Loading...
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