Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-21- 6A� City of WheatRidge PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA September 16, 2021 Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on September 16, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. This meeting will be conducted as a virtual meeting and in person at 7500 W. 29' Avenue, Municipal Building, if allowed to meet on that date per COVID-19 restrictions. Members of the Planning Commission and City staff will be physically present at the Municipal building for this meeting if allowed by health guidelines. The public may participate in these ways: 1. Provide comment in advance at www.wheatridgespeaks.org (comment by noon on September 15) 2. Virtually attend and participate in the meeting through a device or phone: • Click hereto join and provide public comment (create a Zoom account to join) • Or call 1-669-900-6833 with Meeting ID 824 6808 7285 and Passcode: 201505 3. View the meeting live or later at www.wheatridgespeaks.org, Channel 8, or YouTube Live at httys://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/view 4. Attend in person (meeting will be in-person unless prohibited by COVID-19 restrictions). 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —September 2, 2021 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.) (continued on neat page) Planning Commission Agenda— September 16, 2021 PUBLIC HEARING * Page 2 A. Case No. WZ-21-05: an application filed by David Heller for approval of a zone change from Residential -Two (R-2) to Mixed Use -Neighborhood (MU -N) for property located at 4535 Wadsworth Boulevard. B. Case No. ZOA-21-02: an ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning letter notice to property owners and occupants for land use applications. 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Upcoming Dates B. Project and Development Updates 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT Public comment is welcome during any public hearing item. The standard procedure for a public hearing is as follows: a. Staff presentation b. Applicant presentation — if applicable c. Public comment —time may be limited at the discretion of the Chair, often to 3 minutes d. Staff/applicant response e. Close public hearing f Commission discussion and decision Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Sara Spaulding, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2877 at least one week in advance of a meeting ifyou are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. 1. 2. 3. 4. I��/ City of WheatMidge PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting September 2, 2021 CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair LARSON at 7:01 p.m. This meeting was held in person and virtually, using Zoom video -teleconferencing technology. As duly announced and publicly noticed, the City previously approved this meeting format in order to continue with normal business amid the COVID-19 pandemic and the related public emergency orders promulgated by the State of Colorado and the Wheat Ridge City Council. Before calling the meeting to order, the Chair stated the rules and procedures necessitated by this virtual meeting format. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS Commission Members Present: Commission Members Absent: Staff Members Present: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Melissa Antol Kristine Disney Daniel Larson Janet Leo Scott Ohm Jahi Simbai Will Kerns Ari Krichiver Lauren Mikulak, Planning Manager Scott Cutler, Senior Planner Jordan Jefferies, Civil Engineer II Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA It was moved by Commissioner ANTOL and seconded by Commissioner DISNEY to approve the order of the agenda. Motion carried 6-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — June 17, 2021 and August 19, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 2021 -I— It was moved by Commissioner DISNEY and seconded by Commissioner OHM to approve the minutes of June 17, 2021, as written. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner ANTOL abstaining. It was moved by Commissioner SIMBAI and seconded by Commissioner DISNEY to approve the minutes of August 19, 2021, as written. Motion carried 5-0-1 with Commissioner LEO abstaining. 6. PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for any person to speak on any subject not appearing on the agenda.) No one wished to speak at this time. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. WS -21-03: an application filed by Storybuilt for approval of a major subdivision with 26 townhome lots in the Mixed Use -Neighborhood (MU -N) zone district and located at 5725-5785 West 38th Avenue. Mr. Cutler gave a short presentation regarding the subdivision 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 and posting requirements have been met, therefore the Planning Commission has jurisdiction to hear this case. Chris Auxier, Storybuilt Applicant 1882 W 137'h Dr. Mr. Auxier gave a brief background about Storybuilt and how they like developing small boutique projects and given the opportunity the development would be cottage style townhomes. He explained that the area is perfect for their vision with the great amenities that are close to the property. Commissioner SIMHAI asked staff to clarify how the site exceeds the minimum setback requirements on the north side for townhomes that are adjacent to single family homes. Mr. Cutler explained that there is a requirement of a 15 -foot setback on the north side of the property, but the applicant is proposing a 20 -foot setback so there will be a larger green space. Commissioner SIMHAI asked how the parkland dedication and the credit for the two homes currently on the property works. Planning Commission Minutes -2— September 2— September 2, 2021 Mr. Cutler clarified that the two homes on the property will be demolished, but for purposes of parkland dedication the applicant will get credit for the existing homes. Ms. Mikulak added that the purpose of the parkland dedication is to acknowledge the net increase of dwelling units for the demand on parks. In response to a question from Commissioner OHM, Mr. Jefferies explained there are no crosswalks between Harlan Street and Depew Street on 381' Avenue and if one is warranted then a study would be done depending on the pedestrian traffic in the area Ms. Mikulak added that there is a signalized intersection at Depew Street, so there is cross walk there. A4 Commissioner OHM asked for concerns on Wheat Ridge Speaks about construction traffic to be answered. Mr. Cutler clarified that protections are in place for residents during construction including on-site construction hours limited to lam to 7pm. He added that if construction is in the right -of way then construction hours are further limited to lam to 5pm and does not include weekends. Mr. Cutler also confirmed there will be a pre -construction meeting with the applicant to go over requirements related to construction staging and parking. In response to a question about building orientation, Mr. Cutler also confirmed that Lot 18 will have a front door facing Eaton. Commissioner OHM inquired if there is adequate space for the streetscape to be detached and allow for trees. Mr. Cutler said the streetscape on Eaton is partially detached along with an Neel easement for a transformer which the sidewalk will go around and transition to an attached sidewalk. An attached sidewalk is the standard for a local street such as Eaton. Commissioner OHM asked if there will be pedestrian connection to the trail on the west side of the site and if there will be an HOA. Mr. Cutler confirmed there will be a pedestrian connection and said that an HOA is required, and the maintenance obligations in the covenants will be reviewed by the City, but the City will not manage the HOA. Commissioner DISNEY asked how the requirement of units per acre is determined and if the density of the neighborhood is taken into consideration. Mr. Cutler explained that this site, in the MU -N zone district, is bound by the City's Charter which limits development to 21 units per acre or fewer. He added that this property's size allows up to 26 units. Ms. Mikulak added that in a Planned Development the character of the neighborhood might be taken into consideration Planning Commission Minutes -3— September 3— September 2, 2021 for density on the site but in the Mixed -Use zone district the maximum 21 units per acre is a use by right. They only things that can limit the number of units is the ability of the site to also meet other zoning requirements such as parking and open space. Commissioner ANTOL asked what the average width of the units on 38"' Avenue will be and if there are requirements. Mr. Mikulak explained that the width of the townhome lot is going to depend on the market and the product, but it is not determined by the Code. Mr. Cutler added the range of the width for townhomes in this project is from 16 feet to about 28 feet and it is based on the garage size. In response to a question from Commissioner LARSON, Mr. Cutler confirmed that the purpose of this case is to make sure the development is following all applicable regulations; he also confirmed the site conforms to MU -N regulations and that the parkland fees are $48,000. He also clarified that the easement on the west side of the property was originally for vehicular access for a couple properties on Eaton Street and was kept in place for the Incarnation Development and will remain in place. Commissioner SIMBAI asked the applicant how the lot sizes were determined. Mr. Auxier explained they are trying to hit certain price points; this project includes both 2 and 3 bedrooms so the range will be $550-570k per unit. Commissioner DISNEY asked why this project seems to be denser than Incarnation and if these townhomes can be used as an Airbnb. Mr. Auxier explained that the Residential -Three (R-3) and MU -N zone districts have different regulations. He added that the market in 2013 was also different and the demand for townhomes was less when Incarnation was developed than it is today. Mr. Cutler clarified that City Code does allow short-term rental, but they are limited. Public Comment John Conway, resident 3901 Eaton Street Mr. Conway mentioned he is a longtime resident in the City of Wheat Ridge and has concerns about traffic on Eaton Street and is wondering who will maintain the street. He also wondered if there will be any landscaping put in place for privacy and asked how many parking places will be on site. Vivian Vos, resident Planning Commission Minutes -4— September 4— September 2, 2021 6920 W 47' Place Ms. Vos talked about some of the concerns posted on Wheat Ridge Speaks: 38"' Avenue is not a main street for the City; density; and construction dirt/dust, adding that there should be a water tanker on site. She also mentioned her concerns about the multiple developments happening throughout the City. Karen Case, resident 3871 Eaton St (rental), 6324 DeFrame Way, Arvada Ms. Case mentioned she is a longtime resident in the Wheat Ridge as well and feels Eaton Street is a little oasis in the City and is worried about a loss in property values due to the density of this project. She also has concerns about privacy for the existing properties and is worried about traffic and parking issues. Ross Carpenter, resident 3825 Depew Street Mr. Carpenter mentioned the deed covenant restriction for the Stuart Gardens Subdivision which states there should be no commercial development in the area, which included a lawsuit recently between neighbors and potential developers. Overall, he is in support of the project, but has concerns about density and height of the buildings. Patricia Allen, resident 3945 Eaton Street Ms. Allen mentioned she has been in the community for 20 years and she has concerns about height of the building, traffic on Eaton and would like to see speed bumps installed. Jill Folwell, resident/business owner 5885 W 38' Avenue Ms. Folwell said she is in favor of this project but has concerns about parking and thinks a speed bump would be ideal on Eaton Street. Susan Hartley, resident 4015 Eaton Street Ms. Hartley is concerned about the density and thought it was going to be fewer units based on a previous neighborhood meeting at her house. She also would like to see access only onto 38ffi Avenue and not Eaton Street. She is very concerned about parking and traffic on Eaton Street. Kayla Maranjian, resident Planning Commission Minutes - 5— September 2, 2021 3880 Eaton Street Ms. Maranjian also said she is overall in favor of this project but has concerns about parking and is wondering if Eaton Street will be improved with sidewalks and gutters and is also concerned about the density. She acknowledged that MU -N zoning is appropriate for 381h but questioned how far back it extends into the neighborhood. Commissioner LARSON closed the Public Comment. Mr. Jefferies addressed the traffic concerns on Eaton Street and mentioned the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program that is resident -driven with regards to traffic speed bumps. He said most of the traffic will use 38ffi Avenue and the frontage to this development will be improved. Ms. Mikulak clarified that the City was not part of the lawsuits and the City does not enforce covenants. She added the site designs are available for the public to view and can email zoningAci.wheatridge.co.us for more information. Ms. Mikulak mentioned that it is the zoning that dictates the density not the subdivision. She explained the irregular boundary of the MU -N zoning and the depth of the MU -N zoning on the subject property; the zone change to mixed use zoning was a legislative zone change and it was created to follow the Urban Renewal Boundary. Mr. Cutler added that parking is a part of the site plan and this development is meeting all zoning requirements including the 35 -foot height limit. Mr. Auxier anticipates there will be fencing along the single-family property lines as well as buffers and he added there will be sidewalks and improvements to the project's street frontages. He also clarified that the earlier neighborhood meeting that was mentioned was with a different developer not Storybuilt. Commissioner OHM asked if the City maintains Eaton Street and if access to the project can be explained. Mr. Jefferies clarified that the City does maintain Eaton Street and Mr. Cutler explained that the access to the development is dictated by the Fire Department as well as the City, and that the two access points was the most logical design to meet fire and utility requirements. Commissioner OHM asked about no parking signs and Mr. Jefferies said the Engineering Department would look at that on a complaint basis. Commissioner SIMBAI said he is taking both sides into consideration and understands the concerns of the neighbors but also is aware there is a need for townhomes for those people just starting out in property ownership. He feels the developer has met all the requirements and would like them to listen to the neighbors concerns and work with them. Planning Commission Minutes -6— September 6— September 2, 2021 Commissioner ANTOL thanked all for their thoughts and comments from the community and the hard work done by staff and the developer, but she is concerned about the density. She hopes the developer will listen to those concerns because she understands the reasons for different types of housing needed in the City. In response to a question from Commissioner OHM, Ms. Mikulak explained that the setback for this subdivision is more restrictive at 15 feet then some of the residential zone districts, but as all residential zone districts, the height is the same at 35 feet. Commissioner OHM feels the developer has met all the requirements and would like them to listen to the concerns of the neighbors. He mentioned he would also like to see a crosswalk mid -block on 30' Avenue. Commissioner DISNEY shares the density concerns of the community and doesn't feel like it fits in with the neighborhood. She understands the City is evolving and agrees the development standards have been met and encouraged Storybuilt to step up and work with the neighborhood so the character of the area can be maintained. Commissioner LEO thanked the citizens for participating; she noted she did not hear that citizens are against the project but had concerns about construction, traffic and privacy. Commissioner LARSON said he understands the concerns about the density and wants the developer to not only look at the parameters for the development, but also listen to the neighborhood. It was moved by Commissioner LEO and seconded by Commissioner OHM to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. WS -21-03, a request for approval of a major subdivision on property located at 5725 and 5785 West 38" Avenue and zoned Mixed Use -Neighborhood (MU -N) for the following reasons: 1. All requirements of the subdivision regulations (Article IV) of the zoning and development code has been met. 2. All agencies can provide services to the property with improvements installed at the developer's expense. With the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall pay the required fees -in -lieu of parkland dedication at time of building permit. 2. The developer shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and a Lot Sale Restriction Covenant Agreement with the City at the time of recordation of the subdivision plat. Planning Commission Minutes -7— September 7— September 2, 2021 Motion carried 5-1 with Commissioner ANTOL voting against. B. Case No. ZOA-21-02: an ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws regarding outdoor recreational equipment on private property. Ms. Mikulak gave a short presentation regarding outdoor recreational equipment on private property in the City of Wheat Ridge. Public Comment Kathleen Baccarini 11065 Linda Vista Dr., Lakewood, Residence 10745 W. 35' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Rental Property Ms. Baccarini explained that her renters abruptly moved out due to the halfpipe in their neighbor's back yard due to the excessive noise that comes from the adults and the skateboards and the loss of privacy. She inquired why the ordinance was only limiting the structures to 12 feet and if there can still be a person on top. She appreciates the consideration from the Commissioners and City Council members. Amanda Weaver, District III Council Member 11100 W. 38' Ave., Wheat Ridge Ms. Mikulak stated that Ms. Weaver was present to read statements from constituents who wish to remain anonymous. The City Attorney has confirmed this is permitted because this case is legislative in nature and because Council Rules specifically allow City Council Members to read comments from constituents who cannot be present at the meeting. The 1' statement explained that they are neighbors concerned about the use of the skate ramp regarding privacy, safety, and property values. They also mentioned the noise level is very loud coming from the skateboards and the adults riding in the halfpipe. The 2°d statement is from another concerned neighbor who is directly affected by the halfpipe in their neighbor's yard and is upset at the loss of privacy and the increase of noise. They are voicing their concerns no matter the outcome so other neighbors in the City of Wheat Ridge do not have to deal with the similar issues in the future. The 3`d statement stated they support the ordinance to limit the size and height of outdoor recreational structures on private property and reiterated their privacy has Planning Commission Minutes - 8— September 2, 2021 been lost. They added the property owner has not taken into consideration the impact of the halfpipe on the neighborhood or the quality or their quality of life. Enzo Perri, Resident 10750 W. 35' Avenue Mr. Perri explained the noise of the skateboard is constant and the property owner is very aggressive and unapproachable. Peter Baccarini, 11065 Linda Vista Dr., Lakewood, Residence 10745 W. 35' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Rental Property Mr. Baccarini reiterated the comments of previous speakers and agrees there needs to be a code amendment for outdoor recreation equipment but is worried that 12 feet is still too high. Commissioner LARSON closed the public comment. Commissioner LEO thinks most of the comments had to do with noise and privacy and most of the structures pictured in the report do not usually have adults associated with them. She asked if there is a percentage of a yard that obstacle courses can be allowed on larger properties. Also, she asked what the amortization date is. 'A Ms. Mikulak commented that smaller obstacle cotTrses will be allowed if they comply with setbacks, size, and height. She added that variances are an option for larger yards, but percentage of lot areawas not explored as a maximum size limit. Ms. Mikulak also clarified that noise is not a part of the zoning code, but part of the nuisance code and is regulated by the police department which can be challenging to enforce. She mentioned that the amortization date for non -conforming equipment existing prior to the effective date of this ordinance is mid-April 2022, meaning equipment shall be brought into conformance by then. She added that enforcement is complaint driven. Commissioner DISNEY asked if the structure is 12 feet in height will this stop people from installing these types of equipment. Ms. Mikulak explained a code is not written for one specific issue, but there will need to be some modification to bring the existing halfpipe into compliance because it exceeds multiple development standards. She added the 12 -foot regulation is a balance between minor and major accessory structures. Commissioner OHM asked if the height and setback is a typical structure height and understands the citizens complaints. He also commented that a property Planning Commission Minutes -9— September 9— September 2, 2021 owner's house can be 35 feet in height and a balcony can be up high. He then asked if there is a way to measure the noise. Ms. Mikulak explained that setback differs depending on the zone district and can range from 5 to 15 feet. She also clarified that the City's noise regulations do not include a decibel limit on residential properties. In response to a question from Commissioner OHM, Ms. Mikulak said that structures in a front yard must follow front yard setbacks. Commissioner OHM feels that kiddy pools should be in a back yard for safety and to avoid accidental drowning. Commissioner SIMBAI inquired if the Community Development Director has the power to determine if the equipment is permanent or not. He also mentioned that this Code Amendment feels like it is due to one piece of equipment. Ms. Mikulak explained that the decision maker is the Director and if not agreed with, then the Board of Adjustment can make a final decision on the interpretation of whether something is permanent or temporary; the board also decides on variances that exceed 50% of the standard. She also mentioned this is not the typical path for a Code to be written based on specific issue, but it is the way it happens sometimes. Commissioner LARSON asked staff to explain the permitting process for a property owner that wants a permanent structure on their property. He also asked how these structures will come into compliance. Ms. Mikulak explained that this will be similar to the rules that apply to a fence which does not need a building permit, but it needs to follow the development standards. She added that enforcement of these structures will be complaint based. With the current code, it is basically impossible for the PD to enforce because there is not a specific code section to refer to. Ms. Mikulak mentioned that the Public Hearing for City Council is September 27. In response to a comment from Commissioner SIMBAI, Ms. Mikulak mentioned that paid mediation has been offered to the neighborhood with the halfpipe. It was moved by Commissioner DISNEY and seconded by Commissioner OHM to recommend approval of a code amendment modifying Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws regarding outdoor recreational equipment on private property Motion carried 6-0. 8. OLD BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes - 10— September 2, 2021 9. NEW BUSINESS A. Upcoming Dates Ms. Mikulak mentioned that there will be Planning Commission meetings on September 16, October 7, and October 21. B. Project and Development Updates Ms. Mikulak updated the Commissioner on Let's Talk which is now focusing on the Leppla Manor and Applewood neighborhoods. She mentioned that the first round of engagement has been completed and that report can be found on the What's Up Wheat Ridge project page. Currently, we're in the second phase and are waiting for each neighborhood to weigh in on specific action items, which is done by a survey. Ms. Mikulak said there will also be an open house on September 8 at the Rec Center which will duplicate the survey, but there will be representatives in attendance from Engineering, Planning and Parks & Rec to answer any questions. A summary of input from these 2 neighborhoods will be brought to City Council on the October 4 Study Session. Currently we are focusing on the 3`d and 4d' of 10 neighborhoods. 10. ADJOURNMENT 4 It was moved by Commissioner LEO and seconded by Commissioner OHM to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Motion carried 6-0. Dan Larson, Chair Tammy Odean, Recording Secretary Planning Commission Minutes September 2, 2021 11— ♦�4I City of Wheat ��e CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT REVIEW DATES: September 16, 2021 (Planning Commission) / October 25, 2021 (City Council) CASE MANAGER: Zareen Tasneem, Planner I CASE NO. & NAME: WZ-21-05 / 4535 Wadsworth Rezone ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of a zone change from Residential -Two (R-2) to Mixed Use - Neighborhood (MU -N) LOCATION OF REQUEST: 4535 Wadsworth Boulevard APPLICANT / OWNER: APPROXIMATE AREA: David Heller 49,000 square feet (1. 13 acres) PRESENT ZONING: Residential -Two (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Buffer Area, Primary Commercial Corridor, Wadsworth Corridor ENTER INTO RECORD: (X) CASE FILE & PACKET MATERIALS (X) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (X) ZONING ORDINANCE (X) DIGITAL PRESENTATION Location Map Planning Commission Case No. WZ-21-05 / 4535 Wadsworth Rezone Site All notification and posting requirements have been met; therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear this case. I. REQUEST The new owner of the property at 4535 Wadsworth Boulevard is requesting approval of a zone change from Residential -Two (R-2) to Mixed Use -Neighborhood (MU -N). The zone change will result in a zoning that matches surrounding zoning designations, as well the character of the Wadsworth Corridor. The previous church congregation diminished in size and they sold the property, so the zone change will also allow a wider range of potential land uses in the future. IL EXISTING CONDITIONS The property is located at the west side of Wadsworth Boulevard between W. 44"' Avenue and W. 47"' Avenue (Exhibit 1, Aerial). Wadsworth Boulevard is one of Wheat Ridge's main north -south arterials, with the Wadsworth Road Improvement Project slated to start construction in fall 2021. Land for right- of-way dedication along the eastern property line was acquired from this property as part of the project. There is currently one access point into the site off Wadsworth Boulevard which will become right-in/right-out only after the Wadsworth Project is complete. According to the Jefferson County Assessor, the property is unplatted and the parcel area measures 49,223 square feet (1.13 acres) in size and contains a church built in 1952. The property is currently zoned Residential -Two (R-2). The properties immediately to the north and across the street to the east are also zoned R-2 and contain a residential residence and a church, respectively. Many church properties in the City are zoned residentially. Most other properties along Wadsworth Boulevard in this area, however, are in commercial or mixed-use zone districts and primarily contain commercial uses. To the immediate west is a multifamily residential development on Yukon Court zoned Residential -Three (R-3). Further to the east and west are lower -density residential uses, also zoned R-2 (Exhibit 2, Zoning Map). III. PROPOSED ZONING The applicant is requesting the property be rezoned to MU -N, a zone district intended to provide medium density mixed-use development. In addition to residential and office uses, it allows for a range of neighborhood -serving commercial and retail uses. The current zone district, R-2, was established to provide high quality, safe, quiet, and stable low to moderate -density residential neighborhoods. The applicant intends to rezone the property in order to allow uses that are more consistent with the current land use patterns on the Wadsworth Corridor and future potential conditions of Wadsworth due to the Wadsworth Road Improvement Project (Exhibit 3, Applicant Letter). The applicant has stated they believe the zone change would bring the property into conformance with the surrounding zoning designations, since most properties are zoned for mixed-use or commercial uses. While the applicant does not have an intended user or redevelopment plans at this time, any redevelopment or major change of use on the property would require a Site Plan review and/or building permits, which are separate application processes subsequent to the zone change. Planning Commission Case No. WZ-21-05 / 4535 Wadsworth Rezone The City legislatively rezoned a portion of the Wadsworth Corridor to Mixed Use -Commercial (MU - C) in 2011. That boundary was generally from W. 380i Avenue to W. 440' Avenue in the commercial core. This property is north of 44"i and was not included in the legislative rezoning. Rather, the segment of Wadsworth from 44"i Avenue to the interstate serves as atransition zone as properties gradually get smaller in size. MU -N zoning is appropriate for this segment and particularly on this property given its size and its location as a transition between a state highway (Wadsworth Boulevard) and a neighborhood to the west. The current R-2 zoning is a remnant of the past and reflective of the long-standing church use. The R-2 zoning dates back to the City's original 1972 zoning map. The R-2 district allows only single-family houses, duplexes, churches, and schools; aside from home occupations, commercial uses are prohibited. By contrast, the MU -N zoning allows residential uses, commercial uses, or a mix of the two. The MU -N district is complementary to the context of the corridor and the surrounding zoning and land uses. A summary of the MU -N zone district is provided below. IV. ZONE CHANGE CRITERIA Staff has provided an analysis of the zone change criteria outlined in Section 26-112.E. The Planning Commission and City Council shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which the following criteria have been met: 1. The change of zone promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community and will not result in a significant adverse effect on the surrounding area. Based on the existing character and land use patterns on Wadsworth Boulevard, the MU -N zone district is more appropriate than R-2 in terms of allowed land uses and intensity. For that reason, the zone change should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding area. Instead, the MU -N zoning is expected to add value to the subject property. The mixed-use development standards will support compatibility between future redevelopment and existing land uses. In addition, any MU -N building containing residential is limited to 35 feet in height and design standards for MU -N are stricter than for other zones, including setbacks, landscaping buffers, and architecture. Planning Commission Case No. WZ-21-05 / 4535 Wadsworth Rezone PROPOSED ZONING Mixed Use -Neighborhood MU - Allows residential, commercial, or mixed use — includes multi -family and live/work Uses facilities Mixed -Use standards apply, including high quality architecture, standards related to Architectural Standards articulation, variation, and materials 35' if the building has a residential use Max. Building Height 50' for all other uses 90 ° for mixed use Max. Lot coverage % for single use 85% 10% for mixed use Min. Landscaping 15% for single use Build -to Area 0-12' along front property line Setbacks North (side): 10' or more, depending on number of stories (since the property abuts a residentially zoned lot that contains a single- or two-family residential use) South (side): 0' West (rear): 5' Density 21 dwelling units per acre IV. ZONE CHANGE CRITERIA Staff has provided an analysis of the zone change criteria outlined in Section 26-112.E. The Planning Commission and City Council shall base its decision in consideration of the extent to which the following criteria have been met: 1. The change of zone promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community and will not result in a significant adverse effect on the surrounding area. Based on the existing character and land use patterns on Wadsworth Boulevard, the MU -N zone district is more appropriate than R-2 in terms of allowed land uses and intensity. For that reason, the zone change should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding area. Instead, the MU -N zoning is expected to add value to the subject property. The mixed-use development standards will support compatibility between future redevelopment and existing land uses. In addition, any MU -N building containing residential is limited to 35 feet in height and design standards for MU -N are stricter than for other zones, including setbacks, landscaping buffers, and architecture. Planning Commission Case No. WZ-21-05 / 4535 Wadsworth Rezone During the Neighborhood Meeting (see Exhibit 4), neighbors expressed concern over possible traffic from this site exiting on to Yukon Court and circulating through the low-density residential neighborhood to the west. However, this site does not have access to Yukon Court (see Exhibit 1, Aerial); the only access point is off Wadsworth Boulevard and traffic concerns on Wadsworth Boulevard are being addressed through the City's Wadsworth Road Improvement Project. There was also concern over the uses allowed under MU -N zoning, but attendees were informed MU -N does not allow more intensive commercial uses, places limits on auto -oriented uses, and prohibits industrial uses. Ultimately, the MU -N zoning supports a vibrant corridor on Wadsworth. Staff concludes that this criterion has been met. 2. Adequate infrastructure/facilities are available to serve the types of uses allowed by the change of zone, or the applicant will upgrade and provide such where they do not exist or are under capacity. Adequate infrastructure currently serves the property. All responding agencies have indicated they can serve the property. In the event that the current utility capacity is not adequate for a future use, the property owner/developer would be responsible for utility upgrades. A site plan and/or building permit review will be required for any future major change of use, and will ensure compliance with current Building Codes, as well as the Fire Code. Staff concludes that this criterion has been met. 3. The Planning Commission shall also Fmd that at least one 1 of the following conditions exists: a. The change of zone is in conformance, or will bring the property into conformance, with the City of Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan goals, objectives and policies, and other related policies or plans for the area. Wadsworth Boulevard is a primary north -south thoroughfare in the City, is classified as a major arterial, and is predominantly commercial in character. Envision Wheat Ridge, the City's 2009 comprehensive plan, identifies this corridor as a Primary Commercial Corridor (Exhibit 5, Comprehensive Plan). This designation envisions a corridor with a broad mix of activities, accommodating multiple transportation modes and exemplifying high quality urban design and appearance over time. Specifically, for Wadsworth, the comprehensive plan notes the importance of improving the appearance and function of the corridor and working to redevelop outdated and underutilized properties. A stated goal in the comprehensive plan is to promote reinvestment in property and to promote a mix of neighborhood supporting uses, including residential use and office use. This zone change request supports the comprehensive plan by enabling investment in the property and by aligning the zoning with the City's mixed-use goals for this corridor. Staff concludes that this criterion has been met. b. The existing zone classification currently recorded on the official zoning maps of the City of Wheat Ridge is in error. Planning Commission Case No. WZ-21-05 / 4535 Wadsworth Rezone Staff has not found any evidence of an error with the current R-2 zoning designation as it appears on the City zoning maps. Staff concludes that this criterion is not applicable. c. A change of character in the area has occurred or is occurring to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area or to recognize the changing character of the area. The Wadsworth Corridor has evolved significantly since the original R-2 zoning and establishment of the church. The church congregation has diminished in size and the land uses along Wadsworth are evolving to be more compatible with the regional transportation purposes this street serves. Commercial and multifamily investments along the corridor continue and are expected to continue as the City invests in the road improvements and streetscape. Low-density residential zoning along Wadsworth does not reflect the reality of the corridor as a major regional arterial. These changed conditions mean the limitations of the R-2 zoning are no longer appropriate for the property. Staff concludes that this criterion has been met. d. The proposed rezoning is necessary in order to provide for a community need that was not anticipated at the time of the adoption of the City of Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan. The proposed rezoning does not relate to an unanticipated need. Staff concludes that this criterion is not applicable. Staff concludes that the criteria used to evaluate zone change support this request. V. PUBLIC NOTICING Prior to submittal of an application for a zone change, the applicant is required to hold a neighborhood input meeting in accordance with the requirements of Section 26-109. A meeting for neighborhood input was held on July 28, 2021. This meeting was advertised and conducted as a virtual meeting on Zoom. Three members of the public attended the virtual meeting in addition to the applicant and staff (see Exhibit 4, Neighborhood Meering Notes). As of the date of distribution of this staff report, September 3, 2021, the City has not received additional comments or inquiries from surrounding property owners. VI. AGENCY REFERRAL All affected service agencies were contacted for comment on the zone change request and regarding the ability to serve the property. Specific referral responses follow: Wheat Ridge Engineering Division: No comments. Planning Commission Case No. WZ-21-05 / 4535 Wadsworth Rezone West Metro Fire Protection District: No comments or concerns. Xcel Energy: No objections. Century Link: No comments received. Comcast Cable: No comments received. Wheat Ridge Water District: No objections. Wheat Ridge Sanitation District: No comments received. VII. STAFF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff concludes that the proposed zone change promotes the health, safety and general welfare of the community and will not result in a significant adverse effect on the surrounding area Staff further concludes that utility infrastructure adequately serves the property, and the applicant will be responsible for upgrades, if needed in the future. Finally, staff concludes that the zone change is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Because the zone change evaluation criteria support the zone change request, staff recommends approval of Case No. WZ-21-05. VIII. SUGGESTED MOTIONS Option A: "I move to recommend APPROVAL of Case No. WZ-21-05, a request for approval of a zone change from Residential -Two (R-2) to Mixed -Use Neighborhood (MU -N) for property located at 4535 Wadsworth Boulevard, for the following reasons: 1. The proposed zone change will promote the public health, safety, or welfare of the community and does not result in an adverse effect on the surrounding area. 2. Utility infrastructure adequately services the property. 3. The proposed zone change is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the character of Wadsworth Boulevard. 4. The zone change will provide additional opportunity for reinvestment in the area. 5. The criteria used to evaluate a zone change supports the request." Option B: "I move to recommend DENIAL of Case No. WZ-21-05, a request for approval of a zone change from Residential -Two (R-2) to Mixed -Use Neighborhood (MU -N) for property located at 4535 Wadsworth Boulevard, for the following reasons: 1. 2. ... Planning Commission Case No. WZ-21-05 / 4535 Wadsworth Rezone EXHIBIT 2: ZONING MAP Mann;ng Commission Case No. W 21-05/ 4535 Wadswoth Rezone EXHIBIT 3: APPLICANT LETTER AM: City of Whem What Bamrunlry 0evekmmem From David s. Heller Re: IDre Chance Rquee(4m35 WaJ BNA., NTmI Ridge, CO wombs To When B Miss Cmcem, I am wro g to repubsta chargee azanlrg per tle poop try locate0 at 4535 Wadsworth Blvd., Wheat Ridge, Co 00011 recently acpul red this property min PtunAam Grace Fellowshi p Chu rch I plan to Inllally lease of Me and no and will then work on a mAevMsgnmd plan it0 year Rem newl'm operated Ne ne lMv Wars will he higher closed with the WadswoMsame widening protect but the and result should hat@r sulsada person mar dmefih the Why I Irck bmam to 0.wg a W itmmis Wompon. My request to have me gopeM neauged to MUM 1s insin on the followed... Tho tlwge octal m MUM xN auppsP b%WaW% mmry mar are component ends me pool makeup of Me Wad hanger Was any same mlmWse mcameragml m the was wltl gorvde a becoultb me ccnNMaa AcvnArx�ss mewhx and nmhve. iso agmrede cava uredo MUNztmnrp gm Meme srwds, sah4y, mticenva'wXve Nme ra'rgmmuTy, andmNnmresmtba�M taMmaeefleclm th smmurgrfirgarea Tho prmmlylsgavvgtly sang R -P, wsklg IarKK maslsieNwAs me rnalmllro(negsGnnrppmceNes..S a [hinge dzmtiyb kA/M xN WAmaneJy ryorvde areorarmnAngxlY enM rgearor Wocersas malam Aron waaaawh amore MUM=mpreaw aaamemaranr ma wAlnmrream amrema lmpacb, grema�umn entero amp vugeerevaengmvro.mmn akna.,ge drmMng madeummaaryresmrb greaardellevmue anbaandammgwgmrg rgargrgomgoma wM dm mamma waerwmn rAearwleaning, me rnmaee roma anbar win mramre m raplmy rnmgge, mod Aurae MUM eenrempmaan wrn' mnmanelr eea nerve um mmmmlry as me enema pr waeawmm AM.aaa aa^ mm 1 -To uneegoea lh o-awmmama. In meMgp xqs me oNr[gn'dmo me wads»Ms shrelwbmurg pqn { Au mY undmsnnaMbo Wtmis pm/alwd'supperladegwte mfiashgMmazlav-bdeab svux anY MLLN cool HY.mmmre deve'mrneMar mepopedY AM th re-mhgmat¢n mbaMc flcwon Wa65xwm. nnm nglgl-In/rgsfaufbarfi[flov bane spmfic pmpedy wlp hNp M'enAe nMfic snoasln'g, and make acres M.vM nsan In rs fWaY I Whose the changeof ming 1s Manuel maintain an4nultywlm Ne redevekgmentm Ns assn m Wadsworth A chan¢mmnlned all ensure mat this proremy can Mstmatch to physical cWmg] caO Wamswohh comidoras Is s remevemped_ I believe the planned Greet Improvements will make me ngr¢s and egress Into the prepeM solea, and wall be consistent with wtmt's beyond br businesses and developments Madam allowable wM MUM mining . And while I departmentally speak to avall scandal I amanhg Nat based on lmadhon, as well as me upcoming strcetamprovemenb, Nswi1 nmprovkte a pmblmn. Had same would hold true br W Mo hnl files and services. Unocal l behave a Mange mzmhg m MUM min ahgnnmlwM Ne¢rels miM<dy fa Ns seonmm IXNe WamswnM mnMa, and I Irckbrvad Cemg a pad miMtltYs planted ampmuenmms. Tha*Wumry rmnuMemdm. Be well, Road s. H91m Cum N41121 CA/ yup wzv-as/a4scol ra:� EXHIBIT 4: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES Meeting Date: Attending Staff: Location of Meeting: Property Address: Property Owner(s): Property Owner(s) Present? Applicant: Applicant Present? Existing Zoning: Existing Comp. Plan: July 28, 2021 Scott Cutler, Senior Planner Zareen Tasneem, Planner I Virtual Zoom meeting 11700 W. 46"' Avenue Abundant Grace Fellowship No David Heller Yes Residential -Two (R-2) Neighborhood Buffer Area, Primary Commercial Corridor, Wadsworth Corridor Existing Site Conditions: The property is located at the west side of Wadsworth Boulevard between W. 40 Avenue and W. 47'' Avenue. Wadsworth Boulevard is one of Wheat Ridge's main north -south arterials, with the Wadsworth Improvement Project slated to start construction in fall 2021. Land for right-of-way dedication along the eastern property line was acquired from this property as part of the project. There is currently one access point into the site off Wadsworth Boulevard which will become right-in/right- out only after the Wadsworth Project in complete. The property is currently zoned Residential -Two (R-2). According to the Jefferson County Assessor, the property is unplatted and the parcel area measures 49,223 square feet (1.13 acres) in size and contains a church built in 1952. The properties immediately to the north and across the street to the east are also zoned R-2 and contain a residential residence and a church, respectively. Most other properties along Wadsworth Boulevard in this portion are in a commercial or mixed-use zone district and primarily contain commercial uses. To the immediate west is a multifamily residential development on Yukon Court zoned Residential -Three (R-3). Further to the east and west are lower - density residential uses, also zoned R-2. Applicant/Owner Preliminary Proposal: The applicant has proposed to rezone the property from R-2 to MU -N in order to support a greater number of uses that are more characteristic of the Wadsworth Corridor, as well as provide greater Planning Commission 10 Case No. WZ-21-05 / 4535 Wadsworth Rezone benefit to the neighborhood. It is currently a well-maintained building. While a user post -rezoning has not been identified, a long term goal for the site would be to have ground -floor retail use with apartments above. The following is a summary of the neighborhood meeting: • In addition to the applicant and staff, 3 members of the public attended the neighborhood meeting. • Staff discussed the site, its zoning, and future land use. • The applicant and members of the public were informed of the process for the rezone. • The members of the public were informed of their opportunity to make comments during the process and at the public hearings. • The applicant made a brief presentation on wanting to rezone to allow for a "higher and better use" than a church, but had no plans for redeveloping the property. The following issues were discussed regarding the zone change: A resident expressed concerns about area traffic to and from Yukon Court. Will new development on this property cut through to the neighborhood? How will tenants have access? The property does not have access to Yukon Court and will be limited to an access point on Wadsworth Blvd. There could not be cut -through traffic as part of redevelopment on this site. • What are the allowed heights in MU -N? 35 feet for any building containing a residential use and up to 50 feet for a purely commercial building. This is similar to other height limits in this area of Wadsworth Blvd. including the commercial properties to the south. Staff added that the site is likely too small to support a taller commercial building. What are the allowed uses in MU -N? There are concerns about who an end user of the property could be. Staff referred the public to the use chart for the MU -N zone district on the City's website. They clarified that the zoning would allow for residential or commercial uses, but thatMU-N does not allow more intensive commercial uses, places limits on auto -oriented uses, and prohibits industrial uses. • What are the long-term plans for the property? The applicant said none for now but intends to hold the property for several years. Due to the upcoming Wadsworth Road Improvement Project, it is not the right time to work on redevelopment. Prior to the neighborhood meeting, staff received one phone call from a neighboring property owner with a general inquiry on what uses are permitted in the MU -N zone district. Planning Commission 11 Case No. WZ21-05 / 4535 Wadsworth Rezone In lieu of a sign -in sheet, provided below is a view of the Zoom participant fist: ® Zareen Tasneem (Co -host, me) g ol City of Wheat Ridge - WR... (Host) )V 01 MDavid S. Heller v 0, O17204703346 q� Derrick Nedzel Diane Erps P[mming Commission 12 Cole No. WZ21-05/4535 Wadsworth Rezone EXHIBIT 5: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The following in an excerpt from the Structure Map MtWn the Comprehensve Plan. v 44TH AVE Subject Property Wadsworth Corridor 1 _ 4G— r Neighborfiood Buffer Area so Primary Commercial Corridor (Wadsworth Boulevard) Planning Commission 13 Case No. HT 21-05/ 4535 Wadewmth Renone EXHIBIT 6: SITE PHOTOS View of the subject property from the southeast corner shows the front portion of the existing church, access point off Wadsworth Boulevard, and existing signs. View of the property from the southwest corner shows the back portion of the existing church and the extent of the parking lot. Planning Commission 14 Case No. WZ-21-05 / 4535 Wadsworth Rezone , 141 City of Wheatldge PLANNING COMMISSION CoMMuNITY DEVELOPMENT LEGISLATIVE ITEM STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: September 17, 2020 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING LETTER NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS CASE NO. ZOA-21-03 ® PUBLIC HEARING ® CODE CHANGE ORDINANCE Case Manager: Lauren Mikulak Date of Preparation: August 31, 2021 SUMMARY: Almost exactly a year ago, in October 2020, City Council approved an ordinance expanding the letter notice radius from 300 to 600 feet and increasing the number of posting signs associated with a public hearing. At the time, the posting signs were redesigned as well, and it was noted that additional changes could be raised in the future in an effort to help residents stay informed of potential development. At the strategic planning retreat on February 20, 2021, City Council identified "new community engagement efforts and education" as a priority for the next two years. At a study session on May 3, 2021, staff proposed a workplan related to that priority. Among the ideas for new activities, staff proposed expanded notification requirements and specifically including tenants or occupants (in addition to owners) in the letter notice associated with land use applications. Letter notice practices were discussed at the August 9, 2021 study session, and City Council consensus was to modify the code to include owners and occupants in mailings. The attached ordinance achieves that goal. Notice for this public hearing was provided as required by the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws ("Code"). BACKGROUND: Current Code The City Charter and zoning code (Chapter 26) outline the rights of property owners and other stakeholders in relation to land use applications. A review of the code reveals the many different provisions which distinguish between owners and occupants; these can be organized into three different categories: development rights, objection rights, and a right to information. Development rights — This category encompasses the ability to apply for entitlements, such as a zone change, subdivision, site plan or other land use case. The zoning code requires that the property owner either be the applicant or provide written approval for submittal of a land use application. Objection rights — The Charter and zoning code establish a process for legal protest of a zone change, and only property owners may file a protest. Likewise, only property owners are eligible to file an objection to a zoning boundary interpretation, and only an objection from adjacent property owners may trigger a public hearing for a special use permit. Right to information — The code has long required that owners and residents within 600 feet be notified of neighborhood meetings for land use applications. Public hearing notice has historically only gone to property owners, though the radius was increased last year from 300 to 600 feet. For certain other processes in the code, owners remain the only recipient of letter notice. Other Communities and Best Practice Based on a survey of peers, the code and practice in Wheat Ridge is not an outlier. In a review of 12 other Front Range communities, many had a similar approach. About half of communities surveyed include residents, occupants, or physical addresses in letter notice and about half omit them. This practice is summarized in the table below where shaded cells represent those which extend letter notice or protest rights to tenants, residents, or physical addresses. (table continued on next page) ZOA-21-03 / Letter Notice Who Receives Notice for Neighborhood Meetings Who Receives Notice for Quasi-judicial Public Hearings Who Can Submit Protests, Appeals, or Objectionsto Quasi-judicial Applications Arvada Property owners and City- Property owners and HOAs Property owner or applicant registered HOAs Aurora Property owners abutting and all Property owners and RNOs Property owner or applicant RNOs w/in 1 mile of property Boulder Property owners "and Property owners "and "Interested persons" [1] addresses" for some applications addresses" for some applications Broomfield Property owners Property owners Silent Commerce City Property owners Property owners and HOAs Property owner, applicant, or "parties of interest" Property owners, tenants, and Property owners can protest Denver Property owners and RNOs rezonings, "any person" can community organizations appeal administrative decision Englewood Property owners and occupants Property owners and occupants Property owner or resident for some public hearings Fort Collins Property owners Property owners Property owner or resident Golden Property owners and occupants Property owners and occupants (not codified) Lafayette Property owners Property owners Only property owner or applicant (table continued on next page) ZOA-21-03 / Letter Notice RNO = Registered Neighborhood Organization HOA= Homeowners Association [1] The term "interested party' or "party of interest" is used in several codes, and when defined often refers to state law or anyone that has already submitted comments on the subject land use application or a property owner. The survey of local communities likely mirrors national patterns as well. However, the approach to public notice and engagement is shifting with many communities reexamining historical practice. The American Planning Association (APA) periodically publishes policy guides representing the organization's official position on critical planning issues. The APA's 2019 Planning for Equity Policy Guide acknowledges that "neighborhood power structures have been dominated by single-family home owners who are often predominantly white and above median income."' It does not specifically address a right to protest or right to information but notes that "inclusion acknowledges social impact and gives value to local knowledge." Expanding notice for land use applications to occupants in addition to owners would therefore be consistent with planning best practices. Additionally, the City's Comprehensive Plan (community services goal ') aspires to "make all aspects of City government transparent, engaging, and accessible for all community members." City staff have brought both this APA equity policy mentioned here and this specific topic of letter notice to occupants to the City's Race and Equity Citizen Task Force, and we expect continued related conversation with that group. Current Practice The Jefferson County Assessor is the official public record source of property ownership. On a quarterly basis, the County provides to the City updated parcel and ownership data. It is this data that informs the mailing lists for letter notice to property owners. This data includes the mailing and physical address but not the address of individual units (if multiple units or suites are present on the property). For neighborhood meetings, where the mailing and physical address differ, a letter is sent to both to fulfill the code requirement for resident notice. The City creates the mailing list and address labels, and the applicant is responsible for the cost and task of the mailing. For all other letter notice, City staff completes the task of mailing letters. Applicants have historically been charged a fee of $120 per public hearing which is meant to include the cost of postage and newspaper publication. 'The Planrung for Equity Policy Guide was published by the American Planrung Association in 2019 and is available for download from the APA's website: httos://blaming.ore/bublications/document/9178541/ ZOA-21-03 / Letter Notice Ownership data is relatively current but is not without errors. When ownership changes, deeds are recorded with the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder and then communicated to the Jefferson County Assessor. Because of this process and its inherent lags and because data is only sent to the City on a quarterly basis, there may be ownership information which is outdated resulting in returned letters. Several years ago, the City changed letter notice from certified to first class mail and that significantly reduced the volume of letters that were returned. Letter Notice to Occupants With the proposed expansion of letter notice to occupants, there will be updates to the data source, process, and associated costs. The County's public parcel data is associated with land and not with structures, so this public data does not include any addresses for residential apartments or commercial suites. Likewise, renter or occupant information is not a matter of public record. That data can, however, be purchased from third parties; this is often purchased by those who provide direct mail. At last check, that cost was $545 for all residential and commercial addresses in the city; staff is proposing to purchase this data periodically in the same way that ownership information is provided periodically from the County. Expanded notice would increase postage costs; it may be possible to pass on some costs to land use applicants by charging based on mailing volume instead of a flat fee. The proposed 2021 budget increases the flat fee which has not been changed in several years; actual mailing costs will be monitored over time. The increased volume of letter notice will depend on the nature of the land use surrounding a subject property. From a residential standpoint, there are an estimated 14,692 dwelling units in the City. Of occupied housing units, 51.8% are owner -occupied and 48.2% are renter -occupied meaning a significant portion of residents are not included in notice. For neighborhood meetings, occupants of single-family homes are notified, but notice is not directly mailed for multi -unit tenants because parcel data does not include unit addresses. Multi- unit structures make up over 36% of the City's housing stock. Total Housing Units Estimate 14,692 Percent na 1 -unit, detached 7,658 52.8% 1 -unit, attached 1,615 11.0% 2 units 522 3.6% 3 or 4 units 887 6.0% 5 to 9 units 1,001 6.8% 10 to 19 units 1,343 9.1% 2 2020 Decennial Census data has not yet been released at the City level. This data on housing characteristics is based on the 2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5 -Year Estimates, Table DP04. ACS data are estimates so all data includes a margin of error (MOE) which is available in the online table. ZOA-21-03 / Letter Notice 20 or more units 1 1,647 1 11.2% The attached map shows the distribution of residential land uses by type. Darker areas represent a higher ratio of units per building and therefore more tenant addresses. Proposed Code Amendment The attached ordinance proposes to modify the code to include owners and occupants in the letter notice associated with public hearings and certain comment periods. Several code sections are updated for consistency to use the term "occupant." This term was specifically selected over other options such as resident, tenant, and address. The term "resident" excludes non-residential occupants which is counter to the policy goal of inclusive notice. The term "address" does not provide sufficient clarity and is impersonal; the goal is notify more people not more addresses. Lastly, while the term "tenant" was used in the course of prior study sessions, this term connotates a leasehold interest and again is potentially more limiting than intended. The phrase "owners and occupants" reflects the policy goal of notifying all owners of properties and all current occupants of those properties. This ordinance does not change any objection, appeal, or development rights associated with land use applications. The ordinance includes a few clean up items, including an update from certified to first class mail which appears to have been overlooked in a 2014 code amendment (Ordinance 1548). Next Steps As noted above, City Council discussed this proposed amendment at a study session on August 9 and directed staff to move forward with a code amendment. The Planning Commission's recommendation will be forwarded to City Council after a September 16 public hearing. This ordinance is scheduled for a first reading at City Council on September 27 and scheduled for public hearing at City Council on October 25. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning letter notice to property owners and occupants for land use applications." Exhibits: 1. Sample Assessor Property Information 2. Map of Residential Housing Types 3. Proposed Ordinance ZOA-21-03 / Letter Notice 5 Attachment 1. Sample Property Information from the Jefferson County Assessor Property Information Home / PINAchedule Number / Property Information Property Information Sales History PIN/Schedule Owne Property Information Home/ PINVabedule Number: Property Information Propertylnformation Sales History PIN/Schedule - Owner, - In this example we can [ell that the property is single family home (noted in the prop erty class Eel d at the top right). This property does not appear to be owner occupied because the property and mailing addresses differ. For a neighborhood seting, a mailer would be sent o the owner (mailing address( and occupant (property address(, but fora public hearing or other "owner only' notice, a letter would be rent only to the mailing address. AIN/Parcellp - PropertyAtltlress _W32NBAVE WHEATRIOGECO MD33 Add ressand Polieiol AJJrev Information O He Property Class 1212 Single Family Restlensial Mailing Address Ill133RD AVE BROOMFIELD, CO 3002040819 In this exam all ewe can tell that the property is duplex or triplex. Thisprop erry does appear to be owner occupied because the property and mailing addresses are the same. Thatsaid,however, pub l is record does not provide the unit addresses for the other renter- occupied units within the duplex or triplex. For a neighborhood seting, a mailer would be sent to the one address that is provided. Purchasing data could provide the addresses for the additional units/occupants. AIN/Parcellp - PmpertyAddrew IIIIIIIIIIIIIPIENAEST WHEATRIDGE.CO MD33 Address and Pagtlol Address Iirformatlun 6 OHelp Property Claw 1215Duplexes - Tn tool, Mailing Address _ PIERCE 4 WHEAT RIOCE. CO drove Attachment 2. Map of Residential Housing Types This map shows the distribution of different housing types in Wheat Ridge. If occupants are included in letter notice, the volume of letter will increase, but the extent of the increase will depend on the nature of the land use and housing type surrounding a subject property. Multi -unit structures (those with 2 or more units shown here in orange and red) comprise 36% of all housing units in the City. Single-family (attached and detached) ZOA-21-03 / Letter Notice 7 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER_ COUNCIL BILL NO. _ ORDINANCE NO. _ SERIES 2021 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS CONCERNING LETTER NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge is a home rule municipality having all powers conferred by Article XX of the Colorado Constitution; and WHEREAS, the City Council has exercised these powers by the adoption of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws (the "Code") concerning zoning and development; and WHEREAS, the City places a high value on notifying community members of land use applications that may impact their neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to improve public notice by requiring that both property owners and occupants receive notification letters for pre -application neighborhood meetings, public hearings, and certain public comment periods for land use applications. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-109.A of the Code of Laws, regarding letter notice procedures for pre -application neighborhood meetings, is amended to read: A. Pre -application neighborhood meeting. Prior to submitting any application, for approval which requires a neighborhood meeting under the provisions of section 26- 106, Review process chart, an applicant shall be required to do the following: 1. Applicant shall, by Fegula FIRST CLASS mail or by pamphlet or flyer personally delivered, notify all PROPERTY OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS residents within six hundred (600) feet of the area subject to the land use application of a meeting to be held, at a time and place selected by THE applicant but reasonably Abe convenient both to THE applicant and those PROPERTY OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS r^e;ts notified, for the purpose of allowing the applicant to present to said PARTIES re^s the nature, character and extent of the action requested by THE applicant, and further to allow SAID PARTIES the is to give input to the applicant regarding said proposal. 2. The intent of THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING this pFepesal is to give adequate opportunity for bet# applicants, PROPERTY OWNERS, and OCCUPANTS e;ts to give and receive input regarding proposed projects prior to their ATTACHMENT formal submission so that the projects are carefully designed and conceived to be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods. It is not the intent of the city council to require formal agreements between applicants and PROPERTY OWNERS OR OCCUPANTS residents prior to submission of applications, nor is any applicant to be denied the right to proceed to any required or permitted hearings regarding such application because no agreement is reached. Rather, the city council by this subsection is encouraging reasonable, honest, good faith communication between residents PROPERTY OWNERS, OCCUPANTS and applicants, and vice versa. Section 2. Section 26-109.D of the Code of Laws, regarding general letter notice procedures for public hearings, is amended to read: D. Letter notice. At least fifteen (15) days prior to any public hearing which requires notification by letter, the director of community development shall cause to be sent, by first class mail, a letter to adjacent property owners AND OCCUPANTS within six hundred (600) feet of the property under consideration and to PROPERTY owners AND OCCUPANTS of property included within the area under consideration. The letters shall specify the kind of action requested; the hearing authority; the time, date and location of hearing; and the location of the parcel under consideration by address or approximate address. Failure of a property owner OR OCCUPANT to receive a mailed notice will not necessitate the delay of a hearing by the hearing authority and shall not be regarded as constituting inadequate notice. Section 3. Section 26-113.6 of the Code of Laws, regarding letter notice for City -initiated rezoning public hearings, is amended to read: B. Procedure and notice: 1. General. The city council may, at a regular or special meeting, initiate this rezoning procedure by adoption of a resolution setting forth the general area of the proposed rezoning, stating the intended purpose and objectives to be achieved by the rezoning, and referring the matter to the planning commission for a public hearing and recommendation. c. All other city -initiated rezonings: A city -initiated rezoning shall, in addition to the newspaper notice required by subsection b above, be noticed by FIRST CLASS sedi€ed mail netise sent to all PROPERTY owners Of FeGOFd of Feal IaFepei4y AND OCCUPANTS included within the area to be rezoned at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of public hearing. -2- Section 4. Section 26-114.0 of the Code of Laws, regarding letter notice procedures for special use permits, is amended to read: C. Application form and review procedures: 5. Upon receipt of a complete application packet, the community development department shall proceed with the following process: b. After acceptance and review, the community development director shall notify adjacent property owners AND OCCUPANTS by letter notice and posting of the site for ten (10) days that a special use is requested for the property. Section 5. Section 26-115.0 of the Code of Laws, regarding letter notice procedures for administrative variances, is amended to read: C. Variances: 1. Administrative variances fifty (50) percent or less: The director of community development is empowered to decide upon applications for administrative variances from the strict application of any of the "development standards" pertaining to zone districts in article II and sections 26-501 (Off-street parking) and 26-502 (Landscaping requirements), and 26-603 (Fencing) and Article VII (Signage) of this chapter, which apply throughout the various zone district regulations and in other situations which may be specifically authorized in the various sections, without requirement of a public hearing, under the following conditions: C. The director of community development has notified adjacent property owners AND OCCUPANTS by letter notice and posting of the site at least ten (10) days prior to rendering his decision, and that no objections have been received during such ten-day period. Any objections must be received in writing and be directly related to concerns regarding the request. General objections regarding existing land use conditions or issues not related to the request will not be considered grounds for objection. -3- Section 6. Section 26-115.D of the Code of Laws, regarding temporary permits, is amended to read: A. Temporary permit for uses, buildings, signs and nonoperative vehicles. 2. One-month temporary permit: The director of community development is empowered to decide upon applications for temporary buildings, uses or signs which would not otherwise be permitted in a particular district, without requirement of a public hearing, under the following conditions: d. The director of community development has notified adjacent property owners AND OCCUPANTS in a form and manner as required for mine variances as set forth in section 26-109, and has received no objections. Any objections must be received in writing and be directly related to concerns regarding the request. General objections regarding existing land use conditions or issues not related to the request will not be considered grounds for objection; [... ] Section 7. Section 26-119.E of the Code of Laws, regarding letter notice for zone district interpretations, is amended to read: E. Administrative and minor adjustments to the official zoning map. Where the zoning district boundary cannot be interpreted in accordance with subsections B. through D. above, the community development director may make an administrative adjustment in accordance with this subsection E. 1. Procedure for administrative adjustments. An application for an adjustment to the official zoning map may be made to or initiated by the community development director. The community development director may administratively amend the official zoning map under the following conditions: d. The community development director has notified adjacent property owners AND OCCUPANTS by letter notice and posting of the site at least ten (10) days prior to rendering his decision, and that no objections have been received during such ten day period. Any objections must be received in writing and be directly related to the proposed boundary adjustment. General objections regarding existing land use conditions or issues unrelated to the boundary adjustment will not be considered valid objections for purposes of this provision. Ell Section 8. Section 26-1116.0 of the Code of Laws, regarding notice of neighborhood meetings for large concept plans in mixed use zone districts, is amended to read: C. For sites ten (10) acres in size or more, a neighborhood meeting shall be required prior to submittal of the concept plan application. The applicant shall eetify all ,,.ere.+., 9WReF6 ithin GX h.'„d.ed iFnm feet Of the de„elOpMe„+ GitP e„d follow the neighborhood meeting requirements per section 26-109.A.1. Section 9. Section 26-1116.F of the Code of Laws, regarding notice procedures for public comment periods for large concept plans in mixed use zone districts. is amended to read: F. Public comment period. For sites ten (10) acres in size or more, upon submittal of the concept plan application, the applicant shall notify adjacent property owners AND OCCUPANTS that the application is available on file at the community development department for review, in a manner required for neighborhood meetings, subject to section 26-109.A.1. Public comments related to the proposed concept plan may be submitted to the community development department within fifteen (15) days of the original date of notification. Section 10. 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 11. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days after final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter. Any mailing initiated after the effective date shall comply with this Ordinance. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of _ to _ on this _th day of 2021, 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 , 2021, at 7:00 p.m., as a virtual meeting and in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, if allowed to meet in person on that date per COVID-19 restrictions. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of _ to _, this _ day of , 2021. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 2021. -5- ATTEST: Steve Kirkpatrick, City Clerk 1 St publication: 2"d publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript: Effective Date: N Bud Starker, Mayor Approved as to Form Gerald Dahl, City Attorney