Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA-18-05 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE. ¥ Ci ty of9 WheatRidge;1NU rk. 4 -04<b A 0£w-5 DATE: February 11,2019 4 ITEM NO: . REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION11 04 i u Aa" 4-1 91.EBRAP/A,9;5-WHERd Kke#r ./09 1 N Ur-B,Ac,Ar,0.42 1.1% 11/ liwel. 01,) C ub'ef TITLE: COUNCIL BILL NO. 01-2919 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS TO REGULATE THE CREATION OF FLAG LOTS (CASE NO. ZOA-18-05) ® PUBLIC HEARING U BIDS/MOT IONS U RESOLUTIONS E ORDINANCES FOR 1 ST READING (01/28/19) ® ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING (02/11/19) QUASI-JUDICIAL:U YES ® NO lt_4,P/,1« - Community Developm#nt Director 0»1534 City Manager ISSUE: Article IV of Chapter 26 regulates the procedures for and the manner in which land can be subdivided. Those regulations allow flag lots, but they are not encouraged. Procedurally, subdivisions of three or fewer lots are permitted to be approved administratively, without a public hearing. 'These two topics have been points of discussion at several recent City Council meetings in late 2018. Based on Council direction, the proposed ordinance, if approved, would not allow a subdivision containing a flag lot to be approved administratively, requiring, at a minimum, a Planning Commission public hearing. PRIOR ACTION: City Council discussed the City's subdivision regulations at several recent meetings in the latter part of 2018. Those discussions were precipitated in large part based on comments from members of the public regarding the October 2018 approval of an administrative subdivision in the Bel-Aire subdivision, which created a flag lot. Those discussions related principally to 1) the appropriateness of flag lots and 2) the extent to which subdivisions should be reviewed and approved admitlistratively. The result of those discussions and actions are two-fold: 1) City Council adopted a temporary 90-day moratorium on the acceptance, processing and approval of any administrative subdivision in the Bel-Aire Subdivision, for the purpose of evaluating code sections relative to administrative k , A Council Action Form - Flag Lots February 11,2019 Page 2 subdivision approvals; and 2) Council provided direction at their December 3,2018 study session to draft an ordinance that would require a minor subdivision be processed (Planning Commission public hearing) for any subdivision that includes a flag lot. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed ordinance is not expected to have a direct financial impact on the City. BACKGROUND: Article IV of Chapter 26 (Subdivisions) was most recently amended in 2014, with an ordinance that repealed and replaced the entire Article. During that process, the code was amended to allow subdivisions of up to three lots, to be approved administratively, provided no new public streets are being dedicated. Four and five-lot subdivisions require a Planning Commission public hearing and subdivisions of more than five lots require both a Planning Commission and City Council public hearing. Prior to 2014, administrative approval o f subdivisions could be granted only for consolidation of two lots and for lot line adjustments. Section 26-411 (subdivision design) discusses flag lots. Section 26-411.C.7 states the following: Flag lots are not encouraged but are permitted when they are the most appropriate development option, as determined by the community development director. Use of aflag lot design shall meet thefollowing criteria: • The minimumwidth of the pole portion abutting apublic streetis twenty-five (25) feet. • Use of a flag lot design is necessary for effective development of the land. • The proposed design does not adversely affect public safety and includes clearly defined access for private use and for emergency service. Based on City Council preliminary direction at the December 3,2018 study session, staff has drafted an ordinance that would amend the code to require that any subdivision that includes a flag lot, which would otherwise be eligible for administrative consideration, be processed as a minor subdivision, requiring a Planning Commission public hearing. The only other minor substantive change proposed in the ordinance relates to the language noted above in 26-411.C.7. Staff has proposed striking the following phrase: "Flag lots are not encouraged, but are permitted when they are the most appropriate development option as determined by the community development director. Use of a flag lots design shall meet all of the following criteria." Staff felt this language implied some discretion for the community development director subjectively to deny a subdivision containing a flag lot, when in practice, subdivisions containing a flag lot have generally been approved so long as they comply with the three criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. Council Action Form - Flag Lots February 11,20]9 Page 3 RECOMMENI)ED MOTION: "I move to approve Council Bill No. 01-2019, an ordinance amending the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws to regulate: flag lots, on second reading, and that it take effect 15 days after final publication." Or, "I move to postione indefinitely Council Bill No. 01-2019, an ordinance amending the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws to regulate flag lots, for the following reason(s) 5, REPORT PRE PARED BY: Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director Patrick Goff, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Bill No. 01-2019 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER URBAN COUNCIL BILL NO. 21 ORDINANCE NO. Series 2019 TITLE:AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS TO REGULATE THE CREATION OF FLAG LOTS WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge is a home rule municipality having all powers conferred by Article XX of the Colorado Constitution; and WHEREAS, pursuant to its home rule authority and C.R.S. § 31-23-101, the City, acting through its City Council (the "Council"), is authorized to adopt ordinances for the protection of the public health, safety or welfare; and WHEREAS, in the exercise of this authority the City Council has previously enacted Article IV of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, entitled "Subdivision Regulations"; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is appropriate to require review of the creation of flag lots as minor subdivisions subject to Planning Commission review at a public hearing. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-404 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended by the revision of the definition of Subdivision, administrative, and the addition of a new definition of f/ag /ot, to read: Sec. 26-404. - Definitions. Lot flag. A lot which is situated such that the front lot line does not abut a public street. Primary access is bv a private or privately shared drive leading to a street. The front lot line of a flag lot is that property line most parallel to the street from which access is gained. Subdivision, administrative: Any subdivision, consolidation, or lot line adjustment that involves three (3) or fewer lots or parcels, conforms to all subdivision and zoning regulations, and does not include the dedication of a public street o[ creation of a flag lot. See section 26-405. ATTACHMENT 1 t Section 2. Section 26-405, Subsections A and B of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to require review of the creation of flag lots by the Planning Commission at a public hearing, as follows: Sec. 26-405. - Types of plats. These regulations recognize a variety of piatting circumstances and provide specific requirements and procedures for each. These types of plats are set forth below. A. Administrative plat. 1. Any subdivision, consolidation, or lot line adjustment meeting all of the following criteria: a. Involves three (3) or fewer lots or parcels; b. Conforms to all subdivision and zoning regulations, includes no waiver or variance; and c. Does not include the dedication of a full-width ("full") public street right-of-way, but may include a partial, less than full dedication of right-of-way adjacent to an existing public street or for other purposes. See section 26-415. 2. Review and approval of this type of subdivision plat is an administrative process that does not require a public hearing; the review procedure is outlined in section 26-406.B. 3. Creation of a new flag lot cannot be processed as an administrative plat B. Minor plat. 1. Any subdivision, consolidation, or lot line adiustment creating a new flag lot. 2. Any other subdivision, consolidation, or lot line adjustment meeting all of the following criteria: a. Involves four (4) or five (5) lots or parcels; b. Conforms to all subdivision and zoning regulations, includes no waiver or variance; and c. Does not include the dedication of a full-width public street right-of- way, but may include a partial, less than full-width dedication of right-of-way adjacent to an existing public street or for other purposes. See section 26-415. 3. Review and approval of a minor subdivision plat requires one (1) public hearing; the review procedure is outlined in section 26-406.C. Section 3. Section 26-411. C.7 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to require review of the creation of flag lots by the Planning Commission at a public hearing, as follows: Sec. 26-411. - Subdivision design. C. Lots. 7. Flag lots are not encouraged but are permitted when they _meet all of the following criteria: a. The minimum width of the pole portion abutting a public street is twenty-five (25) feet. b. Use of a flag lot design is necessary for effective development of land. c. The proposed design does not negatively affect public safety and includes clearly defined access for private use and for emergency service. Section 4. 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 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days after final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 7 to 0 on this 28th day of January 2019, ordered published with Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for February 11, 2019 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 2gth Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado and that it takes effect 15 days after final publication. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by avote of to ,thisllthdayof February, 2019. SIGNED by the Mayor on this 11th day of February 2019. Bud Starker, Mayor ATTEST: Janelle Shaver, City Clerk Approved as to Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: January 31, 2019 Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript and www.ci.wheatridge.co.us 2017-2019 Minor Subdivisions Administratively Reviewed 94-56'N*Z' 1,8pp.licantName ,-14&18&!z..093*e«i .*« ase,*.:.t:<14,9,.f,.....qpfi,I,i#19168 %<fg#OF.MR.m, 929/6/7. :5£(Maf-/.I=......'......42 / .. *a - · , - 4 · =.wr.. No Applications to 2019 Date 2019 MS1801 BTM Gray, LLC 3265 Gray Street Request for approval of a 3-lot subdivision.Approved 01/28/2019 2018 Approved with MS1802 Stephanie L. Garcia 4055 Everett Street Approval of a 2-lot subdivision conditions 10/01/2018 2018 West 29th Approved with MS1805 Jeff Chacon 5440 Avenue Request for approval of a 3-lot minor subdivision conditions 11/16/2018 2018 Request for approval of a 2-lot subdivision and a 1.5-foot West 41st ROW dedication on 41st Ave and a 6.5-foot ROW MS1806 lan Koentges 6025 Avenue dedication along Ingalls Ct.Pending 2018 MS1808 Bryan Green 4586 Parfet Street Request for approval of a 2-lot subdivision.Pending 2018 MS1701 Jason Cribbs 2880 Teller Street Request for approval of a minor subdivision to 3 lots.Withdrawn 09/12/2017 2017 Stor-All Youngsfield Youngfield MS1702 Street, LLC 4370 Street Approval of a 3-lot consolidation Approved 06/16/2017 2017 West 31st MS1705 Brendan Gustafson 6610 Avenue 2-lot minor subdivision Approved 07/28/2017 2017 West 40th MS1706 Shadow Homes 6025 Avenue 2-lot minor subdivision Approved 10/09/2017 2017 Administrative plat to subdivide one (1) unplatted parcel MS1707 Frank M. Zwolinski 3505 Depew Street into two (2) lots in the R-1C zone district MS1709 Ted Halaby Jr.3715 Approved 01/08/2019 2017 Pierce Street 2-lot consolidation Approved 11/06/2017 2017 * Urk,K 4\ 811'4 - Dire«05, 14 WtRidge «rrf ITEM NO: . DATE: January 28, 2019 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION 90*pf ..YO Y E P•9% TITLE: COUNCIL BILL NO. 01-2019 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS TO REGULATE THE CREATION OF FLAG LOTS (CASE NO. ZOA-18-05) ] PUBLIC HEARING ] BIDS/MOTIONS ] RESOLUTIONS ® ORDINANCES FOR 1 ST READING (01/28/19) U ORDINANCES FOR'2ND REANUEETT720*95 QUASI-JUDICIAL:El YES ® NO !2_«f?.j fu Community Developmdnt Director 09%34 City Manager ISSUE: Article IV of Chapter 26 regulates the procedures for and the manner in which land can be subdivided. Those regulations allow flag lots, but they are not encouraged. Procedurally, subdivisions of three or fewer lots are permitted to be approved administratively, without a public hearing. These two topics have been points of discussion at several recent City Council meetings in late 2018. Based on Council direction, the proposed ordinance, if approved, would not allow a subdivision containing a fiag lot to be approved administratively, requiring, at a minimum, a Planning Commission public hearing. PRIOR ACTION: City Council discussed the City's subdivision regulations at several recent meetings in the latter part of 2018. Those discussions were precipitated in large part based on comments from members o f the public regarding the October 2018 approval of an administrative subdivision in the Bel-Aire subdivision, which created a flag lot. Those discussions related principally to 1) the appropriateness of flag lots and 2) the extent to which subdivisions should be reviewed and approved administratively. The result of those discussions and actions are two-fold: 1) City Council adopted a temporary 90-day moratorium on the acceptance, processing and approval of any administrative subdivision in the Bel-Aire Subdivision, for the purpose of evaluating code sections relative to administrative A Council Action Form - Flag Lots January 28, 2019 Page 2 subdivision approvals; and 2) Council provided direction at their December 3,2018 study session to draft an ordinance that would require a minor subdivision be processed (Planning Commission public hearing) for any subdivision that includes a flag lot. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed ordinance is not expected to have a direct financial impact on the City. BACKGROUND: Article IV of Chapter 26 (Subdivisions) was most recently amended in 2014, with an ordinance that repealed and replaced the entire Article. During that process, the code was amended to allow subdivisions of up to three lots, to be approved administratively, provided no new public streets are being dedicated. Four and five-lot subdivisions require a Planning Commission public hearing and subdivisions of more than five lots require both a Planning Commission and City Council public hearing. Prior to 2014, administrative approval of subdivisions could be granted only for consolidation of two lots and for lot line adjustments. Section 26-411 (subdivision design) discusses flag lots. Section 26-411.C.7 states the following: Flag lots are not encouraged but are permitted when they are the most appropriate development option, as determined by the community development director. Use of a flag lot design shall meet the following criteria: • The minimum width ofthepoleportionabutting apublic street is twenty-five (25) feet. • Use of aflag lot design is necessary for e#ective development of the land. • The proposed design does not adversely ajfect public safety and includes clearly defined access for private use and for emergency service. Based on City Council preliminary direction at the December 3, 2018 study session, staffhas drafted an ordinance that would amend the code to require that any subdivision that includes a flag lot, which would otherwise be eligible for administrative consideration, be processed as a minor subdivision, requiring a Planning Commission public hearing. The only other minor substantive change proposed in the ordinance relates to the language noted above in 26-411.C.7. Staff has proposed striking the following phrase: "Flag lots are not encouraged, but are permitted when they are the most appropriate development option as determined by the community development director. Use of a flag lots design shall meet all of the following criteria." Staff felt this language implied some discretion for the community development director subjectively to deny a subdivision containing a flag lot, when in practice, subdivisions containing a flag lot have generally been approved so long as they comply with the three criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. Council Action Form - Flag Lots January 28, 2019 Page 3 RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Council Bill No. 01-2019, an ordinance amending the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws to regulate flag lots, on first reading and set the public hearing for 7:00 pm on Monday, February 11, 2019 in City Council Chambers. Or, "I move to postpone indefinitely Council Bill No. 01-2019, an ordinance amending the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws to regulate flag lots, for the following reason(s) 5, REPORT PREPARED BY: Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director Patrick Goff, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Bill No. 01-2019 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL BILL NO. 21 ORDINANCE NO. Series 2019 TITLE:AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS TO REGULATE THE CREATION OF FLAG LOTS WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge is a home rule municipality having all powers conferred by Article XX of the Colorado Constitution; and WHEREAS, pursuant to its home rule authority and C.R.S. § 31-23-101, the City, acting through its City Council (the "Council"), is authorized to adopt ordinances for the protection of the public health, safety or welfare; and WHEREAS, in the exercise of this authority the City Council has previously enacted Article IV of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, entitled "Subdivision Regulations"; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is appropriate to require review of the creation of flag lots as minor subdivisions subject to Planning Commission review at a public hearing. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-404 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended by the revision of the definition of Subdivision, administrative, and the addition of a new definition of f/ag /ot, to read: Sec. 26-404. - Definitions. Lot flag. A lot which is situated such that the front lot line does not abut a public street. Primarv access is bv a private or privately shared drive leading to a street. The front lot line of a flag lot is that propertv line most parallel to the street from which access is gained. Subdivision, administrative: Any subdivision, consolidation, or lot line adjustment that involves three (3) or fewer lots or parcels, conforms to all subdivision and zoning regulations, and does not include the dedication of a public street g[ creation of a flag lot. See section 26-405. ATTACHMENT 1 Section 2. Section 26-405, Subsections A and B of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to require review of the creation of flag lots by the Planning Commission at a public hearing, as follows: Sec. 26-405. - Types of plats. These regulations recognize a variety of platting circumstances and provide specific requirements and procedures for each. These types of plats are set forth below. A. Administrative plat. 1. Any subdivision, consolidation, or lot line adjustment meeting all of the following criteria: a. Involves three (3) or fewer lots or parcels; b. Conforms to all subdivision and zoning regulations, includes no waiver or variance; and c. Does not include the dedication of a full-width ("full") public street right-of-way, but may include a partial, less than full dedication of right-of-way adjacent to an existing public street or for other purposes. See section 26-415. 2. Review and approval of this type of subdivision plat is an administrative process that does not require a public hearing; the review procedure is outlined in section 26-406.B. 3. Creation of a new flag lot cannot be processed as an administrative plat. B. Minor plat. 1. Any subdivision, consolidation, or lot line adiustment creating a new flag lot. 2. Any other subdivision, consolidation, or lot line adjustment meeting all of the following criteria: a. Involves four (4) or five (5) lots or parcels; b. Conforms to all subdivision and zoning regulations, includes no waiver or variance; and c. Does not include the dedication of a full-width public street right-of- way, but may include a partial, less than full-width dedication of right-of-way adjacent to an existing public street or for other purposes. See section 26-415. 3. Review and approval of a minor subdivision plat requires one (1) public hearing; the review procedure is outlined in section 26-406.C. f Section 3. Section 26-411. C.7 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to require review of the creation of flag lots by the Planning Commission at a public hearing, as follows: Sec. 26-411. - Subdivision design. C. Lots. 7. Flag lots are not encouraged but are permitted when they -meet all of the following criteria: a. The minimum width of the pole portion abutting a public street is twenty-five (25) feet. b. Use of a flag lot design is necessary for effective development of land. c. The proposed design does not negatively affect public safety and includes clearly defined access for private use and for emergency service. Section 4. Severabilitv, 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 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days after final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this 28th day of January, 2019, ordered published with Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for February 11, 2019 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 2gth Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of ,2019. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of ,2019. Bud Starker, 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 1 tVWULERge - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING COMMISSION LEGISLATIVE ITEM STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: January 17, 2019 TITLE:AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE IV OF CHAPTER 26 TO REGULATE THE CREATION OF FLAG LOTS CASE NO. ZOA-18-05 ® PUBLIC HEARING ® CODE CHANGE ORDINANCE Case Manager: Kenneth Johnstone, AICP, Director of Community Development Date of Preparation: January 11, 2019 (for January 17 Planning Commission public hearing) SUMMARY: City Council has discussed the City's subdivision regulations at several recent meetings in the latter part of 2018. Those discussions related principally to 1) the appropriateness of flag lots and 2) the extent to which subdivisions should be reviewed and approved administratively. The result of those discussions and actions are two-fold: 1) City Council adopted a temporary 90-day moratorium on the acceptance, processing and approval of any administrative subdivision in the Bel-Aire Subdivision, for the purpose of evaluating code sections relative to administrative subdivision approvals; and 2) at their December 3 study session Council directed staff to draft an ordinance requiring that any subdivision which includes a flag lot be processed as a minor subdivision meaning that they require a Planning Commission public hearing. BACKGROUND: Article IV of Chapter 26 (Subdivisions) was most recently amended in 2014, with an ordinance that repealed and replaced the entire Article. During that process, the code was amended to allow subdivisions ofup to three lots, to be approved administratively, provided no new public streets are being dedicated. Four and five-lot subdivisions require a Planning Commission public hearing and subdivisions of more than five lots require both a Planning Commission and City Council public hearing. Prior to 2014, administrative approval of subdivisions could be granted only for consolidation of two lots and for lot line adjustments. Section 26-411 (subdivision design) discusses flag lots, specifically Section 26-411.C.7 states the following: Flag lots are not encouraged but are permitted when they are the most appropriate development option, as determined by the community development director. Use of a flag lot design shall meet the following criteria: a. The minimum width of the pole portion abutting a public street is twenty-five (25) feet. b. Use of a flag lot design is necessary for effective development of the land. ZOA-18-05 / Flag Lots 1 c. The proposed design does not adversely affect public safety and includes clearly defined access for private use and for emergency service. Based on City Council's preliminary direction at study session, staff has drafted an ordinance that would amend the code to require that any subdivision that includes a flag lot, which would otherwise be eligible for administrative consideration, be processed as a minor subdivision, requiring a Planning Commission public hearing. This change is reflected in amendments to the definitions and descriptions ofplat types (Sections 26-404 and 26-405, respectively). The only other minor substantive change proposed in the ordinance relates to the language noted above in 26-411.C.7. Staff has proposed striking the following phrase: "Flag lots are not encouraged, but are permitted when they are the most appropriate development option as determined by the community development director. Use of a flag lots design shall meet all of the following criteria." The eliminated language may imply some discretion for the community development director to subjectively deny a subdivision containing a flag lot, when in practice, they have generally been approved so long as they comply with the three criteria. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 26 to regulate the creation of flag lots." Or, "I move to recommend denial of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 26 to regulate the creation of flag lots, for the following reasons: 1. ···5, Exhibits: Draft Ordinance ZOA-18-05 / Flag Lots 2 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. Series 2019 TITLE:AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS TO REGULATE THE CREATION OF FLAG LOTS WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge is a home rule municipality having all powers conferred by Article XX of the Colorado Constitution; and WHEREAS, pursuant to its home rule authority and C.R.S. § 31-23-101, the City, acting through its City Council (the "Council"), is authorized to adopt ordinances for the protection of the public health, safety or welfare; and WHEREAS, in the exercise of this authority the City Council has previously enacted Article IV of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, entitled "Subdivision Regulations" ; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is appropriate to require review of the creation of flag lots as minor subdivisions subject to Planning Commission review at a public hearing. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-404 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended by the revision of the definition of Subdivision, administrative, and the addition of a new definition of f/ag /ot, to read: LOT, FLAG. A LOT WHICH IS SITUATED SUCH THAT THE FRONT LOT LINE DOES NOT ABUT A PUBLIC STREET. PRIMARY ACCESS IS BY A PRIVATE OR PRIVATELY SHARED DRIVE LEADING TO A STREET. THE FRONT LOT LINE OF A FLAG LOT IS THAT PROPERTY LINE MOST PARALLEL TO THE STREET FROM WHICH ACCESS IS GAINED. Subdivision, administrative: Any subdivision, consolidation, or lot line adjustment that involves three (3) or fewer lots or parcels, conforms to all subdivision and zoning regulations, and does not include the dedication of a public street OR CREATION OF A FLAG LOT. See section 26-405. Section 2. Section 26-405, Subsections A and B of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to require review of the creation of flag lots by the Planning Commission at a public hearing, as follows: .0 Sec. 26-405. - Types of plats. These regulations recognize a variety of platting circumstances and provide specific requirements and procedures for each. These types of plats are set forth below. A. Administrative plat. 1. Any subdivision, consolidation, or lot line adjustment meeting all of the following criteria: a. Involves three (3) or fewer lots or parcels; b. Conforms to all subdivision and zoning regulations, includes no waiver or variance; and c. Does not include the dedication of a full-width ("full") public street right- of-way, but may include a partial, less than full dedication of right-of- way adjacent to an existing public street or for other purposes. See section 26-415. 2. Review and approval of this type of subdivision plat is an administrative process that does not require a public hearing; the review procedure is outlined in section 26-406.B. 3. CREATION OF A NEW FLAG LOT CANNOT BE PROCESSED AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PLAT. B. Minor plat. 1. ANY SUBDIVISION, CONSOLIDATION, OR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT CREATING A NEW FLAG LOT. 24. Any OTHER subdivision, consolidation, or lot line adjustment meeting all of the following criteria: a. Involves four (4) or five (5) lots or parcels; b. Conforms to all subdivision and zoning regulations, includes no waiver or variance; and c. Does not include the dedication of a full-width public street right-of- way, but may include a partial, less than full-width dedication of right-of- way adjacent to an existing public street or for other purposes. See section 26-415. 3 2. Review and approval of a minor subdivision plat requires one (1) public hearing; the review procedure is outlined in section 26-406.C. Section 3. Section 26-411.C.7 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to require that flag lots meet a set of criteria, as follows: Sec. 26-411. - Subdivision design. C. Lots. 7. Flag lots are not encouraged but are permitted when they arethemost appropriate development option as determined by the community development director. Use of a flag lot design shall meet ALL OF the following criteria: a. The minimum width of the pole portion abutting a public street is twenty- five (25) feet. b. Use of a flag lot design is necessary for effective development of land. c. The proposed design does not negatively affect public safety and includes clearly defined access for private use and for emergency service. Section 4. Severabilitv, 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 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption and signature of the Mayor, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of ,2019, 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 ,2019 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 2gth Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of ,2019. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of ,2019. Bud Starker, Mayor /, .4 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 - LiG 9 9 1 - A J -<¥-0 9 \V, 5 k- M 14 4 #e 9 Ul, cpy U y r 6 hr (5, r c je- 9 lC » LGIA, \PA.l (pet*Pvwt- 8- ir O8 -:tratl Mo c r L l<8 <P A 4 4 o to /4-9111 0 -LIVIA.In- :Adl-14 --Do.TA -+P/64 (0 - Go izo, 4 12© 4-ergou ·· - _ bra,4 lb,- / 4·,AT - 15_AH- li 61 / 4) - -Do,%4- ll0% 0- i._w Govvc\Vuj U TDA -r Ort-/5 22-LACR- LOUISE C.Cl '. )0 '/' ---* 1/\,b BLI .- D ov ed_en- 9''ab 0 1 D„- Elev ·. i-#-1< wo 'bALA-od ca.4.ne.4 D \A»Ad-ev : dodu keej 21.A l,1 0 ..00·Cla 7 1 f ULP In, U Ktm k l o o j, 0,ic se [40181 --1 (< ,p (A 4413 -1 v-0 b k-C D Vi dir r AS C h ilf11. be C? rlots P LD - 5 + er q 00 --- 4*v 11I r le- 064--- 9+16 0 -0 9/405- - Pe:960 04» 1 1- L CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL BILL NO. ORDINANCE NO. Series 2019 TITLE:AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS TO REGULATE THE CREATION OF FLAG LOTS WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge is a home rule municipality having all powers conferred by Article XX of the Colorado Constitution; and WHEREAS, pursuant to its home rule authority and C.R.S. § 31-23-101, the City, acting through its City Council (the "Council"), is authorized to adopt ordinances for the protection of the public health, safety or welfare; and WHEREAS, in the exercise of this authority the City Council has previously enacted Article IV of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, entitled "Subdivision Regulations" ; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is appropriate to require review of the creation of flag lots as minor subdivisions subject to Planning Commission review at a public hearing. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-404 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended by the revision of the definition of Subdivision, administrative, and the addition of a new definition of f/ag /ot, to read: Sec. 26-404. - Definitions. Lot f/ag. A lot which is situated such that the front lot line does not abut a public street. Primary access is bv a private or privately shared drive leading to a street. The front lot line of a flag lot is that property line most parallel to the street from which access is gained. Subdivision, administrative: Any subdivision, consolidation, or lot line adjustment that involves three (3) or fewer lots or parcels, conforms to all subdivision and zoning regulations, and does not include the dedication of a public street or creation of a flag lot. See section 26-405. Section 2. Section 26-405, Subsections A and B of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to require review of the creation of flag lots by the Planning Commission at a public hearing, as follows: Sec. 26-405. - Types of plats. These regulations recognize a variety of platting circumstances and provide specific requirements and procedures for each. These types of plats are set forth below. A. Administrative plat. 1. Any subdivision, consolidation, or lot line adjustment meeting all of the following criteria: a. Involves three (3) or fewer lots or parcels; b. Conforms to all subdivision and zoning regulations, includes no waiver or variance; and c. Does not include the dedication of a full-width ("full") public street right- of-way, but may include a partial, less than full dedication of right-of- way adjacent to an existing public street or for other purposes. See section 26-415. 2. Review and approval of this type of subdivision plat is an administrative process that does not require a public hearing; the review procedure is outlined in section 26-406.B. 3. Creation of a new flag lot cannot be processed as an administrative plat. B. Minor plat. 1. Any subdivision, consolidation, or lot line adiustment creating a new flag lot. 2. Any other subdivision, consolidation, or lot line adjustment meeting all of the following criteria: a. Involves four (4) or five (5) lots or parcels; b. Conforms to all subdivision and zoning regulations, includes no waiver or variance; and c. Does not include the dedication of a full-width public street right-of- way, but may include a partial, less than full-width dedication of right-of- way adjacent to an existing public street or for other purposes. See section 26-415. 3. Review and approval of a minor subdivision plat requires one (1) public hearing; the review procedure is outlined in section 26-406.C. Section 3. Section 26-411. C.7 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is amended to require review of the creation of flag lots by the Planning Commission at a public hearing, as follows: Sec. 26-411. - Subdivision design. C. Lots. 7. Flag lots are not encouraged but are permitted when they-are-the-most appropriate development option as determined by the community development director. Use of a flag lot design shall meet all of the following criteria: a. The minimum width of the pole portion abutting a public street is twenty- five (25) feet. b. Use of a flag lot design is necessary for effective development of land. c. The proposed design does not negatively affect public safety and includes clearly defined access for private use and for emergency service. Section 4. Severabilitv, 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 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days after final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of to on this day of ,2019, 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 ,2019 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 2gth Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of ,2019. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of ,2019. Bud Starker, 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 Flag Lot Ordinance at PC • Flag lots are lots with a minimal amount of frontage on a public street, which is the pole portion that serves as access. The lot then typically widens out to a more standard lot width essentially behind the front, street lot. • These are often seen in locations where properties are much deeper than they are wide • The zoning code does not encourage flag lots, but does allow them when they meet 3 specific criteria, which were listed in your staff report • Last year, an administrative 2-lot subdivision was approved in the Bel-Aire neighborhood, which included a flag lot. The lot was found to have met the 3 critieria and was approved, accordingly • Approval of said subdivision garnered the attention on many of the owners/residents in the neighborhood and they brought their concerns to City Council over the course of several CC meetings in late 2018 • In response to the neighborhood concerns, CC took 2 actions 0 1) They adopted an 90-day emergency moratorium on the processing of any additional administrative subdivisions in Bel-Aire, if they were to include a flag lot - expires on February 23 0 2) They directed staffto draft an ordinance requiring any subdivision containing a flag lot be processed as minor subdivisions, triggering a PC public hearing • Staff has drafted such an ordinance and are requesting a PC recommendation that will be forwarded to City Council for final action • City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing and take final action on February 11 N 4 City of3 Wheatge --00'-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM: THROUGH: DATE: SUBJECT: Memorandum Mayor and City Council Kenneth Johnstone, Director of Community Development Patrick Goff, City Manager October 30, 2018 (for November 5 City Council study session) Residential-One (R-1) building permit moratorium ISSUE: At the October 22, 2018 City Council meeting, Council adopted a temporary moratorium on the "acceptance, processing and approval o f building permits for the construction of single family residences in the R-1 zone district within subdivisions approved administratively." The ordinance was adopted as an emergency, going into effect immediately and expiring on January 20,2019, unless further extended by additional City Council action through approval of a non- emergency ordinance. The ordinance was adopted, in part, in response to concerns about a 2-lot subdivision that was recently approved administratively in the Bel Aire subdivision, at 4055 Everett Street. As drafted, the effect of the ordinance is such that it impacts two subdivisions, the one previously noted and a second subdivision, known as the Gladys Subdivision, located at 2876-2880 Newland Street, where one of the two lots remains vacant. While Council did not provide specific direction on what substantive changes to the zoning code might be pursued, if any, during the moratorium, staff has taken the liberty of proposing a few options for consideration, given the short duration of the moratorium and the need to also hold a Planning Commission hearing on any potential changes to Chapter 26 of the Code. If Code changes are desired, City Council could potentially hold a first reading on an ordinance on November 26, a Planning Commission hearing on December 6 and a City Council public hearing on January 14,2019, prior to the moratorium's expiration on January 20,2019. BACKGROUND: Article IV of Chapter 26 (Subdivisions) was most recently amended in 2014 with an ordinance that repealed and reenacted the entire Article. During that process, the code was changed to allow subdivision of up to 3 lots to be approved administratively. Four and five lot subdivisions are reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing and subdivisions ofmore than 5 lots, or those dedicating new public streets require hearings before both Planning Commission and City Council. Prior to 2014, administrative subdivision approval could be granted only for consolidation of two (2) lots and for lot line adjustments. 1 Based in part on some of the public testimony at the October 22 meeting, staff has drafted 5 possible code amendments that might be responsive to some ofthe concerns that were expressed. Options 1 and 2 are procedural options that would change the subdivision review process/public notification requirements. These options would not be retroactive, so would not apply to the two affected subdivisions that have received their required administrative approvals. Options 3,4 and 5 are possible substantive changes to Chapter 26 that could apply to the lots currently subject to the moratorium, as well as potentially many other residentially zoned lots, depending on what scope of applicability Council would choose to include in such an ordinance. Option 1: As noted previously, administrative subdivision approval can currently be granted for subdivision of up to 3 lots. No public hearings are required and no public notice is provided. It is certainly an option to require a Planning Commission hearing and commensurate public notice for all subdivisions, or hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council for all subdivisions. The rationale behind not having hearings for smaller subdivisions is that subdivision approvals are considered ministerial actions by the City - if they meet minimum lot size/width, have street frontage/access and access to adequate utilities, the City has limited discretion to deny the applications. Option 2: When subdivisions meet the size thresholds to require public hearings, as summarized previously, they trigger standard public notice requirements for land use applications (publication in paper, physical posting of the property and mailed notice to property owners within 300 feet of the subdivision). Unlike some other City land use applications, such as private property initiated rezonings and special use permits, both of which modify the types ofpermitted uses on a property, subdivisions are not required to have a neighborhood meeting as a precursor to making application. Similar to the discussion in Option 1, the rationale behind that is generally that having a neighborhood input meeting for a ministerial type of application may send somewhat of a mixed message as to what level of substantive impact the neighborhood will actually have on the application under review. Option 3: The City's subdivision regulations discourage, but do not prohibit "flag lots." Flag lots must meet the following criteria: 1. The minimum width at the pole portion abutting a public street is twenty-five feet. 2. The use of a flag lot is necessary for the effective development of the land. 3. The proposed design does not negatively affect public safety and includes clearly defined access for private use and for emergency service. The subdivision at 4055 Everett created a flag lot for the existing home at the rear of the property and created a new lot in front of the existing structure, adjacent to the street. The City could amend the code to prohibit "flag lots" citywide, or in certain parts of the City (by geographic area or by zoning district). Several years ago, at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, City Council discussed further restricting flag lots, but did not choose to take any action at that time. As an alternative to outright prohibition of flag lots, City Council could consider a code amendment that would trigger an automatic public hearing for any subdivision containing a flag lot, regardless ofthe number of lots. Such a process could include just a Planning Commission (PC) hearing, or both PC and City Council. Option 4: The City has the ability to create overlay zone districts for certain geographic parts of the City. In so doing, the zoning "rules" can be fine-tuned to address specific issues or concerns related to said geographic area. The overlay zone "rules" would typically be in addition to the development standards contained in the underlying zoning district. To use the example of 4055 Everett, the property is zoned R-1 and the subdivision is the Bel Aire subdivision. It would be possible to define the Bel Aire subdivision as a distinct overlay zone and develop specific development regulations that apply to that subdivision, beyond the underlying R- 1 zoning development standards. The range of what those additional "rules" might be is very broad: more stringent or different building height restrictions, architectural design standards, material standards, different setback standards, etc. If this option were to be pursued, staff would suggest that additional time would be needed, beyond the schedule outlined previously in this memo and as such, it would be necessary to extend the moratorium. In terms of the procedures under which such an overlay zone would be adopted, staff would suggest two options: 1) processed as a City Council initiated legislative rezoning, which, at a minimum, requires a neighborhood meeting; or 2) processed similar to a planned development outline development plan amendment, which requires written approval of a at least 25% of the owners within the specified geographic area. Option 5: There has been much discussion about residential bulk plane regulations in the City over the past several years, including adoption of an ordinance in 2016 that applied a bulk plane regulation in the R- 1 C zone district and for single-family homes in the It-3 zone district. There has been some discussion of applying the bulk plane regulations more broadly in additional residential zone districts, or additional geographic areas ofthe City. Though Council has not yet had consensus to move forward on such an approach, this also would be an option available, whether to apply the bulk plane regulations in all R-1 zone districts, or in a geographic area, such as the Bel Aire subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests direction on whether to proceed with any of the above options, other options City Council may have, or take no further action. Kenneth Johnstone From:Gerald Dahl <gdahl@mdbrlaw.com> Sent:Monday, November 26,2018 12:48 PM To:Lauren Mikulak CC:Kenneth Johnstone Subject:RE: 4055 Everett St Thanks for your message; here is what I intend to send to Larry. I have reviewed the Code and spoken with Community Development staff. While I agree flag lots are not encouraged, my reading of Code section 26-411.C.7 is that the "gateway" determination allowing a flag lot is that it must be "the most appropriate development option," rather than allowed only when an orphan lot exists. There is no Code language regarding orphan lots in this context. If the "gateway" is established, then the lot has to meet the requirements of7. a-c, as you note. The determination of the "gateway" and the application Of the three criteria are made by the Community Development Director. I acknowledge that criteria 7b and c are certainly subjective. This Code section on flag lots was created with the 2014 rewrite Of the subdivision regulations, and the treatment Of flag lots was specifically discussed, particularly with planning commission. There were mixed opinions on flag lots at the time, which explains why these two considerations are not more objective. Council can certainly change the Code on this issue, or along the lines Of the options that the Com. Dev. staff presented at the study session, if the moratorium ordinance is not reconsidered and remains in force. Please note our company name change and new e-mail path Gerald E. Dahl Murray Dahl Beery & Renaud LLP 710 Kipling Street Suite 300 Lakewood CO 80215 gdahl@mdbrlaw.com Direct: 303-493-6686 Fax: 303-945-7960 This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. From: Lauren Mikulak [mailto:Imikulak@ci.wheatridge.co.us] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 12:09 PM To: Gerald Dahl Cc: Kenneth Johnstone Subject: RE: 4055 Everett St 1 Jerry, Ken asked me to get in touch with you because he's in a meeting for most of the day. Here's my take: There is no code language about orphaned lots. Here is the code section on flag logs that I believe Larry is referencing: (Section 26-411.C.7) 7. Flag lots are not encouraged but are permitted when they are the most appropriate development option as determined by the community development director. Use of a flag lot design shall meet the following criteria: a. The minimum width of the pole portion abutting a public street is twenty-five (25) feet. b. Use of a flag lot design is necessary for effective development of land. c. The proposed design does not negatively affect public safety and includes clearly defined access for private use and for emergency service. I think I'd acknowledge that criteria 7b and c are certainly subjective. This code section on flag lots was created with the 2014 rewrite of the subdivision regulations, and the treatment of flag lots was specifically discussed, particularly with planning commission. There were mixed opinions on flag lots at the time, which explains why these two considerations are not more objective. Lauren E. Mikulak, AICP Planning Manager Office Phone: 303-235-2845 .6.' (filv of3 *' heat 111ge- COMMUNI-IY DEVELOPMENT From: Kenneth Johnstone <kjohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 11:13 AM To: Lauren Mikulak <Imikulak@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Subject: Fwd: 4055 Everett St Please let me know your thoughts on this, I'm tied up until 2 and this is on agenda for tonight. Thanks. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Gerald Dahl <gdahl@mdbrlaw.com> Date: November 26, 2018 at 10:51:03 AM MST To: "Kenneth Johnstone (kiohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us)" <kiohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Cc: "Patrick Goff (pgoff@ci.wheatridge.co.us)" <pgoff@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Subject: FW: 4055 Everett St Ken, before I respond to Larry, can you tell me what you think about this question? Please note our company name change and new e-mail path /2 2 3 Gerald E. Dahl Murray Dahl Beery & Renaud LLP 710 Kipling Street Suite 300 Lakewood CO 80215 gdahl@mdbrlaw.com Direct: 303-493-6686 Fax: 303-945-7960 This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. From: Larry Mathews [mailto:Imathews@ci.wheatridae.co.usl Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:06 AM To: Gerald Dahl Subject: 4055 Everett St I found the section of our codes that pertain to the creation of "flag" lots. Not only are they discouraged in our city, they have 3 conditions that must be satisfied before they are allowed. The creation of this new subdivision created a new flag lot that did not meet the statutory requirements for the creation of a flag lot. As far as I can tell, flag lots are allowed only when an orphan lot already exists and there is no other way to get access to the orphaned lot. What is the remedy for the neighborhood when our building department breaks the rules and the neighborhood believes it has been damaged? How do we undo an act by the city that was not in good faith and does not follow the law. ( 26-411: 7 a-c. Specifically 7b.. This original lot was already developed in accordance with code and matched the existing development of the surrounding properties. The city created this issue by not following our own codes.) Thanks and sorry forthe short notice. Larry Mathews Councilor District IV Direct: 303-396-5201 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 www.ci. wheatridge.co.us ' City of9U/heallqgge -'*"- CITY COUNCI I I)ISTRICI IV 1 3 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. 4 November 2, 2018 VIA E-MAIL Honorable Bud Starker and Members of the City Council City o f Wheat Ridge 7500 W. 29th Ave. 1 st Floor Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Re:Wheat Ridge City Council Study Session, Agenda Item 2, Moratorium on Single Family Building Permits Associated With Subdivision Approval (Nov. 5, 2018); Request for Reconsideration of Emergency Moratorium, Ordinance No. 1656 Dear Mayor Starker and Members of*e City Council:L=#Lp #41- 41 . I am the owner of 4055 M#8Lw iA Wheat Ridge, Colorado. On October 1,2018, the City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Department approved an administrative subdivision of the property pursuant to Section 26-406.B of the Wheat Ridge zoning code. At its last regular meeting, on October 22,2018-and without notice to me-the City Council then enacted an emergency moratorium on building pennits for single-family residences within administratively approved subdivisions in the R-1 Zone district. It has come to my attention that the City Council will consider this moratorium as Agenda Item 2 at its upcoming study session on November 5,2018. I am writing to provide you with more accurate information about my plans for the property than was previously presented to City Council by some members of the community at the October 22 meeting. My full written testimony is Attachment 1 to this letter. I request that you include this letter and its attachments in the record o f proceedings on the moratorium. I also wish to request that you place reconsideration of the moratorium on your agenda for City Council's next regular meeting, presently scheduled for November 26, 2018. I purchased the original lot so that my 82-year-old mother can live close to my brother and his family, who are 19-year residents of the neighborhood. The original lot contained one small house believed to be the original orchard farmer's house. Most purchasers would tear that house down and build a large multistory home in its place. My goal in subdividing the property was to preserve and improve the original house for my mother to live in and develop a new home on the new front lot for my brother and his family. Letter to Mayor Starker and Wheat Ridge City Council Request for Reconsideration of Emergency Moratorium November 2, 2018 Page 2 At the October 22 City Council meeting, some members of the community made highly inaccurate assertions regarding my plans for the new home. The most important of these are as follows: 1. It is not true that I hid my plans from the neighbors. To the contrary, when I first learned there was concern about my building plans in late September, I wrote a letter to the neighborhood offering to share my design for the new home and consider any architectural comments the community might offer. See Attachment 2. I received no response. The next thing I heard, City Council had enacted the moratorium on October 22. 2. I am not planning to build a tall, skinny, multistory house; a trailer home; or a slot home. My design is for a raised-ranch home no more than 1.75 stories tall with a tuck-under garage. I took as my inspiration the existing raised-ranch homes with tuck-under garages that already exist on 41 st Avenue between Dudley and Dover, as well as on the 4200 block of Dudley. 3. I am not planning to tear out all the existing trees. In fact, the footprint ofthe new home attempts to work around two of three trees on the property. Even after building the new home, I will be providing more green space than is required by the code due to my low lot coverage. I remain willing, and would again like to offer, to share my design plans with the community and consider their concerns, in an appropriate forum. Please understand, however, that I already have completed the subdivision process and have invested substantial financial resources into my project. I have made significant improvements to the existing home. I worked cooperatively with the City through the subdivision process, which went through several iterations before receiving final approval. I bear the additional expense to demolish the existing garage and pay the required subdivision fees, and I already have signed contracts for many other aspects of the work necessary for the new house. I believe the hastily crafted moratorium was based on misinformation and unfairly targets my property. By preventing me from moving forward with my plans, the moratorium is causing me and my family additional uncertainty and increasing my expenses. If, as stated in the moratorium, the City Council wishes to study the administrative-subdivision process-which in my case already is complete-it can do so without needlessly delaying my project. I therefore respectfully request that the City Council add reconsideration of the emergency moratorium to its agenda for the next regular session, so that the moratorium may be lifted as soon as possible. Letter to Mayor Starker and Wheat Ridge City Council Request for Reconsideration o f Emergency Moratorium November 2,2018 Page 3 Sincerel Stephanie Garcia (303) 619-2546 garciamoyaproperties@gmail.com CO Monica Duran, Janeece Hope, Kristi Davis, Zachary Urban, Tim Fitzgerald, George Pond, Larry Matthews, and Leah Dozeman, City Councilmembers Janelle Shaver, City Clerk Gerald Dahl, City Attorney Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director Lauren Mikulak, Planning Manager Scott Cutler, Planner II Enclosures r Letter to Mayor Starker and Wheat Ridge City Council Request for Reconsideration of Emergency Moratorium November 2, 2018 For consideration at Wheat Ridge City Council Study Session, Agenda Item 2: Moratorium on Single Family Building Permits Associated with Subdivision Approval November 5, 2018 Attachment 1 Written Testimony of Stephanie Garcia Wheat Ridge City Council Study Session November 5, 2018 Written Testimony of Stephanie Garcia RE: Emergency Moratorium on Building Permits for Single-Family Residences Within Administratively Approved Subdivisions Within the R-1 Zone District I am writing to introduce myself and to share accurate information about my project/plans for 4055 Field Drive, the property subject to the City of Wheat Ridge's recently enacted emergency moratorium on building permits for single-family residences in administratively approved subdivisions. In brief, I am hoping to move my mother to the existing small home on the property, which I am currently renovating. I also hope to build a new home (a raised ranch with a tuck-under garage) for my brother and his family, who currently live down the street and are looking to downsize. My mother is 82 years old, and my brother and his wife kindly agreed to let me pass the care- taking reins to them, given that their daughters are now adults, and I have had primary caretaking responsibility for my mom for over 2 decades. As background, when my brother moved to his Field Drive home nearly 20 years ago, I was enchanted by the neighborhood. After researching many years ago, I came to know the charming and highly desirable area was known as Bel-Aire. I learned it was platted and dedicated in 1946, and I've since met a lovely descendant of the original developer who still lives in the neighborhood. I later heard that parts of this subdivision were known as "Doctor's Row" and "Pill Hill," ewing to the numerous doctors one time in residence along the winding streets of Field and Everett; I was smitten. In addition to the charming history, we all agree that the neighborhood's unique appeal is owing to the gently elevated sites and curving streets, which create atypically shaped lots. Because my brother has lived in the neighborhood, for nearly 20 years, I have seen the ups and downs of the neighborhood but especially the "dandy lion" field of 4055 Everett Street. When it came on the market, I acquired it-wans and all. It had structural, electrical, and plumbing issues. It was the proximity to my brother, the transformation opportunity of the home, and the atypically shaped lot which captured me. After acquiring the home and researching detached garages and accessory dwelling units, I realized that the topography would permit me to both keep the original home and construct a new home in harmony with the scale and character of neighborhood. The raised ranch homes on 41 St Avenue between Dudley and Dover, as well as on the 4200 block of Dudley, served as my inspiration for the design/use of lot (tuck under garage) and some of the more modest homes along Field Drive helped inform my footprint (smallish homes on some of the smallest lots in Bel-Aire). These existing, original homes were used as the fundamental basis to design my new home. I followed all stated rules, regulations, and processes to do such a thing, and after several iterations, my subdivision was approved at the end of September. . A few days before final approval of the subdivision, I learned there was some community opposition when a neighbor who lives across from my brother introduced himself to me and asked a few questions about my plans. I shared my plans with him and suggested he share my info with others who had concerns. Some neighbors expressed their distaste for developers who are not residents. I also heard that some resident architects believed that it would be difficult to keep the look, feel, and character of the neighborhood if a new home were added to the lot. I attempted to promptly address their stated concerns with an e-mail and graphic of the front house elevation, which was sent to them by my brother's neighbor on October 1, and I invited them to contact me with questions. I never received one responsive communication from them, despite providing my e-mail address and phone number. I am not sure if they chose to ignore or simply misunderstood my plans, but it simply is not the case that I intend to build a trailer, multistory, or slot home, or to tear out all the trees, as some community members incorrectly stated at the City Council meeting on October 22, 2018. I am not now, nor have I ever been a return-on-investment driven investor or developer. I am not a preservationist per se, but contrary to neighbor assertions, I strongly believe in protecting neighborhood character. So much so, I served on Mayor Hickenlooper's zoning code task force for 4+ years. Our charge was to rewrite the entire zoning code with primary emphasis on preserving and enhancing neighborhood character and livability. In addition, my personal efforts have several times been awarded with the Denver "Mayor's Design Award" for my thoughtful preservation, creation, or expansion of existing, derelict in-fill commercial or single-family properties in the City of Denver. My passion is adaptive re-use-not development. I am not a spec builder, as some community members seem to think. Further fueling my passion is my belief that the most "green" thing one can do is to creatively use what is usable. Consequently, keeping the existing home in tact, even without its historical importance, was very important to me. Any profit-motivated developer would never consider such a thing. What I shared with the neighbors was consistent with my application to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Department long before I knew of any neighborhood concerns. I continue to abide by it. My desire in pursuing the conforming lot split is to: 1. Preserve what is widely believed to be the one of the original orchard farmer's house; and 2. Develop a home on the new front lot that does not diminish the presence of the original home and honors the current neighborhood character. Specifically, • The current home is quite small by today's standards, especially given the size of the lot and the surrounding homes. It has a footprint of a little over 1,000s.f. and is not suitable for today's modern family needs. It is only a 1 bedroom/1 bath with an unfinished basement. 4- 2 • Given the existing home's characteristics, it was likely a target for tear-down to be replaced by a much larger, multistory home. Such a home would be permitted and in scale with the lot, but would not necessarily match the scale of all but a few other homes in the neighborhood. • I can preserve and enhance what I, and many others, consider a historically significant home, while at the same time creating a new home at an appropriate scale, suitable for today's living. • A new home with an appropriate scale and character can be achieved owing to the topography of the new lot. Specifically, I can achieve a smaller footprint home by creating a tuck-under garage (common in Bel-Aire) and front walk-out basement. • The footprint of the new home would be smaller than the footprint of most on Field Drive or Everett Street. • The new home will have more visible green space/less lot coverage and will not overshadow any home near it. • The new home's closest neighbor to the west would be fully 35 feet away, which is much greater than almost any other side distances in Bel-Aire. Contrary to the testimony of some community members on October 22: • The new home would not be 2.5 to 3 stories tall; it would be 1.75 stories max. • The new home would not be a tall, skinny house; it would be a ranch style, longer than it is tall. • The new home would not be a slot home; the lot does not require such a compromise. • The new home would not be like a trailer home; that would be impractical and inappropriate. • There will not be water and sewer lines going under the house. • I do not plan to tear down all the trees; the footprint attempts to work around 2 of 3 existing trees. • I am not burdening the water district; my penetrable area is already significantly less due to enhancements to the original home exterior. Further reductions will occur owing to the new home's footprint, yet I still offered to use treated water if it was too complicated or burdensome for the district to add my new lot. Profit also is not my central motivation. If it were, I would not have made half of the improvements to the original home. Those were investments to make the home safe and welcoming for my 82-year-old mother, so that she can be near my brother and his wife. 3 Moreover, if I were truly pursuing this as a financially driven project, I simply would have torn down the original home and built one (or more) 35-foot-tall homes on the lot. I have never even considered that course. Much ofthe information provided to the City Council on October 22 was false and misleading. I nevertheless remain open to sharing, in an appropriate forum, my design plans with the community and considering any architectural critiques or concerns that they may share. I have renderings ofthe proposed new home that support my descriptions above and that will provide more green space than is required by code, even after I have granted nearly 1,000s. f. to the City for right-of-way. I remain committed to not detracting from what makes Bel-Aire so special, and 1 am willing to keep an open mind at this late date. In summary, I respectfully ask that you reconsider and lift the moratorium at your next regular Council meeting. I followed the established process and complied with all requests made by the Planning and Public Works Department. I have already spent significant resources on this pursuit, the moratorium is increasing my expenses, and there is no justifiable reason to prohibit me from proceeding. Ifa change to the administrative-subdivision process is desired, it should not be pursued at the sole expense o f a property owner who has attempted to cooperate and has followed every rule at every turn. In the meantime, I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you in person in advance ofthe November 5 study session or thereafter. Please do not hesitate to reach out should you have any additional questions that I have not addressed here or in my 3 minutes oftime to speak at the study session. I will endeavor to make myselfavailable to suit your calendar and availability. Thank you for taking the time to read and digest this information and its implications. 1 Re ards, I ie L. C 4 Ste¢Warcia (303) 619-2546 garciamoyaproperties@gmail.com t 4 -U Letter to Mayor Starker and Wheat Ridge City Council Request for Reconsideration of Emergency Moratorium November 2, 2018 For consideration at Wheat Ridge City Council Study Session, Agenda Item 2: Moratorium on Single Family Building Permits Associated with Subdivision Approval November 5, 2018 Attachment 2 E-mail to Community re: 4055 Everett From:Steph Garcia < > Sent:Friday, November 2, 2018 11:10 AM To: Subject:Fwd: 4055 Everett Attachments:everettresponse.pdf; 4055 Everett10012018.pdf Steph Begin forwarded message: From: "William L. Rickman" < > Date: October 1, 2018 at 11:40:29 AM MDT To: 'Walter LaMendola' < >,'Chris Chidley' < >, "'KACZMAREK, JAMES"' < >"'Paul & Kate Welschinger(Brannan)"' < >,'Bill Whitfield' >, "debiohnson 1, < > 'Paul Hovland' <>,'Marge Marcy' <,'Mike Cunningham' < >,'Courtney Pullen' < >, 'Mimi Pullen' < > CC: " > Subject: FW: 4055 Everett Hi everyone, As a direct neighbor of Mark & Valerie Garcia and my familiarity with the redevelopment work Stephanie Garcia has done in Denver, 1 reached out to her for information about her project at 4055 Everett St. Below and attached is her thoughtful and direct response with information about the project. Hope this is helpful. She is a member of the Bel-Aire Improvement Association, but in case you don't have her contact info, please see below. thanks BR> This email has been scanned for spam and viruses. Click here to report this email as spam. 1 Bill Rickman, ililllll-ill From: Stephanie Garcia 1 Sent: Monday, October 01, 2018 10:27 AM To: William L. Rickman < Subject: 4055 Everett Mr. Rickman Thank you again for talking with me on Thursday and agreeing to share this letter with the recipients of your letter. Feel free to include the front elevation and the site plan I shared with you last week. Thank you for facilitating this communication: I'd otherwise not know to whom this should go. Steph 2 I'm not sure to whom this will be sent because I am not privvy to the recipient list of the letter dated 9/27. 1 write this in lieu of having addressed you in person, though I welcome that opportunity as well and can be reached through @gmail.com I understand there is some displeasure about my pursuit of a code-compliant, use-by-right project on 4055 Field Drive. Please know that prior to Thursday no one has ever expressed displeasure about my efforts-to-date on the site. Quite the contrary, as I have been complemented on the care of the lawn, the colors of the home, and the attention to the weed strangled, wood strewn back yard. I have more than once been told that it was nice to finally see the home cared for. When my brother moved to his Field Drive home 18 years ago, I was enchanted by the neighborhood. After researching many years ago (during a failed attempt at another purchase for my mom), I came to know the charming and highly desirable area was known as Bel-Aire. 1 know it was platted and dedicated in 1946 (and descendants of the original developer still live in the neighborhood). 1 learned that parts of this subdivision were known as "Doctor's Row" and "Pill Hill" owing to the numerous doctors in residence along the winding streets of Field and Everett. In addition to the charming history, we all agree, that the unique appeal is owing to it's gently elevated sites and curving streets which create atypically shaped lots. Because my brother has lived in the neighborhood, for nearly 20 years, I have seen the ups and downs of the neighborhood but especially the "dandy lion" field of 4055 Everett Street. When it came on the market I acquired it - wans and all (structural, electrical AND plumbing issues). It was the transformation opportunity of the home and the atypically shaped lot which intrigued me. After acquiring the home I realized that the topography would permit me to keep the original home AND construct a new one in scale with all the surrounding homes and not detract from the character of neighborhood. It seems that part of the concern is that I am "not a resident" of the neighborhood, the implication being that I may not care or be thoughtful in my pursuit - that I am selfishly exploiting the lot and therefore, the neighborhood. Please know that most of the improvements to the original home are not ROI (return on investment driven). They are investments in making it safe and welcoming home for my 82yr old mother to be near my brother and his wife. Moreover, if I were pursuing this as a financially driven (typical) developer, 1 would not have commuted across town during rush hour to manually turn on irrigation, 1 would not have re-wired the fire-hazard home, nor cleared the additional fire hazard of stumps from the back corner. 1 simply would have torn down the original, dangerous home, completely obliterated the lot of all growth and history and then built TWO large scale homes on the blank canvass of a lot. 1 could do that but it was never, ever a consideration! You see, I am not a preservationist, per se, but contrary to neighbor assertions, 1 strongly believe in protecting neighborhood character, so much so that my efforts have several times been awarded with Denver "Mayor's Design Award" for my thoughtful preservation, creation, and expansion of existing, derelict in-fill commercial and single family properties. My passion is "adaptive re-use" and adding fuel to my passion is that I believe the most "green" thing one can do is to creatively use what is usable. Consequently, keeping the existing home in tact, even without it's historical importance, was very important to me. I shared the following with the City of Wheatridge and continue to abide by it: My desire in pursuing the conforming lot split is: 1- Preserve what is widely believed to be the one of the original orchard farmer's house 2- Develop a home on the new front lot that does not diminish the presence of the original home and honors the current neighborhood character Specifically, • The current home is quite small by today's standards and most especially given the size of the lot and the surrounding homes. It is little over 1000sf footprint and not suitable for today's modern family needs (it's only a 1bedroom/lbath with a low-ceiling, unfinished basement). • Given the home's characteristics, it was likely a target for tear-down with the expected McMansion (or two) to replace it. Such a home would be in scale with the lot but NOT in keeping with the scale of the rest of the neighborhood. • I can preserve & enhance what I and many consider a "historically significant" home AND create a new home in appropriate scale, suitable for today's living. • A appropriate scale and character home can be achieved because of the topography of the lot (the new lot). Specifically, I can achieve a smaller footprint home by creating a "tuck under"' garage (common in Bel-Aire) and front walk-out basement which will permit more green space and not overshadow the original home or any home near it. In all likelihood the footprint of the new home would be smaller than the average footprint on Field Drive or Everett Street. Neighbors, 1 trust you will consider the above and come to your own conclusion. I have renderings of a proposed new home which fits nicely on the lot and provides plenty of green space (even after granting nearly 1000sf to the City for right-of-way). However, I would welcome any architectural critique or donation of design services if the raised ranch "modern farm house" is perceived as not in keeping with the neighborhood. I have tolerated admitted repeated trespass by a neighbor, the cursing out of my workers by the same neighbor who also found it acceptable to come on to my job site and give orders to my worker without my knowledge (despite my being obviously on-site). It seems this neighbor P is unhappy and attempting to solicit support with incomplete information and unfounded assertions and allegations. Despite not physically living at the home, I have attempted to be a good neighbor: I have adjusted sprinkler heads to water my neighbors side yard when their irrigation wasn't working, I have taken in trash cans, I have retrieved newspapers during travel, I installed security lights within 18hrs of being notified my back yard was too dark and coyotes were potentially gathering there (which the disgruntled neighbor then complained about). From all but one neighbor, I have been rewarded with kindness and appreciation: 1 trust this one unhappy neighbor won't further poison the positive environment I'd hoped to deliver to whomever should live in the home. Regards, Stephanie L. Garcia h2€496*3 1 v I ·;':t,i,Dit!.j +42,2.i(4"f.;;Xt·i:Rift;}i;t,5 ..3..:i< :-·. 4;.; '.19'4·') ! 14>4114?41,9?il?,7.trm:.(-:, ·,·. ...4 , 4 , . +,7."L!;,i.il:'Il.f:dc,4,11,4i:i'.i .4. f.»d,92.4. , C.,V :·.} .>·I ·('.·.i':40,['+55:'i<%01©M@At·ai,i;£..... ,I., 413'946,4/14J , '.4 441 .,·?exekt,; t,!de.qtri.1.4.' JparM®»694:' '· .· 4 --·.....1,;.J.. !,94#114)5 j fb>:6';titr:./.dy,Mitl . . ....,1 41'LA!"01'•118·,1. 1,.' '5 1 .4,&1!1 J44, xr 41#- w'-. 4 41#*,iF,1 1!i.- fri -111 2 1.111tl*1 4j1!,iki i:I+13 0,41 1 l. 'Mt·4 -·.,g.·. 6.Ve,92 .... > ' ·-:,--' ..0,>iir.¢15·?4'f,k'ibl'tky i..:·' t .134.'.fp®'1'<.4 '44;:*,il .... r.... / 1!1•Pj*Ar*Ke.·7*w:,ti'M,, ,' L"i*Mnimwer<*E'/'-''fjN·(1*:·iii'A.<+:, f.,. p:-I· . .41#1f?Glt¢·Of·F" ,·j;Pl- 11¢11 E 2, till:· 1 :WiLBjet.,4.·D.Ah'.1+40@14!.423/23,/'';1 721'!<.i .:.:ij'·'·:l ':ji 43*·11!{:,¢k.,it.:1.-*·%·i':IN'·,·>.'4*U'Lxe'i '1 .,2;.h, 9,»Ilt:€510.. , t',.2,7 *lt ¢61'. 1;.Fr,h r .149*9*Frd#:t#Bid'.43:te'*lfrUT#*mitifIC'.9' 'A«9»1«196*22214%*ft,4..'· ··'. · '5441:Alp'm *P. 44'2 - 9- 4' t· '. . . . ,· ; ·: r 1 45:)*;{:'/-4·TIff';'ff;'0:"r t, 1,2,71??':.J:;. f·f.}:t.:c·." ·'f'··-,1.41: 4.. l.2 , .1 .: 1, <· .. · .i y :":, tifil.(4 23'-'E i: it s: yw 0,2*.w,IM,31',':(a,1.f !,·[SIAIft;L.5 .1.137,.t.,!:,': ,.'. 'C .,·... : Steph Steph - ·· _. .3 -YT·'22·It:?312.2 2 Bill Rickman From:Steph Garcia < Sent:Ftday, September 28, 2018 4:24 PM To:William L. Rickman Subject:Footprint and front elevation This is not the exact split but it does show how the house and yard address the site snd neighbors .i·, :-r,ii)€440*414:4044.C'f+94.i",Ii, R'.;,4.::'4 *,CL„'-,"-UL,.,;.14.· -:"I. 40"i'R'296'·125;.*ad h)36 0, ,© i..4:0* •Wi:'f'jir:'?.·D·lht.'2244 4,·': r.:E, $8,41,....514* 9 7 . i...34%21341%44;49%*jf·.lijj.I;.?,ii ,(...i:944%*f 1**Fpr , 4. 3 · ·. ·· A 42%· 76 **34}*21*4*yffj] · ·,-.·,am o. ipatrp.. ..L,;i.1.*.e rt :,4-.·-4 i.3·:01.:,· 4 '.I 19-1119- L -1 Il-I I 4&4, ji 4 3 .i Lr' 41 Il idit lIE r , 61 1%11 2111£ L.:14f¢29 11 = 1-11 I'fiIg.11 /11 12 11, 1 16 ,-1-4 4'p?Id3 /- - 11 1 p-1-16A ALn# 4.R# -3- - * 4·r- " -' l, Kenneth Johnstone From:Lauren Mikulak Sent:Friday, October 26,2018 3:44 PM To:Kimberly Cook; Scott Cutler; Kenneth Johnstone; Meredith Reckert; Zackary Wallace; Tammy Odean CC:Randy Slusser; Dina Kemp; Lagenia Reimer Subject:RE: Permit Moratorium I've updated the spreadsheet (original link below), and it appears there are only 2 other affected subdivisions and 1 affected parcel. We will need to reach out to Steve Kinney-see below. • Garcia Subdivision o Address: 4055 Everett o Date: Approved in October 2018 o Status: Scott has notified the applicant of the moratorium, and Kim has flagged in ADG. • Glavan Subdivision o Address: 3557 Urban Court and 12250 W. 38th Avenue o Date: Originally approved in January 2017 with modifications approved in February 2018 o Status: A SFD permit (201801378) was issued in June 2018 for a home on the new lot (3557 Urban Court), three inspections have occurred to date (plumbing underground, wall sheathing, roof sheathing), presumably a vested right has been established • Gladys Subdivision o Address: 2876-2880 Newland o Date: Approved in April 2016 o Status: It does not appearthat a permit has been pulled for the created lot. o Action Required: Meredith, it appears you were the case manager; please contact Steve Kinney to notify him of the moratorium. Kim, Dina or Lagenia, please flag the address (2876 Newland) in ADG. Let me know if you have any questions or see any errors in the spreadsheet. Thanks, Lauren E. Mikulak, AICP Planning Manager Office Phone: 303-235-2845 lilv 01g* W lical_ 11lite /'-COW.UINI IY DIVE 101'MINI 4- From: Kimberly Cook Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 9:08 AM To: Scott Cutler <scutler@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Lauren Mikulak <Imikulak@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Kenneth Johnstone <kjohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Meredith Reckert <mreckert@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Zackary Wallace <zwallace@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Tammy Odean <todean@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Cc: Randy Slusser <rslusser@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Dina Kemp <dkemp@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Lagenia Reimer <Ireimer@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Subject: RE: Permit Moratorium 1 1'11 add a warning to the parcel. Kim Cook Permit Technician Office Phone: 303-235-2876 4 (-ity (,132 W licat 12,®lge - COMMUNI n 1)1 Vt l i )1'Mth I From: Scott Cutler Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 9:07 AM To: Lauren Mikulak <Imikulak@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Kenneth Johnstone <kiohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Meredith Reckert <mreckert@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Zackary Wallace <zwallace@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Tammy Odean <todean@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Cc: Randy Slusser <rslusser@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Kimberly Cook <kcook@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Dina Kemp <dkemp@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Lagenia Reimer <Ireimer@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Subject: RE: Permit Moratorium The current address is 4055 Everett Street. We had not re-addressed the parcels yet; both needed to be re-addressed because access was changing. Scott Cutler Planner I Office Phone: 303-235-2849 $ (ilv' 01- W heat Ilidge-/'- CO.#iM UN'I IY DI Ul<)1'MINI From: Lauren Mikulak Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 9:03 AM To: Kenneth Johnstone <kiohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Meredith Reckert <mreckert@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Zackary Wallace <zwallace@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Scott Cutler <scutler@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Tammy Odean <todean@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Cc: Randy Slusser <rslusser@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Kimberly Cook <kcook@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Dina Kemp <dkemp@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Lagenia Reimer <Ireimer@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Subject: Permit Moratorium Good morning, Last night Council heard testimony from neighbors in the Bel-Aire subdivision, and ultimately Council approved an emergency moratorium on acceptance, processing, and approval of building permits for this narrow class of permits: • New single family homes, • In the R-1 zone district, • In administratively approved subdivisions 2 The ordinance language is attached. Ken will have more detail for the group after EMT. This is intended to apply to the recently approved Garcia subdivision. While I don't think a permit submittal for that project is imminent, Scott please reply all with the address of the new lot to ensure we do not inadvertently accept a permit. Because of the way the ordinance is written, we will also need to identify the zoning of all other administratively approved subdivisions. Planners, please go into the file below today and enter the zoning designation for the cases you have processed. The cell will automatically turn red if the zoning is "R-1." Tammy, please enter the zoning for the case planners who are no longer on staff. 1:\Comdev\Admin-ComDev\Access Reports\Weekly Reports\Land Use Case Table - admin plats - Oct 23.xlsx Thanks, Lauren E. Mikulak, AICP Planning Manager 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, Colorado 80033 Office Phone: 303-235-2845 Fax: 303-234-2845 www.ci.wheatridge.co.us ' Cilv 013 W licat R iclae- CO M M C I N 1 1 -Y [) 1 V L I C ) 1 'M I NG'4--,b 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. 3 Kenneth Johnstone From:Gerald Dahl <gdahl@mdbrlaw.com> Sent:Thursday, October 25, 2018 1:22 PM To:Kenneth Johnstone CC:Patrick Goff; Lauren Mikulak; Scott Cutler Subject:RE: Garcia Subdivision follow-up Hi Ken, Thanks for your message. Regarding your question about the legal ability of the Council to do something to unwind the granted admin approval - yes, the Council could broaden the moratorium to include not accepting the plat for filing -that had not occurred to me in the moment on Monday. Until Council does, though, I view the current moratorium ordinance as not limiting that. The owner could make a vested rights claim under the statute, but as you know, the City long ago adopted a code section asserting its home rule authority to preempt the statute. Nevertheless, that still leaves us with common law vested rights - usually, but not always issuance of a building permit and $$$ reliance on the same. Here, it is possible there has been financial reliance on the admin approval. We just don't' know, and not much we can do about that. I agree with the options you list as available, and also that the first wo are only forward looking and would not be retroactive to affect the admin subdivision approval already granted. I also agree the third option would have effect on this property. Any of the changes would be to Chapter 26, though, and so would also require a PC recommendation, so the timing is pretty short. 1 suppose we could try to amend the requirements on building permit issuance to require a hearing or other limitations in this circumstance - although that is less responsive to the true planning based concerns raised by the neighbors. For those, your option 3 is a better fit. We might also think about additional requirements on filed plats in this zone district - but in order to buy the time for that, the moratorium would have to be broadened. On that subject - the moratorium could be extended, but only by regular, not emergency ordinance, per the charter. It might be productive meet in person to discuss not only the options and timing, but also whether we can negotiate an outcome that both the property owner and the neighbors would accept - perhaps a nonbinding mediation relative to the design and location of the new home? I can meet late today or tomorrow after 10 if you have availability; failing that, next Monday and Tuesday are both clear as of now. Regards, Jerry Please note our company name change and new e-mail path Gerald E. Dahl Murray Dahl Beery & Renaud LLP 710 Kipling Street Suite 300 Lakewood CO 80215 gdahl@mdbrlaw. com Direct: 303-493-6686 1 Fax: 303-945-7960 This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender which may be confidential and legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by telephone or e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. From: Kenneth Johnstone [mailto:kjohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 11: 14 AM To: Gerald Dahl Cc: Patrick Goff; Lauren Mikulak; Scott Cutler Subject: FW: Garcia Subdivision follow-up Jerry, Good work guiding the conversation on Monday night to a reasonable and narrow outcome. We are researching our land use case database to determine whether this moratorium applies to any other recently approved administrative subdivisions. We took note that the language of the recitals specifically references the administrative subdivision process as contained in 26- 406.B, which is a section of the code created when Article IV was repealed and re-enacted in 2014; as such, we won't be looking at any administrative subdivisions that might have been approved prior to that effective date. There certainly have been other administratively approved subdivisions in the intervening 4+ years; though many of those may have already pulled permits for new SF homes. In regards to the 4055 Everett property, we have some more specific questions coming from both staff and the property owner. The subdivision plat was approved on October 1, 2018 and by Code, is required to be recorded (with fees paid) within 90 days, so by December 31, 2018, or the approval lapses. The fees for parkland dedication and public improvements are $15,218, so not insignificant. She has not yet paid those fees and the plat is not yet recorded. She has a decision point as to what risk she is taking on if City Council takes some permanent action that would restrict her ability to develop the lot in the manner she has presently anticipated. We obviously won't be advising her specifically on what those risks might be. That said, she is asking in the short term, is there any legal ability for City Council to do something to unwind the recently granted administrative approval, such as direct staff not to record the plat document. That seems a more reasonably question for us to answer. 2 As you're aware, the moratorium ends January 20, which is a Sunday, Monday the 21.St is MLK day and there is no Council meeting that night. If an extension is not approved, the earliest she could potentially submit for a building permit is Tuesday the 22nd. We have not yet calendared the topic for further City Council discussion. It is unclear in what manner City Council might want to proceed with any regulatory changes, and we only have 3 regular council meetings and 4 study sessions between now and January 14, which would be the last meeting date Council could take action on the moratorium before it expires. This is due to the holidays which interfere with several council dates. Based on very preliminary thoughts on what regulatory options might be available, so far I have 3... 1. Council could adopt code amendments to make procedural changes to how subdivisions are approved and publicly noticed: a. eliminate all administrative subdivision approvals and require all subdivision applications to be reviewed at a public hearing before the Planning Commission and possibly City Council - in creating a framework of more discretionary review of subdivisions (vs. ministerial), it would be appropriate to add review criteria to inform those reviews b. add a noticing requirement for administrative approvals c. add a neighborhood meeting requirement at the front end of the application process, which currently exists for rezonings and special use permits, but not subdivisions (presumably because they are more ministerial in nature and less discretionary) 2. Council could adopt code amendments to make substantive changes to the subdivision regulations, such as disallowing "flag lots". Interestingly, based on a Planning Commission request, we took such a suggestion to City Council several years ago, and they were not inclined to make such a code amendment. 3. Make changes to the R-1 zone district in regards to R-1 front setbacks, or create an overlay zone that creates additional regulations for certain geographic areas of the City. By way of example, the Bel Aire subdivision could be defined as an overlay zone where the front setback is the greater of 30 feet (R-1) or the average of front setbacks for existing SF structures in some defined geographic area (adjacent lots, lots within 500 feet, etc.). I'm certain there are many other iterations of the above. Presumably 1 and 2 would not be retroactive to this process. However, changes relative to 3, presumably could impact the developability of this new lot. 3 Please let me know your thoughts on the above. Thanks. Ken Johnstone, AICP Community Development Director Office Phone: 303-235-2844 .4 ' 11 4 "152 Wheal I <Lge From: Scott Cutler Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 4:14 PM To: Kenneth Johnstone <kjohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Cc: Lauren Mikulak <Imikulak@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Subject: Garcia Subdivision follow-up Ken, I spoke with Stephanie Garcia this afternoon regarding the moratorium that affects her property. She requested a meeting with you and spoke to Tammy regarding scheduling. As you're aware, the moratorium ends January 20, which is a Sunday. Monday the 21St is MLK day and there is no Council meeting that night. If an extension is not approved, the earliest she could potentially submit for a building permit is Tuesday the 22nd. We only have 3 regular council meetings and 4 study sessions between now and January 14, which would be the last meeting date Council could take action on the moratorium before it expires. This is due to the holidays which interfere with several council dates. -Scott Scott Cutler Planner I 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Office Phone: 303-235-2849 www.ci.wheatridge.co.us 6 A4 4 Cill' 01 -(9' w heat 12*Jite -- COMMUN! IY DEVELOPMEN r L- 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. Thankyou. 4 Kenneth Johnstone Fronn:Kenneth Johnstone Sent:Wednesday, October 24, 2018 11:14 AM To:Gerald E. Dahl (gdahl@mdbrlaw.com) CC:Patrick Goff (pgoff@ci.wheatridge.co.us); Lauren Mikulak; Scott Cutler Subject:FW: Garcia Subdivision follow-up Jerry, Good work guiding the conversation on Monday night to a reasonable and narrow outcome. We are researching our land use case database to determine whether this moratorium applies to any other recently approved administrative subdivisions. We took note that the language of the recitals specifically references the administrative subdivision process as contained in 26- 406.B, which is a section of the code created when Article IV was repealed and re-enacted in 2014; as such, we won't be looking at any administrative subdivisions that might have been approved prior to that effective date. There certainly have been other administratively approved subdivisions in the intervening 4+ years; though many of those may have already pulled permits for new SF homes. In regards to the 4055 Everett property, we have some more specific questions corning from both staff and the property owner. The subdivision plat was approved on October 1, 2018 and by Code, is required to be recorded (with fees paid) within 90 days, so by December 31, 2018, or the approval lapses. The fees for parkland dedication and public improvements are $15,218, so not insignificant. She has not yet paid those fees and the plat is not yet recorded. She has a decision point as to what risk she is taking on if City Council takes some permanent action that would restrict her ability to develop the lot in the manner she has presently anticipated. We obviously won't be advising her specifically on what those risks might be. That said, she is asking in the short term, is there any legal ability for City Council to do something to unwind the recently granted administrative approval, such as direct staff not to record the plat document. That seems a more reasonably question for us to answer. As you're aware, the moratorium ends January 20, which is a Sunday. Monday the 2lst is MLK day and there is no Council meeting that night. If an extension is not approved, the earliest she could potentially submit for a building permit is Tuesday the 22nd. We have not yet calendared the topic for further City Council discussion. It is unclear in what manner City Council might want to proceed with any regulatory changes, and we only have 3 1 regular council meetings and 4 study sessions between now and January 14, which would be the last meeting date Council could take action on the moratorium before it expires. This is due to the holidays which interfere with several council dates. Based on very preliminary thoughts on what regulatory options might be available, so far I have 3... 1. Council could adopt code amendments to make procedural changes to how subdivisions are approved and publicly noticed: a. eliminate all administrative subdivision approvals and require all subdivision applications to be reviewed at a public hearing before the Planning Commission and possibly City Council - in creating a framework of more discretionary review of subdivisions (vs. ministerial), it would be appropriate to add review criteria to inform those reviews b. add a noticing requirement for administrative approvals c. add a neighborhood meeting requirement at the front end of the application process, which currently exists for rezonings and special use permits, but not subdivisions (presumably because they are more ministerial in nature and less discretionary) 2. Council could adopt code amendments to make substantive changes to the subdivision regulations, such as disallowing "flag lots". Interestingly, based on a Planning Commission request, we took such a suggestion to City Council several years ago, and they were not inclined to make such a code amendment. 3. Make changes to the R-1 zone district in regards to R-1 front setbacks, or create an overlay zone that creates additional regulations for certain geographic areas of the City. By way of example, the Bel Aire subdivision could be defined as an overlay zone where the front setback is the greater of 30 feet (R-1) or the average of front setbacks for existing SF structures in some defined geographic area Cadjacent lots, lots within 500 feet, etc.). I'm certain there are many other iterations of the above. Presumably 1 and 2 would not be retroactive to this process. However, changes relative to 3, presumably could impact the developability of this new lot. Please let me know your thoughts on the above. Thanks. Ken Johnstone, AICP Community Development Director Office Phone: 303-235-2844 2 (Lily of39'VVhea:t:Rglge- COMMUNITY DIVUOPMENT From: Scott Cutler Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 4:14 PM To: Kenneth Johnstone <kjohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Cc: Lauren Mikulak <Imikulak@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Subject: Garcia Subdivision follow-up Ken, I spoke with Stephanie Garcia this afternoon regarding the moratorium that affects her property. She requested a meeting with you and spoke to Tammy regarding scheduling. As you're aware, the moratorium ends January 20, which is a Sunday. Monday the 21St is MLK day and there is no Council meeting that night. If an extension is not approved, the earliest she could potentially submit for a building permit is Tuesday the 22nd. We only have 3 regular council meetings and 4 study sessions between now and January 14, which would be the last meeting date Council could take action on the moratorium before it expires. This is due to the holidays which interfere with several council dates. -Scott Scott Cutler Planner I 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 Office Phone: 303-235-2849 www.ci.wheatridge.co.us City of35/ Wheat Ridge- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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. 3 ROPER TY CORNER __2\. / JD. 3/4" IRON PIPE -el\i 706904.69 /A WO N 114016.57 b'/%28/efl=1277.65'/ / 559,2...9.7 L=104.93' P\\CD=104.90' ,/ CB=S60'54'27"E4. 4= 04'42'20" \ l,k// e5.00' Z- 40 // \i4--92 i J I \IM /, / /' 5' UTILITY EASEMENT1 1/ / .0 6HER*BY GRANTED BY//a>'0 THIS PC¤x.11 - LOT LINES HEREBY//\211:0>/U TILITY EASEMENT--4 3 / BY THIS HEREQI GRANTED BY 11 * THIS PCAL\ 5' UTILITY EASEMENT I HEREBY GRANTED BY I THIS PLAT I / 2 / 5.00' - 1 € 1 \06' -CREATED PL. 6.50' RIGHT- HEREBY DE[ BY THIS PL PROPERTYSET 1 1/4 ® ON No. 5 "PLS 2904 N: 706853. E: 114108.2 'W 10 / LOT 2 1 \\4 5' UTILITY EASEMENT \ \\HEREBY GRANTED BY \ / THIS PLAT .4 19>... \ i \ 18.58' 1 NOO'14'59"W k 1 N43'05'14"E 21.12' € 12 2 flo 1( 1 1 1 7 < 0.2982 Acres. \ < 12,988 -gq. fL ' j ZONED R-1 10' WATER EASEMENT HEREBY GRANTED BY TNIS PLAT N89'36'42"W 61.46' 1 1.50' RD • • HEREBY BY THIS 4 1< N, -il - ---1-.---2389'3942"IE 68.17' IT LINES HEREBY 1 EEATED BY THIS TARY EASE'( ENT 1 4.PLAT (1- f HEREBY GRANTED B r 77 .4X -]--- f 5' UTILITY EASEMENTk .1 1 TIMIS PLAT --- 1 = O WF#FAY CRANTFn Avail 8'3€ *'3 ----- ---d *1 1----7 N00'14'59"w 42-11"/ DATA: OCA A - 25.00' - TILITY EASEMEN- LOP 1-2356" \N5'UTTLITrEASERIENT 1 r- oo'p HEREBY GRANTED BY N -2'15-PLAL- _--___11.504 75.95' PROPERTY CORNER j \ -ND. 1 1/4" PLASTIC CAP \ ON No. 4 REBAR \ 111 Fr-IRI F i F LU. UL I..'-71* 15 .5:>f:'>19:;N F.: c ' ' . 1. 0 4 . f..5-0, ..... .. .k#,-401&124.,2.>I. .4 '£ int .*1 4 #f /".*1 1;, .:.·. ... 1 - %I ' I i 4 4 ki .93* A *43 14*..4 9 24 1, t: 41 0. ' -': 2 5 L *6 -, -,- ·. : i 5 - 4- , i 4 2:€1€4 -*.*A> .M, i:,4.*-0,4*:.7.,Er'Li,k ·(il..i.4 4 4 .=-,6 +3.....: ff»33-Ze€=544-63-32412 24*»2+21=U -=-- -: -2-2- 44*4t:**jj,1.1..;19· 4· 49 '1*< f.f * •62 4'*:/' w<919+1 *-·f ..,144 i * .,1.t 11*-ts I. 7 ·'.b - , -, 9/r¥-Wr€yte'*.2*N . I I.11.-2I. I. 9% . 1- j.'f .t Yf); h .39 r . 2 ,;1 . . il*i,1$4443%44,3 4 4 * s '113 0212*4.1.4 UND.R.:4: .0, 1.. a 4 . N.I . ··.>t-+4*0$ th trle:":·:..60. <: 2£,4; .. 4 4/ . :. I .40:., 1%M«*vt· b.· ... C. . '1'1 .4..:.* h%*i '*@.311£,i. I.3-1.-- I.,. :...1,4, -b....:4... 3.4 + ./9 £3 r ,,4.- 944»i-9. .. .·<:1.1,1>21¢.tr, Fite_24>k·' t®,u., 7 lf'tb ....+ 00·-· * -·: A..>.0 :1:,3.23 1042*10'U:€*'¥t, * 81 ..i.h'' . 4 1.5 i.' 4* gi4 * *i ·:t t.4.2 'hif * 4 1•' .f €.'4* <11:<' 4.' ·f' f I -·v, ' - flu > M. r.4. 1 .. 4 4 I t .. ...._11'' .. •r a .....I. /1 . 4.4 . e :. t i n 8 1 23'1 :14 1,2 42. d ¥ gpi'; 3 9111 ' 42 -- ' c k 22?f.:A 1 5. i£ € ··.· - i :4* 4,9>'CR.', rat » ': 5 4.,j,- .. ¥k., - ..."V;#d,f . ·)97,25(·.·/.:'.7-47, 'i1#4,7/ f,£' 9.,4„,034'., - ..f·t-r'Z>159 /304 41·341:fi%4<ami ' rtie, 'b?01*tim.38- I ---:A.<.pi m'16*fRIC.26'fi. i L 1 1 r +1 A 44 L Kenneth Johnstone From:Kenneth Johnstone Sent:Wednesday, October 17, 2018 12:12 PM To:Patrick Goff Subject:RE: 4055 Everett Subdivision Patrick, As you know, we've received numerous inquiries over the past several weeks from surrounding neighbors/property owners. We have responded to those individually via e-mail. The property in question is zoned R-1 and as such has a minimum lot size of 12,500 SF (1/4 acre) and a minimum lot width of 100 feet, which is measured at the location of the front setback. The property in question was recently processed as an "administrative subdivision", which is defined as "any subdivision of 3 or fewer lots, which conforms to all subdivision and zoning regulations and does not include the dedication of a public street." Administrative subdivisions are eligible for staff review and approval pursuant to Article IV of Chapter 26, which has been granted for this 2-lot subdivision. No public notice is required. For larger subdivisions (4 or more lots), public hearings are held, with associated public noticing via publication, site posting and mailing to adjacent property owners. Minor subdivisions (4 and 5 lots) required one hearing before the Planning Commission. Major subdivision (more than 5 lots) require public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. For reference, the resulting lot sizes are approximately 13,000 SF for the front lot and 17,000 SF for the rear lot which contains the existing residence. Both lots also comply with minimum lot width and as part of the review process, it was demonstrated thatthe existing home would comply with all setback requirements and the potential home on the front lot has a very reasonable buildable area to also comply with said setbacks. In regards to the City's Comprehensive Plan (Envision Wheat Ridge),there is indeed a reference to the Bel-Aire Subdivision in the introductory paragraph of Chapter 5 (Neighborhoods and Housing). It states, in part " Residents embrace strong and established neighborhoods such as...Bel-Aire and aim to preserve and highlight their unique qualities- which include scenic views, architectural styles, or semi-rural character." No further references are made in the goals and policies in Chapter 5. That said, more importantly, the Comprehensive Plan is not a document that is generally referenced as part of the review of a minor subdivision. The comprehensive plan generally informs more substantial policy decisions, such as amendments to the zoning code, requests to change a property's zoning and most recently City Council added consideration of the 1 comprehensive plan as part of the special use permit process. The comprehensive plan would be referenced for larger subdivisions in regards to street connectivity, and right of way and parkland dedication. We certainly appreciate the neighbors passion in support of maintaining what is certainly a lovely neighborhood. However, staff does not have the discretion to create a public process where such a process in not required under the City's adopted subdivision regulations. Please let me know if you have further questions. Thanks. Ken Johnstone, AICP Community Development Director Office Phone: 303-235-2844 City of3*r Wheatlk€}ge- COMMUNITY DIVEU)PMEN-1 From: Patrick Goff Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 9:50 AM To: Kenneth Johnstone <kjohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Subject: FW: 4055 Everett Subdivision Patrick Goff City Manager City of Wheat Ridge 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 303-235-2805 (office) 303-995-6465 (mobile) www.ci.wheatridge.co.us ¥ City of3257 Wheat Roge- CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE From: Walter LaMendola <walter.lamendola@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 12:47 PM To: Bud Starker <bstarker@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Larry Mathews <Imathews@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Leah Dozeman <Idozeman@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Monica Duran <mduran@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Janeece Hoppe <ihoppe@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Kristi Davis <KDavis@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Zachary Urban <zurban@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Tim Fitzgerald <tfitzgerald@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; George Pond <GPond@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Cc: Patrick Goff <pgoff@ci.wheatridge.co.us>; Kenneth Johnstone <kiohnstone@ci.wheatridge.co.us> Subject: 4055 Everett Subdivision Dear Mayor Starker & CIty Council Members, 2 . Attached you will find a letter of concern and scanned pages of signatories about the recently approved subdivision. You will also find that the letter of concern has so far been signed by over forty neighbors who are residents of the Bel-Aire neighborhood. The Bel-Aire neighborhood residents request that the City of Wheat Ridge review the decision to subdivide the property at 4055 Everett Street while providing a period ofpublic comment. We believe the planned subdivision is incompatible with the principles outlined in the Envision PFheat Ridge comprehensive plan and with the quality and character of the neighborhood. The Bel-Aire Improvement Association has also had no input or review to ensure the neighborhood is involved. Sincerely, Walter LaMendola 4098 Field Drive 3 Owner Name WAL£*/Lk : Address 4693 6 414*Ne, 60£, Ce> 20¢26,3 p&«AM.<g 61>ab «/Llti 058¥546' bz. 67*6 91)53 4 596 Fr,14 'Dr wr re..64) 4095 4 €ch 4* Idi2. 6 003 4 4092:1320 Deas W. K. Bee 4079 Fie U tk.. 14 'Co 206-33 fD bl -R,«1 12*. W€ EDO-33 45 0 s ZE el J O r Wt- tooly 24 1 5 n 1\. 1 J Wl- 65 +«·14- A.-C /5-··EMM € A 93 NU494 Juff Bitz.Tro I A-t@¥4*tai,s. tb@, -AJ.2 11_.L #J 405 1 9-GU &/, 4 055 Fle<2 Dr. 4056 Fidl D v. 4030 -Field 'Pr. VO00 1-4(4 130 . 74«(39 139,€l.X> 370 1 316-5- FM 4 k 4005 5 €464< Pliue. #£ 92 0 9 3 9 1 3 I E A,-u,£1 DqL,# to R €0453 /24#24\4.407 6 ti) 94*Ut ,91*99033 H L-9-0 .=\ i k{ 9, .jic 93.c -- 1> 909 9 Rell D f, Aj R 26233 2122-„t /20 m U,0 409144320 8, , 62 30033 October 13,2018 Wheat Ridge City Council Members Wheat Ridge Mayor Bud Stark¢r 7500 W. 2* Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 1 Dear Mayor Starker and Members ofthe Wheat Ridge City Council: The Bel-Aire neighborhood residents request that the City of Whe-at Ridge review the decision tosubdivide the property at 4055 Everett Street while providing-a period of public comment. Webelieve that the planned subdivision is incompatible with the pri6eiples outlined in the Envision i Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan and the quality and-character of the neighborhood. Residents of Bel-Aire have participated in the development of a number of comprehensive plansfor Wheat Ridge including Envision Wheat Ridge. We are proud of the progress Wheat Ridgehas made to preserve establishdd neighborhoods such as Bel-Aire and to protect the qualities thatset Wheat Ridge apart from other metro area communities. In fact, Bel-Aire is used as an example in the Envision Wheat Ridge, Introduction to Chapter Five. Wheat Ridge Envision features Bel-Aire as one ofthree strong and established neighborhoodsthat should serve as model for "scenic views, architectural styles and semi-rural character" (p.49). The recently approved subdivision in our neighborhood is in conflict with this goal. Instead, an additional house is to be built in the front yard of the existing house at 4055 EverettStreet. This will be out ofplace in the neighborhood streetscape. The typical home on EverettStreet has a front yard with a 50 to 60-foot setback. The proposed subdivision is so constrainedin terms of size that it will require an extremely small house to be built to the 30-foot front and15-foot side and rear setbacks. This will result in a vefy small house wedged on an especially smalllot. The building department is calling this a slot home. We are deeply concerned that none of the Envision Wheat Ridge strategies related toneighborhood involvement or preserving the character ofthe surrounding area have beenfollowed in this recent Bel-Aire subdivision. One of the purposes of the Bet-Aire Improvement Association is to promote the general civic welfare of the community and to address issues of neighborhood interest. We request that our City Council representatives and city employeeswork with the Bel-Aire Improvement Association to review this subdivision decision in order toensure that the neighborhood is involved and that the quality and character of the neighborhood is preserved. S incerely, See neighbor signatures below 4 1 1 1 Owner Name Address 4 04 1 ¥-t 4.2 -12r, . h.--- .409 /1-,GlarD,et{>12 A AC.'*h ( 2*.2--41 21 (f'uwtl- r©;4£ Owner Name Address l. :14, AL E W 1 17> 41 Lf e 4, tfl,15 LE 7 -7 € T 53-·-#5.*/*- *.1 7. 4/* Sffi:b 24¥3 8 96 rb/£ 0..grr-- sT- 4040 eve;€*TT gE. flln 7-'_ft W)*EL> 9%¢** 0't · V/4, t £- 6I,1.r,7 7- 1 r 2 Ar 1 ) VAGot i- / 71 70 .·· -/ 50,9 LI -·r ©21 1*3/t, conme Plirz_ tki tick f 1/,13'1c, l.>6ja.uk4 9-\\l,_rll , 0 1- f.) l.,11< -t#,2..CAuj .b. Ct CL 400 Eve«,r gr. 4/ U Zip<-27- /it 4020 Evere:# st. 4005 twa'ed- 51 · 1 0.0 5- tu-a dt 9 4 0 15 Ecer*f 9 1 4 6-6.liu A Wlu +6'eGI 4 0 *4 4.4s I€tt Ltv-eot- 0 . rfULL p.- E uluuM, eNCL 444 460- 8860 Field ll. Els'lashETA /92&44€+AL- -3%60 tfi,/n- 51 EK'A*&,4, Liyvit{'017: /40,711&.i Ugum 2 26'0 *viter ar. .79 ),facUwa 4 -4·4.rsed 389*> E Ver.eti 9+. $4t-__ 4)/le'-chi 714€ r42,1 3470 Ee€ reff- 34.ufL_ cl tu 32)444 L 7-4 -44 1 6 E-4€4:er- er 1% Av; b 04«c 6+PAS 61+AN L·PY 40\0 weasrr- st C *ti, 511*1/4,- '14-(-,fic-_ Ad .-Z-C®* 03*'te rl EL,b prl,4 Yit 4 ZO '264 .54<C¢ A whab 30-D·to f 1 8-6 ta-1.i.,E. OU; 2 k/0,74 990'ppv eweN JeUMO or 43 d 1 A City of3 W heat Mge -/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29 Ave.Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846 F: 303.235.2857 October 1, 2018 Stephanie L. Garcia 2050 Raleigh Street Denver, CO 80212 Re: Garcia Subdivision Ms. Garcia: Please allow this letter to serve as confirmation that your subdivision plat for the Garcia Subdivision has been approved by the City of Wheat Ridge. The following fees must be paid within 90 days of this final action, by December 31,2018: • Parkland dedication fee for new lot: $2,497.23 • Fees in lieu of construction of public improvements: $12,721 (to Public Works) City Code requires the above fees be paid prior to plat recordation; the approval will expire if the fees are not received by December 31, 2018. The existing garage must also be demolished prior to recordation. Once fees are paid, the document will be recorded with Jefferson County. You will be emailed with the Jefferson County reception number for your records. After the mylar is recorded, the new lots are officially created and new addresses will be assigned by the City. The City will be responsible for routing an address form to alert necessary agencies of the new lot and address. The addresses must be created prior to submittal for building permits. Sincerely, 2/7/0 Scott Cutler Planner I CC:MS-18-02 case file www.ci.wheatridge. co.us I+010 4 . 4 City of7WheatRidge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: FROM: THROUGH: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Kenneth Johnstone, Directc r Sommunity Development Patrick Goff, City Managei November 28,2018 (for December 3 City Council study session) Administrative Subdivision Temporary Moratorium - Next Steps ISSUE: At the October 22,2018 City Council meeting, Council adopted a temporary moratorium on the "acceptance, processing and approval of building permits for the construction of single family residences in the R-1 zone district within subdivisions approved administratively." The ordinance was adopted as an emergency, going into effect immediately and expiring on January 20,2019, unless further extended by additional City Council action through approval of a non- emergency ordinance. At the November 5,2018 Council study session, in response to some of the issues raised at the October 22 meeting, staff presented possible options for taking action to make regulatory changes to the City's subdivision and/or zoning regulations. At that study session, Council also provided consensus to reconsider the moratorium ordinance on the agenda for the next regular Council meeting, November 26. At the November 26, 2108 City Council meeting, Council voted to reconsider the ordinance and then voted to "indefinitely postpone" said moratorium, effectively making it null and void. Following that action at the November 26 meeting, City Council adopted an alternative emergency ordinance, placing a 90-day moratorium on the acceptance, processing and approval of any administrative subdivision applications in the Bel-Aire subdivision, for the purpose of evaluating code sections relative to administrative subdivision approvals. The above actions were taken, in part, in response to concerns about a 2-lot subdivision that was recently approved administratively in the Bel-Aire subdivision, at 4055 Everett Street, which includes what is known asa "flag lot." During the public testimony at recent Council meetings, various issues have been raised regarding this subdivision approval, including the following: 1. Lack of any requirement for public notice or a public hearing for administrative subdivisions, which are those containing 3 or fewer lots. 2. Lack of requirement for a neighborhood meeting as a pre-requisite for making Administrative Subdivision Temporary Moratorium - Next Steps December 3, 2018 Page 2 subdivision application. 3. Preservation of neighborhood character, specifically related to the Bel-Aire subdivision, but potentially in other parts of the City as well. 4. Dislike of flag lots. For the November 5 City Council study session, staff prepared a memo (attached) outlining Staff' s initial ideas on sections of the code that might be appropriately amended to address any one of these various issues. At that meeting, City Council did not reach consensus on any one of those approaches. Given that, staff would suggest a more general discussion on what, if any, of the above issues are of concern (or certainly others that City Council may identify) would be a good starting point of discussion. That discussion would then inform what, if any, code amendments might be appropriate and further, what level of public input would be desired to inform those approaches. The temporary moratorium on administrative subdivision approvals is effective through February 24,2019. For any amendments to Chapter 26 (Zoning and Development), a Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation is required. If any additional public input is desired by Council (other than the standard PC public hearing and CC public hearing), those would need to be scheduled relatively quickly. In addition, through adoption of an ordinance through the standard public hearing process, a longer moratorium could be implemented, if City Council believes additional time is needed to address any issues that are identified. BACKGROUND: Article IV of Chapter 26 (Subdivisions) was most recently amended in 2014 with an ordinance that repealed and reenacted the entire Article. During that process, the code was changed to allow subdivision ofup to 3 lots to be approved administratively. Four and five lot subdivisions are reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing and subdivisions ofmore than 5 lots, or those dedicating new public streets require hearings before both Planning Commission and City Council. Prior to 2014, administrative subdivision approval could be granted only for consolidation of two (2) lots and for lot line adjustments. The City's subdivision regulations do not encourage, but also do not prohibit flag lots. Flag lots must meet the following criteria: 1. The minimum width at the pole portion abutting a public street is twenty-five feet. 2. The use of a flag lot is necessary for the effective development of the land. 3. The proposed design does not negatively affect public safety and includes clearly defined access for private use and for emergency service. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrequests discussion/direction identifying areas of concern on the issues noted previously in this memorandum and whether to pursue the adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 26. ATTACHMENTS: 1. October 30, 2018 memorandum to City Council (for November 5, 2018 study session) 32: TO: 40 W]21 Ridge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FROM: THROUGH: DATE: SUBJECT: Memorandum Mayor and City Council Kenneth Johnstone, Director of Community Development Patrick Goff, City Manager October 30,2018 (for November 5 City Council study session) Residential-One (R-1) building permit moratorium ISSUE: At the October 22,2018 City Council meeting, Council adopted a temporary moratorium on the "acceptance, processing and approval of building permits for the construction of single family residences in the R-1 zone district within subdivisions approved administratively." The ordinance was adopted as an emergency, going into effect immediately and expiring on January 20,2019, unless further extended by additional City Council action through approval of a non- emergency ordinance. The ordinance was adopted, in part, in response to concerns about a 2-lot subdivision that was recently approved administratively in the Bel Aire subdivision, at 4055 Everett Street. As drafted, the effect of the ordinance is such that it impacts two subdivisions, the one previously noted and a second subdivision, known as the Gladys Subdivision, located at 2876-2880 Newland Street, where one of the two lots remains vacant. While Council did not provide specific direction on what substantive changes to the zoning code might be pursued, if any, during the moratorium, staffhas taken the liberty of proposing a few options for consideration, given the short duration of the moratorium and the need to also hold a Planning Commission hearing on any potential changes to Chapter 26 of the Code. If Code changes are desired, City Council could potentially hold a first reading on an ordinance on November 26, a Planning Commission hearing on December 6 and a City Council public hearing on January 14,2019, prior to the moratorium's expiration on January 20,2019. BACKGROUND: Article IV of Chapter 26 (Subdivisions) was most recently amended in 2014 with an ordinance that repealed and reenacted the entire Article. During that process, the code was changed to allow subdivision of up to 3 lots to be approved administratively. Four and five lot subdivisions are reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing and subdivisions ofmore than 5 lots, or those dedicating new public streets require hearings before both Planning Commission and City Council. Prior to 2014, administrative subdivision approval could be granted only for consolidation of two (2) lots and for lot line adjustments. 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Based in part on some of the public testimony at the October 22 meeting, staff has drafted 5 possible code amendments that might be responsive to some of the concerns that were expressed. Options 1 and 2 are procedural options that would change the subdivision review process/public notification requirements. These options would not be retroactive, so would not apply to the two affected subdivisions that have received their required administrative approvals. Options 3,4 and 5 are possible substantive changes to Chapter 26 that could apply to the lots currently subject to the moratorium, as well as potentially many other residentially zoned lots, depending on what scope of applicability Council would choose to include in such an ordinance. Option 1: As noted previously, administrative subdivision approval can currently be granted for subdivision ofup to 3 lots. No public hearings are required and no public notice is provided. It is certainly an option to require a Planning Commission hearing and commensurate public notice for all subdivisions, or hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council for all subdivisions. The rationale behind not having hearings for smaller subdivisions is that subdivision approvals are considered ministerial actions by the City - if they meet minimum lot size/width, have street frontage/access and access to adequate utilities, the City has limited discretion to deny the applications. Option 2: When subdivisions meet the size thresholds to require public hearings, as summarized previously, they trigger standard public notice requirements for land use applications (publication in paper, physical posting of the property and mailed notice to property owners within 300 feet of the subdivision). Unlike some other City land use applications, such as private property initiated rezonings and special use permits, both of which modify the types of permitted uses on a property, subdivisions are not required to have a neighborhood meeting as a precursor to making application. Similar to the discussion in Option 1, the rationale behind that is generally that having a neighborhood input meeting for a ministerial type of application may send somewhat of a mixed message as to what level of substantive impact the neighborhood will actually have on the application under review. Option 3: The City' s subdivision regulations discourage, but do not prohibit "flag lots." Flag lots must meet the following criteria: 1. The minimum width at the pole portion abutting a public street is twenty-five feet. 2. The use of a flag lot is necessary for the effective development of the land. 3. The proposed design does not negatively affect public safety and includes clearly defined access for private use and for emergency service. The subdivision at 4055 Everett created a flag lot for the existing home at the rear of the property and created a new lot in front of the existing structure, adjacent to the street. The City could amend the code to prohibit "flag lots" citywide, or in certain parts of the City (by geographic area or by zoning district). Several years ago, at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, City Council discussed further restricting flag lots, but did not choose to take any action at that time. As an alternative to outright prohibition of flag lots, City Council could consider a code amendment that would trigger an automatic public hearing for any subdivision containing a flag lot, regardless of the number of lots. Such a process could include just a Planning Commission (PC) hearing, or both PC and City Council. Option 4: The City has the ability to create overlay zone districts for certain geographic parts of the City. In so doing, the zoning "rules" can be fine-tuned to address specific issues or concerns related to said geographic area. The overlay zone "rules" would typically be in addition to the development standards contained in the underlying zoning district. To use the example of 4055 Everett, the property is zoned R-1 and the subdivision is the Bel Aire subdivision. It would be possible to define the Bel Aire subdivision as a distinct overlay zone and develop specific development regulations that apply to that subdivision, beyond the underlying R-1 zoning development standards. The range of what those additional "rules" might be is very broad: more stringent or different building height restrictions, architectural design standards, material standards, different setback standards, etc. If this option were to be pursued, staff would suggest that additional time would be needed, beyond the schedule outlined previously in this memo and as such, it would be necessary to extend the moratorium. In terms of the procedures under which such an overlay zone would be adopted, staff would suggest two options: 1) processed as a City Council initiated legislative rezoning, which, at a minimum, requires a neighborhood meeting; or 2) processed similar to a planned development outline development plan amendment, which requires written approval of a at least 25% ofthe owners within the specified geographic area. Option 5: There has been much discussion about residential bulk plane regulations in the City over the past several years, including adoption of an ordinance in 2016 that applied a bulk plane regulation in the R- 1 C zone district and for single-family homes in the R-3 zone district. There has been some discussion of applying the bulk plane regulations more broadly in additional residential zone districts, or additional geographic areas o f the City. Though Council has not yet had consensus to move forward on such an approach, this also would be an option available, whether to apply the bulk plane regulations in all R-1 zone districts, or in a geographic area, such as the Bel Aire subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrequests direction on whether to proceed with any of the above options, other options City Council may have, or take no further action. Residential Subdivision Moratorium • Administratively approved residential subdivisions have been a topic of discussion at several recent CC meeting, beginning on October 22 and most recently at your last meeting on November 26. • Much of the discussion has been in the context o f a 2-lot administrative subdivision that was recently approved at 4055 Everett Street, in the Bel- Aire subdivision, which also included a flag lot. • At the November 26 meeting, City Council approved an emergency ordinance placing a temporary, 90-day, moratorium on the acceptance and processing of any administrative subdivisions in the Bel-Aire subdivision. The moratorium is effective through February 24, 2019. • The topic was also discussed at a November 5 study session, where staff had provided a memo outlining 5 potential options for code amendments that might address some of the specific concerns that have been raised by some members of the public, again, generally in the context of the recent subdivision at 4055 Everett. • We have attached our November 5 CC memo as a reference point for tonight's discussion • Staff is requesting input from CC whether you wish to pursue any procedural or substantive amendments to the residential subdivision regulations during the period of the moratorium and whether any additional public outreach is desired "Flag lots are not encouraged but are permitted when they are the most appropriate development option as determined by the CDD. Use of flag lot design shall meet the following criteria." \ \\2-UI\<6 ,112 9,#teewl ' I a R 97» 1-3 kip . JA/ t»k Ll Oy- c ir r . 14 - Ft'· l.u:L a r-Ill Jlf MA# ¥ - ct-a,- - Chohnit) C·afef _ /,- of - lu j ll E i,0 re St 6-4) poera e·,7 /1ill Jecl 49'26)-0 4 JO <4664 cl*e 7-0 4.. - 401 It#LtA ) / .7 -./1\1 044 r f 44 6 8. (17 A /- 00 Lg l-4 a , L-<032Ahe,4-4 6-»3-399) 6-45 L o KBL., : Co-9424 - H o.h , t,n A-tri & ba 2,ACL . 1 4_ <bf , t,1 i 1/3 i\J \ l I k p .- Li UN 4 Al >4 2 k, C+ ID\A l- h 2-ka._ 5 . 04 1 DA .- F'O'» ,£4 3 b 8 -0 - Poip» 00 -du) 60 DA 5,1'LA4 JD n 6 T *9 1 +19© '71 6 ar - Doz pe 6.1 4 7 C 54 te«0 j10_ ct-Dj1 'flop /f-.114 ) 61 ips- lu · 4,3 ?L< - ( Jrka A - , 1 LPAL /1, t€\j(1 1 an VA 614 jiMA - (diA#\A 1 0 --< "-Dj f L)D all 2& 10,Al Ly h-o DM»\C (-6,61 1- 460 ftle i41UN L G N..A *t- - -64 60*#f - U 1 /65 7\ - 42,»_46 Jul:- b ty c * 1-,U- CA (L -D-14 - %97 Fiel d .- 9« I ici21. : 94 244--2-°0'« over .Al f) 0 41- f · 9 0 91 ) 0 fap et , 64 1 A a -ZI cio G., i7 0, Wr 6:xy N j 11.giF* ,3-poR ( 2 907 D FAN: 1 1-Fide 61 fk0· 1 2-lh C 1 llA - C ow K 0 1 06 Ar-0,\C- 1 L D R L..2LM.EUL- 944 E i n 47 :·171 * << C I nin : 9 DU hjwe 4 4 AN 1 la 1 1 . . \Mic ij\:- deAD-1 1 3'IA - 64 or o 7-7- k- \ L ,j; 01 - lf.-k 1 L,1,9 1 4.11 IllPi r 06 1 kj- 9 . lilli I 1 1 1 1,1 1 1 f 11 1 C J -1/6 -R-1 p :T F 2_1-4\ an. ,» clrd l 66 i 4-o A-D Viv A 2 (A.1- 6L(1L1» vi.-1 0 17 61 6 6,977-A 6-.-0/14 . V- D op & c i -r. b , LA duu- LA ;51 + 04-1 4g &1- L rh,i L j of\% 9 4 13el to j Re 50 .,Ad i U lk /b\1 + v clar i ha a, 6 847 Nale«- 07 1 14 Ar#,4 n F&461 lt.,6 AA, T 1 L e4-66,&451(jiL p Oval- 9 < 4 L, L # 090 C\,»IL.(1=-3 1 l£,4/Ul ( 7 6-1 ,KA#01£24 00 < lA45-29 - fi 439*,ul J /344 - A-J n. V -64) f Jh 'j iJA)/08 Bel CAL/. 6040€C 11 -3 -17 7-D 4 al« 4 ia y _Pald.1 EL 1Rp Fo 42-_ -LiA : j h 1 - //2 5 4 FCC , 1/\% ' A (.1.6 6 4/f;In, 3/4 1 C. c. A lpL, n D 4 b ©4(/Pufri v, z-O11(5 1 \. M4-96, 26,219 14 |C L o ru-1-09 j IA uv., 1. 3.---0'£ 30-,i - 9 Elkl- 9 :- c- T /8-2 £ 4& 1 FC- q f 1- I 01 » j_ i?1121 fit g C, r A 1 1 IA \.2 - j / 1[701 tv» I r 04\Ve lV Dh c r 41.- 30 '4 dele, 4 3 44 6 lotA,6 tt l, 44, l£6€cl Jo ko OVAR<Ovi,9fdz.Grald- 11/hA of 02.4 5,h - l/ g 0 1 5 - 00 11 4/\. ih.A (194 el I O , 0_ I I 7: AD Us 6*1 L\hIT}QN ' Coled-00«40'4.' 3 1 ' i 61 4 3 /4646. In+ dl le> l/ Ua.44 ye &66% 5 ,4- AAC,- 4 16 ) 946),-14 - 11 24 *v OF'e bf,4 ) 9Il-th A; .#,4 2 - .41 03 0+ j 1 + i P For i to ,6/\9641 0 l 44 > , i ?Ck/- 1 1- L OPS' 3 V. 0.4 -flo p ld€ LA/k. 7 0 Up.N i Av' 4 r,- Ell>,La.R '4]rzl.1 r-ucekes ho. arAp c -< 4 6.-C1-9 cu 6, k I , · _ . he 110 L 1, 4> id cy)-ew\-/ 9 152<- IR·-1-g Anx,l- Fo-cll &£kt 10) 1 )\) 26 1*-torv&1 3 4)£)13-1 11 vve-*bA hip .- De® 6 h. t ret-Qj. Reeded Q Do\» 44 4 63- ev-- (144 12 *c ;1/,A Ar-e. 6 FAC --AN> A 1 - Urhan_ th ,14 ; ij Lal -l/ki 88v- 9,t idViki oh 1 1 151 AboL ul € ) D Ki 7>1 )4041 ),1 ) OUJ 040 4 4 rar€_,CLUE+04Apt#ir k - - JO 44 5 -k 1 kpge C M - 59% A- (- Cu lion N lA 1 1,4 1 6.-P 2 004)9 Dsi 4 -T'£4 S£ Uft 6»49 d 9 17 I r « i /9cy (12 ,-»ijt'-AP C tr lall /02 - 2>AL - 641%8152 c 4 44130 c© Col LAArof i werL (4-1 i 04-- ct;4 4 6{ 01·31 -6 lk.Ul Yfb A-CD 1000 l £ 4 0 7 12-20,2 \In -- UBLLS :- < 181 ¥'n < +21-- Thn , do (A-k#. 4 *A40i #00,. 9/7- 8354. 4 1_ 6 L._ AM 49 /Ob 1 41 7 'I SS IA'.2 9 c 'f 1 4 - j. cle - 04 4 C b Acb pi r C . 3 7 1 4 Crolvki .-I 9-1 .-- It A,C SA - OLA (1 1 40: all f 9644& 9. City of7 Wheat NgeCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM: THROUGH: DATE: SUBJECT: Memorandum Mayor and City Council Kenneth Johnstone, Director of Community Development Patrick Goff, City Manager October 30, 2018 (for November 5 City Council study session) Residential-One (R-1) building permit moratorium ISSUE: At the October 22,2018 City Council meeting, Council adopted a temporary moratorium on the "acceptance, processing and approval of building permits for the construction of single family residences in the R-1 zone district within subdivisions approved administratively." The ordinance was adopted as an emergency, going into effect immediately and expiring on January 20,2019, unless further extended by additional City Council action through approval of a non- emergency ordinance. The ordinance was adopted, in part, in response to concerns about a 2-lot subdivision that was recently approved administratively in the Bel Aire subdivision, at 4055 Everett Street. As drafted, the effect of the ordinance is such that it impacts two subdivisions, the one previously noted and a second subdivision, known as the Gladys Subdivision, located at 2876-2880 Newland Street, where one of the two lots remains vacant. While Council did not provide specific direction on what substantive changes to the zoning code might be pursued, i f any, during the moratorium, staffhas taken the liberty o f proposing a few options for consideration, given the short duration o f the moratorium and the need to also hold a Planning Commission hearing on any potential changes to Chapter 26 of the Code. If Code changes are desired, City Council could potentially hold a first reading on an ordinance on November 26, a Planning Commission hearing on December 6 and a City Council public hearing on January 14, 2019, prior to the moratorium's expiration on January 20,2019. BACKGROUND: Article IV of Chapter 26 (Subdivisions) was most recently amended in 2014 with an ordinance that repealed and reenacted the entire Article. During that process, the code was changed to allow subdivision ofup to 3 lots to be approved administratively. Four and five lot subdivisions are reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing and subdivisions of more than 5 lots, or those dedicating new public streets require hearings before both Planning Commission and City Council. Prior to 2014, administrative subdivision approval could be granted only for consolidation of two (2) lots and for lot line adjustments. 1 Based in part on some of the public testimony at the October 22 meeting, staff has drafted 5 possible code amendments that might be responsive to some of the concerns that were expressed. Options 1 and 2 are procedural options that would change the subdivision review process/public notification requirements. These options would not be retroactive, so would not apply to the two affected subdivisions that have received their required administrative approvals. Options 3,4 and 5 are possible substantive changes to Chapter 26 that could apply to the lots currently subject to the moratorium, as well as potentially many other residentially zoned lots, depending on what scope of applicability Council would choose to include in such an ordinance. Option 1: As noted previously, administrative subdivision approval can currently be granted for subdivision ofup to 3 lots. No public hearings are required and no public notice is provided. It is certainly an option to require a Planning Commission hearing and commensurate public notice for all subdivisions, or hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council for all subdivisions. The rationale behind not having hearings for smaller subdivisions is that subdivision approvals are considered ministerial actions by the City - if they meet minimum lot size/width, have street frontage/access and access to adequate utilities, the City has limited discretion to deny the applications. Option 2: When subdivisions meet the size thresholds to require public hearings, as summarized previously, they trigger standard public notice requirements for land use applications (publication in paper, physical posting of the property and mailed notice to property owners within 300 feet of the subdivision). Unlike some other City land use applications, such as private property initiated rezonings and special use permits, both of which modify the types of permitted uses on a property, subdivisions are not required to have a neighborhood meeting as a precursor to making application. Similar to the discussion in Option 1, the rationale behind that is generally that having a neighborhood input meeting for a ministerial type of application may send somewhat of a mixed message as to what level of substantive impact the neighborhood will actually have on the application under review. Option 3: The City's subdivision regulations discourage, but do not prohibit "flag lots." Flag lots must meet the following criteria: 1. The minimum width at the pole portion abutting a public street is twenty-five feet. 2. The use of a flag lot is necessary for the effective development of the land. 3. The proposed design does not negatively affect public safety and includes clearly defined access for private use and for emergency service. The subdivision at 4055 Everett created a flag lot for the existing home at the rear of the property and created a new lot in front of the existing structure, adjacent to the street. The City could amend the code to prohibit "flag lots" citywide, or in certain parts of the City (by geographic area or by zoning district). Several years ago, at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, City Council discussed further restricting flag lots, but did not choose to take any action at that time. As an alternative to outright prohibition of flag lots, City Council could consider a code amendment that would trigger an automatic public hearing for any subdivision containing a flag lot, regardless of the number of lots. Such a process could include just a Planning Commission (PC) hearing, or both PC and City Council. Option 4: The City has the ability to create overlay zone districts for certain geographic parts of the City. In so doing, the zoning "rules" can be fine-tuned to address specific issues or concerns related to said geographic area. The overlay zone "rules" would typically be in addition to the development standards contained in the underlying zoning district. To use the example of 4055 Everett, the property is zoned R-1 and the subdivision is the Bel Aire subdivision. It would be possible to define the Bel Aire subdivision as a distinct overlay zone and develop specific development regulations that apply to that subdivision, beyond the underlying R- 1 zoning development standards. The range of what those additional "rules" might be is very broad: more stringent or different building height restrictions, architectural design standards, material standards, different setback standards, etc. If this option were to be pursued, staff would suggest that additional time would be needed, beyond the schedule outlined previously in this memo and as such, it would be necessary to extend the moratorium. In terms of the procedures under which such an overlay zone would be adopted, staff would suggest two options: 1) processed as a City Council initiated legislative rezoning, which, at a minimum, requires a neighborhood meeting; or 2) processed similar to a planned development outline development plan amendment, which requires written approval of a at least 25% o f the owners within the specified geographic area. Option 5: There has been much discussion about residential bulk plane regulations in the City over the past several years, including adoption of an ordinance in 2016 that applied a bulk plane regulation in the R- 1 C zone district and for single-family homes in the R-3 zone district. There has been some discussion of applying the bulk plane regulations more broadly in additional residential zone districts, or additional geographic areas ofthe City. Though Council has not yet had consensus to move forward on such an approach, this also would be an option available, whether to apply the bulk plane regulations in all R-1 zone districts, or in a geographic area, such as the Bel Aire subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests direction on whether to proceed with any of the above options, other options City Council may have, or take no further action. November 5, 2018 City Council Study Session SF building permit partial moratorium • As Council is aware, on October 22 you approved a 90-day ordinance placing a moratorium on issuance of SF building permits for a very limited range of SF lots • Specifically, this applies to SF lots zoned R-1 and having been approved through an administrative subdivision process • In effect, the ordinance impacts two SF lots and those addresses were included in the council memo • Given the short nature of the moratorium, i f CC wishes to make any code changes during the 90-day term of the moratorium, those would have to be initiated quickly • Presumably, the moratorium was adopted, in part, based on a recently approved 2-lot subdivision at 4055 Everett • Because of that, staff taken the liberty of proposing some options, using that situation as a taking off reference point • We have also included a proposed schedule in the memo, which would allow a code amendment ordinance to be adopted prior to the January 20 expiration of the moratorium • The first two options are process oriented and would not be retroactive, so would not affect the two lots in question • The final 3 options are more substantive in nature and potentially would impact the two lots subject to the moratorium • The final 3 options also might require more substantive discussion and potential more time than the current schedule allows, option 4 in particular • Since all of these options are very presumptive on our part, I won't go in to any of them in detail and rather let Council direct whether any of these have appeal, or whether of course you might have other ideas, or choose to take no further action ' . City of30VFheatRilge - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM: THROUGH: DATE: SUBJECT: Memorandum Mayor and City Council Kenneth Johnstone, Director of Community Development Patrick Goff, City Manager October 30, 2018 (for November 5 City Council study session) Residential-One (R-1) building permit moratorium ISSUE: At the October 22,2018 City Council meeting, Council adopted a temporary moratorium on the "acceptance, processing and approval of building permits for the construction of single family residences in the R-1 zone district within subdivisions approved administratively." The ordinance was adopted as an emergency, going into effect immediately and expiring on January 20,2019, unless further extended by additional City Council action through approval of a non- emergency ordinance. The ordinance was adopted, in part, in response to concerns about a 2-lot subdivision that was recently approved administratively in the Bel Aire subdivision, at 4055 Everett Street. As drafted, the effect ofthe ordinance is such that it impacts two subdivisions, the one previously noted and a second subdivision, known as the Gladys Subdivision, located at 2876-2880 Newland Street, where one of the two lots remains vacant. While Council did not provide specific direction on what substantive changes to the zoning code might be pursued, i f any, during the moratorium, staff has taken the liberty o f proposing a few options for consideration, given the short duration of the moratorium and the need to also hold a Planning Commission hearing on any potential changes to Chapter 26 of the Code. If Code changes are desired, City Council could potentially hold a first reading on an ordinance on November 26, a Planning Commission hearing on December 6 and a City Council public hearing on January 14,2019, prior to the moratorium's expiration on January 20,2019. BACKGROUND: Article IV of Chapter 26 (Subdivisions) was most recently amended in 2014 with an ordinance that repealed and reenacted the entire Article. During that process, the code was changed to allow subdivision of up to 3 lots to be approved administratively. Four and five lot subdivisions are reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing and subdivisions ofmore than 5 lots, or those dedicating new public streets require hearings before both Planning Commission and City Council. Prior to 2014, administrative subdivision approval could be granted only for consolidation of two (2) lots and for lot line adjustments. 6 A 1 Based in part on some of the public testimony at the October 22 meeting, staff has drafted 5 possible code amendments that might be responsive to some of the concerns that were expressed. Options 1 and 2 are procedural options that would change the subdivision review process/public notification requirements. These options would not be retroactive, so would not apply to the two affected subdivisions that have received their required administrative approvals. Options 3,4 and 5 are possible substantive changes to Chapter 26 that could apply to the lots currently subject to the moratorium, as well as potentially many other residentially zoned lots, depending on what scope of applicability Council would choose to include in such an ordinance. Option 1: As noted previously, administrative subdivision approval can currently be granted for subdivision ofup to 3 lots. No public hearings are required and no public notice is provided. It is certainly an option to require a Planning Commission hearing and commensurate public notice for all subdivisions, or hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council for all subdivisions. The rationale behind not having hearings for smaller subdivisions is that subdivision approvals are considered ministerial actions by the City - if they meet minimum lot size/width, have street frontage/access and access to adequate utilities, the City has limited discretion to deny the applications. Option 2: When subdivisions meet the size thresholds to require public hearings, as summarized previously, they trigger standard public notice requirements for land use applications (publication in paper, physical posting of the property and mailed notice to property owners within 300 feet of the subdivision). Unlike some other City land use applications, such as private property initiated rezonings and special use permits, both of which modify the types of permitted uses on a property, subdivisions are not required to have a neighborhood meeting as a precursor to making application. Similar to the discussion in Option 1, the rationale behind that is generally that having a neighborhood input meeting for a ministerial type o f application may send somewhat of a mixed message as to what level o f substantive impact the neighborhood will actually have on the application under review. Option 3: The City's subdivision regulations discourage, but do not prohibit "flag lots." Flag lots must meet the following criteria: 1. The minimum width at the pole portion abutting a public street is twenty-five feet. 2. The use of a flag lot is necessary for the effective development ofthe land. 3. The proposed design does not negatively affect public safety and includes clearly defined access for private use and for emergency service. The subdivision at 4055 Everett created a flag lot for the existing home at the rear ofthe property and created a new lot in front of the existing structure, adjacent to the street. The City could amend the code to prohibit "flag lots" citywide, or in certain parts of the City (by geographic area or by zoning district). Several years ago, at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, City Council discussed further restricting flag lots, but did not choose to take any action at that time. As an alternative to outright prohibition of flag lots, City Council could consider a code amendment that would trigger an automatic public hearing for any subdivision containing a flag lot, regardless of the number of lots. Such a process could include just a Planning Commission (PC) hearing, or both PC and City Council. Option 4: The City has the ability to create overlay zone districts for certain geographic parts of the City. In so doing, the zoning "rules" can be fine-tuned to address specific issues or concerns related to said geographic area. The overlay zone "rules" would typically be in addition to the development standards contained in the underlying zoning district. To use the example of 4055 Everett, the property is zoned R-1 and the subdivision is the Bel Aire subdivision. It would be possible to define the Bel Aire subdivision as a distinct overlay zone and develop specific development regulations that apply to that subdivision, beyond the underlying R-1 zoning development standards. The range of what those additional "rules" might be is very broad: more stringent or different building height restrictions, architectural design standards, material standards, different setback standards, etc. If this option were to be pursued, staff would suggest that additional time would be needed, beyond the schedule outlined previously in this memo and as such, it would be necessary to extend the moratorium. In terms of the procedures under which such an overlay zone would be adopted, staff would suggest two options: 1) processed as a City Council initiated legislative rezoning, which, at a minimum, requires a neighborhood meeting; or 2) processed similar to a planned development outline development plan amendment, which requires written approval of a at least 25% of the owners within the specified geographic area. Option 5: There has been much discussion about residential bulk plane regulations in the City over the past several years, including adoption of an ordinance in 2016 that applied a bulk plane regulation in the R- 1 C zone district and for single-family homes in the R-3 zone district. There has been some discussion of applying the bulk plane regulations more broadly in additional residential zone districts, or additional geographic areas ofthe City. Though Council has not yet had consensus to move forward on such an approach, this also would be an option available, whether to apply the bulk plane regulations in all R-1 zone districts, or in a geographic area, such as the Bel Aire subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrequests direction on whether to proceed with any of the above options, other options City Council may have, or take no further action. . City ofW heatRilge - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM: THROUGH: DATE: SUBJECT: Memorandum Mayor and City Council Kenneth Johnstone, Director of Community Development Patrick Goff, City Manager November 28, 2018 (for December 3 City Council study session) Administrative Subdivision temporary moratorium - next steps ISSUE: At the October 22,2018 City Council meeting, Council adopted a temporary moratorium on the "acceptance, processing and approval of building permits for the construction of single family residences in the R-1 zone district within subdivisions approved administratively." The ordinance was adopted as an emergency, going into effect immediately and expiring on January 20,2019, unless further extended by additional City Council action through approval of a non- emergency ordinance. At the November 5,2018 Council study session, staffpresented possible options for taking action to make regulatory changes to the City's subdivision and/or zoning regulations, in response to some ofthe issued raised at the October 22 meeting. At that study session, Council also provided consensus direction to place reconsideration of the moratorium ordinance at the next regular Council meeting, November 26. At the November 26,2108 City Council meeting, Council voted to reconsider the ordinance and then voted to "indefinitely postpone" said moratorium, effectively making it null and void. Following that action at the November 26 meeting, City Council adopted an alternative emergency ordinance, placing a 90-day moratorium on the acceptance, processing and approval of any Administrative Subdivision applicatioft* for the purpose of evaluating code sectionsrelative toadministrative subdivision approvals.·... ;40 #pl-4 Ze- 4 bcitur 4 'oil, The above actions were taken, in part, in response to concerns about a 2-lot subdivision that was recently approve¢administratively in the Bjre subdivision, at 4055 Everett Street. '<CL.0,0 4' i·A %0Kfie Ouncililid not provide specific direction on what substantive changes to the zoning code might be pursued, if any, during the moratorium, staffhas taken the liberty ofproposing a few options for consideration, The temporary moratorium on administrative subdivision approvals is effective through February 24,2019. For any amendments to Chapter 26 (Zoning and Development), a Planning Commission public hearing and recommendation is required. If any additional public input is desired by Council (other than the standard PC public hearing and CCpublic hearing), these woild need to be scheduled relatively quickly. 41 1 ,3-L ML- ov-e Cafe ALleeN -1- A v- ?p u/\005 6 j»-0 · BACKGROUND: Article IV of Chapter 26 (Subdivisions) was most recently amended in 2014 with an ordinance that repealed and reenacted the entire Article. During that process, the code was changed to allow subdivision of up to 3 lots to be approved administratively. Four and five lot subdivisions are reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing and subdivisions of more than 5 lots, or those dedicating new public streets require hearings before both Planning Commission and City Council. Prior to 2014, administrative subdivision approval could be granted only for consolidation of two (2) lots and for lot line adjustments. Based in part on some of the public testimony at the October 22 meeting, staffhas drafted 5 possible code amendments that might be responsive to some of the concerns that were expressed. Options 1 and 2 are procedural options that would change the subdivision review process/public notification requirements. Options 3,4 and 5 are possible substantive changes to Chapter 26 that could apply to the lots currently subject to the moratorium, as well as potentially many other residentially zoned lots, depending on what scope of applicability Council would choose to include in such an ordinance. Options 3,4 and 5 may also require additional research and public input, likely necessitating more time than the 90-day moratorium affords. Option 1: As noted previously, administrative subdivision approval can currently be granted for subdivision of up to 3 lots. No public hearings are required and no public notice is provided. It is certainly an option to require a Planning Commission hearing and commensurate public notice for all subdivisions, or hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council for all subdivisions. It would also be an option to return to the framework that existed prior to 2014, which allowed 2-lot consolidations and lot line adjustments to be reviewed and approved administratively. The rationale behind not having hearings for smaller subdivisions is that subdivision approvals are considered ministerial actions by the City - if they meet minimum lot size/width, have street frontage/access and access to adequate utilities, the City has limited discretion to deny the applications. Option 2: When subdivisions meet the size thresholds to require public hearings, as summarized previously, they trigger standard public notice requirements for land use applications (publication in paper, physical posting of the property and mailed notice to property owners within 300 feet ofthe subdivision). Unlike some other City land use applications, such as private property initiated re-zonings and special use permits, both of which modify the types of permitted uses on a property, subdivisions are not required to have a neighborhood meeting as a precursor to making application. Similar to the discussion in Option 1, the rationale behind that is generally that having a neighborhood input meeting for a ministerial type of application may send somewhat of a mixed message as to what level of substantive impact the neighborhood will actually have on the application under review. Option 3: The City's subdivision regulations do not encourage, but also do not prohibit flag lots. Flag lots must meet the following criteria: 1. The minimum width at the pole portion abutting a public street is twenty-five feet. 2. The use of a flag lot is necessary for the effective development of the land. 3. The proposed design does not negatively affect public safety and includes clearly defined access for private use and for emergency service. Jr 4 The subdivision at 4055 Everett created a flag lot for the existing home at the rear of the property and created a new lot in front ofthe existing structure, adjacent to the street. The City could amend the code to prohibit flag lots citywide, or in certain parts of the City (by geographic area or by zoning district). Additional review criteria for flag lots could also be added to the Code. Several years ago, at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, City Council discussed further restricting flag lots, but did not choose to take any action at that time. As an alternative to outright prohibition of flag lots, City Council could consider a code amendment that would trigger an automatic public hearing for any subdivision containing a flag lot, regardless of the number of lots. Such a process could include just a Planning Commission (PC) hearing, or both PC and City Council. Option 4: The City has the ability to create overlay zone districts for certain geographic parts of the City. In so doing, the zoning "rules" can be fine-tuned to address specific issues or concerns related to said geographic area. The overlay zone "rules" would typically be in addition to the development standards contained in the underlying zoning district. To use the example of 4055 Everett, the property is zoned R-1 and the subdivision is the Bel Aire subdivision. It would be possible to define the Bel Aire subdivision as a distinct overlay zone and develop specific development regulations that apply to that subdivision, beyond the underlying R-1 zoning development standards. The range of what those additional "rules" might be is very broad: more stringent or different building height restrictions, architectural design standards, material standards, different setback standards, etc. If this option were to be pursued, staff would suggest that additional time would be needed, beyond the schedule outlined previously in this memo and as such, it would be necessary to extend the moratorium. In terms of the procedures under which such an overlay zone would be adopted, staff would suggest two options: 1) processed as a City Council initiated legislative rezoning, which, at a minimum, requires a neighborhood meeting; or 2) processed similar to a planned development outline development plan amendment, which requires written approval of a at least 25% o f the owners within the specified geographic area. Option 5: There has been much discussion about residential bulk plane regulations in the City over the past several years, including adoption of an ordinance in 2016 that applied a bulk plane regulation in the R-1 C zone district and for single-family homes in the R-3 zone district. There has been some discussion of applying the bulk plane regulations more broadly in additional residential zone districts, or additional geographic areas of the City. Though Council has not yet had consensus to move forward on such an approach, this also would be an option available, whether to apply the bulk plane regulations in all R-1 zone districts, or in a geographic area, such as the Bel Aire subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests direction on whether to proceed with any o f the above options, other options City Council may have, or take no further action. 1- 640 0 l 96 MILY j /7FUTURE IMPROVEMENT SETBACKS -¢J PROPOSED LOT CORNER 12,¢18& SF 5770 6, MITHIN SITPACK LOT (ovER•60 18% 16 r--- 1 14 W t LOT 20 Eolo *F (ORISINAL) Il,536 (NEIN) 0 eARA i rl 01 1 0 0 / .4 - ,D ILI : 441 810 75.¢13' 145.74'0 9 89°15'60" 04 SITE PLAN - CORNER LOT ®ALE, 1'•10'-O" L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 €04,1.- 1 LI- #P r 6 tls- Lr=rl. r -Fwil' - ... 1 »T_ .»41 44 · - 1 BL -ikjr 6 J 4€93, 737 . - . 274% -mrj 21'- , 1 r · -5 -- 47 Er j 13 Y Ne =t ,-+ -€ 1 -5 -:94-11 3 ./42€.* - , - - -, , 4 9,/ 2 ..„ - =6- ' - - L. ' -7% -62= ..ry---1 - .1 '2 - ly, 7-- 1 -' 61'.- , -7 -ia€2 - 1.-*2.- r .- 1/ .164 y - -C- 4, - ./ --I- ' 5' -.I £ 5 ted€7- g +2:a- ' ™.1ru»- + - 44 6. 91%»01 1 '2",5 2.. . .24 - . -*%25-Trt .4-2= *.t + ¥ L y T 1 - -6- ..7141 JIN..A .9*24 - , . 4 1 T *4 . - - i f - ·> *05fi--f _ *I ... -Ar /*A - : T€499*34.-4 -1-4.-I..A.'*:, . :.3.3* j -=--- :-f 't·*_=- -ME. a 1 ..93'1' ir' . ...2 -1...p.#WAA#ZE & - . »-. z*I = likdr"fr- -Mr-7 1 = ly .-1 - .17,· 1 1 r:'11- 1-**'ito**£,0 -f - -31.; -12 9 .tfitrill..:t: -1-,0,2 -i-W-*?2¥b., . = 1 41 4 - 2-54 1.:r--1 - "... --14 -*-5;feed*# 4 Ir M. 33' I. .. . -•<•• »r . .12...10·.ir, &< .*u .·,4.J'+ .- 13: ...2 / 114>*' ./.oup 50 1 VISION €ErSACK.5 (*sor rvwfLEE 9'N:N·JZM-i·-•:Mi·j:.-·ni'·!:i'·3:i,!4 , ---__-- Ef'%<1*35**yif:'·034'·!biffllik·,0,*f**28* 3 a Z L_1 --__j -' arT $3 4.-F .11*·- 1169'r)*9/75*2i< y. b2 - ™•¢ t r' ' v /. Ii:../2,2 :.-····l ..i4.. >.A..4,1:.,4-K'.:".77 v ; 00 '· ,. ' . T *18*47 6102/NOIC# •LIVAM#*FO*LWAIJ*-t--· ..-- .,:, .AL.1, 1,4.1617 4* 2 4.':14/. -V · £ 7 -4 ..:%% 1 - FRONT/EAST ELEVATION 0<·40• IM'•1"0• X.r : t?T 464= 111 ; 111 111 1 7-1 T f I . I . . I . ' I ' L 57.H. ' I.'94;1:3¥9.- ,/r'bq>·;'a'*'<+325 %344*,4 * %'14%#d?.?·t i 1 1.er"r 6102/BOU™ ELEVATION ®CALE. 1/41'.0• REAR/1€BT ELEVATION IC,AL,01 16·'ill. .S r. 1 6 » 9.7-7 . 1 ' & ' 11 I ). - 4-le ka * F /-0-Ar AlA - -- ( 15* 0 1 Orl AD,-V 1 1- , c ) Ajov 24- \Jav D j f>c CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MATTHEWS Council Bill No. -2018 Ordinance No. 1656 Series 2016 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE, PROCESSING, AND APPROVAL OF CERTAIN BUILDING PERMITS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge ("City") is a home rule municipality having all powers conferred by Article XX of the Colorado Constitution; and WHEREAS, pursuant to its home rule authority and CRS 31-23-101 et seq., the Wheat Ridge City Council ("Council") is authorized to adopt ordinances for the protection of the public health, safety or welfare; and WHEREAS, the Council now wishes to impose a moratorium upon the issuance of building permits for single family residences within administratively-approved subdivisions within the R-1 Zone District in order to consider adoption of regulations to address the procedures for review of administrative subdivisions under Code of Laws Section 26-406.B. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Moratorium Declared. The Council hereby imposes a temporary moratorium upon the acceptance, processing and approval of building permits for construction of single family residences in the R-1 Zone district within subdivisions approved administratively pursuant to Code of Laws Section 26-406.B. The City staff is directed to refuse to accept for filing, and not to further process or review any pending applications or requests for such permits during the moratorium period. Section 2.Duration. The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance shall commence on the effective date of this Ordinance and shall terminate on January 20, 2019 unless sooner terminated by action of the Council. Section 3. Emergency Declared: Effective Date. Pursuant to Section 5.13 of the Home Rule Charter, the Council hereby declares an emergency to exist requiring immediate effectiveness of this Ordinance in order to permit the Council to consider revised regulations for administrative subdivisions without jeopardizing current land development patterns. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on a single reading under Charter Section 5.13 by a vote of 6 to 0 on this 22nd day of October, 2018, and ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge. SIGNED by the Mayo Pro Term on this day of October 2018. Tim Fitzgerald, Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: Janelle Shaver, City Clerk Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney Published in the Wheat Ridge Transcript on , Effective Date: October 22, 2018 2018. 2 - Hooda"L Pcl pa d ck<In, 44'hi,City of 8 9 4 4 1, 4 B ELIWheat[Kilge -62 l -ter- i . Vir lot0 0 e d n M NO:' 13,triftfd rZ ,\ JA4 b f r l/ajAD 44, dful#6&* dg2) ALA DATE: November 2,6,2018 / REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION -1 ,IA 1d/) 4 FW'healnwee ) TITLE: RECONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 1656, SERIES 2018, IMPOSING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE, PROCESSING AND APPROVAL OF CERTAIN BUILDING PERMITS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY U PUBLIC HEARING ® BIDS/MOTIONS U RESOLUTIONS ] ORDINANCES FOR 1 ST READING ] ORDINANCES FOR 2 ND READING QUASI-JUDICIAL:E YES ® NO 64440'Ee157 -£.C/ufF-City Attorney City Manager ISSUE: Reconsideration of Ordinance 1656, Series 2018 imposing a temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing and approval of building permits for single family residences within administratively approved subdivisions in the R-1 Zone District. PRIOR ACTION: Council adopted Ordinance 1656 as an emergency ordinance on October 22. At its study session on November 5, Council adopted a consensus to schedule a formal vote to reconsider the ordinance at the November 26 regular meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A BACKGROUND: Following adoption of Ordinance 1656 on October 22, staff developed a series of options to address the planning issues raised by the neighbors in the Bellaire subdivision. Council acted by Council Action Fonn - Reconsideration of Ordinance 1656 November 26,2018 Page 2 consensus to direct that additional options be developed for the procedure for review and approval of administrative subdivisions. RECOMMENDED MOTIONS: "I move to reconsider Ordinance 1656, an ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing and approval of certain building permits, and declaring an emergency. If this motion does not pass, the ordinance remains in effect and no further action is required. If the motion does pass, the following motion is appropriate. Or, "I move to postpone indefinitely Ordinance 1656, an ordinance imposing a temporary moratorium on the acceptance, processing and approval of certain building permits and 5,declaring an emergency for the following reason(s) REPORT PREPARED BY; Gerald Dahl, City Attorney Patrick Goff, City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance 1656 t CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MATHEWS Council Bill No. 31- 2018 Ordinance No. 1656 Series 2016 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE, PROCESSING, AND APPROVAL OF CERTAIN BUILDING PERMITS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge ("City") is a home rule municipality having all powers conferred by Article XX of the Colorado Constitution: and WHEREAS, pursuant to its home rule authority and CRS 31-23-101 et seq., the Wheat Ridge City Council ("Council") is authorized to adopt ordinances for the protection of the public health, safety or welfare; and WHEREAS, the Council now wishes to impose a moratorium upon the issuance of building permits for single family residences within administratively-approved subdivisions within the R-1 Zone District in order to consider adoption of regulations to address the procedures for review of administrative subdivisions under Code of Laws Section 26-406.B. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Moratorium Declared. 1-he Council hereby imposes a temporary moratorium upon the acceptance, processing and approval of building permits for construction of single family residences in the R-1 Zone district within subdivisions approved administratively pursuant to Code of Laws Section 26-406.B. The City staff is directed to refuse to accept for filing, and not to further process or review any pending applications or reci uests for such permits during the moratorium period. Section 2.Duration. The moratorium imposed by this Ordinance shall commence or, the effective date of this Ordinance and shall terminate on January 20, 2019 unless sooner tenninated by action of the Council. Section 3. Emergency Declared Effective Date. Pursuant to Section 5,13 of the Home Rule Charter, the Council hereby declares an emergency io exist requiring immediate effectiveness of this Ordinance in order to permit the Council to consider revised regulations for administrative subdivisions without jeopardizing current land development patterns. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on a single reading under Charter Section 5.13 by a vote of 6 to 0 on this 22nd day of October, 2018, and ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge. ATTACHMENT 1 SIGNED by the Mayo Pro Term on this 22nd day of October 2018. ATTEST: /-7 4 (NSEAL)*n) -7 J...4 ..'Af.'k'41.4 4Tim FitzgeraIM Mayor Pro Tem Janelle-Shaver,<7ty-Clerk0209,4 <4+1-' Der'h <710%,64. k Approvpd As To Form L 9.1/us/24 (« Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney ' 1/ Published in the Wheat Ridge Transcript on October 25 2018. Effective Date: October 22, 2018 2 2017-2019 Minor Subdivisions Administratively Reviewed ®%3}E#0¥IiI (glagwa ? 4301[BiliRM*mm aft!!KiEBO ) - 9,8 @imp{Emil*131*GID ' (*ED ®486*2 (EEBR 9357 No Applications to 2019 Date 2019 MS1801 BTM Gray, LLC 3265 Gray Street Request for approval of a 3-lot subdivision.Approved 01/28/2019 2018 Approved with MS1802 Stephanie L. Garcia 4055 Everett Street Approval of a 2-lot subdivision conditions 10/01/2018 2018 West 29th Approved with MS1805 Jeff Chacon 5440 Avenue Request for approval of a 3-lot minor subdivision conditions 11/16/2018 2018 Request for approval of a 2-lot subdivision and a 1.5-foot West 41st ROW dedication on 41st Ave and a 6.5-foot ROW MS1806 lan Koentges 6025 Avenue dedication along Ingalls Ct.Pending 2018 MS1808 Bryan Green 4586 Parfet Street Request for approval of a 2-lot subdivision.Pending 2018 MS1701 Jason Cribbs 2880 Teller Street Request for approval of a minor subdivision to 3 lots.Withdrawn 09/12/2017 2017 Stor-All Youngsfield Youngfield MS1702 Street, LLC 4370 Street Approval of a 3-lot consolidation Approved 06/16/2017 2017 West 31st MS1705 Brendan Gustafson 6610 Utlth 2-lot minor subdivision Approved 07/28/2017 2017 MS1706 Shadow Homes 6025 Avenue 2-lot minor subdivision Approved 10/09/2017 2017 Administrative plat to subdivide one (1) unplatted parcel MS1707 Frank M. Zwolinski 3505 Depew Street into two (2) lots in the R-1C zone district Approved 01/08/2019 2017 MS1709 Ted Halaby Jr.3715 Pierce Street 2-lot consolidation Approved 11/06/2017 2017 2017-2019 Minor Subdivisions Administratively Reviewed 2019 VIS1801 VIS1802 VIS1805 VIS1806 VIS1808 No Applications to Date 1®*1832 62<£19/afTOSER *MIKiN(D i,p ' fNmn* '241 i 6€ .7-4'1* 1·2«4: *§91•I=Preldliril,1.,3 (il*Fi#ttlim 2.· L° . I nmDispositiERI ·afil•mmt, g?f Magr 2019 BTM Gray, LLC 3265 Gray Street Request for approval of a 3-lot subdivision.Approved 01/28/2019 2018 Approved with Stephanie L. Garcia 4055 Everett Street Approval of a 2-lot subdivision conditions 10/01/2018 2018 West 29th Approved with 1 Jeff Chacon 5440 Avenue Request for approval of a 3-lot minor subdivision conditions 11/16/2018 2018 Request for approval of a 2-lot subdivision and a 1.5-foot West 41st ROW dedication on 41st Ave and a 6.5-foot ROW I lan Koentges 6025 Avenue dedication along Ingalls Ct.Pending 2018 1 Bryan Green 4586 Parfet Street Request for approval of a 2-lot subdivision.Pending 2018 MS1701 Jason Cribbs 2880 Teller Street Request for approval of a minor subdivision to 3 lots.Withdrawn 09/12/2017 2017 Stor-All Youngsfield Youngfield MS1702 Street, LLC 4370 Street Approval of a 3-lot consolidation Approved 06/16/2017 2017 West 31st MS1705 Brendan Gustafson 6610 Avenue 2-Iot minor subdivision Approved 07/28/2017 2017 West 40th MS1706 Shadow Homes 6025 Avenue 2-lot minor subdivision Approved 10/09/2017 2017 Administrative plat to subdivide one (1) unplatted parcel MS1707 Frank M. Zwolinski 3505 Depew Street into two (2) lots in the R-1C zone district Approved 01/08/2019 2017 MS1709 Ted Halaby Jr.3715 Pierce Street 2-lot consolidation Approved 11/06/2017 2017 2017-2019 Minor Subdivisions Administratively Reviewed 2019 MS1801 MS1802 MS1805 MS1806 MS1808 MS1701 MS1702 MS1705 MS1706 MS1707 MS1709 *8* oki[R mium 9 Q#73*1*im:*mit!171%29111 .AtgRmO .p Qkma 2 4 4 v (anRD|BNE,117*n , . 0v; . (2Em{Rtim*mgi „{iERD . 2997 No Applications to Date 2019 BTM Gray, LLC 3265 Gray Street Request for approval of a 3-lot subdivision.Approved 01/28/2019 2018 Approved with Stephanie L. Garcia 4055 Everett Street Approval of a 2-lot subdivision conditions 10/01/2018 2018 West 29th Approved with Jeff Chacon 5440 Avenue Request for approval of a 3-lot minor subdivision conditions 11/16/2018 2018 Request for approval of a 2-lot subdivision and a 1.5-foot West 41st ROW dedication on 41st Ave and a 6.5-foot ROW lan Koentges 6025 Avenue dedication along Ingalls Ct.Pending 2018 Bryan Green 4586 Parfet Street Request for approval of a 2-lot subdivision.Pending 2018 Jason Cribbs 2880 Teller Street Request for approval of a minor subdivision to 3 lots.Withdrawn 09/12/2017 2017 Stor-All Youngsfield Youngfield Street, LLC 4370 Street Approval of a 3-lot consolidation Approved 06/16/2017 2017 West 31st Brendan Gustafson 6610 Avenue 2-lot minor subdivision Approved 07/28/2017 2017 West 40th Shadow Homes 6025 Avenue 2-lot minor subdivision Approved 10/09/2017 2017 Administrative plat to subdivide one (1) unplatted parcel Frank M. Zwolinski 3505 Depew Street into two (2) lots in the R-1C zone district Approved 01/08/2019 2017 Ted Halaby Jr.3715 Pierce Street 2-lot consolidation Approved 11/06/2017 2017 2017-2019 Minor Subdivisions Administratively Reviewed RE#,2 @4191§Nim 0%001*ID i 431311 A#*12130 REDIG --ofgack.3104*42-- -- - (*412®Eli;§010@ C....1 , gilif No Applications to 2019 Date 2019 Date MS1801 BTM Gray, LLC 3265 Gray Street Request for approval of a 3-lot subdivision.Approved 01/28/2019 2018 Approved with MS1802 Stephanie L. Garcia 4055 Everett Street Approval of a 2-lot subdivision conditions 10/01/2018 2018 West 29th Approved with MS1805 Jeff Chacon 5440 Avenue Request for approval of a 3-lot minor subdivision conditions 11/16/2018 2018 Request for approval of a 2-lot subdivision and a 1.5-foot West 41st ROW dedication on 41st Ave and a 6.5-foot ROW MS1806 lan Koentges 6025 Avenue -dedication along Ingalls Ct.Pending 2018 MS1808 Bryan Green 4586 Parfet Street Request for approval of a 2-lot subdivision.Pending 2018 MS1701 Jason Cribbs 2880 Teller Street Request for approval of a minor subdivision to 3 lots.Withdrawn 09/12/2017 2017 Stor-All Youngsfield Youngfield MS1702 Street, LLC 4370 Street Approval of a 3-lot consolidation Approved 06/16/2017 2017 West 31st MS1705 Brendan Gustafson 6610 Avenue 2-lot minor subdivision Approved 07/28/2017 2017 West 40th MS1706 Shadow Homes 6025 Avenue 2-lot minor subdivision Approved 10/09/2017 2017 Administrative plat to subdivide one (1) unplatted parcel MS1707 Frank M. Zwolinski 3505 Depew Street into two (2) lots in the R-1C zone district Approved 01/08/2019 2017 MS1709 Ted Halaby Jr.3715 Pierce Street 2-lot consolidation Approved 11/06/2017 2017