HomeMy WebLinkAboutStudy Session Packet 03-05-12STUDY SESSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO
7500 W. 29th Ave.
Wheat Ridge CO
March 5, 2012
6:30p.m.
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings
sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information
Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are
interested in participating and need inclusion assistance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
1.:. Elected Officials' Report(s)
a) Feed the Future
2. Staff Report(s)
3. Multi-family Rental Property Inspection/Registration Program
4. Ordinance amending Article Ill of Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws
concerning Planned Development Zoning Districts
§.. 38th Avenue Roadway Improvements
I Y:+e rn.. /. a)
~~A~
... ~ ' City of • "'~WheatRi___dge ~OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Memorandum
TO: Council
FROM: Mayor DiTullio
DATE: March 5, 2012
SUBJECT: Feed the Future Backpack Program
Loretta DiTirro, Committee Representative for the Wheat Ridge Backpack Feed the
Future Program, has asked for a charitable donation from the City.
Feed the Future is a program mirrored after the National Backpack program,
implemented to serve the needs ofTitle I elementary children who have been identified
as those "at risk" and without food on the weekends. Participating schools in the Wheat
Ridge Feed the Future Program are Pennington Elementary, Kullerstrand Elementary and
Stevens Elementary.
Attachments:
1) January 31 , 2012 Letter -Loretta DiT irro
2) Program Summary
January 31, 2012
Mayor Jerry DiTullio
7500 W. 29th Avenue
Wheat Ridge, CO 80033
Dear Mayor DiTullio:
I am writing on behalf of the Wheat Ridge Backpack Feed the Future committee, which is lead
by Chief Dan Brennan. Feed the Future is a program, mirrored after the National Backpack
program, implemented to serve the needs of Trtle I elementary children who have been
identified as those "at risk" and without food on the weekends. In Wheat Ridge we have 3 such
elementary schools-Pennington, Kullerstrand and Stevens-with students that are in need. At
this time, we have over 300 students that receive the food every Friday.
To date, we have been able to bring many of our service groups and community leaders
together to assist with raising funds, packing the food and distributing the boxes to the
children. A Village has been formed to meet the needs of these children.
My request to you, as our Mayor, is a $5,000.00 donation from the City of Wheat Ridge's
charitable organization budget and, in addition, I would request our elected officials contribute
a portion of their budget to the program as well. We are in immediate need of funds as Stevens
Elementary was added the first of January, which increased the number of students in need by
over 130. A more detailed overview of the program has been attached to this letter.
Additionally, I would ask for an on-going donation, quarterly or annually, be made to the
program. It is my firm belief that we all have an obligation to our children who are our future.
There is no doubt in my mind that amongst those we are helping today wm become the
volunteers in our community as they mature.
I'd ask that we also have space in your next Mayor's Matters to present the program. I will be
more than pleased to write the article and/or assist the person responsible for the publication.
1 n closing, thank you in advance for giving consideration to this request. Please feel free to
contact either Chief Dan or myself for further information, if needed.
Lore a DiTirro, President
Enterprise Wheat Ridge
Cc: Chief Dan Brennan Attachment 1
Wheat Ridge "Feed the Future" Backpack Program
The Arvada Community Food Bank (ACFB) is a nonprofit 501 c (3) corporation formed in 1982
to serve the needy and vulnerable in our oommunity. Today, ACFB serves those in need in the
communities of Arvada, Golden, Wheat Ridge and Westminster. In 2010, ACFB approached
Chief Daniel Brennan to champion a "Feed the Future" Backpack Food Program in Wheat Ridge .
The Wheat Ridge .. Feed the Future" Backpack Program provides food for elementary children
who are on the school Free and Reduced Lunch Program at participating schools in Wheat Ridge
during the school year. Cwrent participating schools are Pennington Elementary and Kullerstrand
Elementary. The program will expand to Stevens Elementary in January 2012 . Each Friday,
children take borne a sack filled with food including breakfast. lunch and snack items. along with
fruits and vegetables to see them through the weekend .
Volunteer efforts from the Wheat Ridge Police Department, Wheat Ridge Fire Department.
Arvada Fire Deparbnent, the Wheat Ridge Optimist, Rotary and Grange service clubs. Enterprise
Wheat Ridge business members, f3itb-based sponsors and community members help support the
program by giving their time and talents to this program.
Today, the program provides food for approximately 200 elementary students and our needs will
grow with the addition of Stevens Elementary School in 2012 . (We began serving 137 students at
Stevens in January.) It costs $2.50 per student, per week to provide them food for a weekend.
To sustain this program, we need your help. Please consider a Cash Donation of:
S50-Feeds one student for half a school year
$100-Feeds one student for a school year
St,OOO-Feeds one dassroo for a school year
$10,000-feeds one school for a school year
All donations go directly to tbe program.
Your tax-deductible donations to support the Wheat Ridge "Feed the Future,. Backpack program
can be sent to:
Arvada Community Food Bank. at 8555 W . 57th Ave, Arvada, CO 80002 or
Wbeat RicJ&e Community Foundation, at 4005 Kipling St.. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 or
All donations should be sent in care of the Wheat Ridge "'Feed the Future,. Backpack Program .
Attachment 2
,. " ~ ..
• .. City of ·'UWheat&_.dge ~OMMUN I TY D EVELOP M ENT
Memorandum
TO: Mayo r and City Coun cil
THROUGH : Patrick Goff, City Manager
FROM: Kenneth Johnstone , Community Development Director
DATE: March 5, 2012
SUBJECT: Ward TOD Metropolitan District formation
IBC Holdings, the property owner of the former Jolly Rancher site at 50th and Ward Road is
interested in developing their property in a manner consistent with the City 's Northwest Subarea
Plan. The plan recommends a transit supportive land use pattern that is higher density and
contains a good mix of commercial and residential development -often referred to as transit
oriented development (TOD). Last week, they submitted an application for a rezoning of the
property from I and PID to MU-C-TOD. To support the higher densities, compact development
panem and desire for very high quality pedestrian environment, the initial infrastructure
investment requirements can be significant. For the Northwest Subarea to develop with high
quality TOD there is a need for a tight grid of multi-modal streets, structured parking, regional
stormwater facilities as we ll as other typical underground utilities.
The chall enge of how to frontload the funding and constru ction of this level of infrastructure was
the reason for the Ci ty's application for an E PA Smart Growth Implementation Assistance grant
in 2010. The C ity was awarded that grant and a final report detailing various finance tools, case
studies and other innovative methods was rec ently submitted to the C ity in draft form. One of the
tools that is often used to assist in fu ndin g these types of infrastructure investments is the
formation of a metropolitan district (metro district). In Colorado, metro districts can be formed to
fund a variety of development related activi ties (principally infrastructure finance and
maintenance). The formation of the metro district and associated service p lan requires review
and approval by the City Council of the jurisdiction.
IBC Holdings has recently approached the City regarding the formation of a Metro District for
their property (approximately 15 acres), with the potential to include other properties in the
future, totaling approximately 45 acres. The general purpose of the district would be to create an
additional revenue stream (property tax mil levy, public improvement fee and other one-time
development impact fees) in order to finance the construction of above and below grade public
infrastructure, including a large parking structure that would be jointly shared between private
development and the Regional Transportation District (RTD). The possibility of developing a
shared structu red parking facility has long been a goal of the City for this location and is
reflected in the intergovernmental agreement (IGA) between the City and RTD.
IBC submitted a proposed service plan last week for staff to review. Preliminary review by
various staff has begun. A preliminary meeting with the property owner and counsel is scheduled
for later this week.
The reason for this City Council briefing relates to the schedule that has been requested from the
property owner. They have requested a very tight review schedule, with City Council's review
and approval preliminarily scheduled for March 26,2012 or April 9, 2012. The basis for this
tight schedule relates to the property owner's desire to reach an agreement with RTD on the
shared parking concept. We understand that RID will soon be initiating property acquisitions for
the Gold Line stations and associated transit and parking facilities. Those acquisitions would be
directly impacted by the option of constructing a parking structure vs. the currently proposed
surface parking lot Based on state law regarding metro districts, formation elections can only
occur at two specific windows during the year, May and November. In order to be ab le to
successfully negotiate a shared parking agreement with RTD, the property owner believes they
need to utilize the May 2012 election window, which drives the March 26 or April 9 City
Council review and approval.
Because we have only begun our internal review of the service plan and associated legal and
fmancial documents, it is too early for staff to fully commit that we wiiJ be able to present this
proposal with a solid recommendation on its merits to City Counci l in that timefrarne. However.
given the proposed development pattern and infrastructure investments align so well with the our
planning documents and City Council's strategic plan. we are willing to make a concerted effort
and wanted to make City Council aware that such a review was underway.
I
"\ 4 ~
... or City of ~Wheat&__dge
JVc"oMMUNilY DEVELOPMENT
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Memorandum
Mayor and City Council
Patrick Goff, City Manage~
Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director and Dan Brennan,
Police Chief
March 5, 2012 City Council Study Session
Multi-Family Property Maintenance Program
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
Goal #4 in the City Council Strategic Plan is a "More Attractive Wheat Ridge." In 2011, City
Council targeted the need to consider adoption of a multi-family (MF) property maintenance
code and an associated registration/inspection program. Attached is the sheet from the City
Council Strategic Plan that discusses the "key issues and actions" associated with this target
item. The 2005 Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy identified rental property maintenance as a
community concern that should be addressed to ensure long-term economic health of the City.
The issue was also discussed with City Council in 2008/2009, before and after implementation of
a MF inspection pilot program that was conducted by the City's building inspection division.
More recently in 2010, during the process of adopting the 2006 International (building) Codes,
the topic ofMF inspection was discussed in a limited way with the Mayor's building code task
force and City Council. It was agreed that the topic required further discussion, and adoption of
the 2006 version of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) was deferred, though it
is important to note that the 2003 version of the IPMC remains in effect in Wheat Ridge.
Since 2009, enforcement of the 2003 IPMC on residential properties in the City has only been on
a complaint basis. The code enforcement function of the City has also been transferred wholly
into the Police Department's Community Services Unit. However, the Community Development
Department continues to provide support to those efforts and the building division in particular
responds to regular calls when residents who rent property in the City call to register a life/safety
complaint about the condition of their residence. The City's building inspectors will respond to
those calls and take action to address critical life/safety issues with the resident and property
owner, as appropriate.
ISSUE:
Based on City Council prioritization of this topic in the 2011 Strategic Plan, the issue of rental
property maintenance remains a concern of the community. Based on that direction, staffhas
conducted research of various other jurisdictions in the metro area as well as elsewhere in the
country to evaluate how other jurisdictions have addressed these concerns in a programmatic
way. Attached is a memorandum from Nathan Mosley dated January 12 , 201 2 , which
summariz es his research efforts on thi s topic. We were able to obtain infonnation from
Multi-Family Property Maintenance Program
March 5, 2012
Page2
approximately 10 other communities. Some of the questions staff wanted to address include:
• If you have a program, what prompted your community to institute the program?
• Which version ofthe IPMC do you enforce and did you amend those codes to "fit" your
community?
• How long has your program been in place?
• Has the program had consistent political support?
• How frequently do you conduct inspections?
• Do you require registration and does the program attempt to achieve full cost recovery?
• How much staffing do you have to support the program?
• Does the program focus on both interior and exterior maintenance?
The detailed responses to those questions are fully summarized in Mr. Mosley's memo,
Attachment # 2.
POLICY DIRECTION:
Based on the research staff has conducted, our past experience with the pilot program in
2008/2009 and our ongoing field code enforcement work and general field observations of the
City, we are forwarding a recommended approach for a potential residential rental property
registration/inspection program in Wheat Ridge. Based on direction we receive from Council at
the March 5 study session, we would propose to come back to Council at a follow-up study
session with a more detailed outline of a program along with potential resource needs and
potential code amendments necessary to implement a program. We would also propose to
conduct further outreach to affected interest groups including grou s re resenting both landlords
and tenants. In the text that follows, staffs olicy recommendations are summarized in the
highlighted text.
Property Maintenance Codes. The IPMC is a very detailed document that gives a community
broad discretion to achieve interior and exterior property maintenance. The scope and level of
detail gives a jurisdiction authority to seek repair of minor peeling paint, chips in bathroom
appliance enamel , etc. Based on our research and field experience, we feel it would be necessary
to provide more focus on the types of property maintenance issues we are concerned with and
clearly relate those issues back to primary health and safety concerns. We would propose
adoption of a locally-amended version of the IPMC that focuses on Wheat Ridge riorities .
Types of properties to be included. Available data sources are primarily the US Census and the
Jefferson County Assessor's database. These sources indicate that approximately 72% of the
City's housing is single-family detached housing. The data also indicates that approximately
54% of the City's housing is owner-occupied , and 46% is renter-occupied, which is a
significantly higher percentage of rental housing than national and Denver Metro averages. This
data also make it clear that much of our rental housing stock is single-family detached housing,
duplexes and townhomes. These rental housing types make up a much greater percentage of our
rental housing stock than larger rental properties. Rental properties with 10 units or more
constitute only 1/3 of our total rental housing units. Nearly 25% of all rental units in the City are
either single family homes or du !exes. Based on the data, staff believes a successful rogram
would need to include ALL rental housing.
Multi-Family Property Maintenance Program
March 5, 2012
Page 3
Interior vs. Exterior. Most of the complaint-based rental housing inspections that we currently
conduct relates to interior housing conditions that often represent significant health and safety
violations. Examples include: inadequate hot water or overly hot water, bug infestations, lack of
water, lack of or inadequate heating, lack of functional appliances or fixtures (stove, bathtub, and
toilet), inadequate or malfunctioning electrical systems and mold. o be effective in addressing
the quality and safety of the City's rental housing stock, staffbelieves a rental housing inspectio
rogram needs to be able to address interior conditions as well as exterior ro erty maintenance.
Registration Requirements. The City does not have ready access to any database that would
establish which properties are rented vs. owner-occupied. The City requires business licenses for
rental property of l 0 units or more; however, as noted previously, this represents less than I /3 of
our rental housing units. Tracking down rental properties at a single-family and two-family
structure level would re uire arcel by parcel searches in the Jefferson County records. To
establish an equitable rental insRection rogram, staff believes a mandatory registration rogra
would be the most effective. The registration program could also offset some or all of the costs
of administering the program. We also recognize that creating a new mandatory registration
program has an impact on property owners. We would propose that the implementation approach
of the program could provide a variety of incentives when first implemented that make it
attractive for landlords to register their property in the program. See later comments for
examples.
Program Implementation. As noted earlier, im lementation of a new registration rogram has an
im act on property owners. o soften that impact, staff would recommend a variety of measures
to incentivize landlords' artici ation in the rogram. For starters, if directed by Council to
implement some variation of a rental registration/inspection program , we would envision an
extensive public outreach effort to inform landlords and tenants of the basics ofthe program:
how it works , what code issues are the priorities, why the program is a Council priority, etc. We
would also propose that the program be initiated in a phased manner, starting with a voluntary
registration period where perhaps the first year's registration fee would be waived. We could
consider waiving initial inspection fees during an initial phase of the program or waiving a
portion of the building permit fees associated with corrective work during this initial program
start up. Our research indicates that other cities administer their programs in a manner that
requires inspections less than annually and rewards newer buildings or well-maintained buildings
with fewer inspections. We would propose a similar approach to the frequency of inspections .
Hotel I Motel Program . In coordination with the Police Department, the Building Division
continues to conduct our annual hotel/motel inspection program. We believe this program is very
much necessary and effective in improving the quality and safety of the hotel rooms in our City.
The IPMC is an effective tool that we use in conducting those ins ections. Staff recommends
continuing the hotel/motel ins ection program in its current format.
We look forward to having further discussion and answering your questions when we meet on
March 5.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City Council Strategic Plan Target Sheet
2. January 12 ,201 2 Mos ley Memo
Goal 4: More Attractive
Wheat Ridge
TARGET: Multi-Family Rental Property
Mainte nance Code
Priority
Responsibility: Community Development Director
and Police Chief
KEY ISSUES
• Property ma i ntenance has been identified
as a community concern for several years
and poor property maintenance has nega -
tive consequences in regard to crime and
continued property investment
• The 2006 International Property Mainte-
nance Code (IPMC) was not adopted along
with the other 2006 International Codes
• The IPMC provides broad discretion to in-
spect and maintain the interior and exteri-
or of multi-family properties
• There has been some resistance from multi
-family rental property owners to partici-
pate in a broad inspection and property
maintenance program
• Property maintenance is also a concern in
certain parts of the City for single family
homes and not necessarily always on rent-
al properties
• The City has not established clear policy
direction on how aggressive of an approach
should be taken on enforcing property
maintenance requirements on certain clas-
ses of res idential properties
ACTIONS
• Research other communities residential prop -
erty maintenance ordinances, inspection/code
enforcement programs and rental registration
programs and prepare for discuss ion at City
Council study session (Ql 2012)
• Based on City Council policy direction, prepare
necessary ordinances for considerat i on , includ-
i ng adopting all or portions of the 2006 Inter-
national Property Maintenance Code
(Q2/2011)
• During 2013 budget cycle, identify resource
needs associated with recommended residen -
tial property maintenance code approach and
budget as necessary (Q Q 11)
• Implement new multi -family property mainte-
nance code pr ogram (Q
Attachment 1
City of Wheat Ri dge /Ly le Sumek and Associa te s, Inc./May, 201 1 Page 19
~ ~ . ~
... r-City of
f?.'Wheat&_dge ~DMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Memorandum
Ken Johnstone, Director of Community Development
John Schumacher, Chief Building Official
Nathan Mosley, Management Analyst
January 12 ,2012
Multi-Family Home Inspection Program
The need to improve existing multi-family rental property was identified in the Neighborhood
Revitalization Strategy document from 2005 as part of the City 's overall effort to create a more
attractive Wheat Ridge . Some of the problems identified were the old age of the rental stock and the
low quality of the property maintenance . In order to address these issues the idea of an
Apartment/Multi Family Inspection Program was included in the 2010/2011 Strategic Plan as a
"high " priority by City Council. The concept is that by implementing a systematic inspection
program for multi-family rental properties the city can provide a higher quality of life and ensure the
health and safety for its citizens . In addition, higher lev els of rental propetty maintenance can
translate into higher property values within the City.
In order to obtain a better understanding of how such a program might work in Wheat Ridge a
questionnaire was created and distributed through the CML managers ' listserv, ICMA, and the
Alliance for Innovation to gather feedback from other municipalities that have rental inspection
programs .
In this memo I have highlighted six programs that offer a wide range of possible options regarding
Multi-Family Inspection Programs . They range from large programs to small ones, longstanding
programs to newly implemented ones, and programs that are self-sustaining to those that are
subsidized by tax dollars . I have included a short narrative of each of the programs followed by the
answers to the 13 questions included in the questionnaire. I have also included a couple additional
program highlights from other municipalities.
Arvada, CO (11 0,000)
Arvada adopted the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) in 2009 to help protect private
property values as well as bring older homes up to code. Arvada does not have a systematic
program, they respond only to complaints. Since the adoption of the IPMC the program has been
quite controversial with property owners, realtors and City Council members. Recently a stakeholder
committee was formed to look through the adopted code and recommend changes to City Council.
Based on preliminary feedback from the group their recommendations are to focus on enforcing only
health and safety issues. Cosmetic issues would be taken out of the code. Their program would
remain complaint based .
Aurora, CO (325,000)
Aurora has one of the longe st standing programs in the Denver Metro area . Their program was
created back in 1993 and is overseen by the Neighborhood Services Department (NSD). The main
Attachment 2
Multi-Family Home Inspection Program
reason they decided to institute a program was to protect and enhance the value of private property as
well as to improve living conditions for residents.
NSD prioritizes inspections based on how well maintained properties have been in the past. New
complexes are scheduled for inspection five years after the initial occupancy. Well maintained
properties are scheduled for inspection every fow-or five years while properties with a history of
violations are typically scheduled for inspections every two to three years. In any given year, Aurora
NSD staff inspects around 7000 units. This equates to about 30% of the rental stock in the City.
Inspections are done with Community Services Officers (18) and they focus on the home inspection
program in the fall and winter when there are fewer zoning violations to deal with. The Aw-ora
program is supposed to be self-sustaining. In recent years they have increased fees to help offset the
costs of the program more adequately.
Boulder, CO (100,000)
Boulder has had a multi-family inspection program in place since 1965 . The program was created
because of concem for the safety of renters and rental properties in the community. Almost half of
the housing stock in Boulder is rental property.
One unique aspect to Boulders program is that they have private "licensed" rental license inspectors
that do all rental inspections. Rentals are required to renew their license every four years, so each
year about 5,000 inspections are done. In house , the program is administered by one half-time
administrative assistant and one half-time code enforcement officer. The program is self-funded with
rental units paying a $70 .00 license fee and a $250.00 investigative fee for any violations.
Englewood, CO (33,000)
Englewood does not have a systematic inspection program. Currently they respond when they
receive a complaint. The Englewood building department requires tenants to provide a written
complaint to the landlord. The landlord then has 30 days to correct the problem . After 30 days a
inspection is done by building department staff to ensw-e compliance. If the problem has not been
fixed then a citation would be issued. There is no charge for the inspection.
Lakewood, CO (142,000)
Lakewood cmTently has no multi -family housing inspection program. About two years ago City staff
proposed an inspection program, but the Mayor and City Council were not supportive at that time .
The main concern was the cost of personnel to implement the program. Lakewood staff has asked if
we would share the information gathered in this report to possibly float the idea to their City Council
a gam.
Littleton, CO (41,000)
The Multi -Family Home inspection program in Littleton started becaus e of an overall ag ing of rental
stock in the city as well as a decline in maintenance in the 'North East Neighborhood". The program
is relatively new ; it was struted in 2008, and employs one full-time inspector, two part-time
inspectors and a part-time administrative assistant.
In the past Littleton has seen fewer violations with sing le -family and duplex rentals so their
systematic program fo c uses on buildings with three or more units. The staff inspects b etween 700-
1000 units p er ye ar. The program is not s elf-su staining but they do charge for re-inspections. The
city al so requires that all rentals within the city to register on an annual basis. Littleton City Council
has been very supportive of the prog ram .
Multi-Family Home Inspection Program
Longmont, CO (88,000)
The City of Longmont does not have a systematic multi-fantily home inspection program. The
Longmont City Council has not wanted to provide an inspection program as a City service .
Cunently the Community and Neighborhood Resources division proactively addresses exterior code
violations on ALL properties within the City and deals with substandard interior conditions on a
complaint basis only.
Northglenn, CO (35,000)
No response yet
Rancho Cordova, CA (63,000)
Rancho Cordova has a fairly new program as well. The program was created in 2007 after an Air
Force base closed down and left a large supply of rental units with an enormous amount of deferred
maintenance issues.
The inspection program is enforced by code enforcement staff and they inspect approximately 1500
units a year. The code enforcement staff works in conjunction with the City 's GIS staff to identify
properties with high amounts of calls for code enforcement and police department calls for service
and focus on those areas . They also respond to all complaints.
All rentals within the city of Rancho Cordova are subject to their inspection program and are
required to pay a $10 per door registration fee. They also have very hefty fees for re-inspections
($253) and fines for failure to comply ($51 0). They also charge owners an hourly rate for properties
that have on-going issues . Their program is close to full cost recovery.
Westminster, CO (109,000)
Westminster is another municipality with a long-standing inspection program. The program was
started in the late 1990 's due to deteriorating properties and declining values , especially in the
southern part of the city.
The Building Department oversees the program and staffs it with two full-time inspectors and one
part-time secretary. This staffis responsible for inspecting between 3000-4000 units a year. The
staff prioritizes their inspections based on the age of the property. Buildings under six years of age
are not required to be inspected. Buildings between 6 and 20 years are inspected every four years.
Buildings that are over 20 years old are inspected every two years . By structuring their program in
this manner it allowed them to focus on the buildings that were causing the most problem.
In the past the program was not intended to be self-sustaining, but with the recent down-tum in the
economy Westminster City Council has given staff direction to make the program self-sufficient.
Staff has recently instituted a $50 license fee for all four-plex and larger units. In addition to this
new fee they now charge a $40 inspection and a $50 re-inspection fee.
Multi-Family Home Inspection Program
Questionnaire Responses
Question 1 What prompted your municipality to institute a housing inspection
program?
Arvada, CO To protect val ue of pri vate property and bring older homes up to code.
Aurora, CO To protect and enhance the value of private property in Aurora
Boulder, CO Concern for the safety of renters and rental properties in the community.
Littleton, CO Aging rental stock and a decline in maintenance in our ''North East
Neighborhood "
Rancho Cordova, Great amount of deferred maintenance on rental housing stock.
CA
Westminster, CO Deterioratin g properties and declining property val ues; Especially in the
southern part of the city.
Question 2 How long has your program been in Place?
Arvada, CO Three years
Aurora, CO 1993
Boulder, CO 1965
Littleton, CO 2008
Rancho Cordova, Four years
CA
Westminster, CO Since the late 90's
Question 3 What department and how many staff members administer the
program? Are they also responsible for enforcement and legal action?
Arvada, CO Community Development Department, Building Di vision. One staff
member does inspections and one clerical support person.
Aurora, CO Neigh borhood Services Department -Neighborhood Support Division. 18
Code Enforcement Officers .
Boulder, CO Building Construction and Code Enforcement work group. One half-time
administrative assistant and one half-time code enforcement officer. Utilize
City licensed Rental Housing Inspectors to make inspections for new and
renewal rental housing_ licenses.
Littleton, CO Codes and Inspections Di v ision . One full-time supervisor, two part-time
inspectors and a part-time admin.
Rancho Cordova, Code Enforcement Staff.
CA
Westminster, C O Building Department staff. Two full time staff and a part time secretary.
Question 4 What is the biggest challenge you face with your program? How would
you change your program to better address the challenge?
Arvada, CO Support for enforcing the IPMC.
Aurora, CO Consistency of inspections.
Boulder, CO Almost half of the City of Bould er is rental housing, just the volume of rental
Multi-Family Home Inspection Program
units is difficult to administer. We just rebuilt our program last year by
replacing our Housing Code with the International Property Maintenance
Code and cleaning up our rental license laws.
Littleton , CO Lack of sufficient staffing. Because of current economic state no way to
address it.
Rancho Cordova, Changing the mindset of long time landlords. Started a rental housing
CA training program and started to notify lenders when properties were losing
value due to deferred maintenance and increased crime.
Westminster, CO Adding in fees to make program self-sustaining. Access to units.
Question 5 How many units per year do you inspect? What specific items are
included in your inspections? Do you use a checklist for inspections?
Arvada , CO No specific number. Respond to complaints. Adopted 2006 IPMC.
Aurora, CO 7000 , 30% of overall rental stock. See attached Aurora Policy Manual. Staff
uses handheld devices to conduct inspections.
Boulder, CO 5000, 25% of overall stock. Highly amended IPMC.
Littleton , CO 700-1000. List of commonly found violations.
Rancho Cordova, 1500. We look for all health and safety issues as set forth in the state code
CA and building code violations.
Westminster, CO 3000-4000
Question 6 How do you prioritize inspections?
Arvada, CO There is no prioritization. Complaint driven.
Aurora, CO New complexes are scheduled for inspection five years after initial
occupancy. Well maintained properties are scheduled for inspection every
four or five years. Properties with a high number of violations are typically
scheduled for inspection every two or three years.
Boulder, CO All rental units must be inspected every four years. Only prioritize
enforcement cases. Usually based on which cases can be done most quickly.
Littleton , CO Inspections are conducted based on what area within the City we are
currently working in. However, if we receive complaints from a particular
complex, we can focus our efforts there.
Rancho Cordova, Use GIS to identify properties with a high amount of calls for code
CA enforcement and police department service. We also respond to complaints.
Westminster, CO Age of the building. Less than 6 years = no inspection. 6-20 years =
inspections every 4 years. 20+ years = inspection every 2 years .
Question 7 Is your program systematic or complaint based?
Arvada, CO Complaint
Aurora, CO Both
Boulder, CO Both
Littleton, CO Both
Rancho Cordova, Both
CA
Westminster, CO Both
Multi-Family Home Inspection Program
Question 8 How did you decide which types of properties to include in your
program? What influenced your cut off point?
Arvada, CO All structures in Arvada are subject to the adopted IPMC.
Aurora , CO Properties with eight or more units.
Boulder, CO All residential rentals are included in the program except owner occupied
units with 3 or fewer renters.
Littleton, CO Typically, we see fewer problems with single family and duplex rentals; so
we only inspect rentals with three or more units on a systematic basis.
Rancho Cordova, Our program covers all rentals. Single family , duplex and multi-family
CA complexes and hotels/motels.
Westminster, CO Properties with four or more units.
Question 9 Is your program self-sustaining lmancially? What fees do you charge
and to whom? Is there a registration process? What information is
required and how is that information maintained?
Arvada, CO No. No fees are charged. There is no registration process.
Aurora , CO Re-inspection fees in a graduated form. 1)$27.50 2)$55.00 3)$110.00
4)$275.00 5) Court Summons. Staff can issue a summons at any time if the
owner is not cooperating. No license or registration required.
Boulder, CO Our program is self-funded through licensing fees and violation
administrative fees. Licensing fees are $70.00 per building or unit and a
$250.00 investigative fee on violations and renewal violations. There is a
registration process and fonns are available in the office or on line for rental
housing licensing with renewal of rental licenses every four years.
Littleton, CO Our program is not self-sustaining. Re-inspection fees ($1 00 per unit or
exterior area). All rentals are required to register with the city. We require
owner/agent information, address and phone numbers as part of the
registration.
Rancho Cordova, Started program with CDBG funded staff. All rentals must obtain a business
CA license and pay a $10 per door registration fee. Can fine $51 0 for failure to
comply and $253 for additional inspections. Charge hourly staff rate for
ongoing problems . We are close to full cost recovery .
Westminster, CO Originally no. Recent Council direction was to make the program self-
sustaining. Instituted fees to make it self-sustaining.
Question 10 What codes and/or standards are enforced as part of your program? Do
you adhere to the International Property Maintenance Code?
Arvada, CO IPMC
Aurora , CO City Code, chapter 22
Boulder, CO We have a separate rental license ordinance, contractor's license ordinance
highly amended IPMC.
Littleton, CO We have adopted the Property Maintenance Code; we have also amended
and added codes as necessary.
Rancho Cordova, Currently use the Califomia State Health and Safety Codes as well as State
CA Building Codes. May switch to IPMC, but standards are very similar.
Westminster, CO City Code.
Multi-Family Home Inspection Program
Question 11 Does support for the execution of the program fluctuate with changes in
the political landscape?
Arvada, CO Yes. The adoption and enforcement of the IPMC has been very political.
Things are going backwards.
Aurora, CO No; Council is very supportive.
Boulder, CO Not usually , but we were recently asked to upgrade the requirements for
rental license inspections by the council, which is why we dropped the City
housing code and adopted the IPMC.
Littleton, CO So far we have received overwhelming support from City Council.
Rancho Cordova, No
CA
Westminster, CO No; They have been fairly supportive throughout the program.
Question 12 Does your program include both owner occupied and rental units?
Arvada, CO Yes
Aurora, CO No
Boulder, CO Owner occupied with more than 3 unrelated tenants requires a rental license
as well as single family and multiple family units.
Littleton, CO Our program only includes rental units. In extreme cases, we would enforce
the Property Maintenance Code on the interior of an owner occupied
property (i.e. hoarding)
Rancho Cordova, Only rental units. General Code enforcement deals with issues relating to
CA owner occupied properties.
Westminster, CO Only rental. PD deals with owner occupied enforcement of the cities
nuisance code.
Question 13 Does your program focus on both interior and exterior maintenance?
Arvada, CO Both
Aurora, CO Yes
Boulder, CO Mostly interior requirements and exterior life safety issues.
Littleton, CO Yes
Rancho Cordova, Yes
CA
Westminster, CO Yes
Additional Program Highlights
• Give citizens option to pick their own certified home inspector as opposed to having the
city do it. This option is usually more expensive to the homeowner than participating in
the program, but it gives them the flexibility to choose their own inspector. (Boulder)
• For larger complexes, randomly inspect 10% with option to inspect all units if necessary.
• All owners are required to perform a self-inspection that is to be turned in with their
annual registration (Council Bluffs, IA) Self-Cert Program (Concord, CA)
• For Self-Certification, have a training class that owners/managers must attend to be
Multi-Family Home Inspection Program
eligible.
• Hold an annual meeting between code enforcement and large complex management. Lay
out expectations , answer questions , and create a relationship.
Next Steps
I recommend setting up a meeting to discuss the findings. Based on that meeting further
infonnation gathering might be necessary. Creation of a program outline and overall direction
for moving forward should also be a goal of the meeting. Once a reconunended plan has been
created then it should be taken to a City Council Study Session for feedback and consensus on
moving forward.
Attachments
1. Selfcertpacket.pdf
2 . Multifamilyrentalregistform.pdf
3. Westminster council memo
~A~
.... ~ ~ r City of • ""rct:Wheat~dge ~OMMUNilY DEVELOPMENT
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
Patrick Goff, City Manag~ THROUGH:
Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director
FROM: Lauren Mikulak, Planner I
DATE: March 5, 2012 for City Council Study Session
SUBJECT: Zoning Code Amendments: Planned Developments & Private Rezonings
Introduction
The most recent amendment to the planned development code was approved nearly five years ago
in May 2007 (Case No. ZOA-06-07). At that time, applicants requesting a zone change for
commercial development were limited to only one option: rezone to a planned development district.
Being the only zone change option, it was important to make the planned development review
process as streamlined as possible. Now that applicants have the option to rezone to a mixed use
district, a reassessment of the planned development process is particularly opportune.
The proposed amendments entail a repeal and reenactment of article III (planned development
district regulations) and section 26-112 (private rezoning), and the revisions will address these
central goals:
• Separate the zone change procedure (ordinance and criteria) from the approval of specific
site design for planned developments ;
• Establish a more logical and predictable procedure for planned development approval ,
allowing a developer to proceed with more assurance through the entitlement process; and
• Improve clarity, consistency, and organization within the zoning code.
Planning Commission discussed the proposed code amendments with staff at a Study Session on
January 19 , and expressed support for the proposed process and for improved clarity within the
code. This memo summarizes the amendments and is structured as follows :
1. Background
2. Overview of Proposed Amendments for Article III (Planned Developments)
3. Overview ofProposed Amendments for Sec. 26-112 (Private Rezoning)
4. Study Session & Project Timeline
Background
Based on the 2007 amendments, a planned development applicant is currently allowed to submit a
comprehensive document (a specific outline development plan) to seek approval of a zone change,
specific site layout, and architectural standards. Alternatively, a two-step process includes first a
Zoning Code Amendments
March 5 , 2012
Page2
conceptual outline development plan to establish the planned development zoning designation ,
followed by a specific outline development plan to establish site layout and architecture. In the
two-step option, both steps are processed as zone changes and require approval of ordinances by
City Council.
The two-step process provides for speculative or phased development, but it ultimately leaves
developers with more uncertainty by requiring two separate processes for zone change ordinances.
Some applicants choose to submit a single specific outline development plan to ensure a single zone
change procedure, but this option entails substantially more financial cost and risk at the beginning
of the process and results in rigid details of design.
With the adoption of mixed use zone districts in 2010, developers seeking a faster and easier
entitlement process can now rezone to a mixed use district for commercial development. This type
of zone change application does not require a site plan, and after the zone change, development
plans are reviewed administratively. This option significantly reduces future dependence on
planned development districts , and provides an opportunity to focus on improving the planned
development process.
A planned development is fundamentally a negotiated zoning and development scenario. While the
process will never be as simple as a straight zone change, the purpose of this code amendment is to
establish a more logical review procedure and to address the tensions of timing and specificity that
are inherent in the planned development process.
Overview of Proposed Amendments: Article III-Planned Development District Regulations
The entirety of article III is proposed to be repealed and reenacted. A summary of the proposed
amendments follows , and a footnoted draft is attached:
Review Process
A primary goal of the proposed amendment is to separate approval of specific site design from the
zone change procedure and criteria. Under this approach , new planned developments would include
two components:
1) An outline development plan that provides a concept plan and establishes the PD zoning
designation, permitted uses , and underlying development parameters ; and
2) A specific development plan to provide specific site plans, building elevations, and
preliminary civil documents.
The outline plan would be processed as a zone change, approved by ordinance, and subject to legal
protest. The specific development plan would also be subject to a public process, but would be
approved by resolution to accept the site specific development scenario ; it would not be bound by
the zone change procedure or legal protest possibility. An applicant may choose to process these
two documents separately or concurrently, at their own risk. Subsequently, the final development
plan (FDP) is replaced with the more user-friendly site plan review process. The two processes are
both administrative and are nearly identical ; the latter has a lower application fee , and does not
require recordation.
There are numerous advantages to approving zoning with a less detailed concept plan as the first
submittal: this allows Council to approve the major elements of a PO that require policy decisions,
2
Zoning Code Amendments
March 5, 2012
Page 3
it allows a developer to avoid the expense of detailed plans with a first application, and it gives a
developer the endorsement to proceed with a more detailed application without concern that the
zoning may be revoked.
Reliance on a concept plan may not be sufficient for final project approval, however, and the public
and neighbors may demand more details. The specific development plan includes a more detailed
submittal showing site and architectural design and is proposed to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
Ultimately, the central question we are trying to resolve is this: which project elements and what
level of detail do we want to see and when? The application contents are largely unchanged from
current submittal requirements; the amended process simply consists of a more logical, predictable,
and economical approach for applicants. Each step is progressively more detailed but entails
progressively less risk for an applicant.
At the January 2012 study session, the Planning Commission supported the proposed process. In
particular, commissioners noted that while approval by resolution does not afford veto power to the
Mayor, a resolution may be the more appropriate instrument for approving design and site plan
details. Veto power and citizen legal protest would be appropriately retained for the approval of the
zone change component. Attachments 1 and 2 compare the current and proposed processes.
Organization
Article III has been reorganized to provide clarity for readers. Several sections have been given
new titles that more clearly describe the content of the section. The district regulations have been
moved to the end of the article. A new subsection (26-302.8) discusses the sequence of related
applications, including the outline plan, specific plan, site plan review, building permits, and
subdivision applications. This information was previously scattered throughout article III.
Criteria
The current zone change criteria suggest that a zone change is not justified unless an area has
already experienced a change in character. The proposed criteria (26-303 .D) are more logical and
recognize the zone change as a tool to acknowledge actively changing conditions or to bring a
property into compliance with City plans and policies. A planned development is not a means
around the zoning code, so an additional criterion requires applicants to justify why development is
not feasible under any other (straight) zone district, including mixed use zoning.
A new set of criteria are proposed for the specific development plan. These are more suitable for
assessing the site plan for compliance with the underlying zoning.
Amendments
Flexibility is a central feature of a planned development option, but once approved and recorded
planned developments become effectively inflexible. Change is inevitable, and under the proposed
code an amendment to the specific development plan-within the parameters and intent of the
outline development plan-would be reviewed administratively or by planning commission,
depending on the scope of the variation . This affords more flexibility and administrative discretion
than is provided under the current code.
3
Zoning Code Amendments
March 5, 2012
Page4
Overview of Proposed Amendments: Sec. 26-112 -Private rezoning
Staff has proposed modifications to the general zone change procedure that increase clarity and
update the zone change criteria. There is no change to the process or submittal requirements for a
private rezoning. The proposed amendments consolidate the review procedure into one section and
more clearly state when a private zone change applies, versus when a planned development is
required. A footnoted draft is attached.
Study Session & Project Timeline
An anticipated timeline for this code amendment project is as follows:
• Study session with Planning Commission -January 19, 2012-completed
• Study session with City Council -March 5, 2012
• Public hearings for ZOA -late spring or early summer 2012
The purpose of the March 5 study session is to familiarize the Mayor and Council Members with
the proposed amendments and to solicit feedback.
Additional Policy Questions
In addition , staff is seeking input on the following specific issues: expiration of planned
developments and approval of specific development plans.
Expiration of planned developments
At the January 19 study session , the Planning Commission recommended that staff consider
implementing a sunset clause for those planned developments that are approved but are never
developed. Because a planned development typically entails very restrictive zoning and detailed
site plans, an unbuilt planned development can effectively limit future economic development
opportunities.
A sunset would require the City to reconsider zoning approval and would relieve a potential
developer of the burden of rezoning. Planning commissioners suggested a review of approved but
inactive planned developments after 5 years , but requested further research.
In many local communities an approved planned development becomes invalid after a period of
time if no subsequent approvals are sought or no building permit is issued. For example an
approved outline development plan may expire if a specific development plan is not approved
within X number of years-this period oftime ranges from two years in Longmont to 10 years in
Arvada. A specific development plan may expire if no building permit is obtained-in Denver this
occurs after 18 months in Louisville after 36 months.
Staff recommends that after a lapse of approval , a public hearing be required to review the original
approval and to potentially revoke the approval. If a City-initiated rezoning is recommended , a
property could be rezoned to a more approptiate district. Council is asked to consider:
• What is an appropriate lapse period for an outline development plan?
• What is an appropriate lapse period for a specific development plan?
• May an applicant submit a written request for extension of approval , for good cause shown?
• Would the City initiate a rezoning to an appropriate zone district?
4
Zoning Code Amendments
March 5, 2012
Page 5
Approval of specific development plans
In the time since the January 19 study session with planning commission, the Mayor has raised the
question of alternative review scenarios. In particular, staff has been asked to consider
administrative review of the specific development plan.
This approach could benefit an applicant by eliminating a second round of public hearings. A
consequence of this approach, however, may be that additional design information is required with
a first submittal to allow an adequate assessment of the planned development application. This
front-loading of the first application resembles the current model for approving planned
developments, in which a single specific outline development plan application includes zoning and
development details.
As described in this memo, the attached draft proposes that the specific development plan no longer
be approved by ordinance. This means that city council is no longer required to be the deciding
authority, and therefore it is certainly worth considering who should review site and architectural
designs.
Council is asked to consider:
• Which is the most appropriate body to review and decide upon site design elements? City
council? Planning commission? Staff?
• If the specific development plan is reviewed administratively, how would this affect the
zone change application (outline development plan)? Would additional design elements
need to be provided in the first step of the process?
• Planned developments, in particular, highlight the challenge of striking a balance between
the City's need for a public process and the applicant's desire for an efficient process. How
much public input is appropriate for different stages of a planned development application?
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Attachment I: Tables 1-3
2. Attachment 2: Submittal Contents
3. Attachment 3: Chapter 26, Article Ill -Draft
4. Attachment 4: Section 26-112-Draft
5
ATTACHMENT 1
The following tables compare the current and proposed processes . Table 1 summarizes the review procedures, table 2 illustrates the timing of subm ittal requirements , and table 3 compares the
characteristics of the existing final development plan and site plan review procedures.
Table 1. Planned Development Review Process, Current & Proposed
Neighborhood PC Public CC Public Legal Recording Administrative CURRENT Protest Meeting Hearing Hearing Possible Required Review
Conceptual Outline Development X X X X X
Plan
Specific Outline Development Plan X X X X X
Final Development Plan X X
Neighborhood PC Public CC Public Legal Recording Administrative PROPOSED Protest Meeting Hearing Hearing Possible Required Review
Outline Development Plan X X X X X
Specific Development Plan X X X
Site Plan Review X
Table 2. Typical Contents for a Planned Development Application, Current & Proposed
Character of Development Use Concept Site plan & Preliminary Final CURRENT development standards standards site & circulation Architecture Landscape Engineering * Engineering circulation
Conceptual Outline Development Plan X X X X X
Specific Outline Development Plan X X X X X X X
Final DeveloQ_ment Plan X X X X X
Character of Development Use Concept Site plan & Preliminary Final PROPOSED development standards standards site & circulation Architecture Landscape Engineering * Engineering circulation
Outline Development Plan X X X X
Specific Development Plan X X X X
Site Plan Review X X X X
* To be determ ined by staff
Table 3. Comparison of the Final Development Plan & Site Plan Review
Final Development Plan Site Plan Review
Purpose Final site design & eng i nee ring Final site design & engineering
Compliance w ith ODP (zo ning) Compliance with zoning
Review Administrative Administrative
Fees $500 + $500/acre $200 + 200/acre
Submittals Application Application
Fee Fee
Ownership Ownersh i p
FOP contents Site plan contents
Traffic study Traffic study*
Drainage report Drainage report*
Soils report Soils report
Erosion contro l Erosion contro l
HOA
Format Cover sheet S ite plan
Site plan Building elevations
Building elevations Architectural detail
Architectura l deta i l Landscape plan
Landscape plan Streetscape plan*
After Printed on Mylar S igned
approval S igned Kept on file
Recorded at County
Amendments Assigned a case number Assigned a case number
Approved administratively Approved administratively
Re-recorded at County Kept on file
*To be determ ined by staff
Th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
co
d
e
am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
ar
e
tr
y
i
n
g
to
ac
h
i
e
v
e
a
be
t
t
e
r
ba
l
a
n
c
e
be
t
w
e
e
n
th
e
ti
m
i
n
g
an
d
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
t
y
of
pl
a
n
n
e
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
s
.
Th
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
ex
h
i
b
i
t
il
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
th
a
t
th
e
ti
m
i
n
g
of
su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
s
-
n
o
t
th
e
co
n
t
e
n
t
s
-
a
r
e
ch
a
n
g
e
d
un
d
e
r
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
.
It
e
m
s
1-
5
we
r
e
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
fo
r
a
re
c
e
n
t
pl
a
n
n
e
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Th
e
le
f
t
-
h
a
n
d
co
l
u
m
n
sh
o
w
s
th
a
t
it
e
m
s
2-
5
we
r
e
al
l
su
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
as
pa
r
t
of
th
e
zo
n
e
ch
a
n
g
e
pr
o
c
e
s
s
.
Th
e
ri
g
h
t
-
h
a
n
d
co
l
u
m
n
il
l
u
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
th
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
ti
m
i
n
g
of
su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
s
un
d
e
r
th
e
ne
w
re
v
i
e
w
pr
o
c
e
s
s
.
It
e
m
s
1
an
d
2
wo
u
l
d
be
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
as
pa
r
t
of
th
e
zo
n
e
ch
a
n
g
e
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
.
A
mo
r
e
de
t
a
i
l
e
d
su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
it
e
m
s
3-
5
,
wo
u
l
d
be
pa
r
t
of
th
e
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pl
a
n
.
1 .
Sk
e
t
c
h
Pl
a
n
r
CU
R
R
E
N
T
~~---
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
t
Su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
1 ,
th
e
co
n
c
e
p
t
or
sk
e
t
c
h
pl
a
n
,
is
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
on
l
y
us
e
d
fo
r
th
e
pr
e
-
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
me
e
t
i
n
g
;
it
is
no
t
pa
r
t
of
a
fo
r
m
a
l
ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
(o
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
)
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
Su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
s
:
2
&
3
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
by
:
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
:
Zo
n
e
ch
a
n
g
e
~
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
me
e
t
i
n
g
~
PC
pu
b
l
i
c
he
a
r
i
n
g
~
CC
pu
b
l
i
c
he
a
r
i
n
g
~
Le
g
a
l
pr
o
t
e
s
t
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
~R
e
c
o
r
d
e
d
(r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
)
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
Su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
s
:
2
,
3
,
4
,
&
5
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
by
:
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
:
Zo
n
e
ch
a
n
g
e
~
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
me
e
t
i
n
g
~
PC
pu
b
l
i
c
he
a
r
i
n
g
~
CC
pu
b
l
i
c
he
a
r
i
n
g
~
Le
g
a
l
pr
o
t
e
s
t
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
~R
e
c
o
r
d
e
d
'
:.
'
:
.
0 0 0 0
~--
-
•
0
Ll
a
--
-
-
-
-
'
l
·
-
-
-
-
't
3
1
_
!
_
_
_
_
_
_
l
_.
i
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1.
.
.
-
-
-
--
.
0
-~
I
.
.
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-=--
~
-
2.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
In
f
o
&
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
St
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
--
~
-
-
·..
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
,
.
.
-
.
.
.
.
__
_
.
3.
Si
t
e
Pl
a
n
I
·
-
~
-
-
-
.
·
'j._Ei
J
S
I
!
t
d
~
~
~
--:-~--
·
~
.~2 ~~:\\\-)
I
--·
;;
~·
.
.
0
•
•
"
'l
'
f
•
•
•
'"
"
4
!
.
1:
·
·
'
~.
.
.
·
~
-
l
-~
4.
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
5.
Ae
r
i
a
l
Pe
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
Ou
t
l
i
n
e
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
Su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
s
:
1
&
2
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
by
:
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Pr
o
c
e
s
s
:
Zo
n
e
ch
a
n
g
e
~
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
me
e
t
i
n
g
~
PC
pu
b
l
i
c
he
a
r
i
n
g
~
CC
pu
b
l
i
c
he
a
r
i
n
g
~
Le
g
a
l
pr
o
t
e
s
t
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
~R
e
c
o
r
d
e
d
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
Su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
s
:
3
,
4
,
&
5
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
by
:
Re
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
0
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
me
e
t
i
n
g
~
PC
pu
b
l
i
c
he
a
r
i
n
g
~
CC
pu
b
l
i
c
he
a
r
i
n
g
0
Le
g
a
l
pr
o
t
e
s
t
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
~R
e
c
o
r
d
e
d
~
; 0
:I
:
3:
m
z
-1
1
\
)
March 5 , 2012 -C ity Council Study Session
ATTACHMENT 3
ARTICLE Ill.-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Sec. 26-301.-Scope and application ......................................................................................... 1
Sec. 26-302 .-Planned development review procedures ........................................................... 3
Sec. 26-303.-Outline development plan review procedures ...................................................... 3
Sec. 26-304.-Outline development plan application contents ................................................... 6
Sec. 26-305.-Specific development plan review procedures .................................................... 8
Sec. 26-306. -Specific development plan application contents ................................................ 1 0
Sec. 26-307.-Site plan review ................................................................................................ 11
Sec. 26-308. -Amendments to development plans .................................................................. 12
Sec. 26-309.-Interpretation of development plans .................................................................. 13
Sec. 26-310. -Similar uses in planned developments .............................................................. 14
Sec. 26-311 . -Binding upon successors and assigns .............................................................. 14
Sec. 26-312 .-Interim use ........................................................................................................ 15
Sec. 26-313.-Planned residential development (PRO) district regulations .............................. 15
Sec. 26-314.-Planned commercial development (PCD) district regulations ............................ 16
Sec. 26-315 .-Planned industrial development (PID) district regulations .................................. 16
Sec. 26-316.-Planned hospital development (PHD) district regulations .................................. 17
Sec. 26-317.-Planned mixed use development (PMUD) district regulations ........................... 18
*The order of article Ill has been reorganized to mirror the sequence of articles I and II : development review
procedures first, followed by the zone district regulations.
Sec. 26-301. -Scope and application.1
A. District created. There is hereby created a planned development district to further
promote the public health , safety and general welfare by permitting greater flexibility and
innovation in land development based upon a comprehensive, integrated plan . For the purpose
of ensuring maximum flexibility of this district, the district is divided into the following planned
development zone district categories, based on the primary land use of a proposed
development plan or portion thereof:
1. Planned Residential Development-PRO .
2 . Planned Commercial Development-PCD.
3. Planned Industrial Development-PID.
4. Planned Hospital Development-PHD.
5 . Planned Mixed Used Development-PMUD.
By creating the a bove zone district categories , the city council recognizes tha t these z one
district categories may exist singly or in combination within any approved planned development.
1 Section 301 has on ly moderate changes to improve clarity and reduce redundancy. Subsection A is identical to the current code.
In subsection B. the title "Applicability" has been added and the situations that require a planned development are listed; previously
this text was part of a long run-on sentence.
In subsection C , the tiUe "Purpose" has been added. The purpose statem ents have been red uced from ten (10) statements to seven
(7), keeping only those that answer the question, "What specifically is the p urpose of a planned development, as distinct from a
straight d evelopment?" Statement number 1 is new , and the rest are id entical to the current code.
March 5, 2012 -City Council Study Session
B . Applicability. On and after the effective date of this chapter as set forth in section 26-
1003, all applications for a zone change shall be to a planned development district where any
one (1) of the following conditions exist:
1. An application for a zone change to any commercial district, with the exception of a
rezoning to any mixed use district, for properties of any size .
2 . An application for a zone change to any industrial, residential , or agricultural district for
property over one (1) acre in size, or for which an applicant owns adjacent property
which, taken together with the property that is the subject of the application totals more
than one (1) acre.
This article shall apply to :
1. Any new application for a rezoning to a planned development district.
2 . Any application for amendment to an existing planned development zone district.
C . Purpose. The intent of the planned development district is to permit the establishment of
well-designed, innovative developments which may not be feasible under a standard zone
district, but which may be permitted through the use of an approved development plan by
assuring greater control and specificity of intended development character, use, operations and
maintenance, while at the same time allowing flexibility and diversity.
While the city council recognizes that planned developments may vary certain design and other
requirements, the planned development process may not be used to circumvent the intent and
spirit of the protections afforded by this chapter.
The planned development district recognizes the great variety of land use intensities, densities,
and environmental and land use interfaces which are possible . The general purposes of this
article are as follows :
1. To accommodate extraordinary or unique development proposals that are not feasible
under standard zone districts .
2. To accomplish compatible development with adjacent commercial, residential and/or
industrial land uses through proper land use transitions and buffering techniques.
3 . To promote flexibility in design and permit diversification in the location of structures.
4 . To promote the efficient use of land to facilitate a more economic arrangement of
building , circulation systems , land use and utilities.
5 . To preserve , to the greatest extent possible , the existing landscape features and to
minimize impacts on other natural features of the site.
6. To combine and coordinate architectural styles , building forms and building relationships
within the planned developments.
7 . To promote conformance with the adopted comprehensive pl a n, established policies and
guidelines for the area and for the community.
2
March 5, 2012-City Council Study Session
Sec. 26-302.-Planned development review procedures.2
A. Development plans. There are two (2) distinct steps in establishing a planned
development: an outline development plan and a specific development plan. The first approval
process includes a zone change to a planned development district and approval of an outline
development plan. The second approval process is for specific site design and architecture,
and includes approval of the specific development plan. Both phases of approval include public
hearings subject to the provisions of sections 26-303 and 26-305.
B. Sequence of related applications.
1. Applications for outline and specific development plans may be submitted concurrently
or sequentially.
2 . If platting is required, subdivision or plat review may be carried out simultaneously with
the review of the specific development plan . Generally, subdivision review is required if
a proposed development dedicates right-of-way for streets, easements or other public
lands; amends a previously approved subdivision; or creates parcel divisions . Article IV
of this chapter should be consulted for subdivision requirements and procedures.
3. Subsequent to approval of the specific development plan, site plan review is required for
final engineering and site design details as outlined in sections 26-307 and 26-111 .
Planned residential developments, or portions thereof, comprised exclusively of
detached single-or two-family dwellings are not required to complete a site plan review
process.
Sec. 26-303.-Outline development plan review procedures.3
The applicant shall submit an outline development plan for approval of a zone change to a
planned development district. The outline development plan establishes the zoning, overall
development concepts, permitted uses, and development parameters. It also provides a
general graphic layout of proposed building pads and proposed circulation concepts.
A. Review procedure. An outline development plan is processed and approved
concurrently with a zone change to a planned development district, subject to the following
review procedure :
2 Section 302 includes information that used to be located in 26-308 (application for planned developments) and elsewhere
throughout article Ill. The new title (planned development review procedures) mirrors the title of article I (development review
procedures) and more clearly directs a reader to this section for procedural information.
Subsection B discusses the sequence of related applications, including the outline plan, specific plan, site plan review, building
permits, and subdivision applications. This information was previously scattered throughout article Ill. Currently, subdivision plats
may be processed simultaneously with a final development plan . Under the proposed process, staff has agreed that platting may
appropriately occur in conjunction with the specific development plan.
Subsection B also reflects the existing final development plan exemption for single-and two-family planned residential
developments (PROs). With the site plan review proposed to replace the FOP, the language has been updated to exempt the PROs
from site plan review (26-302.8.3).
3 In the current code, section 26-308 is the longest section spanning nine pages and describing of the types of development plans,
the approval processes, and the application contents. Instead of keeping this information in one long section, it is reorganized into
four separate sections, beginning here with section 303.
Section 303 summarizes the approval process for an outline development plan. There is no change to the review procedure which
represents a zone change; this section simply includes a streamlined description to improve clarity.
The notable change in section 303 is the criteria set in subsection D. In the existing code, the criteria are not listed within article Ill;
rather applicants are directed to respond to the "rezoning criteria ." Staff has determined it is appropriate to have a slightly altered
set of criteria for rezoning to a planned development. In the proposed set. criteria 1 and 3 are derived from the existing code;
criterion 2 is new. and criterion 4 is modified to recognize the zone change process as a tool for acknowledging that conditions are
actively changing or a tool for bringing property into compliance with City plans and policies.
3
March 5, 2012 -City Council Study Session
1. Preapplication conference. Prior to submitting any zone change application for a planned
development district , the applicant must participate in a preapplication conference , as
described in section 26-1 04.
2. Preapplication neighborhood meeting . After the preapplication conference , but prior to
submitting any zone change application for a planned development district, the applicant
shall be required to hold a neighborhood input meeting, as described in section 26 -
109.A.
3. Application filing. An outline development plan application shall be submitted to the
community development department. Staff will review the application for completeness
in accordance with the submittal requirements in section 26-304 . If staff determines the
application is not complete, it will be returned to the applicant and not further processed
until the incomplete items have been supplied.
4. Review and referral. Upon receipt of a complete application packet the community
development department shall proceed with the following process :
a. Staff will review the application and refer the application to affected departments and
agencies for review and comment. The applicant must address all comments and
resubmit relevant documents . This may occur several times before scheduling a
public hearing .
b. After the review period , staff will give notice of a scheduled public hearing on the
application with notice by publication, letter, and site posting in the manner provided
in section 26-109 .
c . Staff will prepare a written report to the planning commission which evaluates the
proposal , makes findings, and makes recommendations using the review criteria set
forth below in section 26-303.0 .
5. Planning commission review . The planning comm ission shall hear and consider any
evidence or statement presented by the applicant, city staff, or by any person in
attendance at the public hearing . Notice of publ ic hearing shall be by publication , letter
and site posting in the manner provided in section 26-109 . The planning commiss ion
shall then make a recommendation to city council to approve , approve with conditions ,
or deny the application , basing its recommendation upon the facts presented in the
public hearing in consideration of the criteria for review as specified in section 26-303 .0.
6 . City council review . City council shall review and decide upon all requests for approval of
an outline development plan, upon recommendation of the planning commission for
approval , approval with conditions, or for denial. Change of zone may only be approved
by passage of an ordinance following the city's standard ordinance adoption procedures ,
including a first reading and public hearing . Notice of public hearing shall be by
publication , letter and site posting in the manner provided in section 26-109 hereof. City
council, in addition to consideration of the planning commission record, shall hear
additional evidence and testimony presented and either approve, approve with
conditions , or deny the ordinance . City council shall base its decision upon all evidence
presented , with due consideration of the criteria for review as specified in sect ion
26 .303.0 .
7 . In the event of a legal protest against the rezoning component of the planned
development approval , under the procedure set forth section 5-10 of the home rule
charter, a zone change shall not be approved except by the favorable vote of three -
4
March 5, 2012-City Council Study Session
fourths of the entire city council. The written protest to such change shall be submitted
to the city council no later than the hearing on the proposed rezoning ordinance
B . Recording. All approved outline development plans shall be recorded with the Jefferson
County Clerk and Recorder. Such plans and associated recording fees shall be submitted to
the community development department within sixty (60) days of council's final action.
Should a recordable approved outline development plan not be provided to staff within sixty (60)
days of council's final action, staff shall schedule a public hearing before city council and city
council shall reconsider its approval. A one-time, thirty-day extension for mylar submittal may
be requested from the community development director. The request must be submitted in
writing prior to expiration of the sixty-day time limit showing evidence of good cause for not
meeting the deadline.
C. Modifications or amendments. The process for approving amendments to an outline
development plan is the same as for the original approval, as described in section 26-308.
D. Criteria for review. The planning commission and city council shall base their decision in
consideration of the extent to which the applicant demonstrates the following criteria have been
met:
1. The change of zone promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community
and will not result in a significant adverse effect on the surrounding area; and
2. The development proposed on the subject property is not feasible under any other zone
district, and would require an unreasonable number of variances or waivers and
conditions; and
3 . Adequate infrastructure/facilities are available to serve the types of uses allowed by the
change of zone, or the applicant will upgrade and provide such where they do not exist
or are under capacity; and
4 . At least one of the following conditions exists :
a. The change of zone is in conformance, or will bring the property into conformance
with, the City of Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan goals, objectives and policies , and
other city-approved policies or plans for the area.
b. The existing zone classification currently recorded on the official zoning maps of the
City of Wheat Ridge is in error.
c. A change of character in the area has occurred or is occurring to such a degree that
it is in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area or to recognize the
changing character of the area .
d . The proposed rezoning is necessary in order to provide for a community need that
was not anticipated at the time of the adoption of the City of Wheat Ridge
comprehensive plan .
5
March 5 , 2012-City Council Study Session
Sec. 26-304.-Outline development plan application contents.4
A. Application contents. A complete application for a zone change request to a planned
development district shall include:
1. Complete and notarized application form.
2 . Appropriate fee.
3. Proof of ownership, such as copies of deeds or title commitments.
4. Written authorization from property owner(s) where an agent acts on behalf of the
owner(s).
5. Certified boundary and improvement survey.
6 . Approved legal description in electronic file format.
7 . Mineral rights certification form .
8 . A written description of the zone change request. The narrative should include sufficient
detail to convey the full intent of the applicant and a justification of why the zone change
is appropriate . The narrative should address :
a . Need for the change of zone .
b. Present and future effect on the existing zone districts, development and physical
character of the surrounding area.
c. Access to the area , traffic patterns and impact of the requested zone on these
factors .
d. Availability of utilities .
e . Present and future effect on public facilities and services, such as fire, police, water,
sanitation, roadways, parks, schools, etc.
f. A discussion of the relationship between the proposal and adopted plans and/or
policies of the city.
9. Outline development plan document. The application shall include the appropriate
number of copies, as determined at the pre-application conference. All informational
requirements of the outline development plan shall be met, as described below in
subsection B. The outline development plan must provide enough information for the
review bodies to determine how the property will be developed .
10 . Additional information may be required dependent upon the size and complexity of
impact of the proposal. This includes, but is not limited to, drainage study and plan ,
grading plan , geological stability report, traffic impact report , floodplain impact report, or
general environmental impact report. This information will be required in hard copy and
in electronic file format.
• Section 304 summarizes application contents for a zone change to a planned development district, as well as the form and
contents of the outline development plan . There is no change to the submittal requirements .
In the current code , the contents of an outline development plan are found in section 26-308.C .2, but the list appears wordy and
unclear, and it lacks a logical sequence . Subsection 304 .8 , below, is substantially reorgan ized for clarity , but the contents are
largely equivalent to the current requ irements for an outl ine development plan .
Staff will prepare supplemental handouts for applicants to further explain and define some of the requirements (for example, to
expla in an "ownershipfunified control statement").
6
March 5 , 2012 -City Council Study Session
B . Form and content of outline development plan. The maps which are a part of the outline
development plan shall be made at a scale of not less than one (1) inch equals one hundred
( 1 00) feet. The size of the sheet shall be twenty-four (24) inches by thirty-six (36) inches and
must comply with the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder's requirements. The outline
development plan shall contain the following min imum information :
1. Project information .
a. Title of document.
b . Complete metes and bounds legal description on the current city datum with proper
section and PHAC ties per city geodetic requirements .
c. Small scale location map, with north arrow and scale .
d. Ownership/unified control statement, if applicable.
e . Character of development.
f. Name, address, and phone number of architect and engineer associated with the
project.
g. Appropriate certification blocks as determined by the community development
department.
h . Case history box with reference case numbers.
i. A note shall be added to any outline development plan which states:
"This outline development plan is conceptual in nature. Specific development
elements such as site layout and building architecture have not been addressed
on this document. As a result, a specific development plan must be submitted
and approved by the City of Wheat Ridge prior to the submittal of a site plan and
any subsequent site development."
2 . Development standards .
a . List of permitted land uses.
b. Maximum building coverage .
c. Minimum landscape coverage and open space .
d . Minimum lot sizes, dimensions, net density, and gross density.
e . Minimum perimeter setback or build-to lines.
f . Minimum separation between buildings .
g . Maximum building height.
h. Standards for signage, lighting , fencing , screening and landscaping .
i. Standards for off-street vehicular parking, bicycle parking , and loading .
j . Standards for accessory structures and outdoor storage , display, and sales.
k. Standards for architecture and site design, if varying from the Architectural and Site
Design Manual or other applicable des ign standards .
3 . Sketch plan . The drawings shall be to-scale , but may be in sketch site plan format. The
plan shall include the locations of the following:
7
March 5, 2012 -City Council Study Session
a. Property boundary (which must correspond to legal description) with
existing/proposed lot lines.
b. Proposed circulation concepts, including roads, right-of-way, access points, and
sidewalks .
c. General areas to be used for landscaping, parking, and building pads .
d. General areas to be used for drainage, parks, and other areas to be reserved or
dedicated to public use .
e. Significant land features (ditches , streams, lakes, topography, etc .) within or adjacent
to the property .
f . Zoning for adjacent properties.
g . Adjoining property lot lines, building access, and parking so that development
compatibility can be determined .
h. Scale and north arrow (scale not to exceed 1" = 1 00').
Sec. 26-305.-Specific development plan review procedures.5
After the approval of the outline development plan, a specific development plan must be
approved before site plan review or building permit applications may be submitted . The
purpose of the specific development plan is to establish a site layout, architectural standards,
and building elevations for one (1) or more phases of development and to demonstrate
feasibility through preliminary engineering.
A. Review procedure .
1. Preapplication conference . Prior to submitting any application for a specific development
plan , the applicant must participate in a preapplication conference , as described in
section 26-104 .
2. Application filing . An application packet shall be submitted to the community
development department. Staff will review the application for completeness in
accordance with the submittal requirements in section 26-306 . If staff determines the
application is not complete, it will be returned to the applicant and not further processed
until the incomplete items have been supplied .
3. Review and referral. Upon receipt of a complete application packet the community
development department shall proceed with the following process :
a. Staff will review the application and refer the application to affected departments and
agencies for review and comment. The applicant must address all comments and
resubmit relevant documents. This may occur several times before scheduling a
public hearing.
b . After the review period , staff will give notice of a scheduled public hearing on the
application with notice by publication, letter, and site posting in the manner provided
in section 26-109.
5 Section 305 describes the new review process for specific development plans . After approval of an outline development plan to
establish zoning and underlying development standards, this second step entails approval of the site layout, building elevations , and
preliminary civil designs .
Approval of a specific development plan is proposed to be by resolution, based on a unique set of criteria which are outlined in
subsection D. This new set of criteria reflects the requirement that a specific development plan must be consistent with the intent
and standards of the underlying zoning , as determined by the outline development plan .
8
March 5, 2012-City Council Study Session
c. Staff will prepare a written report to the planning commission which evaluates the
proposal, makes findings, and makes recommendations using the review criteria set
forth below in section 26-305.D .
4. Planning commission review. The planning commission shall hear and consider any
evidence or statement presented by the applicant, city staff, or by any person in
attendance at a public hearing . Notice of public hearing shall be by publication, letter and
site posting in the manner provided in section 26-109 . The planning commission shall
then make a recommendation to city council to approve, approve with conditions, or
deny the application, basing its recommendation upon the facts presented in the public
hearing in consideration of the criteria for review as specified in 26-305.D.
5 . City Council review. City council shall review and decide upon all specific development
plan applications at a public hearing . Upon receipt of the development plan and the
recommendation of the planning commission, the city council shall either approve,
approve with conditions, deny, or refer the plan back to planning commission for further
study. Specific development plans shall be approved by resolution. City council shall
base its decision upon all evidence presented, with due consideration of the criteria for
review as specified in 26-305.D.
B. Recording. All approved specific development plans shall be recorded with the Jefferson
County Clerk and Recorder. Such plans, and associated recording fees shall be submitted to
the community development department within sixty (60) days of council's final action.
Should a recordable approved specific development plan not be provided to staff within sixty
(60) days of council's final action to approve, staff shall schedule a public hearing before city
council and city council shall reconsider its approval. A one-time , thirty-day extension for mylar
submittal may be requested from the community development director. The request must be
submitted in writing prior to expiration of the sixty-day time limit showing evidence of good
cause for not meeting the deadline.
C . Modifications or amendments. See section 26-308.
D. Criteria for review. The planning commission and city council shall base their decision in
consideration of the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that all of the following criteria
have been met:
1 . The proposed specific development plan is consistent with the purpose of a planned
development as stated in section 26-301 of this article; and
2 . The proposed specific development plan is consistent with the design intent or purpose
of the approved outline development plan; and
3. The proposed uses indicated in the specific development plan are consistent with the
uses approved by the outline development plan ; and
4 . The site is appropriately designed and is consistent with the development guidelines
established in the outline development plan ; and
5. Adequate infrastructure/facilities are available to serve the subject property, or the
applicant will upgrade and provide such where they do not exist or are under capacity;
and
6 . The proposed specific development plan is in substantial compliance with the appli ca ble
standards set forth in the Arc hitectural and Site Design Ma nu a l, Streetscape De sign
Manual, and other applicable design standards .
9
March 5 , 2012 -City Council Study Session
Sec. 26-306.-Specific development plan application contents.6
A. Application contents. A complete application for a specific development plan shall
include:
1. Complete and notarized application form .
2. Appropriate fee.
3 . Proof of ownership, such as copies of deeds or title commitments.
4 . Written authorization from property owner(s) where an agent acts on behalf of the
owner(s).
5 . Certified boundary and improvement survey.
6 . A written description of the proposed development.
7 . Specific development plan document. The application shall include the appropriate
number of copies, as determined at the pre-application conference. All informational
requirements of the specific development plan shall be met, as described below in
subsection B.
8 . Additional information may be required, including, but not limited to , drainage study and
plan , grading plan , geological stability report, traffic impact report, floodplain impact
report, or general environmental impact report. This information will be required in hard
copy and in electronic file format.
B. Form and content of specific development plan. The maps which are a part of the
specific development plan shall be made at a scale of not less than one (1) inch equals one
hundred (1 00) feet. The size of the sheet shall be twenty-four (24) inches by thirty-six (36)
inches and must comply with the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder's requirements. The
specific development plan shall contain the following minimum information:
1. Project information .
a . Title of document.
b. Complete metes and bounds legal description on the current city datum with proper
section and PHAC ties per c ity geodetic requirements .
c . Small scale location map, with north arrow and scale .
d. Ownership/unified control statement, if applicable .
e . Name, address, and phone number of architect and engineer associated with the
project.
f . Appropriate certification blocks as determined by the community development
departme nt.
g . Case history box with reference case numbers.
2 . Site plan . The drawings shall be to-scale and shall include the locations of the following:
6 Section 306 summarizes the form and contents of an application for a specific development plan. In the current code. applicants
have the option of submitting a conceptual outline development plan and a detailed ouUine development plan, though the contents
of each are not listed separately.
This new code section clearl y specifies the level of detail req uired for a specific development p lan , the contents of which are largely
equivalent to the cu rrent requirements for a detailed ouUine development plan. The language related to the architectural elevation
and aerial perspective is taken from the current code and from existing su p plementary handouts.
10
March 5, 2012 -City Council Study Session
a. Property boundary (which corresponds to legal description) with existing/proposed lot
lines.
b. Proposed locations for landscaping, parking, building locations, and buffering.
c. Proposed areas to be used for drainage, parks, and other areas to be reserved or
dedicated to public use.
d. Existing and proposed circulation system, including roads, rights-of-way, access
points, sidewalks, and pedestrian linkages.
e. Existing and proposed easements and rights-of-way with accurate dimensions.
f. Significant land features (ditches, streams, lakes, topography, etc.) within or adjacent
to the property.
g. Zoning for adjacent properties.
h. Adjoining property lot lines , building access, parking, so that development
compatibility can be determined .
i. Scale and north arrow (scale not to exceed 1" = 1 00').
3. Architectural elevations. Architectural elevations shall illustrate approximate building
height and proposed architectural materials. The drawings should be of sufficient detail
to illustrate massing, height, and general character of the proposed structures.
Applicants must provide enough information for the review bodies to determine
compliance with applicable standards.
4 . Aerial perspective. A blackline aerial perspective or "birds '-eye-view" image of the
project shall illustrate building location, layout, bulk, and height in three dimensions.
Sec. 26-307.-Site plan review.7
A. All site development within a planned development district shall be subject to the site
plan review process outlined in section 26-111.
B. The site plan provides final engineering and site design details. All site plan applications
will be reviewed for consistency with the standards in the outline and specific development
plans.
C . Under certain circumstances, subject to approval by the community development
director and to be determined at the required pre-application meeting, site plan review
applications may be processed simultaneously with building permit applications .
D. All approved site plans shall be kept on file in the community development department.
E. Planned residential developments, or portions thereof, comprised exclusively of
detached single-or two-family dwellings are not required to complete a site plan review process.
7 The final development plan (FOP) is replaced with the more user-friendly site plan review process . Like the FPD , site plan review
provides the final engineering and site design details . The site plan can provide the basis for building permit review.
Currently, the site plan review process is most commonly used in conjunction with the mixed use zone districts to confirm
compl iance with the development standards, though it can be used for development in any zone district. The language included
here in section 307 is nearly identical to that found in section 26-1115 (s ite plan review).
11
March 5 , 2012-City Council Study Session
Sec. 26-308.-Amendments to development plans.8
A. General. Amendments may be initiated by property owners within an approved
development plan as provided in this section, or by the city in accordance with section 26-113. If
the amendment affects the provisions for access, drainage, utilities and/or circulation, affected
property owners must consent to the application for amendment in writing .
B. Outline development plan amendments. All applications for amendment to an outline
development plan must be approved in writing by at least twenty-five (25) percent of the owners
of real property contained within the area originally approved by the outline development plan,
unless specific alternative provisions have been approved by city council as part of the unified
control agreement.
An amendment to an approved outline development plan shall require a new application,
subject to the same procedures and requirements as for the original approval, if any of the
following conditions exist:
1. Substantial changes that alter the character of the development.
2. Any change to the development parameters on the outline development plan, including,
but not limited to:
a . An increase in the gross floor area of structures beyond the authorized maximum
allowed on the approved outline development plan .
b . An increase in density of use beyond the authorized maximum allowed on the
approved outline development plan.
c. A change in perimeter setbacks or build-to beyond what is authorized on the
approved outline development plan.
d. A reduction in required buffer areas.
e . An increase in height of any structures beyond the authorized maximum allowed on
the approved outline development plan.
f. Proposed land uses not permitted on the approved outline development plan.
C . Specific development plan amendments. A specific development plan may vary from
the approved outline development plan so long as the variations are within the approved
development parameters. At no time may approval of a specific development plan result in any
increase beyond a maximum development standard or any decrease below a minimum
development standard as listed on the outline development plan. If any of these conditions
occurs, the outline development plan must be amended, as described in subsection B above .
1. Administrative review. The community development director may approve minor
amendments to a specific development plan which, in the reasonable judgment of the
community development director, do not affect neighboring properties or the overall
8 Section 308 outlines the triggers and procedure for amending a development plan. In the current code, amendment procedures
are described in section 26-311 , and there are very few changes proposed .
Subsection 8 is unchanged except for the additional trigger in 308 .8 .1 in which a substantial change in character would trigger a
new outline development plan . This is implied in the current code , but not stated outright.
Subsection C relates to specific development plans . Any amendments within the parameters and intent of the outline development
plan are proposed to be reviewed administratively or by planning commission . This affords more administrative discretion than is
allowed under the current code . Staff recommends not including prescriptive thresholds for determining which amendments require
administrative review versus by planning commission . Administratively approved amendments are proposed to not be recorded to
save time and money for the applicant. Review criteria have been established and are in part 4.
Subsection D addresses variances for residential planned developments, for which there is no change from the current code .
12
March 5 , 2012-City Council Study Session
character of the development. These may include variations to buildings orientation ,
parking lots, landscaping areas, architectural details, interior setbacks, and similar
variations that meet the review criteria set forth below in section 26-308.C.4.
Administratively approved amendments are not required to be recorded; but should be
reflected in the site plan kept on file in the community development department.
2. Planning commission review. The planning commission shall review and decide upon
amendments that exceed the scope of those permitted by administrative review under
C .1, including, but not limited to substantial change in circulation and building location.
Review is subject to the notice, hearing, and decision-making procedures provided in
section 26-109. Planning commission shall base its decision upon all evidence
presented, with due consideration of the criteria for review as specified in section
26-308.C.4 below. Any changes to a specific development plan which are approved by
planning commission, must be recorded with the Jefferson County Recorder as
amendments to the original recorded development plan subject to the provisions of
section 26-305.8.
3. Community development director authority. Substantial changes which are, in the
reasonable judgment of the community development director, extensive enough to be
considered a new site design, are required to be processed as a new specific
development plan application, subject to the same procedures and requirements as for
the original approval in section 26-305. The community development director's decision
shall be based upon the factors such as size and relative impact on adjacent property.
4. Criteria for review. The director of community development or the planning commission
shall base its decision in consideration of the following findings of fact:
a. The amendment maintains the design intent or purpose of the original approved
development plan ; and
b. The amendment maintains the quality of design or product established by the original
approved development plan; and
c. The amendment is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or to uses or
property in the immediate vicinity of the development plan.
The director and planning commission may impose conditions upon any amendment to
ensure the proposal complies with the purpose and intent of the original approval.
D . Variances. Variances to the strict application of development standards established by
an outline or specific development plan may be requested only for properties within single-and
two-family planned residential developments . The applicable administrative or non-
administrative variance process shall be followed as prescribed in section 26-115.
Sec. 26-309. -Interpretation of development plans.9
A. Detailed specifications and standards which should have been set forth on approved
outline and specific development plans, but which were found subsequent to approval to have
been omitted, may be interpreted by the community development director to be those
specifications and standards set forth in the zone district in which the approved uses contained
within the approved development plan would be permitted .
9 Section 309 discusses how development plans shall be interpreted. The content of this section is unchanged from the current
code, section 26-309 (application of standards). The title has been modified to provide clarity. In addition , the word "determination"
has been replaced with "interpretation" for consistency with the BOA interpretation process outlined in section 26-115.E .
13
March 5, 2012-City Council Study Session
B. The supplementary regulations of article VI apply to uses and activities within planned
development districts, unless otherwise provided in the approved development plan.
C. If the outline and specific development plans do not address a particular development
standard, the standard of the zone district which most closely matches the planned
development as determined by the community development director shall be used. The owner
of any property aggrieved by such determination may appeal the interpretation to the board of
adjustment pursuant to the provisions of section 26-115.E.
D. It the development standards specified on a recorded outline development plan do not
meet the current standards of chapter 26, a specific development plan can nevertheless be
approved so long as the specific development plan complies with the approved outline
development. This provision does not apply to requirements listed under article IV subdivision
regulations.
Sec. 26-310.-Similar uses in planned developments.10
A. Definition. A similar use is a use which would be similar in size, type of operation,
services provided or equipment used, number of employees, and hours of operation and which
would:
1. Be compatible in character and impact with permitted uses in the planned development,
2. Be consistent with the intent of the planned development,
3. Not be objectionable to nearby property by reason of odor, dust, fumes, gas, noise,
radiation, heat, glare, vibration, traffic generation, parking needs, outdoor storage or use,
and
4. Not be hazardous to the health and safety of surrounding areas through danger of fire or
explosion.
B. Similar use determination. For any use which is not specifically listed as a permitted use
in a planned development district, the community development director is authorized determine
if the proposed use is similar. If the community development director finds that the proposed
use meets the definition of similar use contained in section (a) above, the community
development director is authorized to approve the similar use. The owner of any property who
or which feels aggrieved by such determination may appeal the interpretation to the board of
adjustment pursuant to the provisions of section 26-115 .E.
Sec. 26-311. -Binding upon successors and assigns.11
All approved outlined, specific, and site development plans shall be binding upon the owner(s),
their successors and assigns, and shall limit the development to all conditions and limitations
established in such plans, and as may be contained in separately recorded agreements ,
covenants, condominium declarations, etc ., which were approved by city council as part of a
planned development approval.
10 Section 310 corresponds to section 26-307 in the current code which defines the term "similar use ." For clarity , th is section of
code has been relocated within article Ill , so the two sections on interpretation (standards and use) are adjacent.
Subsection B, regarding the similar use determ ination process , is proposed to be amended . Under the current code , the
determination process entails a public notification period with letter notice and sign posting . Staff recommends the similar use
determination process be strictly administrative with no public noticing . Any administrative decision may be appealed .
11 Section 311 is identical to the current code section 26-310 ; no changes are proposed .
14
March 5, 2012-City Council Study Session
Sec. 26-312. -Interim use.12
Subsequent to rezoning to a planned development district and approval of an outlined, specific,
or site development plan, but prior to development and use of a parcel in accordance with the
approved plan, the property may continue to be used for any lawful purpose for which it was
used at the time of outline development plan approval; provided, however, that no new
permanent structures or additions to existing structures will be permitted.
Sec. 26-313. -Planned residential development (PRO) district regulations.13
A. Area: No minimum.
B. Density: Maximum twenty-one (21) dwelling units per acre .
C. Height: Maximum thirty-five (35) feet.
D. Landscaping: In accordance with section 26-502, otherwise as established by the outline
development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan or site
plan.
E. Parking: In accordance with section 26-501, otherwise as established by the outline
development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan or site
plan .
F. Exterior lighting: In accordance with section 26-503, otherwise as established by the
outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan
or site plan.
G. Fences and walls: In accordance with section 26-603, otherwise as established by the
outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan
or site plan.
H. Signage: In accordance with article VII, otherwise as established by the outline
development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan or site
plan.
I. Streetscape and architectural design guidelines. In accordance with currently adopted
design manuals per section 26-224, otherwise as established by the outline development plan
and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan or site plan.
J. The requirements of this section shall not apply to impose a density requirement of less
than twenty-one (21) units per acre, with respect to the reconstruction of residential dwelling in
the PRO district, where such structures and their reconstruction meet all of the following
requirements:
1. The structure was legally in existence on September 8, 1997;
2. The structure is located upon a lot which does not meet the then-applicable minimum lot
area and/or minimum land area per unit requirements for such proposed reconstruction ;
and
12 Section 312 is nearly Identical to the current code section 26-312 . The only change is a reference to the final development plan
which has been replaced with the site plan .
13 The following five (5) sections regarding the zone district regulations remain largely unchanged . These sections correspond to
sections 26-303 to 306.5 in the original code. They have been moved to the end of article Ill to mirror the sequence of articles I and
II : development review procedures first , followed by the zone district regulations .
A reference to streetscape and architectural design guidelines has been added for PRO , PCD, PID , and PMUD; and a reference to
lighting standards has been added to all sections . References to outline and final development plans have been updated to reflect
the proposed outline and specific development plans and the site plan .
These sections also included two references to code that was repealed in 2007 ; the references have been removed .
15
March 5 , 2012-City Council Study Session
3 . Such reconstruction is restricted to replacement of the structure which has been
destroyed .
This exemption shall not apply to :
1. New construction where no replacement of a preexisting structure takes place ; or
2. Reconstruction of structures which were not legally in existence (as distinguished from
legal nonconforming structures).
K. A planned residential development shall be required for any mobile home park and must
meet the standards for mobile home park design in section 26-506
Sec. 26-314.-Planned commercial development (PCD) district regulations.
A. Area: No minimum.
B. Height: Commercial structures shall not exceed fifty (50) feet.
C. Landscaping: In accordance with section 26-502, otherwise as established by the outline
development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan or site
plan .
D. Parking : In accordance with section 26-501 , otherwise as established by the outline
development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan or site
plan.
E. Exterior lighting: In accordance with section 26-503 , otherwise as established by the
outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan
or site plan .
F . Fences and walls: In accordance with section 26-603, otherwise as established by the
outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan
or site plan .
G. Signage : In accordance with article VII, otherwise as established by the outline
development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan or site
plan.
H. Streetscape and architectural design guidelines. In accordance with currently adopted
design manuals per section 26-224, otherwise as established by the outline development plan
and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan or site plan .
I. A planned commercial district shall be used to establish any proposed recreational
vehicle park.
Sec. 26-315.-Planned industrial development (PI D) district regulations.
A. Area : Each planned industrial development district shall be minimum of one (1) acre .
B. Height: Maximum fifty (50) feet.
C . Landscaping : In accordance with section 26-502, otherwise as established by the outline
development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan or site
plan .
D . Parking : In accordance with section 26-501 , otherwise as established by the outline
development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan or site
plan.
16
March 5 , 2012 -City Council Study Session
E . Exterior lighting: In accordance with section 26-503, otherwise as established by the
outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan
or site plan.
F. Fences and walls: In accordance with section 26-603, otherwise as established by the
outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan
or site plan.
G . Signage : In accordance with article VII, otherwise as established by the outline
development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan or site
plan .
H . Streetscape and architectural design guidelines. In accordance with currently adopted
design manuals per section 26-224, otherwise as established by the outline development plan
and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan or site plan .
Sec. 26-316. -Planned hospital development (PHD) district regulations.
A. Allowable uses. The following uses hereinafter listed shall be permitted only as
specifically designated on the approved outline development plan:
1. Public and private general hospital.
2 . Hospitals or sanitariums for contagious diseases , or the mentally disturbed or
handicapped.
3. Independent living units, homes for the aged , nursing homes, congregate care homes ,
hospices or similar residential facilities which are accessory to a hospital or sanitarium
principal use.
4. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted uses as shown
on the approved specific development plan or site plan.
B . Area. Each Planned Hospital District shall be a minimum of five (5) acres, except as
provided below.
C . Lot width. Two hundred (200) feet minimum .
D. Setback requirements:
1. Front: Fifty (50) feet minimum .
2 . Side : Twenty-five (25) feet minimum plus ten (10) feet for each story. The intent is to
provide a minimum twenty-five-foot landscape buffer adjacent to residential zoned
property.
3. Rear: Twenty-five (25) feet minimum , plus ten (10) feet for each story. The intent is to
provide a minimum twenty-five-foot landscape buffer adjacent to residential zoned
property.
E. Height:
1. Hospital buildings: Fifty (50) feet maximum, except as follows:
a . Sixty-five (65) feet where the lot on which the building is to be constructed is at least
fifty (50) acres in size .
b . Add itions attached to existing hospitals may be built to a he ight not to exceed the
height of the existing building.
2 . Offices: Fifty (50) feet maximum .
17
March 5, 2012 -City Council Study Session
3. Residential: Thirty-five (35) feet maximum .
4 . Accessory: Thirty-five (35) feet maximum .
F . Residential density. No residential development, excluding congregate care homes,
nursing homes or intermediate nursing care facilities, shall exceed twenty-one (21) dwelling
units per acre .
G. Landscaping:
1. Minimum twenty-five (25) percent overall site requirement.
2 . Twenty-five-foot landscape buffer required along property lines adjacent to residential
zoned property.
3 . Unless otherwise specifically provided for on the approved plan, all landscaping shall
meet the requirements set forth in section 26-502
H. Parking: In accordance with section 26-501 , otherwise as established by the outline
development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan or site
plan.
I. Exterior lighting: In accordance with section 26-503, otherwise as established by the
outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan
or site plan .
J . Fences and walls: In accordance with section 26-603, otherwise as established by the
outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan
or site plan .
K. Signage: In accordance with article VII , otherwise as established by the outline
development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan or site
plan .
Sec. 26-317.-Planned mixed use development (PMUD) district regulations.
A. Purpose. This district is established to provide a zoning classification to allow the
integration of residential and commercial uses and development which is consistent with the
surrounding neighborhoods and which meets the intent of the comprehensive plan , the
Architectural and Site Design Manual and the Streetscape Design Manual. It is not intended to
be used solely to permit a higher density than allowed in the planned residential development
(PRO) district nor to c ircumvent other specific standards of the planned residential and planned
commercial districts. Instead, it is intended to create a zone district which will allow flexibility in
use , design , and orientation while maximizing space , community interest and protecting nearby
and adjacent residential neighborhoods.
B . Permitted uses. Permitted uses shall be a mixture of residential and commercial uses
governed by approval of the outline development plan .
C . Area. No minimum .
D . Height. Maximum fifty (50) feet for freestanding commercial buildings only; thirty-five (35)
feet for structures containing commercial and residential uses ; thirty-five (35) feet for
freestanding residential structures.
E. Density. Maximum of twenty-one (21) units per acre .
F . Landscaping. In accordance with section 26-502 , otherwise as established by the outline
development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan or site
plan .
18
March 5, 2012-City Council Study Session
G . Parking. In accordance with section 26-501, otherwise as established by the outline
development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan or site
plan . Allowances may be made for shared parking spaces if it can be demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the person or approval body designated as having final approval authority that
parking demand for different uses occurs at different time.
H. Exterior lighting: In accordance with section 26-503, otherwise as established by the
outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan
or site plan.
I. Fences and wall. In accordance with section 26-603, otherwise as established by the
outline development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan
or site plan .
J. Signage . In accordance with article VII, otherwise as established by the outline
development plan and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan or site
plan .
K. Streetscape and architectural design guidelines. In accordance with currently adopted
design manuals per section 26-224, otherwise as established by the outline development plan
and as specifically detailed on an approved specific development plan or site plan .
19
March 5, 2012-City Council Study Session
ATTACHMENT 4
Sec. 26-112.-Private rezoning.
A. Purpose.1 A change of any zone district as shown on the official zoning map is permitted
only when it promotes the general welfare of the community and is consistent with the criteria
for review as listed in section 26-112.E below. The final decision on a change of zone expressly
rests in the exercise of the discretion of the city council, and all applicants are advised there is
no right to a change of zone of property. In some cases a rezone is necessary to correct a
manifest error in the existing zone classification. A manifest error includes, but is not limited to,
one (1) or more of the following:
1. Mapping errors, including incorrect boundary location or incorrect zone designation, or
2. Ordinance errors including incorrect zone designation, legal description error or
typographical errors.
B. Applicability. 2
1. The requirements of this section shall be applicable within the municipal boundaries of
the City of Wheat Ridge and to any areas that are proposed to be annexed to the city
where one (1) of the following is proposed:
a . Change of zone of a parcel of land from one (1) zone district classification to another
zone district. This includes an application for private rezoning within or to any mixed
use, public facilities, or conservation district; as well as a rezoning within or to any
residential or agricultural zone district for properties up to one (1) acre in size .
b. Changing of the conditions of an existing zone district where those conditions were
specifically established by a previous rezoning ordinance.
2. All applications for a zone change shall be to a planned development district where any
one ( 1) of the following conditions exists. Article Ill of this chapter should be consulted
for planned development requirements and procedures.
a . An application for a zone change to any commercial district, with the exception of a
rezoning to any mixed use district, for properties of any size.
b . An application for a zone change to any industrial, residential , or agricultural district
for property over one ( 1) acre in size, or for which an applicant owns adjacent
property which, taken together with the property that is the subject of the application
totals more than one (1) acre.
1 Subsection A (purpose) has only moderate changes including the removal of repetitive language and a new reference to the
criteria for review. The definition of a "manifest error" is unchanged .
2 Subsection 8 (applicability) is updated to more clearly delineate when the procedure of this section applies versus when a planned
development is required . In the current code , a reader must refer to article Ill for details regarding planned development
applicability , and the code is entirely silen t regarding zone changes to Agricultural , Public Facilities , and Conservation districts. All
types of zone changes are now explicitly addressed .
March 5, 2012-City Council Study Session
C. Review procedure:3
1. Preapplication conference. Prior to submitting any application for a change of zone, the
applicant must participate in a preapplication conference, as described in section 26-
104.
2. Neighborhood meeting. After the preapplication conference, but prior to submitting any
application for a change of zone, the applicant shall be required to hold a neighborhood
meeting in accordance with section 26-109.A.
3. Application filing. A zone change application shall be submitted to the community
development department. Staff will review the application for completeness in
accordance with the submittal requirements in subsection D below. If staff determines
the application is not complete, it will be returned to the applicant and not further
processed until the incomplete items have been supplied.
4 . Review and referral. Upon receipt of a complete application packet the community
development department shall proceed with the following process:
a . Staff will review the application and refer the application to affected departments and
agencies for review and comment. The applicant must address all comments and
resubmit relevant documents. This may occur several times before scheduling a
public hearing.
b. After the review period , staff will give notice of a scheduled public hearing on the
application, with notice by publication, letter and site posting in the manner provided
in section 26-109.
c. Staff will prepare a written report to the planning commission which evaluates the
proposal, makes findings, and makes recommendations using the review criteria set
forth below in subsection E.
5. Planning commission review. The planning commission shall hear and consider any
evidence or statement presented by the applicant, city staff, or by any person in
attendance at a public hearing. Notice of public hearing shall be by publication, letter and
site posting in the manner provided in section 26-109 . The planning commission shall
then make a recommendation to city council to approve, approve with conditions, or
deny the application, basing its recommendation upon the facts presented in the public
hearing in consideration of the criteria for review as specified in subsection E below.
6. City council review. City council shall review and decide upon all requests for change of
zone, upon recommendation of the planning commission. The city council shall
approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. An approved change of zone
may only be approved by passage of an ordinance following the city's standard
ordinance adoption procedures, including a first reading and public hearing . Notice of
public hearing shall be by publication, letter and site posting in the manner provided in
section 26-109. City council, in addition to consideration of the planning commission
recommendation, shall hear the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing
and either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the ordinance. City council shall
base its decision upon all evidence presented , with due consideration of the criteria for
review .
3 Subsection C (review procedure) summarizes in a step-by-step manner the procedure for a private zone change . It represents a
consolidation of parts C , E , and F of the orig inal code . There is no change to the review procedure ; this section simply includes a
streamlined description of the process to improve clarity .
2
March 5 , 2012 -City Council Study Session
7. In the event of a legal protest against such change of zone, under the procedure set
forth in section 5-10 of the home rule charter, a zone change shall not be approved
except by the favorable vote of three-fourths of the entire city council. The written
protest to such change shall be submitted to the city council no later than the hearing on
the proposed rezoning ordinance.
D. Application contents .4 A complete application for a zone change request shall
include:
1. Complete and notarized application form.
2. Appropriate fee.
3. Proof of ownership, such as copies of deeds or title commitments .
4 . Written authorization from property owner(s) where an agent acts on behalf of the
owner(s).
5. Certified boundary and improvement survey.
6. Approved legal description in electronic file format.
7 . Mineral rights certification form .
8. A written description of the zone change request. The narrative should include sufficient
detail to convey the full intent of the applicant and a justification of why the zone change
is appropriate. The narrative should address:
a . Need for the change of zone.
b . Present and future effect on the existing zone districts, development and physical
character of the surrounding area.
c. Access to the area, traffic patterns and impact of the requested zone on these
factors .
d. Availability of utilities.
e . Present and future effect on public facilities and services, such as fire, police, water,
sanitation, roadways, parks, schools , etc.
f. A discussion of the relationship between the proposal and adopted plans and/or
policies of the city.
E. Criteria for review.5 The planning commission and city council shall base its decision in
consideration of the extent to which the applicant demonstrates the following criteria have been
met:
1. The change of zone promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the community
and will not result in a significant adverse effect on the surrounding area; and
4 Subsection 0 briefly lists the required contents for a zone change application . The list herein combines the language from the
existing code in section 26-112 .C.4 and from the submittal checklist that zone change applicants currently rece ive .
5 In subsection E , criterion 1 and 2 are retained from the current code , and criterion 3 represents a modification . The current zone
change criteria suggest that a rezoning is not justified unless an area has already experienced a change in character. The proposed
criteria are more logical , recognizing the zone change as a tool which acknowledges changing conditions or brings a property into
compliance with City plans and policies .
Eliminated from the proposed criteria is the requirement for compliance with the Architectural and Site Design Manual (ASDM}.
Because the application for a private rezoning does not require any site plan or architectural details, compliance with the ASDM is
impossible to assess at this stage in the entitlement process .
3
March 5, 2012 -City Council Study Session
2. Adequate infrastructure/facilities are available to serve the types of uses allowed by the
change of zone, or the applicant will upgrade and provide such where they do not exist
or are under capacity; and
3 . At least one (1) of the following conditions exists :
a. The change of zone is in conformance, or will bring the property into conformance
with, the City of Wheat Ridge comprehensive plan goals, objectives and policies, and
other city-approved policies or plans for the area .
b. The existing zone classification currently recorded on the official zoning maps of the
City of Wheat Ridge is in error.
c. A change of character in the area has occurred or is occurring to such a degree that
it is in the public interest to encourage redevelopment of the area or to recognize the
changing character of the area.
d. The proposed rezoning is necessary in order to provide for a community need that
was not anticipated at the time of the adoption of the City of Wheat Ridge
comprehensive plan .
F. Recordation.6 All approved zoning ordinances shall be recorded with the Jefferson
County Clerk and Recorder by the city clerk within thirty (30) days of the effective date of such
ordinance .
G . Assessment of comprehensive plan. 7 Planning commission and city council shall
periodically perform an assessment of zoning decisions to consider modification of the
comprehensive plan future land use map if zone changes are made which differ significantly
from the designation on the map. If zone changes are denied when in conformance with the
designation on the future land use map , modifications to the map shall also be considered .
6 There is no change in subsection F regarding recordation . II corresponds to section 26-112 .G in the current code.
7 Subsection G indudes a minor modification . The code currently calls for an annual assessment of zoning decisions, and this has
been changed to a "periodic" review. The city attorney has confirmed that this change complies with any applicable laws .
4
~~A,
... ~ r City of • .. ~Wheat&_dge ~OMMUN i lY DEVELOPMENT
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Introduction
Memorandum
Mayor and City Council \\
Patrick Goff, City Manager9/j-
Kenneth Johnstone , Community Development Director
Sarah Showalter, Planner II
February 27 , 2012 (For March 5 Study Session)
38th A venue Roadway Improvements
Staff in Public Works and Community Development have been working since December to
design the roadway improvements that are planned for 38th Avenue as part of the 38 1h Avenue
Corridor Plan revitalization. The purpose of this presentation at the study session on March 5 is
to review important components of the project -amenity zones and large planters -and discuss
options for their design and manufacture . This memo is structured as follows :
1. Overview of Project
2. Project Schedule
3. Project Amenities: Design Goals
4 . Project Amenities: Design Options
Overview of Project
The 2012 CIP budget approved by City Council includes $250,000 for the 38th Avenue roadway
improvements. The project, outlined in the Corridor Plan adopted by City Council in October
2011 , is a "retrofit" road diet that will utilize low-cost measures to restripe the street to three
lanes between Upham and Depew Streets. Beyond restriping the street and adding signage , the
project will also include:
• On-street parking on the south side of the street
• On-street bike lanes between Upham and Pierce Streets
• Large planters, approximately eight total , placed in the street at the beginning of each
block to signal to drivers the beginning of a parking lane and to add landscaping to
improve the image of the corridor
• Temporary amenity zones, three total , which are extensions to the sidewalk that will
provide outdoor seating areas and demonstrate what the street might feel like if the
sidewalks were permanently widened in the future
• Access enhancements, three total , which are temporary modifications to wide access
points that will improve vehicular circulation and add more opportunities for on-street
parking. These are only being implemented with the permission of property owners.
The intent is for the improvements to be made in a way that can be easily modified or removed ,
if needed , since the road diet will be assessed after a period of approximately two years based on
38th A venue Amenities
March 5, 2012
Page2
a variety of metrics including traffic counts , pedestrian and bicycle counts , building permit
activity, sales revenue data , and input from businesses , owners and residents.
Based on internal cost estimates , the $250 ,000 for the project is anticipated to be broken out as
follows :
• Approximately $70 ,000 for restriping and signage
• Approximately $130 ,000 for construction of amenities: planters , temporary amenity
zones and access enhancements (including all plant material for these items)
• Approximately $50 ,000 for two years of maintenance oflandscaping
Project Schedule
The approximate timeline for the project is to ha ve a contractor hired and approved by City
Council in April , with construction to occur from May to mid-June. The bid for the portion of the
project that covers the restriping has already been advertised and is scheduled to be before
Council on April 9, 2012 for approval. The bid for the amenities and maintenance will be
separate since it is a different type of construction from restriping the street and will therefore
draw different contractors. This is scheduled to be advertised on March 12 , 2012 and to go
before Council on April 23 , 2012 for approval.
Project Amenities: Design Goals
The two most important components of the project in terms of visibility and beautification are
the planters and temporary amenity zones. Because the project does not include moving the
existing curbs to create room for amenities next to the sidewalk , these items will be placed in the
road in the on-street parking lane on the south side of the street , as shown below :
Planters, approximately 4 feet by 6
feet, placed at the beginning of the
parking lane (about 8 total between
Upham and Depew)
Temporary A menity Zon es
Temporary amenity zones, or
"pop-up cafes," 8 feet by 20 feet .
These will be at three key locations
to provide outdoor seating and to
demonstrate the feel of a wider
sidewalk.
Existing concrete planters, 3
feet by 3 feet, to be re -used at
mid-block locations to signal
beginning of parking lane
(about 10 total between
Upham and Depew)
38 1h Avenue Amenities
March 5, 2012
Page 3
These extensions to the sidewalk, also called pop-up cafes, are the largest and most expensive
amenity being added to the street. These are proposed in three locations , directly in front of
businesses that have requested them:
1. Cebiche Restaurant (near 38th and Reed)
2. Right Coast Pizza (at 38 Lh and High Court)
3. Dragon Fly Cafe (near 38Lh and Upham)
City staff developed a design for the temporary amenity zones based on the input of several
landscape architects and architects who live and/or work in Wheat Ridge. Basic goals identified
during a design charrette with these participants included:
• Create a flexible , modular design that allows for different activities , including mo veable
tables and chairs.
• Incorporate a permanent seating element, such as built-in benches.
• Create a significant buffer along the street edge so that the space feels sheltered, but also
allow visibility into the space for cars driving by.
• Create attractive elements with high-quality materials that will draw people's attention.
• Utilize durable materials that will hold up during all seasons.
• Utilize tall plant materials for vi sual interest and to create some shade.
The following images illustrate existing pop-u~ cafes that were used as case studies, as well as
the concept design for the amenity zones on 38 1 Avenue.
Above: example temporary amenity zones, or pop-up cafes, in other communities
Left: Conceptual
design for the
temporary amenity
zones for 381h
Avenue, shown here
in front of the new
Right Coast Pizza at
High Court
38 1h Avenue Amenities
March 5, 2012
Page4
Large Planters
The designers who volunteered their time for the design charrette also discussed ideas for the
large planters to be placed at the beginning of each block's parking lane. The following design
goals were identified:
• Create large , durable planters that will have a substantial presence on the street and can
withstand being nicked by a car driving by.
• Tie the planters' design and materials into the design of the temporary amenity zones, if
possible.
• Utilize bold , tall plantings -including many ornamental grasses -that will draw attention
and relate to the plantings in the temporary amenity zones.
• Consider reusing or repurposing other large containers , such a concrete washout, in order
to save money.
Staff did pursue the latter idea to repurpose large containers , but was not able to locate any item
that was more affordable than purchasing custom-made large planters.
Project Amenities: Design Options
Option 1: Modular D esign
Because the temporary amenity zones are a unique product to design and build, staff started
research early in the process to identify viable manufacturers . This research led to Bison, a
company based in Denver who has built pop-up cafes in other cities (you can see more at Bison 's
website: http ://www.bisonip .com ). Bison utilizes a modular system of wood panels (2 feet by 2
feet) and small pedestals , originally designed to create green roofs , that can easily adjust to the
Above: example from Bison's website of their
modular svstem
slope of the street. They also offer a variety of
planters in two-foot modules that fit into the
pedestals , as seen in the image to the left. Staff
developed a design that utilizes the Bison products ,
including tall aluminum planters placed along the
edges of the amenity zone for durability and to
create a material that will be reflective and more
visible to drivers at night. bnages of the design
utilizing the Bison products may be seen below. The
wood is lpe, an extremely durable hard wood that
the Parks Department currently uses on its pedestrian
bridges on the Clear Creek trail.
Above and to left: concept designs of the temporary
amenity zone for 38 1h Ave using Bison's products
3 6 ..
'
38th Avenue Amenities
March 5, 2012
Page 5
Bison's planters could be utilized to form the large
planters needed at the beginning of each block by
assembling a pod of six 2-foot by 2-foot planters for a
relatively low cost. The planters could be placed on
the pedestals, which would adjust to the slope of the
street and allow stormwater to run underneath. A
concept image of the planter pods is shown to the
right. In the future, if the improvements are removed
from 38th A venue , these pods could be easily
disassembled into smaller 2 x 2 planters for reuse in
other locations.
The Bison planters could also be strung together with
cable to create the three access enhancements , as
shown below. This would tie together all of the
improvements on the street and create a cohesive look
among the amenities. An advantage to the Bison
products is that the modular system allows for much flexibility. This is especially important
given the fact that this is a demonstration project. With the Bison system , an amenity zone could
easily be relocated and modified to a new location if the City decides to proceed with a more
permanent redesign/streetscaping project in the future. The product also allows for modification
if a business wanted to add on to their amenity zone in the future since they could easily add
more 2 ' x 2 ' modules.
These images show an example of an access enhancement using planters and cables (before on
left; after on right)
38th Avenue Amenities
March 5, 2012
Page 6
On February 1, staff presented the concept design for the amenity zones and planters utilizing the
Bison products to the 38Lh Avenue Leadership Committee and it was well-received. Staff has also
shared these drawings and concepts with the three businesses who are receiving the temporary
amenity zones and they are supportive of the design.
Bison's quote is about $12,900 per each amenity zone, including shipping. Based on detailed
cost estimates for the entire project, this fits within the total project budget. Staff also received a
quote from a design-build firm in San Francisco , named Rebar, who has experience building
pop-up cafes and who also offers a modular system. Bison and Rebar appear to be the only two
companies in the U.S with experience building pop-up cafes with a modular, flexible, product.
Rebar's modules, however, do not include the 3' height desired for the back perimeter and their
product is more expensive than Bison. Based on preliminary cost estimates, staff does not
believe that we can use Rebar's product since it is more expensive and will have additional
shipping costs. More information about the Rebar modular option is provided in Attachment I.
If City Council supports this option, staff would propose to pre-order the Bison product directly
since there are no competitors to Bison in the local market. The City would likely realize some
savings by ordering the product directly, rather than through a contractor, who is likely to mark-
up the price slightly. Pre-ordering from Bison could also ensure that the materials are received in
time. Bison has indicated a typical 4-week period from order to delivery. If the City orders the
materials in March, they could be received by April , when the contractor would likely be
selected. This ensures that there would not be a delay that could prevent the amenities from
being in place by June.
Option 2: Stick-Build
Another option for the amenity zones is a more conventional stick-built wood frame topped with
composite decking. Staff received a quote from a local decking company, American Dream
Deck, who proposed building the amenity zones with PVC composite decking called Timbertech
Evolutions. They would be able to build a deck and custom planters and benches similar to the
design shown above, but all material would be the PVC composite decking. An image of this
product is included in Attachment 1. If this is the preferred option, custom planters could also be
constructed with the composite material to make the large 4' x 6' planters and to make the
planters for the access enhancements.
This approach does not offer as much flexibility as the modular option since the amenity zones
would be built for a specific location and the pieces would be more permanently attached, as
opposed to the Bison system where a planter can be swapped out for a seat in the future. The
stick-built amenity zones could be disassembled and moved if needed , but it would require more
labor and most of the pieces would be larger.
The stick-build option is more affordable. The quote received from American Dream Deck was
for approximately $9,100 per amenity z one. If City Council prefers this option, staff would put
the amenities (planters and amenity z ones) out to bid in March to receive additional bid s.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Summary of three options
Attachment 1: 38th Avenue Temporary Amenity Zone Options
Note: prices do not include assembly, landscaping, or maintenance
Option 1:
Modular
(Bison)
Bison specializes
in green roof
systems and
planters but has
built pop-up
cafes in other
cities
Materials
lpe wood
(tropical
hardwood)
and
aluminum
Company
Location
Denver
Approximate
Price per Amenity
Zone
$12,950
(includes
shipping)
Images
Example of a pop up park that Bison built in NYC
2/24/2012
Notes
• Utilizes 2' x 2'
modular system that
can be easily
modified, removed,
or reused in another
location
• lpe wood is very
durable and could be
sealed/protected as
part of maintenance
budget (Parks
currently uses ipe on
its ped bridges on the
Clear Creek Trail)
• They also make
planters that could
' be utilized for our
3'6" large planters and
access enhancements
' to create a cohesive
design
Attachment 1
Attachment 1: 38th Avenue Temporary Amenity Zone Options
Note: prices do not include assembly, landscaping, or maintenance
Option 2:
Stick-Build
(American
Dream Deck)
A traditional
residential
decking company
that can custom
build the
temporary
amenity zones
Materials
PVC
composite
decking (with
pressure
treated
lumber
frame)
Company
Location
Denver
Approximate
Price per Amenity
Zone
$9,100
Images
•
3' 6"
'
Image of the PVC composite wood decking
2/24/2012
Notes
• Lowest cost option
• No modular element.
Stick-built decks of 8'
by 20' will be more
difficult to modify,
relocate, or reuse
• Composite decking is
very durable {25 year
warranty) and a
recycled material
Attachment 1: 38th Avenue Temporary Amenity Zone Options
Note: prices do not include assembly, landscaping, or maintenance
Option 3:
More Expensive
Modular Option
(Rebar)
A design-build
firm that has built
several pop-up
parks in San
Francisco
Materials
Tropical hard
wood (such
aslpe)and
accent metals
on steel
frame
Company
Location
San
Francisco
Approximate
Price per Amenity
Zone
$15,500-$16,000
Note: Price does
not include
shipping cost so
price would be
more.
Images
•
•
•
Example modules:
2/24/2012
Notes
Probably too
expensive for current
project budget
Utilizes a system of
modules that are 3' x
6. 7' that you select
and piece together
(see images to left).
This would allow for
easy modification,
relocation, or reuse
Wood is very durable
and could be
sealed/protected as
part of maintenance
budget