HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/05/17I
City of
WheatP,idge
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
January 5, 2017
Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission
on January 5, 2017 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—December 1, 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
8. OTHER ITEMS
A. Small Alcohol Production
B. Regulations for New Site Design Standards
9. ADJOURNMENT
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Whew
Ridge. Call Sara Spaulding Public Information Officer at 303-235-2877 at least one week in advance of a
meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance.
City of
i�9r
WheatMidge
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of Meeting
December 1, 2016
1. 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:
Alan Bucknam
Emery Dorsey
Donna Kimsey
Scott Ohm
Steve Timms
Amanda Weaver
Commission Members Absent: Dirk Boden
Janet Leo
Staff Members Present: Lauren Mikulak, Senior Planner
Dave Brossman, Development Review Engineer
Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner WEAVER
to approve the order of the agenda. Motion carried 6-0.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — October 20, 2016
It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner
DORSEY to approve the minutes of October 20, 2016, as written. Motion carried 5-
0-1 with Commissioner WEAVER abstaining.
6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing
on the agenda.)
Planning Commission Minutes 1 —
December 1, 2016
No one wished to speak at this time.
PUBLIC HEARING
A. Case No. WS -16-03: an application filed by Quadrant Properties for approval of a
major subdivision with right-of-way (ROW)vacation on property zoned Mixed Use -
Commercial (MU -C) located at the southwest corner of 381' and Wadsworth, including
7690 West 38"' Avenue, 3790 Yukon Court, 3795 Wadsworth Boulevard, 3765
Wadsworth Boulevard and 3501 Wadsworth Boulevard.
Ms. Mikulak gave a short presentation regarding the major subdivision, right-of-way
vacation 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.
Commissioner BUCKNAM is concerned about the increase of traffic at 35u' and
Wadsworth and asked if there might be any intentions to signalize that intersection.
Also, he wondered why the main east -west access easement through the site was wider
on the east side (about 36 feet) and narrower on the west side (about 26 feet).
Ms. Mikulak explained that a trip generation analysis has been done at the 35u' and
Wadsworth location, and CDOT has indicated it does not meet their warrants so no
signal can be installed at this time. She then explained the easement width difference is
due to the entrance being more of a complete street with sidewalks and a tree lawn, the
smaller width will have less improvements. Without the benefits of a site plan, it is
hard to see the whole picture.
Commissioner DORSEY asked about the prior drainage easement on the far
southeastern corner of the site for wetlands.
Mr. Brossman and Ms. Mikulak didn't recall there being a drainage easement, only
wetlands and the wetlands was moved by mitigation.
Commissioner TIMMS asked about the plat and if the proposed lots meet the size
requirements for the MU -C zone district.
Ms. Mikulak explained there are no minimums in the mixed use districts and staff
wanted to make sure the lots' shapes and sizes are developable.
Chair OHM asked if there is going to be parking or cross access easements.
Ms. Mikulak said there will be free movement and parking across the site; lot 4 will be
primarily residential and will have an internal parking facility that is not shared.
Planning Commission Minutes -2—
December
2—
December 1, 2016
Chair OHM also asked about the legal description of the old property being on the
cover sheet as opposed to the new legal description.
Mr. Brossman explained that the legal description itemizes the original parcels per
their recorded legal descriptions, then an overall legal description is given. The data
table is based on the overall platted boundary.
Casey Roby, Wheat Ridge Plaza Homeowners Assoc. VP and Resident
7770 W 38' Avenue 4107
Mr. Roby asked a few questions: 1. What is the plan for the site; 2. Is the old
abandoned street on the west side of the wetlands going to be revitalized; 3. How close
are the proposed buildings going to be to the property line; 4. Will the apartments on
Yukon be impacted; and 5. Will there be a signal at 38"' and Yukon?
Ms. Mikulak explained the apartments on Yukon will not be affected by project
because they are not a part of the subdivision plat. There has been a warrant study for
a traffic signal at 38"' and Yukon so a signal there is possible especially if Yukon
extends through the site. Regarding the proximity of buildings on the proposed plat,
Tract A will separate the developable lots from the apartments and condos to the west
which will give a 74 to 107 -foot buffer and it will be landscaped. She explained there
is not site plan yet, but Planning likes to see buildings generally closer to the street
(Wadsworth Blvd). Ms. Mikulak stated she is not familiar with the abandoned road,
and is not identified as right-of-way in the City maps, but staff will look into it.
Commissioner BUCKNAM asked about the setbacks for structures in the MU -C zone
district.
Ms. Mikulak said there is a setback for side and rear property lines of 0 to 15 feet
depending on the surrounding properties. There is also a build -to line and it
encourages structures to be built closer to the street.
Mr. Roby then asked if lighting will be taken into consideration.
Ms. Mikulak explained that this is a site design issue which there are no answers to yet,
but there are provisions in the zoning code for light to be contained within the property
lines so there is no spill over.
Mr. Roby finished by stating he looks forward to seeing the project developed.
Commissioner BUCKNAM also asked about the lot line between Lots 1 and 3 that
lines up with 36u' Avenue across Wadsworth and wondered why it doesn't align more
precisely.
Planning Commission Minutes -3—
December
3—
December 1, 2016
Ms. Mikulak explained the ROW across Wadsworth for 36h' is only a half width of
ROW, so the lot line is lined up with what would be a future center line if a full width
street were to be built in the future.
There was no further discussion.
It was moved by Commissioner WEAVER and seconded by Commissioner
DORSEY to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. WS -16-03, a request for
approval of a major subdivision plat with right-of-way vacation on property
zoned Mixed Use -Commercial (MU -C) and located at the southwest corner of W.
38' Avenue and Wadsworth Boulevard (including 7690 W. 38th Avenue; 3790
Yukon Court; and 3501, 3765, and 3795 Wadsworth Boulevard), for the following
reasons:
1. All requirements of the subdivision regulations (Article IV) of the zoning
and development code have been met.
2. The proposed vacation of the W. 36' Avenue right-of-way is appropriate
and meets the evaluation criteria provided in Section 26-118 of the zoning
and development code.
3. All agencies can provide services to the property with improvements
installed at the developer's expense.
With the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall continue to coordinate utility service with the
appropriate agencies and any updated information regarding utility
easements shall be reflected on the plat prior to recordation.
2. The access note on the cover sheet shall be modified to clarify that
sidewalks are available for public use.
3. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision improvement agreement with
required security prior to recordation of the subdivision plat.
Motion carried 6-0.
8. OTHER ITEMS
Ms. Mikulak informed the Commissioners that ballot question 2E passed on
November 81h which will keep Community Development and Public Works very busy
with four different projects; one of them will be Wadsworth Boulevard and they are
excited to be moving them forward.
Chair OHM asked how the bike/ped movement will be accommodated on
Wadsworth.
Ms. Mikulak explained that bike/ped facilities are a priority for the City and there will
be a 10 -foot cycle track on the east side of Wadsworth between 35u' to 40' next to a
Planning Commission Minutes -4—
December
4—
December 1, 2016
10 -foot sidewalk and north of 44th there will be a 10 -foot multi -use path that will
hopefully extend to the Clear Creek path.
9. ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner DORSEY
to adjourn the meeting at 7:57 p.m. Motion carried 6-0.
Scott Ohm, Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes
December 1, 2016
5—
♦SII
CIfY Of
c�7�IheatR�dge
COMMUNITY DEVEIAPMENT
Memorandum
TO:
Planning Commission
THROUGH:
Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director
FROM:
Lisa Ritchie, Planner II
DATE:
December 30, 2016 (for January 5 Planning Commission meeting)
SUBJECT:
Small-scale Alcohol Production Facility Regulations
ISSUE
Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws is currently silent with respect to all alcohol production
facilities. On a case by case basis, the City has approved small breweries and restaurants with
accessory brewing facilities by classifying them as similar to light industrial or restaurant uses,
as appropriate. The Community Development Department has experienced a continued level of
interest from potential small-scale breweries and distilleries, and it would be of benefit to the
City to evaluate this use and determine if specific regulations are appropriate.
There are benefits to the City and the business community in providing clarity in the zoning code
as to whether and where small-scale alcohol production and tap rooms are permitted. The
purpose of tris memo is to introduce a potential framework for classifying and permitting these
uses.
On December 5, 2016, a study session was held with City Council regarding tris issue and the
information included in tris memo was presented to them. A unanimous consensus was reached
to move this topic forward for additional discussion with Planning Commission.
Recent years have shown a sustained rise in the number of alcohol production facilities
nationally and in Colorado, particularly those producing at a smaller and more local scale. These
newer facilities are commonly referred to as craft breweries, brewpubs and microbreweries. Toa
lesser extent, arise in microwineries and microdistilleries is also present. Some commonalities
of these facilities include small scale production intended for local distribution, tasting- or
taprooms, and sometimes the inclusion of a restaurant. The success that some of these small
facilities are experiencing is leading them to expand into larger scale production facilities, either
at the same location, or to a new location more suited to distribution and manufacturing.
The economic development impact of the craft brew industry is significant in Colorado. As of
2015, the Brewers Association reported that the state had 284 craft breweries which produced
1,775,831 barrels of craft beer annually, and had a $2.7 billion annual impact on the state's
economy.
Some neighboring jurisdictions have regulations allowing for a broad range of these uses,
including Denver, Fort Collins, Littleton, Englewood, and Boulder. Others only allow alcohol
production as an accessory use to a bar and/or restaurant, including Lakewood and Arvada.
Staff has conducted preliminary research to consider possible ways that Wheat Ridge could
potentially allow these uses. This research has included review of other jurisdictions and
consultation with the City Clerk's office to understand both state and local liquor laws in order to
ensure compatibility with any new zoning code amendments. In order to permit these types of
facilities, the zoning code could be amended to include new definitions to establish the use
categories. If it is the City's desire to allow small-scale alcohol production, related size
thresholds should be considered to ensure that the scale of a facility is appropriate for the
associated zone districts. A determination of the zone districts in which small alcohol production
is appropriate should also occur.
PROPOSED REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
If Council is supportive of addressing small-scale alcohol production, staff would recommend a
simple and clear framework that uses size thresholds, new definitions, and the zoning use charts
to address the issue. These three elements are described below.
Size
Both state liquor laws and industry associations classify facilities by production volume. A
number of other communities' zoning regulations also classify alcohol producers by production
volume. As this is the common metric within the industry, it is reasonable to establish an upper
limit to define what is meant by a small-scale alcohol production facility. Facilities over this
limit could be treated as an industrial use, and permitted as a "manufacturing" use in the
Industrial -Employment or planned development zone districts. This approach is consistent with
how Longmont and Fort Collins have handled large production facilities, including Oskar Blues
and New Belgium Brewing Company. The following thresholds are proposed:
• 15,000 barrels per year for fermented malt or malt liquor beverages (beer).
o This classification is consistent with the Brewers Association threshold for a
Microbrewery, and is the threshold used for a number of other regional
communities, including Fort Collins and Golden.
• 15,000 gallons per year for spirituous beverages (distilled beverages).
• 100,000 gallons per year for vinous beverages (wine).
o It is noted that the trade associations for these two categories are decentralized
and there is no production threshold that is consistently applied. The thresholds
established for other communities were evaluated, which also revealed a wide
range of thresholds. The thresholds proposed above are consistent with the
values the City of Fort Collins uses. Staff consulted with their planning
department, who indicated that the thresholds, to date, have been appropriate for
their commercial corridors and they have received little to no negative feedback
from the community.
Dermitions
The term "eating establishment" is currently used throughout the zoning code, but it is not
defined, and there are no terms or definitions related to alcohol production. To establish uses
related to alcohol production, the following definitions are proposed to be included in the code:
• A definition for "Eating Establishment" should be included in the code, and by explicitly
allowing accessory alcohol production within a restaurant setting, a use such as a
brewpub would be permitted.
o Eating Establishment. An establishment where food and beverages are prepared
and sold to the public, which may include accessory alcohol production.
• Definitions specific to small-scale production facilities and tap rooms could include the
following:
o Microbrewery. A facility that produces no more than fifteen thousand (15,000)
barrels per year of fermented malt or malt liquor beverages on site.
o Microdistillery. A facility that produces no more than fifteen thousand (15,000)
gallons per year of spirituous beverages on site.
o Microwinery. A facility that produces no more than one hundred thousand
(100,000) gallons per year of vinous beverages on site.
o Tap Room. A use associated with and on the same premises as a microbrewery, a
microdistillery, or a microwinery facility which sells and serves alcohol beverages
for consumption on the licensed premises, sells alcohol beverages in sealed
containers for consumption off the premises, or both.
Zoning and Use Chart
Staff evaluated other communities zoning regulations to determine in which zone districts small
alcohol production facilities were permitted, how they are permitted (whether by -right or through
a special use review), and what standards are included. It appears that the majority of the
communities allow smaller scale breweries in most of their commercial and industrial areas.
Again, most communities were silent with regard to large scale facilities, presumably because
large-scale facilities are considered to be a general manufacturing use.
Staff is proposing to further break down these uses by whether or not they include a tap room.
Because a tap room is a retail component that allows the general public to sample product,
facilities with tap rooms are recommended to be permitted in most of the City's commercial and
mixed use districts. Facilities without a tap room would only include production and are
recommended to be treated as industrial uses. The following tables identify these proposed uses
by zone district:
Table of Uses — Commercial and Industrial Districts
Uses
NC
RC
C-1
C-2
I -E
Microbrewery, microdistillery, or microwinery; with a
S
S
p
p
p
Tap Room
p
p
Tap Room
Microbrewery, microdistillery, or microwinery; without
Microbrewery, microdistillery, or microwinery; without
p
p
a Tap Room
a Tap Room
Table of Uses — Mixed Use Districts
Use Group
Mu -C
MU -C
Interstate
MU -C TOD
MU -N
Microbrewery, microdistillery, or microwinery; with a
p
p
p
p
Tap Room
Microbrewery, microdistillery, or microwinery; without
p
a Tap Room
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
The inclusion of other provisions related to loading areas, outdoor storage, and parking are not
necessary as they are adequately provided for in the existing zoning code.
In addition to addressing alcohol production, the City Clerk's office has recommended
consideration of accessory alcohol sales in the zoning code. This is due to changes in the
Colorado Liquor Code that allow a "lodging and entertainment facility" to sell and serve alcohol
beverages at retail for consumption on the premises. For example, hair salons or spas are
permitted by state law to serve champagne or other alcoholic beverages. Council is interested in
allowing accessory alcohol sales in the zoning code to better align with address Colorado Liquor
Code, and is seeking Planning Commission's comments related to this issue.
NEXT STEPS
As described in this memo, staff is proposing a code amendment that would address small-scale
alcohol production and tap rooms in the City's zoning code. Planning Commission is asked to
provide direction on the following items:
• Is there support for addressing small-scale alcohol production in the zoning code?
• Is there support for the regulatory framework proposed in this memo?
• Is there support for addressing alcohol sales to align with Colorado Liquor Code?
ATTACHMENTS
0 Comparison community regulations
Table of Comparison Community Alcohol Production Facility regulations
Jurisdiction
Dermed Terins
Size or Quantity Thresholds
Zone Districts
Other Provisions
Arvada
No
NA
NA
Production of fermented malt beverages, malt, special malt and vinous and spirituous liquors (brew pub), as
accessory to a principal restaurant use only
Brewpub
None
Considered a restaurant use
Primarily a restaurant use, may include some off-site distribution consistent with state law
Distillery
None
A use with a manufacturer or wholesaler license under C.R.S., may include tasting room
<15,000 sf = IS -1, IS -2, IG,
Brewery
None
A use with a manufacturer or wholesaler license under C.R.S., may include tap room
Boulder
Taproom
Less than 30% of total floor area or
IMS, IM
Associated with and on the same premises as a brewery
1,000 sf, whichever greater
>15,000 sf= IS -1, IS -2, IG,
Tasting Room
Less than 30% of total floor area or
1,000 sf, whichever greater
Associated with and on the same premises as a winery or distillery
IM
Winery
None
A use with a manufacturer or wholesaler license under C.R.S., may include tasting room
Brewpub
No more than 300 gallons per day
Considered a restaurant use
No more than 30% may be sold to off -premises customers
Custom = no more than 111,000
Malt beverage manufacturing
gallons/year (3,850 barrels)
General = 110,000 or more (3,850
barrels)
See zoning map identifying
Denver
Wine, brandy and brandy spirits
Custom = no more than 100,000
where General is allowed,
Code ties uses back to SIC codes and C.R.S. for definitions
manufacturing
gallons/year
all areas require some sort
General = 100,000 or more
of special review
Distilled and blended liquors
Custom = no more than 11,000
manufacturing
gallons/year
General = 11,000 or more
Englewood
Brewpub
Not more than 2,400 barrels/year
M2, MUB1, MUB2, TSA,
Il and I2, see zoning map
Taproom is a conditional use in all districts
Micro brewery
Not to exceed 15,000 barrels/year
Golden
NC, CC2, Cl, C2
Allows both on- or off -premises distribution
Micro distillery
Not to exceed 200 barrels/year
Micro winery
Not to exceed 1,000 cases/year
"Bar"- A commercial establishment offering on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages for sale by the
Lakewood
No
NA
NA
drink and may include on-site accessory production of alcohol.
"Restaurant"- A commercial establishment where meals are prepared and served to the public, which may
or may not include seating facilities, a bar or lounge, or accessory on-site food or alcohol production.
Brewery
Within CA zone district (downtown),
With atasting room = CA,
Littleton
cannot exceed 6,000 sf unless
B-1 and B-2
Tasting room must be in the same building as the manufacturing of the beverage, and shall be oriented
Distillery
approved with a CUP
Without a tasting room = I-
toward the public facade.
Winery
1, I-2 and B-3
Microbrewery
No more than 15,000 barrels/year
Generally these allowed in
Fort Collins
all commercial districts
(they organize by corridor,
Restaurant can include production of fermented malt beverages, and/or malt, special malt or vinous and
Microdistillery
No more than 15,000 gallons/year
such as Harmony Corridor
spirituous liquors as an accessory use.
Microwinery
No more than 100,000 gallons/year
Commercial District)
♦SII
CIfY Of
c�7�IheatR�dge
COMMUNITY DEVEIAPMENT
Memorandum
TO: Planning Commission
THROUGH: Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director
FROM: Lisa Ritchie, Planner II
DATE: December 30, 2016 (for January 5' Planning Commission meeting)
SUBJECT: Regulations for new Site Design Standards
ISSUE
The City's development regulations and design standards do not currently include any provisions
pertaining to the aesthetics of site grading, stormwater facilities and retaining walls. The purpose
of this study session is to discuss proposed standards that could be included in the zoning code
related to site grading, stormwater facilities, and retaining wall design. Within Chapter 26, there
are scattered references to some of these features, but in staff s opinion, they are not resulting in
high quality design in some cases. The inclusion of additional provisions could result in elevated
project quality throughout the City as it relates to stormwater facilities, grading and retaining
walls.
A study session was held with City Council on December 5, 2016, and consensus was reached to
advance this topic for discussion with the Planning Commission.
As part of most development and redevelopment projects throughout the City, there are some
components of site design that are more functional in nature, and to date have not been the focus
of staff efforts to improve the related design standards. These components include site grading,
stormwater facilities, and retaining walls. A graphic attachment is included that illustrates
examples of these elements. Additionally, an attachment is provided that includes all related
standards identified in the existing code.
Most development will entail some amount of site grading. In some instances, depending on
underlying topography and adjacent property elevations, this grading can result in steep slopes
and/or the need for retaining walls. The current code has references to grading standards that
ensures that land and streets are developed in a manner that is safe (such as maximum slopes).
However, these standards can result in areas that are far steeper than what can typically
accommodate landscaping, and dramatic changes in grade can have impacts on neighboring
property, adjacent right-of-way, and can reduce practical functionality.
Where abrupt grade changes are required as a result of regrading or existing topography,
retaining walls are often used. While the city has standards in place to ensure these walls are
safe, there are no standards related to their aesthetic design.
Finally, due to state and local regulations, both new development and redevelopment sites are
generally required to provide some level of stormwater facilities. The current code is very clear
on the technical requirements for stormwater facilities, but it does not discuss aesthetic design.
After witnessing a series of projects that could have implemented more attractive design
solutions, staff has conducted research into possible standards that could be appropriate.
Community Development staff has collaborated with the Public Works Department to develop
potential standards that ensure compatibility between both departments' requirements for all
three areas. This coordination has been critical, as the review and oversight of these elements is
often shared by both departments.
PROPOSEDSTANDARDS
Enclosed with this memo is an outline of proposed standards that could be integrated into the
zoning code as part of Chapter 26, Article 5 (Design Standards). In addition, staff proposes to
include the same requirements within the Architectural and Site Design Manual so that
photographs could be included along with additional descriptive text to aid in communication of
the standards.
Stormwater Facilities
Stormwater facilities are often built above ground to accommodate runoff from a site. These
facilities often include a basin to accommodate stormwater detention. In some instances (as
shown in the attached photographs), these are constructed only from concrete and represent a
stark contrast to the natural features and well -articulated structures on a site. The proposed
standards would require integration of landscape design, require the use of rocks or landscaping
to soften the appearance of concrete structures, and restrict steep side slopes. Staff proposes
applying these standards to all new stormwater facilities and to modifications or expansions of
existing facilities that exceeds 15%.
Site Grading and Retaining Walls
Site grading and retaining walls are very interrelated, so proposed regulations would address
both. Staff proposes standards that would require site grading to respect the existing topography
and surrounding properties. These standards would apply to all site development and to any
modification of existing site grading or retaining walls.
Recently, several development projects have resulted in taller retaining walls immediately
adjacent to sidewalks. Proposed standards would require that walls and elevation changes
adjacent to public spaces would need to be pedestrian -scaled by using terraces, landscaping and
material changes for interest. Steep slopes would not be permitted, and transitions in grades
would need to be rolling, rather than a continuous straight line. In addition, the proposed
language would require that grading designs not adversely impact adjacent property or right-of-
way, and should also anticipate future development.
2
NEXT STEPS
As described in this memo, staff is proposing a code amendment that would address design
standards for site grading, stormwater facilities, and retaining walls in the City's zoning code.
Planning Commission is asked to comment on the following items:
• Is there support for addressing design standards for grading, stormwater facilities and
retaining walls in the zoning code?
• Is there support for the standards proposed?
ATTACHMENTS
• Current standards within Chapter 26
• Grading, Stormwater and Retaining Wall example images
• Proposed standards
♦ II
City Of
9cor eatR�dge
COMMUNITY DEVEIAPMENT
Current Provisions
Article 11, Mixed Use Districts:
Section 26-1110. Open Space Requirements
o Restricts that land with a slope steeper than 3:1 shall not be considered
usable open space
o Allows drainage ways, ponds, and other areas required for stormwater
quality or detention to qualify as usable open space if such areas are
designed for passive or active use and are landscaped with grass, shrubs,
and/or trees.
o Exempts Mixed Use Districts from Section 26-502 (Landscaping
requirements)
Article 4, Subdivision:
Section 26-411. Subdivision design
o Stormwater, drainage and floodplain
• Requires that drainage, wetland, and floodplain areas shall be
preserved in their natural state. No encroachments shall be made
on existing channels to preserve the natural and beneficial
function, but where they are encroached upon, acceptable
mitigation shall be provided.
• Requires that any subdivision must allow continued historic flow
of waters, and provide drainage easements and stormwater
facilities for proposed and actual on- and off-site runoff.
o Slope
• Restricts steep land (10% slope or greater), unstable land and
areas, and areas having inadequate drainage from being subdivided
unless acceptable provisions are made by a registered engineer.
These areas may be included as part of a lot or lots where there are
appropriate building areas elsewhere.
Section 26-412. Street design
o Grade and topography.
• Requires that streets be designed to bear a reasonable relationship
to the topography of the land to the maximum extent feasible
• Restricts that the maximum grade by street classification shall not
be exceeded; maximum grade is determined by the public works
department.
Article 5, Landscaping:
Section 26-502. Landscaping requirements
o The definition of landscaping includes, in addition to living plant
materials, natural features such as rock, stone, bark and structural features
including, but not limited to, fountains, reflecting pools, artwork, screen
walls, fences and benches.
Article 6, Supplementary Regulations
Section 26-603. Fences, walls and obstructions to view
o Divisional fences and divisional walls are permitted in any zone district
• Divisional fences and walls allowed up to 6 feet tall, and subject to
sight distance triangle requirements.
2
E 1C
STORMWATER FACILITIES
&
GRADING &
,RETAINING WALLSf �y��4Y.
-
ZONING
CODE
AMENDMENT,
Ila I.I i.
i
GRADING & RETAINING WALLS
This grading design does not respect the
topography and is too steep to maintain
landscaping. It also restricts access between
adjacent properties and right-of-way.
,tea aM 9 y �y( 4r^ �L
<..� kf �" aAa" .`aio77
This grading design does not respect the
topography and is too steep to maintain
landscaping.
ssy i it r
:..�. Y
ANA,
F �;l" -• � '� ��-'�,+�,� �i ice. � ._'..' . t%,�r ,�,i,
GRADIN
& RETAINING WAL
GRADING & RETAINING WALLS
GRADING & RETAINING WALLS
A substantial grade change is accommodated
in an attractive manner with this series of
terraces and landscaping.
®r--
OWN"o-
NIS
. aN � . �:� � x, `�re,�,t"� � %'7�"` a •. l_�
'1
/_ 'rr _�iY,.rE.m��.i �� `_ d ' K, ' •1,A�a;4FY'
• ► ML`MAM dw,
This stormwater facility is not an enhancement
to the area, with its minimal landscaping or
other elements to soften its impact.
y�
de
n
w i
Jg
,... .s;., ,�. y. a; �Yi4CE-. �as3``.. ,. �sA-�',. .�d'•'. �"�w'ny.?..S�Y�....c"i�4i}`l5 NC J
x
x
�:•,
ZVI
J
M t
GRADING & RETAINING WALLS
�re.
STORMWATER FACILITIES
The concrete elements of this channel are
softened with landscaping that enhance the
surroundings.
..... .....
....................
The use of boulders and landscaping result in a
stormwater facility that is an aesthetic
improvement to the area.
g 41 le
a � _
r ��
CKs
1
�l Vk
v. t
^n
� I
STORMWATER FACILITIES
This image shows a creative solution for
stormwater requirements by using a
permeable paver system.dL
♦SII
City Of
c�7�IheatR�dge
COMMUNITY DEVEIAPMENT
Proposed Standards
Stormwater Facilities
A. Principle. Stormwater facilities should be integrated into site development and be
designed to enhance the development through the use of materials and
landscaping that complement the surroundings, or through innovative or low
impact development approaches.
B. Appheability.
1. All site development that requires stormwater facilities, as determined by
the Public Works Director.
2. Modification or expansion of existing stormwater facilities by more than
15%
C. Design.
1. Design and maintain all stormwater facilities in accordance with the
current City of Wheat Ridge Site Drainage Requirements.
2. The top edge of slopes and embankments should be landscaped with
groupings of naturalized trees and shrubs. Plantings should be located to
allow maintenance access where needed.
3. Trees and shrubs may be planted above the 5 -year stormwater surface
elevation. Below the 5 -year surface elevation, plant material is limited to
wetland plantings, grasses or other groundcovers. The bottoms of
detention ponds may be planted with a mixture of grasses or other wetland
plants that are suited to periodic flooding, facility maintenance, and that
serve to enhance water quality.
4. Rocks and/or landscaping should be utilized to soften the appearance of concrete
structures. Structures for stormwater facilities shall be aesthetically pleasing and
natural in form where visible from a public street or public space.
5. Side slopes of stormwater facilities should be gradual, and generally limited to 4:1
or less.
Site Grading and Retaining Walls
A. Principle. Respect the existing topography with grading designs that are sensitive
to existing landfarms and the surrounding properties.
B. Appheability.
1. Site development, as defined in Sec. 26-123.
2. Modification of existing walls or site grading.
C. Design.
1. Walls and elevation changes adjacent to public spaces shall be designed to
maintain a pedestrian scaled streetscape with the use of terraces,
landscaping and material variation.
2. All retaining walls over 48" in height must be built per the requirements of
all adopted codes.
3. Grades of 4:1 or less are encouraged; slopes steeper tttan 3:1 are not
permitted.
4. Transition grades should be rolling rather than one continuous straight
line.
5. Site grading designs shall not adversely impact adjacent property and/or
public right-of-way.
6. Landscaping should be provided in combination with retaining walls to
soften their appearance.
7. Planting areas on terraces between walls shall be of sufficient width to
support vegetation and root systems.
8. Site grading shall anticipate future development and integration of
adjacent property and/or public right-of-way.
2