT IS ANTICIPATED TO HAVE ONLY ONE PHASE. HOWEVER, FUTURE PHASING, IF REQUIRED, WILL NOT REQUIRE AMENDMENT TO THIS PLAN. CASE HISTORY TABLE: V\2-96-08 V\2-16-05 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Legal Description Provided: (BY TITLE COMMITMENT) Parcell: The North I Ofeet of Lot 26 and All of Lots 27 to 30, in clusive, and All of Lot31 Excep t the North 22 feet S g ll 3 r e r 0 0 Block 5, al - OPD TITLE PAGE LU .--i Lakeside Resubdivision of Blocks one to seven and N'!z COTTAGES W OfBlock 8, in the original platting of Lakeside, a3- NIGHBORHOOD OVERVIEW County of)efferson, a4- PERSPECTIVE VIEWS (A i0 State of Colorado w H O W u C7 CALCULATED AREA=14.985.7SQ. FT (0.34ACRES ±) J wa (A -KA 2826 EATON STEET) J uw 3� ParceIII: The North 22 feet of Lot 31 and All ofLots32 to 35, inclusive, }Di C7 Block 5, 0 0 DQ Lakeside Resubdivision ofBlocks one to seven and N'lz G� Block 8, in the original platting of Lakeside, M ++ 0 Coun ty of)efferson, 0 C4 T4 (� State of Colorado 0 L CALUCLATED AREA=16,186.5 SQ. FT.(0.37ACRES) L 0 (V (A -KA. 2828 EATON STREET) 3 Co i U) CL PROJECT INFORMATION: OWNER/DEVELOPER/BUILDER SQUAREROOT COTTAGES, LLC PO BOX 12370 DENVER, CO 80212 303-250-5911 ARCHITECT ROSS CHAPIN ARCHITECTS PO BOX 230 LANGLEY, WA 98260 360-221-2373 W SHEET INDEX i0 7 al - OPD TITLE PAGE LU .--i a2 - ODP SKETCH PLAN W a3- NIGHBORHOOD OVERVIEW Fy a4- PERSPECTIVE VIEWS (A i0 W w H O W v rn ro 0 0 U v F � U " LU U) n c O0 IL wu IL 0 01 of 4 Z 0 100 F w C7 wa uw 3� C7 W H DQ G� 0 01 of 4 R-1 C .......... Mailboxes, ................. bench, and subdivision sign. Sign no more than 15 square feet — total . ....................................... Auto Access ==> 14 UJ W U Z O Q W a Pedestrian a 14 ce EATON STREET COTTAGES PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT An Outline Development Plan in the City of Wheat Ridge Colorado Part of the SE 1/4 SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 3S, RANGE 69W., OF THE 6TH P.M. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO R-1 C Parking lot setback min. 6' from property line. Parking lot will be screened or fenced as per Sec. 26.502.E. 133' R-1 C W Q O �L Oz i U) (B ai m Q (B 0)U a a U) a) w L A A 0 a- (n J 10.5' 8' 10.51 �5' �U UJ W U Z O Q W a Pedestrian a 14 ce EATON STREET COTTAGES PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT An Outline Development Plan in the City of Wheat Ridge Colorado Part of the SE 1/4 SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 3S, RANGE 69W., OF THE 6TH P.M. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO R-1 C Parking lot setback min. 6' from property line. Parking lot will be screened or fenced as per Sec. 26.502.E. 133' R-1 C C-1 Detached Storage Shed R-2 R-2 Existing pavement R-3 A A 7 n A Common area / landscape strip Sidewalk Detached storage shed Residence Limited use area (private yard) Parking Carport Drainage / rain garden Property boundary / Exterior fencing 10' Setback Adjacent property lines SIJ ..r-tsopmvfn.Em.roV�+KNo�v....a -._e. r Squareroo �J C O TT A G ES U J J W d1 rl N UN0000 O O+N -11U L ra m > cCr ao W 110W O � Oz i H O W W J m a a w A< A A A A A C. �U < P.. ^< P A' V A G ... V. :A G' V A G' V. :A G' V. :A G ... V. A �.. V :A G' V A G' V -7 -7 -7 -7 Parfl-7 ng -7 -7 -7 A< A A A A A A A A V A G ... V. A G' V A G' V. A G': V. A G ... V. A G' V A G' V. A G': V. C-1 Detached Storage Shed R-2 R-2 Existing pavement R-3 A A 7 n A Common area / landscape strip Sidewalk Detached storage shed Residence Limited use area (private yard) Parking Carport Drainage / rain garden Property boundary / Exterior fencing 10' Setback Adjacent property lines SIJ ..r-tsopmvfn.Em.roV�+KNo�v....a -._e. r Squareroo �J C O TT A G ES U J J W d1 rl N UN0000 O O+N -11U L ra m > cCr ao V) 0 U a� U +' W U0 n C: 00 IL LU W 110W O � Oz i H O W W V) 0 U a� U +' W U0 n C: 00 IL LU 0 02 of 4 z Oz } J m a a w �U ULU D¢ aun 0 02 of 4 r PAW _ A, Y ' Anz: - - .. �. _ Z-00"o- e c SL T Single Family - PO ' 1 r ►' �,.� '� Single Family Single Family 10 r, • • -J 2.0.17 Google • Mufti-Fa-fniIy 1 V• h •41 PJ� ` 4 r 4, Goo lc earth ROSS CHAPIN I■ ARCHITECTS 0 1 lip i cl' .i Wo-99 :I v ROSS CHAPIN ARCH ITECTS Exhibit 6 — Neighborhood Meeting Notes NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY Meeting Date: Attending Staff: Property Address: Applicant: Applicant Present? Existing Zoning: Existing Comp. Plan: Existing Site Conditions: November 4, 2015 Meredith Reckert, Senior Planner Lisa Ritchie, Planner II Zack Wallace, Planning Technician 2826 Eaton Street Andrew Gibson, Mark Davis, and Mark O'Brian Square Root Construction PO Box 12370 Denver, CO 80212 Yes Residential -Three (R-3) and Residential -One C (Rl-C) Neighborhood The site consists of ten (10) lots across two (2) parcels, all with the address 2826 Eaton Street. The site currently houses a single-family home, carriage house, and detached garage. The three structures are located in the southern portion of the lot. The northern portion of the lot remains undeveloped. According to the Jefferson County Accessor, the house and carriage house were built in 1941, and the garage was built in 1949. This property is located in southeast Wheat Ridge. It is located mid -block between 28th Avenue and 29th Avenue, on Eaton Street, five (5) blocks west of Sheridan Boulevard. The subject property is currently zoned R -1C and R-3, both residential zoning districts. The R - 1C district allows for small lot medium -density single-family residential, while R-3 allows for medium- to high-density residential neighborhoods. The site is surrounded predominantly by residential uses, with a mix of R -1C, R-2, and R-3 zone districts. There is also some commercially zoned (C-1) property to the north along 29th Avenue with neighborhood serving commercial businesses. The surrounding land uses are fairly consistent with the zoning designations. Single-family homes are predominate in the entire area, with some multi -family housing units present, generally located along/near 28th Avenue, south of the subject site. Planning Commission 21 WZ-16-05 — Eaton Street Cottages Applicant/Owner Preliminary Proposal: The applicants, Square Root Construction, have proposed a `cottage court' concept, which would accommodate eight (8) single-family dwelling units surrounding a center courtyard on the site. Each of the housing units would have a building footprint measuring roughly 30' x 20' and offer approximately 1,100 square feet of living space. The current site plan indicates the inclusion of a parking area on the northern and southern ends of the property. A looped pedestrian path creates a large open space between the homes, to be used as a common area. According to the applicants, houses would be owner -occupied, with the rest of the land area designated as common area A homeowners association (HOA) would be in place for the maintenance of the common area landscaping, parking and snow removal, as well as any maintenance of storm water detention and/or water quality facilities. The applicants favor this particular location because their `cottage court' proposal is contextually sensitive to the existing neighborhood character. The area also provides walkable commercial and recreational opportunities, which fits their development mindset. The applicants acknowledge that their site plan will likely be revised following feedback from community development staff and other professional opinions. They have been in contact with The Cottage Company, based out of Seattle, which has built several cottage communities of this type in Washington, to work out more specific details of a revised site plan. At this time, the applicants are primarily interested in initial feedback from staff and will likely hold a neighborhood meeting to obtain feedback from the neighbors. If they ultimately acquire the property and the proposal for the cottage unit development is not approved by City Council, or meets heavy opposition by residents, the applicants indicated they may construct single-family homes that comply with the existing zone district standards. Attendance from the neighborhood: Twelve people from the neighborhood attended the meeting; see attached sign-up sheet. The following is a summary of the neighborhood meeting: • Staff explained the site conditions, zoning in the neighborhood, and the reason for the rezone to Planned Residential Development request. • The applicant explained the development proposal. • The attendees were informed of the process for a rezoning to Planned Residential Development. The following issues were discussed regarding the application: What happens if the HOA is ineffective or doesn't provide property maintenance? • The applicant is aware that sometimes small HOA's have this challenge. They are in discussions with management companies that combine providers for these types of small HOAs in order to gain efficiency of service. Planning Commission 22 WZ-16-05 — Eaton Street Cottages How will the applicants prevent homeless people from gathering in the common area? • The applicant feels the site design will discourage this, with houses oriented toward the common area. Other neighbors on the block are not concerned with this happening in this particular location. Will these be owner -occupied units? • The applicants intend to sell all units to owner occupants. Whether or not the buyer rents them out is not in their control. What is the duration of the construction timeframe? • The applicants intend to construct all units at the same time, approximately in a 9-12 month timeframe. Is there a reason the applicant is not proposing 4 standard homes? • The applicant feels this design concept is more appropriate for this area. Any traditional single family homes built would likely be large and out of character with the surrounding area. What will the price range be? • The applicants desire these to be affordable homes, however they will be market driven. They are unsure at this time, as site development costs are not finalized and there are few comps for this product type. How is this similar to Yukon Grove? • Yukon Grove, near 32"d Avenue and Wadsworth Blvd, are semi -custom homes with attached two -car garages. The homes are bigger, and the site had a lot ofpublic improvements required. What public improvements will be required for this project? • The applicants will finish the curb, gutter and sidewalk for the entire length of the property. They will also provide drainage facilities, yet to be determined. Is there a plume of gas on this property? • Due to a leaking underground gas tank at 29h Avenue and Fenton Street, some properties in the area have an underground gas plume. There are monitoring wells throughout the area and the applicants are working with an environmental engineer to determine the scope of the issue on the property. They have completed a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment and the results do not identify any areas ofgreat concern. What if the property is rezoned and then the applicant walks away? • If that happens, another applicant could complete the project or rezone it again. What will the parking requirement be? • The starting point for the parking requirement will be what is defined in the code, 2 off- street spaces per unit. Staff will work with the applicant to ensure adequate parking is provided. Planning Commission 23 WZ-16-05 — Eaton Street Cottages What will the setbacks be? • The starting point for determining setbacks will be typical residential setbacks in the area. Staff will work with the applicant to ensure adequate setbacks are provided. How can the applicants construct public improvements and still provide affordable units? • The cost of the homes will be market driven, to include all associated development costs. The final price point is still to be determined. This particular neighborhood is very hodge-podge. It would be nice to see a proposal that relates better to the neighborhood. • The applicants feel this proposal relates very well to the neighborhood. How tall will the homes be? • The applicants intend to construct 1 '12 to 2 -story homes, likely. No written correspondence was received regarding the meeting. Planning Commission 24 WZ-16-05 — Eaton Street Cottages City of �tWheatRdge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director Zack Wallace, Planning Technician DATE: July 15, 2016 (for July 21 Planning Commission Meeting) SUBJECT: Residential Development Standards Note: This memo will he taken before City Council during the July IS Study Session. Staff will provide Planning Commission with a summary of City Council's discussion and recommendations during the July 21 Planning Commission meeting. ISSUE: In response to citizen feedback received by City Staff and City Councilmembers regarding the impacts of new construction, Staff found it timely to compare City of Wheat Ridge development standards (such as maximum height and setbacks) with the development standards of neighboring municipalities. This comparison was meant to inform Staff and Council on ways in which the City of Wheat Ridge is, or is not, in line with its neighbors. Of particular interest, based on Staff's interaction with the public, were height and setback standards and a related concept known as `bulk -plane' standards. The 2009 Envision Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan values Wheat Ridge's existing residential communities. A goal of the Comprehensive plan is to maintain and enhance the quality and character of these neighborhoods. The Comprehensive plan also calls for increased housing options, and encourages investment in existing neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy also encourages reinvestment in Wheat Ridge neighborhoods recognizing that Wheat Ridge's housing stock tends to be older construction that does not adequately meet the demands of the modem homebuyer. PRIOR ACTIONS: Setbacks In 2003, Ordinance No. 1313 amended Chapter 26 of the municipal code pertaining to development standards in the residential zone districts. The ordinance struck several footnotes from the development standards in addition to the making the following minimum setback adjustments: R -IA zone district: Minimum side yard setback increased from 5' to 10' R -IC zone district: Minimum rear yard setback decreased from 10' to 5' In 2009, Ordinance No. 1448 amended Chapter 26 of the municipal code concerning residential development standards. The ordinance reduced front yard setbacks from 30' to 25' in most zone districts except R-1, which remained unchanged. Also, the front yard setback in the R -IC zone district was reduced from 30' to 20'. This ordinance also modified setback requirements for major and minor accessory buildings. Height Since incorporation in 1969, the maximum building height in all residential zone districts has been 35 feet. A search of Planning Commission and City Council meeting minutes indicates that height has occasionally been introduced as a topic of discussion. That being said, no concrete paths forward were ever established based on these brief discussions. The discussions around height largely stand in isolation, and are sporadically found throughout Wheat Ridge City Council and Planning Commission history. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No direct impact. BACKGROUND: Development standards for residential zone districts in Arvada, Denver, Edgewater, and Lakewood were analyzed along with Wheat Ridge's development standards. These cities were chosen for a close examination due to the likelihood that development patterns, housing types, and current housing demand would likely be similar to those found in the City of Wheat Ridge. It should be noted that the entire City of Denver zoning code was not reviewed due to its length and the city's diversity of zone districts and housing types. Rather, those zone districts in Northwest Denver, nearest the City of Wheat Ridge, were analyzed as they are likely to be the most relevant to Wheat Ridge. Attachment details the residential zone districts analyzed in each neighboring municipality and the development standards required for each. Setbacks Wheat Ridge is largely in line with other researched municipalities on setback requirements. Minimum side yard setbacks of 5' and rear setbacks ranging from 10' to 15' are not uncommon in various zone districts throughout Arvada, Denver, Edgewater, and Lakewood. One exception in Wheat Ridge is the R- 1C zone district, which has a much more permissive rear setback (5') than surrounding municipalities. Arvada rear yard setback minimums range from 10' — 15'. Edgewater allows an 8' rear setback for properties on alleys, and a 15' or 20' setback for properties not on alleys. Denver allows a 12' rear yard setback for properties on alleys, and a 20' setback for those not on alleys. Lakewood has a 15' rear yard setback for all residentially zoned properties Height Upon review of neighboring municipalities' height allowances, we find that Wheat Ridge is not out of line with its allowed height; similar zone districts in Arvada, Edgewater, and Lakewood also have a maximum height of 35 feet. Denver has a maximum height of 30 feet for the residential zone districts most adjacent to the city of Wheat Ridge. 2 However, where Wheat Ridge differs from its surrounding municipalities is in what could generally be called `bulk plane' standards. Wheat Ridge currently has no restriction on height other than a 35' maximum. Every other city researched has additional mechanisms in place to scale back the massing of residential structures as they reach taller heights. Please note that Wheat Ridge's Mixed Use development standards call for upper story setbacks when adjacent to residentially or agriculturally zoned properties that contain single-family homes. Additionally, various non -single family structures in the R-2, R -2A, R-3, and R -3A require upper story setbacks. The findings from some neighboring communities demonstrate more widespread bulk plane restrictions, as demonstrated below: 1. The City of Arvada enforces height restrictions for multi -family residential or nonresidential structures constructed within 100 feet of a single family detached or attached structure on an adjacent lot. This restriction comes in the form of a bulk plane or an overall height restriction. The bulk plane begins on the property line and extends across the property at a 45 degree angle. The overall height restriction limits the height of a structure to be no taller than the adjacent single-family/two-family residential structure. AW, i .t7/fAPl�f L�t7>b!lCU D1a++LY So' cR MM� Z. AjWqr 1^0 Wln'el Ae9lasl O lY 4 WA/f/yM'C6 GR BKATL DIKAGr Tea ddanal Height (Antral Figure 1: Arvada Transitional Height Control Graphic (Source: Arvada Municipal Code) 2. The City of Edgewater enforces a bulk plane requirement on all properties. For properties zoned R-1, R-2, and R-3 (lower intensity residential uses), the bulk plane begins 15 feet above the property line and extends over the property at a 45 degree angle. For properties zoned R-4, C-1, C-2, RC -1, and R -PD (higher intensity residential and commercial uses) the bulk plane begins at 35 feet above the property line and extends over the property at a 45 degree angle. Where a higher intensity residential/commercial property abuts lower intensity residential the bulk plane begins at 15 feet above the shared property line. The bulk plane is measured from each property line. 15 -feet R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone district Figure 2: Edgewater Bulk Plane for Lower Intensity Uses (Source: Edgewater Municipal Code) nv r,n-,,n-ru,L-i, Lccuneunuiw n- I, n-c,ul n -n culrcunu ILL Figure 3: Edgewater Bulk Plane for Higher Intensity Uses (Source: Edgewater Municipal Code) 3. The City of Denver (western most zone districts) enforces bulk plane regulations. For Denver's `urban' residential zone districts, which make up the majority of areas bordering Wheat Ridge, the bulk plane begins at 17 feet above the property line, and extends over the property at a 45 degree angle. For Denver's `suburban' residential zone districts, bordering Wheat Ridge along Harlan Street between 48th Avenue and I-76, the bulk plane begins at 10 feet above the property line, and extends over the property at a 45 degree angle. The bulk plane is measured from the side property lines. 4 Figure 4: Urban House Diagram. Letters C and D represent the bulk plane vertical height requirement, with a 45 degree angle extending over the property, as is evidenced by the 1/1 angle over Letter C. (Source: Denver Zoning Code) 4. The City of Lakewood enforces a transitional height zone. This zone applies to structures in the City's Mixed Use, Commercial, or Industrial zone districts which are adjacent to Residential zone districts. Portions of structures within 75 feet of residential districts may only be as tall as the maximum allowed height in the residential zone district. Additionally, portions of structures within 125 feet of residential districts must demonstrate compatibility through the use of bulk plane, buffering, parking orientation, or other site specific conditions. The code is not specific as to which compatibility tool should be used in specific situations, and compatibility is determined on a case by case basis. New Bulldhg In Mixed Use Zone District Existing Single Fatuity Residence Maximum Allowed Residential District Height 'M _ moo AIM ro, X= '- + ® In s IN I H 75 h. Tronsition Figure 5: Lakewood Transitional Height Diagram (Source: Lakewood Municipal Code) Takeaways: Arvada and Lakewood utilize transitional heights for higher intensity uses (multifamily and non-residential in Arvada, mixed use, commercial and industrial zones in Lakewood) adjacent to single-family residential structures, which restrict the height of adjacent mixed use, commercial, and multifamily structures. Edgewater and Denver utilize bulk planes for all residential structures. • Arvada requires the higher intensity structure be no taller than the adjacent existing single-familv structure. Arvada also allows a bulk plane beginning at the property line at ground level to be used in lieu of the height restriction. • Edgewater and Denver utilize a 45 degree bulk plane requirement, beginning at varying vertical heights above the property lines. There regulations are more permissive than the Arvada bulk plane, which begins at 0 feet above the property line. o Denver measures bulk plane only from the side property lines. o Edgewater measures bulk plane from all property lines. • Lakewood limits the height for higher intensity structures (namely those in mixed use, commercial, and industrial zone districts) to the allowed maximum height in the adjacent residential district (35 feet in most instances). RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Consideration of a residential bulk plane ordinance a. Allows existing maximum allowed heights to be reached, thus not drastically altering a property's development/redevelopment possibility, while still respecting the established community character by limiting the massing impact of new construction. b. This maybe seen as a compromised approach consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which calls for respecting community character while also encouraging redevelopment and investment in the Wheat Ridge community. 2. Consideration of increasing the rear yard setback requirement for the R -1C zone district and possibly other residential zone districts. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: Residential Development Standards 6