Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA-16-06CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER DURAN COUNCIL BILL NO.26-2016 ORDINANCE NO. 1.61.3 Series 2016 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAW'S CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF BULK. PLANE STANDARDS FOR, THE RESIDENTIAL -ONE C (R -IC) AND ONE -FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE RESIDENTIAL -THREE (R-3) ZONE DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge ("City") is a home rule municipality operating under a charter adopted pursuant to Article XX of the Colorado Constitution and vested with the authority by that article and the Colorado Revised Statutes to adopt ordinances for the regulation of land use and protection of the public health, safety and welfare, and WHEREAS, in exercise of that authority, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge has previously enacted Chapter 26 of the Wheat midge Code of Laws pertaining to zoning, lanai use, and development; and WHEREAS, the City is witnessing three-story residential infill development in established neighborhoods consisting of mostly single -story residences, and WHEREAS, the City Council has identified this development pattern as constituting a detriment to the public peace, health, and safety by impacting privacy and impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance is necessary to address this development pattern; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an emergency ordinance, pursuant to Section 5.13 of the Wheat Midge City Charter which enacted a bulk plane regulation in the Residential -One C (R-1 C) zone district; and WHEREAS, the emergency ordinance will expire on November 21, 2016, pursuant to Section 5.13 of the Charter, and WHEREAS, the City Council believes a permanent ordinance will continue to improve the duality or character of new development and further enhance and protect existing neighborhoods while respecting private property rights; NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO. Sect,. Ordinance No. 1602, declaring an emergency and enacting a bulk plane regulation in the Residential -One C (R-1 C) zone district, enacted August 22, 2016, is repealed upon the effective date of this ordinance. Section 2. Section 26-12E3.C.1 (Nonconforming structures and uses) of the Code is amended to read. Any one- or two-family dwelling structure or customary accessory structures may be enlarged, altered or added to provided that all lot coverage requirements of the zoning district in which the structure is located are met. and provided that the enlargement. alteration or addition does not increase the extent of nonconforming setbacks by encroaching beyond the existing setback line. THE RESIDENTIAL BULK PLANE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SECTION 26-641.A. SHALL APPLY TO ANY ENLARGEMENT, ALTERATION OR ADDITION OF OR TO BOTH THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. In instances of comer lots, no enlargement, alteration or addition shalt be permitted to encroach within the minimum sight distance triangle as set forth in subsection 26-603B. In addition, no enlargement, alteration or addition which extends within the nonconforming area shall result in the development of any additional dwelling units. Section 3. Section 26-123 (Definitions.) of the Code is amended by the addition of the following definitions in their appropriate alphabetical locations: Base plane. The horizontal plane which is generally parallel to a property's existing grade from which building height and bulk plane are measured_ Building envelope. The three-dimensional space within which a structure is permitted to be built on a lot and which is defined by regulations governing building setbacks, maximum height. and bulk plane. by other regulations, or any combination thereof. Bulk plane. The angled plane which extends from a set height above each property line and constrains the permitted building envelope Section 4. Section 26-208.13 (Residential -One C District [R -ICI Development Standards) of the Code is amended by the addition of footnote (f) as follows: I Principal Buildings One-fiamity dwelling 35' (fl 40% 5,0.00 sf 50' 20' (d) 5` (f) (f) (31more dwelling Group home 35' (f) 40% 5.000 sf 50' 20' (d) 5' M i 5' (f) Churches, quasi - government buildings.. golf 35, courses, small schools, day care center. and nursing, elderly and congregate care government and quasi - government buildings, golf courses, small 35 (f) 40% 1 acre 1200' 20' (d) 15' (1 20' (f) day care center, and nursing, elderly and f congregate care homes Aocessory Magor 16' (f) 500 sf NIA N/A 20' (d) 5` 5' Buildings Minor 10` (f) 36` (f) ~ 300 sf 40% -- f�A - 9,000 sf NSA 6 20' (d) 20' (d) 6 5` (e) 5' 10' Alf Other Uses (F) BULK PLANE REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 26-641. Sedan . Section 26-211.13 (Residential -Three District [R-31 Development Standards) of the Code is amended by the addition of footnote (h) as follows - Principal I one -family 35' th) Buildings dwelling - Two-family 36 dwelling 25' (e) Multifamily 15' (c) (31more dwelling 35' units) _ j y Group home 35 Churches. — — schools, government and quasi - government buildings.. golf 35, courses, small day care center. and nursing, elderly and congregate care homes 40% 7.500 sf 1 60' 40% 9.000 sf 75' 25' (e) 15' (c) 15' (c) 40% sf }(w 100' 40% 9,000 sf 75' 40% 1 acre 1200` I 25' (e) 5` (h) 10` (h) 26 (e) gt per ry 10, 25' (e) 15' (c) 15' (c) 25' (e) st er , 10` 25' (e) 15' (c) 1 20' A,1:::i.- 5:.-i Buildings Major 15' (h) (g) Minor 10' (h) All Other Uses 35' 600 sf (per 25° (e) unit) NIA NIA 1400 sf/4 d.u. 40% 4 � NIA NIA - - 25'(e) 6 if <c 10' 5. in height; 10' if > 10` in height 5' 5' 7,500 sf 60' 25' (e) .stoner 10' (H) BULK PLANE REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY TO ALL ONE -FAMILY DWELLING PRIMARY AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 26-641 Section 6. Chapter 26 of the Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new section 26-641, to read in its entirety as follows: 26-641 BULK PLANE A. BULK PLANE. IN ADDITION TO THE HEIGHT AND SETBACK STANDARDS OF ARTICLE Ii, BUILDING ENVELOPES ARE REGULATED BY A THREE-DIMENSIONAL BULK PLANE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY, PRIVACY, AND THE ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LIGHT AND AIR. 1. APPLICABILITY. THE BULK PLANE RESTRICTIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL STRUCTURES ON A LOT FOR WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE NO ----, SERIES 2016. THE ENTIRETY OF ANY BUILDING ENVELOPE SHALL BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE BULK PLANE. UNLESS OTHERWISE EXEMPTED BY SUBSECTION 4. 2 MEASUREMENT OF BULK PLANE- THE BULK PLANE IS A PLANE THAT BEGINS FIFTEEN (15) FEET ABOVE EVERY PROPERTY LINE OF A LOT OR PARCEL, WHICH THEN SLOPES AT A FORTY-FIVE (45) DEGREE ANGLE UNTIL IT INTERSECTS THE BULK PLANE FROM THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE LOT OR PARCEL. SEE FIGURE 26-641.2. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 11, CHAPTER 26 SHALL APPLY REGARDLESS OF THE HEIGHT AT WHICH THE TWO OPPOSITE BULK PLANES INTERSECT ABOVE THE LOT OR PARCEL. 3 MEASUREMENT OF SASE PLANE THE BASE PLANE (SEE FIGURE 641.1) SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE OF A LOT OR PARCEL. AVERAGE GRADE SHALL BE CALCULATED AS THE AVERAGE OF THE ELEVATIONS TAKEN AT THE MIDPOINTS OF EACH PROPERTY LINE. SEE FIGURE 26-641.2. 4. EXCEPTIONS. ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE BULK PLANE SHALL BE PERMITTED AS FOLLOWS: A. CHIMNEYS B. OPEN -TYPE RAILINGS COMPLIANT WITH ADOPTED CITY CODE C. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. CORNICE, EAVES, BELTCOURSES, SILLS, CANOPIES OR OTHER SIMILAR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, INCLUDING BAY WINDOW, MAY EXTEND OR PROJECT INTO THE BULK PLANE NOT MORE THAN THIRTY (30) INCHES D. MECHANICAL EQUPMENT. VENT WIPES, SOLAR PANELS, SWAMP COOLERS. E. DORMERS MEASURING NO MORE THAN EIGHT (8) FEET WIDE; SIX (6) FEET TALL, AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST POINT OF INTERSECTION BETWEEN THE ROOF AND THE DORMER TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF A FLAT ROOF OR MEAN HEIGHT LEVEL BETWEEN EAVES AND RIDGE FOR A GABLE, HEP, GAMBREL OR OTHER ROOF; AND, OCCUPYING NO MORE THAN FIFTY (50) PERCENT OF THE ROOF. Section 7. Section 26-641 (Bulk plane.) of the Code is amended by the addition of Figure 26-641.1. BASE PLANE MAx1l uMBt E[x%,GmflGM7 BUIL DING ENVELOPE MINLWI, SETBACK Figure 26-641.4. Section view of bulk plane building envelope, as measured from all property lines. Section 88. Section 26-641 (Bulk plane.) of the Code is amended by the addition of Figure 26.611.2. 284 AVERAGE GRADE CALCULATION 280 281 283 284 a 1128 = 282 s AVERAGE GRADE Figure 26-6411.2. Average Grade Calculation Section 9. Severability. Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section, subsection or clause of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 1©. Effective Date. Pursuant to Charter Section 5.11, this ordinance shall take effect upon adoption and signature by the Mayor INTRODUCED, READ, AND FAILED TO BE ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of s to 4, the 241" day of October, 2016. RECONSIDERED, READ AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 7 to 1 this 14th day of November, 2016 and 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 November 21, 2016 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers- 7500 West 29r' Avenue, Wheat Ridge. Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of 7 to I this 2ist day of Novembe=r , 2016. SIGNED by the Mayor on this 21st 42W Novembc— -- 2016. ce Jay, Ar ATTEST- ( jej rd o& J4avej,'-1 d4nelle Shaver. City Clerk �J eNovei First Publicati016 Second Publication: December 1, 2016 Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date:November 21, 2016 Appr as to F ,rm v ,`J er d E. Dahl, City Attorney Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript and www.ci.wheatridge.co.us W(@W_M'HW1 =_ CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE, MUNICIPAL BUILDING November 21, 2016 Mayor Jay called the properly noticed Special City Council Meeting to order at 7:24 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Monica Duran Zachary Urban Janeece Hoppe Kristi Davis Tim Fitzgerald George Pond Larry Mathews Genevieve Wooden Also present: City Clerk, Janelle Shaver; City Manager, Patrick Goff; Community Development Director. Ken Johnstone; Treasurer. Jerry DiTullio; interested citizens. CITIZENS' RIGHT TO SPEAK No one was signed up to speak. APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 1. Council Bill No. 25-2016 — An Ordinance amending Articles I, 11 and VI of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the Implementation of a Residential Bulk Plane Development Standard This ordinance amends the development standards for the R1 -C zone and single-family dwellings in R-3 zones to add bulk plane regulation. This will reduce the mass and scale of new development in the smallest lot single-family zones. Currently the only standard is a 35 -foot height maximum. Councilmember Hoppe introduced Council Bill 25-2016, Mayor Jay opened the Public Hearing. City Clerk Shaver assigned Ordinance 1613. Staff Report — Ken Johnstone Mr. Johnstone gave background on the topic. Of concern is the impact of redevelopment on existing neighborhoods. Staff began research last summer on building height, building setbacks, and bulk/plane regulations. An emergency ordinance was adopted on August 22; it expires tonight, November 21. The ordinance before Council attempts to strike a balance between maintaining neighborhood character and supporting investment. With diagrams, Mr. Johnstone went through an explanation of the bulk plane regulations, including height analysis. Special City Council Minutes November 21, 2016 Page 2 Most of R1 -C is in District 1; most of the R-3 is in east WR. Planning Commission recommends denial and believes a more comprehensive approach should be taken considering building heights, neighborhood character areas, and single family residential designs standards. He confirmed that if passed, this ordinance would be in effect at midnight. Public Comment Dorothy Archer (WR) requested passage of the 15 ft bulk plane limit to preserve home values, not create a need for low-income housing, and keep our small town feel. Erik Jacobsen (VVR) thanked the Mayor, Council, and staff for reacting quickly to citizen concerns. This is in line with neighboring cities and will help neighborhood relations. Mayor Jay closed the Public Hearing Motion by Councilmember Hoppe to approve Council Bill 25-2016, an ordinance amending Articles I, II and VI of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the implementation of residential bulk plane development standards, on second reading and that it take effect immediately upon adoption and signature by the Mayor; seconded by Councilmember Duran. Councilmember Fitzgerald announced he will be voting against the ordinance because he believes the base plane measurement unfairly disadvantages owners of sloped lots. Motion carried 7-1, with Councilmember Fitzgerald voting no. ADJOURNMENT The Special City Council Meeting was adjourned at 7:48 pm. { 11 1 R )i 4ata-1, nelle Shaver, City Clerk APPROVER -BY CITY COUNCIL ON December 12, 2016 George ond, Mayor pro tem The preceding Minutes were prepared according to §47 of Robert's Rules of Order, i.e. they contain a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members. Recordings and DVD's of the meetings are available for listening or viewing in the City Clerk's Office, as well as copies of Ordinances and Resolutions. City of Wheat�dge�'t iii �`%j ITEM NO: `r DATE: November 21, 2016 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION C- 4j- ®r TITLE: COUNCIL BILL NO. 25-2016 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLES I, II AND VI OF CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A RESIDENTIAL BULK PLANE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD (CASE NO. ZOA-16-06) ® PUBLIC HEARING ❑ ORDINANCES FOR 1sT READING (11/14/2016) ❑ BIDS/MOTIONS ® ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING (11/21/2016) ❑ RESOLUTIONS QUASI-JUDICIAL: ❑ YES ® NO f Community evelopm nt Director City Manager ISSUE: This ordinance amends the development standards for the Residential -One C (R -1C) zone district and one -family dwellings in the Residential -Three (R-3) zone district to add a bulk plane regulation. The purpose of this proposed ordinance is to reduce the mass and scale of new development in Wheat Ridge's smallest lot single-family zone districts. Currently there are no development standards for the aforementioned zone districts which limit mass and scale other than the existing 35 -foot height maximum in effect for all residential zone districts. The ordinance is also intended to preserve the ability to obtain a reasonable development and reinvestment potential for private property. PRIOR ACTION: Staff discussed this issue with City Council at study sessions on July 18, 2016, August 15, 2016, October 3, 2016, and October 17, 2016. Planning Commission also had discussions on this topic on July 21, 2016, September 15, 2016, and a public hearing on October 20, 2016. City Council postponed indefinitely Council Bill No. 25-2016 on October 24, 2016, reconsidered the Bill and approved on first reading on November 14, 2016. Council Action Form — Bulk Plane November 21, 2016 Page 2 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed ordinance is not expected to have a direct financial impact on the City. BACKGROUND: Staff has been researching bulk plane standards for several months and has presented bulk plane information to City Council and Planning Commission during several study session discussions. Staff has worked to create an ordinance that balances the goals of the City's guiding documents such as the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy and the Comprehensive Plan, which call for reinvestment in Wheat Ridge neighborhoods, diversification of the City's housing stock and respecting Wheat Ridge's established neighborhoods. In July, staff was directed to continue researching bulk plane standards. Based in part on the community's response to some infill developments in East Wheat Ridge, Council deemed it necessary to declare an emergency and adopted an emergency ordinance in August to implement a bulk plane standard for properties zoned Residential -One C (R -IQ. This emergency ordinance will expire and cannot be extended, per Charter regulations, on November 21, 2016. The proposed ordinance intends to be a permanent solution to the emergency ordinance adopted in August, with a slightly expanded scope. The proposed ordinance reflects the direction provided by City Council after considering information provided during several rounds of study sessions, public comments, and Planning Commission recommendations. During the most recent study session with Planning Commission in mid-September, the commissioners did not come to a consensus on an appropriate starting height for bulk plane. Overall, the Commission felt that bulk plane is not the most appropriate tool to address the neighborhood concerns and suggested that a bulk plane ordinance be adopted only as a temporary solution as staff conducts a more in-depth analysis into neighborhood overlays, building height, and architectural design standards. Following the Planning Commission study session, City Council was presented with a similar memorandum and a summary of Planning Commission's discussion. City Council understood the Planning Commission's desire for a more in-depth process, but directed staff to continue with the bulk plane ordinance. Staff presents the attached draft ordinance based on preliminary consensuses reached during City Council study sessions. Generally speaking, City Council indicated support for the 45° bulk plane measured 15 feet above each property line, as measured from the base plane. The base plane is calculated as an average property grade at the midpoints of each property line. City Council came to a consensus on applying bulk plane standards only to the R -1C zone district and single-family homes in the R-3 zone district. Proposed Amendments A summary of the proposed code amendments which would implement a bulk plane standard is on the next page. Council Action Form — Bulk Plane November 21, 2016 Page 3 1. New definitions. Bulk plane standards do not exist in the current code, requiring the need for additional definitions to be added. Definitions for base plane, building envelope, and bulk plane are proposed to be added to the Code of Laws. 2. Development Standards. The Development Standards charts for the Residential -One C (R-1 C) and Residential -Three (R-3) zone districts are proposed to be modified by adding a footnote to the maximum height column which states that bulk plane regulations shall apply in conformance with Section 26-641 of the Code of Laws. 3. Bulk Plane. Anew section is proposed to be added to the Code of Laws, Section 26-641, titled "Bulk Plane." This section describes the applicability, measurement, and allowable exceptions to the bulk plane regulations. 4. Bulk Plane measurement. The bulk plane is proposed to be measured from the base plane vertically 15 feet from each property line. After reaching 15 feet, the bulk plane extends over the property at a 45° angle. Base Plane 5. Base Plane measurement. The base plane is proposed to be measured as the average of the elevations of the mid -point of each property line. AVERAGE GRADE CALCULATION 280 281 283 2 4 1128 = 282 = AVERAGEGRADE Council Action Form — Bulk Plane November 21, 2016 Page 4 6. Exceptions. Staff proposes the following list of exceptions: chimneys, architectural features consistent with current setback encroachment allowances, mechanical equipment, including solar panels, and dormers with some size limitations. Staff has also included open -type railings compliant with adopted City codes. The 2012 International Residential Code, which the City has adopted and currently enforces, calls for the following: 36" tall railings; openings in the railings (such as the space between supports, spindles, intermediate rails, and the like) must be spaced in a manner which does not allow a four -inch sphere to pass through it. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: "I move to approve Council Bill No. 25-2016, an ordinance amending Articles I, II and VI of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the implementation of residential bulk plane development standards, on second reading and that it take effect immediately upon adoption and signature by the Mayor." Or, "I move to postpone indefinitely Council Bill No. 25-2016, an ordinance amending Articles I, II and VI of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the implementation of residential bulk plane development standards, for the following reason(s) REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY: Zack Wallace, Planner I Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director Patrick Goff, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Bill No. 25-2016 2. Zoning Map depicting R -IC and R-3 zoned properties east of Wadsworth Boulevard 3. Zoning Map depicting R -IC and R-3 zoned properties west of Wadsworth Boulevard CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER DURAN COUNCIL BILL NO. 25 Series 2016 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF BULK PLANE STANDARDS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL -ONE C (R -1C) AND ONE -FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE RESIDENTIAL -THREE (R-3) ZONE DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge ("City") is a home rule municipality operating under a charter adopted pursuant to Article XX of the Colorado Constitution and vested with the authority by that article and the Colorado Revised Statutes to adopt ordinances for the regulation of land use and protection of the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, in exercise of that authority, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge has previously enacted Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to zoning, land use, and development; and WHEREAS, the City is witnessing three-story residential infill development in established neighborhoods consisting of mostly single -story residences; and WHEREAS, the City Council has identified this development pattern as constituting a detriment to the public peace, health, and safety by impacting privacy and impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance is necessary to address this development pattern; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an emergency ordinance, pursuant to Section 5.13 of the Wheat Ridge City Charter which enacted a bulk plane regulation in the Residential -One C (R -1C) zone district; and WHEREAS, the emergency ordinance will expire on November 21, 2016, pursuant to Section 5.13 of the Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes a permanent ordinance will continue to improve the quality or character of new development and further enhance and protect existing neighborhoods while respecting private property rights; NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Ordinance No. 1602, declaring an emergency and enacting a bulk plane regulation in the Residential -One C (R-1 C) zone district, enacted August 22, 2016, is repealed upon the effective date of this ordinance. Attachment 1 Section 2. Section 26-120.C.1 (Nonconforming structures and uses) of the Code is amended to read. Any one- or two-family dwelling structure or customary accessory structures may be enlarged, altered or added to provided that all lot coverage requirements of the zoning district in which the structure is located are met, and provided that the enlargement, alteration or addition does not increase the extent of nonconforming setbacks by encroaching beyond the existing setback line. THE RESIDENTIAL BULK PLANE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SECTION 26-641.A. SHALL APPLY TO ANY ENLARGEMENT, ALTERATION OR ADDITION OF OR TO BOTH THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. In instances of corner lots, no enlargement, alteration or addition shall be permitted to encroach within the minimum sight distance triangle as set forth in subsection 26-603B. In addition, no enlargement, alteration or addition which extends within the nonconforming area shall result in the development of any additional dwelling units. Section 3. Section 26-123 (Definitions.) of the Code is amended by the addition of the following definitions in their appropriate alphabetical locations: Base plane. The horizontal plane which is generally parallel to a property's existing grade from which building height and bulk plane are measured. Building envelope. The three-dimensional space within which a structure is permitted to be built on a lot and which is defined by regulations governing building setbacks, maximum height, and bulk plane, by other regulations, or any combination thereof. Bulk plane. The angled plane which extends from a set height above each property line and constrains the permitted building envelope. Section 4. Section 26-208.13 (Residential -One C District [R -1C] Development Standards) of the Code is amended by the addition of footnote (f) as follows: Principal Buildings (F) BULK PLANE REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 26-641. Section 5. Section 26-211.6 (Residential -Three District [R-3] Development Standards) OTthe Goae Is amenaea Dv the addition of Maximum Minimum tootnote (h Maximum Minimum Minimum d Minimum Rear HeightMaximum Minimum Coveragee .. Yard Height Maximum • Minimum •t Minimum Lot Minimum Front_ Minimum Minimum 5' (h) 10' (h) Two-family dwelling Coverage. 40% 9,000 sf 75' 25' (e) 5' per Yard story Setback • Multifamily Principal Buildings One -family dwelling 35' (f) 40% 5,000 sf 50' 20' (d) 5' (f) 5' (f) 15' (c) Group home 35' (f) 40% 5,000 sf 50' 20' (d) 5' (f) 5' (f) Churches, ry Churches, schools, schools, government and government and quasi - quasi - government government buildings, golfo courses, small 35' (f) 40 /0 1 acre 200 20' (d) 15 (f) 20 (f) day care center, day care center, and nursing, and nursing, elderly and elderly and congregate care congregate care homes homes Accessory Major 15' (f) 600 sf N/A NIA 20' (d) 1 5' 5' Buildings e Minor 10' (f) 300 sf N/A N/A 20' (d) 5' 5' All Other Uses 35' (f) 40% 9,000 sf 60' 20' (d) 5' (e) 10' Principal Buildings (F) BULK PLANE REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 26-641. Section 5. Section 26-211.6 (Residential -Three District [R-3] Development Standards) OTthe Goae Is amenaea Dv the addition of Maximum Minimum tootnote (h as follows: Minimum Minimum d Minimum Rear HeightMaximum Minimum Coveragee .. Yard Ya. Setback Setback One -family 35' (h) 40% 7,500 sf 60' dwelling 25' (e) 5' (h) 10' (h) Two-family dwelling 35' 40% 9,000 sf 75' 25' (e) 5' per 10' story Multifamily 0 (3/more dwelling 35' 100' 40% sf 'if) 25' (e) 15' (c) 15' (c) units) 40% 9,000 sf 75' 25'(e) 5' per 10' Group home 35' ry Churches, schools, government and quasi - government buildings, golf courses, small 35' 40% 1 acre 200' 25' (e) 15' (c) 20' day care center, and nursing, elderly and congregate care homes Accessory 5' if <= 10' Buildings600 (g) Major 15' (h) sf (per unit) N/A NIA 25' (e) 5' in height; 10' if > 10' in height N/A 25' (e) 5' 5' Minor 10' (h) 400 sf/4 F_N/A d u 7,500 sf 10' All Other Uses '40% 60' 25' (e) 5' per (H) BULK PLANE REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY TO ALL ONE -FAMILY DWELLING PRIMARY AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 26-641. Section 6. Chapter 26 of the Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new section 26-641, to read in its entirety as follows: 26-641. BULK PLANE A. BULK PLANE. IN ADDITION TO THE HEIGHT AND SETBACK STANDARDS OF ARTICLE II, BUILDING ENVELOPES ARE REGULATED BY A THREE-DIMENSIONAL BULK PLANE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY, PRIVACY, AND THE ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LIGHT AND AIR. 1. APPLICABILITY. THE BULK PLANE RESTRICTIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL STRUCTURES ON A LOT FOR WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE NO ----, SERIES 2016. THE ENTIRETY OF ANY BUILDING ENVELOPE SHALL BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE BULK PLANE, UNLESS OTHERWISE EXEMPTED BY SUBSECTION 4. 2. MEASUREMENT OF BULK PLANE. THE BULK PLANE IS A PLANE THAT BEGINS FIFTEEN (15) FEET ABOVE EVERY PROPERTY LINE OF A LOT OR PARCEL, WHICH THEN SLOPES AT A FORTY-FIVE (45) DEGREE ANGLE UNTIL IT INTERSECTS THE BULK PLANE FROM THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE LOT OR PARCEL. SEE FIGURE 26-641.2. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE II, CHAPTER 26 SHALL APPLY REGARDLESS OF THE HEIGHT AT WHICH THE TWO OPPOSITE BULK PLANES INTERSECT ABOVE THE LOT OR PARCEL. 3. MEASUREMENT OF BASE PLANE. THE BASE PLANE (SEE FIGURE 641.1) SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE OF A LOT OR PARCEL. AVERAGE GRADE SHALL BE CALCULATED AS THE AVERAGE OF THE ELEVATIONS TAKEN AT THE MIDPOINTS OF EACH PROPERTY LINE. SEE FIGURE 26-641.2. 4. EXCEPTIONS. ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE BULK PLANE SHALL BE PERMITTED AS FOLLOWS: A. CHIMNEYS B. OPEN -TYPE RAILINGS COMPLIANT WITH ADOPTED CITY CODE C. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. CORNICE, EAVES, BELTCOURSES, SILLS, CANOPIES OR OTHER SIMILAR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, INCLUDING BAY WINDOW, MAY EXTEND OR PROJECT INTO THE BULK PLANE NOT MORE THAN THIRTY (30) INCHES D. MECHANICAL EQUPMENT. VENT PIPES, SOLAR PANELS, SWAMP COOLERS. E. DORMERS MEASURING NO MORE THAN EIGHT (8) FEET WIDE; SIX (6) FEET TALL, AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST POINT OF INTERSECTION BETWEEN THE ROOF AND THE DORMER TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF A FLAT ROOF OR MEAN HEIGHT LEVEL BETWEEN EAVES AND RIDGE FOR A GABLE, HIP, GAMBREL OR OTHER ROOF; AND, OCCUPYING NO MORE THAN FIFTY (50) PERCENT OF THE ROOF. Section 7. Section 26-641 (Bulk plane.) of the Code is amended by the addition of Figure 26-641.1. BASEPLANE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING ENVELOPE Figure 26-641.1. Section view of bulk plane building envelope, as measured from all property lines. Section 8. Section 26-641 (Bulk plane.) of the Code is amended by the addition of Figure 26-611.2. 4 1128 = 282 = AVERAGE GRADE Figure 26-641.2. Average Grade Calculation Section 9. Severability, Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section, subsection or clause of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 10. Effective Date. Pursuant to Charter Section 5.11, this ordinance shall take effect upon adoption and signature by the Mayor. INTRODUCED, READ, AND FAILED TO BE ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 3 to 4, the 24th day of October, 2016. RECONSIDERED, READ AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 7 to 1 this 14th day of November, 2016 and 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 November 21, 2016 at 7:00 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 ., 2016. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of , 2016. Joyce Jay, Mayor ATTEST: Janelle Shaver, City Clerk Approved as to Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: November 17, 2016 Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript and www.ci.wheatridge.co.us Attachment 2 Residential -One C (R -1C) Zone District East of Wadsworth Boulevard Legend Wheat Ridge City Limit Parcel Lines R-1 C Zone District R-3 Zone District Other Municipality 0 500 1,000 Feel stale -n.coonlnata prolecuon Cebmdm, n Cenral Zona A' DabNAOas I V City of WheatRidge Geographic Information Services City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 7500 West 291h Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 60033 Created by: Zack Wallace, Planning Technidan 10 August 2016 Data Sources: City of Wheat Ridge and Jefferson County DISCLAIMER NOTICE: Thb bepiclorbl....l In. olaeaprephkand damegrephk Inlwmelbn. ROR,nu upon IM1e acture ni reuahillly end City 1 of IM1b informa1.Jbsnin, requee.r1rea -, poy.Thl City .1 .IN Ridae, In aesdo. Cwnfy,Coleredo- an mpnilsubtlivb,ni nma Stal;ofkenn e, onh... Iqr 1, Mn cedalnsel.ggs 1 bformatbn. Thnn bfomuf in -nu b b anhl l. p.1d.d penerel ea efearcem only. TM eampNedped Inexmmlbn prwtletl ehoutl enN and na openya coinedin independent molhode, uu—.1 hire uhe bya It 1,ft indeeentlenl sous. The uur of IM1is inbrmalbn shall bdamniy end hatl flea IM CMy o/VMdt Rtlpe /mm eny end ae Ibhlaba, damepae, bweuhe, and eel wlbnosa uneequaue el hls relhnu on INomrNbn pmvtl.d ed h—1aroln. Attachment 3 Residential-One C (R-1C) Zone District West of Wadsworth Boulevard Legend Wheat Ridge City Limit Parcel Lines R-1 C Zone District R-3 Zone District - Other Municipality 0 500 1,000 Feet stale Fun. Coortllnat. P.lagtlge Cebmdo Cenba17pne A I c-.' NAM I v r of WheatP4ddge Geographic Information Services City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 50033 Created by: Zeck Wallace, Planning Technician 10 August 2016 Oct. Source; City (Wheat Ridge DISCLAIMER NW ICE: TM1k k a pldwbl mprazeMalbn M aaoaraphb and demoamphb bfarmWlan. Reliance upon Aha—w, mllabAllr —au .N a Ihlaln...n ,an b. I, mquetlor'c mcp.MWAly. The CAy of Vdeel RNpe, In ,.A.non County, Colamdo -e pAlml..WNW.. MIM stale of Col,rado, has...plbd far Aa use eadeln compul.rbed blormMlm. TM1k Inlomulbn b xapabb b aukl In Nenlllyina penial asofauecem only.The oompWetlzed Inbrd M. pmald.d NouM only be nd upony,,,Ii%d WMo1lhe mMhoda oumplbne, and recuAs by a qualRed mdepan source. 16a uur of IMa InfwnlNlen abate I,W IntlsmnAy eM haN free IM Cay M WM1®1 Rltlpe lmm erry entl eA 1bb—.. damap i. IN.. ,and sea of eclbn Ileal mwA as a mnaquence of hes mlbnu on IMomlMipn pmvlded henln. Ar1 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7600 WEST 29TH AVENUE, MUNICIPAL BUILDING NOVEMBER 21, 2016 Upon adjournment from Study Session Meeting 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 303-235-2876 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS CITIZEN RIGHT TO SPEAK APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 1. Council Bill No. 25-2016 —Amending Articles 1, 11 and VI of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the Implementation of a Residential Bulk Plane Development Standard (Case No. ZOA-16-06) ADJOURNMENT City Council Minutes November 14, 2016 Page 9 Council questions: • The points were made that 1) TIF's are pass through money, and 2) the projects now added to the budget are being funded with money that was being saved for 2E projects - if 2E didn't pass. There will be no intermingling between funds for the 2E projects and the regular budget. • Yes, the Anderson Park water line could be taken out of 2E money, thereby reducing the General Fund budget by $100,000 — if Council wishes. Mayor Jay closed the public hearing. Official adoption of the budget will be on November 28. ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING 4. Reconsideration of Council Bill 26-2016 — An ordinance amending Articles I, It and IV of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the implementation of a Residential Bulk Plane Development Standard (Case No. ZOA-16-06) This ordinance amends the development standards for the R1 -C zone and single-family dwellings in R-3 zones to add bulk plane regulation. This will reduce the mass and scale of new development in the smallest lot single-family zones. Currently the only standard is a 35 foot height maximum. Mr. Dahl gave procedural directions for reconsidering the defeat of Council Bill 25-2016. Public Comment Michael Epson (WR) stated that the neighborhood group prefers a 121/2 feet bulk plane height, but at this point, feels that 15 feet is a fair compromise to preserve their historic neighborhood. They'd like to see building height revisited later, but he encouraged Council to pass this ordinance. Al Lazalde (WR) believes this is a compromise -- that it's a good first step, and hopes this will pass. Katie Jacobson (WR) expressed support for reconsideration and approval of this bill. It will reduce the mass and scale of new developments and help protect the privacy of small, single-family lots. Benny Gonzales (WR) asked Council to pass the bulk plane ordinance. Robin Thorpe (WR) grew up here and recently moved back. She encouraged that this ordinance be reconsidered to keep the wonderful quality that's here in Wheat Ridge. Deana Swetlik (WR) encouraged Council to reconsider and approve the bulb plane ordinance. City Council Minutes November 14, 2016 Page 10 Dorothy Archer (WR) spoke about the importance of keeping R1 -C the way it is — to protect our citizens. The 35 foot towers devalue neighboring properties. We shouldn't grow at the cost of who's already here. Christi Aultman(WR) urged reconsideration and passage of Council Bill 25. While this isn't what the community wanted, it's better than having no standard at all. These tower structures are incompatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Regarding the concern about visual impact, she noted the City has building restrictions for antennae structures, but not so much for single-family homes in District 1. Jerry DiTullio (WR) encouraged reconsideration of this bill. He believes this topic deserves to have a public hearing. He supports the 15 foot bulk plane. Motion by Councilmember Duran to reconsider Council's previous motion denying passage of Council Bill No. 25-2016; seconded by Councilmember Mathews; carried 8-0. Motion by Councilmember Hoppe to approve Council Bill No. 25-2016, an ordinance amending Articles I, II and IV of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the implementation of a residential bulk plane development standards on first reading, order it published pursuant to section 5.12(h) of the Charter, public hearing set for Monday, November 21, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, and that it take effect immediately upon adoption and signature by the Mayor; seconded by Councilmember Urban. Councilmember Hoppe indicated this reconsideration is a good move. Councilmember Fitzgerald will happily vote against this again because he feels the way the base plane is measured is unfair to those with sloped lots. Councilmember Duran believes this is a good start. Councilmember Urban will vote yes this time because now enough information has been provided and he can make an informed decision. The motion carried 7-1, with Councilmember Fitzgerald voting no. DECISIONS. RESOLUTIONS AND MOTION 5. Special Meeting request for November 21, 2016 Mr. Dahl advised that the Mayor has already called a Special Meeting for November 21, 2016. At that meeting the public hearing on the bulk plane ordinance will take place, and a resolution approving the Fruitdale Agreement will be considered. CITY MANAGER'S MATTERS 17 City of I 7 heat i e a� ITEM NO: A DATE: November 14, 2016 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION TITLE: COUNCIL BILL NO. 25-2016 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLES I, II AND VI OF CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A RESIDENTIAL BULK PLANE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD (CASE NO. ZOA-16-06) ❑ PUBLIC HEARING ® ORDINANCES FOR 1sT READING (11/14/2016) ❑ BIDS/MOTIONS ❑ ORDINANCES FOR 2"D READING (11/21/2016) ❑ RESOLUTIONS (Reconsidered from 10/24/16) QUASI-JUDICIAL: t r❑ YES ® NO f -- unumty Developme ' ecto City Manager ISSUE: This ordinance amends the development standards for the Residential -One C (R -1C) zone district and one -family dwellings in the Residential=Three (R-3) zone district to add a bulk plane regulation. The purpose of this proposed ordinance is to reduce the mass and scale of new development in Wheat Ridge's smallest lot single-family zone districts. Currently there are no development standards for the aforementioned zone districts which limit mass and scale other than the existing 35 -foot height maximum in effect for all residential zone districts. The ordinance is also intended to preserve the ability to obtain a reasonable development and reinvestment potential for private property. PRIOR ACTION: Staff discussed this issue with City Council at study sessions on July 18, 2016, August 15, 2016, October 3, 2016, and October 17, 2016. Planning Commission also had discussions on this topic on July 21, 2016, September 15, 2016, and a public hearing on October 20, 2016. City Council postponed indefinitely Council Bill No. 25-2016 on October 24, 2016. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed ordinance is not expected to have a direct financial impact on the City. Council Action Form — Bulk Plane November 14, 2016 Page 2 BACKGROUND: Staff has been researching bulk plane standards for several months and has presented bulk plane information to City Council and Planning Commission during several study session discussions. Staff has worked to create an ordinance that balances the goals of the City's guiding documents such as the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy and the Comprehensive Plan, which call for reinvestment in Wheat Ridge neighborhoods, diversification of the City's housing stock and respecting Wheat Ridge's established neighborhoods. In July, staff was directed to continue researching bulk plane standards. Based in part on the community's response to some infill developments in East Wheat Ridge, Council deemed it necessary to declare an emergency and adopted an emergency ordinance in August to implement a bulk plane standard for properties zoned Residential -One C (R -1C). This emergency ordinance will expire and cannot be extended, per Charter regulations, on November 21, 2016. The proposed ordinance intends to be a permanent solution to the emergency ordinance adopted in August, with a slightly expanded scope. The proposed ordinance reflects the direction provided by City Council after considering information provided during several rounds of study sessions, public comments, and Planning Commission recommendations. During the most recent study session with Planning Commission in mid-September, the commissioners did not come to a consensus on an appropriate starting height for bulk plane. Overall, the Commission felt that bulk plane is not the most appropriate tool to address the neighborhood concerns and suggested that a bulk plane ordinance be adopted only as a temporary solution as staff conducts a more in-depth analysis into neighborhood overlays, building height, and architectural design standards. Following the Planning Commission study session, City Council was presented with a similar memorandum and a summary of Planning Commission's discussion. City Council understood the Planning Commission's desire for a more in-depth process, but directed staff to continue with the bulk plane ordinance. Staff presents the attached draft ordinance based on preliminary consensuses reached during City Council study sessions. Generally speaking, City Council indicated support for the 45° bulk plane measured 15 feet above each property line, as measured from the base plane. The base plane is calculated as an average property grade at the midpoints of each property line. City Council came to a consensus on applying bulk plane standards only to the R-1 C zone district and single-family homes in the R-3 zone district. Proposed Amendments Below is a summary of the proposed code amendments which would implement a bulk plane standard. 1. New definitions. Bulk plane standards do not exist in the current code, requiring the need for additional definitions to be added. Definitions for base plane, building envelope, and bulk plane are proposed to be added to the Code of Laws. Council Action Form — Bulk Plane November 14, 2016 Page 3 2. Development Standards. The Development Standards charts for the Residential -One C (R-1 C) and Residential -Three (R-3) zone districts are proposed to be modified by adding a footnote to the maximum height column which states that bulk plane regulations shall apply in conformance with Section 26-641 of the Code of Laws. 3. Bulk Plane. A new section is proposed to be added to the Code of Laws, Section 26-641, titled "Bulk Plane." This section describes the applicability, measurement, and allowable exceptions to the bulk plane regulations. 4. Bulk Plane measurement. The bulk plane is proposed to be measured from the base plane vertically 15 feet from each property line. After reaching 15 feet, the bulk plane extends over the property at a 45° angle. 15' Base Plane 45°- 5. Base Plane measurement. The base plane is proposed to be measured as the average of the elevations of the mid -point of each property line. 41 1128 � 262 = AVERAGE GRADE Council Action Form — Bulk Plane November 14, 2016 Page 4 6. Exceptions. Staff proposes the following list of exceptions: chimneys, architectural features consistent with current setback encroachment allowances, mechanical equipment, including solar panels, and dormers with some size limitations. Staff has also included open -type railings compliant with adopted City codes. The 2012 International Residential Code, which the City has adopted and currently enforces, calls for the following: 36" tall railings; openings in the railings (such as the space between supports, spindles, intermediate rails, and the like) must be spaced in a manner which does not allow a four -inch sphere to pass through it. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: In order to reconsider Council Bill 25-2016, the following motion must be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side (against the ordinance) at the previous meeting: "I move to reconsider Council's previous motion denying passage of Council Bill No. 25-2016." If the motion passes by a majority of the entire Council (6 votes), then the next motion may be made: "I move to approve Council Bill No. 25-2016, an ordinance amending Articles I, II and VI of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the implementation of residential bulk plane development standards, on first reading, order it published pursuant to Section 5.12(h) of the Charter, public hearing set for Monday, November 21, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, and that it take effect immediately upon adoption and signature by the Mayor." Or, "I move to postpone indefinitely Council Bill No. 25-2016, an ordinance amending Articles I, II and VI of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the implementation of residential bulk plane development standards, for the following reason(s) REPORT PREPARED/REVIEWED BY: Zack Wallace, Planner I Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director Patrick Goff, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Bill No. 25-2016 2. Zoning Map depicting R-1 C and R-3 zoned properties east of Wadsworth Boulevard 3. Zoning Map depicting R -1C and R-3 zoned properties west of Wadsworth Boulevard CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL BILL NO. 25 ORDINANCE NO. Series 2016 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF BULK PLANE STANDARDS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL -ONE C (RAC) AND ONE -FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE RESIDENTIAL -THREE (R-3) ZONE DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge ("City") is a home rule municipality operating under a charter adopted pursuant to Article XX of the Colorado Constitution and vested with the authority by that article and the Colorado Revised Statutes to adopt ordinances for the regulation of land use and protection of the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, in exercise of that authority, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge has previously enacted Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to zoning, land use, and development; and WHEREAS, the City is witnessing three-story residential infill development in established neighborhoods consisting of mostly single -story residences; and WHEREAS, the City Council has identified this development pattern as constituting a detriment to the public peace, health, and safety by impacting privacy and impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance is necessary to address this development pattern; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an emergency ordinance, pursuant to Section 5.13 of the Wheat Ridge City Charter which enacted a bulk plane regulation in the Residential -One C (R-1 C) zone district; and WHEREAS, the emergency ordinance will expire on November 21, 2016, pursuant to Section 5.13 of the Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes a permanent ordinance will continue to improve the quality or character of new development and further enhance and protect existing neighborhoods while respecting private property rights; NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Ordinance No. 1602, declaring an emergency and enacting a bulk plane regulation in the Residential -One C (R-1 C) zone district, enacted August 22, 2016, is repealed upon the effective date of this ordinance. Attachment 1 Section 2. Section 26-120.C.1 (Nonconforming structures and uses) of the Code is amended to read. Any one- or two-family dwelling structure or customary accessory structures may be enlarged, altered or added to provided that all lot coverage requirements of the zoning district in which the structure is located are met, and provided that the enlargement, alteration or addition does not increase the extent of nonconforming setbacks by encroaching beyond the existing setback line. THE RESIDENTIAL BULK PLANE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SECTION 26-641.A. SHALL APPLY TO ANY ENLARGEMENT, ALTERATION OR ADDITION OF OR TO BOTH THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. In instances of corner lots, no enlargement, alteration or addition shall be permitted to encroach within the minimum sight distance triangle as set forth in subsection 26-6038. In addition, no enlargement, alteration or addition which extends within the nonconforming area shall result in the development of any additional dwelling units. Section 3. Section 26-123 (Definitions.) of the Code is amended by the addition of the following definitions in their appropriate alphabetical locations: Base plane. The horizontal plane which is generally parallel to a property's existing grade from which building height and bulk plane are measured. Building envelope. The three-dimensional space within which a structure is permitted to be built on a lot and which is defined by regulations governing building setbacks, maximum height, and bulk plane, by other regulations, or any combination thereof. Bulk plane. The angled plane which extends from a set height above each property line and constrains the permitted building envelope. Section 4. Section 26-208.6 (Residential -One C District [R -1C] Development Standards) of the Code is amended by the addition of footnote (f) as follows: 0k,. I Maximum Maximum Height (f) Building Minimum Lot Minimurn Lot Minimum Front Minimum Side Minimum Renr Coverage Coverage - • . Setback (b) Yard Setback (c) Ya. Setback (c) Principal One -family Buildings dwelling 35' (f) 40% 5,000 sf 50' 20' (d) 5' (f) 5' (f) 25' (e) Group home 35' (f) 40% 5,000 sf 50' 20' (d) 5' (f) 5' (f) per story Churches, Multifamily schools, 35' 40% sf'�00 100' 25'(e) 15' (c) 15' (c) units) government and Group home 35' quasi - 9,000 sf 75' 25'(e) storyr 10' government Churches, buildings, golf courses, small 35' (f) 40% 1 acre 200' 20' (d) 15' (f) 20' (f) day care center, government and and nursing, quasi - elderly and government congregate care 35' 40% 1 acre 200' 25'(e) 15' (c) 20' day care center, homes 15' (f) 600 sf N/A NIA 20'(d) 5' 5' Accessory Major J Buildings (a) Minor 10' (f) 300 sf N/A N/A 20'(d) 5' 5' All Other Uses 35' (f) 40% 9,000 sf 60' 20'(d) 5' (e) 10' (F) BULK PLANE REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 26-641. Section 5. Section 26-211.6 (Residential -Three District [R-3] Development Standards) of the Code is amended by the addition of footnote N as follows: HeightMaximum Maximum Minimum Minimum MinimunT- Minimum Minimum Coverage Area Width (a) Yard Yard Yard -. Principal One -family° Buildings dwelling 35' (h) 40% 7,500 sf 60, 25' (e) 5' (h) 10' (h) Two-family5' dwelling 35' 40% 9,000 sf 75' 25' (e) per story 10 , Multifamily (3/more dwelling 35' 40% sf'�00 100' 25'(e) 15' (c) 15' (c) units) Group home 35' 40% 9,000 sf 75' 25'(e) storyr 10' Churches, schools, government and quasi - government buildings, golf courses, small 35' 40% 1 acre 200' 25'(e) 15' (c) 20' day care center, and nursing, elderly and congregate care homes Accessory 5' if — 10' Buildings600 (g) Major 15 (h) sf (per unit) N/A N/A 25' (e) 5' in height; 10' if > 10' in height Minor 10' (h) 400 sf/4 N/A N/A 25' (e) 5' 5, d u All Other Uses 35' 40% 7,500 sf 60' 25' (e) 5' per story 10' (H) BULK PLANE REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY TO ALL ONE -FAMILY DWELLING PRIMARY AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 26-641. Section 6. Chapter 26 of the Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new section 26-641, to read in its entirety as follows: 26-641. BULK PLANE A. BULK PLANE. IN ADDITION TO THE HEIGHT AND SETBACK STANDARDS OF ARTICLE Il, BUILDING ENVELOPES ARE REGULATED BY A THREE-DIMENSIONAL BULK PLANE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY, PRIVACY, AND THE ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LIGHT AND AIR. 1. APPLICABILITY. THE BULK PLANE RESTRICTIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL STRUCTURES ON A LOT FOR WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE NO ----, SERIES 2016. THE ENTIRETY OF ANY BUILDING ENVELOPE SHALL BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE BULK PLANE, UNLESS OTHERWISE EXEMPTED BY SUBSECTION 4. 2. MEASUREMENT OF BULK PLANE. THE BULK PLANE IS A PLANE THAT BEGINS FIFTEEN (15) FEET ABOVE EVERY PROPERTY LINE OF A LOT OR PARCEL, WHICH THEN SLOPES AT A FORTY-FIVE (45) DEGREE ANGLE UNTIL IT INTERSECTS THE BULK PLANE FROM THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE LOT OR PARCEL. SEE FIGURE 26-641.2. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE II, CHAPTER 26 SHALL APPLY REGARDLESS OF THE HEIGHT AT WHICH THE TWO OPPOSITE BULK PLANES INTERSECT ABOVE THE LOT OR PARCEL. 3. MEASUREMENT OF BASE PLANE. THE BASE PLANE (SEE FIGURE 641.1) SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE OF A LOT OR PARCEL. AVERAGE GRADE SHALL BE CALCULATED AS THE AVERAGE OF THE ELEVATIONS TAKEN AT THE MIDPOINTS OF EACH PROPERTY LINE. SEE FIGURE 26-641.2. 4, EXCEPTIONS. ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE BULK PLANE SHALL BE PERMITTED AS FOLLOWS: A. CHIMNEYS B. OPEN -TYPE RAILINGS COMPLIANT WITH ADOPTED CITY CODE C. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. CORNICE, EAVES, BELTCOURSES, SILLS, CANOPIES OR OTHER SIMILAR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, INCLUDING BAY WINDOW, MAY EXTEND OR PROJECT INTO THE BULK PLANE NOT MORE THAN THIRTY (30) INCHES D. MECHANICAL EQUPMENT. VENT PIPES, SOLAR PANELS, SWAMP COOLERS. E. DORMERS MEASURING NO MORE THAN EIGHT (8) FEET WIDE; SIX (6) FEET TALL, AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST POINT OF INTERSECTION BETWEEN THE ROOF AND THE DORMER TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF A FLAT ROOF OR MEAN HEIGHT LEVEL BETWEEN EAVES AND RIDGE FOR A GABLE, HIP, GAMBREL OR OTHER ROOF; AND, OCCUPYING NO MORE THAN FIFTY (50) PERCENT OF THE ROOF. Section 7. Section 26-641 (Bulk plane.) of the Code is amended by the addition of Figure 26-641.1. BASE PLANE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING ENVELOPE Figure 26-641.1. Section view of bulk plane building envelope, as measured from all property lines. Section 8. Section 26-641 (Bulk plane.) of the Code is amended by the addition of Figure 26-611.2. 4 Fii2i = 262 = AVERAGE GRADE Figure 26-641.2. Average Grade Calculation Section 9. Severability. Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section, subsection or clause of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 10. Effective Date. Pursuant to Charter Section 5.11, this ordinance shall take effect upon adoption and signature by the Mayor. INTRODUCED, READ, AND FAILED TO BE ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 3 to 4, the 24th day of October, 2016. RECONSIDERED, READ AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to this 14th day of November, 2016 and 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 November 21, 2016 at 7:00 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 '2016. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of , 2016. Joyce Jay, Mayor ATTEST: Janelle Shaver, City Clerk Approved as to Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript and www.ci.wheatridge.co.us CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7600 WEST 29T" AVENUE, MUNICIPAL BUILDING November 14, 2016 7.00 p.m, individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Midge. Cali 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. GALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Notes PROCLAMATIONS AND CEREMONIES CITIZENS' RIGHT TO SPEAK a. Citizens, who wish, may speak on any matter not on the Agenda for a maximum of 3 minutes and sign the Public Comment Roster. b. +Citizens who wish to speak on Agenda Items, please sign the GENERAL AGENDA ROSTER or appropriate PUBLIC HEARING ROSTER before the item is called to be heard. c. Citizens who wish to spear on Study Session Agenda Items, please sign the STUDY SESSION AGENDA ROSTER, APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA a) Motion to award RFP -16-31 Videography Services to I.O.T.K Media in the contract amount of $45,425 b) Motion to award a contract to Murphy Construction Company, LLC, Denver, CO., in the amount of $147,050 for the Clear Creek. Trail Maintenance Replacement Project, and to authorize a 10% Contingency amount of $10,705 for a total of $117,755 c) Resolution No. 44-201+6 — amending the Fiscal Year 2016 General Fund Budget to reflect the approval of a Supplemental Budget Appropriation in the amount of $4,040 for the Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL] Grant to be used for the installation of City Directional and Distance Signs CITY COUNCIL AGENDA; November 14, 2016 Page -2- CONSENT AGENDA can't d) Resolution No. 46-2016 •- approving an Agreement between the City of Lakewood and the City of Wheat Ridge for Crime Lab/Crime Scene Services and authorizing Payment of $69,600 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING 2. Council Bill 22-2016 — repealing and reenacting Section 26-615 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning Commercial Mobile Radio Service and making conforming Amendments in connection therewith (Case No. ZOA-16-04) 3. Public Hearing on the proposed 2017 City Budget ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING 4. Reconsideration of Council Bill 25- 2016 - Amending Articles I, 11 and IV of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the implementation of a Residential Bulk Plane Development Standard (Case No. ZOA-16-06) DECISIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTION 5. Special Meeting request for November 21, 2016 CITY MANAGER'S MATTERS CITY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS ELECTED OFFICIALS' MATTERS ADJOURNMENT City Council Minutes October 24, 2016 Page 3 Approval of this ordinance will require property owners to remove snow and ice from sidewalks within twenty-four hours after each snowfall of 2 inches or more. Councilmember Urban introduced Council Bill 24-2016. Clerk Shaver assigned Ordinance 1611. Mayor Jay opened the Public Hearing. Scott Brink gave a brief staff report. He gave a short narrative about the history and reason for the ordinance. Our snow removal policy is similar to that of other cities; it will now be codified and administered through code enforcement. Per Council's direction the first year will focus on heavy education and softer enforcement. There was no public comment. Mayor Jay closed the Public Hearing Motion by Councilmember Urban to approve Council Bill 24-2016, an ordinance amending Chapter 16 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws to add a new Section 16-68, entitled Removal of Snow and Ice from Sidewalks on second reading, and that it take effect 15 days after final publication; seconded by Councilmember Hoppe; carried 7-0. ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING \ 3. Council Bill 25-2016 — An ordinance amending Articles 1,11 and IV of Chapter 26 of ---> the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the implementation of a Residential Bulk Plane Development Standard (Case No. ZOA-16-06) This ordinance amends the development standards for the R1 -C gone and single-family dwellings in R-3 zones to add bulk plane regulation. This will reduce the mass and scale of new development in the smallest lot single-family zones. Currently the only standard is a 35 foot height maximum. Councilmember Hoppe introduced Council Bill 25:g_016.. Motion by Councilmember Hoppe to approve Council Bill No. 25-2016, an ordinance amending Articles 1, If and IV of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the implementation of a residential bulk plane development standards on first reading, order it published, public hearing set for Monday, November 14, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, and that it take effect immediately upon adoption and signature by the Mayor; seconders by Councilmember Pond. Councilmember Mathews announced for the record that the Planning Commission just voted 5-1 not to approve this ordinance. He thinks people should know that staff is City Council Minutes October 24, 2016 Page 4 recommending this against the wishes of the Planning Commission and the many residents of District 1 that are affected by this, and he'd like to know why. Ken Johnstone remarked that the Planning Commission has expressed they have a difference of opinion and want to look at a broader city-wide approach to this and other issues related to residential development -- such as architectural design standards and overlay districts. He outlined the challenges of addressing the District 1 issue in 94 days; there wasn't time to address larger issues. Bulk plane was all that was considered, so as to get something before Council by Nov 1411' when the emergency ordinance runs out. He isn't surprised that the Planning Commission voted against the ordinance because they want to look at it in a different way. Mr. Johnstone verified that if nothing is done and no changes are made, when the emergency ordinance expires the previous regulatory frame work would resume. Councilmember Fitzgerald announced he would be voting no on this. Besides the competing values of the citizens not wanting the feeling of their neighborhood to change and the City's priority to do revitalization, he also feels it penalizes people who have sloping lots. Councilmember Pond believes this is a compromise and is timely, and will support it. Councilmember Duran announced she would be voting no because there are so many issues and Council has not done their due diligence with community outreach. Councilmember Hoppe supports moving this to second reading. She believes it is a compromise between 35 ft straight -up buildings and not being able to build anything over 1 % stories. She believes it's important to maintain smart growth — specifically on these small lots, to get people to invest their time, lives and money in the community. Councilmember Mathews announced he will vote no. He's encouraged that some progress has been made, people are learning about it, we've learned some things and we can continue. He never really liked the false sense of urgency. The motion failed 3-4, with Councilmember Mathews, Fitzgerald, Urban, and Duran voting no. Mr. Goff clarified for the public that the emergency ordinance expires November 21. Any application that comes in after November 21 will follow current codes. CITY MANAGER'S MATTERS Patrick Goff reported that the 2017 Budget is now on the City website. Council discussion will be Nov 7, with a public hearing Nov 14. Citizens can comment at both of those meetings. He also urged citizens to check out the program "Balancing Act" on the City website where citizens can learn about balancing the budget and offer input. CITY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS _��,►�,�� li City of �... l Wheat Ridge ITEM NO: - DATE: October 24, 2016 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION cooOFto TITLE: COUNCIL BILL NO. 25-2016 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLES I, II AND VI OF CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A RESIDENTIAL BULK PLANE DEVELOPMENT STANDARD (CASE NO. ZOA-16-06) ❑ PUBLIC HEARING ® ORDINANCES FOR IST READING (10/24/2016) ❑ BIDS/MOTIONS ❑ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING (11/14/2016) ❑ RESOLUTIONS QUASI- D CIAL: ❑ YES ® NO X ommunity Develo ment Director City Manager ISSUE: P This ordinance amends the development standards for the Residential -One C (R -1C) zone district and one -family dwellings in the Residential -Three (R-3) zone district to add a bulk plane regulation. The purpose of this proposed ordinance is to reduce the mass and scale of new development in Wheat Ridge's smallest lot single-family zone districts. Currently there are no development standards for the aforementioned zone districts which limit mass and scale other than the existing 35 -foot height maximum in effect for all residential zone districts. The ordinance is also intended to preserve the ability to obtain a reasonable development and reinvestment potential for private property. PRIOR ACTION: Staff discussed this issue with City Council at study sessions on July 18, 2016, August 15, 2016, October 3, 2016, and October 17, 2016. Planning Commission also had discussions on this topic on July 21, 2016 and September 15, 2016. A public hearing before Planning Commission is scheduled for October 20, 2016. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed ordinance is not expected to have a direct financial impact on the City. Council Action Form — Bulk Plane October 24, 2016 Page 2 BACKGROUND: Staff has been researching bulk plane standards for several months and has presented bulk plane information to City Council and Planning Commission during several study session discussions. Staff has worked to create an ordinance that balances the goals of the City's guiding documents such as the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy and the Comprehensive Plan, which call for reinvestment in Wheat Ridge neighborhoods, diversification of the City's housing stock and respecting Wheat Ridge's established neighborhoods. In July, staff was directed to continue researching bulk plane standards. Based in part on the community's response to some infill developments in East Wheat Ridge, Council deemed it necessary to declare an emergency and adopted an emergency ordinance in August to implement a bulk plane standard for properties zoned Residential -One C (R-1 C). This emergency ordinance will expire and cannot be extended, per Charter regulations, on November 21, 2016. The proposed ordinance intends to be a permanent solution to the emergency ordinance adopted in August, with a slightly expanded scope. The proposed ordinance reflects the direction provided by City Council after considering information provided during several rounds of study sessions, public comments, and Planning Commission recommendations. During the most recent study session with Planning Commission in mid-September, the commissioners did not come to a consensus on an appropriate starting height for bulk plane. Overall, the Commission felt that bulk plane is not the most appropriate tool to address the neighborhood concerns and suggested that a bulk plane ordinance be adopted only as a temporary solution as staff conducts a more in-depth analysis into neighborhood overlays, building height, and architectural design standards. Following the Planning Commission study session, City Council was presented with a similar memorandum and a summary of Planning Commission's discussion. City Council understood the Planning Commission's desire for a more in-depth process, but directed staff to continue with the bulk plane ordinance. Staff presents the attached draft ordinance based on preliminary consensuses reached during City Council study sessions. Generally speaking, City Council indicated support for the 45° bulk plane measured 15 feet above each property line, as measured from the base plane. The base plane is calculated as an average property grade at the midpoints of each property line. City Council came to a consensus on applying bulk plane standards only to the R -1C zone district and single-family homes in the R-3 zone district. Proposed Amendments Below is a summary of the proposed code amendments which would implement a bulk plane standard. 1. New definitions. Bulk plane standards do not exist in the current code, requiring the need for additional definitions to be added. Definitions for base plane, building envelope, and bulk plane are proposed to be added to the Code of Laws. Council Action Form — Bulk Plane October 24, 2016 Page 3 2. Development Standards. The Development Standards charts for the Residential -One C (R -1C) and Residential -Three (R-3) zone districts are proposed to be modified by adding a footnote to the maximum height column which states that bulk plane regulations shall apply in conformance with Section 26-641 of the Code of Laws. 3. Bulk Plane. Anew section is proposed to be added to the Code of Laws, Section 26-641, titled "Bulk Plane." This section describes the applicability, measurement, and allowable exceptions to the bulk plane regulations. 4. Bulk Plane measurement. The bulk plane is proposed to be measured from the base plane vertically 15 feet from each property line. After reaching 15 feet, the bulk plane extends over the property at a 45° angle. 1511 Base Plane 45- 5. Base Plane measurement. The base plane is proposed to be measured as the average of the elevations of the mid -point of each property line. 411128 -282 = AVERAGE GRADE Council Action Form — Bulk Plane October 24, 2016 Page 4 6. Exceptions. Staff proposes the following list of exceptions: chimneys, architectural features consistent with current setback encroachment allowances, mechanical equipment, including solar panels, and dormers with some size limitations. Staff has also included open -type railings compliant with adopted City codes. The 2012 International Residential Code, which the City has adopted and currently enforces, calls for the following: 36" tall railings; openings in the railings (such as the space between supports, spindles, intermediate rails, and the like) must be spaced in a manner which does not allow a four -inch sphere to pass through it. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Council Bill No. 25-2016, an ordinance amending Articles I, II and VI of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the implementation of residential bulk plane development standards, on first reading, order it published, public hearing set for Monday, November 14, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers, and that it take effect immediately upon adoption and signature by the Mayor." Or, "I move to postpone indefinitely Council Bill No. 25-2016, an ordinance amending Articles I, II and VI of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the implementation of residential bulk plane development standards, for the following reason(s) REPORT PREPARED BY: Zack Wallace, Planner I Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director Patrick Goff, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Bill No. 25-2016 2. Zoning Map depicting R -IC and R-3 zoned properties east of Wadsworth Boulevard 3. Zoning Map depicting R-1 C and R-3 zoned properties west of Wadsworth Boulevard CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. Series 2016 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF BULK PLANE STANDARDS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL -ONE C (11-1C) AND ONE -FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE RESIDENTIAL -THREE (R-3) ZONE DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge ("City") is a home rule municipality operating under a charter adopted pursuant to Article XX of the Colorado Constitution and vested with the authority by that article and the Colorado Revised Statutes to adopt ordinances for the regulation of land use and protection of the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, in exercise of that authority, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge has previously enacted Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws pertaining to zoning, land use, and development; and WHEREAS, the City is witnessing three-story residential infill development in established neighborhoods consisting of mostly single -story residences; and WHEREAS, the City Council has identified this development pattern as constituting a detriment to the public peace, health, and safety by impacting privacy and impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance is necessary to address this development pattern; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an emergency ordinance, pursuant to Section 5.13 of the Wheat Ridge City Charter which enacted a bulk plane regulation in the Residential -One C (R-1 C) zone district; and WHEREAS, the emergency ordinance will expire on November 21, 2016, pursuant to Section 5.13 of the Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes a permanent ordinance will continue to improve the quality or character of new development and further enhance and protect existing neighborhoods while respecting private property rights; NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Ordinance No. 1602, declaring an emergency and enacting a bulk plane regulation in the Residential -One C (R -1C) zone district, enacted August 22, 2016, is repealed upon the effective date of this ordinance. Section 2. Section 26-120.C.1 (Nonconforming structures and uses) of the Code is amended to read. Any one- or two-family dwelling structure or customary accessory structures may be enlarged, altered or added to provided that all lot coverage requirements of the zoning district in which the structure is located are met, and provided that the enlargement, alteration or addition does not increase the extent of nonconforming setbacks by encroaching beyond the existing setback line. THE RESIDENTIAL BULK PLANE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SECTION 26-641.A. SHALL APPLY TO ANY ENLARGEMENT, ALTERATION OR ADDITION OF OR TO BOTH THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. In instances of corner lots, no enlargement, alteration or addition shall be permitted to encroach within the minimum sight distance triangle as set forth in subsection 26-603B. In addition, no enlargement, alteration or addition which extends within the nonconforming area shall result in the development of any additional dwelling units. Section 3. Section 26-123 (Definitions.) of the Code is amended by the addition of the following definitions in their appropriate alphabetical locations: Base plane. The horizontal plane which is generally parallel to a property's existing grade from which building height and bulk plane are measured. Building envelope. The three-dimensional space within which a structure is permitted to be built on a lot and which is defined by regulations governing building setbacks, maximum height, and bulk plane, by other regulations, or any combination thereof. Bulk plane. The angled plane which extends from a set height above each property line and constrains the permitted building envelope. Section 4. Section 26-208.13 (Residential -One C District [R -1C] Development Standards) of the Code is amended by the addition of footnote (f) as follows: (F) BULK PLANE REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 26-641. Section 5. Section 26-211.6 (Residential -Three District [R-3] Development Maximum the code Is amended by the addition of tootnote h Maximum Minimum Minimum Minimum Height • . - Lot LotFront Minimum Minimum Maximum Minimum Minimum Coverage Area Width Minimum d Minimum Setback • Principal Buildings One-familyo dwelling 35 (f) 40 /0 5,000 sf 50 20' (d) , 5 (f) 5' (f) Yard Group home 35' (f) 40% 5,000 sf 50' 20' (d) 5' (f) 5' (f) `Principal Buildings Churches, 35' (h) 40% 7,500 sf 60' 25' (e) 5' (h) 10' (h) Two-family dwelling schools, 40% 9,000 sf 75' 25' (e) 5' per story 10' government and 0 quasi - (3/more dwelling 35' 40% sf '� 100' 25'(e) 15' (c) government units) buildings, golf courses, small 35' (f) 40% 1 acre 200' 20' (d) 15' (f) 20' (fl 75' day care center, 5' per 10' and nursing, st Churches, elderly and schools, congregate care government and homes Accessory Major 15' (f) 600 sf N/A N/A 20' (d) 5' 5' Buildings e Minor 10' (f) 300 sf N/A I N/A 20' (d) 5' 5' All Other Uses 35' (f) 40% 9,000 sf 60' 20' (d) 5' (e) 10' (F) BULK PLANE REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 26-641. Section 5. Section 26-211.6 (Residential -Three District [R-3] Development 5tanaaras)or the code Is amended by the addition of tootnote h as follows: HeightMaximum Maximum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum d Minimum Coverage .. Yard - Yard Setback (b) Setback (d) Setback `Principal Buildings One -family dwelling 35' (h) 40% 7,500 sf 60' 25' (e) 5' (h) 10' (h) Two-family dwelling 35' 40% 9,000 sf 75' 25' (e) 5' per story 10' Multifamily 0 (3/more dwelling 35' 40% sf '� 100' 25'(e) 15' (c) 15' (c) units) Group home 35' 40% 9,000 sf 75' 25' (e) 5' per 10' st Churches, schools, government and quasi - government buildings, golf courses, small 35' 40% 1 acre 200' 25' (e) 15' (c) 20' day care center, and nursing, elderly and congregate care homes Accessory 1 5' if <= 10' Buildings (g) Major 15' (h) 600 sf (per unit) N/A N/A 25' (e) 5 in height; 10' if > 10' in height Minor 10' (h) 400 sf/4 N/A N/A 25'(e) 5 5' d u Au Other Uses 35' 40% 7,500 sf 60' 25' (e) 5' per story 10' (H) BULK PLANE REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY TO ALL ONE -FAMILY DWELLING PRIMARY AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 26-641. Section 6. Chapter 26 of the Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new section 26-641, to read in its entirety as follows: 26-641. BULK PLANE A. BULK PLANE. IN ADDITION TO THE HEIGHT AND SETBACK STANDARDS OF ARTICLE II, BUILDING ENVELOPES ARE REGULATED BY A THREE-DIMENSIONAL BULK PLANE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY, PRIVACY, AND THE ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LIGHT AND AIR. 1. APPLICABILITY. THE BULK PLANE RESTRICTIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL STRUCTURES ON A LOT FOR WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE NO ----, SERIES 2016. THE ENTIRETY OF ANY BUILDING ENVELOPE SHALL BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE BULK PLANE, UNLESS OTHERWISE EXEMPTED BY SUBSECTION 4. 2. MEASUREMENT OF BULK PLANE. THE BULK PLANE IS A PLANE THAT BEGINS FIFTEEN (15) FEET ABOVE EVERY PROPERTY LINE OF A LOT OR PARCEL, WHICH THEN SLOPES AT A FORTY-FIVE (45) DEGREE ANGLE UNTIL IT INTERSECTS THE BULK PLANE FROM THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE LOT OR PARCEL. SEE FIGURE 26-641.2. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE II, CHAPTER 26 SHALL APPLY REGARDLESS OF THE HEIGHT AT WHICH THE TWO OPPOSITE BULK PLANES INTERSECT ABOVE THE LOT OR PARCEL. 3. MEASUREMENT OF BASE PLANE. THE BASE PLANE (SEE FIGURE 641.1) SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE OF A LOT OR PARCEL. AVERAGE GRADE SHALL BE CALCULATED AS THE AVERAGE OF THE ELEVATIONS TAKEN AT THE MIDPOINTS OF EACH PROPERTY LINE. SEE FIGURE 26-641.2. 4. EXCEPTIONS. ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE BULK PLANE SHALL BE PERMITTED AS FOLLOWS: A. CHIMNEYS B. OPEN -TYPE RAILINGS COMPLIANT WITH ADOPTED CITY CODE C. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. CORNICE, EAVES, BELTCOURSES, SILLS, CANOPIES OR OTHER SIMILAR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, INCLUDING BAY WINDOW, MAY EXTEND OR PROJECT INTO THE BULK PLANE NOT MORE THAN THIRTY (30) INCHES D. MECHANICAL EQUPMENT. VENT PIPES, SOLAR PANELS, SWAMP COOLERS. E. DORMERS MEASURING NO MORE THAN EIGHT (8). FEET WIDE; SIX (6) FEET TALL, AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST POINT OF INTERSECTION BETWEEN THE ROOF AND THE DORMER TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF A FLAT ROOF OR MEAN HEIGHT LEVEL BETWEEN EAVES AND RIDGE FOR A GABLE, HIP, GAMBREL OR OTHER ROOF; AND, OCCUPYING NO MORE THAN FIFTY (50) PERCENT OF THE ROOF. Section 7. Section 26-641 (Bulk plane.) of the Code is amended by the addition of Figure 26-641.1. BASE PLANE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING ENVELOPE Figure 26-641.1. Section view of bulk plane building envelope, as measured from all property lines. Section 8. Section 26-641 (Bulk plane.) of the Code is amended by the addition of Figure 26-611.2. Zen 4 1128 = 282 = AVERAGE GRADE Figure 26-641.2. Average Grade Calculation Section 9. Severability. Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section, subsection or clause of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 10. Effective Date. Pursuant to Charter Section 5.11, this ordinance shall take effect upon adoption and signature by the Mayor. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to , this 24th day of October, 2016 and 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 November 14, 2016 at 7:00 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 , 2016. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of , 2016. Joyce Jay, Mayor ATTEST: Janelle Shaver, City Clerk Approved as to Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript and www.ci.wheatridge.co.us e ! - f I I Li as �I GEiP _7 L - - _ di7_J.IAI I II T F177_� I AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 WEST 29TH AVENUE, MUNICIPAL BUILDING October U. 201 7:00 P.M. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Cali Carly Lorentz, Assistant to the City Manager, at 303-235-2887 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance, CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS APPROVAL OF MINUTES of October 10 2016 and Study Notes of October 3 2016 PROCLAMATIONS AND CEREMONIES CITIZENS' RIGHT TO SPEAK a. Citizens, who wish, may speak on any matter not on the Agenda for a maximum of 3 minutes and sign the Public Comment Roster. b. Citizens who wish to speak on Agenda Items, please sign the GENERAL AGENDA ROSTE or appropriate PUBLIC HEARING ROSTER before the item is called to be heard. c. Citizens who wish to speak on Study Session Agenda Items, please sign the STUDY SESSION AGENDA ROSTER. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. CONSENT AGENDA a) Motion to approve award of a Contract to All Copy Products, Inc., Denver, CO, in an annual amount not -to -exceed $65,000 for the lease of multi -function copier equipment and service, and to approve a three-year term with the option to extend for two additional one-year periods b) Resolution 42-2016 amending the Fiscal Year 2016 General Fund Budget to reflect the approval of a Supplemental Budget Appropriation for a 2016 Police Officer Standards and Training Grant in the amount of $2,976.19 c) Resolution 43-2016 — between the City of Wheat Ridge and the West Metro Fire Protection District approving a Revocable License Agreement concerning an Emergency Siren Location CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: October 24, 2016 Page -2- PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING 2. Council Bill 24-2016 — amending Chapter 16 of the. Wheat Ridge Code of Laws to add a new Section 16-68, entitled Removal of Snow and ice from Sidewalks ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING. 3. Council Bill 25-2016 —amending Articles I, ll and IV of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the implementation of a Residential Bulk Plane Development Standard (Case No. ZOA-16-06) CITY MANAGER'S MATTERS CITY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS ELECTED OFFICIALS' MATTERS, ADJOURN TO STUDY SESSION A motion was made for a 10 minute recess. B. Case No. ZOA-16-06: an ordinance amending Articles I, II and VI of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the implementation of a residential bulk plane development standard. Mr. Wallace gave a short presentation regarding the ordinance and the application. He entered into the record the contents of the case file, packet materials, the zoning ordinance, and the contents of the digital presentation. He stated the public notice requirements have been met, therefore the Planning Commission has jurisdiction to hear this case. Mr. Wallace reminded the Commission about the 90 -day Emergency 15 -foot bulk plane Ordinance for the R -1C zone district which expires on November 21, 2016, and the discussions that have been held between staff, City Council and Planning Commission. Staff presented to City Council the concerns of Planning Commission that the bulk plane is not the right method of addressing the neighborhood concerns with the height limit, and to look into residential architectural standards instead. Ultimately, City Council still directed staff to move forward with the 15 -foot bulk plane. Mr. Wallace gave a brief overview of the proposed ordinance that will repeal and replace the existing emergency ordinance including proposed changes to the nonconforming structures and uses, new definitions and modifications to the development standards charts. He continued by explaining that the bulk plane standard will apply to the R-1 C zone district as well as single-family homes in the R-3 zone district. The bulk plane will begin 15 feet above each property line then angle in 45 degrees, as measured from the average grade (base plane). There will be some exceptions (allowable encroachments) to the bulk plane such as architectural features and chimneys. There will also be options for variances (threshold) which will be reviewed administratively if under 50% or by the Board of Adjustment if over 50%. Ultimately, the bulk plane does not restrict a builder any more than the current development standards do, but decreases the vertical building area, provides extra space between neighboring properties and limits height. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked if there was any discussion with City Council regarding the conversation between Planning Commission and staff with regards to a community overlay to allow bulk plane to be applied differently depending on the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Wallace stated that comments from the Planning Commission were summarized, including residential architectural standards. City Council directed Staff to move forward with the existing proposed legislation. Planning Commission Minutes -6 October 20, 2016 Commissioner BUCKNAM asked why multifamily buildings are excluded in the R-3 zone district. Mr. Wallace explained that multifamily buildings have step back requirements already in place so there will be a mix of bulk plane and step back applied to taller buildings. Chair OHM asked if a property owner would be penalized if they live on a sloped lot and the average grade has to be determined to get the bulk plane. Mr. Wallace explained this would be a perfect case for a variance. It's not an automatic approval, but could be supportable by Staff. Carol Matthews, Resident 3851 Hoyt Street, Wheat Ridge Ms. Matthews shared her concern with the height of homes going up in District I and is worried about hardships of the other property owners, drainage from these mass structures and the possibility of the homes being rental properties. Michael Epson, Resident 2905 Chase Street Mr. Epson passed out a petition- signed packet from residents in the neighborhood. The people on this petition do not want large houses built in their neighborhood and are proposing a 12 '/2 foot bulk plane and a maximum height restriction of 25 feet. He also said some neighbors adjacent to these large houses are having drainage problems. Chair OHM asked about the Charter height limit of 35 feet and asked it is voter approved and why it is not being looked at. Ms. Reckert replied that the Charter could not be amended to exceed 35 feet in residential areas, but it could be amended to go lower. Mr. Wallace stated height is on City Council's radar but they directed staff to move forward with bulk plane at this time due to the time limit of the Emergency Ordinance. Height limitations will be considered at a later date. Chair OHM asked if there is anything restricting a resident from putting deed restrictions on their property about a 25 foot height maximum and 12 '/z foot bulk plane. Ms. Reckert said they can, but it wouldn't be anything the city could enforce. Planning Commission Minutes -7— October 7_October 20, 2016 S. 9. Commissioner BUCKNAM told staff that he thinks they proposed a reasonable bulk plane and variance applications, but is concerned that it is too universal and should consider the character of the neighborhood. He would encourage City Council to look into the potential for neighborhood overlays which take into consideration the unique characteristics of every neighborhood. It was moved by Commissioner KIMSEY and seconded by Commissioner TIMMS to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Articles I, II and VI of Chapter 26 of the code of laws, concerning the implementation of a residential bulk plane development standards. Motion was denied 1-5-1 with KIMSEY approving; BUCKNAM, DORSEY, OHM TIMMS, LEO denying; and BODEN abstaining. OTHER ITEMS ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner BUCKNAM to adjourn the meeting at 9:52 p.m. Motion carried 7-0. Sc )hm, r Tammy O an, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Minutes _ 8 October 20, 2016 Case. ZOA-16-06 An ordinance amending Articles I, II and VI of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the implementation of residential bulk plane development standards. Zoning Code Amendment— Public Hearing Planning Commission October 20, 2016 The Ordinance - Overview • Repeal existing emergency ordinance. • Nonconforming structures and uses. • Definitions. • Development Standards charts. • Section 26-641. Background • Staff continuing where we left off on the following schedule: — July/August: Planning Commission /City Council study sessions — August 22: 90 -day Emergency Ordinance — September 15: Planning Commission Discussion — October 3: City Council Study Session — October 17: City Council Study Session — October 20: Planning Commission Public Hearing — October 24: 11t Reading at City Council — November 14: City Council Public Hearing — November 21: Emergency Ordinance Expires The Ordinance • 45° bulk plane, • Beginning 15 feet above each property line The Ordinance • 45' bulk plane, • Beginning 15 feet above each property line The Ordinance • Applicable in the R -IC zone district and single-family homes in the R-3 zone district. The Ordinance • 45° bulk plane, • Beginning 15 feet above each property line • As measured from the average grade (base plane) *0 __• C 3= =3� •. t t F i_ _ _ . Variances 4 Exceptions (allowable encroachments) • Chimneys • Architectural features, consistent with current setback encroachment allowances • Mechanical equipment • Dormers • Open type railings, consistent with adopted City Codes. Sloped lot bulk plane analysis 10/27/2016 10/27/2016 Sloped lot bulk plane analysis 41 Sloped lot bulk plane analysis Sloped lot bulk plane analysis Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance amending Articles 1, ll, and VI of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, concerning the implementation of a residential bulk plane development standard. ' City of 2 Wheat�idge COMPLANNING COMMISSION MUNITY DEVELOPMENT LEGISLATIVE ITEM STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: October 20, 2016 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLES I, II AND VI OF CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RESIDENTIAL BULK PLANE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. CASE NO. ZOA-16-06 ® PUBLIC HEARING ® CODE CHANGE ORDINANCE p>?P a� Case Manager: Zack Wallace, Planner I Md-� 2� Date of Preparation: October 13, 2016 oa d10 0 SUMMARY: Staff has been researching bulk plane standards for several months and has presented bulk plane.�,,�t�`� information to City Council and Planning Commission during several study sessions discussion In July, Staff was directed to continue researching bulk plane standards. Based, in part on the community's response to some infill developments in East Wheat Ridge, Council deemed it necessary to declare an emergency and adopt an emergency ordinance in August to implement a bulk plane standard for properties zoned Residential -One C (R -1Q. This emergency ordinance will expire, per Charter regulations, on November 21, 2016. The proposed ordinance intends to be a permanent solution to the emergency ordinance adopted in August, with a slightly expanded scope. That proposed ordinance reflects the direction provided by City Council after considering information provided during several rounds of study sessions, public comments, and Planning Commission recommendations. Notice for this public hearing was provided as required by the Code of Laws. BACKGROUND: Over the past several months staff has worked to create an ordinance that balances the goals of the City's guiding documents such as the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy and the Comprehensive plan, which call for reinvestment in Wheat Ridge neighborhoods, and for respecting Wheat Ridge's established neighborhoods. ZOA-16-06 / Bulk Plane During the most recent study session with Planning Commission in mid-September, the commissioners did not come to a consensus on an appropriate starting height for bulk plane. Overall, the Commission felt that bulk plane is not the most appropriate tool to address the neighborhood concerns and suggested that a bulk plane ordinance be adopted only as a temporary solution as staff conducts a more in-depth analysis into neighborhood overlays, building height, and architectural design standards. Following the Planning Commission study session, City Council was presented with a similar memorandum and a summary of Planning Commission's discussion. City Council understood the Planning Commission's desire for a more in-depth process, but directed Staff to continue with the bulk plane ordinance. Staff presents the attached draft ordinance based on consensuses reached during City Council study sessions. Generally speaking, City Council is supportive of the 45° bulk plane measured 15 feet above each property line, as measured from the base plane. The base plane is calculated as an average of the midpoints of each property line. City Council came to a consensus on applying bulk plane standards only to the R-1 C zone district and single family homes in the R-3 zone district. Exceptions City Council was supportive of allowing exceptions to the bulk plane. Staff has provided a list of allowable exceptions: chimneys, architectural features consistent with current setback encroachment allowances, mechanical equipment, including solar panels, and dormers with some size limitations. Staff has also included open -type railings compliant with adopted City codes. The 2012 International Residential Code, which the City has adopted and currently enforces, calls for the following: 36" tall railings; openings in the railings (such as the space between supports, spindles, intermediate rails, and the like) must be spaced in a manner which does not allow a 4 -inch sphere to pass through it. Variances The ability to apply for variances from the bulk plane, as is available for most other development standards, was supported by City Council. How variances are measured is typically not codified, as most measurements are self-explanatory. Staff will adopt its measurement of the bulk plane variance as a departmental policy, rather than codifying the technique for measurement. Under the existing regulations for variances, a variance up to 50% can be considered for administrative approval by the community development director. Initially, staff considered whether an applicant could request a 50% variance from the 15 -foot bulk plane measurement, resulting in a 22.5 -foot bulk plane measurement. The practical effect of such a variance (if approved) would be to nullify the intent of the bulk plane regulation and allow a 35 -foot tall structure to be constructed at or near the minimum 5 -foot setback line. Staff does not think that would be in the spirit of what should be allowed through the administrative review process. The administrative policy staff is proposing to implement would allow an administrative variance process for up to 50% encroachments into the area depicted by the 14.14 -foot measurement in the graphic below. ZOA-15-02 / Residential Setbacks 2 , i MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT :-------------------- I ........ ...............:.r........ 7.07'=50°! ARIAN[E , , , , , , , , :oar 45°BUIKPdANE Figure 1: Variance measurement method demonstrating a 50% variance. Sloped Lots At the October 3 City Council study session, based on information presented by an east Wheat Ridge property owner, there was also discussion of the applicability of bulk plane regulations on sloped lots. Based on the manner in which "base plane" is established in the draft ordinance, which is consistent with how building height is currently measured in the zoning code, it is correct to say that meeting bulk plane requirements on sloped lots has a greater impact. On sloped lots, in order to meet the bulk plane requirements, the effective side yard setbacks are greater for taller 2- and 3 -story structures. We think this is consistent with the intent of implementing a bulk plane standard, which is intended to minimize the impact of the mass and bulk of these taller structures, particularly on the downslope property line(s). However, it is also important to consider whether the relatively small R-1 C lots still have a reasonable development potential. Staff has conducted an analysis (see Figures 2 and 3) that we believe illustrates that these narrower (50 -foot wide) R -1C lots continue to have a reasonable development potential if the City were to implement the bulk plane regulations as currently drafted. ZOA-15-02 /Residential Setbacks Figure 2: Buildable area (building envelope) of a 50 -foot wide sloped lot with 5 feet of fall. is, Figure 3: Potential development scenario of a two-story structure with a basement on a 50 -foot wide sloped lot. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Articles I,11 and VI of Chapter 26 of the code of laws, concerning the implementation of a residential bulk plane development standards." Exhibits: 1. Proposed Ordinance ZOA-15-02 / Residential Setbacks CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. Series 2016 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF BULK PLANE STANDARDS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL -ONE C (R -1C) AND ONE -FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE RESIDENTIAL-THREE,IR-3) ZONE DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge ("City" ); is a home rule municipality operating under a charter adopted pursuant to Arficle Xkof the Colorado Constitution and vested with the authority by that article and the Colorado. Revised Statutes to adopt ordinances for the regulation of land use and protection orthe public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, in exercise of that authority, the City Council 'of the City of Wheat Ridge has previously enacted Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws (the "Code") pertaining to zoning, land use, and development; and WHEREAS, the City is witnessing three-story residential infill development in established neighborhoods consisting of mostly single -story residences; and WHEREAS, the City Council has identified this development pattern as constituting a detriment to the public peace, health, and safety by impacting privacy and impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance is necessary to address this development pattern; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted an emergency ordinance, pursuant to Section 5.13 of the Wheat Ridge City Charter (the "Charter), which enacted a bulk plane regulation in the Residential -One C (R-1 C) zone district; and WHEREAS, the emergency ordinance will expire on November 21, 2016, pursuant to Section 5.13 of the Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes a permanent ordinance will continue to improve the quality or character of new development and further enhance and protect existing neighborhoods while respecting private property rights; NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Ordinance No. 1602, declaring an emergency and enacting a bulk plane regulation in the Residential -One C (R -11C) zone district, enacted August 22; 2016, is repealed upon the effective date of this ordinance. Section 2. Section 26-120.C.1 (Nonconforming structures and uses) of the Code is amended to read. Any one- or two-family dwelling structure or customary accessory structures may be enlarged, altered or added to provided that all lot coverage requirements of the zoning district in which the structure is located are met, and provided that the enlargement, alteration or addition does not increase the extent of nonconforming setbacks by encroaching beyond the existing setback line. THE RESIDENTIAL BULK PLANE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SECTION 26-641.A. SHALL APPLY TO ANY ENLARGEMENT, ALTERATION OR ADDITION OF OR TO BOTH THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. In instances of corner lots, no enlargement, alteration or addition shall be permitted to encroach within the minimum sight distance triangle as set forth in subsection 26-603B. In addition, no enlargement, alteration or addition which extends within the nonconforming area shall result in the development of any additional dwelling units. Section 3. Section 26-123 (Definitions.) of the Code is amended by the addition of the following definitions in their appropriate alphabetical locations: Base plane. The horizontal plane which is generally parallel to a property's existing grade from which building height and bulk plane are measured. Building envelope. The three-dimensional space within which a structure is permitted to be built on a lot and which is defined by regulations governing building setbacks, maximum height, and bulk plane, by other regulations, or any combination thereof. Bulk plane. The angled plane which extends from a set height above each property line and constrains the permitted building envelope. Section 4. Section 26-208.13 (Residential -One C District [R -1C] Development Standards) of the Code is amended by the addition of footnote (f) as follows: Churches, schools, government and quasi - government buildings, golf courses, small day care center, and nursing, elderly and congregate care homes 35' (f) 140% I 1 acre 1200' 120' (d) 1 15' (f) 1 20' (f) Accessory Major 15' (f) 600 sf N/A N/A 20' (d) 5' 5' Buildings e Minor 10' (f) 300 sf N/A N/A 20' (d) 5' 5' All Other Uses 35' (f) 400/ 9 000 sf 60' 20''(d) 5' 10' (e) (F) BULK PLANE REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 26-641. Section 5. Section 26-21.1`., -(Residential-Three District [R-3] Development �Lanuarusl v� lne l.vue Is amended by the audition oT TOotnote (n) as TOIIOWS: Minimum Side .. Minimum Rear .. Maximum Maximum Minimum Minimum BuildingMinimum Height. ..-Setback Setback (b) • Principal Buildings One -family dwelling 35' (h) 40%- 7,500,sf 60' 25' (e) 5' (h) 10' (h) Two-family dwelling 5 3�' 0 9;000 sf 40 /a 75' 25' (e) 5' per story 10' Multifamily 12,500 (3/moredwelling 35' 40% sf (fl 100' 25' (e) 15' (c) 15' (c) units) Group home 35' 40% 9,000 sf 75' 25' (e) 5' per 10' story Churches, schools, government and quasi - government buildings, golf courses, small 35' 40% 1 acre 200' 25' (e) 15' (c) 20' day care center, and nursing, elderly and congregate care homes Accessory Buildings Major 15 (h) 600 sf (per5' 25' (e) 5 if <= 10' in height; (g) I unit) N/A N/A I 10' if > 10' in (H) BULK PLANE REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY TO ALL ONE -FAMILY DWELLING PRIMARY AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 26-641. Section 6. Chapter 26 of the Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new section 26-641, to read in its entirety as follows: 26-641. BULK PLANE A. BULK PLANE. IN ADDITION TO THE HEIGHT AND SETBACK STANDARDS OF ARTICLE II, BUILDING ENVELOPES ARE REGULATED BY A THREE-DIMENSIONAL BULK PLANE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY, PRIVACY, AND THE ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LIGHT AND AIR. 1. APPLICABILITY. THE BULK PLANE RESTRICTIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL STRUCTURES ON A LOT FOR WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE NO ----, SERIES 2016. THE ENTIRETY OF ANY BUILDING ENVELOPE SHALL BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE BULK PLANE, UNLESS OTHERWISE EXEMPTED BY SUBSECTION 4. 2. MEASUREMENT OF BULK PLANE. THE BULK PLANE IS A PLANE THAT BEGINS FIFTEEN (15) FEET ABOVE EVERY PROPERTY LINE OF A LOT OR PARCEL, WHICH THEN SLOPES AT A FORTY-FIVE (45) DEGREE ANGLE UNTIL IT INTERSECTS THE BULK PLANE FROM THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE LOT OR PARCEL. SEE FIGURE 26-641.2. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE II, CHAPTER 26 SHALL APPLY REGARDLESS OF THE HEIGHT AT WHICH THE TWO OPPOSITE BULK PLANES INTERSECT ABOVE THE LOT OR PARCEL. 3. MEASUREMENT OF BASE PLANE. THE BASE PLANE (SEE FIGURE 641.1) SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE EXISTING AVERAGE GRADE OF A LOT OR PARCEL. AVERAGE GRADE SHALL BE CALCULATED AS THE AVERAGE OF THE ELEVATIONS TAKEN AT THE MIDPOINTS OF EACH PROPERTY LINE. SEE FIGURE 26-641.2. 4. EXCEPTIONS. ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE BULK PLANE SHALL BE PERMITTED AS FOLLOWS: A. CHIMNEYS B. OPEN -TYPE RAILINGS COMPLIANT WITH ADOPTED CITY CODE C. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. CORNICE, EAVES, BELTCOURSES, SILLS, CANOPIES OR OTHER SIMILAR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, INCLUDING BAY WINDOW, MAY EXTEND OR PROJECT INTO THE BULK PLANE NOT MORE THAN THIRTY (30) INCHES D. MECHANICAL EQUPMENT. VENT PIPES, SOLAR PANELS, SWAMP COOLERS. E. DORMERS,'MEASURING NO MORE THAN EIGHT (8) FEET WIDE; ,SIX (6) FEET TALL, AS MEASURED FROM THE LOWEST POINT OF INTERSECTION BETWEEN THE.ROOF AND THE DORMER TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF,A FLAT ROOF OR MEAN HEIGHT LEVEL BETWEEN,EAVES AND RIDGE FOR A GABLE, HIP, GAMBREL OR'OTH,ER ROOF; AND, OCCUPYING NO MORE THAN FIFTY,(50) PERCENT OF THE ROOF. Section 7. Section 26-641 (Bulk plane.) of the Code is amended by the addition of Figure 26-641.1. BASE PLANE EIGHT LOPE Figure 26-641.1. Section view of bulk plane building envelope, as measured from all property lines. Section 8. Section 26-641 (Bulk plane.) of the Code is amended by the addition of Figure 26-611.2. 4 F1128 = 282 = AVERAGE GRADE Figure 26-641.2. Average Grade Calculation Section 9. Severability, Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section, subsection or clause of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption and signature by the Mayor. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to , this 24th day of October, 2016 and 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 November 14, 2016 at 7:00 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 _ 12016. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of __'2016. Joyce Jay, Mayor ATTEST: Janelle Shaver, City Clerk Approved as to Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript and www.ci.wheatridge.co.us ♦�AIf City of ' W at�dge PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA October 20, 2016 Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on October 20, 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 — September 15, 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. WZ-16-01: An application filed by AMOF Partnership for approval of a zone change from Residential -One (R-1) to Planned Mixed Use District (PMUD) with an ODP for property located at 10001 W. 32nd Avenue. B. ZOA-16-06: An ordinance amending Articles I, II and VI of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the implementation of a residential bulk plane development standard. 8. OTHER ITEMS 9. 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. STUDY SESSION NOTES CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLOiRADO City Council Chambers 7500 W. 291" Avenue October 17. 2015 Mayor Joyce ,lay called the Study Session to order at 6:30 p.m. Council members present: Monica Duran, Janeece Hoppe, Kristi Davis, Zachary Urban, George Pond, Tim Fitzgerald, Genevieve Wooden, and Larry Mathews Also present; City Clerk, Janelle Shaver; City Manager, Patrick Goff; Community Development Director, Ken Johnstone; Public Works Director, Scott Brink; other staff, guests and interested citizens CITIZEN COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS Jesse Hill (WR) believes the bulk plane issue will determine if and how reinvestment in east Wheat Ridge will happen, He wishes this was being done in a better way; he thinks this is an ineffective way to do public policy. There have been no postings, legal notices, mailings, neighborhood involvement, or meetings. People don't know about this. He thinks the variance process is difficult and expensive. It effects sellers and homeowners, He appreciates the staff input, but there is buildable area and a sellable area, Not taken into account are things like a garage, driveway, space by the garage, etc. He will send Council _pictures of what a 17 ft bulk plane building looks: like; it's great. He encouraged compromise and feels there must be allowance for at least 35 ft in height. Michael Epson (WR) would like to see 12% ft bulk plane and 25 ft maximum height, He represents 80 households that want those limits. There is neighborhood involvement; not one person who learned about this refused to sign the petition [submitted to Council at an earlier date]. Highlands has a height limit of 30 ft; Edgewater recently set theirs at 25 ft. This neighborhood wants the 25 ft limit just in the R1 -C and R3 zones. 2Y stories can fit in those limits. The 3 -story towers eliminate everyone's privacy nearby, and have lowered neighbors' property values due to the privacy issue and blocking the sun. Carol Mathews (WR) spoke in favor of height limits for bulk plane. People want to keep their cozy neighborhoods. Councilors who support these 3 story towers as a way to move Wheat Ridge forward should know that in District 1 the new neighbors are ADU's, rentals to multiples of singles, air B&B, rain and snow water draining into neighbors' houses, streets lined with cars, and alleys being used for parking — impeding trash collection and rights-of-way. There aren't code enforcement capabilities to protect the homeowners and law abiding citizens? These towers are selling for $600-800,000 in a neighborhood where the average house sells for $2.50-400,000. What happened to the need for affordable housing? She urged Council to support the citizens, not cater to outside interests that are pushing Wheat Ridge into a European model controlled by absentee landlords. Use common sense and learn from the past. She recalled how STUDY SESSION NOTES: October 17, 20'16 Page -2- developers came into Wheat Ridge in the 1960's and built duplexes and cheap apartments; now many of those areas are targets for revitalization and law enforcement. Vivian Vos (WR) Regarding the idea that people have invested in these neighborhoods and will lose their investment, she thinks they are whiners. The people who live here now have invested their dollars and lives into this community too. The new developers don't care about the people who are already here. She also believes common sense starts with the building permits and that staff should have foreseen there would be problems with these large houses going up next to one-story bungalows. The neighbors have no sun, no privacy. This should have been stopped long before these houses went up. Citizens have come to these meetings, but no developers. Council shouldn't be giving this away to developers while giving no consideration to citizens who already live here. 7. Staff Report(s) a) 291h Avenue Realignment ^- Scott Brink & Steve Nguyen Realignment of the intersection at 291x' & Fenton and is related to the Ashland Reservoir project. When the project is finished the kink in 291h at Fenton will be straightened out. There will be room to widen the road and allow for parking and sidewalks. There was a neighborhood meeting in April. The project is not on schedule so our construction is not expected to start until spring 2017. The traffic signal at 291h & Fenton is proposed to be removed as it does not meet warrants. Councilmember Mathews asked about parking for Wheat Ridge Manor. Steve Nguyen reported that parking was the main concern at the neighborhood meeting. The choice was made to give up a tree lawn to allow for on -street parking. Councilmember Duran inquired further about the removal of the traffic light. Mr. Nguyen explained the light was there because of sight distance. Entering traffic volume is very low from Fenton. He noted there are intersections that have more traffic than this one and operate very well with stop signs, e.g. 351" & Pierce, 38«' & Upham, 32nd &Harlan. Staff will continue to keep the Council updated on the project. 2. Carnation Festival Report — Gina Hallisey, Joe DeMott, Nancy Lease Ms. Hallisey began with a 5 -minute video showing highlights of the 2016 festival and provided handouts to the Council. This year the festival expanded to another level: • Expanded the carnival • Circus was 100%, self-funded on • Added the Jackalope artisan fair ticket sales. • Attendance was up this year • Have had 4 years of steady progress. • More activities were family focused • Ended up with $18,000 in the bank • $20K given out to service groups for next year. Joe DeMott spoke. The goal was to make the festival bigger and give back more to the community. He provided examples of how that was done. They found the need to bring STUDY SESSION NOTES: October 17, 2016 Page -3- in more paid security to manage the crowd/event. When an event gets so big volunteers can't do it all; you need professionals. Discussion points and questions included: • Security. The Police are spectacular. Board is proposing manned gates that are monitored. Safety is always a concern. There is need for a gate in the back. • Ms. Hallisey suggested the festival is at a crossroads. They want to streamline next year. They learn every year. Examples: No Kids Zone this year, easier to let the carnival handle that. They might shut off beer sales at 10:30pm next year. • Jackalope won't be back (not a good fit for them), but some of their vendors YWII. • Councilmember Mathews asked if we are getting big enough to attract bad actors (such as pick -pockets), Nancy Lease said WR is a safe city and that culture is brought to the event, but safety is always a top priority for the board and the planners. Community involvement is essential. Mils. Hallisey noted that attractions shape the attendance. If you have family activities, you draw families; music draws partiers; etc. • The increase in contract labor is for several things: security, event planning, subcontract labor, book keeping, marketing, vendor and sponsor management, • Many of the discounts were possible due to Ms. Hallisey's connections. • Main attraction line item may or may not be the circus next year. • Joe DeMllott said the board did shop for other planners; event planners are expensive. • Keeping it a free event and attendance was discussed. All food vendors will return. Final thoughts from Nancy Lease: • The festival Board is planning ahead - which is a very good thing. • The planning goal is always to include the community and have a safe event. • The Board is determined to grow a rainy day fund. • By 50th year (three more years) the goal is to have a full year in the bank. 3. Bulk Plane - Ken Johnstone, Ken Johnstone went through the history of addressing this issue. The emergency ordinance expires Nov 21s' and staff would like direction on three topics: exceptions, the variance process, and sloped lot applicability. Proposed are: 1) Exceptions to include chimneys, architectural features consistent with current setbacks, encroachment allowances, mechanical equipment, dormers, open type railings, consistent with adopted City Codes. 2) Variances • How to measure therm: Mr. Johnstone gave a lengthy explanation with illustrations. The usual allowance for up to a 50% administrative variance is included, but they are not guaranteed. • The applicant for the variance doesn't have to be the property owner. 3) Slopes Grade is averaged midway across the lot. That figure is used for the base plane. Staff wants to know: STUDY SESSION NOTES: October 17, 2016 Page -4- • Confirm that a 15 ft bulk plane measurement is consistent with Council goals • Review and confirm the proposed exceptions or allowable encroachments into the bulk plane area. • Review and confirm the manner in which staff proposes to define and review variances from the new bulk plane regulations. Councilmember Mathews asked if we are more concerned about profit for developers or the long term maintaining of neighborhoods. Councilmember Fitzgerald approves of 15 ft height limit. but thinks 11 ft setbacks are too much. Mr. Johnstone explained that if a non -confirming setback exists, expansions up and out are allowed administratively_ Requests for over 50%, and those appealed due to denial or conditions, go to Board of Adjustments. Councilmember Davis doesn't want to rush and wants to be fair. She suggested more public outreach, more education, possible applicability for all zone districts, a community meeting. She's not thinking about the developers; she's thinking about community and moving forward to support those who live here and those who want to move here. Councilmember Urban noted that people don't understand this issue or think about this until it affects them. He has concerns about the variance process. Could we draw on what other cities have done and learn from their experiences? Mr. Johnstone explained that Wheat Ridge is very unique in that it allows 50% administrative variances; most cities have 5-10% or no administrative variance, so we have to make it up on our own. Councilmember Pond is comfortable with the proposed bulk plane measurement from a base plane standpoint and from a spring point, and sees this as a compromise. He sees the variance process as robust for what can be obtained. Property owners have the right to go to the Board of Adjustment. It's going to the Planning Commission this Thursday. That, and 1st reading, will provide opportunity for public input. Councilmember Duran noted getting calls about this from people in other areas of the City and opened the discussion about possibly extending the time before a decision is made and broadening the discussion to include height and setbacks. Discussion followed. • If Council wants to extend the time past the 90 days a moratorium would be necessary. • Mr. Johnstone noted that 90 days wasn't enough time to do a public process. • Council could do a mailing for the hearing if they want to. • Building height is another way to regulate the scale of residential development. • A written objection also triggers sending a variance to the Board of Adjustment. • Adjacent property owners are informed of an administrative variance. Councilmember Hoppe thinks 15 ft is a compromise. She doesn't think it's about developers and supports all three recommendations. Councilmember Hoppe received consensus for • Using the presented method for measuring the base plane STUDY SESSION NOTES: October 17, 2016 Page -5- • Moving forward with a 15 ft bulk plane measurement for R1C and R-3 • Moving forward with the variance process for bulk planes as presented +• Accept the staff recommendations on encroachments 4. Elected Officials' Report(s) Genevieve Wooden announced a District 4 meeting at the WR Rec Center tomorrow night at 7pm. A school board member will be there to discuss the Jeffoo school ballot Issues. There will also be discussion on Ballot Issue 2E and a District 4 update. Zachary Urban reminded everyone that political signs are not allowed on City property. Janeece Happe invited everyone to join her and Jerry DiTullio at C* tomorrow night from 6-7:30pm to discuss 2E. Monica Duran invited everyone to a District 1 Neighborhood Watch meeting on Saturday, October 291' from 1-3:00pm at Ye Olde Firehouse (3214 & Chase). Police will be there to answer questions. Janelle Shaver reported the County started mailing out ballots today. Voters should receive their ballots sometime this week. Ballots can be mailed in or brought to City Hall. There are also ballot box locations throughout the County. A list of those locations is available on the City Clerk's election page. She explained there were some problems with the TABOR notice on the City website. It is fixed now. Tim Fitzgerald reminded folks that due to the long ballot it requires two stamps to mail. Patrick Goff reported the following: • He discussed briefly the 2017 Budget that had been provided to the Council. It's a balanced $41.6M budget, with $31M for General Fund (a decrease), $3.6M for Capital Improvements (CIP), and Special Funds of $6.9M. o It includes $2.1M into General Fund Reserves (which allows us to transfer $3M out of reserves for capital projects). o The plan is for a year-end undesignated reserve of $5.7M (18%). o It includes a transfer of $6.32M over 3 years to save up for the Wadsworth project, which then limits the funds for discretionary projects and maintenance. o Included is a CIP budget alternative in the event that 2E passes. o The official budget presentation is scheduled for November 7. s He asked if councilmembers would be available for a meeting on November 28 — the Monday after Thanksgiving, Everyone said they would be here. • He reported that the Corners at WR group developing 381h& Wadsworth had a neighborhood meeting. Since Walmart withdrew, they were looking at backfilling With residential. Now they have another retail tenant -- which can't be identified. The new "box" will be 30K sf. Staff will be checking to see if the new plan follows the agreement which requires a 35K sf main tenant. Mayor ,lay noted the media book from the Carnation Festival is available for Council review. STUDY SESSION NOTES: October 17, 2016 Page -6- ADJOURNMENT The Study Session adjourned at 8:51 pm. _lanelie Shaver, City Clerk APPROVED BY" OUNCIL ON November 14, 2016 r George Pond, Mayor Pro Tem City of '� Wheat jQomtMuNiTydDEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: City Council THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager. FROM: Zack Wallace, Planner I Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director DATE: October 10, 2016 (for October 17 Study Session) SUBJECT: Residential Development Standards and Bulk Plane Park -round Staff presented an update to City Council during the October 3 study session regarding residential bulk plane regulations. Council directed staff to move forward with a bulk plane beginning at 15 feet above each property line, as measured from the average grade of the property. Council also directed staff to draft an ordinance implementing the bulk plane in the R- 1 C zone district, and for single family homes only in the R-3 zone district. Two areas in which staff noted a need for additional consideration were variances and allowable exceptions to the bulk plane, both of which Council was favorable to. Another issue that arose during the study session was the impact of bulk plane on sloped properties. This memo provides a more in-depth look at these topics. In terms of timeline, staff is still on the same course as has been noted in previous meetings, with the addition of a study session discussion on October 17. The emergency ordinance expires on November 21. - September 15: Planning Commission Study Session - October 3: City Council Study Session - October 17: City Council Study Session (7VER) - October 20: Ordinance Public Hearing at Planning Commission - October 24: Ordinance I" Reading at City Council - November 14: Ordinance Public Hearing at City Council Overall Approach The proposed ordinance, currently being drafted by Staff, reflects City Council's support for a 15 -foot bulk plane as measured from the average grade of a property in the R-1 C and R-3 single family zone districts. Study Session Memo — Bulk Plane October 17, 2016 Page 2 Exce tions allowable encroachments Staff has also provided a list of allowable exceptions to the bulk plane: chimneys, architectural features consistent with current setback encroachment allowances, mechanical equipment, including solar panels, and dormers with some size limitations. Staff has also included open -type railings compliant with adopted City codes. The 2012 International Residential Code, which the City has adopted and currently enforces, calls for the following: 36" tall railings; openings in the railing (such as the space between supports, spindles, intermediate rails, and the like) must be spaced in a manner which does not allow a 4 -inch sphere to pass through it. Variances Staff proposes enforcing variances in the following manner: BUILmOLE GNT ..................... r r r r i r r r i r r /2'=13%VARIANCE J r r r r r w� ar r $ASE PLANE' — How variances are measured is not typically codified, as most are self-explanatory. Staff will adopt its measurement of the bulk plane variance as a departmental policy, rather than codifying the technique used for measurement. Under existing regulations for variances, a variance up to Study Session Memo — Bulk Plane October 17, 2016 Page 3 50% can be considered for administrative approval by the community development director. Initially, staff considered whether an applicant could request a 50% variance from the 15 -foot bulk plane measurement, resulting in a 22.5 -foot bulk plane measurement. The practical effect of such a variance (if approved) would be to nullify the intent of the bulk plane regulation and allow a 35 -foot tall structure to be constructed at or near the minimum 5 -foot setback line. Staff does not think that would be in the spirit of what should be allowed through the administrative review process. The administrative policy staff is proposing to implement would allow an administrative variance process for up to 50% encroachments into the area depicted by the 15 - foot measurement in the graphic on page 2. As a more general matter in regard to variance requests, whether administrative or before the Board of Adjustment, it is important to note that to be approved for a variance an applicant must demonstrate compliance with the majority of the criteria listed in Section 26-115. Grade At the October 3'd Council meeting, concerns were raised regarding the relatively steep grades present in much of East Wheat Ridge, where this ordinance is likely to have the largest impact due to the zone districts and lot sizes in the area. A concern was raised that the bulk plane measurement will have a relatively greater impact on these sloped lots because base plane is defined and calculated based on average grade. That is correct — the proposed bulk plane requirement will have a greater impact on sloped lots. However, it is also important to be aware that on the downslope side of a lot, the perceived bulk and mass of a new 2+ story building is also greater for that adjacent property, and the calculation for base plane intentionally becomes more restrictive. Staff has compiled the following images walking through the application of the bulk plane ordinance on a sloped lot. Staff feels the proposed 15 -foot bulk plane measured from the average grade (as measured from the four midpoints of the property boundary lines) accomplishes the goals of respecting existing neighborhoods and encouraging and allowing reinvestment, as stated in the City's guiding documents. Study Session Memo — Bulk Plane October 17, 2016 Page 4 The figure above demonstrates a typical East Wheat Ridge property: 50 feet wide by 125 feet deep. There is approximately 5 feet of fall across the sample property. The base plane would be applied as an average of the four midpoints of the property. It is impossible to construct models for every possible example of this explanation. For purposes of this visual, the lot is perfectly sloped, creating a base plane as indicated in the figure above. Study Session Memo — Bulk Plane October 17, 2016 Page 5 The bulk plane starting point is calculated vertically from the base plane at a height of 15 feet from each property line. The figure above demonstrates that on a sloped lot, the bulk plane may begin above or below the existing grade due to the calculation of the base plane. Next, the 450 bulk plane and minimum setback requirements are applied to create a building envelope. The 5 -foot minimum setback is consistent with minimum setback requirements for both the R-1 C and single family R-3 zone districts. Note, the 35 -foot building height maximum Study Session Memo — Bulk Plane October 17, 2016 Page 6 is still in effect, though in this example, the bulk plane diminishes much of the building envelope at that height. in M is, Next, staff has created a sample two-story structure with a full basement to be applied to this scenario. The structure is in compliance with the applicable setbacks, building height, and bulk plane requirements. Assumptions for this model are as follows: 10 -foot ceilings, with one foot of floor/joist/mechanical space between floors. It is also assumed the basement foundation will be slightly above grade on the elevated portion of the property to allow for positive drainage away from the house and foundation. Please note, with development of a site, the grading is often adjusted. In this case, the property would likely be regraded to allow for drainage away from the foundation. This assumed two-story building would fit within the bulk plane requirements if it were approximately 28 -feet wide, assuming stacked construction. The perceived setback would be approximately 11 feet from each property line. Study Session Memo — Bulk Plane October 17, 2016 Page 7 �f F_ I 2M sq. ft. i�uildable.area per story 50' J The final image, above, shows the same property, but from a top-down perspective. The image denotes the required front and rear setbacks, and effective side -yard setbacks based on the side yard bulk plane analysis provided in the previous pages. There is approximately 2,800 square feet of buildable area per story, which is in excess of the 2,500 square feet maximum building coverage (max. 40%) allowed for a typical 50 -foot by 125 -foot lot. This analysis demonstrates that the bulk plane does not limit the developable area of a property any more so than the existing building coverage maximum does. However, the bulk plane does impact the buildable area of a lot in order to scale back the massing and create larger setbacks between larger and taller infill developments amidst single -story bungalow development. In the event that the slope is greater than the five feet of slope depicted in these graphics, keeping the same assumptions would necessitate a narrower structure. For example, a property with 7.5 feet of fall would likely result in a 26 -foot wide structure, rather than a 28 -foot wide structure. Staff s analysis indicates that a 26 -28 -foot -wide house is consistent with many of the existing homes in the East Wheat Ridge neighborhoods. Staff also found that the resulting building envelope allows for approximately 2,600 to 2,800 square feet of buildable area per floor on a typical 50 -foot by 125 -foot lot. A typical 50 -foot by 125 -foot lot zoned R-1 C or R-3 will allow a maximum building footprint of 2,500 square feet, per the existing development standards, which enforce a 40% maximum lot coverage in the aforementioned zone districts. Study Session Memo — Bulk Plane October 17, 2016 Page 8 Recommendation Staff is requesting City Council direction on the following: • Confirmation that a 15 -foot bulk plane measurement is consistent with Council goals • Review and confirmation of the proposed exception or allowable encroachments into the bulk plane area • Review and confirm the manner in which staff proposes to define and review variances from the new bulk plane regulations STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO October 17, 2016 6:30 p.m. 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. Citizen Comment on Agenda Items 1. Staff Report(s) a) 29t" Avenue Realignment 2. Carnation Festival Report 3. Bulk Plane 4. Elected Officials' Report(s) ADJOURNMENT Zack Wallace From: Jesse Hill <jessehillpe@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 1:50 PM To: George Pond; Genevieve Wooden; Janeece Hoppe; Kristi Davis; Larry Mathews; Monica Duran; Tim Fitzgerald; Zachary Urban Cc: Joyce Jay; Kenneth Johnstone; Zack Wallace Subject: Bulk Plane in east Wheat Ridge Council, Your decisions on bulk plane will affect - if, when and how future reinvestment will happen like in the neighborhood. We should be focusing on what we want the future reinvestment and new housing to feel like, not reacting to the first legal homebuilds in the last 10 years that a very few neighbors object to. Slow this down, work thru the real world problems and we will get a better outcome. Neighborhood Involvement - There has been no neighborhood involvement or meetings. Vast majority have no clue bulk plane discussion are going on. From my casual discussions, equal numbers welcome, are excited of the new builds and have dreams for their homes or lots. Many have warmed as they see the builds change from frames to high quality homes. I don't believe that those in favor of 12.5' understand the consequences. If they do, I'd recommend that they place deed restriction or easement on their own property to prevent development if that is their intent I expected that planning department would be mailing and positing notices to all owners based on their comments at meetings. Nothing so far. I can only imagine that may will be upset about the lack of information and involvement as time goes on. We do more outreach for other activities(29th & Fenton water tank street realignment has even had a few neighborhood meetings) We need some level of compromise and intent - -I recommend that the simple language addition to bulk plane that reads to the intent of: "..such that bulk plane generate foundation setback do not restrict a primary residence to less than 35' in width with a second story". This is a reasonable compromise from the initial 40' max width and allows for bulk plane to restrictions to eliminate a 3rd story close to the lot line. 30' or 28' or less is very narrow and design limiting for stairs, mechanical areas, and architectural quality and flexibility for a modern family home. -Be fair to existing homeowners - Allow existing property owners to be exempt. They did their research and made purchases based on the law at the time. Apply new regs once a title transfer occurs. Home marketability is based on habitable square footage The statement in the study session packet that a lot could have 2504sf of build -able area with the proposed bulk plane is not taking into consideration the reality of the real estate market or home building or intent of the entire bulk plane exercise. Please consider- -Detached 2 Car Garage(24'x25') are traditionally desired in the neighborhood - 600s£ -A 5' setback for alley way entrance to garage is not recommended for good access design(I have one, it stinks), 10' minimum, 18' recommended by zoning code. - 140-364sf -Area next to garage= 48sf 752-1012sf should be excluded in the building area when thinking over the regulations as they are needed, but do not consider as habitable or in the square footage need to make a house economic. No consideration is taken for backyard or breezeway yard. I believe what is left to build upon the lot will lead to the elimination of the small backyards that are common to the neighborhood. It dosen't have to be this way. I live next to a newer built house that extends all the way to the back, and if i had the choice(and i don't), I'd chose a 3 story to the front of lot with detached any time. The initial displeasure by a few neighbors to the tall structure built was based on their desire to enjoy their backyard. Unfortunately, this will result in more loss of light and space for a backyard than the current homes built. Regards, Jesse Hill 303-725-9530 STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 750.0 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO October 17, 201.6 6.30 p.m. 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 393-235-2867 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. Citizen Comment on Agenda Items 1. Staff Report(s) a) 291x' Avenue Realignment 2. Carnation Festival Report 3. Bulk Plane 4. Elected Officials' Reports) ADJOURNMENT Kenneth Johnstone From: Jesse Hill <jessehillpe@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 1:50 PM To: George Pond; Genevieve Wooden; Janeece Hoppe; Kristi Davis; Larry Mathews; Monica Duran; Tim Fitzgerald; Zachary Urban Cc: Joyce Jay; Kenneth Johnstone; Zack Wallace Subject: Bulk Plane in east Wheat Ridge Council, Your decisions on bulk plane will affect - if, when and how future reinvestment will happen like in the neighborhood. We should be focusing on what we want the future reinvestment and new housing to feel like, not reacting to the first legal homebuilds in the last 10 years that a very few neighbors object to. Slow this down, work thru the real world problems and we will get a better outcome. Neighborhood Involvement - There has been no neighborhood involvement or meetings. Vast majority have no clue bulk plane discussion are going on. From my casual discussions, equal numbers welcome, are excited of the new builds and have dreams for their homes or lots. Many have warmed as they see the builds change from frames to high quality homes. I don't believe that those in favor of 12.5' understand the consequences. If they do, I'd recommend that they place deed restriction or easement on their own property to prevent development if that is their intent I expected that planning department would be mailing and positing notices.to all owners based on their comments at meetings. Nothing so far. I can only imagine that may will be upset about the lack of information and involvement as time goes on. We do more outreach for other activities(29th & Fenton water tank street realignment has even had a few neighborhood meetings) We need some level of compromise and intent - -I recommend that the simple language addition to bulk plane that reads to the intent of - 11 ..such f:"..such that bulk plane generate foundation setback do not restrict a primary residence to less than 35' in width with a second story". This is a reasonable compromise from the initial 40' max width and allows for bulk plane to restrictions to eliminate a 3rd story close to the lot line. 30' or 28' or less is very narrow and design limiting for stairs, mechanical areas, and architectural quality and flexibility for a modern family home. -Be fair to existing homeowners - Allow existing property owners to be exempt. They did their research and made purchases based on the law at the time. Apply new regs once a title transfer occurs. Home marketability is based on habitable square footage The statement in the study session packet that a lot could have 2500sf of build -able area with the proposed bulk plane is not taking into consideration the reality of the real estate market or home building or intent of the entire bulk plane exercise. Please consider- -Detached 2 Car Garage(24'x25') are traditionally desired in the neighborhood - 600sf. -A 5' setback for alley way entrance to garage is not recommended for good access design(I have one, it stinks), 10' minimum, 18' recommended by zoning code. - 140-364sf -Area next to garage= 48sf 752-1012sf should be excluded in the building area when thinking over the regulations as they are needed, but do not consider as habitable or in the square footage need to make a house economic. No consideration is taken for backyard or breezeway yard. I believe what is left to build upon the lot will lead to the elimination of the small backyards that are common to the neighborhood. It dosen't have to be this way. I live next to a newer built house that extends all the way to the back, and if i had the choice(and i don't), I'd chose a 3 story to the front of lot with detached any time. The initial displeasure by a few neighbors to the tall structure built was based on their desire to enjoy their backyard. Unfortunately, this will result in more loss of light and space for a backyard than the current homes built. Regards, Jesse Hill 303-725-9530 Kenneth Johnstone From: Kenneth Johnstone Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 1:17 PM To: Tim Fitzgerald; George Pond Cc: Patrick Goff (pgoff@ci.wheatridge.co.us) Subject: RE: Bulk plane discussion Tim, please see below and let me know if you wish to chat. Thanks. Ken Johnstone, AICP Community Development Director Office Phone: 303-235-2844 City or Wheatl is e c�,tWJTY DtVU lP#4WT From: Tim Fitzgerald Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 10:32 AM To: Kenneth Johnstone<kjohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; George Pond <GPond@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Subject: Bulk plane discussion Ken, Is the requirement that an applicant for a variance provide a title to the property in question a requirement by ordinance or a policy of the city? I'm asking because I think Mr. Hill's complaint that an investor must purchase a potential redevelopment property prior to knowing whether or not a variance would be granted is valid. An applicant for a variance does not need to be the owner of the property, provided we have written authorization from the owner for the application to proceed. He also brings up other financial requirements that constitute an impediment to potential development. Not clear to me what other financial impediments are being referenced, other than the fact that implementing a bulk plane does imply that smaller lots will have reduced total development potential, if there is less buildable area, which presumably will change the ultimate maximum value of the property,. Are there other financial issues that I'm missing. I understand that a pre -meeting with staff is possible. However, I am very conscious of the situation that we found ourselves in with the proposed 38th and Miller marijuana facility. If you have specific questions as to the brief history we had with that property owner/applicant, I'd be glad to discuss. I do not want to create a policy that, as a matter of processes, either requires risky expenses to a potential developer or creates a lack of dependability in the expected course of events. If a permanent bulk/plane ordinance is implemented, it clearly will have impacts on the ultimate development potential of a lot, particularly a small lot. I think the graphics Mr. Hill is providing are not entirely accurate in our opinion (we will be doing some additional design studies to better understand how base plane is determined on sloped lots) As staff, our goal as we flesh out the details of this ordinance will be to achieve an ordinance that generally speaking allows 2 story construction very near the 5 -foot setback line. That said, implementing a bulk plane will in fact create greater setback impacts on the downslope side property line, unless we modify the code to change the manner in which we measure building height based on average grade. The graphic Mr. Hill mostly recently provided depicted essentially a walk out basement on the downslope property line, which I'm not sure would be consistent with the policy intent of creating a bulk/plane regulation aimed at minimizing the perceived mass and bulk of a building from an adjacent property line. Do you have a suggestion as to how the processes could be changed to: A. Remove unreasonable and/or uncompetitive requirements that have the effect of causing roadblocks to infill redevelopment. I am not aware of unreasonable requirements that are roadblocks to infill redevelopment. If you or Mr. Hill have specific concerns, I'd be glad to discuss. I think it's important to note that it would not be staff's expectation that variances (and the additional time and risk associated with that process) would be the norm after implementing bulk/plane regulations. Variances would be available to handle unique situations, which is typically what a variance is used for. We should probably clarify with all of Council that variances will be the exception, not the norm. Mr. Hill's quick analysis indicated that he thought 2 were met, 2 were not, 3 were maybes and 2 were not applicable. That seems very much in line with what we would expect, clearly not all variance requests meet the majority of the criteria and are thus not approve. The "maybes" are important in analyzing the case specific circumstances and how a new structure will or will not. be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. B. Provides a reasonable certainty in the expected outcome. Certainty in outcome moving forward would be based on whatever new regulations are adopted by City Council. If an owner or applicant wants to develop in compliance with those new residential development standards, we issue building permits for new SF in 2-4 weeks. C. Provides speedy results. See above. Tim Fitzgerald, Councilor District III 720-360-0871 7 Zack Wallace From: Jesse Hill <jessehillpe@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 12:05 PM To: George Pond; Genevieve Wooden; Janeece Hoppe; Kristi Davis; Larry Mathews; Monica Duran; Tim Fitzgerald; Zachary Urban; Joyce Jay Cc: Lauren Mikulak; Kenneth Johnstone; Patrick Goff; Zack Wallace Subject: Zoning Variance Policy and difficulty when applying to infill redevelopment/Bulk Plane Attachments: Variance Checklist rev052014_201408211628294326.pdf, Variance Criteria rev052014_ 201408211628599328.pdf Council, I have great concerns on the policy of depending on the variance process in a NEW land use restriction(Bulk Plane) for what would be a common and encouraged use (i.e. two story single family home in R1 -C built on the sloped lots that are the majority in the heart of R1 -C). Below is what the City currently requires before a variance application can be submitted. I am not recommending changing this process at this time, as that should be a separate thought out process and any changes will have consequences. Please place yourself in the mindset of a future Wheat Ridge resident looking for a property for your family to improve and reinvest in, local builder or homeowner selling to get the fair market value of property. You have a real estate listing for a great opportunity, and would like to be under contract within a few days. Even if you knew about the variance process, would you take the risk and purchase the property? Some of these are the chicken and egg situation, high risk and make a lengthy and costly architectural design process. From the city website: http://www.cl.wheatrid,-,e.co.us/402Nariances These are needed before you start the variance process. Application Contents: A variance provides relief from the strict application of zoning standards in instances where a unique physical hardship is present. The following items represent a complete variance application: 1. Completed, notarized land use application form 2. Application fee _3. Signed submittal checklist (this document) 4. Proof of ownership—e.g. deed 5. Written authorization from property owner(s) if an agent acts on behalf of the owner(s) 6. Written request and description of the proposal Include a response to the variance review criteria—these are found in Section 26-115 of the municipal code Include an explanation as to why alternate designs that may comply with the zoning standards are not feasible Include an explanation of the unique physical hardship that necessitates relief 7. Survey or Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) of the property 8. To -scale site plan indicating existing and proposed building footprints and setbacks 9. Proposed building elevations indicating proposed heights, materials, and color scheme The criteria required- As you can see many are subjective, and as you have heard from some citizens- could be argued both ways. I personally would not count on getting an administrative review this going thru lengthy public review process with an uncertain outcome. Review Criteria: Variance A variance provides relief from the strict application of zoning standards in instances where a unique physical hardship is present. Per Section 26-115 of the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code, the reviewing authority (Community Development Director, Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, or City Council) shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which an applicant demonstrates that a majority of the following criteria have been met: Maybe? 1. The property in question would not yield a reasonable return in use, service or income if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by regulation for the district in which it is located. Maybe? No? 2. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. Yes 3. The applicant is proposing a substantial investment in the property with this application, which would not be possible without the variance. Maybe? 4. The particular physical surrounding, shape or topographical condition of the specific property results in a particular and unique hardship (upon the owner) as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. No. 5. If there is a particular or unique hardship, the alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. Maybe?6. The granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located, by, among other things, substantially or permanently impairing the appropriate use or development of adjacent property, impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increasing the congestion in public streets or increasing the danger of fire or endangering the public safety, or substantially diminishing or impairing property values within the neighborhood. Yes 7. The unusual circumstances or conditions necessitating the variance request are present in the neighborhood and are not unique to the property. Maybe? Not clear if this applies to two stories or not. S. Granting of the variance would result in a reasonable accommodation of a person with disabilities. [Does not typically apply to single- or two-family homes.] Does not currently apply 9. The application is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards set forth in the Architectural and Site Design Manual. [Does not typically apply to single- or two-family homes.] Zack Wallace From: Jesse Hill <jessehillpe@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 201612:04 PM To: George Pond; Genevieve Wooden; Janeece Hoppe; Kristi Davis; Larry Mathews; Monica Duran; Tim Fitzgerald; Zachary Urban; Joyce Jay Cc: Lauren Mikulak; Kenneth Johnstone; Patrick Goff; Zack Wallace Subject: Re: Bulk Plane in Southeast Wheat Ridge - We need 17' from property high point Attachments: 15' Bulk Plane set at Base.pdf Council, Thank you for the time and opportunity yesterday to discus bulk plane. I will send a follow up email regarding the variance process - It is bad public policy to depend on the variance for infill development. It is very important to understand that you must own the property for a variance along with the difficulty and risk of the variance process. I have attached a quick updated sketch of what 15' bulk plane set at the base plane looks like. On the 12 blocks of lots that have a substantial slope(32nd-29th, Fenton to Ames) - it bring the effective build- able width to around 27-25' depending on the roofing structure. I believe 2500 sf (or 1250sf coverage) is the minimum a builder would peruse in the current 5 year out market. This is what the new builds in the neighborhood are sizing. This leads to a 50', narrow deep house. This forces the extreme limitation of a 10' backyard or and likely going the full lot coverage with a open courtyard. This is not a house design that I would want to be associated, does not fit the character of the neighborhood and would lead me to abandon my project. Please take a look at the sketches. Ask local realtors what they see in the market demands for new builds (square footage, 9' ceilings, 2 car garages). Check with the building department and builders on how this realistically constructs out. 17' bulk plane from the high lot line is the correct balance. Regards, Jesse Hill 303-725-9530 On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Jesse Hill <jessehillpe&=ail.com> wrote: City Council and Staff - While I believe staff has worked hard and provides valuable information in the agenda packet, the sketches provided to you do not reflect the reality of the lots or existing/future structures in the neighborhood. As I mentioned in previous council meetings, approximately a dozen city blocks sit in the area on a slope that drops 5' across the 50' lots. This slope generally requires the 1 st floor grade to be set approximately 1' above the high elevation property line to provide proper drainage and prevent flooding. This is why 17' bulk plane is exist in our neighboring areas. Recommend that staff update or provide an addendum of the images in the study session packet to reflect the real life situation that includes lot slope. I have attached a version that I have worked up and would be happy to provide presentation of these during your study session. In an effort to get you the information with as much time to review, apologizes for the sketches being rough as my drafting skills are out of date. Staff currently recommends defining the bulk plane elevation measurement point as the property line. This (unintended) increases the down slope setback from 5' to 13' for the 15' bulk plane with a +l' house grade. Recommend defining the bulk plane elevation measurement point as the lot survey corner high point. For a sample 35'x50' 2 story with a 1600 sf footprint based on staffs 10'+1' per story and 1' 1st floor grade Current zoning allows for a 40' width. The 15' bulk plane as recommended is too restrictive. it results in a 29' maximum width and limits house site options on site layout regarding a street access driveway. 72% of allowable width from current code. A 17' bulk plane places a 11' effective setback on the down hill slope. 31' max width. 77% of allowable width from current code. Recommend a 17' bulk plane with bulk plane elevation measurement point starting at the lot survey high point allows for effective 6' setbacks on each side. would allow for street access driveway on uphill slope. 38' max width. 95% of allowable width from current code. What are the consequences of accepting staffs 15' vs the recommended 17' from high point? in short, new homeowners looking to build or add on will pass on these lots and we will be left with a ageing stock of houses past their useful life(70-90 years old). For new home construction - -600sf reduction @ $300 sf = $180,000 loss in value. -loss of the backyard to recoup the lost square footage - houses being built deep into the lots -higher construction costs for stacked 2nd floor walls. For existing houses - Pop the top is difficult unless existing structure fit in the effective setbacks. Not many do in the area. Lots of variances - Depending on the variance process, it is bad public policy to make a NEW code that requires a large number of affected go thru the variance process. The uncertainty and time required will stun quality development. Staff is asking you 5 questions - 1- Is the support for a bulk plane regulation that begins at 15 feet above all property lines? Recommend a 17' bulk plane with bulk plane elevation measurement point starting at the lot survey high point 2- Is there support for applying the bulk plane regulation in all residential zone districts. Recommend that if accepting the need for bulk plane it is applied to all residential districts and review the commercial zone districts. This will come up in the other districts R-1, R-3, R3 -c and others. Especially on corner lots. Why RI -C being restricted so much? 3 -Is there support for removing the current "stepback" standards that duplicate the regulatory framework created by the bulk plane? Recommend removal. 4- Support for identifying limited acceptable encroachments into bulk plane, HIGHLY RECOMMEND - eves, chimneys, handrailing and architectural features need to be allowed. 5 -Planing commission discussion of in depth, long term -analysis or residential height standards and architectural design standards. Do not recommend architectural design standards- Wheat Ridge has a long history of allowing architectural freedom and creativity and this is shown in our housing stock that provides options for all. They tend to lead to exclusion of many homeowners or uniformity and lack of architectural diversity. Recommend looking at what zoning in Wheat Ridge are contemporary single family homes allowed? (3 story, flat roof, small lot width) Please invite myself to do a presentation to accompany the staff presentation on the points listed above. The neighborhood has not been involved, informed or represented in this matter. We have received no information in the mail regarding this. There have been no neighborhood meetings. 3 minutes of public comment will not be enough to present the technical points. Feel free to call with any question, Regards, Jesse Hill 303-725-9530 Please visit 32 -29th st, Ames to Fenton with the intention of learning how implementing a bulk plane will forever alter the RI -C district in southeast Wheat Ridge before making any decisions on the subject. ZAr=) ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, MC. 1 -` P• A A ! C. hfe j 5 Gape- Client Vo F tee Project Q u' --k PI -A NF Subject IS �Pt&k By -:37 F'TL-1— F-- Ax Page o Job No. Date 101u �I Checked iN.'.S r i Yui Q�� t S `BASF PI -k I/C- SE FLWF ZAr=:) ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC. Ac LLF y Client Project Subject By — i 3 0 LD/ f jzo'%.-T Page Job No. Date Checked �rtc k OA Ig ZAr=) ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, mc. Client Wry f -m Vlb6f:" — Page I v� Project 0 LL -Ir- N -A "'F- Job No. Subject IS , UOL-k eLAI-Ir. Date 10 A By � Checked "N:N1 00 7 w 1 ir Z2/ 5 44 3 p I - SASS J A rcriL. 'F mc-r- SVI A 1k( <el Wk MA -A Sample 35'x50' house 15' Bulk Plane En r-4 19143 17' Bulk Plane 35" F, ,-4 17' property high point Bulk Plane t\ Kenneth Johnstone From: Kenneth Johnstone Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 8:30 AM To: Kenneth Johnstone Subject: CC study session - 10-3-16 - Larry Mathews absent CC study session - 10-3-16 - Larry Mathews absent Consensus to waive 3 minute rule Mike Epsom - focused on R -IC, not citywide, want 12.5 and 25 feet height, single story bungalow neighborhood, disrupting property values, privacy issues, impacting property values, 33 plus 62 signatures on petition for 12.5/25 Deana Swetlik -15 feet is most restrictive to consider, how do we measure grade, big leap to go citywide, step backs, remove them, yes to encroachments, PC analysis of code - sure, but not Res design standards Al Lazalde - 2928 Chase, PC acted like they had no guidance from CC, 12.5/25 and just R -IC, never the intent Carly presentation - citizen input software Bike/Ped master plan - Scott - Zack Urban, get more specific, need funding mechanisms, calculate pedestrian demands in different locations in the City, social media usage for the Plan development, caution not to use this as only mechanism, ADA Transition Plan - Scott, in front of CC in late November, early December, meeting regulatory requirements, Zack, clear goals, dedicated funding source needed, Kristi, funding, Monica, Residential Bulk Plane - Jesse Hill, need positive drainage, which means you likely need to have the FF one to two feet above existing grade to start your measurement of your stories, limitations on garages at rear of lot, look at building codes and talk with architects - Tim F., examples of houses with existing encroachments of less than 5 feet, which would not be allowed to expand vertically - George, OK with 15 feet, but need to better understand grade measurement implications - Hoppe, OK with 15 feet, buttressed with variance process, 10 and 12 too strict - Monica, respect neighborhoods, 12.5 feet - Tim, doesn't like modern infill, builder prefers 17 feet but OK with 15 feet, provided we have a reasonable definition of grade and allow exceptions, not OK with citywide approach, define base plane - Zack, - Kristi, support 15 foot with variance process, trouble with citywide - Gen supports 15 feet measurement, trouble with design standards, possibly consider different % for bulk plane variances - George, figure out base plane and variance process - Keep base plane as an average measurement - consensus - 15 feet - consensus - Monica, citywide'no' - Zack, R -IC only - Kristi, R-3 also - George, interested in all zone districts with better understanding of other contexts -Tim, need to study implications in other zone districts - Hoppe could support citywide application, at least RAC and R-3 - Get data on how many SF vs. MF on R-3 lots - Modified R -IC and R-3 for SF only, for MF, step backs - (consensus) - yes to exemptions or encroachments - - PC ideas, enough talk to bring it back as a discussion topic for a future SS, not staff time - PC discussion only, no staff time Sent from my Wad STUDY SESSION NOTES CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO City Council Chambers 7500 W. 2Vh Avenue October 3. j216 Mayor Joyce Jay called the Study Session to order at 6:30 p,m. Council members present: Janeeoe Hoppe, Monica Duran, Tim Fitzgerald, George Pond; Zachary Urban, Genevieve Wooden, and KNsti Davis Absent., Larry Mathews Also present: Deputy City Clerk, Rabin Eaton; City Manager Assistant Director Heather Geyer; Public Works. Director, Soott Brink, Planning Director Ken Johnstone., Zack Wallace, Carly Lorentz, guests and interested citizens CITIZEN COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS Mayor would like to include a Citizen Speaker for a 7 -minute presentation and assessment for longer duration in speaking. It is special engineer Jesse Hill. Council agreed. Michael Epson (WR) Having spoken multiple times at study sessions he would like to see a limit in size in the. R-1 C zone • to limit the size of Bulk Plane to 12.5 and a height limit of 25 feet: This is the only area that they are trying to limit at this time. Single story bungalOva,prevail in the City of Denver and across Wheat Ridge. current zoning allows'for "towers"'to be built next to brick bungalow's; it does not fit the character of, the neighborhoods; it interferes with privacy and also lessens home values when they 'are built. He submitted petitions of support garnered by going door to door and not by standing in front of a supermarket. Deana Swetllic believes the 15 foot Bulk Plane Standards are a good thing 15 feet is the most restrictive to consider and questions how are they measured or considered for the finished floor. * Disagrees with anything that is less than the 15 feet bulk plane i Does not like expanding the Bulk Planes to all Residences and It is a big leap to make that change as R-1 and RP1 C are the most restrictive Removing the current setbacks: Standard's. for Mufti is duplicative and conflicting Current language for Setbacks doesn't worm for good architectural design Support for allowable limited acceptable encroachment appurtenance types into the Bulk Plane + Planning Commission discussion for more in depth analysis of the zoning code is warranted but architecture design codes and standards are typically done for Special Districts or Historical Districts and separate from the codes. Al Lazalde — Watched last meeting on TV and was very disappointed as they acted like they had no guidance from City Council which he knows is not true. Agrees with Mike to keep the 12.5 Bulk Plane with 25 ft. height limits and restrict it to the R-1 C zone in District 7 . This has taken on a life of its own; it was never the intent to expand to the whole City of Wheat Ridge. He was disheartened by the planning commission meeting and could have been resolved in a simple manner. Staff remarks Heather Geyer talked about a presentation for a new software called Balancing Act to help the citizens be more interactive, to give feedback and input on balancing the City budget. Carly Lorentz talked about launching the software on the proposed budget. The 2017 budget is in process. The software shows graphs and charts about revenue and talks about what citizens can do to have input and share their thoughts and comments. They have put in a "working budget" to help include the residents but not a proposed budget. Mayor Joyce responded that this is terrific and really interesting. Monica Duran asked who is responsible for answering the comments? Ms. Lorentz replied that the citizen reports are put into one report to her, but each department will be aware of those comments and will be able to follow-up with answers separately. Tim Fitzgerald asked if the link will be on the homepage. It will be more on the Budget page. Mayor Jay — Regarding the 3.19 deficit, was the number based on the budget requests that we have received? Ms. Lorentz: Yes, it is where we are at in the process and reworking the EIP and also what we need to save for future projects. J. Staff Report(s) a) Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan Update Scott Brink — Bike Master Pian work began last summer. They hired a consultant, There's been quite a bit of mapping and datarnfo; correct existing map, a good deal of public outreach; a visions and goals outreach in August with various stakeholders, reaching out through social media, public events, Ridgefest and Carnation Festival. Accessibility to senior community, Town center, etc. Lastly, there will be an open house Wednesday at the Rec Center 5-7prn to tank on this and other subjects that include a new Wikimap. This is;a click and share in the City to mark and show areas where something needs to be done - i.e: safety issues, people want bike lanes or sidewalks, etc: Staff will wait until input is in from citizens and comments for priority projects to move forward on critical needs to make a rough draft sometime maybe in early December, Zachary Urban raised concerns on immediate needs, grants, goals and improvements and would life them to be more defined like back in 2010. There is no way to track goals. Will they be corning out at Rec Center open house' Scott Brink: Those measurable goals will be.. reflected in the plan whether in division statement or long: term capital plan, short term goals etc. to get the most bang for the buck. Reach out beyond :the traditional bubble of 'input that we usually get.. Trying to show how the projects will be paid for' to meet the project goals. Consultant services to put together a plan and identify the funding sources for grants out there. We will try to push message out a little deeper to stakeholders like BikeJeffCo, Lakewood, Arvada etc., pushing them hard to get the word out, bath inside and outside of the community. Heather Geyer: Definitely will continue working with Scott and his staff to get it out via traditional and non-traditional manners and will be very transparent. October IP at the Kipling Trail ribbon cutting ceremonies, Scott will have the consultants there to give lnformatiora and take input from the people that attend. Mayor Jay - Specifics to make sure they get public input and they understand that we are trying very hard to create these plans to be able to have a .true commnunity project. b) ADA Transition Plan Scott Brink— A similar timeline to the poke Master Flan is being used; staff hopes to have a draft plan for Council in late November or early December. Will be at the same meeting on Wednesday at the Bike Ped open house, trying to get .the data gathered, really urging public input - ultimately to meet the federal requirement, to review the Citys programs, services and activities, for Disabilities, and to address accessibility, public notification system and compliance concerns. The Plan will include formai grievance procedures and a multiyear program to correct deficiencies. Zach Urban — As stated before, its essential to make sure we have clear and measurable goals and have a dedicated funding source -for this as well. Tim Fitzgerald - Because of the expense, do we have a time line or some point on when we have to have this accomplished? Mr. Brink answered that does depend on funding. We have checked with other cities. Some have barebones plans in place while others are more reactive with complaints, and some are very proactive, setting hundreds of thousands of dollars aside to correct deficiencies and make new plans. Kristl Davis thinks we have to have a plan and funding -- to set that we are proactive to address, state that we are being proactive in some high risk areas but yet budget a couple of other little projects, to try and keep some aside for a complaint or special project that may anise. Monica Duran: Mid -November it states in notes about a priority purl draft, estimation of cost to help prioritize, and help figure out all of the little pieces and how they will be addressed. 2. Residential Development Standards Bulk Plane Ken Johnstone started the presentation on Bulk Plane residential development standards — an ongoing regulatory frame work, for the creation of Bulk Plane standards. Staff and council were receiving some concerns from the residents, particularly on the east side of the city and the scale of that development. Mark equal time from, particularly on the east side of town, not in scale to the existing neighborhood. Zach Wallace has done the bulk of the research to benchmark us against some of our adjacent communities in terms of three areas: Setbacks Building Heights and Bulk Plane. Typically, we run in line with Setbacks and Building Heights with the other jurisdictions, but maybe not Bulk Plane regulations. The Emergency Bulk Plane ordinance was adopted on August 2 and is only in effect for 90 days. We have a ticking clock to find a permanent solution. Mr. Johnstone stated that as a community we have been trying to encourage development in the city with policies like the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy in our Comprehensive Plan that encourage reinvestment and diversity in our housing stock — to help strike a balance between our commercial development and valuing the established neighborhoods as well. Mr. Johnstone went over the core policy questions with a power point. 1. Is there support from Council for the 15 -foot bulk plane? The, Bulk plane is a new concept to the City of Wheat Midge whereas there are already minimum setbacks in place along with maximum height levels. Bulk Plane is something that is measured to reduce the impact of the upper stories. As such, with a 5 -foot minimum setback from the property line, the.14 ft bulk plane is about the most restrictive, and as such, is not recommended, Moving up to the 12 _foot .Bulk Plane, the 12 ft, plane would not be good for two stories stacked on top of each other, unless you move back 10 feet from the property line. The 17 ft, Bulk Plane is the most generous type, used in some adjacent jurisdictions, questioning if that makes. sense for fairly tall structures- on the Sit setback line that is used predominantly for single family housing units. Staking a balance. Staff recommends using a 15 ft. Bulk Plane which might. require a reduction of the clear .heights in the floors. or shift back to a 7 ft. setback from the property line, and for 316 stories to be :set back 17 ft, from line. 2. What does Council think about apply the Bulk Plane to all Residential Districts. Showing the map of the City of Wheat Ridge and to where the Bulk Plane could. apply to or varying by R-1 C mostly in the eastern part of the city, R-3 is imbedded in many areas to include the. RAC as.well. Fairly similar setbacks and smaller lot sizes; by Wheat Ridge standards. 3. is there support to remove zoning requirements for setbacks? It makes sense as they may be duplicative and somewhat confusing. Setbacks are a cumbersome regulation for multifamily structures and duplexes. you are required to setback the upper floors from the property line. From a design .perspective: they are cumbersome and the recommendation is to eliminate the residential setbacks. 4. What type of limited encroachments 'may be acceptable in the Bulk Plane? Some exceptions are already in the building code (Le, chimneys, etc.) and have necessary features that can be similar as to what would go into the Bulk Plane Code, These wouldn't. have the same impact.on neighboring lots and if allowed to, there will be a list of examples at a later Matesuch as solar panels, roof eaves,. etc, 5. Speak about what the Planning Commission was in reference to. There was a healthy discussion a few weeks agts members are not necessarily aligned or doing a Bulk Plane and their next meeting is October 24th, They did not think it was appropriate to apply a Bulk Plane .universally or to just adopt the Emergency 'Bulk Plane as a permanent ordinance. More discussions are to follow on the residential standards and to allow more time for public outreach, but to make sure to get it done by November 14. The presentation of the power point was concluded with discussion by the Council to include slopes on properties that would have any impact on homes, pop tops on existing homes plus garages, and how the 15ft restrictions were arrived at. Public Comment was given by Jesse Hill, who was allowed by Council to speak after the presentation. He noted R -1C as defined is a high quality, stable, safe, medium density as a key point. He would like to have more input from the Building Department as it's tough to actually follow code. He addressed slopes for drainage, grade level and grade beam for realistic building. He recommended finding out why a foot above the highest point on the property line is needed. He requested Council to please take the time to think it through, along with the Building Department and architects, on how this would really look out there and if it's the path that we want to go down. Discussion followed including when it becomes economically unfeasible to pop tops or scrape a home; support for the 15 ft Bulk Plane with variance; to define what variances would be allowed; and how it affects the fabric of the neighborhoods General Consensus: To support the Bulk Plane in the R-3 zone where concerning single family homes, R-3 will have multiple setbacks when there are more than 1 unit; approved 41 To allow reasonable encroachments that may be acceptable in the Bulk Plane and support for Planning Commission discussion for in-depth, long term analysis for residential height standards and architectural design standards; approved 4-3 1. Elected Officials' Report(s) Monica Duran: West Metro Wheat Ridge fire merger vote is tomorrow with three locations for voting. Janeece Hoppe: Tuesday October 18th, location TBD, City Treasurer Jerry Di'Tullio will have a question and answer session regarding Ballot Question 2E. Zschery Urban: October 9th, Prospect Valley is having their 5K at Prospect Park at 9:00 a.m.. Tim Fitzgerald: He and George Pond will be having a District III meeting at 9:30 a.m. at the Recreation Center, there will be snacks. There will be a County Commissioner's Candidate forum at the Jefferson Unitarian Church on Oct 11"'. Kristi Davis: There is a Renewal Wheat Ridge: meeting Oct 4, at 6:00 pm if anyone would like to attend. Mayor Joyce: There will be a candidatelissue forum Friday to meet the candidates for State. House Representatives, J6fferson County Commissioner Districts I and Il, and district Attorney, and to hear presentations on Issues 3A & 313, Question 69, and 2E. It will be from 9:30 am --10 30 at City Hall on October 7th. Heather Geyer: Wheat Ridge Optimist Club has their annual Pancake Supper this Thursday at Wheat Ridge High School from 5:30- 8:00p.m. Robin Eaton: Reminder that the Boards and Commission Dinner will be held ion October 1911, at the Recreation Center at 5:001'1111. ADJOURNMENT The Study Session adjourned at 9:00 PM Robin Eaton, Deputy City Clerk George Pond, Mayor pro tern ON October 24, 2016 City of r `7`Theat� dge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Planning Commission THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager FROM: Zack Wallace, Planning Technician DATE: September 26, 2016 (for October 3 Study Session) SUBJECT: Residential Development Standards and Bulk Plane Background Staff has been researching residential development standards for several months, and presented research findings in July during study sessions with both Planning Commission and City Council. Staff received direction to keep moving forward with research into bulk plane standards. Subsequent to the July study sessions, City Council considered a moratorium on building permits in the R-1 C zone district, and ultimately approved an emergency ordinance implementing a 45° bulk plane requirement measured at 15 feet above the property line in the R -1C zone district effective August 22, 2016. As an emergency ordinance it is effective for 90 days, expiring in mid-November. In the meantime, staff is continuing forward with our research following City Council and Planning Commission direction from July and drafting a bulk plane ordinance for the City's residential zone districts. The ordinance is on track to be presented to City Council prior to the expiration of the emergency ordinance on the following timeline: - September 15: Planning Commission Study Session - October 3: City Council Study Session - October 20: Ordinance Public Hearing at Planning Commission - October 24: Ordinance 1St Reading at City Council - November 14: Ordinance Public Hearing at City Council Proposed Approach Based on public comment, Planning Commission and City Council feedback, and review of the City's adopted plans; staff is recommending bulk plane regulations as the most appropriate mechanism to regulate residential construction in all residential zone districts. The City's 2009 Comprehensive Plan, Envision Wheat Ridge, is organized around a series of values and goals. Among the key values is to "promote vibrant neighborhoods and an array of housing options." A stated goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain and enhance the quality and character of existing neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan also calls for increased housing options, and encourages investment in existing neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy was adopted in 2005 and also encourages reinvestment in Wheat Ridge neighborhoods recognizing that the City's housing stock tends to be older ranch -style construction that may not adequately meet the demands of the modern homebuyer. Any proposed regulation will need to provide some balance by creating a reasonable regulatory tool that accommodates new investment but achieves contextually -sensitive designs. This memo outlines bulk plane standards that respect the intent of these guiding documents by maintaining and enhancing the quality and character of the existing neighborhoods while also encouraging investment. The remainder of this memo is structured as follows: • Bulk plane terminology • Bulk plane height analysis • Applicability of bulk plane standards • Bulk plane vs stepbacks • Exemptions to bulk plane standards • Discussion Bulkplane terminology A bulk plane regulation includes new terminology that has not previously been incorporated in the City's zoning code. These terms are defined below and a prototypical bulk plane graphic is provided. Base plane: The horizontal plane which is generally parallel to a property's original grade from which building height and bulk plane are measured. Bulk plane: the angled plane which extends from a set height above each property line and constrains the permitted building envelope. Building envelope: the three-dimensional space within which a structure is permitted to be built on a lot and which is defined by regulations governing building setbacks, maximum height, and bulk place; by other regulations; or any combination thereof. BASE PLANE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING ENVELOP 2 By creating a diagonal limit on vertical construction, a bulk plane regulation requires a building or upper story to increase its distance from the property line as it gets taller in height. Typically this can still allow multi -story construction, but it increases the separation between taller homes and generally results in a more context -sensitive development. Bulk plane height analysis Based on research of neighboring jurisdictions, bulk plane heights are most commonly established between 10 and 17 feet above the property line depending on the context in which development is occurring. Staff is recommending that the City's bulk plane begin at a height of 15 feet above the property line. The images below show a variety of bulk plane heights, with a structure located at a 5 -foot setback, as this would be the instance of largest impact of bulk plane regulations on property development, and this minimum setback applies in several residential zone districts. The images include a two-story home, as Staff has determined that this is a reasonable minimum development pattern to accommodate, and investment in existing housing stock often includes a "pop -top" or second story addition to expand the size of the City's relatively small single -story homes. Our assumptions include a 5 -foot setback and approximately 11 feet per story, allowing for a I0 -foot ceiling and 1 -foot spacing between floors for mechanics and utilities. Figure 2: Analysis assumptions 22'tall; 11' per story Not recommended: 10 foot bulkplane — The 10 -foot bulk plane is the least common. It may be too restrictive and does not support the goal of reinvestment. It severely cuts into the buildable area for a second story and may make construction difficult and costly as ceiling heights are unable to be achieved without costly retrofits to typical construction techniques. It has the potential to negatively impact properties through an overly restrictive buildable area, especially on the City's smaller lots. On the City's narrowest lot (50 -foot wide), it 3 would be nearly impossible to construct even a two-story home because it far exceeds the building envelope created by the 10 -foot bulk plane. 45" EN ------------ Figure 3: 10 -foot bulk plane Not recommended: 12 foot bulk plane — The 12 -foot bulk plane is somewhat more common in its application on a metro wide level. However, Staff's analysis shows that, like the 10 -foot bulk plane, the 12 -foot bulk plane may be too restrictive and does not support the goal of reinvestment. It cuts into the buildable area for a second story and may make construction difficult and costly as ceiling heights are unable to be achieved without costly retrofits to typical construction techniques. 45° Fr' Figure 4: 12 -foot bulk plane El Not recommended: 17 foot bulk plane — Staff feels the 17 -foot bulk plane height may be too permissive and allows development at a mass and scale inconsistent with existing neighborhoods. It would allow a full two -stories at a 5 -foot setback and could still allow a substantially sized 3'd story. 45° 17 Figure 5: 17 -foot bulk plane Recommended: 15 -foot bulk plane — Ultimately staff is recommending a bulk plane beginning at 15 feet above each property line. This height provides a reasonable building envelope in which property owners may reinvest in their property, while also reducing the likelihood of the three-story construction on small or narrow lots that has caused recent concern for some members of the community. Figure 6: 15 -foot bulk plane Staff's analysis shows that a new two-story home with typical ceiling heights would fit within a 15 -foot bulk plane with an approximate 7 -foot setback. Most side setbacks are only 5 feet, as shown in the image above, but an increased setback for a taller structure within the bulk plane may be appropriate. Most two-story homes are constructed with the stories stacked and not offset to control construction costs and to create a less complicated load bearing wall situation. Alternatively, the first story could be at a minimum 5 -foot setback and a second story would be stepped back further. Either option provides a reasonable accommodation for new construction while increasing the separation between two-story homes and the City's existing one-story homes. 15' Figure 7: Two-story structure built in-line at a 7 -foot setback, with a potential 3rd story. A 15 -foot bulk plane would conceivably allow for a third story, though in limited circumstances, and generally on larger lots. A three-story home would need to have approximately 17 -foot setbacks from the property line if the stories were constructed in vertical alignment with each other. This setback assumes a typical 11 -foot story which provides space between floors for mechanical/electrical equipment and the like. Applicability of bulkplane standards Staff recommends applying the 15 -foot bulk plane universally across all residential zone districts. This will provide a level of assurance to property owners city-wide that potential redevelopment of adjacent residential properties will need to be properly scaled back to comply with the bulk plane. Additionally, Section 26-120 of the Municipal Code (Nonconforming lots, uses and structures) states that a single-family dwelling is permitted on any single lot of record, provided the lot is in separate ownership and not continuous frontage with other lots under the same ownership. This means that single-family homes must comply with the development standards established for the zone district (height and setback), but may be developed regardless C, of lot area and/or width. Applying the bulk -plane standards universally ensures that substandard lots across the City, on which single-family homes are a use by right, will be scaled back to ensure they are respectful of surrounding properties. Due to the nature of the bulk plane, it will be less impactful on larger, wider properties as they allow for greater setbacks to accommodate the bulk plane regulations. Narrower lots with will have building envelopes that interfere with the bulk plane, and thus be required to scale back, at a lower height than homes on larger lots that require and allow for larger setbacks. For example, a bulk plane beginning at 15 feet above a property line will intersect an R-1 structure (15 -foot minimum setback) at 30 feet in height; whereas it would intersect an R -1C structure (5 -foot minimum setback) at 20 feet in height. Staff is recommending that the bulk plane standards apply to all structures—primary and accessory. Given existing height limitations and typical rooflines, it is unlikely that a 15 -foot bulk plane would impact the construction of accessory structures. It may require increased setbacks for a gambrel -style (barn like) garage roofs which tend to be taller than a garage with a standard hip or gable roof. Bulk plane vs stepbacks Currently the zoning code calls for additional setbacks, or "stepbacks," for duplexes and multi- family structures. An additional 5 -foot setback per upper story is enforced for all duplexes (in R- 2, R -2A, R-3, and R -3A) and for multifamily structures in the R -2A zone district. In the R-3 and R -3A zone districts multifamily structures must have a setback of 15 -feet for the first 2 stories and an additional 5 feet for each additional story. Figure 26-123.1 is provided in the Code for clarification on how to enforce the setbacks. 10' 10' Per story setback measured from the closest point of the additional story Side/Rear Setback 14' per story (in5�' this example) Figure 26-123.1: Where side and rear setbacks are based on the number of stories of the building, the setback is measured from the closest point of the additional story, not the first story. In this example; the closest point of the third floor must be setback 15 feet (5 foot per story). Figure 8: Stepback diagram from the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code 7 It is staff's opinion that the bulk plane ordinance, in effect, creates the same regulatory framework by requiring additional setbacks or stepbacks as structure increases in height. For clarity and consistency, staff recommends removing the stepback provisions described above to avoid confusion and redundancy with the proposed bulk plane regulations. Exemptions to bulk plane standards Currently Section 26-61 LA of the Code allows setback encroachments for the following: - Porches, patios, decks and balconies open on at least 2 sides may encroach in a setback up to 8 feet into a front setback or 1/3 distance to property line for side and rear yard - Architectural features including cornices eaves, sills, canopies, etc. may encroach no more than 30 inches - Chimneys may encroach into front, side, or rear yards no more than 2 feet, so long as a yard is not reduced to less than 3 feet - Fire escapes, open stairways may encroach any distance, so long as a yard is not reduced to less than 3 feet The City of Wheat Ridge exemptions are limited to horizontal encroachments, as the City has not had any form of vertical restrictions other than the 35 foot height maximum for residential buildings. If a bulk plane standard is adopted, it may be appropriate to consider possible allowances for encroachments into and above the 45 degree bulk plane. The following cities have bulk plane standards and have adopted exemptions for the following building elements: Boulder - Roof overhangs or eaves for the primary roof (no more than 30 inches) - Rooftop solar systems that are flush -mounted to the roof, or mounted at no more than a 15 degree angle - The gable end of a sloping roof form up to 8 feet (with limitations on width) - Dormers no more than 8 feet wide and 6 feet tall (with limitations on size) - Chimneys no more than 70 inches wide and 30 inches deep - Insubstantial encroachments that are small and do not substantially increase the bulk (e.g. radio or TV antennae, small architectural details, sculptural elements, weather vanes) - Bulk plane does not apply for the side yard if it adjacent to a nonresidential principal land use or lots that include multi -family Figure 9: Boulder bulk plane exemptions (Source: Side Yard Bulk Plane Handout, City of Boulder) • Englewood - Dormers with windows may exceed the bulk plane but not the height of the ridgeline of the roof surface (with limitations on size) - Eaves (no more than 24 inches) - Gutters - Chimneys (no more than 10 feet) - Patio or deck railings that are at least 75% open or transparent (maximum of 42 inches) - Multi -family buildings consisting of 5 or more units, non-residential development, and accessory structures in residential zone districts and 2 mixed use districts • Denver - Eaves - Unoccupied spires, towers, flagpoles, antennas, chimneys, flues and vents (maximum of 28') - Flush -mounted solar panels - Evaporative coolers As evidenced by the exceptions in other communities, it may be appropriate to exempt certain architectural features. Such exemptions are in the spirit of the City's current regulations which already acknowledge reasonable types of encroachments. The exemption of a deck railing (Englewood) would allow open rooftop decks where the building envelope prohibits an upper story but the building code requires adequate enclosure. Variance In certain situations, it may be possible to seek relief from the bulk plane standards through the City's variance process. This process is outlined in Section 26-115 of the zoning code. A variance can be appropriate when strict application of a development standard creates a hardship. All variance requests are evaluated against a set of nine criteria. Depending on the extent of the E /A\ Dormers and Gable End Roof Forna Solar Systems Chi►mreys and Roof Danys Figure 9: Boulder bulk plane exemptions (Source: Side Yard Bulk Plane Handout, City of Boulder) • Englewood - Dormers with windows may exceed the bulk plane but not the height of the ridgeline of the roof surface (with limitations on size) - Eaves (no more than 24 inches) - Gutters - Chimneys (no more than 10 feet) - Patio or deck railings that are at least 75% open or transparent (maximum of 42 inches) - Multi -family buildings consisting of 5 or more units, non-residential development, and accessory structures in residential zone districts and 2 mixed use districts • Denver - Eaves - Unoccupied spires, towers, flagpoles, antennas, chimneys, flues and vents (maximum of 28') - Flush -mounted solar panels - Evaporative coolers As evidenced by the exceptions in other communities, it may be appropriate to exempt certain architectural features. Such exemptions are in the spirit of the City's current regulations which already acknowledge reasonable types of encroachments. The exemption of a deck railing (Englewood) would allow open rooftop decks where the building envelope prohibits an upper story but the building code requires adequate enclosure. Variance In certain situations, it may be possible to seek relief from the bulk plane standards through the City's variance process. This process is outlined in Section 26-115 of the zoning code. A variance can be appropriate when strict application of a development standard creates a hardship. All variance requests are evaluated against a set of nine criteria. Depending on the extent of the E request and neighborhood input, a variance is typically either reviewed administratively or by the Board of Adjustment. Variance requests are expressed in numeric terms; for example, "a 2 -foot (33%) variance from the 6 -foot maximum height requirement resulting in an 8 -foot fence." Staff is currently evaluating how a variance from the bulk plane standards would be quantified. No code amendment pertaining to bulk plane variances is recommended at this time. Planning Commission Discussion On September 15, Planning Commission was presented with this same memorandum to discuss Staff s recommendations and facilitate discussion on the main points of this memorandum in order to provide a recommendation to City Council. Planning Commission did not reach consensus on the height of the bulk plane, or if bulk plane is the right tool to address neighborhood concerns. There was a general agreement on not applying a bulk plane universally in all residential zone districts, in contrast to what Staff has recommended. Planning Commission did come to a consensus on recommending that height and architectural design regulations may be better utilized to preserve neighborhood character and address 3 -story height concerns. They also recommend that geographic overlays be considered since many areas of the City are unique and may warrant their own unique regulations. Planning Commission understands the emergency ordinance is only valid until mid-November. They suggest adopting the language of the emergency ordinance for a permanent bulk plane ordinance moving forward in R -1C and as a possible short term solution. They recommend a more resource -intensive process as a second phase to address residential height and architecture through geographic overlays. The formal Planning Commission recommendation will be forwarded once an ordinance is drafted and they hold a public hearing, which is scheduled for October 20. Public Forum Three citizens spoke during the Planning Commission public forum regarding bulk plane standards and new development in East Wheat Ridge. One member of the public presented a petition with 33 signatures of neighbors in support of a 12.5 foot bulk plane and maximum building height of 25 feet in the R -1C zone district. Discussion Staff is seeking feedback on the recommendations and discussion items outlined in this memo, specifically: • Is there support for a bulk plane regulation that begins at 15 feet above all property lines? • Is there support for applying the bulk plane regulations in all residential zone districts? • Is there support for removing the current "stepback" standards that duplicate the regulatory framework created by the bulk plane? • Is there support for identifying limited acceptable encroachments into the bulk plane or other exceptions? • Is there support for Planning Commission's discussion of an in-depth, long-term analysis of residential height standards and architectural design standards? 10 STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO October 3. 2016 6:30 p.m. 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. Citizen Comment on Agenda Items 1. Staff Report(s) a) Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan Update b) ADA Transition Plan 2. Residential Development Standards — Bulk Plane 3. Elected Officials' Report(s) ADJOURNMENT Zack Wallace From: Lauren Mikulak Sent: Monday, October 3,2016 1:19 PM To: Patrick Goff, Kenneth Johnstone Cc: Zack Wallace Subject: RE: Bulk Plane in Southeast Wheat Ridge - We need 17' from property high point I just pulled up the emergency ordinance and we included two things relative to the base plane: 1. The definition reads that the bulk plane is "generally parallel" to the original grade of the property. 2. We also included a section "measurement of base plane" which was intended to address grade issues. (Ken I didn't scroll down far enough to see this when we just spoke). This specifies "The base plane shall be measured from the original average grade of a lot or parcel. Average grade shall be calculated as an average of the elevations take at the midpoints of each property line." uuyu:ui-JaYrimu 410Lel-1•P Figure 26-611,3. Avorage Grado Calculation 313 3�t 3iE JII d6V � �AiJC[�(s33(j#M �tl.k i le In Denver, the base plane is measured based on the average elevation at the front setback which controls how neighborhood character is perceived from the street. See image below. Frankly, I'm having trouble following Jesse's email and the attached graphics. Zack has created 3D scaled models in SketchUp to illustrate different bulk plane scenarios, so it may be appropriate to modify those (but not today) to play out a few scenarios including those Jesse has raised. Lauren E. Mikulak, AICP Senior Planner Office Phone: 303-235-2845 t-ity of r W h6 -at gMtru:n DFVt From: Patrick Goff Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 11:07 AM To: Kenneth Johnstone Cc: Zack Wallace; Lauren Mikulak Subject: RE: Bulk Plane in Southeast Wheat Ridge - We need 17' from property high point I'm not sure Council will want Jesse actually at the table as part of the discussion. However, I do know George was hoping there would be more voices from Jesse's viewpoint. I think we suggest to Council that staff will need more time to analyze Jesse's comments and we can bring that analysis back to Planning Commission and a future study session. Thanks Patrick Goff City Manager Cell Phone: 303-995-6465 City c)f f Wh6at If) MAN %( C: From: Kenneth Johnstone Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 9:46 AM To: Patrick Goff <PPoff@ci.wheatridee.co.us> Cc: Zack Wallace <zwaIlace@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Lauren Mikulak <lmikulak@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Subject: Fwd: Bulk Plane in Southeast Wheat Ridge - We need 17' from property high point Patrick, Let me know if you wish to discuss or if you are getting any questions already from CC members. Zack is out of town and won't be available until about 5 pm tomorrow, so don't think we'll be able to provide additional updated graphics. I need to talk through with my team to see whether we agree with how Jesse is calculating the bulk plane and applying it in his graphics. We define "base plane" for a lot and apply bulk plane based on that measurement. I think he is raising legitimate policy issues, but want to try to make sure the technical analysis he is providing is accurate. We'll have to work on that on Monday morning, but won't have Zack as a resource. Do you think CC will have any interest in giving Mr. Hill an opportunity to present? I'd like to say we could work through his comments at the PC hearing, but they aren't big fans of bulk plane to begin with, so not sure how productive that will be. We could do an additional CC SS on the 17th if Council wants additional detailed staff analysis on this cross grade issue. Let me know if you want to chat. Go Broncos and USA in the Ryder Cup - way too many Sports/TV options... Ken Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Jesse Hill <jessehillpe@gmail.com> Date: October 1, 2016 at 4:02:39 PM MDT To: "gpond(rvci.wheatridge.co.us" <aiond(i�,ci.wheatridge.co.us>, "gwoodenOci.wheatridge.co.us" <g;woodenQyci.wheatridbe.co.us>, "jhoppeQci.wheatrid e.co.us" <jhoppeQci.wheatrid e.c�o.us>, Kristi Davis <KDavisCeci.wheatridge.co.us>, "lmathews(ti ci.wheatridge.co.us" <lmathews(i-ijci.wheatridbe.co.us>, "mduranalci.wheatridge.co.us" <mduran(cijci.wheatridge.co.us>, "tfitzgerald rc;ci.wheatridge.co.us" <tfitzgeraldCi .)ci.wheatridge.co.us>, "zurban(ci;„ci.wheatrid red co.us” <zurban(a.,ci.wheatridL,e. co.us> Cc: Lauren Mikulak <Imikulak(ii!ci.wheatridge.co.us>, Kenneth Johnstone <kiohnstoneLuci.wheatridge.co.us>, Patrick Goff <pgoffQci.wheatrid e.co.us> Subject: Bulk Plane in Southeast Wheat Ridge - We need 17' from property high point City Council and Staff - While I believe staff has worked hard and provides valuable information in the agenda packet, the sketches provided to you do not reflect the reality of the lots or existing/future structures in the neighborhood. As I mentioned in previous council meetings, approximately a dozen city blocks sit in the area on a slope that drops 5' across the 50' lots. This slope generally requires the 1 st floor grade to be set approximately 1' above the high elevation property line to provide proper drainage and prevent flooding. This is why 17' bulk plane is exist in our neighboring areas. Recommend that staff update or provide an addendum of the images in the study session packet to reflect the real life situation that includes lot slope. I have attached a version that I have worked up and would be happy to provide presentation of these during your study session. In an effort to get you the information with as much time to review, apologizes for the sketches being rough as my drafting skills are out of date. Staff currently recommends defining the bulk plane elevation measurement point as the property line. This (unintended) increases the down slope setback from 5' to 13' for the 15' bulk plane with a +1' house grade. Recommend defining the bulk plane elevation measurement point as the lot survey corner high point. For a sample 35'x50' 2 story with a 1600 sf footprint based on staffs 10'+1' per story and F 1st floor grade Current zoning allows for a 40' width. The 15' bulk plane as recommended is too restrictive. it results in a 29' maximum width and limits house site options on site layout regarding a street access driveway. 72% of allowable width from current code. A 17' bulk plane places a I F effective setback on the down hill slope. 31' max width. 77% of allowable width from current code. Recommend a 17' bulk plane with bulk plane elevation measurement point starting at the lot survey high point allows for effective 6' setbacks on each side. would allow for street access driveway on uphill slope. 38' max width. 95% of allowable width from current code. What are the consequences of accepting staffs 15' vs the recommended 17' from high point? in short, new homeowners looking to build or add on will pass on these lots and we will be left with a ageing stock of houses past their useful life(70-90 years old). For new home construction - -600sf reduction @ $300 sf = $180,000 loss in value. -loss of the backyard to recoup the lost square footage - houses being built deep into the lots -higher construction costs for stacked 2nd floor walls. For existing houses - Pop the top is difficult unless existing structure fit in the effective setbacks. Not many do in the area. Lots of variances - Depending on the variance process, it is bad public policy to make a NEW code that requires a large number of affected go thru the variance process. The uncertainty and time required will stun quality development. Staff is asking you 5 questions - 1- Is the support for a bulk plane regulation that begins at 15 feet above all property lines? Recommend a 17' bulk plane with bulk plane elevation measurement point starting at the lot survey high point 2- Is there support for applying the bulk plane regulation in all residential zone districts. Recommend that if accepting the need for bulk plane it is applied to all residential districts and review the commercial zone districts. This will come up in the other districts R-1, R-3, R3 -c and others. Especially on corner lots. Why R1 -C being restricted so much? 3 -Is there support for removing the current "stepback" standards that duplicate the regulatory framework created by the bulk plane? Recommend removal. 4- Support for identifying limited acceptable encroachments into bulk plane, HIGHLY RECOMMEND - eves, chimneys, handrailing and architectural features need to be allowed. 5 -Planing commission discussion of in depth, long term -analysis or residential height standards and architectural design standards. Do not recommend architectural design standards- Wheat Ridge has a long history of allowing architectural freedom and creativity and this is shown in our housing stock that provides options for all. They tend to lead to exclusion of many homeowners or uniformity and lack of architectural diversity. Recommend looking at what zoning in Wheat Ridge are contemporary single family homes allowed? (3 story, flat roof, small lot width) Please invite myself to do a presentation to accompany the staff presentation on the points listed above. The neighborhood has not been involved, informed or represented in this matter. We have received no information in the mail regarding this. There have been no neighborhood meetings. 3 minutes of public comment will not be enough to present the technical points. Feel free to call with any question, Regards, Jesse Hill 303-725-9530 Please visit 32 -29th st, Ames to Fenton with the intention of learning how implementing a bulk plane will forever alter the RI -C district in southeast Wheat Ridge before making any decisions on the subject. 10/3/2016 Gmail - Bulk Plane in Southeast Wheat Ridge - We need 1T from property high point Jesse Hill <jessehillpe@gmail.com> Bulk Plane in Southeast Wheat Ridge - We need 17' from property high point 2 messages Jesse Hill <jessehillpe@gmail.com> Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 4:02 PM To: "gpond@ci.wheatddge.co.us" <gpond@ci.wheatddge.co.us>, "gwooden@ci.wheatridge.co.us" <gwooden@ci.wheatddge.co.us>, "jhoppe@ci.wheatridge.co.us" <jhoppe@ci.wheatddge.co.us>, Kristi Davis <KDavis@ci.wheatddge.co.us>, "Imathews@ci.wheatddge.co.us" <Imathews@ci.wheatddge.co.us>, "mduran@ci.wheatddge.co.us" <mduran@ci.wheatridge.co.us>,"tfitzgerald@ci.wheatddge.co.us" <tfitzgerald@ci.wheatddge.co.us>, "zurban@ci.wheatridge.co.us" <zurban@ci.wheatddge.co.us> Cc: Lauren Mikulak <Imikulak@ci.wheatddge.co.us>, Kenneth Johnstone<kjohnstone@ci.wheatddge.co.us>, Patrick Goff <pgoff@ci.wheatddge.co.us> City Council and Staff - While I believe staff has worked hard and provides valuable information in the agenda packet, the sketches provided to you do not reflect the reality of the lots or existing/future structures in the neighborhood. As I mentioned in previous council meetings, approximately a dozen city blocks sit in the area on a slope that drops 5' across the 50' lots. This slope generally requires the 1st floor grade to be set approximately 1' above the high elevation property line to provide proper drainage and prevent flooding. This is why 17' bulk plane is exist in our neighboring areas. Recommend that staff update or provide an addendum of the images in the study session packet to reflect the real life situation that includes lot slope. I have attached a version that I have worked up and would be happy to provide presentation of these during your study session. In an effort to get you the information with as much time to review, apologizes for the sketches being rough as my drafting skills are out of date. Staff. currently recommends defining the bulk plane elevation measurement point as the property line. This (unintended) increases the down slope setback from 5' to 13' for the 15' bulk plane with a +1' house grade. Recommend defining the bulk plane elevation measurement point as the lot survey corner high point. For a sample 35x50' 2 story with a 1600 sf footprint based on staffs 10'+1' per story and 1' 1st floor grade Current zoning allows for a 40' width. The 15' bulk plane as recommended is too restrictive. it results in a 29' maximum width and limits house site options on site layout regarding a street access driveway. 72% of allowable width from current code. A 17' bulk plane places a 11' effective setback on the down hill slope. 31' max width. 77% of allowable width from current code. Recommend a 17' bulk plane with bulk plane elevation measurement point starting at the lot survey high point allows for effective 6' setbacks on each side. would allow for street access driveway on uphill slope. 38' max width. 95% of allowable width from current code. What are the consequences of accepting staffs 15' vs the recommended 17' from high point? in short, new homeowners looking to build or add on will pass on these lots and we will be left with a ageing stock of houses past their useful life(70-90 years old). For new home construction - -600sf reduction @ $300 sf = $180,000 loss in value. -loss of the backyard to recoup the lost square footage - houses being built deep_ into the lots -higher construction costs for stacked 2nd floor walls. For existing houses - Pop the top is difficult unless existing structure fit in the effective setbacks. Not many do in the area. Lots of variances - Depending on the variance process, it is bad public policy to make a NEW code that requires a large number of affected go thru the variance process. The uncertainty and time required will stun quality development. Staff is asking you 5 questions - 1- Is the support for a bulk plane regulation that begins at 15 feet above all property lines? Recommend a 17' bulk plane with bulk plane elevation measurement point starting at the lot survey high point https://mai l.google.com/mail/u/0l?ui=2&ik=db26a80710&view=pt&search=sent&th= l57824543ca4a0a3&si ml=157824543ca4a0a3&siml=157824872e3e90b4 1/2 10/3/2016 Gmail -Bulk Plane in Southeast Wheat Ridge- We need 1T from property high pant 2- Is there support for applying the bulk plane regulation in all residential zone districts. Recommend that if accepting the need for bulk plane it is applied to all residential districts and review the commercial zone districts. This will come up in the other districts R-1, R-3, R3 -c and others. Especially on comer lots. Why RI -C being restricted so much? 3 -Is there support for removing the current "stepback" standards that duplicate the regulatory framework created by the bulk plane? Recommend removal. 4- Support for identifying limited acceptable encroachments into bulk plane, HIGHLY RECOMMEND - eves, chimneys, handrailing and architectural features need to be allowed. 5 -Planing commission discussion of in depth, long term -analysis or residential height standards and architectural design standards. Do not recommend architectural design standards- Wheat Ridge has a long history of allowing architectural freedom and creativity and this is shown in our housing stock that provides options for all. They tend to lead to exclusion of many homeowners or uniformity and lack of architectural diversity. Recommend looking at what zoning in Wheat Ridge are contemporary single family homes allowed? (3 story, flat roof, small lot width) Please invite myself to do a presentation to accompany the staff presentation on the points listed above. The neighborhood has not been involved, informed or represented in this matter. We have received no information in the mail regarding this. There have been no neighborhood meetings. 3 minutes of public comment will not be enough to present the technical points. Feel free to call with any question, Regards, Jesse Hill 303-725-9530 Please visit 32 -29th st, Ames to Fenton with the intention of learning how implementing a bulk plane will forever alter the R1 -C district in southeast Wheat Ridge before making any decisions on the subject. Bulk Plane.pdf 171K Jesse Hill <jessehillpe@gmail.com> Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 4:06 PM To: Cody Carbone <codycarbone@gmail.com> FYI. [Quoted text hidden] .� Bulk Plane.pdf 171 K https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O/?ui=2&ik=db26a8O71O&view=pt&search=sent&th=157824643ca4aOa3&sim1=157824543ca4aOa3&sim1=157824872e3e9Ob4 2/2 Sample 35'x50' house 15' Bulk Plane i5 17' Bulk Plane 3 Natural Grade P 1 17' property high point Bulk Plane s Kenneth Johnstone From: Jesse Hill <jessehillpe@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2016 4:03 PM To: George Pond; Genevieve Wooden; Janeece Hoppe; Kristi Davis; Larry Mathews; Monica Duran; Tim Fitzgerald; Zachary Urban Cc: Lauren Mikulak; Kenneth Johnstone; Patrick Goff Subject: Bulk Plane in Southeast Wheat Ridge - We need 17' from property high point Attachments: Bulk Plane.pdf City Council and Staff - While I believe staff has worked hard and provides valuable information in the agenda packet, the sketches provided to you do not reflect the reality of the lots or existing/future structures in the neighborhood. As I mentioned in previous council meetings, approximately a dozen city blocks sit in the area on a slope that drops 5' across the 50' lots. This slope generally requires the 1 st floor grade to be set approximately 1' above the high elevation property line to provide proper drainage and prevent flooding. This is why 17' bulk plane is exist in our neighboring areas. Recommend that staff update or provide an addendum of the images in the study session packet to reflect the real life situation that includes lot slope. I have attached a version that I have worked up and would be happy to provide presentation of these during your study session. In an effort to get you the information with as much time to review, apologizes for the sketches being rough as my drafting skills are out of date. Staff currently recommends defining the bulk plane elevation measurement point as the property line. This (unintended) increases the down slope setback from 5' to 13' for the 15' bulk plane with a +l' house grade. Recommend defining the bulk plane elevation measurement point as the lot survey corner high point. For a sample 35'x50' 2 story with a 1600 sf footprint based on staffs 10'+1' per story and 1' lst floor grade Current zoning allows for a 40' width. The 15' bulk plane as recommended is too restrictive. it results in a 29' maximum width and limits house site options on site layout regarding a street access driveway. 72% of allowable width from current code. A 17' bulk plane places a 11' effective setback on the down hill slope. 31' max width. 77% of allowable width from current code. Recommend a 17' bulk plane with bulk plane elevation measurement point starting at the lot survey high point allows for effective 6' setbacks on each side. would allow for street access driveway on uphill slope. 38' max width. 95% of allowable width from current code. What are the consequences of accepting staffs 15' vs the recommended 17' from high point? in short, new homeowners looking to build or add on will pass on these lots and we will be left with a ageing stock of houses past their useful life(70-90 years old). For new home construction - -600sf reduction @ $300 sf = $180,000 loss in value. -loss of the backyard to recoup the lost square footage - houses being built deep into the lots -higher construction costs for stacked 2nd floor walls. For existing houses - Pop the top is difficult unless existing structure fit in the effective setbacks. Not many do in the area. Lots of variances - Depending on the variance process, it is bad public policy to make a NEW code that requires a large number of affected go thru the variance process. The uncertainty and time required will stun quality development. Staff is asking you 5 questions - 1- Is the support for a bulk plane regulation that begins at 15 feet above all property lines? Recommend a 17' bulk plane with bulk plane elevation measurement point starting at the lot survey high point 2- Is there support for applying the bulk plane regulation in all residential zone districts. Recommend that if accepting the need for bulk plane it is applied to all residential districts and review the commercial zone districts. This will come up in the other districts R-1, R-3, R3 -c and others. Especially on corner lots. Why R1 -C being restricted so much? 3 -Is there support for removing the current "stepback" standards that duplicate the regulatory framework created by the bulk plane? Recommend removal. 4- Support for identifying limited acceptable encroachments into bulk plane, HIGHLY RECOMMEND - eves, chimneys, handrailing and architectural features need to be allowed. 5 -Planing commission discussion of in depth, long term -analysis or residential height standards and architectural design standards. Do not recommend architectural design standards- Wheat Ridge has a long history of allowing architectural freedom and creativity and this is shown in our housing stock that provides options for all. They tend to lead to exclusion of many homeowners or uniformity and lack of architectural diversity. Recommend looking at what zoning in Wheat Ridge are contemporary single family homes allowed? (3 story, flat roof, small lot width) Please invite myself to do a presentation to accompany the staff presentation on the points listed above. The neighborhood has not been involved, informed or represented in this matter. We have received no information in the mail regarding this. There have been no neighborhood meetings. 3 minutes of public comment will not be enough to present the technical points. Feel free to call with any question, Regards, Jesse Hill 303-725-9530 Please visit 32 -29th st, Ames to Fenton with the intention of learning how implementing a bulk plane will forever alter the RI -C district in southeast Wheat Ridge before making any decisions on the subject. Sample 35'x50' house 15' Bulk Plane %n 357 %n 17' Bulk Plane 7 b` } 35' 17' property high point Bulk Plane Zack Wallace From: Lauren Mikulak Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2016 4:37 PM To: Zack Wallace Subject: FW: Bulk Plane in Southeast Wheat Ridge - We need 17' from property high point Attachments: Bulk Plane.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged FYI Lauren E. Mikulak, AICP Senior Planner Office Phone: 303-235-2845 t City -of Wt COMMUNITY 0FVFWPMf From: Jesse Hill [mailto:jessehillpe@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2016 4:03 PM To: George Pond; Genevieve Wooden; Janeece Hoppe; Kristi Davis; Larry Mathews; Monica Duran; Tim Fitzgerald; Zachary Urban Cc: Lauren Mikulak; Kenneth Johnstone; Patrick Goff Subject: Bulk Plane in Southeast Wheat Ridge - We need 17' from property high point City Council and Staff - While I believe staff has worked hard and provides valuable information in the agenda packet, the sketches provided to you do not reflect the reality of the lots or existing/future structures in the neighborhood. As I mentioned in previous council meetings, approximately a dozen city blocks sit in the area on a slope that drops 5' across the 50' lots. This slope generally requires the 1 st floor grade to be set approximately 1' above the high elevation property line to provide proper drainage and prevent flooding. This is why 17' bulk plane is exist in our neighboring areas. Recommend that staff update or provide an addendum of the images in the study session packet to reflect the real life situation that includes lot slope. I have attached a version that I have worked up and would be happy to provide presentation of these during your study session. In an effort to get you the information with as much time to review, apologizes for the sketches being rough as my drafting skills are out of date. Staff currently recommends defining the bulk plane elevation measurement point as the property line. This (unintended) increases the down slope setback from 5' to 13' for the 15' bulk plane with a +1' house grade. Recommend defining the bulk plane elevation measurement point as the lot survey corner high point. For a sample 35'x50' 2 story with a 1600 sf footprint based on staffs 10'+l' per story and P 1st floor grade Current zoning allows for a 40' width. The 15' bulk plane as recommended is too restrictive. it results in a 29' maximum width and limits house site options on site layout regarding a street access driveway. 72% of allowable width from current code. A 17' bulk plane places a I P effective setback on the down hill slope. 31' max width. 77% of allowable width from current code. Recommend a 17' bulk plane with bulk plane elevation measurement point starting at the lot survey high point allows for effective 6' setbacks on each side. would allow for street access driveway on uphill slope. 38' max width. 95% of allowable width from current code. What are the consequences of accepting staffs 15' vs the recommended 17' from high point? in short, new homeowners looking to build or add on will pass on these lots and we will be left with a ageing stock of houses past their useful life(70-90 years old). For new home construction - -600sf reduction @ $300 sf = $180,000 loss in value. -loss of the backyard to recoup the lost square footage - houses being built deep into the lots -higher construction costs for stacked 2nd floor walls. For existing houses - Pop the top is difficult unless existing structure fit in the effective setbacks. Not many do in the area. Lots of variances - Depending on the variance process, it is bad public policy to make a NEW code that requires a large number of affected go thru the variance process. The uncertainty and time required will stun quality development. Staff is asking you 5 questions - 1- Is the support for a bulk plane regulation that begins at 15 feet above all property lines? Recommend a 17' bulk plane with bulk plane elevation measurement point starting at the lot survey high point 2- Is there support for applying the bulk plane regulation in all residential zone districts. Recommend that if accepting the need for bulk plane it is applied to all residential districts and review the commercial zone districts. This will come up in the other districts R-1, R-3, R3 -c and others. Especially on corner lots. Why R1 -C being restricted so much? 3 -Is there support for removing the current "stepback" standards that duplicate the regulatory framework created by the bulk plane? Recommend removal. 4- Support for identifying limited acceptable encroachments into bulk plane, HIGHLY RECOMMEND - eves, chimneys, handrailing and architectural features need to be allowed. 5 -Planing commission discussion of in depth, long term -analysis or residential height standards and architectural design standards. Do not recommend architectural design standards- Wheat Ridge has a long history of allowing architectural freedom and creativity and this is shown in our housing stock that provides options for all. They tend to lead to exclusion of many homeowners or uniformity and lack of architectural diversity. Recommend looking at what zoning in Wheat Ridge are contemporary single family homes allowed? (3 story, flat roof, small lot width) Please invite myself to do a presentation to accompany the staff presentation on the points listed above. The neighborhood has not been involved, informed or represented in this matter. We have received no information in the mail regarding this. There have been no neighborhood meetings. 3 minutes of public comment will not be enough to present the technical points. Feel free to call with any question, Regards, Jesse Hill 303-725-9530 Please visit 32 -29th st, Ames to Fenton with the intention of learning how implementing a bulk plane will forever alter the R1 -C district in southeast Wheat Ridge before making any decisions on the subject. Zack Wallace From: Lauren Mikulak Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 8:10 AM To: Zack Wallace Subject: notes Here are my notes from yesterday. Jot down what your impressions were and maybe we can schedule some time for you and I to meet with Ken and strategize next week ... Tuesday or Wednesday morning? Consensus: • No consensus on a broad use of bulk plane • Need to use height and architectural regulations to preserve neighborhood character and better regulate height • Need to consider geographic overlays (even if just east of wads/west of wads) • Adopt the emergency ordinance as a stopgap, but proceed with more analysis and public involvement to address core issues (height and character) Specific discussion questions: • Is there support for a bulk plane regulation that begins at 15 feet above all property lines? o No consensus • Is there support for applying the bulk plane regulations in all residential zone districts? o Do not support this approach • Is there support for removing the current "stepback" standards that duplicate the regulatory framework created by the bulk plane? o Agree it could be redundant if bulk plane is adopted city-wide, but PC did not support more broad use of bulk plane • Is there support for identifying limited acceptable encroachments into the bulk plane or other exceptions? o No comments on this topic Other comments: • Bulk plane increases setbacks as buildings get taller, but doesn't address neighborhood context • Consider geographic overlays • 15' bulk plane seems arbitrary • Wants to see graphic that shows max height and bulk plane • Likes the way the Eaton Street Cottages considered neighborhood context - including offset window placement • If intent is to limit 3 story homes, bulk plane is not the right tool - need to discuss height • Need regulations that respect neighborhood character, but also allow redevelopment of aging homes • Is there a design for residential architectural standards? Has not been in the past • Consider regulations that take into account average heights in area - Denver uses 3D model with heights and window locations (staff expressed concern regarding enforceability --have information regarding horizontal (setbacks and square footage) but not height) • Regulations should not restrict diversity of housing or architectural styles • Bulk plane could mandate cookie cutter shapes of buildings • Add dimensions to graphics (eg 5' setback x' floors) • Need to adjust regulations for different neighborhoods - applewood versus 29th/eaton • 35 feet is too tall in some places • Bulk/plane and height regulations should not be changed for multifamily, mixed use, or agricultural • Don't change height or add bulk/plane where we want to encourage development • No, bulk plane shouldn't apply to all SF/2F (regardless of zoning) • Concerned with restricting for the sake of restricting, want to see more of a good neighbor approach • Talk to builders/developers as part of public outreach My PI ideas (if there's direction for a second phase) 1 Survey - ask questions about how they react to different statements (eg I think all houses in my neighborhood should be the same height, I value diversity in my neighborhood, I value same X in my neighborhood...) 2. Draw lines on maps to identify different areas/neighborhoods 3. Email/bring pictures that represent your neighborhood/areas of town 4. What defines your neighborhood/area of town? (Look at pictures) Lauren E. Mikulak, AICP Senior Planner 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Office Phone: 303-235-2845 Fax: 303-234-2845 www.ci.wheatridge.co.us R `e City,or VArwh6iLtRi we Comru uNtrx bic v� CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail contains business -confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, electronic storage or use of this communication is prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, attaching the original message, and delete the original message from your computer, and any network to which your computer is connected. Thank you. 1. 2. 3. 4. City of ]�qrWh6atR�iogc PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting September 15, 2016 CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair OHM at 1:01.,p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29, Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Commission'Members Absent: Staff Members Present: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Dirk Boden Alan Bucknam Emery Dorsey Donna Kimsey Janet Leo Scott -Ohm Steve Timms Amanda Weaver I;auren,,Mikulak, Senior Planner L'i,sa Ritchie, Planner II Zack Wallace, Planning Technician Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner DORSEY and seconded by Commissioner TIMMS to approve the order of the agenda. Motion carried 8-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 1, 2016 It was moved by Commissioner DORSEY and seconded by Commissioner LEO to approve the minutes of September 1, 2016, as amended. Motion carried 5-0-3 with Commissioners BUCKNAM, TIMMS and WEAVER abstaining. Planning Commission Minutes September 15, 2016 -1— 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) Benny Gonzales 3145 Eaton Street, Wheat Ridge Mr. Gonzales said he, family and neighbors feel the 12 1/2 foot bulk plane is a good fit for the R-1 C neighborhood. Michael Epson 2905 Chase Street, Wheat Ridge Mr. Epson stated he and others in the neighborhood feel the 35 foot height limit does not fit the character of the neighborhood because the majority of homes are one story bungalows. He stated the decks of the large homes look directly in the other backyards and there is a loss of privacy which could limit property values.. Mr. Epson handed out graphics and petition which was circulated through the neighborhood and signed by neighbors who support a 12 1/z bulk plane\and a height'limit of 25 -feet for the R-1 C zone district. He added that those development standards would be more in line with the character of the neighborhood. Victoria Mendoza 3021 Chase Street, Wheat Ridge Ms. Mendoza stated she is happy to be in this neighborhood and added she also does not think the 35 -foot height limit fits the neighborhood and to please consider a 12 1/2 foot bulk plane. She feels the character of the neighborhood will be changed if the height limit stays at 35 -feet. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. ZOA-16-05: An ordinance amending Section 26-711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, concerning billboards, to establish a billboard vacancy process. Ms. Ritchie gave a short presentation regarding the ordinance amendment. 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. She stated that City Council wants to codify an existing administrative policy regarding billboard regulations. Council was asked if there are any other standards if they want to look at, but codifying the policy is the only action they wish to take right now. Planning Commission Minutes -2— September 2— September 15, 2016 Commissioner BODEN asked when the permit application is approved does the contract between the property owner and the billboard company follow the land and is the City involved. He also inquired if the City issues a permit each time the billboard content is changed. Ms. Ritchie explained that the City is not a party to those types of agreements. The intent of the policy is to protect the billboard owner and the landowner. The City also does not review the content of the billboard. Commissioner TIMMS asked if the policy of this ordinance to keep the billboard in the city only along I-70. Ms. Ritchie explained the intent of the policyisto'keep the billboard count at 16 and only along I-70. There are two non -conforming signs along Ward Road that are not oriented toward I-70. Commissioner OHM asked why a building permit and a letter to the Community Development Director are necessary to modify or take down and,replace a billboard. Ms. Mikulak explained that the- notification and demolition permit is a safety net that will protect anyone modifying the, billboard and will also make sure the billboard location will not he lost if'fit.is temporarily taken down. Commissioner DO.RSEY asked, if a fion-conforming billboard is vacated and torn down on Ward Road, would another one be built on I-70. Ms: Ritchie explained weWould still,,only have 16 billboards in the city per the -code.. It was moved by Commissioner TIMMS and seconded by Commissioner LEO to recommend,APPROVAL of the proposed ordinance amending Section 260711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, concerning billboards, to establish a billboard vacancy process. Motioncarried"8-0: B. Case No. MA46-04: An ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 26-615 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning Commercial Mobile Radio Service and making conforming amendments in connection herewith. Ms. Ritchie gave a short presentation regarding the ordinance amendment. 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. Planning Commission Minutes -3— September 3— September 15, 2016 There are new FCC regulations for local government that within 60 days all applications for a facility that is not substantially changing be reviewed and approved. Also staff recommends the establishment of the following additional development standards relate to all facilities: Colocation, Federal Requirements, Safety Standards and Residential Uses. Commissioner BODEN asked about subsection D-4 and abandonment of CMRS facility and the guidelines. Ms. Ritchie said there are guidelines for abandonment, but this particular section about the City being reimbursed is new and was written by the City Attorney and is consistent with similar provisions elsewhere in the code. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked about subsection 8c and why it is possible to put a CMRS facility on a multi -family building as opposed to having a free standing facility and is more of an aesthetic choice. Ms. Ritchie stated the wall mounted antennas are less impactful. Ms. Mikulak added the city has a limited amount of multi-level structures and the wall mounted facilities tend to stand out less than free standing structures and there is more opportunity for colocation. Commissioner BUCKNAM also asked if the change in height from 7 to 12 feet is due to a change in technology requirement. Ms. Ritchie stated it is not uncommon to have taller antennae because it could reduce the amount of facilities in the, city. It was moved by Commissioner KIMSEY and seconded by Commissioner DORSEY to recommend APPROVAL of the proposed ordinance repealing and reenacting section 26-615 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning commercial mobile radio service and making conforming amendments in connection herewith. Motion carried 8-0. 8. OTHER ITEMS A. Discussion: Residential Development Standards and Bulk Plane Mr. Wallace stated that the Community Development Department started research on Residential development standards during the summer of 2016. During study session with both Planning Commission and City Council in July Staff was directed to keep moving forward with the bulk plane research. On August 22, City Council adopted an emergency ordinance which implemented a 45 degree Planning Commission Minutes -4— September 4— September 15, 2016 bulk plane requirement measured at 15 feet above the property line in the R-1 C zone district. This emergency ordinance is effective for 90 days. Mr. Wallace gave a brief description regarding terminology of bulk plane definitions. The bulk plane restricts the building envelope as a structure gets taller. Mr. Wallace explained that neighboring jurisdictions have bulk planes ranging from 10 to 17 feet. Staff does not recommend the 10 or 12 foot bulk plane because they are too restrictive and do not support the City's goal of reinvestment because they severely restrict a property's potential building area. The 17 foot bulk plane is also not recommended by staff because it is too permissive and allows development at a mass and scale that is inconsistent with existing neighborhoods. Staff recommends a 15 foot bulk plane requirement because the height provides a reasonable building envelope in which property owners may reinvest in the property,, while also reducing the likelihood of the three-story construction. With this, Mr: Wallace asked if there is support for a 15 foot bulk plane from the commission. Commissioner BUCKNAM sees the rationale.,for a 15 foot bulk plane and thinks it fits with the Envision Wheat RidgeQompr`ehensive Plan, but with the small lots on the east side of town a 15 foot bulk plane does not address the Envision Wheat Ridge character aspect. He would like to encourage staff and City Council to consider taking in to account geographic boundaries or modification to the 15 foot bulk plane and with the smaller lots a lower bulkplane. Commissioner DORSEY would like to see the difference split between the 10 and 15 foot bulk plane and have a 13 foot bulk plane and he wondered how staff came up with the 15 foot bulk plane. He worries about the people's privacy on the east side of town with the structures being so tall and the 3rd story patios. Mr. Wallace explained that Staff analyzed bulk plane starting between 10 and 17 feet above a property line as those were the most common found throughout the Denver Metro Area. The analysis indicated to Staff that the 15 foot bulk plane was the most appropriate to recommend. Ms. Mikulak added that staff is trying to balance competing goals. Bulk plane can be a one size fits all because it doesn't depend on how wide the lot is, but as the structure gets taller than the further from the property line it gets regardless of the size of the lot. Commissioner KIMSEY said she has reservations to the bulk plane because of the height. She would like to see a graphic of what a 35 foot building looks with a 12 and 15 foot bulk plane. Ms. Mikulak explained that on a 50 foot wide lot a building that is three stories tall which would be allowed under the 35 foot height limit would be 16 feet wide. The bulk plane would apply on all four sides of the property. Planning Commission Minutes -5— September 5— September 15, 2016 Commissioner KIMSEY would like to see staff address window placement for privacy issues. Commissioner TIMMS said he was not present for the previous study session and he recognizes staffs balance and thinks we should be sensitive to the existing homes, but also what the market is looking at. Commissioner TIMMS asked if staff has spoken with any builders regarding bulk plane. Mr. Wallace stated that Staff has not formally asked for input from builders, but that a few builders who have been in the City Offices have inquired about a bulk plane requirement and have even asked why the City of Wheat Ridge does not already have a bulk plane requirement. Many of them build in other cities around the Denver Metro area and are familiar with bulk plane and needing to conform to those requirements and would have no problem conforming to the bulk plane standards. Commissioner TIMMS feels the bulk plane is not the appropriate tool for the concerns being raised. If the main issue is the height and 3 -story homes, maybe the maximum height should be looked at instead. He also stated that residential design standards don't want to be looked at by City Council because of the diversity of housing stock that exists. He asked if this still the vision to have the diversity. Mr. Wallace said there was'no consensus moving forward on residential design standards when brought up to City Council in July. Commissioner TIMMS added he would not support a bulk plane and thinks the issue at hand is the maximum height and that is what should be discussed. Commissioner LEO feels an average bulk plane should be looked at depending on the area a structure is being built. Commissioner WEAVER also feels the average should be taken into consideration depending on the area and/or lot size. She also state that if we don't want certain height in particular areas of the city then that should be looked at. Mr. Wallace explained that City Council would like us to look at bulk plane first and then do some analysis on height limits. Commissioner OHM stated he can see the intent of not having a 3 -story building next to a single story, but would like to continue with the diversity of having different size heights. He has concerns with the bulk plane and how it will affect the architecture of the building. Commissioner OHM would also like to see dimension in the graphics to see if a structure would have 8 or 10 foot ceilings depending on the bulk plane. He also thinks maybe average should be looked at. Planning Commission Minutes -6— September 6— September 15, 2016 Ms. Mikulak stated she is not hearing a consensus on what the vertical height of the bulk plane should be and there is minimal data on the heights of structures to get an average in a specific area the City and staff would have to figure a way to implement that. Commissioner BUCKNAM feels an average of an area can help define the character of the neighborhood and maintain it. Ms. Mikulak stated that staff has been given direction and is trying to balance very conflicting goals. To find an average of a neighborhood that is primarily one story homes will result in only one-story homes being able to be built. The intent of the bulk plane is to scale back new construction in order to not have tall buildings towering over smaller buildings. We trying to respect the character of a neighborhood, but not necessarily preserve it. This is, a challenging topic and we also have to think about the market. Mr. Wallace moved forward with the presentation and explained that staff recommends a bulk plane being applied universally across alb residential zone districts. This would provide a level of assurance that new construction would need to be scaled back and follow the bulk plane, regardless of residential zone district or lot size. With this, Mr-._ Wallace asked if there is support for a universal application of a bulk plane',standard:- Commissioner BUCKNAM,,stated thai in theory it makes sense but wants to take into account the neighborhood and'the,distinct characteristics that need to be addressed. Commissioner KIMSEY agreed with Commissioner BUCKNAM'S statement and added that there needs to be a way toKpreserve the existing nature of a neighborhood and that 35 feet is too tall. Commissioner TIMMS does not think a bulk plane should be applied across all residential zone districts. He also asked if it will apply to agricultural and mixed use zoning. Mr. Wallace said that staff would like feedback on the agricultural zoning for bulk plane because single family uses are permitted. He added that mixed use zoning already has additional setback standards built into the code for instances when mixed use zoning abuts residential and agricultural uses. Commissioner TIMMS doesn't feel bulk plane should apply to agricultural or R-3 zone districts, it's not one size fits all. He would also like to see what our neighboring border cities are doing. Commissioner LEO does not feel the bulk plane should be applied universally, but need to figure a way to figure this out. Planning Commission Minutes -7— September 7— September 15, 2016 Commissioner WEAVER feels that if a bulk plane is applied universally it will be too restrictive and would anger people on the west side of the city. Ms. Mikulak says she is hears from the Commission is to try and identify some geographic area that would require public involvement to possible figure out the bulk plane or maximum height limits. Chair OHM stated he does not want to see a bulk plane universally applied to all residential zone districts either. Ms. Mikulak and Mr. Wallace reminded the Commission that when considering which zone districts the bulk plane should apply it is important to note that in the area of largest concern at the moment, East Wheat_ Ridge, there are many R-3 lots on which single-family homes are permitted to be built. Currently, the emergency bulk plane ordinance only applies to R -1C, and as such structures on R-3 lots can utilize the full 35 foot height maximum. With that, Ms. Mikulak then wanted to know if bulk plane were not applied universally is there a consensus on where it should be applied. Chair OHM would be in support of bulk plane in the R-1 zone district, but would like to see a good neighbor approach also. Commissioner BUCKNAM stated the R -1C is mostly in the east end of Wheat Ridge and keeping neighborhood character is important and City Council should take a good look at this. Commissioner TIMMS stated that if staff is under pressure then the bulk plane should be kept with the R -1C zone district and examine the details at a later date. Commissioner WEAVER doesn't want to rush into a bulk plane standard. Ms. Mikulak reminded the Commission that emergency ordinances are only in effect for 90 -days, so we are now up against a limited time frame in order to establish a new ordinance. Ms. Mikulak then stated that she is hearing that the emergency bulk plane ordinance in the R-1 C zoning be extended as a permanent ordinance for the time being while a more comprehensive analysis is conducted that includes a large public involvement process, a discussion around appropriate heights, and the identification of geographic areas for applying new standards. Chair OHM would also like to hear from the builders in the community. Ms. Mikulak added that housing stock has stagnated and we don't want the zoning code to be the reason for this so we have to figure out how to maintain a balance. Planning Commission Minutes -8— September 8— September 15, 2016 Mr. Wallace moved forward with the presentation, and introduced the current step back requirements that apply to duplexes and multi -family buildings. Staff would consider getting rid of these step back requirements, because they would be duplicated by the bulk plane requirement if applied to all residential zone districts. Mr. Wallace stated that he recognized the Commission had not reached a consensus on bulk plane height or the applicability of bulk plane standards, but still wanted to gather any input the Commission had on this topic. Commissioner BUCKNAM stated we have only seen step backs applied in mixed use and not in residential area. Chair OHM feel the bulk plane would limit more that step backs. Ms. Mikulak reiterated the timeline of the City Council Study session being October 3 and Planning Commission public hearing occurring on October 20. Ms. Mikulak also reminded the Commission that they make recommendations to City Council, who in turn provides direction to Staff. Staff will present City Council with similar information, and discuss the Commissions discussion on the bulk plane topic during the,.October 3 City Council Study Session. Council will provide Staff with direction,, which will then come to Planning Commission in ordinance form at a piiblio hearing. . 9. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by,Commissioner BUCKNAM'and, seconded by Commissioner WEAVER to adjourn the meeting at�8:54 p.m. Motion carried 8-0. Scott Ohm, Chair Planning Commission Minutes September 15, 2016 Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary Maximum Structure size given current zoning. 50 foot Lot ..._.Maxim.um Structure. -size -given.. a 15 foot bulk plane and no height restrictions. 35' max. height with 15 foot bulk plane. 15 foot Bulk Plane Maximum. Structure height' size including' setbacks Typical home ..size in the R -1c - Single story 15' house i- 50 foot Lot One half inch = 10 feet Maximum Structure:size given a,1 2.5 foot bulk plane. 25' max. height with: .5 foot bulk plane. Maximum' Structure size including' setbacks 50 foot Lot 50 foot Lot 12.5 foot IBulk Plane height'. M... .. L..... �.. � N a, c Cr �. � _ Max. building width 40' X 50 foot Lot ..._.Maxim.um Structure. -size -given.. a 15 foot bulk plane and no height restrictions. 35' max. height with 15 foot bulk plane. 15 foot Bulk Plane Maximum. Structure height' size including' setbacks Typical home ..size in the R -1c - Single story 15' house i- 50 foot Lot One half inch = 10 feet Maximum Structure:size given a,1 2.5 foot bulk plane. 25' max. height with: .5 foot bulk plane. Maximum' Structure size including' setbacks 50 foot Lot 50 foot Lot 12.5 foot IBulk Plane height'. Wheat Ridge residents in favor of limiting residential building height to a 121/2 foot bulk plane and a maximum building height of 25 feet in the R-1 C zoning district. Name Address E-mail (Optional) Siqnature V L/ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. bo 1y,e> 7. /* SC C=1+C S, IUVQ, An A t;k , (0 P 6ST 14-7 9. ;Z 9.3 10. 11. -2-706'42;�� )\jQndQzCv:!)02) Choi be 5-�- V�A 0 M -Ow 12. 13.1 __j Lj-'Lt,+�j 1 3OZ5 -8+TOIJ S7 -- V L/ Wheat Ridge residents in favor of limiting residential building height to a 121/2 foot bulk plane and a maximum building height of 25 feet in the R -1C zoning district. Name Address E-mail (Optional) Signature A W i. c 2. ,•�3 ..,.�1-rte-✓ 3l ay��. .b,k�_ 3. 3 l `ZiS� 6-TalJ S r13 i �N _ �-z- o� ,err. �• 4. 01..t� SG viY�lPih, 3 j L{. 5 ` A -t- �, J� Y�nGir f� �c�«(S 49 Yak0.rcrna �Jvl -c na .�atirh L"J. tm 1p 3 5 r Pena 7 OMf-;t • d 6. 9) 14 5 tkl_ n� I � 7. � Iv \ � IY� � ��O � 1YW uL lei �/ � • 1 8. ZZ� W� AX l 9. o.� �.� �"� Gx— 3 k Lt -�ee c i- 10. vl�� cr��lf�,�� 11. ��� a �o.Za--` c� `c�q`d� �\. S � 5'�C o„ •� c�� (� ' .CO 12.�'C oc�! 07 S� efGL (y1 °�1 i 13. �j O �,� O(t," �,�,► roiG �� o� i(A,�, � �C,19&c`�� � �' q f)y)"u • Coo:\ �"''� � ►� � �,[� ' ` r�,1� Wheat Ridge residents in favor of limiting residential building height to a 121/2 foot bulk plane and a maximum building height of 25 feet in the R -1C zoning district. 1. 2. 3. 4. 8. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Name Address E-mail (Optional) Signature Vlfnct .� Wheat Ridge residents in favor of limiting residential building height to a 121/2 foot bulk plane and a maximum building height of 25 feet in the R -1C zoning district. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Name Address E-mail (Obtional) Sianature 212 r� t litAP -- _ - - Apf 16 _+y y.; ', '• '.�f *�1'�Nti'yC-�:,, I! d:I' 1p •i•,�1' Y -J"„ yl3ld[•dr9[y,N F'•f'� U� yy ' City of � Wheat�dge CC]naMUNiTY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Planning Commission FROM: Zack Wallace, Planning Technician DATE: September 9, 2016 (for September 15 Planning Commission Meeting) SUBJECT: Residential Development Standards and Bulk Plane Background Staff has been researching residential development standards for several months, and presented research findings in July during study sessions with both Planning Commission and City Council. Staff received direction to keep moving forward with research into bulk plane standards. Subsequent to the July study sessions, City Council considered a moratorium on building permits in the R -1C zone district, and ultimately approved an emergency ordinance implementing a 45° bulk plane requirement measured at 15 feet above the property line in the R -1C zone district effective August 22, 2016. As an emergency ordinance it is effective for 90 days, expiring in mid-November. In the meantime, staff is continuing forward with our research following City Council and Planning Commission direction from July and drafting a bulk plane ordinance for the City's residential zone districts. The ordinance is on track to be presented to City Council prior to the expiration of the emergency ordinance on the following timeline: - September 15: Planning Commission Study Session - October 3: City Council Study Session - October 20: Ordinance Public Hearing at Planning Commission - October 24: Ordinance 1 st Reading at City Council - November 14: Ordinance Public Hearing at City Council Proposed Approach Based on public comment, Planning Commission and City Council feedback, and review of the City's adopted plans; staff is recommending bulk plane regulations as the most appropriate mechanism to regulate residential construction in all residential zone districts. The City's 2009 Comprehensive Plan, Envision Wheat Ridge, is organized around a series of values and goals. Among the key values is to "promote vibrant neighborhoods and an array of housing options." A stated goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain and enhance the quality and character of existing neighborhoods. The Comprehensive Plan also calls for increased housing options, and encourages investment in existing neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy was adopted in 2005 and also encourages reinvestment in Wheat Ridge neighborhoods recognizing that the City's housing stock tends to be older ranch -style construction that does not adequately meet the demands of the modern homebuyer. Any proposed regulation will need to provide some balance by creating a reasonable regulatory tool that accommodates new investment but achieves contextually -sensitive designs. This memo outlines bulk plane standards that respect the intent of these guiding documents by maintaining and enhancing the quality and character of the existing neighborhoods while also encouraging investment. The remainder of this memo is structured as follows: • Bulk plane terminology • Bulk plane height analysis • Applicability of bulk plane standards • Bulk plane vs stepbacks • Exemptions to bulk plane standards • Discussion Bulk plane terminology A bulk plane regulation includes new terminology that has not previously been incorporated in the City's zoning code. These terms are defined below and a prototypical bulk plane graphic is provided. Base plane: The horizontal plane which is generally parallel to a property's original grade from which building height and bulk plane are measured. Bulk plane: the angled plane which extends from a set height above each property line and constrains the permitted building envelope. Building envelope: the three-dimensional space within which a structure is permitted to be built on a lot and which is defined by regulations governing building setbacks, maximum height, and bulk place; by other regulations; or any combination thereof. BASE PLANE Figure 1: Visual representation of bulk plane definitions By creating a diagonal limit on vertical construction, a bulk plane regulation requires a building 2 or upper story to increase its distance from the property line as it gets taller in height. Typically this can still allow multi -story construction, but it increases the separation between homes and generally results in a more context -sensitive development. Bulkplane height analysis Based on research of neighboring jurisdictions, bulk plane heights are most commonly established between 10 and 17 feet above the property line depending on the context in which development is occurring. Staff is recommending that the City's bulk plane begin at a height of 15 feet above the property line. The images below show a variety of bulk plane heights, with a structure located at a 5 -foot setback, as this would be the instance of largest impact of bulk plane regulations on property development, and this setback is allowed in several zone districts. The images include a two- story home, as Staff has determined that this is a reasonable development pattern to accommodate, and investment in existing housing stock often includes a "pop -top" or second story addition to expand the size of the City's relatively small single -story homes. Not recommended: 10 foot bulk plane — The 10 -foot bulk plane is the least common. It may be too restrictive and does not support the goal of reinvestment. It severely cuts into the buildable area for a second story and may make construction difficult and costly as ceiling heights are unable to be achieved without costly retrofits to typical construction techniques. It has the potential to negatively impact properties through an overly restrictive buildable area, especially on the City's smaller lots. On the City's narrowest lot (50 -foot wide), it would be nearly impossible to construct even a two-story home because it far exceeds the building envelope created by the 10 -foot bulk plane. Figure 2: 10 -foot bulk plane 3 Not recommended: 12 foot bulk plane — The 12 -foot bulk plane is somewhat more common in its application on a metro wide level. However, Staff's analysis shows that, like the 10 -foot bulk plane, the 12 -foot bulk plane may be too restrictive and does not support the goal of reinvestment. It cuts into the buildable area for a second story and may make construction difficult and costly as ceiling heights are unable to be achieved without costly retrofits to typical construction techniques. Figure 3: 12 -foot bulk plane Not recommended: 17 foot bulk plane — Staff feels the 17 -foot bulk plane height may be too permissive and allows development at a mass and scale inconsistent with existing neighborhoods. It would allow a full two -stories at a 5 -foot setback and could still allow a substantially sized 3'd story. Figure 4: 17 -foot bulk plane M Recommended: 15 -foot bulk plane — Ultimately staff is recommending a bulk plane beginning at 15 feet above each property line. This height provides a reasonable building envelope in which property owners may reinvest in their property, while also reducing the likelihood of the three-story construction that has caused recent concern. 45° 15':V L Figure 4,,15 -foot bulk plane Staff's analysis shows that a new two-story home with typical ceiling heights would fit within a 15 -foot bulk plane with an approximate 7 -foot setback. Most side setbacks are only 5 feet, as shown in the image above, but an increased setback for a taller structure within the bulk plane is appropriate. Most two-story homes are constructed with the stories stacked and not offset to control construction costs and to create a less complicated load bearing wall situations. Alternatively, the first story could be at a minimum 5 -foot setback and a second story would be stepped back further. Either option provides a reasonable accommodation for new construction while increasing the separation between two-story homes and the City's existing one-story homes. A 15 -foot bulk plane would conceivably allow for a third story, though in very limited circumstances. A three-story home would need to have approximately 17 -foot .setbacks from the property line if the stories were constructed in vertical alignment with each other. This setback assumes a typical 11 -foot story which provides space between floors for mechanical/electrical equipment and the like. Applicability of bulkplane standards Staff recommends applying the 15 -foot bulk plane universally across all residential zone districts. This will provide a level of assurance to property owners city-wide that potential redevelopment of adjacent residential properties will need to be properly scaled back to comply with the bulk plane. Additionally, Section 26-120 of the Municipal Code (Nonconforming lots, uses and structures) states that a single-family dwelling is permitted on any single lot of record, 5 provided the lot is in separate ownership and not continuous frontage with other lots under the same ownership. This means that single-family homes must comply with the development standards established for the zone district (height and setback), but may be developed regardless of lot area and/or width. Applying the bulk -plane standards universally ensures that substandard lots across the City, on which single-family homes are a use by right, will be scaled back to ensure they are respectful of surrounding properties. Staff is recommending that the bulk plane standards apply to all structures—primary and accessory. Given existing height limitations and typical rooflines, it is unlikely that a 15 -foot bulk plane would impact the construction of accessory structures. It may require increased setbacks for a gambrel -style (barn like) garage which tends to be taller than a garage with a standard hip or gable roof. Bulkplane vs stepbacks Currently the zoning code calls for additional setbacks, or "stepbacks," for duplexes and multi- family structures. An additional 5 -foot setback per upper story is enforced for all duplexes (in R- 2, R -2A, R-3, and R -3A) and for multifamily structures in the R -2A zone district. In the R-3 and R -3A zone districts multifamily structures must have a setback of 15 -feet for the first 2 stories and an additional 5 feet for each additional story. Figure 26-123.1 is provided in the Code for clarification on how to enforce the setbacks. - Per story setback measured from the closest point of the 101 additional story 10' 10' per story (in this example) Side/Rear Setback Figure 26-123.1; Where side and rear setbacks are based on the number of stories of the building, the setback is measured from the closest point of the additional story, not the first story. In this example, the closest point of the third floor must be setback 15 feet (5 foot per story). Figure 5: Stepback diagram from the Wheat Ridge Municipal Code It is staff's opinion that the bulk plane ordinance creates the same regulatory framework by requiring additional setbacks or stepbacks as structure increases in height. For clarity and consistency, staff recommends removing the Stepback provisions described above to avoid on confusion and redundancy with the proposed bulk plane regulations. Exemptions to bulkplane standards Currently Section 26-61 LA of the Code allows setback encroachments for the following: - Porches, patios, decks and balconies open on at least 2 sides may encroach in a setback up to 8 feet into a front setback or 1/3 distance to property line for side and rear yard - Architectural features including cornices eaves, sills, canopies, etc. may encroach no more than 30 inches Chimneys may encroach into front, side, or rear yards no more than 2 feet, so long as a yard is not reduced to less than 3 feet Fire escapes, open stairways may encroach any distance, so long as a yard is not reduced to less than 3 feet The City of Wheat Ridge exemptions are limited to horizontal encroachments, as the City has not had any form of vertical restrictions other than the 35 foot height maximum for residential buildings. If a bulk plane standard is adopted, it may be appropriate to consider possible allowances for encroachments into and above the 45 degree bulk plane. The following cities have bulk plane standards and have adopted exemptions for the following building elements: - Roof overhangs or eaves for the primary roof (no more than 30 inches) - Rooftop solar systems that are flush -mounted to the roof, or mounted at no more than a 15 degree angle - The gable end of a sloping roof form up to 8 feet (with limitations on width) - Dormers no more than 8 feet wide and 6 feet tall (with limitations on size) - Chimneys no more than 70 inches wide and 30 inches deep - Insubstantial encroachments that are small and do not substantially increase the bulk (e.g. radio or TV antennae, small architectural details, sculptural elements, weather vanes) - Bulk plane does not apply for the side yard if it adjacent to a nonresidential principal land use or lots that include multi -family 7 Figure 6: Boulder bulk plane exemptions (Source: Side Yard Bulk Plane Handout, City of Boulder) • Englewood - Dormers with windows may exceed the bulk plane but not the height of the ridgeline of the roof surface (with limitations on size) - Eaves (no more than 24 inches) - Gutters - Chimneys (no more than 10 feet) - Patio or deck railings that are at least 75% open or transparent (maximum of 42 inches) - Multi -family buildings consisting of 5 or more units, non-residential development, and accessory structures in residential zone districts and 2 mixed use districts Denver - Eaves - Unoccupied spires, towers, flagpoles, antennas, chimneys, flues and vents (maximum of 28') - Flush -mounted solar panels - Evaporative coolers As evidenced by the exceptions in other communities, it may be appropriate to exempt certain architectural features. Such exemptions are in the spirit of the City's current regulations which already acknowledge reasonable types of encroachments. The exemption of a deck railing (Englewood) would allow open rooftop decks where the building envelope prohibits an upper story but the building code requires adequate enclosure. Variance In certain situations, it may be possible to seek relief from the bulk plane standards through the City's variance process. This process is outlined in Section 26-115 of the zoning code. A variance can be appropriate when strict application of a development standard creates a hardship. All variance requests are evaluated against a set of nine criteria. Depending on the extent of the Dormers and Gable End Roof Forms Solar.vsteinv Chimneys and Roof Overhangs Figure 6: Boulder bulk plane exemptions (Source: Side Yard Bulk Plane Handout, City of Boulder) • Englewood - Dormers with windows may exceed the bulk plane but not the height of the ridgeline of the roof surface (with limitations on size) - Eaves (no more than 24 inches) - Gutters - Chimneys (no more than 10 feet) - Patio or deck railings that are at least 75% open or transparent (maximum of 42 inches) - Multi -family buildings consisting of 5 or more units, non-residential development, and accessory structures in residential zone districts and 2 mixed use districts Denver - Eaves - Unoccupied spires, towers, flagpoles, antennas, chimneys, flues and vents (maximum of 28') - Flush -mounted solar panels - Evaporative coolers As evidenced by the exceptions in other communities, it may be appropriate to exempt certain architectural features. Such exemptions are in the spirit of the City's current regulations which already acknowledge reasonable types of encroachments. The exemption of a deck railing (Englewood) would allow open rooftop decks where the building envelope prohibits an upper story but the building code requires adequate enclosure. Variance In certain situations, it may be possible to seek relief from the bulk plane standards through the City's variance process. This process is outlined in Section 26-115 of the zoning code. A variance can be appropriate when strict application of a development standard creates a hardship. All variance requests are evaluated against a set of nine criteria. Depending on the extent of the request and neighborhood input, a variance is typically either reviewed administratively or by the Board of Adjustment. Variance requests are expressed in numeric terms; for example, "a 2 -foot (33%) variance from the 6 -foot maximum height requirement resulting in an 8 -foot fence." Staff is currently evaluating how a variance from the bulk plane standards would be quantified. No code amendment pertaining to bulk plane variances is recommended at this time. Discussion Staff is seeking feedback on the recommendations and discussion items outlined in this memo, specifically: • Is there support for a bulk plane regulation that begins at 15 feet above all property lines? • Is there support for applying the bulk plane regulations in all residential zone districts? • Is there support for removing the current "stepback" standards that duplicate the regulatory framework created by the bulk plane? • Is there support for identifying limited acceptable encroachments into the bulk plane or other exceptions? C �6A4 11 City of / Wheat Fkidge PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA September 15, 2016 Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on September 15, 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.ei.wheatridge.co.us/95IPlanning-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 — September 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 A. ZOA-16-05: An ordinance amending Section 26-711 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, concerning billboards, to establish a billboard vacancy process. B. ZOA-16-04: An ordinance repealing and reenacting Section 26-615 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning Commercial Mobile Radio Service and making conforming amendments in connection herewith. 8. OTHER ITEMS A. Discussion: Residential Development Standards and Bulk Plane 9. 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. CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HOPPE COUNCIL BILL NO. 21 ORDINANCE NO.1602 Series 2016 TITLE: A TEMPORARY ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF BULK PLANE STANDARDS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL -ONE C (R -1C) ZONE DISTRICT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge ("City") is a home rule municipality operating under a charter adopted pursuant to Article XX of the Colorado Constitution and vested with the authority by that article and the Colorado Revised Statutes to adopt ordinances for the regulation of land use and protection of the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, in exercise of that authority, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge has previously enacted Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws (the "Code") pertaining to zoning, land use, and development; and WHEREAS, the City is witnessing three-story residential infill development in established neighborhoods consisting of mostly single -story residences; and WHEREAS, the City Council has identified this development pattern as constituting a detriment to the public peace, health, and safety by impacting privacy and impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance is necessary to address this development pattern; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that this ordinance will improve the quality or character of new development and further enhance and protect existing neighborhoods while the issue is being further studied; NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO; Section 1. Section 26-120.C.1 (Nonconforming structures and uses.) of the Code is amended to read. Any one- or two-family dwelling structure or customary accessory structures may be enlarged, altered or added to provided that all lot coverage requirements of the zoning district in which the structure is located are met, and provided that the enlargement, alteration or addition does not increase the extent of nonconforming setbacks by encroaching beyond the existing setback line. THE RESIDENTIAL BULK PLANE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SECTION 26-611.A. SHALL APPLY TO ANY ENLARGEMENT, ALTERATION OR ADDITION OF BOTH PRIMARY AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. In instances of corner lots, no enlargement, alteration or addition shall be permitted to encroach within the minimum sight distance triangle as set forth in subsection 26-6038. In addition, no enlargement, alteration or addition which extends within the nonconforming area shall result in the development of any additional dwelling units. Section 2. Section 26-123 (Definitions.) of the Code is amended by the addition of the following definitions in their appropriate alphabetical locations: Base plane. The horizontal plane which is generally parallel to a property's original grade from which building height and bulk plane are measured. Building envelope. The three-dimensional space within which a structure is permitted to be built on a lot and which is defined by regulations governing building setbacks, maximum height, and bulk plane; by other regulations; or any combination thereof. Bulk plane. The angled plane which extends from a set height above each property line and constrains the permitted building envelope. Section 3. Section 26-208,13 (Residential -One C District [R -1C] Development Standards) of the Code is amended by the addition of footnote (f) as follows: Principal One-familya Buildings dwelling 35' (f) 40 /0 5,000 sf 50' 20' (d) 5' S' 35' (0 40% 5,000 sf 50' 20' (d) 5' 5' Group home Churches, schools, government and quasi - government buildings, golf 35' (f) 40% 1 acre 200' 20' (d) 15' 20' courses, small day care center, and nursing, elderly and congregate care homes Accessory Major 15' (f) 600 sf N/A N/A 20' (d) 5' 5' Buildings Minor 10' (f) 300 sf N/A NIA 20' (d) S. 5' e All other Uses 35' (f) 40% 91.000 sf 60' 20'(d) 6 (e) 10' (F) BULK PLANE REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 26-611. Section 4. Section 26-611 (Building setbacks.) of the Code is amended by the addition of subsection A as follows (with appropriate relettering of subsequent sections): 26-611. BULK PLANE AND Building Setbacks: A. BULK PLANE. IN ADDITION TO THE HEIGHT AND SETBACK STANDARDS OF ARTICLE 11, BUILDING ENVELOPES ARE REGULATED BY A THREE-DIMENSIONAL BULK PLANE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY, PRIVACY, AND THE ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LIGHT AND AIR. 1 APPLICABILITY, THE BULK PLANE RESTRICTIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL STRUCTURES ON A LOT FOR WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE NO ----, SERIES 2016. THE ENTIRETY OF ANY BUILDING ENVELOPE SHALL BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE BULK PLANE, UNLESS OTHERWISE EXEMPTED BY SUBSECTION 4. 2. MEASUREMENT OF BULK PLANE. THE BULK PLANE IS A PLANE THAT BEGINS FIFTEEN (15) FEET ABOVE EVERY PROPERTY LINE OF A LOT OR PARCEL, WHICH THEN SLOPES AT A FORTY-FIVE (45) DEGREE ANGLE UNTIL. IT INTERSECTS THE BULK PLANE FROM THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE LOT OR PARCEL. SEE FIGURE 26-611.2. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE 11, CHAPTER 26 SHALL APPLY REGARDLESS OF THE HEIGHT AT WHICH THE TWO OPPOSITE BULK PLANES INTERSECT ABOVE THE LOT OR PARCEL. 3. MEASUREMENT OF BASE PLANE. THE BASE PLANE SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE ORIGINAL AVERAGE GRADE OF A LOT OR PARCEL. AVERAGE GRADE SHALL BE CALCULATED AS THE AVERAGE OF THE ELEVATIONS TAKEN ATTHE MIDPOINTS OF EACH PROPERTY LINE. SEE FIGURE 26-611.3.. 4. EXCEPTIONS. ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE BULK PLANE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED, EXCEPT FOR THOSE ENCROACHMENTS EXPLICITLY ALLOWED IN SECTION 26- 611.8, ITEMS 1 THROUGH 4. Section 5. Section 26-611 (Building setbacks.) of the Code is amended by the addition of Figure 26.611.2. Bulk a+. Bulk o;; ieght 35 Base Plane Figure 26-611.2. Section view of bulk plane building envelope, as measured from all property lines. Section 6. Section 26-611 (Building setbacks.) of the Code is amended by the addition of Figure 26-611.3. Figure 26-611.3. Average Grade Calculation AVERAGE GRADE CALCULATION 280281 �. 283 —Aft - 411128 = 282 = AVERAGE GRADE Section 7. Emergency Declared. Pursuant to Charter Section 5.13 the Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge and that this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health and safety. Specifically, the immediate effectiveness of this Ordinance is necessary to address currently -occurring three-story residential infill development in established neighborhoods in a manner which constitutes a detriment to the public peace, health, and safety by impacting privacy and impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties Section 8. Effective Date. As provided by Charter Section 5.13, this Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon final passage and shall not be in effect for longer than ninety (90) days from the date of passage, INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED as an emergency ordinance by a vote of 8 to o , this 22nd day of August , 2016 and ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge. SIGNED by the Mayor on this 22nd day of August , 2016, ATTEST: J elle Shaver, C' Clerk bN H E,4 T c tSEAL t Ot ORA+�� Publication. August 25, 2016 Wheat Ridge Transcript City Council Minutes August 22, 2016 Page 3 c) Motion to award a contract to W.L. Contractors, Inc. of Arvada, CO for on-call maintenance and repair services of traffic signals and streetipedestnan lights [One year plus renewal options, starts 9/17116; $45K approved in 2016 budget] d) Motion to award a contract to ABCO Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $173,183 for the Bridge Rehabilitation Project on Marshall Street over Clear Creek, and to approve a 20% Contingency of $34,650 for a total amount of $207,833 [$320K budgeted in 2015 CIP, carried over] e) Resolution 30-20.16 -- approving an Agreement with US Retail Partners LLC providing for the design and construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of 32nd Ave. and Xenon Street (City share for design, installation and credit due is $210,500) Councilmember Danis introduced the Consent Agenda Motion by Councilmember Davis to approve the Consent Agenda items a), b), c), d) and e); seconded by Councilmember Pond; carried 8-0. EMERGENCY ORDINANCE 2. Council Bill No. 21-2016 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the Regulation of Bulk Plane Standards for the Residential -One C (R-1 C) Zone District and declaring an emergency (Case No. ZOA-16-03) In response to recent development patterns Council directed staff to draft an emergency ordinance implementing a 45 -degree bulk plane beginning at 15 -feet above the property line for properties zoned R1 -C. Councilmember Hoppe introduced the Emergency Ordinance. Clerk Shaver assigned Ordinance number 1602. Mayor Jay opened the public hearing. Staff presentation Lauren Mikulak, City planner, entered into the record the case file, the zoning ordinance and the emergency ordinance. • At 15 feet above the property line a 45 degree angle is extended. • Per Council's direction the ordinance will apply only to R-1 C. • The impact will be to scale back the massing of any new structure or addition. • The ordinance will be effective for 90 days. Analysis of the issue will continue during this time, with a public process that typically accompanies a code amendment. o Tentative timeline for proposed permanent changes to Chapter 26 is: City Council Minutes August 22, 2015 Page 4 Planning Commission: Study Session on Sept. 15; Public Hearing Oct. 6 City Council: 15t reading on Oct 10: 2nd reading (public hearing) on Oct 14. o This provides three opportunities for public comment. Public Comment Benny Gonzales (Eaton St, WR) urged Council to approve this ordinance. He and his neighbors favor a height restriction of 12% feet as more in line with what exists in the neighborhood. He has signatures of support. Jesse Hill (Chase St, WR) is shocked that Council is fast tracking this with an emergency ordinance. Rather than pass this ordinance he asked that they slow down, involve the community, and do it right. It's causing difficulties and strife in the neighborhood; people who've invested lots of time and money in their properties will have to put their plans on hold. He asked Council to take time and give people a chance to alter their plans. There are so many technical aspects to this and it's changing what was intended for the neighborhood. Jerry DiTullio (WR) noted the City Charter has allowed 35 feet for years, and the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy of 2005 says we need to look at more new market rate housing — especially in District 1. He sees the emergency ordinance as a win—win: It says we're open for business and uses the bulk plane restriction most Colorado cities use. Variances are still an option; staff can approve that if it's 50% or less, or a public process can take place. He thinks a moratorium says we're closed for business. Katie Jacobson (Chase St, WR) thanked Council for considering this ordinance and for taking immediate action. She urged them to consider all options -- including bulk plane between 10 and 15 feet, larger rear setbacks, and a lower overall height requirement. Victoria Mendoza (WR) agrees with the emergency ordinance. She understands people have investment, but there are many issues to study and.the impact to the neighbors and the neighborhood should be considered. Vivian Vos (WR) supports doing something about these tall houses — which she and others fear going in next door. She urged clear headed thinking and listening to citizens. Council has determined this development pattern continues as a detriment to the public peace, health, safety and welfare by impacting privacy and the flow of adequate air and light to adjacent properties. That should be the number one concern — not the developers. Considering the two consensuses from last week — one from the citizens' point of view and the other from a developer's view point, she urged Council to do what's best for all the community. Michael Epson (Chase St, WR) talked about the neighborly environment that exists in the R-1 C zone due to the small lots. It's a very special relationship that doesn't exist where there are large lots. They'd really like to see the bulk plane height be 121/2 feet — given the narrowness and small size of the lots. They don't want to stop development, but the architecture of the neighborhood needs to matched. He asked for a show of hands from the audience who supported 121/2 feet, but was denied by the mayor. He urged passing a moratorium and getting the height down to 121/2 feet. Many citizens back that. City Council Minutes August 22, 2016 Page 5 Kim Calomino (WR) urged caution on a moratorium which she feels could threaten property rights and have a lasting ripple effect on our reputation. She questioned if this is really an emergency. Many people have significant investment in renovation of our housing stock — which is what we envision. Alignment with the NRS study and the comp plan should be considered. Limitations in the bulk plane regulations can complicate design. More time is needed. She urged Council not to pass the emergency ordinance, but to engage property owners. A public process is necessary to listen to all the voices. Al Lazaide (Chase St, WR) lives across the street from one of the tall house. His view of the mountains and trees is gone. He'd like the Council and mayor to make it 12'/12 feet bulk plane and a 25 ft height limit. Having lived in the area for 43 years it makes him sad to see this happen. He works construction and knows growth is important to an area, but he believes you also have to be responsible. Loretta Campbell (Chase St, WR) is concerned about the three-story, flat roofed houses. The alignment of uphill and downhill windows is a problem. She related a personal experience she had because people could see directly into the middle of her house. She read from the Comprehensive Plan that says "we value existing residential communities and ...... a goal is to maintain and enhance the character of the neighborhoods. Mayor Jay closed the public hearing. Motion by Councilmember Hoppe to approve Council Bill No. 21-2016, an ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the regulation of bulk plane standards for the residential -One C (R-1 C) zone district, and declaring an emergency; seconded by Councilmember Pond. Motion by Councilmember Duran for a substitute motion enacting a 90 -day moratorium on the same activities, and calling for a brief recess so the City Attorney can craft a temporary moratorium ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Mathews. Mr. Dahl advised that if this motion passes, per Roberts' Rules, it will serve as a proper substitution and become a new ordinance. He will then bring forward the new ordinance and another vote of Council will be necessary to complete the action. Discussion followed. Councilmember Mathews spoke about reasonable times for limitations on property rights. and the expectations of an established community. People who come into an established neighborhood have a responsibility to respect the people who are already there. Projects being put on hold is a normal pant of the construction businesses. Developers don't care about the neighborhood; they only care about their, profit margin. He favors a moratorium instead of this emergency ordinance, with a compromise of 27 feet, so that height and setbacks can be addressed in all districts and the charm and ambiance of our neighborhoods can be preserved. City Council Minutes August 22, 2016 Page 6 Councilmember Duran noted there is no desire to impede anyone improving their home, but District 1 has 600 parcels of R-1 C property. All citizens want is to step back, have these conversations in 90 days, and arrive at a solution that is pleasing to everyone. Councilmember Davis thinks the 90 -day emergency ordinance is about the same as a moratorium. Staff has said there will be public outreach. She thinks the original motion is a compromise using standards that other communities use. Citizens will have ideas. It was clarified that the original motion and the substitute motion are both for 90 days. Councilmember Duran's motion failed 3-5, with Councilmembers Wooden, Fitzgerald, Davis, Pond, and Hoppe voting no. knotion by Councilmember Duran to add to the title that it is a "temporary" ordinance, seconded by Councilmember Mathews. Discussion followed. Councilmember Hoppe thinks this is the right way to address this because a moratorium can send a wrong message. There are people who've invested money in their properties with an expectation. Council shouldn't judge what is ugly; she said some people love these modern structures. She believes moratoriums can have consequences. Councilmember Fitzgerald will support this temporary ordinance because there are many different constituencies — current residents and developers. One of our goals is to improve our housing stock. Bulk planes are complicated and we want to reach a balance where everyone's interest is taken care of. A temporary moratorium is actually beneficial to us all because we can take time and do it the right way. It was established that there are no projects like this in the mill — so no one will have a problem. Three months is not long to wait. Councilmember Urban announced he would begrudgingly vote for this, but he thinks vetting in a public process needs to happen. He's concerned that an emergency ordinance process limits transparency and people's ability to speak on it. Councilmember Pond is sorry we've come to the point of a moratorium or emergency ordinance. He doesn't think this is the best way to handle it, but believes this represents a substantial outreach to the public and a good compromise. As Council continues its work there will be three more opportunities for public input. Councilmember Wooden noted that everyone's preferences are different and there are no guarantees that nothing will ever change in a neighborhood. She said the Council is trying to work on compromise for existing home owners and those coming in. Councilmember Duran thinks a moratorium sends a good message - that Council cares enough to take 90 days to discuss with citizens what they want in their neighborhood. She's also never heard one citizen says these houses are ugly. City Council Minutes August 22, 2016 Wage 7 Lauren Mikulak suggested there should probably be another study session with Council. Staff will work to get this on the website so online comments can be submitted. Councilmember Mathews asked that in addition to height, staff also consider setbacks on all sides and something about neighborhood characterization. He'd also like to look at transition between zone areas sometime in the future. Mr, Goff informed that this process will only be about bulk plane in R-1 C -- not height or setbacks. The main motion, as amended, carried 8.0. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING 3. Council Bill 08-2016 —An Ordinance approving a Zone Change from Planned Commercial Development to Planned Industrial Development and a request for approval of an Outline Development Plan for Property located at 12700 W. 44t� Ave. (Case No. WZ-10/Stor-all Storage) This request for rezoning, and concurrent request for approval of a Specific Development Plan (SPD) [Agenda Item 4] is to facilitate the construction of storage units. A legal protest for the zone change was filed by the neighbors — thus requiring a super - majority vote of the Council for approval. Councilmember Wooden introduced Council Bill 08-2016. Clerk Shaver assigned Ordinance 1603. Mayor .lay opened the public hearing and swore in the speakers. Staff presentation Lisa Ritchie gave the staff presentation. She entered into the record the case file, zoning ordinance, comprehensive plan and the contents of her presentation. She also entered into the records three letters from neighbors that have been received. [The letters are from Ray Stromeyer, Elias Loya and Millie Richards, and Nicholas Dymond. All oppose the rezoning to Industrial and the height of the proposed building. • The 1.81 -acre property along Youngfield near 4411 Ave. is triangle shaped. • It was zoned as Planned Commercial Development (PCD) in 1985. • Surrounding zoning includes A-2 (agriculture) with single family homes and a small business to the northeast. • The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as a neighborhood buffer. • The irrigation ditch along Youngfield is to be piped and buried. • The property has an extension out onto Xenon Street. • The Outline Development Plan (ODP) which establishes zoning and uses, and the Specific Development Plan (SDP), the site plan, are being processed concurrently, • A subdivision plat will be submitted and processed administratively. City of W h6at Pic ge ITEM NO: A DATE: August 22, 2016 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION TITLE; COUNCIL BILL NO. 21-2016- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF BULK PLANE STANDARDS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL -ONE C (R-10 ZONE DISTRICT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY (CASE NO. ZOA-16-Q3) ® PUBLIC HEARING ❑ ORDINANCES. FOR IST READING ❑ BIDS/MOTIONS ❑ ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING ❑ RESOLUTIONS 0 EMERGENCY ORDINANCE QUASI-JUDICIAL: ® YES r t-.c,mmnnity ogVelo+arbirector ❑ NO City Manager ISSUE: This ordinance introduces bulk plane requirements for the Residential -One C (R -1C) zone district. This amendment is in response to recent development patterns, largely seen in east Wheat Ridge, where new homes are being constructed to the full extent of the current development standards (specifically height and minimum setbacks) allowed by Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge. Code of Laws. The City Council has determined that this development pattern constitutes a detriment to the public peace, health, safety, and welfare by impacting privacy and impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties. As such, the City Council directed staff to draft an emergency ordinance implementing a 45 -degree bulk plane beginning at 154eet above the property line for properties zoned Residential -One C. Being declared an emergency by City Council, this ordinance will become effective immediately for a period of 90 days, expiring November 20, 2016. Council Action Form - R -IC Bulk Plane August 22. 2016 Page 2 PRIOR ACTION: Staff introduced the issue of bulk plane to City Council at a study session on July 18, 2016, where consensus was reached for staff to move forward with researching and drafting a bulk plane ordinance. A study session with Planning Commission on July 21, 2016 produced similar sentiments and a similar outcome, with some additional input. At a study session on August 15, 2016, City Council directed that an emergency ordinance be drafted to implement a bulk plane requirement beginning at 15 feet above the property line and extending over the property at a 45 - degree angle for properties zoned R -1C. Constituting an emergency, as defined by City Council. the adopting of this ordinance does not require the typical public noticing, Planning Commission public hearing, and 1" reading requirements. Under the Charter,, the ordinance can be adopted on a single reading and will be immediately effective. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed ordinance is not expected to have a direct financial impact on the City. BACKGROUND: Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws permits residential structures in all residential zone districts to be a maximum height of 35 feet high. This maximum height has remained consistent since the City of Wheat Ridge was incorporated in 1969. In recent months there has been growing concern from some residents and property owners regarding new infill residential homes in their neighborhoods. These new single-family homes are largely located in the Residential -One C (R- I C) zone district, the City's smallest lot single family residential zone district. This zone district allows for the aforementioned maximum height of 35 feet, in addition to a minimum 50 -foot wide lot, with 5 -foot side and rear yard setbacks. Many of the newer infill residential homes are utilizing the full extent of the provided development standards with regard to minimum setbacks and maximum building height. The neighbors have testified before City Council that these projects are a stark contrast to their largely pre -1955, one-story, bungalow -style neighborhood. Proposed Amendments Below is a summary of the proposed code amendment which would temporarily address this issue while staff continues to explore further bulk plane requirements and other alterations to existing residential development standards. Introduce a bulk plane beginning at 15 feet above each property line ,and extending over file site at a 45 -degree angle for properties zoned Residential -One C (R-1 C}. The code amendment would not change the maximum height allowed in any zone district, but would require a building envelope to fit entirely within the bulk plane. In most cases this means a structure must be scaled back as it reaches taller heights. The bulk plane regulations will be more impactful on narrower lots, with the bulk plane likely to limit third -story development. Council Action Form — R-1 C Bulk Plane August 22, 2016 Page 3 The bulk plane requirement will likely have less impact on wider lots, as there is more room to incorporate additional setbacks. Bulk Pune: 450 Maximum Height: 35 Base Plane Section view of bulk -plane building envelope, as measurefrom a!1 proper, lures. This amendment would codify the consensus motion from City Council at their August 15, 2016 study session. That consensus directed staff to draft an emergency ordinance for consideration and adoption on August 22, 2016 implementing a 45 -degree bulk plane beginning 15 feet above each property line for properties zoned Residential -One C (R-1 Q. Due to City Council determining this to be an emergency ordinance, under City Charter terms, it will only be in effect for 90 days. Staff will continue to work on drafting an ordinance for consideration prior to the expiration of this ordinance. In particular, staff is exploring the applicability of bulk plane standards on additional residential zone districts. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval ofthe emergency ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION: `I move to approve Council Bill No. 21-2tl16. an ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the regulation of bulk plane standards for the Residential -One C (R -1C) zone district. and declaring an emergency." Or, 41 move to postpone indefinitely Council Ball No. 21-2016, an ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the regulation of bulk plane Council Action 1'onn R-1 C Bulk Plane August 221x 7-016 Page 4 standards for the Residential -One C (R-1 C) zone district and declaring an emergency, for the following reasons) REPORT PREPARED BY: Zack Wallace, Planning Technician Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director Patrick Goff.. City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Bill No. 21-2016 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL BILL NO. 21 -- ORDINANCE NO. Series 2016 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING THE REGULATION OF BULK PLANE STANDARDS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL -ONE C (RAC) ZONE DISTRICT AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge ("City") is a home rule municipality operating under a charter adopted pursuant to Article XX of the Colorado Constitution and vested with the authority by that article and the Colorado Revised Statutes to adopt ordinances for the regulation of land use and protection of the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, in exercise of that authority, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge has previously enacted Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws (the "Code") pertaining to zoning, land use, and development; and WHEREAS, the City is witnessing three-story residential infill development in established neighborhoods consisting of mostly single -story residences; and WHEREAS, the City Council has identified this development pattern as constituting a detriment to the public peace, health, and safety by impacting privacy and impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance Is necessary to address this development pattern; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that this ordinance will improve the quality or character of new development and further enhance and protect existing neighborhoods while the issue is being further studied; NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-120.0.1 (Nonconforming structures and uses.) of the Code is amended to read. Any one- or two-family dwelling structure or customary accessory structures may be enlarged, altered or added to provided that all lot coverage requirements of the zoning district in which the structure is located are met, and provided that the enlargement, alteration or addition does not increase the extent of nonconforming setbacks by encroaching beyond the existing setback line. THE RESIDENTIAL BULK PLANE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN SECTION 26-611.A. SHALL APPLY TO Atachmontr I ANY ENLARGEMENT, ALTERATION OR ADDITION OF BOTH PRIMARY AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. In instances of corner lots, no enlargement, alteration or addition shall be permitted to encroach within the minimum sight distance triangle as set forth in subsection 26-603B. In addition, no enlargement, alteration or addition which extends within the nonconforming area shall result in the development of any additional dwelling units. Section 2. Section 26-123 (Definitions.) of the Code is amended by the addition of the following definitions in their appropriate alphabetical locations: Base plane. The horizontal plane which is generally parallel to a property's original grade from which building height and bulk plane are measured. Building envelope. The three-dimensional space within which a structure is permitted to be built on a lot and which is defined by regulations governing building setbacks, maximum height, and bulk plane, by other regulations; or any combination thereof. Bulk plane. The angled plane which extends from a set height above each property line and constrains the permitted building envelope. Section 3. Standards) Section 26-208.13 (Residential -One C District [R -1C] Development the Code is amended by the addition of footnote (f) as follows: Principal One -family 35- (Q BuP&Vs dwelling 40% 5,000 sf 50' 20 (d) 5' 5' 40% 5.000 sf 50' 20' (d) 5' 5' Group home 35' (f) Churches, schools, government and quasi - government buildings, golf 35' (f) 40% 1 acre 200' 20' (d) 15' 20' courses, small day care center, and nursing, elderly and congregate care homes Accessory Major 15' (f) 600 sr NIA NIA 20' (d) 5' 5' Buildings Minor 10' (f) 300 sf NIA N/A 20' (d) 5' 5' All other Uses 35' (f) 40% 9.000 sf 60' 20' (d) 5' (e) 10' (F) BULK PLANE REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 26-611. Section 4. Section 26-611 (Building setbacks.) of the Code is amended by the addition of subsection A as follows (with appropriate relettering of subsequent sections): 26-611. BULK PLANE AND Building Setbacks: A. BULK PLANE. IN ADDITION TO THE HEIGHT AND SETBACK STANDARDS OF ARTICLE II, BUILDING ENVELOPES ARE REGULATED BY A THREE-DIMENSIONAL BULK PLANE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY, PRIVACY, AND THE ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF LIGHT AND AIR. 1. APPLICABILITY. THE BULK PLANE RESTRICTIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL APPLY TO ALL STRUCTURES ON A LOT FOR WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT IS APPLIED FOR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE NO ----, SERIES 2016. THE ENTIRETY OF ANY BUILDING ENVELOPE SHALL BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE BULK PLANE, UNLESS OTHERWISE EXEMPTED BY SUBSECTION 4. 2. MEASUREMENT OF BULK PLANE. THE BULK PLANE IS A PLANE THAT BEGINS FIFTEEN (15) FEET ABOVE EVERY PROPERTY LINE OF A LOT OR PARCEL, WHICH THEN SLOPES AT A FORTY-FIVE (45) DEGREE ANGLE UNTIL IT INTERSECTS THE BULK PLANE FROM THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE LOT OR PARCEL. SEE FIGURE 26-611.2. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS SET FORTH IN ARTICLE II, CHAPTER 26 SHALL APPLY REGARDLESS OF THE HEIGHT AT WHICH THE TWO OPPOSITE BULK PLANES INTERSECT ABOVE THE LOT OR PARCEL. 3. MEASUREMENT OF BASE PLANE. THE BASE PLANE SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE ORIGINAL AVERAGE GRADE OF A LOT OR PARCEL. AVERAGE GRADE SHALL BE CALCULATED AS THE AVERAGE OF THE ELEVATIONS TAKEN AT THE MIDPOINTS OF EACH PROPERTY LINE. SEE FIGURE 26-611.3. 4. EXCEPTIONS. ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE BULK PLANE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED, EXCEPT FOR THOSE ENCROACHMENTS EXPLICITLY ALLOWED IN SECTION 26- 611.8, ITEMS 1 THROUGH 4. Section 5. Section 25-611 (Building setbacks.) of the Code is amended by the addition of Figure 26-611.2. BA Plane: 450 euAdmg Envelope Maximum Height. 35 Base Plane Figure 26-611.2. Section view of bulk plane building envelope, as measured from all property lines. Section 6. Section 26-611 (Building setbacks.) of the Code is amended by the addition of Figure 26-611.3. Figure 26.611.3. Average Grade Calculation M 4111,28 -282 AVERAGE GRADE Section 7. Emergency Declared. Pursuant to Charter Section 5.13 the Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge and that this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health and safety. Specifically, the immediate effectiveness of this Ordinance is necessary to address currently -occurring three-story residential infill development in established neighborhoods in a manner which constitutes a detriment to the public peace,. health, and safety by impacting privacy and impairing the adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties Section 8. Effective Date. As provided by Charter Section 5.13, this Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon final passage and shall not be in effect for longer than ninety (90) days from the date of passage. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED as an emergency ordinance by a vote of to , this day of , 2016 and ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of __ 2016. Joyce Jay, Mayor ATTEST: Janelle Shaver, City Clerk Approved as to Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attomey Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 WEST 29THAVENUE, MUNICIPAL BUILDING August 22, 2016 7:00 P.M. individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in alt public meetings sponsored by the City of wheat Ridge. Cell Cady Lorentz, Assistant to the City Manager, at 903-235-2867 at least one week in advance of a meeting liyou are interested In partkfpating and need Inclusion assistance. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS APPROVAL OF MINUTES of Auoust & 2016 PROCLAMATIONS AND CEREMONIES School Zone and Crosswalk Safety Week CITIZENS' RIGHT TO SPEAK a. Citizens, who wish, may speak on any matter not on the Agenda for a maximum of 3 minutes and sign the Public Comment :Roster. b. Citizens Second Opportunity for Public Input on the 2017 Budget c. Recommendations from Outside Agency Program Review Committee d. Citizens who wish to speak on Agenda Items, please sign the GENERAL AGENDA ROSTER or appropriate PUBLIC HEARING ROSTER before the Rem is called to be heard. e. Citizens who wish to speak on Study Session Agenda Items, please sign the STUDY SESSION AGENDA ROSTER. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. CONSENT AGENDA a) Resolution No. 31-2016 — Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement by and between the County of Jefferson, State of Colorado, and the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado regarding the administration of their respective duties concerning the conduct of the Coordinated Election to be held on November 8, 2016 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA: August 22, 2016 Page -2- CONSENT AGENDA con't b) Resolution No. 32-2016 — Authorizing the City of Wheat Ridge to execute an Intergovernmental Agreement by and between the County of .Jefferson, State of Colorado, and the City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado regarding the production of a mailed notice concerning ballot issues (TABOR) c) Motion to award a contract to W.L. Contractors, Inc. of Arvada, Colorado for on-call maintenance and repair services of traffic signals and street/pedestrian lights d) Motion to award a contract to ARCO Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $173,183 for the Bridge Rehabilitation Project on Marshall Street over Clear Creek, and to approve a 20% Contingency of $34,650 for a total amount of $207,833 e) Resolution 30-2016 — approving an Agreement with US Retail Partners LLC proving for the design and construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of 32nd Ave. and Xenon Street EMERGENCY ORDINANCE 2. Council Bill No. 21-2016 - An Emergency Ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning the Regulation of Bulk Plane Standards for the Residential -One C (R -1C) Zone District and declaring an emergency (Case No. ZOA- 16-03) PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING 3. Council Bill 08-2016 — Approving a Zone Change from Planned Commercial Development to Planned Industrial Development and a request for approval of an Outline Development Plan for Property located at 12700 W. 44th Ave. (Case No. WZ- 10/Ston-all Storage) 4. Resolution No. 24-2016 — approving a Specific Development Plan for property located at 12700 W. 44th Ave, (Case No. WZ-15-11) 6. Council Bill 14-2016 — amending the title and certain sections of Article VII, Chapter 11 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws regarding Pawnbroker requirements and establishing Secondhand Dealer requirements 6. Council Bill 17-2016 — giving Notice of and calling for a Special Municipal Election to be held November 8, 2016 and submitting a Ballot Question concerning a temporary increase of one-half of one cent (0.50%) in the City's Sales and Use Tax Rate for ten years, without increasing property tax, and the issuance of debt to finance City Investment in Public Infrastructure to facilitate Economic Development opportunities 7. Council Bill 16-2016 — giving Notice of and calling for a Special Municipal Election to be held November 8, 2016 and submitting a Ballot Question concerning a temporary increase of one-quarter of one cent (0.25%) in the City's Sales and Use Tax Rate for three years, without increasing property tax, to finance 38th Avenue Streetscape Improvements Zack Wallace From: Lauren Mikulak Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 9:33 AM To: Zack Wallace Subject: FW: FUTURE DISCUSSIONS ON RESIDENTIAL HEIGHTS FYI Lauren E. Mikulak, AICP Senior Planner Office Phone: 303-235-2845 1*1�'. 01y of AR01mr From: Patrick Goff Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 3:39 PM To: Monica Duran; Kenneth Johnstone; Lauren Mikulak Cc: Jerry Dahl (gdahl@mdkrlaw.com); Genevieve Wooden; George Pond; Janeece Hoppe; Joyce Jay; Kristi Davis; Larry Mathews; Monica Duran; Tim Fitzgerald; Zachary Urban Subject: RE: FUTURE DISCUSSIONS ON RESIDENTIAL HEIGHTS Hi Monica, The emergency ordinance that was approved by City Council was specific only to bulk plane in R1 -C. As you know we only have 90 days before this ordinance becomes law permanently or before council can make amendments. We simply do not have the time to open up the discussion to height or other residential building concerns for this process. However, after this emergency ordinance is addressed we can start having more detailed discussions, at council's direction, concerning height and other residential building concerns. As I noted last night, discussions concerning bulk plane are naturally related to setbacks and height, so those will be part of the discussion as they relate to bulk plane. In addition, we also believe we will have time during this initial process to examine applicability of bulk plane in other zoning districts. There is no intent at all to limit input from anyone but the process must be managed is a focused manner otherwise nothing will be accomplished. We have modified the public process schedule somewhat which is as follows: September 15th Planning Commission Study Session October 3`d City Council Study Session October 201h Planning Commission Public Hearing October 24th City Council 1St Reading November 14th City Council Public Hearing The 90 day expiration of the emergency ordinance is November 20tH Please note I've included the entire City Council on this email and did not include the individual residents you included on your email. In the past, Council's have agreed that emails between Council Members and staff concerning city business would not include third parties. Thank you Patrick Goff City Manager Cell Phone: 303-995-6465 +City of ~. atd CITY 1w' ANACFWS OFlc1E From: Monica Duran Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 2:46 PM To: Kenneth Johnstone <kiohnstone@ci.wheatridpe.co.us>; Patrick Goff <pgoff@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Cc: mike.epson <mike.epson;agmail.com>; Rita Lazalde <a.lazalde@hotmail.com>; Melissa Archuleta <mel .archuleta mail.com>; Victoria Mendoza <mendozave@gmail.com>; okadamike@vahoo.com; CR Aultman <craultman mail.com>; Benny_G <Benny Gee Comcast.net>; Katie Pachan Jacobson <katie@cchn.orL_>; Erik Jacobson <eoiacobson@gmail.com>; Larry Mathews <Imathews aeci.wheatridge.co.us> Subject: FUTURE DISCUSSIONS ON RESIDENTIAL HEIGHTS Hello, Thank you again for helping to move the process along in regards to Residential Bulk Plane. You mentioned Monday evening at our council meeting that discussions regarding residential height limits, setbacks, and other residential building concerns would not be a topic up for discussion, can you explain to myself and our concerned citizens why? Since we will be having several meetings as council and asking for public input, I feel it's our responsibility to keep all options/discussions open. My concern is if we limit that input it will only result in sending the wrong message to our citizens. I understand and appreciate all the hard work it takes for staff to gather all of the necessary information/data to conduct these meeting, and I know our goal is to do this right the first time. Thank you, Monica Monica Duran City Council District 1 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Phone: 720-312-0583 www.ci.wheatridge.co.us 4ir Clay of j 1i/ dge CITYCOUNCIL DISTPJCT I CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail contains business -confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, electronic storage or use of this corrununication is prohibited. If you received Kenneth Johnstone From: Kenneth Johnstone Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 8:17 AM To: Gerald E. Dahl (gdahl@mdkrlaw.com) Cc: Patrick Goff (pgoff@ci.wheatridge.co.us); Zack Wallace; Meredith Reckert (mreckert@ci.wheatridge.co.us); Lauren Mikulak Subject: Residential Bulk Plane Ordinance Jerry, At last night's study session, there was an agenda item for a temporary moratorium on certain building permits for residential 3 story construction for properties zoned R -1C. However, ultimately the 4-3 consensus direction was to craft an emergency ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Code to adopt bulk plane restrictions to be measured at a 45 degree angle from all property lines beginning at a height of 15 feet and measured toward the center of lot (this is not final language...). Being an emergency ordinance, it was understood that the ordinance, when and if adopted would only be effective for a period of 90 days. The direction was to get this drafted as an ordinance for CC action on August 22 (next Monday). Obviously that's a tight time frame with the deadline for that packet having passed this past Friday. That said, we have today and tomorrow to pull that off, or alternatively, it will be scheduled for September 12 as we have a 5th Monday and Labor Day on the next two Monday's after the 22"d. As an aside, if CC does not take action on the 22"d, I fear we will create a "rush to the courthouse" for projects in the development phase between now and September 12 (see question below). We have an internal staff meeting later this morning to discuss content of a code amendment as we've been moving toward this type of a regulation prior to the direction received last night to place it on a fast track. A couple of questions: ■ As an emergency ordinance, does that process preempt the requirement for a Planning Commission recommendation? If not, and we need to have a PC hearing, I don't see a minimum public notice timeframe for the posting of notice for the Planning Commission hearing on amendments to Chapter 26 — is that correct? ■ As noted, we will be discussing content later this morning and will have a status update around noon. What is your availability to craft our content (presuming we can get that drafted today/tomorrow) into an Emergency Ordinance format with the unique recitals required for that type of ordinance? • Finally, we need to have a discussion and some guidance on how this ordinance will affect any pending permits that might comply with existing R -1C zoning development standards but do not comply with the proposed bulk plane standards that will be contained in the emergency ordinance. As you know, property rights do not vest in Wheat Ridge generally until substantial reliance on an approved building permit; however, I believe the emergency ordinance could be crafted such that the new regulations only apply to permits received after the effective date of the ordinance. I believe that would mean that notwithstanding our vesting statutes, if a building permit were submitted prior to CC action (potentially on the evening of the 22nd), such a building permit would be reviewed under the current regulatory framework. Please let me know when you'll have time to discuss. Thanks. Ken Johnstone, AICP Community Development Director 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Office Phone: 303-235-2844 Fax: 303-234-2824 www.ci.wheatridee.co.us City of WhWtldge Cc».utunnty DCYEIpi'MENT CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail contains business -confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, electronic storage or use of this communication is prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, attaching the original message, and delete the original message from your computer, and any network to which your computer is connected. Thank you. STUDY SESSION NOTES CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO City Council Chambers 7500 W. 29th Avenue August 15.2016 Mayor Joyce Jay called the Study Session to order at 6:30 p.m. Council members present: Janeece Hoppe, Monica Duran, Kristi Davis, Zachary Urban, Tim Fitzgerald, Genevieve Wooden, and Larry Mathews Absent: George Pond Also present: City Clerk, Janeile Shaver, City Manager, Patrick Goff; Community Development Director, Ken Johnstone, Public Works Director, Scott Brink; other staff, guests and interested citizens CITIZEN COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS Karen Stor (Eaton St, WR), Julian Kasprzak (Eaton St, WR) and Lorretta Campbell (Chase St, WR) were signers up to speak, but said they were just present to listen. Chriab Aultman (Eaton St, WR) related how demoralizing it is to find a 3 -story particle board tower going up behind her house. She echoes all the neighbors' concerns. The construction noise and debris will go away, but the structure will be a permanent fact. She doesn't fault the Council, but rather shameless and unaccountable developers, home buyers who are indifferent or willfully ignorant of the impact their building choices have, and the precedent that has been set by Denver in failing to protect their architectural heritage. While change and growth will happen, she believes history and preservation matter. She asked Council for a temporary moratorium so a permanent compromise can be found that respects the history of the neighborhood and its residents. Deana Swetsik (WR) thanked Council for acting on a snow removal ordinance. They should make sure its explicit and clear that the ticker starts when the snow stops. She supports 24 hours for residential and commercial. Pedestrian priority streets for commercial areas should be addressers first, while elderly and disabled may need more time. — Regarding a moratorium she urged Council to be clear about the difference between principal and accessory structures as it relates to setbacks. She thinks. regulations should be calibrated to the various lots types within R-1 C and that a moratorium should focus on new construction and additions. She urged Council to be careful about changing height limits and step backs for a second story. STUDY SESSION NOTES: August 15, 2015 Page -2- Melissa Archuleta (Depew St, WR) relayed neighborhood concerns about 3 -story houses. She urged Council to consider a temporary moratorium so that R-1 C is not overhauled without input from the community. Neighbors are concerned about property values, affordability, and revitalization not being done with good intentions or respect for the people who live here. She thanked Councilmember Duran for meeting with the neighbors and pressing on this issue. She hopes a compromise can be reached for new and old developments. Eric Jacobsen (Chase St, WR) lives near one of the 3 -story houses and until recently enjoyed some back yard privacy. He appreciates the consideration of bulk plane requirements, rear yard set -backs and height limits. He voiced support for a temporary moratorium on building permits for new structures and additions over 2 -stories or taller than 27 feet in R -IC R-3 zones. They appreciate the character of the community and are desperate for reasonable and responsible development that balances growth and respects the citizens who made/make the neighborhood great. Kim Caiomino (WR) advised Council that the NRS is a foundational document. She thanked past/present Councils for seeing it through, Localworks for the work they've done on the recommendations, and City staff for providing continuity and expertise. She encouraged Council to stay the course. - On a moratorium she urged Council to be caution and consider the property rights of all. She feels moratoriums have a short and long term impact on how we manage change and neighborhood conversations, and how we do/don't attract investors who help reinvent and renovate our aging housing stock. Victoria Mendoza (Chase St, WR) expressed that we have a beautiful neighborhood and a wonderfully strong community. She feels we need to carefully regulate how future growth will look so we are not visually tattered forever and don't create animosities that threaten our community fabric. She asked for a moratorium on residential building permits. Since a number of citizens were present to observe the discussion of Item 4, it was agreed to address that item first. A. Residential Development Standards Discussion focused on whether or not to put in place a moratorium on building and demolition permits while permanent changes to the code can be considered. Councilmember Davis asked about the timeline of a moratorium. Ken Johnstone reported staff is being careful and going through a variety of design studies. They are making good progress and can draft the framework shortly. It is scheduled for Planning Commission on September 15 and a City Council hearing on October 10. He informed Council there are no requests in the works right now, but there could be. STUDY SESSION NOTES., August 15, 2016 Page -3- Councilmember Mathews would like to take time, do it right, and not hurry. He prefers a moratorium. Mr. Johnstone noted there is a lot to look at throughout the City. Councilmember Fitzgerald favors acting quickly and sees potential conflicts with the Neighborhood Revitalization Study. Councilmember Urban wants to make sure developments aren't being done to the detriment of the community. He suggested zone districts may be necessary -- not doing the whole city in all zone districts. He approves of doing a moratorium in R-1 C. Councilmember Duran proposed a consensus to enact staffs suggestion for a temporary moratorium on building permits for new structures, and additions to existing structures, which are greater than two -stories or taller than 27 feet. Discussion followed. Conversation points included: • Doing a regular ordinance with 15t and 2"d reading or enacting an emergency ordinance on August 22. • There was some desire to do neighborhood outreach, but Mr. Johnstone said he hadn't contemplated neighborhood outreach in the interest of time. • Should the ordinance last 90 days or until a final ordinance [with new regulations] is passed? • Councilmember Happe suggested passing an ordinance with 45 degree, 15 foot high bulk plane now until we set new standards. Councilmember Duran asked for consensus for a 90 -day emergency temporary moratorium in R -1C on building permits for new structures, or additions on houses, over two stories and over 27 feet. Discussion followed. Councilmember Duran's consensus failed 3-4. Councilmember Hoppe asked for consensus for a 90 -day emergency ordinance for R-1 C on new building permits to comply with current setbacks with a 45 -degree bulk plane starting at 15 feet, to be brought back for consideration at the August 22nd Council meeting. There was discussion and the consensus passed 4-3. 1 .. Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Discussion — Part 1 Mr. Goff gave introductory remarks on the Neighborhood Revitalization Study that was done in 2005. He introduced Patty Silverstein of Development Research Partners who was hired to prepare The State of Wheat Ridge -- a profile of the community, indicators and trends. This serves as a 10 -year overview of progress on the NRS. Ms. Silverstein gave a power point presentation. f y City of "� Wheat jC(olmt.AmIuNiTYDEVIELOPMENTdge Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kenneth Johnstone, AICP, Community Development Director THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager DATE: August 10, 2016 (for August 15 study session) SUBJECT: Residential Development Standards At the July 18 City Council study session, the City's residential zoning development standards were discussed. Specifically, staff had researched the City's development standards in three primary areas: 1) bulk plane standards, 2) building height, and 3) rear -yard setbacks. Staff had researched surrounding communities (Arvada, northwest Denver, Lakewood and Edgewater) to compare Wheat Ridge regulations to the three standards listed above. The July 18 study session memo is attached for additional background information. Staff research concluded that we were fairly similar with the other communities in our regulatory framework regarding building height and rear -yard setbacks. However, of the above four communities, Wheat Ridge was unique in not having some type of a bulk plane requirement. At the conclusion of the City Council discussion at the July 18 meeting, direction was provided to move forward in drafting an ordinance that would create residential bulk plane standards and amend certain standards pertaining to residential rear -yard setbacks. There was also discussion regarding residential building height standards; however, there was no consensus to consider amendments to the City's residential building height standards, at this time. A study session was subsequently held with the Planning Commission and they generally concurred that it would be appropriate to consider adoption of bulk plane standards and that consideration of amendments to building height regulations should be postponed to a later time. Staff is conducting additional analysis regarding the creation of bulk plane standards in the Wheat Ridge context. Staff is giving particular consideration to the City's existing built environment, typical lot sizes and dimensions and typical residential building typologies. At the August 8 regular business meeting, several citizens commented on the topic of building height, specifically referencing some in -fill single family new construction that has been occurring in East Wheat Ridge. Specific reference was made to concerns on R -1C zoned properties, which is a zoning district that accommodates small -lot, single family development. Much of this zoning exists on the City's east side (east of Wadsworth). R -1C lots are permitted as small as 5,000 square feet, and they have a minimum width of 50 feet. Two zoning maps have been attached for your reference. Based on historical subdivision platting patterns in East Wheat Study Session Memo — Residential Development Standards August 15, 2016 Page 2 Ridge a typical R -IC lot is 50 feet wide and 125 feet deep, resulting in an area of 6,250 square feet. Subsequent to the City Council meeting, Councilmembers Duran and Mathews have requested discussion of a potential temporary moratorium on certain types of building permits on R -1C zoned properties, until such time as an ordinance regarding residential development standards can be drafted for consideration at public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Specifically, Councilmember Duran requested "that a temporary moratorium on demolition and construction permits for R-1 C zoning be added to our August 15th study session for discussion. This will allow our citizens, council, and staff the time necessary to discuss options such as bulkplane, setbacks, height restrictions, and architectural standards conducive to our neighborhoods." While an ordinance has not yet been drafted, nor reviewed by the City Attorney, staff is sufficiently comfortable with the amount of analysis they have completed to date. And, targeted dates for public hearings are scheduled as follows: • Planning Commission hearing on September 15 • City Council 1' reading on September 26 • City Council public hearing on October 10. If Council is inclined to consider adopting a temporary moratorium, staff would propose consideration of the following to minimize the impact of that action on private property rights. If the primary goal is to place a hold on three-story construction until bulk plane and/or building height regulatory changes can be considered, perhaps a moratorium could be considered that is focused very specifically on that goal. Demolition permits also often relate only to portions of structures to accommodate new additions. It is also possible that a property owner may want to raze an entire structure in order to construct a new two-story home, which Council may find acceptable. Staff suggests consideration of modified language that would propose a temporary moratorium on building permits for new structures, and additions to existing structures, which are greater than two -stories or taller than 27 feet. Finally, it should be noted that the majority of 50 -foot wide lots are in the historic subdivisions east of Fenton. In that area, there exists a large amount of R-1 C zoned property and also a fair amount of R-3 zoned properties, which also have the potential for redevelopment within the 35 - foot height limitations. If there are similar concerns with the redevelopment potential for those properties, that should be further discussed by City Council. The attached zoning maps depict both R -1C and R-3 zoning. ATTACHMENTS: 1. July 18, 2016 study session memo 2. Zoning Maps 2 City of WheatR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director Zack Wallace, Planning Technician THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager DATE: June 16, 2016 (for July 1801 Study Session) SUBJECT: Residential Development Standards 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 modern 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 -1C 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 -1C zone district was reduced from 30' to 20'. This ordinance also modified setback requirements for major and minor accessory buildings. Attachment 1 Study Session Memo — Residential Development Standards July 18, 2016 Page 2 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 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 A 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-1 C zone district, which has a much more permissive rear setback (5') than surrounding municipalities. Arvada rear yard setback minimums range from 10' — 15'. Edgewater has an 8' rear setback for properties on alleys, and a 15' or 20' setback for properties not on alleys. Denver has 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 that are most adjacent to Wheat Ridge. N Study Session Memo — Residential Development Standards July 18, 2016 Page 3 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. 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. 3 f/RDfbGT�D L7/�Pld' G� ��; 40" &F A Sol 7 /fky1�X6�f 1�1o',Vik� 75" Of 171'rNb /Qbs4lgiLYd 111 COLHDd' DR "Mfg P14TA .- Teanewonal Height Control 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. 3 Study Session Memo — Residential Development Standards July 18, 2016 Page 4 $ ! Fla d5°; c I i 54ret 8-1, R-2, or 9-3 zone distinct Figure 2: Edgewater Bulk Plane for Lower Intensity Uses (Source: Edgewater Municipal Code) r A. 35 -feet A 5-kitll RC -1, R-4, R -PD, CA C2 zone districts R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone district 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 1-76, 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 Study Session Memo — Residential Development Standards July 18, 2016 Page 5 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 Building in Mixed Use Zone District Existing Single Family Residenceto— meet Allowed Residential District Height'' rrall 73 h. Transition 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 and 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 W, Study Session Memo — Residential Development Standards July 18, 2016 Page 6 utilize bulk planes for all residential structures. • Arvada requires the higher intensity structure be no taller than the adjacent existing single-family 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 -de ee bulk plane requirement, beginning at varying vertical heights above the property lines. Their 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 may be 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 -IC zone district and possibly other residential zone districts. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment A: Residential Development Standards 0 Residential -One C (R -1C) Zone District East of Wadsworth Boulevard Legend �ei Wheat Ridge City Limit Parcel Lines R-1 C Zone District R-3 Zone District — Other Municipality 0 500 1,000 Feet abbplow Curl Zo. Pro}Non c.1ken: ceXX.lzpw o.wm: RFIN9 ,' ctyof Wheatl�idge Geographic Information Services City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado 7500 West 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Created by: Zack Wallace, Planning Technician 10 August 2010 Data Sources: City of Wheat Ridge and Jefferson County T Ie Is a pidsvkl mprms lbn d ge ,pM1b end demoarophb Wom,dien. R._ upon Me ucumq, reH.W, end edhorey tl this IdpmR Is.." eeyuwlor's recponYbillN.—Crytl Wheal Ridge, In derelwn Coady. C 1..&-a poalwl wW iAk. d lha SW. d Cobrede, has eempbd Iw N. uee wddn ewnpdmbad Wonndisn. Thk idomulbn k walbbk b —W in IdedXyIN general es dwncem wN. T,a wmpdedmd MbmnWn provided ...W .:v W roSed upon wllh eermborolbn d1. mdhoda. ...mellow, end —11, by a ewlir.d bdopeedenl aaalw. The aur of MIs Infarmelbn s 11Ind mniN and htld tree the City d WMeei Rbae 1-1 kW wy and dI IXkges c, d..., Mw.uX., end w of eelbn Md rewX ea a wnseeuenw dhis reUnw on Wowdbn provided hmdn. STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO August 15. 2016 6:30 p.m. 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. Citizen Comment on Agenda Items 1. Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Discussion — Part 1 2. Staff Report(s) a) Fruitdale School Update b) 32nd and Xenon Traffic Signal 3. Snow Removal Policy 4. Residential Development Standards 5. Elected Officials' Report(s) a) Wheat Ridge Education Alliance Report ADJOURNMENT 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. City of Wheat�dge PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting July 21, 2016 CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair OHM at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 291h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Commission Members Absent: Staff Members Present: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Dirk Boden Alan Bucknam Emery Dorsey Donna Kimsey Amanda Weaver Scott Ohm Janet Leo Steve Timms Kenneth Johnstone, Director of Community Development Lisa Ritchie, Planner II Zack Wallace, Planning Technician Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner DORSEY to approve the order of the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 16, 2016. It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner KIMSEY to approve the minutes of June 16, 2016, as written. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2016 - 1 — No one wished to speak at this time. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-16-05: an application filed by Squareroot Construction for approval of a zone change from Residential -One C (R -1C) and Residential -Three (R-3) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) with an ODP for the property located at 2826 Eaton Street. Ms. Ritchie gave a short presentation regarding the zone change process and the application. She entered into the record the contents of the case file, packet materials, the zoning ordinance, and the contents of the digital presentation. She stated the public notice and posting requirements have been met, therefore the Planning Commission has jurisdiction to hear this case. Ms. Ritchie explained the City of Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan designates this property as a neighborhood and currently has split zoning between R-1 C to the North and R-3 to the South. The property consists of two homes and a large detached garage. There was a neighborhood meeting held on November 4, 2015 in which 12 neighbors attended and there was an in depth discussion about the project; the project has changed slightly, but not to a great degree. There will be a major subdivision plat which will remove the existing lot lines and reconfigure the property to realign the property to fit the proposal. The uses in the Eaton Street Cottages PRD zone district would allow single family dwellings, both attached and detached, common parking areas, storage, community gardens and active and passive recreation. The Architecture will be traditional with covered front and rear porches and the maximum building height will be 28 feet which is lower than the City standard of 35 feet. The site design will include 9 dwelling units with small private yards around common courtyard with a parking area at the north end of the site. Public improvements will include a 5 -foot attached sidewalk with bulb -outs to define parking spaces. There were no concerns or comments from outside agencies and staff recommends approval of the zone change. Andrew Gibson, Squareroot Inc. 4250 Urban Street, Denver 80211 Mr. Gibson stated that he and his partners will be the developers and builders of this property; they live in the area where they work. He explained a pocket neighborhood is what they would like to develop and said it is built to encourage community. Houses are built on a much smaller scale, approximately 800-1,300 sq. ft. Walkability in the neighborhood is also important to this concept. The site will include five single family dwellings and two duplexes with covered and uncovered parking to the north with 1.5 spaces per unit. Commissioner BODEN asked about the evaluation process to reduce parking issues. Planning Commission Minutes -2— July 2— July 21, 2016 Ms. Ritchie explained there was a trip generation study done by the applicant and reviewed by Public Works and these homes are smaller units reducing the amount of cars. There will also be on street parking available on Eaton Street. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked about the 10 -foot setback for 20% of the frontage and a 20 -foot setback for the remainder and wondered where the 10 -foot setbacks will occur. Mr. Gibson stated the 10 -foot setbacks will be the portions of lot 1, 3 and 5. Portions of those houses are less than 20 -feet from the setback. Commissioner BUCKNAM wanted to know the theory around the parking pockets. Mr. Gibson explained the pockets help with neighborhood traffic calming and they also define the neighborhood. Commissioner KIMSEY asked about the location of the community gardens and the fence line on Eaton Street. Mr. Gibson stated the landscaping plan has not been detailed yet, but the gardens will either be in the southwest corner of the property, north between the houses and parking area or part of the shared common area. The fence on Eaton Street will be on the property line and will be a 47foot picket fence. Chair WEAVER wanted to know why the parking on the north side as opposed to the south side. Mr. Gibson explained there is a possibility of putting solar panels on top of the car ports and this would work better on the north end of the property. Janet Ryan 2825 Depew Street Ms. Ryan stated she is concerned about the back side of the project, the impacts on her fence during construction and if the powerlines that are currently above ground will be moved underground and if this will affect her. She also likes the parking on the north side of property. Steve Pflug 2845 Eaton Street Mr. Pflug is concerned with the street bulb out and wonders if it is going to take away from on street parking. Maryann McNamee Planning Commission Minutes -3— July 3— July 21, 2016 2809 Eaton Street Ms. McNamee commented that there are garages on the back sides of the homes on west side of Eaton Street. Joe Woods 2875 Depew Street Mr. Woods stated he really likes the idea of this neighborhood and wondered what the height limit will be. Mr. Gibson explained that it is Squareroot's intent is to be good neighbors and will give adjacent homeowners the phone number to the property manager if there are any comments or concerns. He explained there should be nothing done to Ms. Ryan's fence during constructions. He also explained that all the power to the property will be underground; this will come from the upper powerlines, but should not affect adjacent property owners. Mark Davis, Squareroot 8319 Cole Street Mr. Davis explained that Xcel will work with Synergetic Design to determine how the power lines will go underground; it is usually done through a pedestal. If they think adjacent neighbors' powerlines should go underground as well then Synergetic Design will contact the property owner. Mr. Gibson then explained the bulb outs on the street and said yes there will be a few on street parking spaces lost. Ms. Ritchie added that the City is not to the point yet of looking at street design, but all the pros and cons of bulb outs will be taken into consideration. Commissioner BUCKNAM sees one curb cut for the parking lot and wondered how many curb cuts exist now. Mr. Gibson said there is one large curb cut currently. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked if there is additional parking other than the carports on the north end of the property. Ms. Ritchie state there are 8-9 spaces covered in the carport and an additional 5 parallel spaces in the parking area. Mr. Gibson stated the maximum height limit of the homes will be 28 -feet. The tallest house will be about 25 -feet tall and the ranch units will be no taller than 15 - feet in height. The homes are modeled after 1 lh story Victorians. Planning Commission Minutes -4— July 4— July 21, 2016 Chair WEAVER asked how neighbors can stay informed about the development. Ms. Richie stated letters will be sent out when cases related to the property go to City Council and other Planning Commission meetings. Also, they can call staff in Community Development at any time. The Commissioners all agreed that they like the ODP and think it is a great plan, reminding some of the 30's and 40's era and the way Denver use to be. It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner KIMSEY to recommend APPROVAL of case No. WZ-16-05, a request for approval of a zone change from Residential One -C (R -1C) and Residential Three (R-3) to Planned Residential Development (PCD) with an Outline Development Plan for property located at 2826 Eaton Street, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and other guiding documents; 2. The proposal meets the zone change criteria; 3. The proposed site design and scale of the proposed homes are consistent with the neighborhood; 4. All requirements for an Outline Development Plan have been met. Motion carried 5-0. 8. STUDY SESSION A. Residential Development Standards Mr. Wallace gave a brief introduction about redevelopment and infill projects in the city and how they relate to the neighboring communities. The City has received numerous calls regarding setbacks and height requirements with regards to new development. In 1969 when the City of Wheat Ridge was incorporated the 35 -foot height maximum requirement, in residential zone districts, was adopted. This maximum height allowance remains unaltered to this day. Due to the calls received regarding development standards and the new development, the Community Development Department found it appropriate to research neighboring jurisdiction's development standards to utilize as a starting point in assessing our own development standards. Mr. Wallace stated that the City's setback requirements are generally in line with the neighboring communities with the exception for the rear yard setback in the R-1 C zone district; it is 5 -feet compared to 8 to 15 feet in other cities. Mr. Wallace then explained that height requirements are a little more complex. The City is in line with most of our neighboring communities which have 30-35 height requirements, but out of line compared to other communities because there are no additional height standards to limit the massing of structures. Planning Commission Minutes -5— July 5— July 21, 2016 Mr. Wallace then explained the bulk plane standard and how it can be used differently in lower or higher intensity uses. Typically, the bulk plane begins at a specified height above the property line, and then extends over the site at a 45 degree angle until it meets the height limit. Bulk plane requirements are enforced in three of the City's neighboring communities. Mr. Wallace gave different examples from other communities in his digital presentation. City Council had this same discussion on July 18 and came to a consensus that Staff should move forward on addressing bulk plane requirements, measured from each property line, and setbacks. Commissioner BODEN thought bulk plane requirements work well and is respectful to neighbors. He also liked the transition buffer from Commercial to Residential Properties. Commissioner BUCKNAM also liked the transitional buffer and understands the bulk plane as long as it is liberal and allows for a second story and not a McMansion. He is also concerned with bulk plane because he believes it will mandate the type of architecture that is possible in both residential and nonresidential buildings and he does not want all the buildings to look the same. Commissioner DORSEY would like to see the bulk plane requirements on all four property sides go into effect, as it would help integrate new development with the existing development. He feels currently the big buildings are hard to integrate. Commissioner KIMSEY would also like to see the bulk plane used on all four property sides so there is light, air and circulation. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked what is driving this discussion. Mr. Wallace stated the discussion is being driven by community interaction with Staff and several councilmembers regarding the smaller setback requirements in some zone districts, the residential building height allowance, massing, and neighborhood character: modern vs. traditional. Commissioner BUCKNAM feels it is not the City's job to set the architectural or aesthetic standards. He thinks there should be different height standards per neighborhood. The 35 -foot height limit should be revisited and the neighborhoods character looked at. Commissioner DORSEY believes the City should have architectural standards for single family homes so there are no eye sores in a neighborhood and cause people to move out of a neighborhood. Chair WEAVER does not believe regulating design standards is going to stop bad taste, different people have different tastes. She asked if there is something that Planning Commission Minutes -6— July 6— July 21, 2016 can be done without restricting people and their architecture so we don't have the homes looking like pyramids if there is a bulk plane requirement. Mr. Johnstone stated we don't know what drives builders and owners design decisions. Setbacks might be forced back by bulk planes; so on smaller lots there may be a mix of 2 -story and 3 -story homes and on larger lots 3 -story homes. Chair WEAVER feels the bulk plane makes everything restrictive and Commissioner BUCKNAM added that if there is to be a bulk plane on all sides what is the base height going to be and that neighborhood characteristics needs to be recognized in that discussion. Mr. Johnstone explained that City Council was also divided on the neighborhood by neighborhood analysis on the building height which became a third priority because it can be hard to define neighborhood character and heights that are cohesive with that character. It will be a longer term effort. It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner DORSEY to recommend APPROVAL to move forward with setbacks and bulk plane research. Motion carried 5-0. 9. OTHER ITEMS Next meeting to be held on August 18, 2016 10. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner DORSEY and seconded by Commissioner KIMSEY to adjourn the meeting at 8:41 p.m. Motion passed 5-0. Scott Ohm, Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2016 -7— ♦��I City of :(�jq_rWh6atR,�gc COMMUN riY 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 be taken before City Council during the July 18 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 modern 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 -1A zone district: Minimum side yard setback increased from 5' to 10' R -1C 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 -1C 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 A 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. 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. fl4b�GT�DA/9��P' L0�1'1�l�DI�" So' AR A So' L� [./1rAg1 y4 I�f ffuhnNG RG4raa" !r! CWT"IW oR W.479 GlffNvl' Tmuidonal Height Control 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. 1 45 V/ c ( I 15 -feet 1 I a� R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone district Figure 2: Edgewater Bulk Plane for Lower Intensity Uses (Source: Edgewater Municipal Code) l 450� -__,:J 5 #eet RC -1, R-4, R -PD, C-1, C2 zone districts R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone district 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 481h 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. 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 Building in Mixed Use Zone District Existing Single Family Residence 4- - - Maximum Allowed Residential District Height Fie Q _!;S -a ��� .�, i J 9; M'm Q rw ft$ Eli!�I � _T I � � ISL � ' i•" {1 _ 75 h. Transition a 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. 5 • Arvada requires the higher intensity structure be no taller than the adjacent existing single-family 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 hi her intensi1y 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 may be 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 -IC zone district and possibly other residential zone districts. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: Residential Development Standards D Attachment A: Development Standards Maximum lot Minimum Lot size Front Setback Side Setback - Interior Side Street (Den-) Corner (Wheat Rldge) Rear Setback Maximum Height Zone District (square feet) coverage Non -primary front(I.Amood) (no alley/alley) Wheat Ridge - R-1 12,500 25% 30' 15' 30' 15' 35' (Single family residential) Wheat Ridge - R -1A 9,000 30% 25' 10' 25' 15' 35' (Small lot single family residential) Wheat Ridge - R-113 7,500 40% 25' 5' 25' 10' 35' (Smaller lot single family residential) Wheat Ridge - R -1C 5,000 40% 20' 5' 20' 5' 35' (Smallest lot single family residential) Wheat Ridge - R-2 9,000 (one -family) 40% 25' 5' (one -family) 25' 10' 35' (one and two family residential) 12,500 (two-family) 5' / story (two-family) 7,500 (one -family) 5' (one -family) lo' (one -family) 35' Wheat Ridge - R -2A 9,000 (two-family) 40% 25' 5'/ story (two-family) 25' 10' (two-family) (one, two, and multifamily residential) 13,050 (multifamily) 5'/ story(multifamily) See Note (multifamily) 7,500 (one -family) 5' (one -family) lo' (one -family) 35' Wheat Ridge - R-3 9,000 (two-family) 40% 25' 5'/ story (two-family) 25' lo' (two-family) (One, two, and multifamily residential) 12,500 (multifamily) 15' (multifamily) 15' (multifamily) 7,500 (one -family) 5' (one -family) lo' (one -family) 35' Wheat Ridge - R -3A 9,000 (two-family) 40% 25' V/ story (two-family) 25' 10' (two-family) (one, two, and multifamily residential) 12,500 (multifamily) 15' (multifamily) 15' (multifamily) Arvada - R -E 12,500 25% or 30' 15' 30' 15' 35' (large -lot, single-family residential) 30% if 1 -story Arvada - R -L 7,500 35% or 25' 101 25' 10' 35' (Low density single family residential) 40% if 1 -story Arvada - R-1 6,000 (one -family) 40% (one -family) 18' (one -family) 5' (one -family) 18' (one -family) 10' 35' (one and two family residential) 9,000 (two-family) 30% (two-family) 25' (two-family) 10' (two-family) 25' (two-family) Arvada - Small Lots in R -E, R -L, R-130% 4000 18l 51 181 10' 35' (Intendedtoincreasesupplyafrelativelyallordable housing by allowing smaller lot sins) Arvada - R -SL 4,500 40% 18' 5' 18' 10' 35' (Small lot single family) Arvada - R -NT 4,500 40% 15' 8' 15' 10' 35' (Neo -traditional single family) 6,000 (one -family) 18' (one -family) 5' (one -family) 18' (one -family) 10' (one -family) Arvada - R -MD 9,000 (two-family) 40% (one -family) 25' (two-family) 10' (two-family) 25' (two-family) 10' (two-family) 35' )Medium density residential - allows single family,two family, multifamily) 3,630/unit (multifamily) 30% (all others) 25' (multifamily) 5'/story(multifamily) 25' (multifamily) 5'/story(multifamily) 6,000 (one -family) 18' (one -family) 5' (one -family) 18' (one -family) 10' (one -family) Arvada R -M 9,000 (two-family) 40% (one family) 25' (two-family) 10' (two-family) 25' (two-family) 10' (two-family) 35' (Medium -density residential to encourage mix of housing types) Varies (multifamily) 30% (all others) 25' (multifamily) Varies (multifamily) 25' (multifamily) Varies (multifamily) Lakewood - R-1-43 43,560 35% 25' 15' 20' 15' 35' (One acre lot residential) Lakewood - R-1-18 18,000 40% 25' 10' 20' 15' 35' (Rural lot residential) Lakewood - R-1-12 12,500 40% 25' 10' 20' 15' 35' (Large lot residential) Lakewood - R-1-9 9,000 40% 25' 10' 20' 15' 35' (Medium sized lot residential) Lakewood - R-1-6 6,000 50% 25' 5' 20' 15' 35' (Small lot residential) Lakewood - R-2 5,000 (one -family) 25' 5' 20' 15' 35' (Two-family and small lot single family 10,000 (two-family) 50% residential) Lakewood -R-MF° 25' (min) 5, 20' (min) 15' 45' (Multifamily and attached housing 70/ 140' (max) 140' (max) residential) Edgewater - R -A 12,500 ' 35% 25' 5' 10' 20'/8' 35' (Large lot, single family residential) Edgewater - R-1 6,000 35% 25' 5' 10' 20'/8' 35' (Single-family residential) Edgewater - R-2 5,000 (one -family) 35% 25' 5' 10' 20'/8' 35' (One -and two- familyresdiential) 6,000 (two-family) Edgewater - R-3 5,000(one-family) 7,500 (two-family) 50% 25'10' 5' (two-family) 15' / 8' 35' (one -,two -,and multi- family residential) 9,000+ 1,250 for each addtl unit 15'(2+ family) 30' or 1/2 the height of the 15' or 1/4 the height of the 30' or 1/2 the height of the 15' or 1/4 the height of the Edgewater - R-4 50,000 - highest dwelling, highest dwelling, highest dwelling, highest dwelling, None (High-rise apartment residential) (for a max 50 units) whichever is greater whichever is greater whichever is greater whichever is greater Denver - U -111-1-2.5I 20' 3' 3' 12'/20' Front 65% - 30' (2.5 stories) (multi unit, urban house, duplex, tandem 3,000 50.0% Rear 35%-17' (1 story) house) - - - Denver - U -SU -B 4,500 37.5% 20' 3' minimum 5' 12'/20' Front 65%- 30' (2.5 stories) Rear 35%-17' (1 story) (single unit, urban houses) 10' combined Denver - U SU Bl 4,500 0 37.5/0 20' 3' min)mum 51 12'/20' Front 65%- 30' (2.5 stories) Rear 35%-17' (1 story) (single unit, urban houses) 10' combined Denver - E -SU -B 4,500 37.5% 20' 3' minimum 5' 12'/20' Front 65%- 30' (2.5 stories) Rear 35%-17' (1 story) (urban edge single unit urban houses) 10' combined Denver - U -SU -C 5,500 ° 37.5/° 20' S' S' 12'/20' Front 65%- 30' (2.5 stories) Rear 35%-17' (1 story) (single unit, urban houses) Denver - U -SU -C1 5,500 37.5% 20' 5' 5' 12'/20' Front Rearr 3 35% 5% 30' - 17'' stories) 1 ( (1 story) (single unit, urban houses) Denver - E -TU -C, 20' S 5 12'/20 Front 65%- 30' (2.5 stories) (urban edge 1 or 2 unit urban house, duplex, 5,500 37.5% Rear 35%-17' (1 story) detached ADU) _ - 30' Denver - S -SU -D 6,000 50.0% 20' 5' 5' 12'/20' 2.5 stories (single unit, suburban houses) Denver - E -SU -DX (urban edge single unit suburban and urban 6,000 37.5% 20' S 5' 12' 20' 30' 2.5 stories houses)- 30' [Denver - S -SU -F 8,500 50.0% 20' 7.5' 5' 12'/20' 2.5 stories le unit, suburban houses) Note: Wheat Ridge R -2A zone district rear yard setback is 10' for 1 and 2 story buildings, 15' for 3 story buildings. 4' City of ]PrWh6at�dgrc lJ_wA L, k'"C,1KOWU lU 1 "I c17L1 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.ei.wheatridge.co.us/9S/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-16-05: an application filed Squareroot Construction for approval of a zone change from Residential -One C (R-1 C) 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. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. City of Wheat�dge PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting July 21, 2016 CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair OHM at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 291h Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Commission Members Absent: Staff Members Present: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Dirk Boden Alan Bucknam Emery Dorsey Donna Kimsey Amanda Weaver Scott Ohm Janet Leo Steve Timms Kenneth Johnstone, Director of Community Development Lisa Ritchie, Planner II Zack Wallace, Planning Technician Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner DORSEY to approve the order of the agenda. Motion carried 5-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 16, 2016. It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner KIMSEY to approve the minutes of June 16, 2016, as written. Motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2016 - 1 — No one wished to speak at this time. 7. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WZ-16-05: an application filed by Squareroot Construction for approval of a zone change from Residential -One C (R -1C) and Residential -Three (R-3) to Planned Residential Development (PRD) with an ODP for the property located at 2826 Eaton Street. Ms. Ritchie gave a short presentation regarding the zone change process and the application. She entered into the record the contents of the case file, packet materials, the zoning ordinance, and the contents of the digital presentation. She stated the public notice and posting requirements have been met, therefore the Planning Commission has jurisdiction to hear this case. Ms. Ritchie explained the City of Wheat Ridge Comprehensive Plan designates this property as a neighborhood and currently has split zoning between R-1 C to the North and R-3 to the South. The property consists of two homes and a large detached garage. There was a neighborhood meeting held on November 4, 2015 in which 12 neighbors attended and there was an in depth discussion about the project; the project has changed slightly, but not to a great degree. There will be a major subdivision plat which will remove the existing lot lines and reconfigure the property to realign the property to fit the proposal. The uses in the Eaton Street Cottages PRD zone district would allow single family dwellings, both attached and detached, common parking areas, storage, community gardens and active and passive recreation. The Architecture will be traditional with covered front and rear porches and the maximum building height will be 28 feet which is lower than the City standard of 35 feet. The site design will include 9 dwelling units with small private yards around common courtyard with a parking area at the north end of the site. Public improvements will include a 5 -foot attached sidewalk with bulb -outs to define parking spaces. There were no concerns or comments from outside agencies and staff recommends approval of the zone change. Andrew Gibson, Squareroot Inc. 4250 Urban Street, Denver 80211 Mr. Gibson stated that he and his partners will be the developers and builders of this property; they live in the area where they work. He explained a pocket neighborhood is what they would like to develop and said it is built to encourage community. Houses are built on a much smaller scale, approximately 800-1,300 sq. ft. Walkability in the neighborhood is also important to this concept. The site will include five single family dwellings and two duplexes with covered and uncovered parking to the north with 1.5 spaces per unit. Commissioner BODEN asked about the evaluation process to reduce parking issues. Planning Commission Minutes -2— July 2— July 21, 2016 Ms. Ritchie explained there was a trip generation study done by the applicant and reviewed by Public Works and these homes are smaller units reducing the amount of cars. There will also be on street parking available on Eaton Street. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked about the 10 -foot setback for 20% of the frontage and a 20 -foot setback for the remainder and wondered where the 10 -foot setbacks will occur. Mr. Gibson stated the 10 -foot setbacks will be the portions of lot 1, 3 and 5. Portions of those houses are less than 20 -feet from the setback. Commissioner BUCKNAM wanted to know the theory around the parking pockets. Mr. Gibson explained the pockets help with neighborhood traffic calming and they also define the neighborhood. Commissioner KIMSEY asked about the location of the community gardens and the fence line on Eaton Street. Mr. Gibson stated the landscaping plan has not been detailed yet, but the gardens will either be in the southwest corner of the property, north between the houses and parking area or part of the shared common area. The fence on Eaton Street will be on the property line and will be a 47foot picket fence. Chair WEAVER wanted to know why the parking on the north side as opposed to the south side. Mr. Gibson explained there is a possibility of putting solar panels on top of the car ports and this would work better on the north end of the property. Janet Ryan 2825 Depew Street Ms. Ryan stated she is concerned about the back side of the project, the impacts on her fence during construction and if the powerlines that are currently above ground will be moved underground and if this will affect her. She also likes the parking on the north side of property. Steve Pflug 2845 Eaton Street Mr. Pflug is concerned with the street bulb out and wonders if it is going to take away from on street parking. Maryann McNamee Planning Commission Minutes -3— July 3— July 21, 2016 2809 Eaton Street Ms. McNamee commented that there are garages on the back sides of the homes on west side of Eaton Street. Joe Woods 2875 Depew Street Mr. Woods stated he really likes the idea of this neighborhood and wondered what the height limit will be. Mr. Gibson explained that it is Squareroot's intent is to be good neighbors and will give adjacent homeowners the phone number to the property manager if there are any comments or concerns. He explained there should be nothing done to Ms. Ryan's fence during constructions. He also explained that all the power to the property will be underground; this will come from the upper powerlines, but should not affect adjacent property owners. Mark Davis, Squareroot 8319 Cole Street Mr. Davis explained that Xcel will work with Synergetic Design to determine how the power lines will go underground; it is usually done through a pedestal. If they think adjacent neighbors' powerlines should go underground as well then Synergetic Design will contact the property owner. Mr. Gibson then explained the bulb outs on the street and said yes there will be a few on street parking spaces lost. Ms. Ritchie added that the City is not to the point yet of looking at street design, but all the pros and cons of bulb outs will be taken into consideration. Commissioner BUCKNAM sees one curb cut for the parking lot and wondered how many curb cuts exist now. Mr. Gibson said there is one large curb cut currently. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked if there is additional parking other than the carports on the north end of the property. Ms. Ritchie state there are 8-9 spaces covered in the carport and an additional 5 parallel spaces in the parking area. Mr. Gibson stated the maximum height limit of the homes will be 28 -feet. The tallest house will be about 25 -feet tall and the ranch units will be no taller than 15 - feet in height. The homes are modeled after 1 lh story Victorians. Planning Commission Minutes -4— July 4— July 21, 2016 Chair WEAVER asked how neighbors can stay informed about the development. Ms. Richie stated letters will be sent out when cases related to the property go to City Council and other Planning Commission meetings. Also, they can call staff in Community Development at any time. The Commissioners all agreed that they like the ODP and think it is a great plan, reminding some of the 30's and 40's era and the way Denver use to be. It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner KIMSEY to recommend APPROVAL of case No. WZ-16-05, a request for approval of a zone change from Residential One -C (R -1C) and Residential Three (R-3) to Planned Residential Development (PCD) with an Outline Development Plan for property located at 2826 Eaton Street, for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and other guiding documents; 2. The proposal meets the zone change criteria; 3. The proposed site design and scale of the proposed homes are consistent with the neighborhood; 4. All requirements for an Outline Development Plan have been met. Motion carried 5-0. 8. STUDY SESSION A. Residential Development Standards Mr. Wallace gave a brief introduction about redevelopment and infill projects in the city and how they relate to the neighboring communities. The City has received numerous calls regarding setbacks and height requirements with regards to new development. In 1969 when the City of Wheat Ridge was incorporated the 35 -foot height maximum requirement, in residential zone districts, was adopted. This maximum height allowance remains unaltered to this day. Due to the calls received regarding development standards and the new development, the Community Development Department found it appropriate to research neighboring jurisdiction's development standards to utilize as a starting point in assessing our own development standards. Mr. Wallace stated that the City's setback requirements are generally in line with the neighboring communities with the exception for the rear yard setback in the R-1 C zone district; it is 5 -feet compared to 8 to 15 feet in other cities. Mr. Wallace then explained that height requirements are a little more complex. The City is in line with most of our neighboring communities which have 30-35 height requirements, but out of line compared to other communities because there are no additional height standards to limit the massing of structures. Planning Commission Minutes -5— July 5— July 21, 2016 Mr. Wallace then explained the bulk plane standard and how it can be used differently in lower or higher intensity uses. Typically, the bulk plane begins at a specified height above the property line, and then extends over the site at a 45 degree angle until it meets the height limit. Bulk plane requirements are enforced in three of the City's neighboring communities. Mr. Wallace gave different examples from other communities in his digital presentation. City Council had this same discussion on July 18 and came to a consensus that Staff should move forward on addressing bulk plane requirements, measured from each property line, and setbacks. Commissioner BODEN thought bulk plane requirements work well and is respectful to neighbors. He also liked the transition buffer from Commercial to Residential Properties. Commissioner BUCKNAM also liked the transitional buffer and understands the bulk plane as long as it is liberal and allows for a second story and not a McMansion. He is also concerned with bulk plane because he believes it will mandate the type of architecture that is possible in both residential and nonresidential buildings and he does not want all the buildings to look the same. Commissioner DORSEY would like to see the bulk plane requirements on all four property sides go into effect, as it would help integrate new development with the existing development. He feels currently the big buildings are hard to integrate. Commissioner KIMSEY would also like to see the bulk plane used on all four property sides so there is light, air and circulation. Commissioner BUCKNAM asked what is driving this discussion. Mr. Wallace stated the discussion is being driven by community interaction with Staff and several councilmembers regarding the smaller setback requirements in some zone districts, the residential building height allowance, massing, and neighborhood character: modern vs. traditional. Commissioner BUCKNAM feels it is not the City's job to set the architectural or aesthetic standards. He thinks there should be different height standards per neighborhood. The 35 -foot height limit should be revisited and the neighborhoods character looked at. Commissioner DORSEY believes the City should have architectural standards for single family homes so there are no eye sores in a neighborhood and cause people to move out of a neighborhood. Chair WEAVER does not believe regulating design standards is going to stop bad taste, different people have different tastes. She asked if there is something that Planning Commission Minutes -6— July 6— July 21, 2016 can be done without restricting people and their architecture so we don't have the homes looking like pyramids if there is a bulk plane requirement. Mr. Johnstone stated we don't know what drives builders and owners design decisions. Setbacks might be forced back by bulk planes; so on smaller lots there may be a mix of 2 -story and 3 -story homes and on larger lots 3 -story homes. Chair WEAVER feels the bulk plane makes everything restrictive and Commissioner BUCKNAM added that if there is to be a bulk plane on all sides what is the base height going to be and that neighborhood characteristics needs to be recognized in that discussion. Mr. Johnstone explained that City Council was also divided on the neighborhood by neighborhood analysis on the building height which became a third priority because it can be hard to define neighborhood character and heights that are cohesive with that character. It will be a longer term effort. It was moved by Commissioner BUCKNAM and seconded by Commissioner DORSEY to recommend APPROVAL to move forward with setbacks and bulk plane research. Motion carried 5-0. 9. OTHER ITEMS Next meeting to be held on August 18, 2016 10. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Commissioner DORSEY and seconded by Commissioner KIMSEY to adjourn the meeting at 8:41 p.m. Motion passed 5-0. Scott Ohm, Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 2016 -7— ♦��I City of :(�jq_rWh6atR,�gc COMMUN riY 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 be taken before City Council during the July 18 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 modern 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 -1A zone district: Minimum side yard setback increased from 5' to 10' R -1C 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 -1C 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 A 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. 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. fl4b�GT�DA/9��P' L0�1'1�l�DI�" So' AR A So' L� [./1rAg1 y4 I�f ffuhnNG RG4raa" !r! CWT"IW oR W.479 GlffNvl' Tmuidonal Height Control 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. 1 45 V/ c ( I 15 -feet 1 I a� R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone district Figure 2: Edgewater Bulk Plane for Lower Intensity Uses (Source: Edgewater Municipal Code) l 450� -__,:J 5 #eet RC -1, R-4, R -PD, C-1, C2 zone districts R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone district 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 481h 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. 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 Building in Mixed Use Zone District Existing Single Family Residence 4- - - Maximum Allowed Residential District Height Fie Q _!;S -a ��� .�, i J 9; M'm Q rw ft$ Eli!�I � _T I � � ISL � ' i•" {1 _ 75 h. Transition a 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. 5 • Arvada requires the higher intensity structure be no taller than the adjacent existing single-family 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 hi her intensi1y 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 may be 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 -IC zone district and possibly other residential zone districts. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: Residential Development Standards D Attachment A: Development Standards Maximum lot Minimum Lot size Front Setback Side Setback - Interior Side Street (Den-) Corner (Wheat Rldge) Rear Setback Maximum Height Zone District (square feet) coverage Non -primary front(I.Amood) (no alley/alley) Wheat Ridge - R-1 12,500 25% 30' 15' 30' 15' 35' (Single family residential) Wheat Ridge - R -1A 9,000 30% 25' 10' 25' 15' 35' (Small lot single family residential) Wheat Ridge - R-113 7,500 40% 25' 5' 25' 10' 35' (Smaller lot single family residential) Wheat Ridge - R -1C 5,000 40% 20' 5' 20' 5' 35' (Smallest lot single family residential) Wheat Ridge - R-2 9,000 (one -family) 40% 25' 5' (one -family) 25' 10' 35' (one and two family residential) 12,500 (two-family) 5' / story (two-family) 7,500 (one -family) 5' (one -family) lo' (one -family) 35' Wheat Ridge - R -2A 9,000 (two-family) 40% 25' 5'/ story (two-family) 25' 10' (two-family) (one, two, and multifamily residential) 13,050 (multifamily) 5'/ story(multifamily) See Note (multifamily) 7,500 (one -family) 5' (one -family) lo' (one -family) 35' Wheat Ridge - R-3 9,000 (two-family) 40% 25' 5'/ story (two-family) 25' lo' (two-family) (One, two, and multifamily residential) 12,500 (multifamily) 15' (multifamily) 15' (multifamily) 7,500 (one -family) 5' (one -family) lo' (one -family) 35' Wheat Ridge - R -3A 9,000 (two-family) 40% 25' V/ story (two-family) 25' 10' (two-family) (one, two, and multifamily residential) 12,500 (multifamily) 15' (multifamily) 15' (multifamily) Arvada - R -E 12,500 25% or 30' 15' 30' 15' 35' (large -lot, single-family residential) 30% if 1 -story Arvada - R -L 7,500 35% or 25' 101 25' 10' 35' (Low density single family residential) 40% if 1 -story Arvada - R-1 6,000 (one -family) 40% (one -family) 18' (one -family) 5' (one -family) 18' (one -family) 10' 35' (one and two family residential) 9,000 (two-family) 30% (two-family) 25' (two-family) 10' (two-family) 25' (two-family) Arvada - Small Lots in R -E, R -L, R-130% 4000 18l 51 181 10' 35' (Intendedtoincreasesupplyafrelativelyallordable housing by allowing smaller lot sins) Arvada - R -SL 4,500 40% 18' 5' 18' 10' 35' (Small lot single family) Arvada - R -NT 4,500 40% 15' 8' 15' 10' 35' (Neo -traditional single family) 6,000 (one -family) 18' (one -family) 5' (one -family) 18' (one -family) 10' (one -family) Arvada - R -MD 9,000 (two-family) 40% (one -family) 25' (two-family) 10' (two-family) 25' (two-family) 10' (two-family) 35' )Medium density residential - allows single family,two family, multifamily) 3,630/unit (multifamily) 30% (all others) 25' (multifamily) 5'/story(multifamily) 25' (multifamily) 5'/story(multifamily) 6,000 (one -family) 18' (one -family) 5' (one -family) 18' (one -family) 10' (one -family) Arvada R -M 9,000 (two-family) 40% (one family) 25' (two-family) 10' (two-family) 25' (two-family) 10' (two-family) 35' (Medium -density residential to encourage mix of housing types) Varies (multifamily) 30% (all others) 25' (multifamily) Varies (multifamily) 25' (multifamily) Varies (multifamily) Lakewood - R-1-43 43,560 35% 25' 15' 20' 15' 35' (One acre lot residential) Lakewood - R-1-18 18,000 40% 25' 10' 20' 15' 35' (Rural lot residential) Lakewood - R-1-12 12,500 40% 25' 10' 20' 15' 35' (Large lot residential) Lakewood - R-1-9 9,000 40% 25' 10' 20' 15' 35' (Medium sized lot residential) Lakewood - R-1-6 6,000 50% 25' 5' 20' 15' 35' (Small lot residential) Lakewood - R-2 5,000 (one -family) 25' 5' 20' 15' 35' (Two-family and small lot single family 10,000 (two-family) 50% residential) Lakewood -R-MF° 25' (min) 5, 20' (min) 15' 45' (Multifamily and attached housing 70/ 140' (max) 140' (max) residential) Edgewater - R -A 12,500 ' 35% 25' 5' 10' 20'/8' 35' (Large lot, single family residential) Edgewater - R-1 6,000 35% 25' 5' 10' 20'/8' 35' (Single-family residential) Edgewater - R-2 5,000 (one -family) 35% 25' 5' 10' 20'/8' 35' (One -and two- familyresdiential) 6,000 (two-family) Edgewater - R-3 5,000(one-family) 7,500 (two-family) 50% 25'10' 5' (two-family) 15' / 8' 35' (one -,two -,and multi- family residential) 9,000+ 1,250 for each addtl unit 15'(2+ family) 30' or 1/2 the height of the 15' or 1/4 the height of the 30' or 1/2 the height of the 15' or 1/4 the height of the Edgewater - R-4 50,000 - highest dwelling, highest dwelling, highest dwelling, highest dwelling, None (High-rise apartment residential) (for a max 50 units) whichever is greater whichever is greater whichever is greater whichever is greater Denver - U -111-1-2.5I 20' 3' 3' 12'/20' Front 65% - 30' (2.5 stories) (multi unit, urban house, duplex, tandem 3,000 50.0% Rear 35%-17' (1 story) house) - - - Denver - U -SU -B 4,500 37.5% 20' 3' minimum 5' 12'/20' Front 65%- 30' (2.5 stories) Rear 35%-17' (1 story) (single unit, urban houses) 10' combined Denver - U SU Bl 4,500 0 37.5/0 20' 3' min)mum 51 12'/20' Front 65%- 30' (2.5 stories) Rear 35%-17' (1 story) (single unit, urban houses) 10' combined Denver - E -SU -B 4,500 37.5% 20' 3' minimum 5' 12'/20' Front 65%- 30' (2.5 stories) Rear 35%-17' (1 story) (urban edge single unit urban houses) 10' combined Denver - U -SU -C 5,500 ° 37.5/° 20' S' S' 12'/20' Front 65%- 30' (2.5 stories) Rear 35%-17' (1 story) (single unit, urban houses) Denver - U -SU -C1 5,500 37.5% 20' 5' 5' 12'/20' Front Rearr 3 35% 5% 30' - 17'' stories) 1 ( (1 story) (single unit, urban houses) Denver - E -TU -C, 20' S 5 12'/20 Front 65%- 30' (2.5 stories) (urban edge 1 or 2 unit urban house, duplex, 5,500 37.5% Rear 35%-17' (1 story) detached ADU) _ - 30' Denver - S -SU -D 6,000 50.0% 20' 5' 5' 12'/20' 2.5 stories (single unit, suburban houses) Denver - E -SU -DX (urban edge single unit suburban and urban 6,000 37.5% 20' S 5' 12' 20' 30' 2.5 stories houses)- 30' [Denver - S -SU -F 8,500 50.0% 20' 7.5' 5' 12'/20' 2.5 stories le unit, suburban houses) Note: Wheat Ridge R -2A zone district rear yard setback is 10' for 1 and 2 story buildings, 15' for 3 story buildings. 4' City of ]PrWh6at�dgrc lJ_wA L, k'"C,1KOWU lU 1 "I c17L1 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.ei.wheatridge.co.us/9S/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-16-05: an application filed Squareroot Construction for approval of a zone change from Residential -One C (R-1 C) 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. STUDY SESSION NOTES CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO City Council Chambers 7500 W. 29th Avenue .lulu 18, 2016 Mayor Joyce Jay called the Study Session to order at 6:30 p.m. Council members present: Janeece Hoppe, Monica Duran, Kristi Davis, Tim Fitzgerald, George Pond, Zachary Urban, Genevieve Wooden, and Larry Mathews Also present: City Clerk, Janelle Shaver; City Manager, Patrick Goff; Chief Daniel Brennan; Public Warks Director, Scott Brink; Community Development Director, Ken Johnstone: other staff, guests and interested citizens PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS (All speakers addressed Item 3.) Benny Gonzales (WR) moved here because he doesn't want to be like North Denver, but now it is. He lamented the big house on Fenton that took away his view: he's heartbroken. It doesn't ht the neighborhood, He encouraged Council to be the leader in keeping the small town atmosphere. Those who want big modern homes should look elsewhere. The architecture doesn't match; new buildings should match the neighborhood and neighbors should have a say. He thinks the height should be about 25 ft. if people want a third story, they should dig deeper. He lilies the Edgewater bulk plane diagram. AI Lazalde (WR) has looked at the studies and comparisons to Denver, Arvada, Lakewood and North Denver. We aren't those areas. He feels strongly about the 25 ft height. He's not against growth, but we need to be responsible to the neighborhoods, your constituents. He said it was at that meeting in 2012 that a councilmember said this scraping replaced with 3 -story houses wouldn't happen to our area. We are Wheat Ridge; let's keep it that way. Melissa Archuletta (WR) is concerned about height and wants to know how the Mayor/Council are going to address it. This kind of construction is going to ruin the charm and affordability of our city. We need not become another over- developed, vendeveloped, disgruntled community. Yes, neighborhoods will evolve .and people should be able to scrape, but allowing 3 -story mega houses next to 1 -story homes isn't fair. The impact is ridiculous, She suggested a collaborative design review process that includes developers, architects, designers, and the community. Be innovative. Don't let there be another disheartened neighborhood filled with big boxes. Do something before it's too late, 1. Staff Report(s) a Amendment to Ordinance for Pawn Shops and Secondhand Dealers - Police Department Lieutenant Mark Cooney elaborated on the packet material explaining the recommended changes in the pawn shop ordinance. These changes would make investigative work more efficient, help in the recovery of stolen property, and aid prosecution. Proposed changes include: • Add the definition of "Secondhand Dealers" and include them in the ordinance • Require all pawnshops and secondhand dealers to a maintain a computer system with internet access capability o take a digital photograph of persons pawning/selling property o not delete any digital data from their electronic devises for 30 days Officer Keith Weimer was on hand for questions and Chief Brennan spoke. • Nothing in the recommendations is outside state law. • Lakewood, Englewood and Thornton have these requirements in place. • This sometimes leads to solving a larger crime. Discussion and questions from Council • Consignment shops are not included. • Brokers already have access to these systems. Just need a computer to access it. • Wheat Ridge detectives have successfully used Leads Online. If WR brokers participate, our detectives won't be slowed down with manual data entry from pawn slips. • The online database is kept for years, and Leads Online has been around for years. • Current challenges: A paper system is cumbersome and provides no real leads. The video systems don't provide good pictures. • All pawn shops and second hand dealers have been talked to. Most are supportive; the others at least understand. • No cost to the dealers for participating; PD pays a $3,700 yearly fee to use this data. • PD not interested in blocking citizens' rights; just want to be more efficient. Councilmember Mathews received unanimous consent to accept the proposal in the packet. b 2016 Justice Assistance Grant - Lieutenant Dave Pickett The Department has received a 2016-2017 Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) in the amount of $11,288. The PD plans to use this money for: 1) Pole camera surveillance system We have an officer who is a trained technician. Can be used for all sorts of investigations. 2) EDGE FX Forensic Elite Edition Upgrade We already have the Edge FX program for accident reconstruction and diagramming. The upgrade will allow for 3Q graphic animation — which jurors expect these days. Criminal defense teams often provide 30 animation, the prosecution needs to have access to similar technology. 3) Community Policing Overtime For the TLC Neighborhood program It was noted that this grant requires Council approval and this meeting_ was advertised. Councilmember Urban received unanimous consensus to move forward with the items presented. 2. Clear Creek Crossing Update — Scott Brink and Patrick Goff Mr. Goff reported the Environmental Assessment (EA) was done. It outlines the improvements that have to be done before Clear Creek Crossing can open. • Some improvements have been made -- 32"d & Youngfield and the 40th Ave/1-70 underpass. The hook ramps for 32nd Ave were not done. • Other reasons the development has not happened: It requires $50M in infrastructure. No one had the money, • The City went back to the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) to see if infrastructure could be phased in. That was approved. Now Phase 2 needs to be reevaluated. Scott Brink reported that Phase 1 was a long 2 -year process that would allow for development on 1/3 of the property. However, the developer wants to do something bigger — using 2/3 of the property, which will require a Phase 2 EA. Staff is hopeful that Phase 2 can be completed in 1 year. Tyler Carlson of Evergreen Development (specializing in retail and multi family development) gave a presentation. • They are proposing something larger than what the Phase 1 EA will allow. They propose to use all the land Cabela's owns south of the creek. • It will be a true multi -use development with residential, employment and entertainment areas. • He said a "Disneyland retail project" will never happen there. +� He showed a number of projects they have done and talked about the integrity of the company which is based in Arizona. • In 50 days they will be bringing a package to Council. They think the mixture of uses will be better in the long term. Mr. Goff reported that feelers have been put out for traffic engineers, there's been some response. This reevaluation will cost $100,000 or more, but the project would reimburse the City for this cast. Phase 2 will use most of the existing data, but look closely at the hook ramps. Jim Paulmerno from Parsons Brinkerhoff spoke briefly about the hook ramps. Discussion: • Timeline? Evergreen would like to close by year's end. CDOT process may take a year. Construction expected by fall 2017. • Denver Water also has big project there next year. • Evergreen anticipates opening retail by fall of 2018. • A large employer is interested in locating a campus there. • They will build the restaurantlentertainment area first, then the employment area, then the residential. Mr. Goff noted there is nothing in the budget for this right now. Staff will look in the budget for possible savings from some other projects, or we can dip into reserves. Staff hopes many of the things that were approved will hold. No consensus needed tonight. 3. Residential Development Standards — Ken Johnstone Ken Johnstone note the goal is to make sure infill development fits the neighborhood and scale. He went through the data from other cities Zach Wallace, who has taken the lead on the research, presented the findings. • Analysis of height and setback compared to surrounding cities • Many new developments in the city are using height of 35ft • We don't regulate architecture, just setback and height. • Setback findings: We're mostly in line with other cities, except our 5 ft rear yard setback is more permissive. Height findings: Denver has 30 ft max in their suburban tone. He explained Bulk Plane and illustrated how it is applied in Edgewater, Denver, Arvada, and Lakewood. Council discussion of residential bulk plane requirements, height limits and setback adjustments followed. • bleed more affordable housing. Allowing these big houses in bungalow neighborhoods ruins the existing neighborhoods. • What's the difference between R1 and R1 C? • All councilmembers expressed interest in looking at bulk plane and setbacks. • We need to start thinking about design standards • Be careful about imposing design standards, we don't want to squash development. + Favor looking at surrounding structures • Citizens want to keep the character of the neighborhoods. + Edgewater reduced its height limit along Sheridan • We are not other cities; we are Wheat Ridge • Citizens havee asked for the 25 ft height limit, we should look at it. • We should remember we are unique. • Need to keep in mind the transition areas near residential zones. • Don't support cutting 10 ft off the height limit as not all WR neighborhoods are alike. Also not all lots are rectangles. Honoring the character of one neighborhood may jeopardize the character of other neighborhoods. • 35 ft is ok in most of the city There was consensus to look at all the factors - bulk plane, height and setbacks. There was approval to work with the Planning Commission. Mr. Goff said they will do bulk plane and setbacks first as they are the least difficult. Height is the most complicated. 4. Residential Occupancy Limits -- Ken Johnstone & Chief Brennan Staff presentation Enforcement is multi -faceted and complicated. Progress has been made in the code enforcement area which helps promote strong neighborhoods and lure good redevelopment. Efforts are currently reactionary due to low staffing.. On the issue of excessive occupancy, staff uses the definition of a family and the International Building Code. He elaborated on the challenges_ Discussion followed. • Q. Why wasn't the 2009 pilot program pursued? It was decided to stick primarily with larger rental properties. Chief Brennan said older rental properties require the most attention. It really came down to resources. We don't have the money to start a rental inspection program. They have put together an administrative model. • NRS updates revealed that we still have very low rental prices in WR. Code enforcement issues with rental properties are the toughest issues the Chief deals with. • Interior inspection is overly intrusive. • Could we do it on a need -driven basis? • People would be better served if we used the PIO money for another CSO. Replace the PIO, but also hire more LSO's. Mr. Goff offered that staffing has been discussed -- splitting duties for the areas of animal, code enforcement and park duty. Chief Brennan added they are putting together a plan to separate animal and code enforcement, and giving park enforcement to the patrol division. He encouraged to leave the PIO position in place. • Total number of landlords in WR? units; 6,000 are rental properties. • The issue of Air B&Bs Unknown. We have 13,000 residential • Causes for problems vary around the city? Sometimes it's the building, sometimes it's the landlord. • Idea of a landlord council. Get ideas from them. Protracted discussion continued. There was consensus to move forward with code enforcement as a tool and pursuing options for a rental inspection program. There was consensus to obtain further information about occupancy enforcement in other jurisdictions. 5 Elected Officials' Reports -- none ADJOURNMENT The Study Session adjourned at 9:28p. m. JaiAelle Shaver, City Clerk APPROVED George Pond, Mayor Pro Tem ON August 8, 2016 City of Wheat idge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director Zack Wallace, Planning Technician THROUGH: Patrick Goff, City Manager � 11 DATE: June 16, 2016 (for J� City Council Meeting) SUBJECT: Residential Development Standards 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 modern 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-lA 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 -1C 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 A 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. 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 2 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. t7 /�/y�cY LO.UTPo�U Soo p A. ft',r- So' UW NMI 15 AF lud. A6*Iae,u.s !u couunrwIle Tnusilional Height Control 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. 3 � r• a J1111 1 45 °i I, c f I 15 -feet 0 , NI � � � 1 R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone district Figure 2: Edgewater Bulk Plane for Lower Intensity Uses (Source: Edgewater Municipal Code) RC -1, R-4, R -PD C-1, C2 zone districts R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone district Figure 3: Edgewater Bulk Plane for Higher Intensity Uses (Source: Edgewater Municipal Code) 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. 0 r .t' 35 -feel: P_ l rl -, .~ '_ , k �� r r r.r-- �- t5•feet', RC -1, R-4, R -PD C-1, C2 zone districts R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone district Figure 3: Edgewater Bulk Plane for Higher Intensity Uses (Source: Edgewater Municipal Code) 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. 0 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 Building in Mixed Use Zone District Existing Single Family Residence Maximum Allowed Residential district Height --_ — — — —— ---——---————— ---- ?oal I F" F—P" ® in n F7 �I 75 (t. Transition 4 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. 5 • Arvada requires the higher intensity structure be no taller than the adjacent existing single-family 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 Rlane re uirement, 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 may be 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 -IC zone district and possibly other residential zone districts. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment A: Residential Development Standards 0 Attachment A: Development Standards Maximum lot Minimum Lot size Front Setback Side Setback - Interior Side Street (Den-) Corner (Wheat Rldge) Rear Setback Maximum Height Zone District (square feet) coverage Non -primary front(I.Amood) (no alley/alley) Wheat Ridge - R-1 12,500 25% 30' 15' 30' 15' 35' (Single family residential) Wheat Ridge - R -1A 9,000 30% 25' 10' 25' 15' 35' (Small lot single family residential) Wheat Ridge - R-113 7,500 40% 25' 5' 25' 10' 35' (Smaller lot single family residential) Wheat Ridge - R -1C 5,000 40% 20' 5' 20' 5' 35' (Smallest lot single family residential) Wheat Ridge - R-2 9,000 (one -family) 40% 25' 5' (one -family) 25' 10' 35' (one and two family residential) 12,500 (two-family) 5' / story (two-family) 7,500 (one -family) 5' (one -family) lo' (one -family) 35' Wheat Ridge - R -2A 9,000 (two-family) 40% 25' 5'/ story (two-family) 25' 10' (two-family) (one, two, and multifamily residential) 13,050 (multifamily) 5'/ story(multifamily) See Note (multifamily) 7,500 (one -family) 5' (one -family) lo' (one -family) 35' Wheat Ridge - R-3 9,000 (two-family) 40% 25' 5'/ story (two-family) 25' lo' (two-family) (One, two, and multifamily residential) 12,500 (multifamily) 15' (multifamily) 15' (multifamily) 7,500 (one -family) 5' (one -family) lo' (one -family) 35' Wheat Ridge - R -3A 9,000 (two-family) 40% 25' V/ story (two-family) 25' 10' (two-family) (one, two, and multifamily residential) 12,500 (multifamily) 15' (multifamily) 15' (multifamily) Arvada - R -E 12,500 25% or 30' 15' 30' 15' 35' (large -lot, single-family residential) 30% if 1 -story Arvada - R -L 7,500 35% or 25' 101 25' 10' 35' (Low density single family residential) 40% if 1 -story Arvada - R-1 6,000 (one -family) 40% (one -family) 18' (one -family) 5' (one -family) 18' (one -family) 10' 35' (one and two family residential) 9,000 (two-family) 30% (two-family) 25' (two-family) 10' (two-family) 25' (two-family) Arvada - Small Lots in R -E, R -L, R-130% 4000 18l 51 181 10' 35' (Intendedtoincreasesupplyafrelativelyallordable housing by allowing smaller lot sins) Arvada - R -SL 4,500 40% 18' 5' 18' 10' 35' (Small lot single family) Arvada - R -NT 4,500 40% 15' 8' 15' 10' 35' (Neo -traditional single family) 6,000 (one -family) 18' (one -family) 5' (one -family) 18' (one -family) 10' (one -family) Arvada - R -MD 9,000 (two-family) 40% (one -family) 25' (two-family) 10' (two-family) 25' (two-family) 10' (two-family) 35' )Medium density residential - allows single family,two family, multifamily) 3,630/unit (multifamily) 30% (all others) 25' (multifamily) 5'/story(multifamily) 25' (multifamily) 5'/story(multifamily) 6,000 (one -family) 18' (one -family) 5' (one -family) 18' (one -family) 10' (one -family) Arvada R -M 9,000 (two-family) 40% (one family) 25' (two-family) 10' (two-family) 25' (two-family) 10' (two-family) 35' (Medium -density residential to encourage mix of housing types) Varies (multifamily) 30% (all others) 25' (multifamily) Varies (multifamily) 25' (multifamily) Varies (multifamily) Lakewood - R-1-43 43,560 35% 25' 15' 20' 15' 35' (One acre lot residential) Lakewood - R-1-18 18,000 40% 25' 10' 20' 15' 35' (Rural lot residential) Lakewood - R-1-12 12,500 40% 25' 10' 20' 15' 35' (Large lot residential) Lakewood - R-1-9 9,000 40% 25' 10' 20' 15' 35' (Medium sized lot residential) Lakewood - R-1-6 6,000 50% 25' 5' 20' 15' 35' (Small lot residential) Lakewood - R-2 5,000 (one -family) 25' 5' 20' 15' 35' (Two-family and small lot single family 10,000 (two-family) 50% residential) Lakewood -R-MF° 25' (min) 5, 20' (min) 15' 45' (Multifamily and attached housing 70/ 140' (max) 140' (max) residential) Edgewater - R -A 12,500 ' 35% 25' 5' 10' 20'/8' 35' (Large lot, single family residential) Edgewater - R-1 6,000 35% 25' 5' 10' 20'/8' 35' (Single-family residential) Edgewater - R-2 5,000 (one -family) 35% 25' 5' 10' 20'/8' 35' (One -and two- familyresdiential) 6,000 (two-family) Edgewater - R-3 5,000(one-family) 7,500 (two-family) 50% 25'10' 5' (two-family) 15' / 8' 35' (one -,two -,and multi- family residential) 9,000+ 1,250 for each addtl unit 15'(2+ family) 30' or 1/2 the height of the 15' or 1/4 the height of the 30' or 1/2 the height of the 15' or 1/4 the height of the Edgewater - R-4 50,000 - highest dwelling, highest dwelling, highest dwelling, highest dwelling, None (High-rise apartment residential) (for a max 50 units) whichever is greater whichever is greater whichever is greater whichever is greater Denver - U -111-1-2.5I 20' 3' 3' 12'/20' Front 65% - 30' (2.5 stories) (multi unit, urban house, duplex, tandem 3,000 50.0% Rear 35%-17' (1 story) house) - - - Denver - U -SU -B 4,500 37.5% 20' 3' minimum 5' 12'/20' Front 65%- 30' (2.5 stories) Rear 35%-17' (1 story) (single unit, urban houses) 10' combined Denver - U SU Bl 4,500 0 37.5/0 20' 3' min)mum 51 12'/20' Front 65%- 30' (2.5 stories) Rear 35%-17' (1 story) (single unit, urban houses) 10' combined Denver - E -SU -B 4,500 37.5% 20' 3' minimum 5' 12'/20' Front 65%- 30' (2.5 stories) Rear 35%-17' (1 story) (urban edge single unit urban houses) 10' combined Denver - U -SU -C 5,500 ° 37.5/° 20' S' S' 12'/20' Front 65%- 30' (2.5 stories) Rear 35%-17' (1 story) (single unit, urban houses) Denver - U -SU -C1 5,500 37.5% 20' 5' 5' 12'/20' Front Rearr 3 35% 5% 30' - 17'' stories) 1 ( (1 story) (single unit, urban houses) Denver - E -TU -C, 20' S 5 12'/20 Front 65%- 30' (2.5 stories) (urban edge 1 or 2 unit urban house, duplex, 5,500 37.5% Rear 35%-17' (1 story) detached ADU) _ - 30' Denver - S -SU -D 6,000 50.0% 20' 5' 5' 12'/20' 2.5 stories (single unit, suburban houses) Denver - E -SU -DX (urban edge single unit suburban and urban 6,000 37.5% 20' S 5' 12' 20' 30' 2.5 stories houses)- 30' [Denver - S -SU -F 8,500 50.0% 20' 7.5' 5' 12'/20' 2.5 stories le unit, suburban houses) Note: Wheat Ridge R -2A zone district rear yard setback is 10' for 1 and 2 story buildings, 15' for 3 story buildings. STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO July 18, 2016 6:30 p.m. 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 303-235-2867at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. Citizen Comment on Agenda Items 1. Staff Report(s) a Amendment to Ordinance for Pawn Shops and Secondhand Dealers b 2016 Justice Assistance Grant 2. Clear Creek Crossing Update 3. Residential Development Standards 4. Residential Occupancy Limits 5. Elected Officials' Reports 0 ADJOURNMENT ' City of I . 01 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum To: Planning Division Staff From: Zack Wallace, Planning Technician Date: April 1, 2016 Subject: Height Research Background This research arose from numerous calls to Community Development Department staff, City Councilmembers, and the City Manager regarding the impacts of new construction, primarily the Incarnation development at 39th Place and Fenton Court and a new single-family home on Fenton Street between 30th Avenue and 32nd Avenue. Both developments have caused neighborhood concern in large part due to their height, in addition to their perceived lack of compatibility with the existing neighborhood. This memorandum will identify development standards in residential zone districts in the neighboring municipalities of Arvada, Lakewood, Edgewater, and Denver. Of particular interest is the identification of: 1) how municipalities measure the height of structures, 2) the maximum height allowed in residential zones, 3) transitional height regulations in place, and 4) how other municipalities' height regulations would have impacted the developments at 3080 Fenton Street and Incarnation. Measurement of structure heilaht Height measurements are summarized below, full Code definitions may be found in Appendix A. Wheat Ridge — Measured from average elevation of finished grade to mid roof of a pitched roof, highest point for flat roofs; deckline of a mansard roof. Arvada — Measured from the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within a 5 -foot horizontal distance along the exterior wall of the building to the highest point of a flat or mansard roof; midpoint of a pitched roof. Lakewood — Measured from the average grade, predevelopment or improved, whichever is more restrictive, to the highest point of the roof. Edgewater— Measured from the curb height to the highest point; if the slope of the lot is more than 3% than the average grade may be used instead. Denver— Measured from the base plane to the highest point (including safety railings, parapet walls, etc.). Maximum height allowed in residential zone districts This research focuses on the residential zone districts in the cities of Arvada, Lakewood, Edgewater, and Denver. All straight zoned residential districts in Arvada, Lakewood, and Edgewater were analyzed. Lakewood has recently implemented a large number of mixed use zone districts. These districts were not analyzed, even the R -series Mixed Use districts which are geared towards residential development. Additionally, Denver has 80 zone districts, nearly half of which are residential. Analyzing each district is infeasible and irrelevant as many districts are not relatable to the City of Wheat Ridge. As such, only residential zone districts present in West Denver, nearest Wheat Ridge were examined in this analysis. Wheat Ridge's standard height for residential structures is relatively standard among neighboring Denver metro municipalities. Wheat Ridge, Arvada, Lakewood, and Edgewater all have a maximum height of 35 feet in the residential zone districts, with the exception of Lakewood's multifamily residential zone district which allows structures up to 45 feet tall. Denver is the slight outlier. In its urban residential zones (U- prefix) a maximum height of 30 feet on the front 65% of a property is permitted. Structures or portions of structures on the rear 35% of the property are allowed to be no taller than 17 feet. In Denver's suburban residential (SU- prefix) zones the 30 foot maximum applies to the property as a whole. Denver does allow for an increase in the maximum permitted height. Where the residential structure is allowed 30 feet, a 1 foot increase in building height is allowed for every 5 foot increase in lot width over 50 feet, up to a maximum of 35 feet tall. Where residential structures are allowed 17 feet, a 1 foot increase in building height is allowed for every 3 foot increase in the side setback, up to a maximum of 19 feet tall. Transitional heili t reaulations While all municipalities studied allow building heights of 35 feet in residential districts, most, with the exception of Wheat Ridge, have some sort of transitional height restrictions in place for properties in residential zones or adjacent to residential zones. 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) which restrict Arvada the height of adjacent mixed use, commercial, and multifamily structures. • Arvada requires the higher intensity structure be no taller than the adiacent existing single-family structure. Arvada also allows a bulk plane beginning at the property line at ground level to be used in lieu of the height restriction. • Lakewood limits the height for similar high intensity structures to the allowed maximum height (35 feet in most instances) in the adjacent residential district. • 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 has no vertical height. o Edgewater measures bulk plane from all property lines. o Denver measures bulk plane from the side property lines. Arvada requires a transition between single-family detached and attached structures and an adjacent lot with multifamily residential or nonresidential structures. The multifamily or nonresidential structure is required to: 1. Adhere to a bulk plane restriction beginning on the nearest lot line of the adjacent residential structure, extending at an angle of 45 degrees over the multifamily residential or nonresidential lot, or 2. Be built no taller than the adjacent existing single-family structure. 2 Lakewood Lakewood utilizes transitional heights to transition from its mixed use (M), commercial (C) and industrial (1) zone districts to its residential districts. Any portion of a building (on M, C, or LI zoned property) within 75 feet of a residential zone district may only be as tall as the maximum height allowed in the residential zone district (35 feet in most instances). Additionally, M, C or LI zoned property within 125 feet of residentially zoned property must demonstrate compatibility with the adjacent residential zone district through the use of bulk plane, buffering, parking orientation, or other site specific conditions. However, Lakewood does not prescribe any specific standards for these compatibility requirements. Nov Building in Mixed Use Zone Dispkt Existing single Family Residence Maximum ANowedAesidentialDistrict Height1;- - - - - - - - Gr +bra. NW'W" i �I `w 1 75 k Transition Figure 1: Lakewood Transitional Height Diagram (Source: Lakewood Municipal Code) Edgewater Edgewater requires a bulk plane beginning at a height of 15 feet above the property line and extending at an angle of 45 degrees for properties zoned R-1, R-2, and R-3 (see Figure 2). For commercial and higher intensity residential uses (RC -1, R-4, R -PD, C-1, and C-2), the bulk plane begins at a height of 35 feet above the property line and extends at an angle of 45 degrees over the property. If a higher intensity or commercial property abuts the R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone district, the bulk plane shall begin 15 feet above the shared property line (see Figure 3). Edgewater measures the bulk plane from each property line extending to the center of the property. i B 4s R -t, R-2, or R-3 zone distAct Figure 2: Edgewater Bulk Plane for Lower Intensity Uses (Source: Edgewater Municipal Code) Denver RC -1, R-4, R -PD, C-1, C2 zone districts R-1, R-2, or R-3 zone district Figure 3: Edgewater Bulk Plane for Higher Intensity Uses (Source: Edgewater Municipal Code) Denver also has a bulk plane requirement. In the 'Urban' and some 'Urban Edge' zone districts researched, the bulk plane requirement differs between the front 65% of the property and the rear 35% of the property. The front 65% of the property requires a 45 degree bulk plane beginning at 17 feet above the property line. The rear 35% of the property requires a 45 degree bulk plane beginning at 10 feet above the property line. In the 'Suburban' and one 'Urban Edge' zone district researched. The bulk plane requirement begins 10 feet above the property line and extends at an angle of 45 degrees. Denver measures the bulk plane from the side property lines extending to the center of the property 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) Applying Transitional standards to Wheat Ridge In an effort to understand how these transitional height regulations would be enforced on the ground, each applicable standard was applied to 3080 Fenton Street and the Incarnation development. Visual 4 representations of the transitional height restrictions and bulk plane standards may be found on the following pages. A site plan of Incarnation can be found on page 9 for spatial reference. Page 10: Arvada and Lakewood Neither Arvada nor Lakewood have height restrictions or provisions for single-family structures abutting single-family structures. It is likely 3080 Fenton Street would have been permitted as -is in both municipalities. Denver Bulk Plane 3080 Fenton Street is impacted by the bulk plane requirements in place in Denver's urban and suburban zone districts. The slightly more permissive urban zone district bulk plane, due to its beginning at a higher vertical height above the property line, would impact 3080 Fenton less than the suburban bulk plane. For reference, much of the area east of the Sheridan Boulevard boundary between Denver and Wheat Ridge is zoned as one of the urban zone districts (see page 8). Edgewater Bulk Plane Edgewater enforces its bulk plane requirement from all property lines, which is why the north elevation is only shown for the Edgewater bulk plane analysis. The structure would be impacted by the bulk plane measured from the side property lines, but not those measured from the front and rear property lines. Page 11: The northwestern most single-family unit was used for the bulk plane analysis as it would be the most impacted due to its side yard setback. The single-family homes along the northeastern edge of the development would also likely be impacted by bulk plane requirements. Arvada and Lakewood Neither Arvada nor Lakewood have height restrictions or provisions for single-family structures abutting single-family structures. It is likely the Incarnation single-family homes would have been permitted as -is in both municipalities. Denver and Edgewater The single-family homes at Incarnation would be similarly impacted by Edgewater's and Denver's bulk plane as was 3080 Fenton Street. Again, due to vertical height differences in the bulk plane requirement, Denver's suburban zone bulk plane would be the most impactful. That being said, all the bulk plane requirements analyzed would impact the single family Incarnation structures. Pages 12-14: Due to the location of the three duplex structures at the south end of the Incarnation property, the most impactful bulk plane to examine is the 'side' elevation, which begins at the southern property line and extends over the rear of the structures. The front and rear elevations are 5 relevant for duplex units located in the corners of the development, which have existing single- family homes to both the west and south. Arvada Considering the duplex structure 'multifamily' for purposes of this analysis, the duplex structures along the southern Incarnation property line would have two options for development. Option A is to construct at a height not taller than the adjacent single-family homes. The existing homes are typically one-story, and no more than 12-15 feet tall. This height restriction is represented by the blue line. Option B is to implement a bulk plane of 45 degrees beginning at the property line. Both options impact the structures, Option B much more so. Lakewood Lakewood does not have height restrictions or provisions for single-family zones abutting single- family structures. It is likely the Incarnation duplex units would have been permitted as -is. Denver and Edgewater There is no analysis provided for Denver's suburban zone districts as the suburban zone districts nearest Wheat Ridge, and thus included in the analysis, only allow single units. Denver's urban zone district bulk plane and Edgewater's bulk plane do not impact the rear of the duplex structures, those facing West 391h Avenue. The southwest corner duplex structure would be slightly impacted by both bulk plane requirements, but it appears that the structure itself would not be impacted, only architectural elements. Pages 15-17: The rowhouses at Incarnation are centrally located on the property, and thus would only be impacted by bulk planes extending from the west and east property lines. Arvada The rowhouse structures have two options for development under Arvada's height restrictions. Option A is to implement a bulk plane of 45 degrees beginning at the property line. Both options impact the structures. Option B is to construct at a height not taller than the adjacent single- family homes. Rowhouse A is adjacent to a two-story single-family home, and as such is only impacted slightly by this requirement. This height restriction is represented by the blue line. Note that Rowhouse B, located on the west side of the property, is adjacent to a one-story single-family home, and as such would be much more impacted by Option B. Denver and Edgewater There is no analysis provided for Denver's suburban zone districts as the suburban zone districts nearest Wheat Ridge, and thus included in the analysis, only allow single units. Denver's urban zone district bulk plane and Edgewater's bulk plane do not impact the sides of the rowhouse structures. The front and rear of the rowhouse structures are far enough away from the property lines to be impacted by the bulk plane requirements extending from there. Final thoughts: It is interesting to note that bulk plane standards are present in Denver and Edgewater, cities which are largely built out, thus attention and growth are being focused towards existing neighborhoods via infill and redevelopment. The bulk plane standards appear to serve as a method by which a new development, such as infill, scrape, or pop -top, does not overpower existing residential structures. On the other hand Lakewood does not have bulk plane standards and Arvada's bulk plane requirement is less pervasive as Denver's and Edgewater's. Arvada also allows the bulk plane to be implemented as one of two options. The second option, restricting the height to that of the adjacent single-family structure can be less or more restrictive, depending on the location. Lakewood and, to a certain extent, Arvada utilize height restrictions impacting higher intensity uses which abut existing single-family low density neighborhoods. This may serve the purpose of protecting existing residential neighborhoods from major changes along commercial corridors. Additionally, Lakewood and Arvada are not as built -out, nor as urban (as a whole) as Denver and Edgewater. Additionally, they have room to grow outwards, especially towards their respective western boundaries. Height restrictions make more sense than bulk plane requirements in this situation. Wheat Ridge appears to be an interesting mix of both Denver/Edgewater and Arvada/Lakewood. Wheat Ridge is smaller than both Arvada and Lakewood, and East Wheat Ridge shares similar attributes to Edgewater and Denver. East Wheat Ridge neighborhoods are experiencing some increased interest in redevelopment. On the other end, West Wheat Ridge is more stable and similar to suburban Lakewood and Arvada. As such, my initial thought is to pursue a mix of transitional height restrictions and bulk plane requirements. While bulk plane standards seem more appropriate in East Wheat Ridge, they do not appear to be relevant in West Wheat Ridge, where transitional heights may be more appropriately implemented. 7 Z 487H Ul!lsick k 16 mountain rw 6-A Wheat Ridge *e. . - to-, Edgewater Denver Generalized Zoning Map Jt x !!P 't Gerwfal Zoon Category - Ud= Clefmw tktmm LtbW Centa Udmn Edge Suburban 8 Incarnation Site Plan and Elevation Points 77 sp PARCEL S' z! N Oi 4@ I IOD Ing e W—f��.y UEMAY fimil , I.G&wm Orr ,ow 11p ip I K WN - J $11MAX X . Op, "Ic- JUM, .15M" L IL Front ffAKjAqiA Rear 00 1 0 D -u ex - k 0 ii CS &0.� Rear - -W r -M --- L—`-- AN 9 f-ffiKA.SA tohL. Front ffAKjAqiA Rear 00 1 0 D -u ex - k 0 ii CS &0.� Rear - -W r -M --- L—`-- AN 9 3080 Fenton Street Bulk Plane Simulations ; s,4kONrZ�}.EVArION 5 h Edgewater — Side Property Lines Denver 'Urban' Zone Districts )U -RR -as, usU-R, U-su-ei, u-sU-c, U-sU-ci,Eau-q 17 Denver 'Suburban' Zone Districts )s-su-n,r-su-oz,s-su-F) Edgewater—Front and Rear Property Unes -19 H 10 FRONT ELEVATION Incarnation Single Family Bulk Plane Simulations FRONT ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION Edg ..r Danner 'Urban'Zone DiAnate Denwr'Sub urban' Zone DisMRs u,n o esu n—n Incarnation Duplex Bulk Plane Simulations—Arvada Regulations REAR ELEVATION! Incarnation Duplex Bulk Plane Simulations — Edgewater Regulations REAR ELEVATION 13 Incarnation Duplex Bulk Plane Simulations — Denver Regulations �.,»--- - rte■ A FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION 14 Incarnation Rowhouse Bulk Plane Simulations — Arvada Regulations FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION Incarnation Rowhouse Bulk Plane Simulations - Edgewater Regulations A&I Ing RM i c4t �l , Lr nr rr r�r f r ■ rlr r_� FRC)NT fl FVATKIN REAR ELEVA?ION 16 Incarnation Rowhouse Bulk Plane Simulations — Denver Regulations FRONT Ft FVATInN REAR ELEVATION �.� � --� %W,0%� �row, ,� I��1�� •' , ���,�,� ``` -, ��I�.- tw�>�49999� loom FRONT Ft FVATInN REAR ELEVATION Appendix A: Full Code Definitions for Height Measurement (1) Wheat Ridge Arvada The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the finished grade of the building to the highest point of the roof surface if a flat roof, or to the deckline of a mansard roof, or to the mean height level between eaves and ridge for a gable, hip, gambrel or other roof (see Figure 26-123.1 at the end of this section). The height of a stepped or terraced building is the maximum height of any segment of the building. The building height limitations established herein shall not apply to the following: church steeples, silos, decorative domes and cupolas not used for human occupancy or any commercial, business or industrial use, nor to windmills, chimneys, ventilations, transmission towers, solar heating and cooling devices, or necessary mechanical appurtenances normally carried above the roofline. Building height is measured as the vertical distance between the point of measurement on the ground to the highest point of (1) coping of a flat roof, or (2) to the deck line of a mansard roof, or (3) to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hip roof, except in the Olde Town Zoning District (see §6.2.5.Q. The point of measurement may be taken from the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within a five-foot horizontal distance along the exterior wall of the building, when such sidewalk or ground surface is not more than ten feet above grade. Rdr N VMS.— ca NLCY.. tiTixl Di .51. d ,i v%&' h ywA. 3n MA D' [ Ytll1N.'1LY IK1X spB.- MST VGN: tl9lVlnli MAW hY. "_[' V II[DI: _u9f:MLtl1\ XY.D] .M �fuCt .164 Tt. LfIJ.P:! – v,'1 OF lx: BWL]'G VP YN.41:4- Lakewood Building and structure height shall be measured from average grade to the highest point of the structure; or the coping of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof, the highest point of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof, or the highest point of any other type of roof (See Figure 17.5.3). Average grade shall be measured as follows: a. Average grade shall be determined by calculating the average of the highest and lowest elevation points adjacent to the building or structure along the predevelopment grade or the improved grade, whichever is more restrictive. D 0,:W Hull r:NG HEIrH, POOL: Wu. N:M111tl W0 PDNV � .wr fps DM1BflCl urue.Pr gJiB lN= ,Nlk ui Ntl ��• Rdr N VMS.— ca NLCY.. tiTixl Di .51. d ,i v%&' h ywA. 3n MA D' [ Ytll1N.'1LY IK1X spB.- MST VGN: tl9lVlnli MAW hY. "_[' V II[DI: _u9f:MLtl1\ XY.D] .M �fuCt .164 Tt. LfIJ.P:! – v,'1 OF lx: BWL]'G VP YN.41:4- Lakewood Building and structure height shall be measured from average grade to the highest point of the structure; or the coping of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof, the highest point of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof, or the highest point of any other type of roof (See Figure 17.5.3). Average grade shall be measured as follows: a. Average grade shall be determined by calculating the average of the highest and lowest elevation points adjacent to the building or structure along the predevelopment grade or the improved grade, whichever is more restrictive. Appendix A: Full Code Definitions for Height Measurement (2) b. Within the height transition areas described in Sections 17.5.3.4: and 17.5.4.2: average grade may be calculated separately from the remainder of the building or structure. c. Where significant grading has been approved by the City, the average grade shall be considered the improved grade following such approved grading. Pitched Roof Xlghaal Roof Point _ __ ■ ■■ ■® Avenge Gnde Flat Roof Top of Roel Gopleg �i 1 Arerape Gude Figure 17.5.3: Example Height Measurements Edgewater the vertical distance measured from the level of the curb adjacent to the centerpoint of the front lot line to the highest point of the roof surface; provided, however, that, if the grade of the lot varies or exceeds a three -percent change in elevation between the front and rear lot lines, then the building height means the vertical distance measured from an average of the existing grade between the front and rear lot lines to the highest point of the roof surface. Denver Overall height in feet shall be measured as the vertical distance in feet from a base plane to the highest point of a building or structure, including parapet walls or safety railings. See Figure 13.1-8 and 13.1-9. Figure 13.1-8 r 1. Overall height in stories shall be measured as the total number of stories. See Figure 13.1-4. 2. A Story shall count towards the total number of stories when: Appendix A: Full Code Definitions for Height Measurement (3) a. The Story has its finished floor surface entirely above the Front Base Plane; or b. The Story is located below a story which has its finished floor surface more than 6' above the Front base plane; or c. The Story is located below a story which has its finished floor surface more than 6' above the finished grade for more than 50% of the total building perimeter; or d. The Story is located below a story which has its finished floor surface more than 12' above finished grade at any point. Figure 13.1-4 Plane Mmasy Street Setback OriginalGrade Elevation,