HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/01/2008STUDY SESSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE, MUNICIPAL BUILDING
December 1. 2008
6:30 p.m.
Item 1. Staff Reports
• An Ordinance amending Chapter 26 to require proof of adequate water
supply for new developments.
• Construction Timeline and Funding - 38"' and Kipling Park.
Item 2. Short Term Zoning Code Amendments - Project Update
Item 1 .
City of
Wheat'R
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Randy Young, City Ma&gk'-~
FROM: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director
DATE: November 25, 2008
SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 26 to require proof of adequate
water supply for new developments
Colorado House Bill 08-1141 became effective on May 29, 2008. The bill, which applies to the
City, concerns the provision of sufficient water supply for new developments. The bill amends
Article 20 of Title 29 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Article 20 pertains to local government
regulation of land use. The bill provides that local governments, through their land use approval
processes, establish that any new development over a certain size will have sufficient water
supply.
The size of development that triggers this new requirement is anything over 50 single family
equivalent (SFE) dwelling units. The bill establishes three principle ways that an applicant could
demonstrate adequate water supply. The bill leaves open to the local government when in their
approval process this determination will be made. Local governments are prohibited from
approving applications for development permits over 50 SFE unless a determination has been
made that they have adequate water supply.
The City Attorney's office, after reviewing the new legislation is recommending the City
consider adoption of amendments to Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws (Zoning and
Development). A September 8, 2008 memo from the City Attorney's office is attached for
additional discussion and background.
The City Attorney's office has drafted a proposed ordinance amending Chapter 26 (attached). In
summary, the ordinance would amend the Wheat Ridge Code to require that any new
development over 50 SFE demonstrate sufficiency of water rights at the first of any of the
various development approvals required by the City. Demonstration of sufficiency of water
rights could be achieved through any of the three (3) ways outlined in HB08-1141. With City
Council direction, Staff will schedule the proposed ordinance for a hearing before the Planning
Commission.
M URRAY
®AHL
ICU EGH EN MEISTER
R ENALIO LLP
® 2401 15th Street Suite 300 Denver, C.I..do 30302 Phone 303.493.6670 Fv 303.477.0965
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ken Johnstone, Director of Community Development
FROM: Gerald E. Dahl, Debra S. Kalish, City Attorney's Office
DATE: September 8, 2008
RE: HB 08-1141 concerning proof of adequate water supply for new
development
On May 29, 2008, HB 08-1141, became effective. The bill, which applies to the City,
concerns sufficient water supplies for land use approval. This memorandum
summarizes the contents of that bill and makes suggestions for changes to the City's
Code of Laws to incorporate the new statutory requirement.
Article 20 of Title 29 empowers local governments to regulate land use. For context,
some of the more familiar sections include provisions for impact fees (29-20-104.5),
intergovernmental cooperation (29-20-1-5). The bill amends Article 20 in two important
ways:
The bill amends the definition of "development permit," which now reads:
(1) "Development permit" means any preliminary or final
approval of an application for rezoning, planned unit
development, conditional or special use permit, subdivision,
development or site plan, or similar application for new
construction. EXCEPT THAT, FOR PURPOSES OF PART 3
OF THIS ARTICLE, "DEVELOPMENT PERMIT" IS LIMITED
TO AN APPLICATION REGARDING A SPECIFIC
PROJECT THAT INCLUDES NEW WATER USE IN AN
AMOUNT MORE THAN THAT USED BY FIFTY SINGLE-
FAMILY EQUIVALENTS, OR FEWER AS DETERMINED BY
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
When, in the newly added part 3, the term "development permit" is used, it
applies oI to those applications for permits for development which will require new
water use in excess of 50 single-family equivalents ("SFE").
Memo: HB 1141: proof of adequate
water supply for new development
September 8, 2008
Page 2 of 4
2. The bill adds the new part 3 (that is, Sections 29-20-301 through 29-20-
306). Briefly, these sections do the following:
Section 29-20-302, Definitions, provides that "adequate" means a water supply
that will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development in terms of water quality,
quantity, dependability, and availability. This may include reasonable conservation
measures and water demand management. "Water supply entity" means municipalities,
counties, special districts, water conservancy districts, and water authorities or other
public or private water supply company that supplies, distributes or otherwise provides
water at retail.
Section 29-20-303 prohibits local governments from approving an application for
a development permit (and remember in this section that means if the project would use
water in excess of that used by 50 SFE) unless the local government determines, in its
sole discretion and after reviewing all information provided, that the applicant has
satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed water supply will be adequate. The local
government only has to make this determination once, unless the project changes such
that the water demands or supply are materially changed. The local government can
decide when in the process this determination should be made. This section does not
require that the applicant own or have acquired the proposed water supply or
constructed the necessary infrastructure at the time of the application.
Section 29-20-304 provides three ways for an applicant to prove an adequate
water supply.
The applicant may provide the following information:
• An estimate of the water supply required for the proposed development at
build-out;
• A description of the physical source of the water supply;
• An estimate of the amount of water yield projected from the proposed water
supply under various hydrologic conditions;
• Water conservation measures that will be employed in the development, if
any
• Water demand management measures, if any, that may be implemented
within the development to account for hydrologic variability; and
• Any other information required by the local government.
2. If the development will be served by a water supply entity, the local
government may allow the applicant to submit a letter from a registered professional
Memo: HB 1141: proof of adequate
water supply for new development
September 8, 2008
Page 3 of 4
engineer or by a water supply expert from the water supply entity stating whether it is
willing to commit and its ability to provide an adequate supply of water for the
development. At a minimum, the letter must also include the same information as listed
in the bullet points above.
3. A third alternative is to provide a letter from a water supply entity that has
a water supply plan that
• has been reviewed and updated within the previous ten years by the
governing body of the water supply entity;
• has a 20-year planning horizon
• lists the water conservation measures that may be implemented within the
service area;
• lists the water demand management measures that may be implemented
within the development
• includes a general description of the water supply entity's water obligations;
• includes and general description of the water supply entity's water supplies;
and
• is on file with the local government.
The basis for a local government determining that the water supply is adequate is
detailed in Section 29-20-305. This includes:
1. the information required by Section 29-20-304;
2. if requested by the local government, a letter from the state engineer
commenting on the documentation required by Section 29-20-304;
3. whether the applicant has paid a fee or charge to a water supply entity for the
purpose of acquiring water for or expanding or constructing the infrastructure
to serve the proposed development; and
4. any other information deemed relevant by the local government, including any
information required to be submitted by the applicant pursuant to the local
governments land use regulations or state statutes.
Recommendation
Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws references water supply in 3 places:
• Section 26-102 states that the "intent and purpose of the zoning code of the
City of Wheat Ridge is ...to facilitate adequate provision for water, sewage,
schools, parks and other public improvements;
• Section 26-112, Private rezoning, subsection CA e. requires that all
applications for rezoning shall be accompanied by written information ...and
Memo: HB 1141: proof of adequate
water supply for new development
September 8, 2008
Page 4 of 4
shall include: present and future effect on public facilities and services, such
as fire, police, water, sanitation, roadways, parks, schools, etc.
Section 26-412, Required subdivision improvements, subsection D., provides
that "All lots shall be served by public water and sanitary sewer lines through
the appropriate district."
These ordinances do suggest that the City will review a development's impact on
water supply and that developers must ensure adequate water supply for their
developments. However, they are limited to the private rezoning and subdivision
processes and do not reach the level of specificity required by the bill.
Because this statute concerns an area generally considered to be a matter of
local concern rather than state concern, the City, as a home rule municipality,
could argue that it has already addressed the matter and that the statute does
not govern it. However, the legislative declaration in Section 2 of the bill, the
general assembly states:
...while land use and development approvals decisions are
matters of local concern, the enactment of this Part 3, to help
ensure the adequacy of water for new developments, is a
matter of statewide concern and necessary for the
preservation of public health, safety and welfare and the
environment of Colorado.
While it is true that a simple declaration by the general assembly does not make
a local matter a matter of statewide concern, this declaration does make the
City's argument less powerful. As a result, we recommend that the City adopt a
new requirement that would apply to each of the land use approvals listed in the
bill (rezoning, PUD, condition or special use permit, subdivision, site plan or
similar process). We propose drafting a fairly simple ordinance that would
require a letter from the serving water district, as is permitted pursuant to Section
29-20-304(2).
When you have had a chance to review the matter, please give us a call to
discuss how to best proceed.
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER
Council Bill No.
Ordinance No.
Series of 2008
TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT
RIDGE CODE OF LAWS TO REQUIRE PROOF OF ADEQUATE
WATER SUPPLY FOR CERTAIN NEW DEVELOPMENTS
WHEREAS, the purpose and intent of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of
Laws is, in part, to facilitate adequate provision for water; sewage, schools, parks
and other public improvements; and
WHEREAS, H.B. 08-1141, which became effective on May 29, 2008, requires
local governments to require the applicant to provide proof of sufficient water
supply before approving any new development that includes a new water use in
excess of that used by fifty single-family equivalents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 26-103 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, entitled "Site
development review process," is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection E,
which shall read as follows:
quality, quantity, dependability and availability to provide a supply of water for the type of
29-20-304, as the same may be amended from time to time. The City's determination
as to whether the proposed water supply is adequate to serve the proposed
defined in C.R.S. & 29-20-3021 a fee or charge for the purpose of acauirina water for or
expanding or constructing the infrastructure to serve the proposed development: and (ivl
sole -discretion and-after-considering the application and all of the information provided.
Section 2. Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that
this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat
Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and that this
Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of
public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance
bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after final
publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to
on this day of , 2001 ordered published in
full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing
and consideration on final passage set for , 200, at 7:00
o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by
a vote of to , this day of , 200_
SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 1200.
Jerry DiTullio, Mayor
ATTEST:
Michael Snow, City Clerk
Approved As To Form
Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney
First Publication:
Second Publication:
Wheat Ridge Transcript
Effective Date:
2
s~~s
City of
Wheat
PARKS AND RECREATION Midge
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Randy Young, City M&4r
FROM: Joyce Manwaring, Parks and Recreation Director
DATE: November 20, 2008
SUBJECT: Construction Timeline and Funding - 38`h and Kipling Park
The estimated budget for construction of the approved master plan (attached) for the park site
located at 38`h and Kipling is $2,702,860. This amount is not available in the Conservation
Trust Fund and/or the Open Space Fund in a one year period.
Based on a three year construction phasing plan the budget is $2,991,936, a cost difference of
$289,076. This amount is available in the Conservation Trust Fund and/or the Open Space Fund
over a three year period to complete the project. The phasing cost increase is based on and
assumes contractor mobilization three times instead of one, inflation estimates and increased
costs for the contractor to work around what has already been completed in the prior phase.
Funds from these two special funds, by legislation, may only be used for Park and Recreation
purposes. The revenue from the lottery and the %2 cent county open space tax are the source of
the funds respectively for these two special funds.
TIMELINE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARK - (3) Phases
Construct in (3) phases; 2009, 2010, 2011.
* A PHASING NARRATIVE is ATTACHED which describes the park features that will be
included in each phase of construction.
2009
January - Contract award for Design Development and Construction Drawings
August - Construction Contract Award Phase I
September - Phase I construction
2010
January - Construction Contract Award Phase II
January - Phase II construction
July - Estimated park opening to the public (contingent on contractors submitted schedule)
2011
January - Construction Contract Award Phase III
July - Park Completed
The above estimated construction timelines are contingent on the contract award, weather
variables, etc. It is the intent to design the bidding process so that Phase I and Phase II are
awarded to the same contractor and the construction is seamless between the first two phases.
This approach will facilitate a more efficient process and maintain contractor accountability for
the work performed, as opposed to awarding the construction contract to two different
contractors.
MAINTENANCE COSTS
The cost to maintain the park is estimated at $41,946/year. This is the amount that will need to
be added to the general fund operating budget to maintain the park when it is completed. This
estimate includes only the additional costs of seasonal workers, supplies and utilities and does
not reflect the cost of the labor hours ($17,324) that will be required of existing staff for certain
maintenance tasks. Examples of these tasks are; playground inspections, soccer field
maintenance, turf mowing, and flower bed maintenance. These labor hours will be absorbed by
existing staff, by adjusting the management plans for each of the parks in the system city wide.
The costs are based on 2009 salaries and hourly wages, historical data from existing parks in the
city system and the amenities as shown on the master plan.
ggi
ti z
M A ry
Site Plan Phasing Narrative - 38th & KIPLING PARK
November 20, 2008
Phase 1:
• All utilities and taps for entire park
• Earthwork for entire site including detention pond
• Native planting at detention pond
• Site electrical service and structures (transformer, etc). Includes parking lot lighting but does not include
any other lighting.
• Parking lot, including paving, curb & gutter, lighting, signage and striping
• All walks and sidewalks for the entire site, except for some walks around the plaza areas
• Estate fence along Kipling
• Ditch improvements
• (1) Play pit including curbwall, EWF, access ramp, and concrete retaining wall and guard rail for future
climbing wall, but does not include climbing wall
• Sod and irrigation at soccer field
• Sod and irrigation along Kipling and a portion of Johnson, as noted on phasing plan
• Shrub planting areas (no trees area included in this phase)
• Native seed to cover future phased areas
Phase 2:
• Pedestrian lighting along walks
• Concrete flatwork for large and small plazas
• Water feature at large plaza
• Large shade shelter
• Specialty concrete at entry plaza
• CMU retaining walls
• Seating and landscape boulders
• Concrete seatwalls at large plaza
• Shrub planting areas
• Sod and irrigation for amphitheater and playground areas
• Trees (102)
• Site furnishings including benches, tables, bike racks, trash receptacles, park signs
• Remainder of play pits including curbwall, EWF, poured in place surfacing, play sand, access ramps,
play equipment, and play boulders. Excluding climbing wall
Phase 3:
• Skate park
• Climbing wall at playground
• Concrete flatwork at skate park plaza
• (3) Smaller shelters (two at playground, one at skate park)
• Restroom building
• Trees (27)
• Sod and irrigation around skate park area
• Entry gateways
• Maze
Item 2.
e > City of
Wheat 'ge
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Memorandum
TO: City Council
THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director
FROM: Jeff Hirt, Planner II
DATE: November 21, 2008 (for December 1 study session)
SUBJECT: Short Term Zoning Code Amendments
The Community Development Department has made significant progress in moving forward
with the short term zoning code amendments brought before City Council at the July 7, 2008
study session. Before proceeding to the public hearing stage with several of these amendments,
some general policy direction is requested from council. The items are set forth below, with a
general discussion of the proposed amendment and the policy direction requested. For each
item, please note the "Policy Direction Requested" heading. Additionally, proposed drafts
are provided for many of the proposed amendments as an addendum to this memo for council's
consideration.
Next Steps
Once planning staff receives direction to move forward with these amendments, Planning
Commission public hearings will be scheduled for several of the short term zoning code
amendments.
Overall Policy Direction Requested
The overarching question staff has of City Council is - would you like to have study sessions
scheduled similar to this one to discuss these outstanding issues prior to moving forward with the
public hearing(s)? Or would you like for staff to bring these issues forward with
recommendations to Planning Commission for their review and comment?
1. Extended Stay Lodging
(Code language attached)
Issue Summary:
• Current zoning code does not account for extended stay lodging - only "transient"
hotel/motel rooms.
Based on discussions with the Police Department and Chief Building Official, 3 of
the city's 9 hotels/motels are utilizing extended stay lodging in some of their rooms.
It is estimated that anywhere from 10-20% of overall rooms in these facilities are for
extended stay lodging.
The new regulation proposed will make these rooms nonconforming relative to
zoning requirements - meaning they will not be considered a hotel/motel room for
Short Term Code Amendments
11/21/08
"transient" occupancy any longer.
Staff Recommendations:
• Define extended stay lodging as a separate land use from hotels/motels. Extended
stay lodging units will be for occupancy in excess of 30 days, and must contain a
bathroom, cooking facilities, 24 hour desk service, and housekeeping services.
Building codes also mandate cooking facilities for units where lodging is in excess of
30 days.
• Existing rooms being rented for extended stay lodging will be in violation of these
regulations.
• It is staff and the city attorney's opinion that if rooms have been rented for extended
stay prior to the adoption of these regulations; they would not be "grandfathered" in.
The facilities were approved as hotels/motels for "transient" occupancy, and having
tenants in rooms for over 30 days is not considered transient.
• Staff feels that this regulation will not discourage use of rooms and businesses
specifically designed for extended stay (e.g., Residence Inn by Marriot), but there will
be oversight to ensure they have adequate facilities in place.
Policy Direction Requested:
• Is council in support of how to handle existing extended stay rooms that will become
in violation of the new code per the above staff recommendations? This is clearly a
source of revenue for these hotels/motels, but the rooms have proven to create issues
with crime and property maintenance.
• Additionally, the rooms are likely in violation of building codes for extended stay
occupancy.
2. Zoning District Boundary Discrepancies
(Code language attached)
Issue Summary:
• Many properties in the city have "split zoning", meaning there are multiple zone
districts encompassing the lot.
• This presents significant challenges to development/redevelopment on these
properties.
• The current code does not provide an adequate process for addressing many of these
situations.
Staff Recommendations:
• Provide limited administrative options for property owners to use their property if it is
"split zoned".
• These options include -1) using the portions of the property with their respective
zoning classifications, 2) using the entire lot for the zone district that encompasses the
majority of the land area, provided that it is not to a "higher intensity" zone district;
and 3) request an "administrative adjustment" to the Official Zoning Map to adjust
the zoning district boundary.
2
Short Term Code Amendments 11121108
• The administrative adjustment procedure proposed is generally as follows:
o The Community Development Director may approve the adjustment if it
meets certain criteria;
o The adjustment cannot extend the boundary by more than 50 feet;
o The property cannot exceed 1 acre in size; and
o The adjacent property owners are notified and given the opportunity to object
- similar to the administrative variance process.
Policy Direction Requested:
• Is council in support of the administrative authority being proposed for these
situations noted above? Currently, a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment is
required for any zoning district boundary discrepancy where there is not a "verifiable
error".
• Is council in support of the size thresholds noted above (50 feet and 1 acre
maximums)?
• If so, is council in support of being the body for appeals from these administrative
decisions?
3. Planned Development Amendments
(Code language attached)
Issue Summary:
• There are two types of amendments to approved planned developments - outline
(ODP) and final development plan (FDP) amendments. Criteria and thresholds for
each are established.
• Variances (administrative or board of adjustment) to standards within a planned
development are also allowed for single-family and duplex lots.
• ODP amendments require approval from all original property owners, or by
alternative arrangement from city council (Sec. 26-31 LA). For large multiple
property ODPs it could be extremely difficult to approve minor ODP amendments in
the future.
• FDP amendments require approval from all property owners in the parcel or phase of
the planned development where the amendment is being requested (Sec. 26-31 LA).
Staff Recommendations:
• Allow any property owner within a planned development to apply for an ODP or FDP
amendment.
• Require approval in writing only from the property owner where the amendment is
proposed for both FDP and ODP amendments.
• Insert language requiring approval in writing from other property owners in the
planned development where they are affected as part of an ODP amendment. There
is some existing language addressing drainage, access, utilities, and circulation. We
may want to add language stating that any amendment that generally affects the
whole planned development - not just a specific property - requires consent from
those affected property owners as well.
Short Term Code Amendments
11/21/08
Policy Direction Requested:
• Does council feel that other property owners (other than the subject property) should
have to provide approval in writing for proposed ODP amendments?
• If so, how many? All? 50%?
4. City-Initiated Rezonings
(Code language attached)
Issue Summary:
• The current code has two types of rezonings, private (Sec. 26-112), and city-initiated
(Sec. 26-113).
• City-initiated rezonings may only be for large areas - defined as at least 5 separate
properties or 5 acres.
• City-initiated rezonings may only be to a less intensive zone district (e.g., C-1 to R-2,
not R-2 to C-1).
• Many cities are using city-initiated zone changes as a proactive way to implement
subarea plans and encourage private sector redevelopment.
Staff Recommendations:
Allow for city-initiated rezonings to any zone district - in line with surrounding
jurisdictions.
Possibly eliminate minimum size threshold for city-initiated zone changes when the
city does not own the property.
Policy Direction Requested:
• Is council in favor of eliminating minimum size thresholds for city-initiated zone
changes?
• Does council want to specify that city-initiated zone changes may only be for city-
owned property?
5. Accessory Buildines on Commercial Property
(Language has not been drafted)
Issue Summary:
• Accessory buildings are any building subordinate to the principal building on a lot.
Examples include sheds and detached garages.
• Accessory buildings are not allowed outright on any non-residentially zoned property
in the city. In order to have them allowed one must either obtain a temporary use
permit or a planned building group application (which requires a minimum 1,000
square foot size for the structure).
• This has presented challenges for commercial property owners and tenants in need of
additional space. For many it is not feasible to add on to their buildings or
accommodate the necessary space on their property without an accessory building.
4
Short Term Code Amendments
11/21/08
Staff Recommendations:
• Provide more flexibility for accessory buildings on commercial property.
• This may come in the form of limited allowance for accessory buildings (size,
number) and restrictions on the materials of the structure (no metal, compliance with
the Architectural and Site Design Manual).
Policy Direction Requested:
• Is council in favor of staff moving forward with proposing some limited allowances
for accessory buildings on commercial property?
• If so, are there any recommendations for these allowances?
6. Residential Density
(Language has not been drafted)
Issue Summary:
• One of the short term zoning code amendments proposed was an evaluation and
increase in residential density in planned developments, and possibly in some base
zone districts.
Staff held off on moving forward with these amendments pending the results of the
November ballot questions regarding height and density.
Since the charter amendment did not pass, increased density allowances are limited -
but there is still some ability for increased density within the existing charter
regulations.
The current zoning code regulations allow a maximum of 16 units per acre in the
Planned Mixed Use (PMUD) and Planned Residential (PRD) districts, less than the
21 units per acre in the city charter.
Staff Recommendations:
• Increase density allowance in Planned Mixed Use (PMUD) and Planned Residential
(PRD) developments to 21 dwelling units/acre, matching the city charter.
Policy Direction Requested:
• Is council in support of moving forward with increased density allowances as
mentioned above or would the preference be to wait for additional discussion and
education on density to occur through the Comprehensive Plan process?
7. Residential Zone District Development Standards
(Language has not been drafted)
Issue Summary:
• One of the short term amendments proposed is the reduction in front yard setbacks in
some residential zone districts. The current setback requirements do not allow for the
pedestrian-friendly neighborhood context to city is trying to achieve in some of its
more urban neighborhoods.
• Mid and long tern amendments also include an evaluation of all yard and bulk
requirements (setbacks, height).
5
Short Term Code Amendments
11/21/08
• Development standards such as building heights and setbacks should work together to
achieve a logical set of regulations for different zone districts.
• While it will take longer to implement, taking a comprehensive approach to revising
these development standards may be the most desirable course of action to achieving
this logical set of standards.
Staff Recommendations:
• Take a comprehensive approach to revising development standards in residential zone
districts.
• This includes evaluating all setbacks and building height restrictions for all types of
structures in all residential zone districts (e.g., principle structures and accessory
structures).
• This will take longer than the anticipated short term amendment focusing on front
setbacks, but staff feels these standards should be evaluated and revised
comprehensively.
Policy Direction Requested:
• Is council in favor of taking the comprehensive approach discussed above to
residential development standards?
• Or would you like to move forward with the residential front setbacks to expedite the
process, and focus on other standards as part of the mid and long term amendments?
Short Term Code Amendments
11121108
1. EXTENDED STAY LODGING
Sec. 26-123. Definitions.
Hotel/motel. A building or, group of butldings containing sbEteen 6; six (6)` or more transient
guest rooms in which lodging for compensation is provided, with or without meals. For
'NOTE: Six transient guest rooms, as opposed to the current 16 appears to be a more common definition locally and
nationally for hotels and motels.
2 NOTE: This provision regarding cooking has been added to differentiate the units from those of extended stay
occupancy.
'NOTE: The following is suggested new language to further clarify what is required for extended stay lodging
facilities. We have suggested adding it to the "supplementary regulations" section of Chapter 26.
Short Term Code Amendments
11121108
Sec. 26-204. Zone district use schedule.
Table of Uses--Commercial and Industrial Districts
TABLE INSET:
Uses
Notes
NC
RC
C-1
C-2
1
Extended Stay Lodguig
See4§ 26 63'5
S
S
S
Hotels or motels for
There shall be 1,000
square feet of gross lot
S
S
S
transient occupancy.
area for each unit
Sec. 26-501. Off-street parking requirements.
F. Schedule ofrequiredoff-streetparking:
TABLE INSET:
Use
Standard Requirement
Hotels and motels
1 space per guest room plus parking for associated uses such as
iiioluthng,exten_ ded staff
restaurant or lounge, based on their requirements, plus 1 space per
lodg}rig
employee on maximum shift
Short Term Code Amendments
11/21108
2. ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDARY DISCREPANCIES
D. 1,U111Hg IJlSU1CU DUUUUUI'1CS UU%;Vl LULU
Where uncertainty exists as to the boundaries of zoning districts as shown on the Official
Zoning Map, the following shall apply:
1. Boundaries indicated as approximately following the centerline of streets, highways, or
alleys shall be construed to follow such centerlines.
2. Boundaries indicated as approximately following platted lot lines shall be construed as
following such lot lines.
3. Boundaries indicated as approximately following city limits shall be construed as
following city limits.
4. Boundaries indicated as approximately following railroad lines shall be construed to be
midway between the main tracks.
5. Boundaries indicated as approximately following shorelines shall be construed to follow
such shorelines. Boundaries indicated as approximately following the centerlines of
streams, rivers, canals, lakes, or other bodies of water shall be construed to follow such
centerlines. In the event of a natural change in the shoreline or centerline, the district
boundary shall be construed as moving with the actual shoreline or centerline. In the
event of a change directly or indirectly the result of human actions, the district boundary
shall not be construed as following the new shoreline or centerline.
6. Boundaries indicated as parallel to or extensions of features indicated in subsections 1.
through 5. shall be so construed. Distances not specifically indicated on the Official
Zoning Map shall be determined by the legal description as contained in a rezoning
ordinance or resolution adopted by the city council, or, if the zoning pre-dates the
adoption of Ordinance No. 98, adopted on May 2, 1972, shall be determined by
measurement of the Official Zoning Map currently in effect.
7. Where physical or cultural features existing on the ground are different than those shown
on the Official Zoning Map, or in other circumstances not covered by thi&"-,WC _6ft
subsee4ions A. thfaugh F. , the Gommututy; Development Director beard of
adjustment shall interpret the district boundaries in accordance with procedures set forth
in Section 26 1,19E see6en 26 15.
8. Boundaries indicated as approximately following section lines or division lines of
sections (i.e. quarter-section lines) shall be construed to follow such land lines.
(Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01)
a NOTE: The following new section is intended to consolidate the current Sections 26-119 and 26-203 that both
address zoning and mapping discrepancies. Language has been carried forward as noted, but much of the language
proposed is new (shaded).
'NOTE: Taken from Section 26-203 of the current code (all of B.)
9
Sec. 26-119. Interpretation of Zoning District Boundaries 4
Short Term Code Amendments
11/21/08
ljustments and Right-of-Way Vacations 6
district boundary shown on the Official Zoning
pproximately following a property line shall be
I as following the property line as it actually
t the time the zoning district boundary was
ed. If, subsequent to the establishment of the
istrict boundary, a property line is moved as a
a legally performed property line adjustment
to Articles I and IV of this Chapter, as applicable
g right-of-way dedications and vacations), the
istrict boundary line shall be construed as moving
1.0usly with the property line if the Community
nent Director determines that each of the follow
line adjustment is minor in nature;
iding adjustment in the zoning is
the Comprehensive Plan; and
The adjustment is consistent with the general zontiig
pattern in the area.
e requisite conditions are. satisfied, the
y Development Director may direct that the
ming Map be adjusted pursuant to Subsection E
any of these conditions are not satisfied the
trict boundary may only be moved pursuant to'the
rocess set forth in Section 26-112.
o or More Zoning Districts 7
ig district boundary line dividesa lot that has
hip at the time of the passage of this Code, zo'
lot shall be governed by one of the following
elected by the Community Development Direct
i-119.1):
all be considered to be in the zoning district in
,S
lot falls, provided that the lower intensity zohec
e with Figure 26-119.2 and the zone district to b,
nsive Plan at the sole discretion of the Commute}
time as a rezoning is sought pursuant to SectioY
on of that lot so divided may be used in confor.
s applicable to the district in which it is locate
d?o
Q°2
Example 1: Three options are
available to resolve this "split
zoning" subject to Section 26-
119.D. 1) The entire lot maybe
considered R-2, 2) each portion
of the lot may be used as R-2 or
C-1 within the respective
boundaries, or 3) an
administrative adjustment to the
map may be requested.
94
Example 2: Two options are
available to resolve this "split
zoning". C-1 is considered a
"higher intensity' zone district;
therefore it may not be utilized for
the entire lot even though it
encompasses the majority of the
lot. 1) Each portion of the lot may
be used as R-2 or C-1 within the
respective boundaries, or 2) an
administrative adjustment to the
map may be requested.
Figure 26-119.1: Interpretation of
zoning district boundaries
'NOTE: The following (all of subsection C.) is proposed new language to clarify how zoning district boundaries
relate to platting where lot lines are adjusted. We anticipate that this provision will not be used often, but there may
be situations where this language would be helpful. For instance, where a portion of right-of-way is vacated along a
zoning district boundary we would want the zoning district boundary adjusted accordingly.
NOTE: The following (all of subsection D.) is proposed new language to address split zoned lots.
10
Short Term Code Amendments
11121108
unity Development Director may make an
live adjustment to the Official Zoning Map in
with the procedures set forth in Sectiod26'
;r one ownership that exceed t acre in size
ed in accordance with subsection 2 aboye-
Adjustments to the;Official
undary cannot be interpreted in
B. through D. above, the
irector may make an administrative
th this Subsection E
extend the zone Aistrict
more than 50 feet;
.rty subject to the adjustment does not
tcre in size;to
le, the City C]
Plan, or any
of the City; z
ten (10) da
issues unrelatet
ns for purposes
A-1 Lower
A-2
R-1
R-1A
R48
R-1C
R-2
R-2A
R-3A
1 b "NYC
Higher
Figure 26-119.2: Zone district
levels of intensity.
s NOTE: This provision has been inserted to place a maximum size a split zoned lot can be to be eligible for the
administrative process. Further discussion is needed as to the exact size.
s NOTE: This section, as proposed, replaces Section 26-119.A.1. that sets forth administrative corrections to the
zoning map. This process has been set up to be comparable to the administrative variance process in Section 26-
115, where there is a 10 day public notification window for comment. The language requiring a "verifiable error" to
be found has been placed into subsection E.3 below.
10 NOTE: The one acre and 50 foot provisions here have been suggested by staff to establish a size threshold for
these cases. Further discussion may be needed as to the exact number.
11
Short Term Code Amendments
11/21/08
2: Appeals
3. Minor corrections 12
a. Subdivisions
Corrections to name of subdivisions, locations of lot lines and boundary lines,
location and names of streets and alleys and railroads.
b. Base map
Corrections to watercourse locations or names, location or names of lakes, names or
location of street or railroads.
c. Zoning information
Corrections to names of planned developments, case numbers, and closure of zone
districts in accordance with the most recent record of zoning action where there is no
zoning line separation between two (2) different zone districts.
d. Verifiable Errors 13
Where a verifiable error is discovered in the zone classification of any particular
parcel as displayed on the Official Zoning Map, or as represented in a rezoning
ordinance, the Community Development Director shall notify the current property
" NOTE: Subsections i-ii below are generally taken from Section 26-119.A. La of the current code relating to
zoning map discrepancies.
12 NOTE: The following is taken from Section 26-119.A.2 of the current code, with the introductory statement being
new (there is not one currently).
" NOTE: The following language in d-e is taken from 26-119.A.1 of the current code. This language sets forth the
procedures for correcting the zoning map where a "verifiable error" has been found and some other minor
corrections.
12
Short Term Code Amendments 11121108
owner by certified mail of the error and shall inform the owner of the intent to correct
the error based upon the record of the last rezoning action. The Director shall also
notify City Council of the proposed correction by memorandum, including
documentation which supports the corrective action. If within thirty (30) days of the
date of notice to the property owner, he or she fails to submit a written protest to the
correction, the Director may correct the error and shall publish a legal notice of the
correction. However, if the owner does file a written protest, a rezoning action shall
be initiated. The rezoning action shall be subject to the provisions of section 26-112
except that no fee shall be assessed.
e. Miscellaneous Corrections
At any time minor corrections to the Official Zoning Map which do not affect the
zoning of any parcel may be made with the approval of the Community Development
Director and with a note added under the "revisions" box on said map, indicating that
an "administrative correction" has been made, a case file shall be created with a case
number assigned for each correction, with information contained in the file which
gives the location and nature of the correction.
(Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01; Ord. No. 1288, 1, 2, 5-12-03)
Sec. 26-203. Rules for interpretation of district boundaries is
[Repealed]
Sec. 26-115. Variance/waivers/temporary permits/interpretations 15
1. Interpretations
The board of adjustment is empowered to hold public hearings to decide upon requests
for interpretation of certain of the provisions of this chapter in such a way as to carry out
their intent and purpose. This authority shall extend only to the following:
1. The basic intent and purpose of words, phrases or paragraphs as applied to a
specific proposal or instance.
2. Use of property as an "other similar use;" however in no instance shall the board
make an interpretation that a particular use may be permitted in a zone district
where that use is specifically enumerated in a higher; that is more intensive, zone
district.
• Relationship of physieal e J J rights ef J s4eams, rpPa.a ty
J
inaps of the City ef 3A%eat Ridge.
14 NOTE: As noted above, we propose consolidating this section with Section 26-119. With this, this section would
be eliminated.
15 NOTE: The only change proposed in this section is shown below in Section 25-115.E.3 (shown as a
strikethrough) to remain consistent with the new language proposed.
13
Short Term Code Amendments
11121108
4. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS
See. 26-311. Amendments to development plans.
A. The procedures and requirements for amending an approved development plan (outline or
final) shall be the same as prescribed for original approval, except as provided for under
subsection (C) below.
r Arngndmentsmay be f_ -ed: by,any
property owner witlun'an approved development'plan± All applications for amendment to a final
development plan must be approved in writing by all owners of real property and owners of
interest contained within the parcel or phase of the planned development where the amendment
is being requested. 17 If the amendment affects the provisions for access, drainage, utilities and/or
circulation, affected property owners must consent to the application for amendment in writing.
18
B. Outline development plan amendments. Amendments to the underlying outline development
plan are required and will be processed the same as prescribed for original approval if any one
(1) of the following is proposed:
1. Increase in the gross floor area of structures beyond the authorized maximum allowed on the
approved outline development plan.
2. Proposed land uses are not permitted on the approved outline development plan.
3. Increase in density or intensity of use.
4. Decrease in perimeter setbacks.
5. Reduction in required buffer areas.
6. Increase in height of any structures.
C. Final development plan changes. A final development plan may vary from the approved
outline development plan so long as the thresholds for an outline development plan amendment
are not met as set forth in subsection B above. Variations include, but are not limited to, re-
orienting buildings and parking lots, changes in landscaping areas, changes in architectural
details, changes to interior setbacks and similar changes that do not affect neighboring properties
or the overall character of the development. At no time can approval of a final development plan
result in any increase beyond a maximum development standard or any decrease below a
minimum development standard listed on the outline development plan. If any of these
"NOTE: This requirement creates a significant obstacle to amending an outline developmentplan where ownership
has changed hands through time and/or there is fragmented ownership within the planned development - as is often
the case. It basically states that where it is not possible to have approval from all original property owners within a
PD, city council must approve an alternative arrangement. We suggest eliminating this statement in favor of the
statement. We have also posed the question regarding outline development plans and consent - we have suggested
removing required consent from all property owners, but direction is needed as to whether or not this is acceptable.
If some consent is needed, should it be all property owners in the planned development? 50%?
"NOTE: With the statement "must be approved in writing by all owners of real property contained within the
parcel or phase..." this requirement creates a significant obstacle to amending a final development plan where
ownership has changed through time and/or there is fragmented ownership within the planned development - as is
often the case. We suggest eliminating the statement "or phase" so that only those property owners within the parcel
of the requested amendment must consent.
,s NOTE: We suggest keeping this statement in to cover any relevant easements or agreements (access, utilities,
drainage, etc) that may affect adjacent property. We may also want to add language addressing other situations that
may affect other properties.
14
Short Term Code Amendments
11/21/08
conditions occurs, the outline development plan must be amended as described in subsection B.
Once a final development plan is recorded, any amendment requested that complies with the
limitations of this subsection B shall be processed in the manner prescribed for original
approval.
D. Any changes or revisions to an outline or final development plan which are approved, either
administratively or by city council action, must be recorded with the Jefferson County Recorder
as amendments to the original recorded development plan subject to the deadline provisions of
subsection 26-308.D.4.d.
E. Variances. Variances to the strict application of development standards established by an
outline development plan may be requested only for properties within single- and two-family
planned residential developments, following the applicable administrative or non-administrative
variance process as prescribed in section 26-115.
(Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01; Ord. No. 1319, § 1, 4-12-04; Ord. No. 1383, § 6, 5-14-07)
15
Short Term Code Amendments
11121108
5. CITY-INITIATED REZONINGS
See. 26-113. City-initiated rezoning. 19
A. Applicability. This rezoning procedure applies to city-wide and large-area, multiple-
property rezoning initiated by the city council. To be eligible for this procedure, large-area,
multiple-property rezoning must include at least five (5) separate ownership parcels or at least
five (5) acres in total combined area. 20 Large n_ee multiple «.e«erty Mete«i«e is «e.....itted un of
.ty to a lens WensWe (!ewer) zefle eetegor-y; for-
example, to . R.em Ge«...... ereial O e (C 1) to Dest..:eted CeN'«'eY eielaua (RC), or uv f..om Dcuxcscixsxsaesi`lef4i..l
u~ti.~.~~a vaauaa~a ~ ~i~~~/-ic-
Thfee (R 3) te Residential One (R 1). Rezening to any agrieultural zone distr-iet ffeffi any other
zefte distfiet nl,..ll not be a sidereA n rezening to a lens i...te...siye zone eateger-y.
B. Procedure and notice:
1. General. The city council may, at a regular or special meeting, initiate this rezoning
procedure by adoption of a resolution setting forth the general area of the proposed rezoning,
stating the intended purpose and objectives to be achieved by the rezoning, and referring the
matter to the planning commission for a public hearing and recommendation.
a. Prior to any public hearing before the planning commission, the city shall be required to hold
a neighborhood meeting according to the requirements of section 26-109A. (See section 26-
109A. for requirements).
b. City-wide rezoning: Where a city-wide or comprehensive rezoning has been initiated by the
council, notice shall include publication of a public hearing notice in a newspaper of general
circulation at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the public hearing, which notice shall
include a description of the proposed rezoning and a map which illustrates the geographic extent
of the proposed rezoning.
c. Large-area, multiple property rezoning: A large area, multiple property rezoning shall, in
addition to the newspaper notice required by subsection a. of this paragraph, be noticed by
certified mail notice sent to all owners of record of real property included within the area to be
rezoned at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of public hearing.
2. Planning commission action. The planning commission shall hear and consider any evidence
or statement presented by city staff or by any person in attendance at the hearing. The planning
commission shall make a recommendation to city council to approve, approve with
modifications or deny the rezoning proposal. The commission's recommendation shall be based
upon the facts presented in the public hearing in consideration of the criteria for review specified
in section 26-112(d).
" NOTE: The current code does not allow for the city to initiate a rezoning to any nonresidential district (in most
cases) as a strategy to encourage redevelopment. Based on some anecdotal research done by staff on adjacent
jurisdictions, Wheat Ridge is the only city with such restrictions. In fact, each of the three cities looked at (Arvada,
Golden, and Lakewood) allow for city-initiated zone changes to any zone district on an individual property basis.
We have suggested removing the restriction that the city cannot initiate a zone change to a more intensive district
simply by eliminating the last two sentences from this paragraph.
20 QUESTION: Is this too large? Should we suggest a lower threshold for allowing city-initiated rezonings on city-
owned property?
16
Short Term Code Amendments
11/21/08
3. City council action. Upon receipt of the planning commission's recommendation, the city
council shall hold a public hearing on the proposal. The hearing conducted on second reading of
the proposed rezoning ordinance shall satisfy this requirement. Notice of the hearing shall be the
same as for the planning commission hearing; however, publication of the ordinance on first
reading, together with the required map, shall meet the newspaper publication requirement.
The city council, in addition to consideration of the planning commission record, shall hear
additional evidence and testimony presented and either approve, approve with modifications, or
reject the ordinance. The city council shall base its decision upon all evidence presented, with
due consideration of the criteria for review set forth under section 26-112D.
In the event of a protest against such change of zone, signed by the owners of twenty (20)
percent or more of the area:
1. Of the property included within the proposed change; or
2. Of those immediately adjacent to the rear or any side of the property, extending one hundred
(100) feet from the property; or
3. Of those directly opposite across the street from the property, extending one hundred (100)
feet from the street frontage of such opposite property, such change shall not become effective
except by the favorable vote of three-fourths (3/4) of the entire city council. Where land within
the area proposed for change, or adjacent or opposite land, as defined above, is owned by the
City of Wheat Ridge, such property shall be excluded in computing the required twenty (20)
percent, and owners of non-city land within the one-hundred-foot limit, as defined above, shall
be considered adjacent or opposite despite such intervening city land. The written protest to such
change shall be submitted to the city council no later than the hearing on the proposed rezoning.
(Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01; Ord. No. 1316, § 2, 1-12-04).
17