The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStudy Session Packet 05/02/2011 amendedSTUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO Second Floor Conference Room 7500 W. 29 th Ave. May 2.2011 6:30 p.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. Staff Report(s) 2. RTD Presentation -FasTracks Update ~ Presentation on Wheat Ridge Middle School-Jose Martinez, Jefferson County Schools 4. Wadsworth Corridor Mixed Use Commercial Rezoning 5. Public Works Appeal Process 6 . Massage Parlor Wheat Ridge City Council ----0 MAY 2, 2011 STEVENS PK-4 "WHEAT RIDGE 5-8 •• -_. -_. -I Wheat Ridge City Council : - --- ---- ------- -- --------0 -- - - ---- ---------- ------- -----------------; INTRODUCTIONS Jose Martinez -Community Superintendent • Dr. Cindy Stevenson -Superintendent • Heather Beck -Exec. Dir. School Management • Warren Blair -Principal, Wheat Ridge 5-8 I • Heather Stewart -Principal, Stevens Elementary PK-4 • Cheryl Humann -Exec. Dir. Facilities Planning Wheat ROdge City Council -() ..---._ .. _.. . AGENDA OVERVIEW • Boundaries • Matriculation changes • Busing School changes • Safety Wheat Ridge City Council Q Boundaries • Elementary School (K-6) boundaries Current Martensen will be incorporated into current Stevens boundary • Middle School (7-8) boundary No changes • High School boundary (9-12) Wheat Ridge HS boundary will now include the Wheat Ridge 5-8 boundary Jefferson HS boundary will incorporate Edgewater ES, Lumberg ES and a portion of Molholm ES boundaries. Wheat Ridge City Council G r.-:- I " ',' -, ... , " " , STEVENS ES ...... '. . . WHEATRIDGE 5-8 1 I • ••••• I I WHEA1RIOGt HS legend Jeft'ltf'l5OnHS wtlesl RIdOI HS l-:-J Wheat Ridge 5.a $tevensES MolhOlmES J D L..-,gEs Edgewater ES ..Ia1'9I'1O/'I HlOh School Wh'fli Rld90 High School ", " 1 ", "," , :', r, ,', t ' "," ' . '.' . . .. I ' I .. I' 1''' ~ Jh HO HSON HS " L __ , LUMBERG ES • " , , " .: . • i. j ~! .·~EDG EWATER ES " I . , I .' ·1- . I J -~ ",.O\ll& • ~1VH~TRlDG~ HS 2 .~ IAI I r.; 1 I j MOLHOlM ES , --1...-____ _ '- Wheat Ridge City Council ------- - - - ------ --0 -------------- -- - ------------------------ Matriculation • Students who complete the 6th grade from Molholm, Edgewater and Lumberg elementary schools will attend Wheat Ridge 5-8 school. • Students who complete the 4th grade at Stevens Elementary will attend Wheat Ridge 5-8 school. Wheat Ridge City Council , , . I --------------0 --------------------------------__ -_. -'6 •• _ ._ Matriculation continued • Students who live north of the 29 th /LaIllar / 32 nd Ave. boundary will III atri cuI ate to Wheat Ridge High School. Students who live south of that saIlle boundary will Illatriculate to Jefferson High School. Students who chose to attend other area high schools Illay attend through choice enrolllllent. Wheat Ridge City Council i ---. ----------------------0 -------------------------------~ Busing • Martensen students will be bused to either Stevens or Wheat Ridge 5-8. Students in 7th and 8 th grade at Wheat Ridge 5~8 will be bused on a space-available basis. (First priority for space available will be given to 7th and 8 th graders who have siblings riding the bus) Wheat R' dge City Council .. ... .... 0· _. ... .... .... ... . ... _._ _. -. ___ I Busing continued • For the first year only (2011-12), Martensen Elementary students will not be required to pay the district's new bus fee. • Parents have the option to "choice" into other Jeffco schools following the district's choice policy, however, the district will not provide transportation to choice schools. • Students who live outside of the school boundary and choice into Stevens or Wheat Ridge 5-8, will not have busing. I I Wheat Ridge City Council I I --------------G ------.----------._----------- - ---------~ --j School changes: teachers and students Almost all of the Martensen students have been given their first preference of schools. They will be going to 21 different schools in Jeffco. • All teachers at Wheat Ridge 5-8 had to re-commit to the school or were placed elsewhere. • 50% of staff will be new I • Both Wheat Ridge 5-8 and Stevens will be Strategic Compensation schools. Wheat Ridge City Council t-----------------------------------0 ------------------- ---------- Preschool and kindergarten • There will be four new preschool sessions at Stevens • There will be two continuing free full-day kindergarten classes Wheat Ridge C°ty Council , ------------------.-----------G ---------------. ---------.--. --------------. --: School changes: start and end times • Both Stevens and Wheat Ridge 5-8 will begin at 8:55 a.m. and will dismiss at 3:55 p.m. - - -- -------------- - ---.. -------- ---... -... ---- -------------. -- Wheat RO dge City Council --G ------------------------- School changes: educational models • Numerous studies have shown that an effective teacher in the classroom and not the grade configuration is the key to student achievement. • There are similar educational models across the country that are successful. • Both Stevens and Wheat Ridge 5-8 will follow the district's well-defined curriculum. • Wheat Ridge 5-8 will continue to grow its gifted and talented program as well as its college prep curriculum. I I I Wheat Ridge City Council G--------.---. ----_ .. ------. .-1 Safety • Both Stevens and Wheat Ridge 5-8 have developed strong partnerships with school resource officers to keep students safe. Wheat Ridge Ci y C uneil G OPEN HOUSE May 17th 6:00 p.m. Starting at Stevens Elementary if) ... " -1 • t ..... ....... ~ J f •• 111," • -0. -" , "#ou\S £ :~\ • "".J ....... l ~~ i / ~ Ll-t::J0 'f<~~ # n~ ,.' .,. ..' " ......... , ....... ~ W4'.' 4,. \.,. ".~ IWHEATRIDGE 5-8 -,. ... • ! i •• "" f t ~ ! (;II .... 1:>rr,1II . • IfJIIIII .... ' t ... ,..,0' ."'-, w:"', ... I ,,~,. .. (/01 WHEATRIDGE ' HS .. , ..... • .l Legend _ Jefferson HS D Wheat Ridge HS r--, L_-' Wheat Ridge 5-8 ~ Stevens ES ~ MolholmES D Lumberg ES ~ Edgewater ES \ ~ o • Jefferson High School Wheat Ridge High School CO" t...IIIII ... ., U. • ! • \ \;.ts I f ........ v ....... ~WHEATRIDG~ .. )is 2.5 M\ G W 7111 ~ ! .. ,,""'" .... ....... " ... t ." I .... (/ 4 ....... \'" .. l .... : Wl!iI!IPI WI"" Wlao • .,. 1tIdo,""'01 Mort. PUll .'.1'1 • • 11 .... I ., ...... ! .,~ ... ~ ti.OU\S . ~.~ ..... Or<C I , ... "'~ ...... , .. ... '" ....... ""0, ~ .. ~ .., • • o AI> 1Ibt~.tplK' 2."", •• '''ltP. ~o i ; .•. • o c:> o • i 0 0 • ~ , • • .. 'JSt~" o _. . -; . , . . .. , .. , ,. ••• 1 , • • • W41rv'" · : ,~"'.... & • w •• ~ ... t. • • ~ 0 •• ~ o . i ""."". • .".." .... o • o ..,,.. 0 • • • • • 0 "'" 0 ~ • 0 • .' • W"'"I-" o 1 ! ' •• a • ~ .. ~. 0.· • • • .. 1. 1 II • • ... ~, ~ 01 o . .. : . i ..... ,.,. .0 • • • OIl!Mo" i o • .. "fJ1I'~ ~<J." t\ , " \ . ~ ~ "'"' .- ~STEVENS ES • •• o • .. .... " • I • • o o I 1 "411 ..... • • WIt' ..... ; .. • • .. i. .i • • K W llI ".-... t· · • 0 It •. o • • "l..,., t • • • an ... " • .,...~. • • • • • o. 00 • • • •• • I. ,,~ ..... I ·. • . . ' ."'1"'4., o • • IJl1"Ao' • • e. r 0 . . ....... , u I .~ " Bf'I ~ • • • 1 o "'r .... Po" .. ) • .. ' ..... • • ~ ... " • 0; ~L • .J"."" r o .' o ..... o .-. ~ . ...... • • o o-~ c i . o • f ·0 • • S 0 0<0 o ~ ~ J J o 00 0 1 .... ". 0 o 0 0' 80'0'0 i 0J~FFCERS6~H5"" J • 0 0 I 0 0 0 ~ 00 0' 0 0 ~ 1 I • 1 ~. Ao .... G .,.. ... ..1 i ........ . ~ l f o 8 j ._" • WW.U",,! • ~ 00' • I : .... o • si o • 0' • ...... i i i ~IU ... j ..........--... Rezoning of Wadsworth Corridor May 2,2011 Page 2 Property Owner Outreach Staff directly contacted the three property owners who expressed opposition to the rezoning in order to schedule meetings to discuss their concerns. Staff was able to meet with two local property owners: the owner of7630 W. 39th Avenue (where a large-animal veterinary clinic currently operates) and the owner of3885 Upham Street (which contains an office building). After meeting with staff, both of these owners changed their position and have submitted to staff in writing that they are in support of the legislative rezoning. The remaining property owner, a development firm based in Oregon, owns 7525 W. 44th Avenue, which is currently leased to a Pep Boy's store. This property is depicted in the attached map (Exhibit 1) in red. In response to the initial survey, the owner's attorney submitted a letter outlining their reasons for opposition to the rezoning and requested that their property not be included (Exhibit 2). The primary reason cited for opposition was a recorded agreement that places easements and development restrictions on their property and other adjacent properties. Specifically, they expressed concern that these easements, which can only be changed by consent of all property owners who are party to the agreement, would prevent redevelopment of the site from meeting some of the mixed use zoning requirements, such as a build-to for new buildings. The letter also cited concern that the proposed Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C) zoning would discourage existing property owners from investing in their properties since they would not want to comply with the design standards in the code. They also stated concern with the City's larger objectives for higher density development and a mixed use town center since Wadsworth has traditionally been an auto-oriented street. Staff contacted the owner's representative twice -once via phone and once via email-and offered to schedule a time to talk with either or both the owner and attorney about their stated concerns. The attorney said that he would convey this information to his client, but staff has not heard back from either party. In order to address their concerns, staff sent a letter to the property owner's attorney outlining responses to their concerns. In particular, staff explained that the restrictions on development that result from the easements would also be an issue under the site's existing zoning since the property is within the contemporary overlay in the Architectural and Site Design Manual (ASDM). This overlay has build-to requirements similar to those in the MU-C zone district as well as architectural requirements that in some cases are even more restrictive than the MU-C zoning. It is staffs position that the easements are the result of a private agreement that could be amended, especially if the properties in the area came under one ownership, and that they are not a reason to preclude rezoning of the site. Staff also addressed other concerns stated by the owner, which may be reviewed in a copy ofthe letter (attached as Exhibit 3). Neighborhood Meeting The zoning code requires that a neighborhood meeting be held for any legislative rezoning. All property owners within a 600-foot radius of the rezoning area are invited to the meeting. Staff held this meeting on April 13, 2011 and approximately 30 property owners attended. The majority of attendees were residents who live near the Wadsworth corridor but are not property owners within the rezoning area. At the meeting, staff gave a presentation explaining the City's plans for Wadsworth and explaining why the rezoning to MU-C is being pursued. Staff also provided specific 2 Rezoning of Wadsworth Corridor May 2 ,2011 Page 3 information about what the MU-C zoning would allow in terms of permitted uses, development standards, and design guidelines. Overall, the reaction at the neighborhood meeting was positive. Most of the questions received were not related to the rezoning, but rather to the potential widening of Wadsworth and the future of specific development sites (please see the neighborhood meeting notes , Exhibit 4). Next Steps and Requested Feedback Now that the neighborhood meeting is complete , the next step is to go to Planning Commission for a Public Hearing. Planning Commission will recommend approval or denial of the rezoning, and then the rezoning would go to City Council for final approval. Staff would like any input that City Council might have on the objections cited by the property owner that remains in opposition to the new zoning. We would also like direction on whether to schedule the public hearing before Planning Commission. Please note that , after the Planning Commission hearing is complete , City Council has the opportunity to amend the rezoning map when the case comes before them either at the first or second reading. Attachments: 1. Exhibit 1 -Updated Rezoning Map with property owner responses 2 . Exhibit 2 -Letter from the attorney representing the owner of7525 W. 44th Avenue 3 . Exhibit 3 -Letter to the attorney representing the owner of7525 W . 44th Avenue 4. Exhibit 4 -Neighborhood meeting notes 3 Rezoning of Wadsworth Corridor May 2 , 2011 Page 4 4 City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Department ATTN: Sarah Showalter December 10,2010 Page 2 make any changes to those agreements. Additionally, the consent of any lenders who have encumbered any of these properties would also be required for changes. The Pacific Realty Associates, LP Property is encumbered by the attached AGREEMENT CREATING GRANT OF EASEMENTS WITH COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS AFFECTING LAND. This document imposes a number of restrictions and easements on my client's property. Many of those restrictions are fundamentally inconsistent with the terms of the proposed rezoning, however, the proposed rezoning does nothing to eliminate or modify the provisions of the AGREEMENT CREATING GRANT OF EASEMENTS WITH COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS AFFECTING LAND. This problem is critical, because no development can take place that would be inconsistent with these easements and rights without the amendment of the easements and rights, short of the exercise of eminent domain . A .property owner who might be interested in developing its property in accordance witl11he proposed standards would find that the easements and other rights which affect his property would not allow the proposed development. Unless all of the property owners would be willing to amend their property rights, and all of their lenders would be willing to consent to those amendments, the proposed rezoning does not provide any meaningful opportunities for change. The proposed rezoning, even with the provisions for non-conforming uses, would only discourage the existing property owners from investing in those buildings and properties. The requirements for parking lot screening, street orientation and transparent facades, as examples, only serve to discourage property owners from improving their existing properties. The businesses along this portion of Wadsworth Boulevard provide substantial sales tax revenue to the City of Wheat Ridge. Any evaluation of the proposed rezoning should consider seriously whether the types of businesses that would occupy the proposed development would produce sales tax revenue that would replace the sales tax revenue generated by the existing businesses. Additionally, this concept of pedestrian-friendly development is not appropriate for this location. The portion of Wadsworth Boulevard proposed for this change is immediately south oflnterstate 70 - a large and very busy multi-lane highway. There is no prospect that Interstate 70 will ever be relocated away from its current location. The most likely future for Interstate 70 will be continued expansion. Interstate 70 serves as an almost complete barrier to persons coming on foot or by bicycle from north of Interstate 70. Additionally, the exit and entrance ramps on the south side of Interstate 70 make getting to this portion of Wadsworth Boulevard, (00275 186.DOC 2} City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Department ATTN: Sarah Showalter December 10,2010 Page 3 north of the interstate, also problematic and dangerous for pedestrians. Each of Wadsworth, 44th Avenue and 38 th Avenue are major thoroughfares. Pedestrians will not easily be strolling across Wadsworth to window shop and explore. Additionally, this portion of Wadsworth Boulevard is not within a meaningful proximity to the FasTracks station proposed for the Gold Line to take advantage of the transit-oriented development possibilities. The proximity of Interstate 70 serves to provide a serious detriment to any residential development that would be proposed for these properties along Wadsworth--one of the goals of the proposed changes. The noise alone would discourage residential living . Additionally, the residential development planned in the proposed rezoning would be on the upper floors of vertical development. Those upper floors would be even more adversely affected by the noise from Interstate 70, Wadsworth Boulevard, 44th Avenue and 38 th Avenue. The vision of a town center, as contemplated by the proposed rezoning, does not have a strong track record of success . Before any rezoning is adopted, other attempts at creation of town centers should be examined to evaluate the factors that led to success or failure . The most recent example in the metropolitan area was the attempt in Aurora, which has not yet succeeded in creating a pedestrian-friendly town center. In other locations where a town center has been created, the first, and most significant differentiating faCtor has been the fact that the entire property involved has been under the control of a master developer. Both Belmar and the Stapleton Town Center had that advantage . Here the properties covered by the proposed rezoning are owned by a fairly large number of owners, some of whom own large parcels and some of whom own small parcels. Both Belmar and Stapleton also had the advantage of being large parcels where the entire parcel was going to be developed over time. Both were designed with adjacent high density residential complements . The Wadsworth corridor does not have either of those advantages. Neither Belmar nor the Stapleton Town Center has a sufficient track record to determine if this type of town center development will be successful in the long term . Pacific Realty Associates, L.P.has significant experience in mixed use development. It is the developer of the 200-acre nationally recognized Oren co Station in Hillsboro, Oregon. This project was awarded the National Home Builders Association "Best Planned Community in America" in 2000 and the "ULI Top 10 Communities in the World" in 2002. Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. believes the requisite components for successful mixed use development does not exist in this Wadsworth Boulevard location . (002 75 186.DOC 2) City of Wheat Rid ge Community Development Department ATTN : Sarah Showalter December 10 , 2010 Page 4 Pacific Realty Associates, LP strongly opposes the proposed rezoning . If the proposed rezoning proceeds, Pacific Realty Associates, LP would request that the boundary of the proposed rezoning ends at the south side of 44th Avenue, or that the Pacific Realty Associates, LP property be excluded from the proposed rezoning. MAS :jc Attachment {00275186.DOC 2} "-,. 1\11 portions of tho COlrl.':lon are,!!) Shill1 be 1'1aintilin~d as ouL" .· .. ,i above at the expense of the respective o',mer:; thereof, 'rhe arrang:!l'I'er t ~:! the common arcas shilll not be. chan,]cd Cy.ccr>t by mutual ilqr-::(:ment of the owners of 75' of the land ilrea of Parc&l I and Pilrcel II and Parcel III, together with Gateway's written consent so long as it has an interest either a~ t~nant or owner of Parcnl I and the consent c! Bank so long as it has an int-.=rs3t either as O'dner or tenant in Parcal II or III, Subj e ct to the nutual agr~~n~nt of the above-~e~ticn~d parties, a third ?arty nay be appointed as an agent of said parties to maintain the COmDon area in a nanner as above outlined,. Said thi~~ party nay receive for such agency a fee that is nutually accepta~ls to all parties to cover supervision, nanagement, accounting and simi:er fees which sums are to be included in the general maintenance ex?~~se paid b1 the respective o,mers of the co~~on area, Each of the parties hereto a9ree to payor cause to be paid, prio~ to uelinquenc J , directly to the appropriate tay.in~ authorities all real property taxes and assessments which are levied against that part of the co::u:;on ar~a o~med by it. 5. no signs shall be located on tha cOr:l.-:\on areas on Parcels I, II or III except signs advertising businesses conducted th~rEon, wit~· no more than two (2) signs on the cc~"on areas on Parcel I and t~o (2) si'9ns on the C017_':lOn areas on Parcal II and one (1) sign on ?ar- cel III. No signs shall obstruct the in9ress and egress shown o~ Exhibit "A". .. 6. Each par~y hereby incennifies and saves the other party harD!ess from any and all liability, da~age, expsnse, causes of action, s~its, claims, or judgr..ents arising fro::! injury to person or property c...~c i occurring on its O\-In parcel except if caus~d by the act · or neglec~ i of the other party. Each party shall provice public liability ~~sur- I ance with limits of not less than ~lOO/OOO/$300,OOO covering its 1 .... _ obligations unde~ this parag::aph. '. 'OJ' I-.o.c...- ' " .. ' 7. Bank covenants not to permi t any portion of the building area of Parcel II or Parcel III to be devoted to the sale of fr;s~ or smc~ed ! meat, fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, fresh or smoked fish or poultry. I . dairy products, frozen food or general groceries, or any combination r .of these iteins. "". . ----.---_~ .. =.-_~~.:~. __ . __ .. _ .. I I I 8. Nothing herein shall be construed to give either party any ~~ter- est in any a\-Iard or payment ciace to the other party in connectic~ with any exercise of e::linent do~ain or transfer in lieu thereof affec~~ng said other party's parcel or give the pUblic or any government a~y rights in Pa~cels I, II or III, it being agreed that in the eve~t of any such ex~~cise of eminent domair. or t~ansfer in lieu thereof 0= any part of ~~e co~~on areas located on Parcels I, II or III, ~~et the award attributable to the land and im~rovaments of such portio~ 0= the cornnon areas shall be payable cnly to· the o~mer' Tn fte thereof 2:1a no claim thereon shaL.1 be !:lade by the mme=s of any other portion 0:: the co~· mon areas; proviced further, hO I,ever, that all such other owne~3 of t!:!O connon areas ~~y file collateral clains \.ith the cond;~~ing aut~~=ity over and above the value of ~~e land area and i~nrove~;nts so ta~~~, ar.c provided that nothi~q in this parag~aph shall ?r~vent a tenant ~r=m makin9 a clair.1 aqains~ an m-mer pu~sulnt to the provisions of a~y lease betl.'een tena~t a~c o .. -ner for all or a oortic~ of an'" such aware. or nav- ment. It is further agreed that the o~~er o~ the fee of each po~~io~· of the co;:-..~on area so conCE::mec shall n~c~~tlv ~enair anc restor!O the, _c_ mainin9 portion 0: the COr:l..":'.on area so o"~e;;; as nf!iu: as practicC'.~le to t:-.; condition of sa~e ir.~ediately prior to such conder.~ation or tra~S~er to the exten~ that the p~ocecds of such award arc sufficient to pal the costs of such restoration and repair and without ccntribution frc~ anv other-Ol,.ner. - 9. The easenents, restrictions, benefits, and obligations hercu~der sh~ll create nutunl benefits nnd servitu~cs u~on Parcels I, II and III runnin9 with the land, This agreenant shnll ~ind nnd inure ~o th~ hene- fit of the pnrties hereto, their ras?~cti\'a heirs, rcpre~entnti\'~s, tenants, succe~~ors, nnd/Dr assigns. -3-2358 386 '. , ----------.-----~ ... ---... ,---... --,.---~---.. ----.. ~. " ... i!: =-:: ~tng 0." -Co :::0 r .... c: Z", c.-.; "''''Z .... 0 c::» a ....... -<", -"'00( no:-zoo ,..- '1 ~ .J:-<\" '. c,'--E~~ C,I(...J r1 "1r~ -<\0-" ,., --:o1'Tl g ::s: °po.::ll "'OVI '" -000 ; (J);;! X Z c.J PARCEL I ~ The So nt;l 820 eet of B:'ocks 5 ;J.r.c1 6, CO!.iLER';':; G~.-\.':G EXCEPT t:le E:t5 EXCEPT tha r:rt5 feet of s:t~(l E EXCEPT the E:\s EXCEPT t~e \';es EXC:::;PT the \';8S feet of s ... id B EXCE:!Tl' the \"e.3 143.~ feet of the South 145 fe8~ of s~id nloe~~ 5, 243 feat of the Xo~th 120 feet of 'til 3 SOtlth 320 5, feet 10 fe:=t 22 ft.?'2t of 5;.id Bleck 5. of the Sc~th lsb feet of 't!l e ~ortll 170 fee '~ ock G, ::-..no SI".id Blecl.:: G, of ti~~ 50~t~ 320 175 feet of the South 150 feat of snid Slock 3 , and ','J EXCr:?'l' ~h2 SOll -til 10 fee-l of Cou~ty of Jeff0rson , State o~ Colo~~do. PARCEL II said Eloc~\:s 5 T~e South 285 fee~ ot t~e No~~~ 310 fee~ of Bloc~s 5 and 6, co~lehan G~anse, er.cept tha ~st 2~3 feet o~ sa~d Block 5 and ezcep~ ~~e ~est 22 feet c f the South 173 feet ot the North 310 feet of 3aid alo~~ 6 and exce~t t~e West :15 ~eet 0: the So~th 122 fee~ of t~e :~o ~~h 137" f~et 0: .said :Oloc~: 6) Cour.ty of Jef:fc:-so:'., State of: Cclo:,2.co. PARCEL III The North 140 feet of the South 150 feet of the East 165 feet of the West 175 feet of Block 6, COlJLE;-;_-l.X G?_-"XG::: I EXCEPT th.:.t: part of said Block 6, described as foll0 7{s: Beginni~g at the Southwest cor~er of said 310ck 6; .Do. OD 0 en N 01 thence Xorth along the ~est line of Blcc~ 6 a dis:a~ce of 30.00 feet; thence East and oarallel to the South line of Bleck 6 a d~sta=ce o~ 10.00 feet to the true poi=t of beginning; thence along a curve to the left a dis~ance of 31.45 feet, cectral angle of said curve is 90 0 05' and the radius of 20.00 feeti thence West and parallel to the South line of Block 6 a distance of 20.00 feet; thence North and p~ral1el to the West line of Block 6 a distance of 20.00 feet to the true point of beginning, 2:]58 396 EllHIBIT B William P . .Johnson, as Secretary, of \l'JI£J\T Rj()GL: NATIONAL BAl'llK, a national banking association. ~fy comm i ss i on ex pi re s : ~~"""""--"~:.L.U",,=-_. _'t-J,'--'--.I-,r,-,--7-_-.7 __ Y"'" J kIvJ·~. <w IHTNESS MY llANO AND OFFICIAL SEA/ /~rfi; /!- 55. County of Alameda . of The foregoing instrument was acknOl~ledged before me this March , 1973, by PATRI CK S. TOTMAN --,A!:!.s~s.J;t",_V~l.!:..· c~e~..!;p~r~e:.:s~l.!:..· d~e~n~t,--__ • and RICHARD Ii. COSTELLO TA7S~s~i~s""t",a~n!..':t:.....~S~e~c::.:r~e==-t~a~r.l..Y.,.-_--:_. of SAFcWJ\Y STORES, INCORPORATED, duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Maryland. My commission expires: __ ~1~O~-~5_-~7~5~ _________ ___ WITNESS MY AA'iO AND OFFICIAL SEAL. 26thday as as a corporation State of e'unUHIUIUUUflUfUt.t~II'.""IIII~I.'fllllllflffl:' \]f) ( i . I i = 0 OHIU,\1. ~L\L = __ L.J~"'iJ.lI(l"!/.j.')~w-Lu.I .... Q.L-;..I"r:../'j ..... ,.,= L .... ', ... " ... \,..;.\.,,:\>,-~ ________ _ :: PHYlLIS G. l;,Nf:: Ju Nota ry Pub 1 i c ~l. o? :\ NOTARY f'tlI!Ui; r:AlIIJR;11' ". Phyllis G. Lane :: ''-.'':. ~ At.AMEur\ (,Jur-.:1 'r ~ '; iir Cllt;lmlnilll llv!rn OCI.5 , !~::. :: -l l lltll'IIJ"UU I I'Ht)IIUlllt'IJltlflI1 1tllllt!lttlll:: -2 - .... . C ity of ~Wheat~ge ~OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C ity o f Wheat Rid ge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29th Av e. Wh eat Rid ge, CO 800 33-800 I P: 30 3.235.284 6 F: 303.235.2857 April 21 2011 Mr . Michael A. Smith Jacobs Chase Attorneys 1050 17th Street, Suite 1500 Denver, CO 80265 Re : City-Initiated Rezoning of the Wadsworth Corridor Dear Mr. Smith , I am writing in response to your letter, dated December 10 , 2010 , which you wrote on behalf of your client , Pacific Realty Asso c iates , LP , the owner of 75 25 W. 44 th Avenue. I, along with th e Community Development Director, Kenneth Johnstone, attempted to set up a conversation with you and your client to discuss your client 's reasons for opposing the rezoning . Since we have not heard back from you or your client , we wanted to send a letter addressing the concerns raised in your letter from December. As indicated during a brief phone call on March 2 1, 20 II , the Wheat Ridge City Council adopted a resolution on March 14 ,2011 that officially started the process of a legislative rezoning of properties on the Wadsworth corridor, roughly between W . 35 th and W. 45 th Avenues, to the Mixed Use-Comm ercial (MU-C) zone district. The resolution included a map (enclosed) depicting the proposed rezoning area, which includes your client's properly . The boundaries of the rezoning area align with the urban renewal areas , established in the 1990s, along Wadsworth Boulevard . We have reviewed your client's reasons for opposition to the proposed rezoning to MU-C . We are aware of the easements and covenants that encumber your client 's property and the limitations that this creates for new development on the property. However, this situation is also true under your client's current zoning , Commercial-One (C-l), due to an architectural overlay that was put in place with the adoption of the Architectural and Streetscape Design Manual (ASDM) in 2007 . Your client's property is within the Contemporary Overlay, which has build-to requirements very similar to those in the MU-C zone district , as well as architectural requirements that , in some cases, are less flexible than those in the MU-C zoning. While the easements and covenants that encumber your client 's property pose some challenges to redevelopment of the site , they in no way preclude new development that would comply with the proposed MU-C zoning. It is possible that the various property owners subject to the restrictions would agree to amending the restrictions . It is also possible that , in the future , one owner would gain control of all of the properties and have the ability to amend or terminate the restrictions. The document that establishes the easements and covenants is a private agreement that could change, that expires in 2023 , and that is not directly related to the zoning of the site . Exhibit 3 www.ci.whtatridgt.co.us We understand your client 's position that Wadsworth has traditionally been an auto-oriented street. We purposely developed the MU-C zone district to encourage a greater mix of uses and an increased emphasis on the pedestrian, while also recognizing the auto-oriented nature of this major arterial. For that reason , several car-focused uses such as auto repair (with no outdoor display) are allowed as conditional uses. This means that these uses are allowed, subject to an administrative review focused on site design in order to mitigate impacts on neighboring properties. We would also like to emphasize that the City's adopted plans for the area , including the Wadsworth Subarea Plan (2007) and the City's Comprehensive Plan , Envision Wheat Ridge (2009), call for the transformation of the Wadsworth area with higher-density, mixed use development. The intent of the rezoning is to help enable such changes over the coming decades. In response to your client's concern that the new zoning would discourage existing property owners from investing in their properties, there is language in the MU-C zoning that allows some flexibility for existing structures. For example, an existing building can expand up to 15 percent without having to meet the requirements of the code. Second, an existing building that is nonconforming due to design requirements in the code may be altered or expanded as long as the nonconformity is not made any worse . This means that a property owner could upgrade an existing fa9ade, for example, without having to meet the transparency requirements in the code. Overall, the proposed rezoning to MU-C is intended to be a win-win for the City and property owners. It increases the development options for properties through higher allowable densities, a wide range of permitted uses, reduced open space requirements, and flexible parking requirements. In addition , the MU-C zoning creates a streamlined , administrative review process for all new development proposals. I hope that this letter helps to clarify some of the issues related to your client's concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Kenneth Johnstone to discuss any of these points in further detail. ss:~~ JZ~¢ Sarah Showalter, AICP, LEED AP Planner II ~ ~ . .. . • r . CIty of ~WheatRi9ge ~OMMUNllY DEVELOPMENT City of Wheat Ridge Municip al Building 7500 W. 29th Ave . Whe at Ridge , CO 80033-8001 P : 303 .235 .2846 F: 303 .235 .2857 Meeting Date: Attending Staff: Location of Meeting: Land Use Proposal: Attendees: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING NOTES April 13,2011 Kenneth Johnstone, Community Development Director Sarah Showalter, Planner II Lauren Mikulak, Planner I City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29th Avenue Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 City-initiated rezoning ofthe Wadsworth Corridor to Mixed Use- Commercial (MU-C); proposed rezoning boundary is the area within the urban renewal area Jackie Ingenthrone Tom and Gay Anne Fey Al Buerger Jeff Sparkman Dave and Debbie Dowda Don Matoush Ana and Lynne Martineli David Gardenas Susan Peguero Linda Wolf Katie and John Field John Bever Dan Boise Chad Harr Todd Hammond F. Schiller Deanna Leind Lorraine Newmann Maria Nunez John Minshall Alice and Richard Doyle Scott Ohm Jerry Roach Jen Embree-Bever Rolly Sorrentino Margaret Schalt Exhibit 4 www.ci.wheatridge.co.us Existing Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), Restricted Commercial (R-C), Commercial-One (C-I ), Commercial-Two (C-2), Planned Commercial Development (PCD) Comprehensive Plan: Mixed Use Town Center; Primary Commercial Corridor Wadsworth Subarea Plan: Medium to High Density Mixed Use Existing Site Conditions: The proposed area for rezoning encompasses over 60 properties along the Wadsworth corridor, roughly between W. 35 th Avenue and W. 45 th Avenue. The proposed rezoning boundaries follow the urban renewal boundaries for this area. The properties that compose the rezoning area consist of a wide range of commercial uses and all have a commercial zoning designation today (C- 1, C-2, N-C, R-C or PCD). There are a few properties with residential uses and commercial zoning. Wadsworth Boulevard is a 5-lane commercial arterial, owned by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Applicant/Owner Preliminary Proposal: The Wadsworth corridor, between W. 38 th and W. 44th Avenues, is designated in the City's plans as a priority area for mixed use, medium-to high-density redevelopment. The Wadsworth Corridor Subarea Plan, adopted in 2007, designates this portion of the corridor for future medium-to high-density development with a mix of land uses. This vision was refined in the City's recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, Envision Wheat Ridge, which designates Wadsworth as a primary commercial corridor and calls for a mixed use town center between W. 38 th and W. 44th Avenues. Envision Wheat Ridge identified this area of Wadsworth as one of five priority redevelopment areas and recommended the development of new mixed use zoning that could be utilized on Wadsworth, along with other priority redevelopment areas, to allow and encourage high-quality, mixed-use development. To this end, the City developed a mixed-use zoning ordinance that was adopted by City Council in September, 2010. One of the mixed use zone districts, Mixed Use-Commercial (MU-C), was specifically designed for major commercial arterials like Wadsworth. The zoning is intended to allow greater flexibility than the existing commercial zoning in the area (particularly by allowing residential uses), to ensure quality design through the incorporation of design standards, and to create a streamlined development review process for any new development under the MU-C zoning. In order to help implement the City's plans for Wadsworth and establish zoning that will allow for medium-and high-density mixed use development, City Council adopted a resolution on March 14, 2011 to pursue a comprehensive legislative rezoning of the Wadsworth corridor. The following is a summary of the neighborhood meeting: • Staff presented a 30-minute overview of the proposal. The presentation addressed the following topics: o Purpose of the neighborhood meeting o Overview of the current zoning o Overview of the proposed boundary and proposed zoning o History of the City's planning efforts along the corridor, including the Wadsworth 2 Subarea Plan and Envision Wheat Ridge o Overview of the Mixed Use-Commercial zone district, including: allowable uses , building height, and architectural standards o Overview of the rezoning process o Overview ofthe site development process (assuming MU-C zoning is approved), including the concept plan and site plan review procedures • Staff informed attendees of the anticipated Planning Commission and City Council public hearings . The hearings are required parts ofthe rezoning process at which members of the public will be able to comment on the proposal. Notification of the hearings will be posted on the City website and in the Transcript, but there will be no mailings to property owners. The following issues were discussed regarding the rezoning proposal: • Wadsworth is already very busy road, and the proposed mixed use zoning could attract additional traffic. What plans does the City have for widening Wadsworth Boulevard, so it can handle the additional traffic? Wadsworth Boulevard is planned to be upgraded to a 6-lane facility within a J 50-/00t right-of way envelope . Wadsworth is a state highway and is controlled by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). CDOT will be responsible for conducting environmental assessments and a public planning process to identify a final roadway design for the corridor. The City 's Department of Public Works is working with CDOT to secure funding for these processes, but it will likely be at least a couple of years before they begin. In the meantime, new development will be subject to the requirements of the Streetscape Design Manual which will help to improve the pedestrian environment along Wadsworth before and after the road is widened. • Are there currently any development proposals for the west side of Wadsworth between W. 38 th and W . 35 th Avenues (vacant land and the former GO Ford dealership)? No; no specific development proposals have been identifiedfor the site at this time. City Council has identified the property as a high priority redevelopment area and will be defining their vision for the site in the upcoming months. • Why is the southeast corner of Wadsworth and W. 38 th Avenue not included within the boundary for the proposed rezoning? This corner includes a church and residential neighborhood. The area is not included in the rezoning because it is not part of the urban renewal area. It was probably excludedfrom the urban renewal area because it is a well-established area and with no finding of blight. • Will the intersection of W. 41 st Avenue and Wadsworth (by the elementary school) become a signalized intersection? This intersection was identified as a signalized intersection in the Wadsworth Subarea Plan, but CDOT has not taken any action to put a light at this location. The signal was proposed as a traifc engineering solution to create better traffic flow and even spacing between 38th, 4Ft, and 44t Avenues. Discussion of signal locations will be part of CDOT 's planning process if or when Wadsworth is widened. • The vacant lot at W. 35 th Avenue and Wadsworth (south of the former Ford dealership) used to be a running water wetlands , but it currently retains stagnant water. Does this standing water have to stay? To accommodate regional water flow and meet water detention requirements, it probably needs to remain. The water stagnancy may be a reflection of recent drought conditions. Future developers may reengineer the water detentionfacility to improve its function andflow. (Some discussion followed regarding unsuccessful attempts to drain this facility by developers in 3 the past.) • There are no sidewalks along Wadsworth from W. 35 th to W. 38 th Avenues. Are there any future plans to install sidewalks? The City wants to see sidewalks along Wadsworth from W 35th to W 46th Avenues, and we can require that sidewalks be installed as new development occurs along the corridor. Typically a right-of-way reservation will be required with new development to accommodate the future widening of Wadsworth. Based on the reservation, the City will estimate where developers can put sidewalks now so they remain intact even as the road is widened in the future . • How will the neighborhoods on the east and west sides of Wadsworth be connected, and will there be improved ways to cross Wadsworth as a pedestrian? Different options for crossing Wadsworth will be considered during CDOT 's planning process for the roadway widening. Future crossings will probably continue to be at grade (as opposed to an elevated walkway), however there are improvements that can be considered to make the crossingfeel more safe. For example, medians would allow pedestrians to stop safely in the roadway and adjusted signals would allow more time for crossing. • Will the mixed use zoning allow six (6) story apartment buildings? It depends. The Mixed Use-Commercial zone district only allows six (6) story structures for mixed use buildings. For example, if the first floor contains commercial uses, an additional five (5) stories may include residential uses. Single use buildings in the MU-C district are only allowed up tofour (4) stories. For point of reference, the Commercial-One (C-1) zone district currently allows structures up to 50-feet in height. • If the mixed use zoning is approved, how do you prevent the construction ofthousands of rental apartments in six (6) story buildings? The zoning code does not distinguish between renter-occupied and owner-occupied residential units, and six (6) story structures would only be allowed for mixed use buildings. Based on market conditions and preliminary utility capacity studies, it is unlikely that the corridor will be able to support thousands of new residential units. That being said, there is the potential for several hundred new residential units, and the City is encouraging this type of development. New residential construction attracts more people to the corridor, supports business in the area, and provides more housing options for the City. For a variety of reasons, the City wants more people living and working along Wadsworth. • Will there be a new public library on Wadsworth? There is currently no proposalfor a new library on Wadsworth, although civic uses are allowed and encouraged under the mixed use zoning. • If the rezoning is approved and existing property owners want to make improvements to their property, will they be subject to the new architectural standards? The Community Development Department has met with many property owners along the corridor and recognizes the limitations of existing properties. In response , the mixed use code includes language that provides some relief for current structures that do not meet the architectural requirements in the code. If an existing structure is expanded by more than 15% of the gross floor area, the new standards will apply to the expansion, where practical. • The residential transition requirements address new mixed use development adjacent to single-and two-family uses. What are the setback requirements for mixed use development next to the Residential-Three (R-3) zone district (where there is multi-family residential)? Residential transition and upper story stepbacks are required where new mixed use development abuts residentially or agriculturally zoned lots that contain single-or two-family residential uses. These upper story stepbacks do not apply where new development is adjacent to properties zoned R-3, however there are other setbacks and buffers that will apply. For example, surface 4 parking lots on MU-C property are subject to landscape buffer requirements, and all other development is subject to a 5-/00t rear yard setback. • If the rezoning is approved, how soon can someone build and be subject to the mixed use requirements? The Wadsworth rezoning is expected to be approved by late summer, and the mixed use zone district would become effective 15 days after City Council approval. • When the property at 44th and Wadsworth was rezoned, wasn't there discussion of including County buildings? Is Jefferson County still expected to build on that site? The Urban Renewal Authority has been negotiating with potential end users of this site. While Jefferson County had indicated significant interest in locating services at 44th and Wadsworth, they have since withdrawnfrom the site. A recent change in County Commissioners has resulted in a review of the County's capital investment budget. At this point there are no plans for a County building on the site . • Didn't City Council approve $1 million for infrastructure at 44th and Wadsworth to attract the County to the site? City Council did authorize money to supplement the Urban Renewal Authority in the short-term for infrastructure costs. They are using some of that money now for demolition of the existing structures, and will continue to use the funds for infrastructure regardless of whether the County is an end user on the site. • Within the proposed boundary are you planning to rezone only the C-l properties to MU-C? No , the proposal includes rezoning all parcels within the boundary to Mixed Use-Commercial. This includes properties that are currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial (N-C), Restricted Commercial (R-C), Commercial-One (C-l), Commercial-Two (C-2), and Planned Commercial Development (PCD). • What is the timeline for this rezoning process? Although it is not a required step in the rezoning process, our next action will be a study session with City Council. After the study session there will be a public hearing before Planning Commission, followed by a public hearing before City Council. The City Council public hearing is expected to take place sometime in mid to late summer. 5 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ___ _ Council Bill No. ---Ordinance No. ----Series 2011 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPEALS FROM DECISIONS OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge ("City") is a home rule municipality having all powers conferred by Article XX of the Colorado Constitution; and WHEREAS, in the exercise of these powers, the City Council has adopted Chapter 2 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws ("Code ") concerning administration , and including Section 2-31 concerning the duties of the Director of Public Works; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to provide for a right of appeal from certain decisions of the Director of Public Works. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 2-31 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws is hereby amended by consolidating the existing fifteen (15) numbered subsections thereof under a new subsection (a), and by enacting a new subsection (b) to read as follows : (b) The final written decision of the public works director on the following matters may be appealed to the city council: (1) Require public improvements at building permit; Code Sec. 5-45 (2) Administer the Stormwater Quality Ordinance; Code Sec. 20-4 (3) Enforce violations of the street ROW permit ordinance; Code Sec . 21-4 (4) Require replacement of defective work constructed without a ROW construction permit; (5) Suspend or revoke ROW contractor's license; Code Sec. 21-22 (6) Require repair or replacement of defective work in ROW; Code Sec. 21-30 (7) Revoke ROW construction permits; Code Sec. 21-55 (8) Issue ROW use permits; Code Sec. 21-101 (9) Issue street access permits; Code Sec. 21-181 (10) Administer the Floodplain Ordinance; Code Sec. 26-80 The appellant shall file such appeal with the city clerk within ten (10) days of the decision being appealed, on forms provided by the city clerk for this purpose. The city council shall conduct a hearing and render a decision on the appeal at its next regularly scheduled business meeting but not earlier than five (5) days from the Attachment 1 date of submission of the appeal. The appellant and the public works director shall have the opportunity to appear, testify, present and cross examine witnesses and evidence. General public testimony is not permitted. Decisions of the city council on the appeal shall be made by a majority of a quorum present. Section 2. Severability, Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section, subsection or clause of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days after final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of _ to _ on this __ day of , 2011, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge, and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for , 2011 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue , Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to , this day of , 2011. SIGNED by the Mayor on this __ day of _____ , 2011. ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk First Publication : Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript Effective Date: Jerry DiTullio, Mayor Approved as to Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney Massage Parlors: Code Sections 16-223 through 16-235 Massage parlors are regulated by Article X of Chapter 16. The primary distinction between a massage parlor and a massage therapy center or massage therapist is that the persons giving massage are not required to have the 500 hours of training, and are therefore not providing "massage therapy," as defined in Code Section 16-225. A City business license is required for operation. License fees and renewals are $50 under C.RS. 12-48.5-101, there is no state "massage parlor license;" instead, it is clear that local governments are designated as the local licensing authority for that purpose, C.RS. 12-48.5-105. Unique to the massage parlor operation is the restriction that it may not be granted within 750 feet of a church, day care center, school, public park, residential district or the property line of a lot devoted to residential use. Further, no massage parlor may be operated within 1000 feet of another massage parlor or any sexually oriented business licensed under Chapter 3 of the Code of Laws. Presently, the Community Development Department does not measure the spacing requirements for massage parlors, as those appear in Chapter 16. "Massage Parlors" are not specifically listed in the Chapter 26 zone district use chart, Code 26-204, although they could be considered similar to massage therapy centers. If so, they are permitted uses in all commercial and industrial districts. State Statutory Requirements C.RS. 12-35.5-118, enacted in 2008, prohibits local governments from regulating the "practice or profession of massage therapy." C.RS. 12-48.5-101, et seq. does give local governments the authority to regulate massage parlors, and was not amended in 2008 when 12-35.5-118 was adopted, so the two have to be read together, despite the fact that there is also a (limited) definition of massage in 12-48.5-103. Because of C.RS. 12-35.5-118, the City should repeal all its sections on massage except the massage parlor code, Article X of Chapter 16 and the references in Chapter 26 that allow massage therapists and massage therapy centers in certain zone districts and as a home occupation. The Council should also decide whether to apply more stringent requirements to those parlors, as the statute allows. C.RS. 12-48.5-118. The state's "Massage Parlor Code" at C.RS. 12-48 .5-101, et seq. requires that individuals providing massage or staff who work in massage parlors must apply to the local licensing authority [in this case, the City] for a local license. No state license is required. The statute specifically provides that local governments may enact ordinances and resolutions providing more stringent standards for such operations. The statute does not permit local governments to completely prohibit the operation of massage parlors unless approved by local voters at an election. CRS 12-48.5-117. -2- Options for Council Action Massage parlors are more stringently regulated with respect to their distance from churches, schools, residential uses and other massage parlors: Code 16-234. The City does not have a legal basis to refuse to issue massage parlor licenses under Chapter 16 Article X and the parallel state statute, C.RS. 12-48.5-101, on the basis that the persons operating these centers have not received 500 hours of instruction; that is simply not required by statute or the City's Code as at present. In order to bring the City into compliance with the state statute: • The Council should repeal Code Sections 11-230 through 11-240, and 16-240 through 16-250, all of which deal with "legitimate" massage therapy practice, and which is now fully regulated only by state statute. These massage operation uses will still be required to obtain the standard City business license. • Because massage parlors are permitted by state statue, the City must begin processing massage parlor applications under the present Article X of Chapter 16, which does not require 500 hours of instruction. The distance and spacing requirements of Chapter 16 will continue to apply. • Council should determine what agency or department within the City should serve as the "local licensing authority" for massage parlor licenses, as required by the state statute, C.RS. 12-48.5-101 et seq. Under the statute, this is the City Council, unless the Council designates another body or department. We recommend an administrative staff, as was chosen for medical marijuana licenses. • Include under Section 16-226, Definitions, a reference to C.RS. 12-48.5-105(4) requiring licensing of individuals involved in massage therapy, i.e. "Every applicant, licensee, or agent or employee of said applicant or licensee shall, prior to commencing work in or upon the licensed premises, obtain an identity card from the law enforcement agency within the licensing jurisdiction in a form prescribed by the local licensing authority and shall carry said identity card at all times in or upon the licensed premises." • The definitions in Section 16-226 should be expanded to include definitions for Conspicuous Place, and Massage since we are removing the definition of massage therapy. The Council should also consider the following options with respect to massage parlors: • Since the state statute allows local governments to impose more stringent requirements upon massage parlors than contained in the statute, amend Chapter 11, Article X to impose additional restrictions, which could include one or more of the following: -3- o Require standard clothing for all employees [similar to language in the Code sections on sexually-oriented uses, requiring that defined portions of the body be fully and opaquely covered] o Require a direct line of sight from a (staffed) manager's station to all locations where massage is given. o Provide for a right of entry to authorized City officials during regular business hours for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the Code and state statutory standards applicable to massage parlors. • Amend the zoning code to specifically address massage parlors as permitted uses in specified zone districts. Consider restricting massage parlors only to certain zone districts, as is currently done for sexually-oriented businesses (industrial zone districts only). • Encourage the submission of a petition under CRS 12-48.5-117 submitting a question to the registered electors prohibiting the operation of massage parlors within the City. A citizen petition is required to do this; the statute does not permit prohibition merely by action of the City Council. -4-