AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF GOLDEN, COLORADO Quasi-Judicial Proceeding FIRST READING: August 8, 2013 REPORT DATE: July 31, 2013 SECOND READING: August 22, 2013 CASE NO: PC 13-18 APPLICANT: Evergreen Devco, Inc. REQUESTED ACTION: Rezoning to Allow Residential Use at 520 Golden Ridge Road EXHIBITS: Vicinity Map Ordinance 1951 Resolution PC13-18 PC Meeting Minutes for July 10, 2013 Official Development Plan (Proposed Zoning) Golden Ridge Filing No. 2 PUD (Current Zoning) Section 3.3.3 of South Neighborhoods Plan Neighborhood Letters BACKGROUND AND PRIOR ACTION The current Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning and Official Development Plan for this portion of the Golden Ridge area was adopted in 1997 in an era before the resurgence of mixed use zoning, mass transit expansion, and community goals that now include pedestrian friendly design and Golden Vision 2030 values of community connectedness. Development at this time promoted the separation of uses such as office, retail and residential, and this area was seen as a future office park with up to two sit down restaurants to serve the office workforce. The commercially zoned lots in the Golden Ridge area have mostly sat vacant, with the exception of Panorama Orthopedics, two low rise office buildings, and the Climbing Gym that was recently approved and currently under construction. The lots in question comprise roughly 7.6 acres and sit at the southeastern end of Golden Ridge. This includes a recently purchased triangular parcel of land previously owned by Jefferson County. If the applicant secures both a zoning change from Council to allow residential and retail, as well as site plan approval from Planning Commission on August 7, 2013, the lots will be replatted into one property prior to construction. Planning Commission s role in zoning change requests is to hold a public hearing after a required neighborhood meeting, and make a recommendation to Council. Commission can recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial. The result of Commission s July 10,
Planning Staff Report PC 13-18 August 8, 2013 Page No. 2 2013 public hearing of this zoning change request was to recommend to Council an approval with conditions. The applicant s initial ODP request included alterations to the current height and setback regulations. The existing PUD zoning limits the allowable height of structures to 60 feet and four stories. The applicant proposed an ODP that would raise this to 65 feet but still limit the number of stories to four. The structural setback requirement for the distance from Highway 6 was also proposed to be slightly altered. The current requirement is that structures 40 feet or less in height have a minimum setback of 50 feet, and structures greater than 40 feet must be setback from Highway 6 at least 100 feet. The applicant was proposing to keep this setback requirement in place, but with one exception. Building A on the conceptual site plan was four stories tall and about 54 feet high, and a small portion of this building encroached into the 100 foot setback area. Due to the shape of the site, the applicant had asked for this exception to make the project work with the number of units needed. Commission s action recommended approval but with conditions, as outlined in the attached Resolution PC13-18. The South Neighborhoods Plan addresses height in this area, and states that, a more sensitive height and bulk treatment is appropriate along the northern edges of the lots adjacent to US 6 to assure a compatible character of design. Commission s resolution recommends retaining the 60 foot height limit and removing the requested exception to the setback requirement for Building A based on the perceived visual impact from below the development and guidance provided by the South Neighborhoods Plan. In addition, Commission recommended against allowing the applicant to convert the retail space to residential use after one year if market conditions do not generate success, and instead recommended that the applicant return to Commission for any change of use request. The applicant has since revised the ODP to reflect Commission s recommendations on height and building setback limits, but has retained wording that would allow a change of use after 1 year if the retail space proves unsustainable. The applicant has cited concerns that the location of the retail is somewhat challenging due to the somewhat inconvenient placement at the end of Golden Ridge Road. PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE The applicant is seeking approval of an Official Development Plan (ODP), which would supplant the existing PUD zoning and allow retail and residential uses for this specific property. A conceptual site plan has been provided as well, in order to help judge the appropriateness of the project. Among other advantages, this requirement helps ensure that an anticipated project will be feasible under the proposed zoning. 2
Planning Staff Report PC 13-18 August 8, 2013 Page No. 3 As previously described, the current PUD zoning allows office, light industrial, limited sit down restaurant use, and private recreation uses. The applicant is requesting a zoning change in the form of a new ODP to create specific requirements for this proposed mixed use project. The applicant is seeking permission to build 172 apartment units, as well as 5,200 square feet of neighborhood scale retail and restaurant space. REFERRAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS Referrals have been sent to internal city departments. In advance of an initial required neighborhood meeting held on May 30, 2013, notice letters regarding the zoning proposal were mailed to all property owners and residents within 500 feet of the property. Concerns raised by residents included the following: Existing traffic problems will increase at the intersection of Heritage Road and Golden Ridge Road There will be more traffic along Golden Ridge Road Golden Ridge Condo owners who wish to rent their units will face difficulty because of the perceived attractiveness of the new rental units New residents will harm the low key character of the area and they may use the Golden Ridge Condo amenities, such as the ponds and other landscaped areas. DISCUSSION OF ZONING CHANGE CRITERIA City zoning was established in a way which zoned land to its projected use in accordance with the comprehensive plan use areas, anticipating which portions of the city should expect which types of development. As a general rule, staff has not supported zone change requests, except where the standards for zoning change approval are met, and there are demonstrated reasons why change is desirable to the public. The standards for approval of zoning changes are: (a) (b) That the proposed zoning promotes the health, safety, or welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Golden and the purposes of the zoning ordinance; and At least one of the following additional factors exist: (1) The proposed zoning is consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan; 3
Planning Staff Report PC 13-18 August 8, 2013 Page No. 4 (2) There has been a material change in the character of the neighborhood or in the City generally, such that the proposed zoning would be in the public interest and consistent with the change. (3) The property to be rezoned was previously zoned in error. Most rezonings upon which the City deliberates are justified by the factor that the proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including applicable neighborhood plans. The South Neighborhoods Plan states in Section 3.3.3 that, The current zoning within the Golden Ridge Business Park area is a PUD that allows primarily office and light industrial uses. This zoning was approved in the mid-1990 s and may no longer reflect the best uses for the site. This section goes on to talk about the need for mixed use and transit supportive development, as long as it is not overly dense, and the importance of building height, placement and design. This section of the plan has been included in your packet for more careful review. The topic within Section 3.3.3 that receives the most attention deals with the importance of public space. If the project is to enhance the neighborhood by creating a focal point for area residents to gather, as well as provide a linkage to the pedestrian bridge and the light rail station, an active and appealing public space is necessary to help create place. The neighborhood plan outlines what this public space should look like and how it should function, and the applicant is onboard with this pedestrian friendly vision. The applicant has also been working with staff on the ramps and walkways associated with the pedestrian bridge, as well as constructing a portion of what will become the south side trail along US 6 once funding is secured in the future to complete it. In considering the request to rezone, and the appropriateness of the proposed zone district, Council may want to consider the following additional points: The West Corridor light rail line opened in April 2013, and Golden s new end-of-line station is directly across Highway 6 from Golden Ridge and the proposed development. A new pedestrian and bike bridge is now starting construction, and will link the proposed development with the light rail station across Highway 6. The current zoning was put in place long before the light rail and pedestrian bridge projects were conceived of, and before the community outlined the GV 2030 values, which support walkable and transit friendly neighborhoods. 4
Planning Staff Report PC 13-18 August 8, 2013 Page No. 5 REQUIRED REPORTS, STUDIES AND APPROVALS A traffic study has been submitted and shows that adding 172 apartment units and some neighborhood scale retail will add to existing traffic, as will any development on the lot, but that traffic volumes will be manageable with current road infrastructure. The location of the development across the pedestrian bridge from light rail will help reduce the number of trips and mitigate the impact. Drainage, grading, and erosion control plans will be addressed during site plan review and building permit. Also, in order to make this project to construct up to 172 units feasible in the near term, the applicants indicate that approval under the recent change to the administration of the 1% residential growth system will need to be approved by Council, and this is currently scheduled for first reading on August 22 nd, 2013. PARK AND SCHOOL LAND DEDICATION Park fees have already been paid for this property when the zoning did not include residential use. The proposed rezoning would create the potential for residential units and school fees would apply as per the zoning code. STAFF COMMENTS Council is being asked by the applicant to approve the proposed ODP to allow residential multifamily use and retail. Commission has recommended that the proposed development is appropriate, with conditions, based upon the Comprehensive Plan and specific recommendations in the recently adopted South Neighborhoods Plan. In addition, the recent opening of the light rail station and the pedestrian bridge that will soon link Golden Ridge to the station highlight the transformational changes going on in the area since the original PUD was adopted. Staff feels that the proposed ODP to allow transit oriented development is more consistent with GV 2030 values and community goals than the current PUD zoning. Ordinance 1951 has been drafted, but can be amended based on Council s findings. The applicant would like an objective trigger regarding the ability to use the retail space for residential if it proves infeasible. Staff feels that the most important consideration is that the applicant has committed to building the space to commercial standards so that, no matter the use, there is the built-in flexibility to adapt to an ever changing market, in the same spirit as form based zoning codes. Additionally, the applicant argues that empty storefronts are worse for the community than a residential conversion for some length of time. 5
FAWN STREET JOHNSON ROAD C470 HIGHWAY TELEGRAPH CALVARY EAGLE JEFFERSON COUNTY PARKWAY 6 HIGHWAY UTE 6 HIGHWAY Proposed Site G STREET GOLDEN CIRCLE D STREET C STREET B STREET A STREET W 4TH AVENUE ZODIAC STREET F STREET E STREET ZETA STREET D STREET C STREET B STREET A STREET W 4TH AVENUE 500ft Notification Boundary ZURICH STREET WEST STREET PINTO STREET SAGEBRUSH STREET C470 RAMP VIOLET STREET Vicinity Map Feet ²0 500 1,000 Case No.: Applicant: Location: Request: PC13-18 Evergreen Devco Inc. on behalf of NexCore GR Land LLC 520 Golden Ridge Road Rezoning Request
ORDINANCE NO. 1951 AN ORDINANCE OF THE GOLDEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE GOLDEN RIDGE OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FILING NO. 6 (PUD) AS REQUESTED BY EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC. AND NEXCORE GROUP WHEREAS, Nexcore Group is the owner of certain real property described as Lot 3, Block 1, Golden Ridge Subdivision, Filing No.6, which property is located within the Golden Ridge Filing No.2 P.U.D. Official Development Plan, and is subject to the provisions of said Official Development Plan; and WHEREAS, Nexcore Group, on behalf of Evergreen Devco, Inc. has submitted an application for approval of a new P.U.D. Official Development Plan (ODP), entitled Golden Ridge Official Development Plan Filing No. 6 for said property owned by Nexcore Group, as contained within the Golden Ridge Filing No.2 PUD Official Development Plan, thereby repealing the Golden Ridge Filing No.2 PUD Official Development Plan as it pertains to said property; and WHEREAS, the application for the Golden Ridge Official Development Plan Filing No. 6 is complete and in accordance with the zoning ordinance of the City of Golden, and public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council have been held in accordance with the zoning ordinance of the City of Golden. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN, COLORADO: Section 1. City Council accepts the Planning Commission s findings of fact in this case, as detailed in the Resolution PC 13-18. Section 2. As it relates to Lot 3, Block 1, Golden Ridge Subdivision, Filing No.6, the Golden Ridge Filing No.2 PUD Official Development Plan is hereby repealed and of no effect. Golden Ridge Official Development Plan Filing No. 6 as presented to City Council on August 22, 2013 is hereby approved. Section 3. If any article, section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held to be unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such decision will not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each part or parts hereof irrespective of the fact that any one part or parts be declared unconstitutional or invalid. Section 4. All other ordinances or portions thereof inconsistent or conflicting with this ordinance or any portion hereof are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict. Section 5. This ordinance is deemed necessary for the protection of the health, welfare and safety of the community. Section 6. The repeal or modification of any provision of the Municipal Code of the City of Golden by this ordinance shall not release, extinguish, alter, modify or change in whole or in part any penalty, forfeiture or liability, either civil or criminal, which shall have been incurred under such provision. Each provision shall be treated and held as still remaining in force for the purpose of sustaining any and all proper actions, suits, proceedings and prosecutions for enforcement of the penalty,
Ordinance No. 1951 Page 2 forfeiture or liability, as well as for the purpose of sustaining any judgment, decree or order which can or may be rendered, entered or made in such actions, suits, proceedings or prosecutions. Introduced, read, passed and ordered published the day of, 2013. 2013. Passed and adopted upon second reading and ordered published this day of, Marjorie N. Sloan Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Brooks, MMC City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: David S. Williamson City Attorney
RESOLUTION PC13-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REZONING REQUEST FOR 520 GOLDEN RIDGE ROAD THAT REPLACES THE CURRENT PUD ZONING AND ODP WITH A NEW ODP WHEREAS, Evergreen Devco, Inc. has submitted a rezoning request in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 18.48 of the City of Golden Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, proper notice of the required public hearing has been accomplished according to law, including posting on the subject property, publication in the local newspaper, as well as the necessary letters to all owners and tenants of real property within 500 feet of the site, and the required neighborhood meeting was held; and WHEREAS, a public hearing regarding the rezoning request has been held at a public meeting of the City of Golden Planning Commission on July 10, 2013. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GOLDEN, COLORADO Section 1. The evidence and testimony presented during the required public hearing demonstrate that the standards for rezoning in Section 18.48.060 of the Code are met as follows: a. The proposed rezoning promotes the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of Golden by accommodating a transit oriented development that supports the goals of the City Comprehensive Plan, including the South Neighborhoods Plan. b. The proposed zoning is consistent with the goals found in the following values in the Comprehensive Plan: Value Theme A: We value being a community which is walkable, bikeable and accessible to all. Value Theme B: We value being an active, healthy community that appreciates the outdoors and our connection to the natural environment. Value Theme C: We value safe, quiet, clean, well-maintained neighborhoods. Value Theme E: We value retaining convenience to services and amenities and our proximity to Denver and the Mountains. Value Theme H: We value maintaining friendliness and connections with neighbors and other residents. Value Theme I: We value keeping and enhancing our sense of community, pride, our diversity and tolerance, and our community character and community events.
Resolution PC13-18 Page 2 c. There has been a material change in the character of the neighborhood, given the new light rail station and the pedestrian bridge under construction. The South Neighborhoods Plan indicates that it is in the public interest to take advantage of this multimodal transportation infrastructure with development that provides the uses, linkages and public spaces that support and enhance this new accessibility. d. Based upon the above findings, the proposed rezoning and Official Development Plans meet the criteria for rezoning in Section 18.48.060 and 18.28.350. Section 2. The Planning Commission recommends the rezoning in Case No. PC13-18 to City Council for approval with the following conditions: a. Development in conformance with the conceptual site plan depicted in the ODP. b. The maximum height allowed is 60 feet. c. The reference to a maximum of four stories is removed. d. The exception to the setback requirement for Building A is removed. e. Retail may be converted to residential use only if approved by Commission as a change of use. Resolved this 10th day of July, 2013. ATTEST: Suzanne Stutzman, Chair Stacy McClure, Secretary to Planning Commission
CITY OF GOLDEN PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES EXCERPT JULY 10, 2013 RESCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING The Planning Commission met in regular session at 911 10 th Street, Golden, Colorado at 6:30 p.m. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL The following members were present at the roll call. PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Casey Brown, Don Cameron, Diane Chesbro, Stephen Cummings, Jim Dale, Amity Moore, and Suzanne Stutzman Matt Burde Rick Muriby, Steve Glueck, and Stacy McClure Chair Stutzman declared a quorum. 3. REGULAR BUSINESS A. PC13-18 Official Development Plan (Rezoning) Recommendation Muriby presented a vicinity map of the proposed site and stated that a request had been received for a rezoning of a parcel to allow for retail and residential uses on the property. Muriby explained that property is currently zoned PUD under the Golden Ridge Official Development Plan which does not allow residential uses. He noted that the conceptual site plan is a tool to be used in demonstrating the appropriateness of the rezoning request and the site plan criteria would not apply at this time. He explained that the proposal would be for a 172 unit apartment development that would include retail space. Additionally, the request seeks changes in the height and setback requirements to allow up to 65 feet in height where currently 60 feet is allowed. Also, setback requirement from Hwy 6 currently states a 50 foot setback for buildings less than 40 feet in height and a 100 foot setback for buildings exceeding 40 feet in height. Muriby noted that the plan calls for six buildings and explained that only one portion of the proposed Building A would benefit from this change. Muriby pointed out that the property would provide public access and a pedestrian plaza that would connect to the Golden Ridge area to the pedestrian bridge. Muriby stated that a neighborhood meeting was held and most comments received were regarding traffic impacts on Golden Ridge Road and Heritage Road. Muriby added that the traffic study results show that this proposal would add traffic to the area but that staff thinks components are in place to handle the traffic and the city engineers do not have concerns. Muriby reviewed the criteria for zoning changes and stated that staff finds the criteria has been met and that the South Neighborhoods Plan has identified this area as transit oriented development (TOD).
Planning Commission July 10, 2013 Page 2 of 4 Cameron asked where sidewalk would go and how it would connect to the pedestrian bridge. Glueck provided the pedestrian bridge plan and explained the slopes and issues with connections on the south side of the highway. Chesbro commented that she did not like the connection through the site and that pedestrians would be crossing through parking lots. Glueck reminded the Commission that they need to be considering just the zoning change and whether or not residential uses should be allowed on the site and whether the setbacks should be modified. He explained that during the site plan approval process the actual design of the site would be reviewed. Glueck stated that the revised comprehensive plan states that residential use is probably the best use for land in this area. Jeff Wigstrom, Evergreen Devco, stated that he had done TOD in Denver and that this type of project is exactly what should occur near the lightrail station. Nathan Sciarra, architect, stated that the proposal calls for 172 high end apartments, to include retail space, with a target demographic of 22-26 year olds who would spend time out in the community and utilize the lightrail system. He stated that they believe they have addressed the overall goal for the South Neighborhoods Plan by creating a community plaza area where the lightrail bridge meets the property. He explained that the retail portion of the site would not benefit from the pedestrian traffic but mostly address the needs of businesses along Golden Ridge Road. He provided renderings of the building elevations noting that the neighboring mobile home site sits 15-20 feet above this property. Jarred Carlon, landscape architect, commented that the goal of the site was to follow the South Neighborhoods Plan (SNP) early on in the process and that they will develop design details during the site plan review. He stated they used the design photos from the SNP document to plan for the pedestrian plaza space and included seating areas, a water feature and intimate public spaces. Steve Cocker, commented that the rezoning is a land use matter and that any development will increase traffic. He noted two main points; traffic volumes generated by the proposal can be handled by the existing infrastructure, and the site will be designed to handle drainage. He explained that the site currently receives runoff from Golden Terrace and this project will redirect that runoff into a new detention pond. Chair Stutzman asked why the corner of Building A has to encroach into the existing setback regulations. Wigstrom stated that the site is challenging due to the triangular shape of the north parcel boundary. He stated it would really only be two units that would be encroaching into the existing setbacks and that the rest of the units are in compliance. He added that to remove the two units would be difficult because it alters the construction type regulations. Cameron asked for the height of the proposed buildings. Sciarra responded that the buildings are planned to be in the mid to lower 50 foot height range but they are asking for 65 feet in height so that they would not have to return if they ran into issues during the design process but that they have no intention of building up to 65 feet.
Planning Commission July 10, 2013 Page 3 of 4 Chair Stutzman commented that the proposed location is in a critical spot and asked if they had considered turning the building 90 degrees. Wigstrom stated they have ran through a dozen different plans on how to develop the site to address the slope and lot conditions as well as the access to the pedestrian bridge. He noted that they also have to design a property that works for the tenants and keeps handles parking onsite. Chair Stutzman OPENED the Public Hearing at 11:01 p.m. Don Merriam, property manager and resident of Golden Ridge Condominiums, commented that he hosted the neighborhood meeting for Evergreen Dev at his property. He stated he feels like staff is selling the project for the developer and is concerned about how the project would impact his property. He believes the residents of the development would use his property to walk their dogs and to let their children play. Merriam stated that the Golden Ridge area currently has a nice balance of residential and commercial and does not have a need for an additional 172 units. In regards to the traffic study Merriam claimed that the traffic counter was placed past Golden Circle and didn t take in to account the 1,000 people living on his property. He concluded that the addition of these units would greatly impact the neighborhood and Commission should do their duty and deny the request. Chair Stutzman CLOSED the Public Hearing at 11:15 p.m. Wigstrom responded that they will be providing a dog park on their property and would not anticipate that his tenants to walk them at the condos. He asked staff to address the traffic study questions. Glueck stated that there was not a previous traffic study, just City engineering staff counting cars on Golden Ridge Road. Wigstrom stated that they would have a management company that would monitor the property and perform credit checks and criminal backgrounds during the application process. Wigstrom commented that there are currently no vacancies at the Golden Ridge condos and that demonstrates there is a demand for rental units in Golden. Cummings asked if there would be a playground for children. Wigstrom stated that contrary to comments made he does not believe there will be a need for a playground based on demographics. Chesbro asked if there would be parkland dedication fees charged to the developer. Glueck stated that the parkland fees were addressed and collected in 1996 when the property was rezoned from residential to commercial. Moore commented that it could be expensive to eliminate 1000 sq.ft in order to accommodate the existing setbacks. Cummings agreed that it could be a hardship to a point as the project needs to be financially viable. Chair Stutzman commented that the zoning would be going back to residential as it was originally planned and that the rezoning isn t so much about being developer driven as it is the needs of the community. She added that through public comment during the comprehensive plan update, SNP and GoldenVision 2030 this area was identified as a TOD site and she feels comfortable that the criteria for rezoning has been met. Moore asked how the development would be constructed with the 1% growth ordinance. Glueck explained that city council will be deciding on whether to allow TOD construction to begin building prior to receiving all of the required allocations. He stated if the changes are approved, City Council could then decide to borrow allocations for up to four years in the future.
Planning Commission July 10, 2013 Page 4 of 4 Brown commented on his concerns regarding a statement to allow up to 100% residential uses on the property in the event that the commercial space doesn t lease. Chair Stutzman asked what types of options do they have to ensure a mix of commercial uses on the property. Muriby explained that the applicant is concerned that retail is a little dicey in this area and would like to have the ability to convert to 100% residential if the market conditions don t support retail. Brown asked if the Commission could require them to return for a review if they are considering converting the space to residential. Muriby stated it could be a request for a change on the ODP. Dale commented that the project makes sense from a health, welfare, and safety perspective and that the rezoning should be approved. Cameron commented that he doesn't see the need to allow the extra five feet in height just in case they might need it. Chair Stutzman, Brown and Chesbro agreed noting that it creates the expectation that they can build up to 65 feet. Chair Stutzman suggested leaving it at the existing 60 feet height limit. Chair Stutzman asked for thoughts on the encroachment of Building A in to the required setback. Dale commented that they have a hardship with fitting into the parcel shape and suggested that they allow the encroachment. It was MOVED by Jim Dale and seconded by Amity Moore to recommend approval of Resolution PC13-18 as amended during discussion. To clarify the Hwy 6 setback request it was MOVED by Diane Chesbro and seconded by Amity Moore to deny the encroachment of Building A into the required setback. The motion passed 4-3 with Dale, Cummings and Brown voting against. Muriby stated the amendments to be 100% residential uses to be approved by Planning Commission as a change of use, to require the height of the buildings to not exceed 60 feet, and to leave the required setbacks from Hwy6 as they are written in the original PUD. The motion passed unanimously 7 0.