The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStudy Session Packet 06/21/2010STUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO City Council Chambers 7500 W. 29 th Ave. June 21. 2010 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/Council Report(s) a) Selection of Annual Business Appreciation Awards 2 . 44th and Wadsworth Redevelopment Project ;L WR Business DistrictlWR2020 Funding Request 4 . Mixed Use Zoning Project Update ~ Analysis of outsourcing Building/Plan Review Inspections ~ Public Works potential reduction of service L Town Hall Agenda Ifent-Z . . . , ~' _ ~ City of. ~~WheatBL..dge ~OFF I CE OFTHE CIlY MANAGER Memorandum TO : Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick Goff, City Manager DATE: June 16, 20 I 0 (for Study Session of June 21) SUBJECT: 44th and Wadsworth Redevelopment Project Introduction In 2008 and 2009, Renewal Wheat Ridge (RWR), formerly Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority, acquired and assembled approximately eight acres of property at the southeast comer of 44th Avenue and Wadsworth Boulevard for a mixed-used redevelopment project. The properties were purchased for a total of$3,840,000 using RWR funds and a loan obtained from I S' Bank Wheat Ridge. The remaining balance due on the loan as of June 2010 isjust over $2 .9 million. Attached is an aerial map with the properties purchased outlined in red . With the assistance of Wheat Ridge 2020 , responses to a Request for Qualifications and Request for Development, proposals were solicited for a mixed-use redevelopment project in the summer of2008 . One firm responded to the requests and submitted a proposal in October 2008. The Authority rejected the proposal in December 2008 because it did not meet the requirements of the solicitation. Staff subsequently made contact with the firm Weston Solutions ("Weston") at an Urban Land Institute event and an initial meeting was scheduled to discuss the proposed project. Weston had not originally submitted a proposal in 2008. However, after several additional meetings and the identification of possible tenants for the site, RWR entered into a Master Redevelopment Agreement with Weston on November 5, 2009. Weston hired SEM Architects to create an initial site design and layout for the site. Attached to this memorandum are conceptual plans for the overall project and Phase One of the proposed project. Project Description Phase One of the proposed project includes a 50 ,000 square-foot Jefferson County office building which will anchor the site in the center of the development. The office building will include the departments of motor vehicles , health and human services and potentially a library component. R WR has been attempting to negotiate the land sale price with Jefferson County for several months. Originally, the discussion was for the sale of the raw vacant land, and now the discussion is for a pad-ready site on which the County will build their newl y conceptua li zed County Service Center. As of June 16'\ the County has offered to pay no more than $8.50 /sq . ft . for approximately 116,514 sq . ft . of property , which was originally contemplated as a price for 44th and Wadsworth Memo June 16,2010 Page 2 raw vacant land as opposed to a pad-ready site. Phase One may also include a 9,600 square-foot retail pad west of the office building and south of 1 st Banle The property at this location is currently owned by I st Bank and is used for tenant and customer parking. Weston negotiated a preliminary deal with 1 st Bank for a land swap of this property for a new bank parking lot east of 1st Bank and north of the office building. In addition , the proposed project includes a pedestrian plaza which will serve as a public amenity and a safety zone for pedestrian traffic between 1st Bank and the new parking lot. Weston is currently in discussions with several potential end users of this retail pad . Future phases of the redevelopment project could include retail , office , medical office, multi- family housing, and senior housing, depending on what the market will bear. Weston is currently in discussions with several potential end users for the property on the east side of the site. Discussion Points Project Costs -Preliminary project costs have been estimated by Weston. Current market rents for office, restaurant, retail and residential are significantly lower than what is required to make R WR whole , including land investment and infrastructure costs. R WR paid approximately $10 .75 /sq. ft. for the raw land (appraised at $8.49/sq. ft .) and infrastructure costs for the general development are estimated at about $3 .1 million . Debits Credits Profit Infrastructure $3 , I 00 ,000 CDBG $786,000 Property Loan $2,900 ,000 Property Sales $2 ,595 ,369 TIF $266 ,000 Abatement Escrow $75 ,000 Li brary Donation $100,000 Totals $6,000,000 $3,822,369 ($2,177,631) Assumptions: I . CDBG funds are spent before December 31,20 I 0 2. R WR propelty (Phase I and II) is sold for $8.50/sq. ft. -retail pad sold for $17 /sq . ft. 3 . TIF would be paid back over a 10 year period 4. Library is part of Jefferson County building programming 5. Infrastructure costs based on engineering estimates and not actual bids 6 . There is no additional unknown environmental contamination on the site Based on these assumptions, the completion of this project will require a subsidization of approximately $2.2 million from either the City or R WR or a combination of both . Before contract negotiations can begin, staff is requesting further discussion with City C ouncil and direction on the following items: I . Should this redevelopment project be subsidi zed by the City or R WR at the level of approximately $2.2 million? Ifnot, what level is acceptable? Presumably , the amount of 44th and Wadsworth Memo June 16,2010 Page 3 City subsidy is tied directly to the price per square foot that the County is willing to pay. In other words, if the County is willing to pay more than $8.50 for a pad-ready site, the City Council's potential subsidy could be significantly reduced. Ifno subsidization is acceptable what direction would Council give staff to move this project forward? 2. Should staff identify potential infrastructure costs reductions to decrease the amount of subsidization? Should the vision of a mixed-use, pedestrian-friendly redevelopment project (streetscapes, street furniture , tree lawns, pedestrian plaza, etc.) be amended to decrease the costs? 3. The current debt service is covered with a sales tax share back from the Town Center project (Safeway development). City Council authorized a share back of 50 percent of the Town Center sales tax increment through 2014. The 2009 share back was approximately $232,000. If City Council agrees to subsidize this project, will City Council commit to extending this share back beyond 2014 and potentially increasing the percentage to pay off the debt sooner? Or utilize General Fund reserves? 4. The City has an allocation of approximately $786,000 in Community Development Block Grant Funds which can be used for site demolition and initial site preparation. The funds are required to be spellt by December 31 , 20 10. If R WR is unable to negotiate a deal with the County in a timely manner, or at all , should these funds still be used by the HUD imposed deadline for demolition and initial site preparation for this project or future projects? 5. IfCity Council chooses to move forward with this project, RWR will be unable to pay for the redevelopment expenses lmtil reimbursements are received from CDBG funds and the properties are sold to potential end users. Would the City Council be willing to loan the R WR the funds necessary to start the redevelopment until CDBG funds and property sale revenues are available? A transfer of approximately $3.1 million from the City'S General Fund reserves would be needed in the next several months . We look forward to discussing this project in greater detail with the Mayor and City Council. ATTACHMENTS: I. Aerial Map 2. Phase I Conceptual Plan 3. Overall Conceptual Plan Wheat Ridge Business District P.O. Box 1268 Wheat Ridge, Co. 80034-1268 720-259-1030 June 16 th , 20 I 0 Wheat Ridge City Council , This memo is a request from the Wheat Ridge Business District for an additional $100,000.00 in funding from the City of Wheat Ridge to enhance our Revitalization Incentive Program. Since 2003 the Wheat Ridge Business District has been awarding matching grant assistance for signs, facades, awnings, and architectural design under our revitalization incentive program. In the last three years we have paid $159,295 .00 in completed grants. These grants have been part of 1.4 million dollars of improvements to existing and new Wheat Ridge businesses. The funding for these grants have come from the City of Wheat Ridge @ $40,000.00 per year and a $20,000.00 CDBG grant from Jefferson County economic development. The Wheat Ridge Business District has an active II member board of directors, 3 of which serve at the pleasure of the city council. The other 8 directors are business people who are elected by the Wheat Ridge business community thru Enterprise Wheat Ridge . The Wheat Ridge Business District has continually improved our program thru board actions. Most recently our application was revised, and policies were amended to insure that applying businesses had a strong foundation and history to qualify for maximum grant assistance. In the near future the Wheat Ridge Business District views ourselves playing a role in the new and redevelopment at 44th and Wadsworth, along the 38 th Ave corridor, TOO site, and Cabela's site, as well as individual businesses all over the city. Our near term plans include applying for additional funding from Jefferson County Economic Development thru an additional CDBG grant. Enclosed are some before and after pictures of several of our projects, as well as a spread sheet showing Ollr activity in the last 3 years. If I can clarify any items, or you need any more in formation, contact me. Sincerely, John Marriott Chainnan, Wheat Ridge Business District Business Name Location Type of Grant Jackson Hewitt 4385 Wadsworth Blvd Sign Wheatridge Family Clinic 6301 W 38th Avenue Fa~ade, Awning Lakewood Plumbing 9800 W. 44th Avenue Sign Rocky Mountain Foot & Ankle 7615 W 38th Avenue Sign Blue Sky Plumbing & Heating 4765 Independence Street Fa~ade, Sign Seyfer Automotive 4501 Harlan Street Fa~ade, Awning, Arc. DTI 8955 W 44th Avenue Sign, Awning Lucas Paints 3520 Youngfield Sign Prime Star Solar 13100 West 43rd Drive Sign TCA Construction 6101 West 38th Avenue Sign Yokota Solutions 10160 W. 50th Ave #3 Sign Perfecta Salon & Spa 7777 W. 38th Avenue Sign Jerry Roach 7337 -41 -93 -97 W 44th Ave. Fa~ade, Sign Cress Kitchen & Bath 6770 W. 38th Avenue Fa~ade, Sign, Awning, Arc. Lucky Pony Properties LLC 7300 W. 38th Avenue Awning, Fa~ade, Arc. Amici's Italian 4300 Wadsworth Blvd Fa~ade, Sign, Awning, Arc . Ornamental Beads 5712 W 38th Ave Sign Rejuvenate Fitness Center & Spa 3258 Youngfield Sign Seyfer Automotive 4501 Harlan Street Sign Cone Appetit (Dairy Queen) 6790 W 38th Ave Fa~ade, Awning, Sign OHM Acupuncture 7615 W 38th Ave #B107 Sign DDK Properties LLC/Dennys 3281 Youngfield Service Road Fa~ade, Sign, Awning, Arc. Habitat Home Improvement 10625 W 1-70 Frontage Road #1 Sign Grant Amount Completion 2359.51 June-07 11000 December-07 3000 December-07 3000 January-08 9000 March-08 11000 April-08 3131 April-08 3000 April-08 1369 July-08 2323.5 August-08 1945 August-08 2527.55 September-08 5281.24 November-08 14,000 November-08 11,000 January -09 14,000 Jul-09 2,748 2009 3,000 April-09 3,000 April-09 12,000 May-09 2,358 May-09 14,000 2009 2,737 Jan-lO Total project value 4719.02 75000 6000 6000 35000 61,492.57 6323.53 6000 2738 4647 3890 5055.51 10562.48 185,000 125,000 85000 5496 6075.8 9140.08 128315 4715.91 600000 5787.07 ...... i u ~ E--< E--< ~ Business Name Hydrotropics Corporation Sandalwood Partnership Calvary Temple Christian Church Classy Chattels JOALTO Group, Ltd Lakeside Partners Long Shots Bar & Grill All About Cabinets Roger Loecher Eileen Loecher The Leid Financial Group Location 4830 Ward Road 3825 Harlan Street 7390 West 38th Avenue 7337 West 44th Avenue 3200 Wadsworth Blvd. 4967 Stuart Street 4400 Ward Road 3502 Wadsworth Blvd 4325 Wadsworth Blvd. 4335 Wadsworth Blvd. 12851 W. 43'd Drive. Type of Grant Sign, Fac;ade, Awning, Arc. Sign , Fac;ade, Arc. Sign Sign Sign Fac;ade Awning Arc. Sign, Fac;ade, Architecture Sign, Fac;ade Sign Fac;ade, Architecture Fac;ade, Architecture Sign Grants Paid Approved not yet paid Total Grant Amount Completion 14,000 Not Completed 10,070 Nov-09 1,002 Nov-09 1,100 Not Completed 14,000 Not Completed 11,000 Not Completed 9,000 May-l0 1,444 Sep-09 4,518 Not Completed 6,725 Not Completed 3,000 Not Completed $159,295 Total Projects 40343 199639 Total project value 24945.74 2133.5 19777.37 3566.13 $1,432,381 Rejuvenate Fitness Center & Spa for Women 3258 Youngfield Wheat Ridge BUSINESS DISTRICT Before After Sign Improvements -$3,000 Total Project Cost Estimate -$6,075 January 2009 ~Of O .. rlrTe Wheatl~~ N I u <t: t-< t-< <t: Sandalwood Partnership 3825 Harlan Street Before After FaGade, Sign, and Awning Improvements Grant -$10,070 Total Project Cost Estimate -$25,000 November 2009 Wheat Ridge BUSINESS DISTRICT •• . ~ of 0 -irlrTe Wheat.~~ Before Wheat Ridge BUSINESS DISTRICT Seyfer Automotive 4501 Harlan Street Sign Improvements Grant -$3,000 Total Project Cost Estimate -$9,140 April 2009 After , " • ~Of D-irlrTe Wheat.l~~ Cress Kitchen & Bath 6770 West 38th Avenue Before After Wheat Ridge BUSINESS DISTRICT Fac;ade, Sign, and Awning Improvements and Architectural Assistance Grant -$14,000 Total Project Cost Estimate -$185,000 January 2009 ~ of 0 ~r1£~-e Wheatl~~ Mixed Use Zoning June 11,2010 Page 2 C. Residentialtransitions D. Auto-oriented uses E . Nonconforming properties F. Development review process 4 . Legislative Rezoning Recommendations Process Overview Drafts I and 2 of the mixed use code have included information and input from many different parties . The following summarizes the primary means by which planning staff has received input on the new code: Input from Property Owners in Targeted Mixed Use Areas From January through April , Community Development hosted a series of meetings with property owners in the following four geographic areas that are envisioned for the new zoning : • Wadsworth between 38 th and 44th Avenues • Ward Road TOD • Kipling north of 44th Avenue • 38 th Avenue between Sheridan and Wadsworth At these meetings, surveys were distributed to ask for input on important topics including building height , what auto-oriented uses should be allowed , and how to treat nonconforming properties . Public Input Since February, thanks to funding from LiveWell Wheat Ridge , a website dedicated to the mixed use zoning project has been available for public use : www.wrrnixeduse.com . The website includes a survey with questions about important items in the code, drafts of the code, and a community photo journal where people can post photos of the types of development that they would like to see in Wheat Ridge. Since February, over 350 people have visited the site and 14 users completed the survey, the results of which staff tabulated and analyzed. Community Development also hosted a City-wide open house , to which all citizens were invited , on May 12. Notification for the meeting was posted on the official City website, the mixed use project website, the Channel 8 community bulletin board , a Your Hub article was published . Attendee s were able to view content from Draft 2, ask questions of staff, and complete surveys and comments cards on important issues related to the new code . Approximately 35 people attended the event. Mixed Use Zoning Technical Task Force In order to receive input from likely end-users of the code , planning staff formed a small technical task force of developers , designers , property owners , and real estate brokers. The eight-member team met three times throughout the spring and provided invaluable feedback on all of the content in the draft code. The task force members are : • Tom Bevans -real estate broker at CB Richard Ellis with years of brokerage experience for retail and commercial space in the Denver metro area 2 Mixed Use Zoning June 11 ,2010 Page 3 • Elizabeth Johnson -Wheat Ridge resident and senior architect at Odell Architects , where she has experience designing affordable housing and mixed use projects • John Livaditis -real estate broker at AXIO Commercial Real Estate with years of brokerage experience for retail and commercial space in the Denver metro area • Mike Pharo -a land planner and owner of Michael Pharo Associates who has worked on several commercial development projects in Wheat Ridge • Bruce McLennan -an architect and managing principal at SEM Architects, who has worked on several large mixed use and commercial developments in the metro area • Brian Mott -a developer at mc Holding, which focuses on industrial property, and a property owner in the TOD areaINorthwest Subarea • John Reinsma -senior development manager with Weston Development Solutions, a development company with projects across the globe, with expertise in redeveloping brownfield sites. Weston is also the developer for the urban renewal site at 44th and Wadsworth • Denise Waddell -President of First Bank Wheat Ridge , Denise offers the perspective of financial lenders and is also a property owner on the Wadsworth corridor Planning Commission Staff has had monthly study sessions with the Planning Commission to receive guidance on major content in the code. Most of these items are summarized in the following section of this memo. Overview of Major Code Content This section summarizes key content that is proposed for Draft 3. The Study Session on June 21 Sl will provide Council members the opportunity to ask questions and give feedback on these items. A. Districts and Sub-districts The code is generally divided into two mixed use districts: Mixed Use Commercial (MU-C) and Mixed Use Neighborhood (MU-N). The MU-C district is intended for major commercial corridors, such as Wadsworth and Kipling, where higher-intensity development is appropriate. It is only being contemplated for areas that were exempted from the City Charter height restrictions . MU-N is intended for lower-intensity, nei~hborhood-oriented mixed use areas . The primary area that is targeted for this zone district is 38 t Ave between Sheridan and Wadsworth. It could also apply to portions of 44th Avenue and Kipling south of 44th Ave. MU-N is applicable to those areas not exempted from the height and density restrictions in the City Charter. Within the MU-C district, there are two sub-districts that address geographic areas with unique characteristics: (I) the TOD area next to the Ward Road station, which would be part of the MU-C TOD Sub-district; and (2) properties on commercial corridors that are within close proximity to 1-70, which would be part of the MU-C Interstate Sub-district. B. Building Height The code 's approach is to regulate scale of development and density through building height 3 Mixed Use Zoning June 11 ,2010 Page 4 limits, open space requirements , setback requirements, and bulk-plane strategies. Allowable building heights are based on the desire to encourage denser development, as well as input received in surveys distributed at meetings and on the project website. The following table establishes the minimum and maximum heights allowed by district/sub- district. There is a 2-story height bonus for mixed use development, one of the major tools incorporated into the code to incentivize mixed use. Whichever limit is more restrictive -stories or maximum feet -will apply. The limits in feet were calibrated with input from the task force to ensure that they allow for different construction types, including office buildings, which tend to have higher floor-to-floor heights. Please note that the MU-N district would follow the building height limits set in the City Charter (35 foot max for any building with residential use , 50 foot max for any other building). Building Height Requirements MU-C MU-C Interstate MU-CTOD MU-N Minimum height 20' 20' 20' N/A Maximum height Mixed use building 6 stories (90') 8 stories (118') 8 stories N/A (118') Single use building 4 stories (62') 6 stories (90') 6 stories (90') N/A There is also a requirement in the code that any building over 75 feet in height incorporate an upper-story setback of at least 10 feet. The setback would be required for any fayade of a building facing a street or public space, such as a plaza. There are additional building height stepbacks and height restrictions for development adjacent to low-density residential uses, which are addressed in the following section on residential transitions. Results from the surveys distributed at the May 12 Mixed Use Zoning Open House, which included a question on building height, are attached. C. Residential Transitions The most common comment received at the May 12 open house was that Draft 2 did not have enough protections for residential uses adjacent to new development under the mixed use code . Based on this input, staff has incorporated a larger setback requirement, tied to building height, for buildings adjacent to low-density residential uses. Staff has also discussed with the Planning Commission and task force a 4-story height limit for any portion of a building within 100 ' of a low-density residential use. The following list summarizes the standards that are intended to provide adequate residential transitions, to be incorporated in Dratl3 : For all residentially-zoned lots : • Landscape buffer and screen wall wherever a parking lot or drive-thru facility is adjacent to a residential use 4 Mixed Use Zoning June 11 ,2010 Page 6 Use Car repair (only with indoor storage) Car sales (indoor only -no outdoor display) Gas Stations Drive-up Uses, not fast-food Drive-up Uses, fast- food Auto-Oriented Uses MU-C MU-C Interstate Conditional Permitted Use Use Permitted Use Permitted Use Conditional Use with Conditional Use 1000' separation Conditional Use with 500' Permitted Use separation Conditional Use with 500' Permitted Use separation E. Nonconforming Properties MU-CTOD MU-N Conditional Conditional Use Use Conditional Conditional Use Use Conditional Not Permitted Use with 1000' separation Conditional Conditional Use with 500' Use with 500' separation separation Conditional Conditional Use with 500' Use with 500' separation separation If property is rezoned to the new mixed use code, there are several design requirements in the code -such as build-to requirements -that could make a structure nonconforming. In addition, some uses that legally existed under the previous zoning for a property could become a nonconforming use if that use is not permitted under the new code. Most auto-oriented and light industrial uses are proposed as conditional uses in most districts/sub-districts , which would not result in a nonconforming use. Any conditional use in the new code, such as a drive-thru , would be considered a conforming use but would need to go through the conditional use permit review, which is administrative only, if it wanted to expand. The issue of nonconforming properties is especially important in light of the possibility for legislative rezonings. Based on input from property owners, staff is proposing an approach that allows a fairly high level of flexibility for properties that could become nonconforming under the new code. The draft code incorporates the following approach to nonconforming properties : Nonconforming structures -may remain in perpetuity and can expand by an unlimited amount, provided the nonconformity is not made any worse . New additions should be compliant with the standards in the new code. Nonconforming uses -may remain in perpetuity and may expand up to 25 % of the current floor area. 6 Mixed Use Zoning June 11,2010 Page 7 The existing zoning code does not allow a nonconforming structure or use anywhere in the City to rebuild if it is involuntarily destroyed (such as by a fire or storm), a provision which is rare among municipalities and poses a serious issue for many nonconforming properties that already exist in Wheat Ridge . For all nonconforming properties, staff recommends an amendment to the existing code that would allow the ability to rebuild if destroyed involuntarily. F. Development Review Process An important goal of the new mixed use code is to provide a clear, predictable, and streamlined development review process . Currently, many sites in the City 's priority redevelopment areas would require rezoning under the Outline Development Plan process. This process can be timely, costly, and unpredictable -three factors which deter development in Wheat Ridge. Some comparable jurisdictions in the metro area, such as Lakewood and Aurora, already have "straight" mixed use zone districts that do not require public hearings for development applications. Drafts I and 2 of the code proposed a purely administrative review for development applications within the new mixed use districts. Public hearings would be required for a rezoning (zoning map amendment) to mixed use zoning to take place. However, once the rezoning is complete, specific development plans would be reviewed administratively through the existing site plan review process. Sites over 10 acres, or those that have more than one phase of development, would be required to submit a concept plan for staff review prior to any site plan review process. Based on survey results from the mixed use open house , there is some concern from residents about not including a public review component in the development review process. Based on a recommendation from Planning Commission, staff is considering adding the following public input process to Draft 3 , to apply only to sites that are 10 acres or larger: • A neighborhood meeting prior to submittal of the concept plan for anyone within 600 feet of the property • A public notification period, after a site plan is submitted, in which anyone within 300 feet of the property receives written notice and may submit comments related to the proposed design. There would also be a notice placed on the property regarding this notification period. The intent of the public notification period is to afford the public the opportunity to review the proposed plans and raise any concerns or recommendations specific to the development proposal. Legislative Rezoning Recommendations In meetings with property owners regarding the proposed code, staff indicated that the City is interested in initiating legislative rezonings within priority areas. City-initiated rezonings could be a win-win situation since they would apply the new code in priority areas and remove the burden of the rezoning process from property owners . Interest in -initiated rezonings was fairly high , especially in some target areas . The results of surveys distributed at the property-owner meetings in relation to this question are attached. 7 Mixed Use Zoning June 11 ,2010 Page 8 As the draft code comes closer to completion, staff would like to move forward with legislative rezonings in priority areas. Owners are particularly interested to hear how the City plans to move forward with this issue and there has been some confusion as to whether adoption of the new code simultaneously entails rezoning -this is not the case and staff has made a concerted effort to clarify that rezoning map amendments, whether City-initiated or not , will require a separate process with public hearings before Planning Commission and City Council. Staff recommends the following approach to legislative rezonings by target area: (I) Wadsworth between 38 th and 44th Avenues • Owners in this area have a strong interest in City-initiated rezonings and it also contains a few key development sites that could greatly benefit from the new mixed use zonmg. • Staff recommends a follow-up meeting with property owners this summer (Wadsworth Summit Part II) in which we can present the final draft of the code and ask for a formal response from owners as to whether they would like the City to initiate rezoning to MU-C. We would provide a window of approximately 30 days for property owners to respond with any comments on the City-initiated rezoning map amendment. • After this meeting, staff would prepare a proposed rezoning map and bring it to City Council for review at a study session. (2) TOO Area (Northwest Subarea) • This is a priority area where zoning that supports TOO is an important implementation tool. Property owners are interested in the new zoning and some have already expressed an interest in meeting with staff to discuss ideas for legislative rezoning. • Staff recommends a follow-up meeting this summer in which we can present the final draft of the code and assess which owners are interested in a City-initiated rezoning to MU-C TOO. We would provide a window of approximately 30 days for property owners to respond with any comments on the City-initiated rezoning map amendment. • After the meeting, staff would prepare a proposed rezoning map and bring it to City Council for review at a study session . (3) Kipling corridor north of 44th Ave • Staff recommends waiting to move forward on City-initiated rezonings for this corridor. There is less development pressure and less interest from property owners Depending on future effOlts by Renewal Wheat Ridge for this area , it may make sense to consider legislative rezoning at a future date . • • In the meantime , property owners would be able to apply for private rezoning to the MU-C or MU-C Interstate districts once the new code is adopted. 8 Mixed Use Zoning June 11 ,2010 Page 9 (4) 38'h Avenue between Sheridan and Wadsworth • Planning will be initiating a Subarea Plan for the 38'h Ave corridor early this fall. Staff recommends waiting until the subarea plan is complete to move forward with any legislative rezoning . The subarea plan should help inform where priority nodes for the new MU-N zoning may be. • In the meantime , property owners would be able to apply for private rezoning to the MU-N district. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Survey results from Mixed Use Zoning Open House on May 12'h 2 . Survey results on question regarding Legislative Rezonings 9 Mixed Use Zone Districts City Council Study Session June 21, 2010 Mixed Use Zoning City Council Study Session •Overview of Process •Major Code Content •Legislative Rezoning Recommendations Mixed Use Zoning Overview of Process •Meetings with property owners in target areas: –Wadsworth between 38th and 44th Aves –Kipling north of 44th Ave –Transit‐Oriented Development (TOD) area –38th Avenue between Sheridan and Wadsworth Mixed Use Zoning Overview of Process •Public Input –Website with survey, community photo journal, drafts of code (www.wrmixeduse.com) –Public open house on May 12th –Top of the Hour – Channel 8 Mixed Use Zoning Overview of Process •Mixed Use Zoning Technical Task Force –8 members representing architects, planners, developers, property owners, and real estate brokers –3 meetings in spring 2010 •Planning Commission Study Sessions –3 study sessions in spring 2010 Mixed Use Zoning Code Content Mixed Use Zoning Content Two Districts •Mixed Use Commercial (MU‐C) –Wadsworth 38th to 44th –Kipling north of 44th Ave •Mixed Use Neighborhood (MU‐N) –38th Sheridan to Wadsworth –44th Avenue –Kipling south of 44th Ave Mixed Use Zoning Content Mixed Use Commercial (MU‐C) •Wider range of commercial and retail uses and higher intensity development •Sub‐districts: –MU‐C Transit Oriented Development (TOD) –MU‐C Interstate (on commercial corridor within 500’ of I‐70) Belmar: Lakewood Mixed Use Zoning Content Mixed Use Neighborhood (MU‐N) •More limited range of auto‐ based uses •Slightly stricter build‐to requirements •Lower scale development –w i l l not conflict with City Charter height/density limits Olde Town Arvada Mixed Use District Content Building Height –Allow higher densities in MU‐C areas, especially near the highway and at the future TOD –2‐story height bonus for mixed‐use development –10’ stepback requirement over 75’ high 10’ stepback over 75’ for any façade facing a street or public space, such as a plaza Mixed Use District Content Building Height MU‐N: City Charter height restrictions (35’ for building with residential, 50’ all other buildings) Mixed Use District Content Example of Building Height Question on Survey: What scale of building is appropriate for the Wadsworth corridor? 2‐3 story max 4‐5 story max 5‐7 story max 8‐10 story max Mixed Use District Content Residential Transitions –For all residentially zoned lots: landscape buffer and screen wall where adjacent to parking lot or drive‐ thru use Mixed Use District Content Residential Transitions For all residentially or agriculturally zoned lots with single or two family residential use: •Landscape buffer: 10’ for 1‐2 story building; 15’ for 3‐story building, 20’ for 4‐story and higher •Upper level stepbacks: 5’ per story until 4th story •4‐story height limit: within 100’ of residential, no portion of building over 4 stories 5’ per story stepback Mixed Use District Content Auto‐Oriented Uses •Overall approach: allow in most cases but as a conditional use, which requires an administrative review process •Separation requirements •Exemption from separation requirements for master planned mixed use development Drive‐through window at Highlands Garden Village Mixed Use District ContentAuto‐Oriented Uses Conditional UseConditional Use Permitted Use Permitted UseCar sales (indoor display only) Conditional Use with 500’ separation Conditional Use with 500’ separation Permitted Use Conditional Use with 500’ separation Drive‐up uses, fast food Conditional Use with 500’ separation Conditional Use with 500’ separation Permitted Use Conditional Use with 500’ separation Drive‐up uses, not fast food Conditional Use with 1000’ separation Not PermittedConditional Use Conditional Use with 1000’ separation Gas stations Conditional UseConditional Use Permitted Use Conditional UseCar repair (indoor storage only) MU‐NMU‐C TODMU‐C Interstate MU‐CUse Mixed Use District Content Nonconforming properties • Nonconforming uses: allowed to remain indefinitely; may also expand up to 25% • Nonconforming structures: may expand by any amount as long as nonconformity is not made worse • Staff recommends two changes to existing code: –Allow nonconforming structures and uses to rebuild after involuntary damage/destruction –Extend period of discontinuance for nonconforming use to 12 consecutive months Mixed Use District Content Development Review •O n c e a property is rezoned to MUZ, development review process is administrative: –Site plan review process –Concept plan review: sites over 10 acres or with phased development •S i t e s over 10 acres in size: –Neighborhood meeting (600’ radius) prior to concept plan submittal –Public notification period (300’ radius and sign on site) after site plan submittal Mixed Use Code: Next Steps Mixed Use Zoning Proposed Timeline •Draft 3 released late June/early July •Draft final ordinance July‐August •Adoption with Planning Commission and City Council public hearings in August and September •Study Session with City Council prior to final adoption/public hearing? Legislative Rezoning: Recommendations Mixed Use District Legislative Rezoning 67% 25% 8% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree •Wadsworth between 38th and 44th. Agree with City‐Initiated Rezoning? Mixed Use District Legislative Rezoning •Priority Areas: –Wadsworth between 38th and 44th –TOD area •No immediate action: –38th Avenue (wait until Subarea plan is complete) –Kipling corridor Mixed Use District Legislative Rezoning •Recommendations to move forward with Wadsworth and TOD areas –Meet again with property owners this summer –30 day period to ask questions and express interest in rezoning –Staff returns to City Council Study Session with a proposed rezoning map Outsourcing BuildingIPlan Review Inspections June 14 ,20 10 Page 2 Plan Review Revenue Received -Total Cost to City to Perform Inspections and Reviews = Total Net Revenues from Inspector/Examiner Positions Total Cost to Perform Inspections Only on a Contract Basis -Total Net Revenues from inspector/E xaminer Positions = Total Revenue Change to Perform Inspections and Reviews on a Contract Basis (The Total Revenue Change to Perform Inspections and Reviews on a Contract Basis assumes a cost of $30 per inspection performed , payment of one hundred percent of the plan review revenues to the contract firm, and a one hundred percent reduction in employee saIary costs for inspectors and plans examiners.) The two far right columns represent the estimated cost to the City to contract out inspections and plan review and inspections. Parentheses are used to represent a net loss in revenue. 2007 Co lumn I Colu mn 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Co lumn 6 Co lumn 7 Column 8 Actual Tota l Cost to Ci ty Total Net Total Cost to Tota l Revenue # of Plan Review Revenues from Perfonn Change to Perfonn In spectors! Total Sa laries Ex penditur e to Pcrfoml Revenue Inspector In spectio ns On ly In spections and For Co ntract in spections and Exa miner s In spec tion s Reviews Received· !Examiner on a Contract Review s on a Positions Basis Co nlmet Basis I ($77,183) ($12,960) ($90 ,143) $352 ,022 $261,879 ($114,510) ($376,389) 2008 I ($80 ,164) ($20,070) ($100,234) $48 1,35 1 $381 ,11 7 ($150,3 00) ($531,417) 2009 1.125 ($82 ,670) ($171,900) ($254,570) $165,972 ($88,598) ($319,140) ($230,542) 2010** 2 ($139,056) ($116,640) ($255,696) $90,7026 ($164,970) ($349,290) ($184 ,320) '" 100 percent of plan review revenue received is, by contract, paid to the contract inspection and review finn ifreviews are performed by that firm. The current contracted cost for plan review s is one hundred percent of plan review fees collected. Some contract in s pection and review firms charge the total plan review fee collected plus an additional ten percent. No contract plan review s have been conducted by the contracted firm since early 2007 . •• Annual figures for 20 I 0 are projections based on costs and reve nues during the first trimester, which is typically the s lowe st period of activity each year. In each of the above test cases , the result of outsourcing inspections and reviews would be a significant loss of revenue, ranging from a projected $184,320 in 20 I 0 , to an actual loss of $531,417 in 2008, had these services been outsourced. The average annual loss in revenue from 2007 to 2010 had inspection and plan review services been outsourced would be $330,667. [n addition to the loss of revenue that would occur from outsourcing of inspection and plan review services , other consequences would be reduced consistency in inspection and plan review practices and procedures, a decline in customer service due to reduced or limited access to inspectors and plans examiners by customers, added expense incurred by the City to provide 2 Outsourcing BuildingIPlan Review Inspections June 14 ,2010 Page 3 response to requests for assistance by emergency personnel , and an inability to provide over-the- counter permitting and consultation services without additional expense to the contract firm for these services . 3 Public Works Potential Reduction of Services June 10 ,2010 Page 2 Possible budget savings per year Reduce staff by 1.5 FTE Cost of outsourcing design of $600,000 in small projects (15% fee basis) Cost of on-call engineering for Parks needs (Average $90 per hour) $105 ,000 -$90,000 -$22,500 -$112,500 Therefore, if funding is returned to the crp there would be a net additional cost of $7,500 [t should also be noted that if the Cabela's Shopping Center project moves forward this year , there will be need for approximately 0.75 FTE for a one year period while the project infrastructure is constructed. Traffic Count Program Elimination of the traffic count program would provide an $11 ,000 average yearly budget savings (assuming 170 man-hours). The City traffic count map is available on the City web site and is accessed approximately ten times each day. The traffic information is typically sought by developers , real estate agents , traffic engineering consultants and businesses. Additionally, City staff uses this information when analyzing requests for traffic control devices , reviewing traffic control plans, determining the need for roadway improvements in conjunction with land use cases, preparing grant applications, etc . Street Snow and Ice Control The City provides snow removal service to three priorities of streets dming snow storms as shown on the attached map. A reduction in snow removal service can be accomplished by reducing the streets serviced (Scenario # I) or by performing the service with fewer trucks. (Scenario #2). Scenario #1, reduce streets serviced Current streets serviced Priority Level I streets: 27 miles Priority Level 2 streets: 18 miles Priority Level 3 streets: 41 miles Steep intersections : 1.0 miles Proposed streets serviced Priority Level I streets: 27 miles Priority Level 2 streets: 18 miles (2 lanes only) Priority Level 3 streets: 0 miles Steep intersections: 1.0 miles In 2009 the cost of snow and ice control was $303 ,000. Labor accounted for approximately 19% of the cost of this service. Approximately 75% of the snow removal effort is directed to the Priority Level I streets. Eliminating Priority Level 3 streets from routine plowing, and plowing only two lanes on Priority Level 2 streets is estimated to reduce the cost of snow removal by 15%. Priority Level 3 streets are those streets that are in the hilly residential areas of the City. Public Works Potential Reduction of Services June 10 , 2010 Page 3 A reduction in snow removal would reduce the time spent by Staff driving plow trucks. Reducing snow removal also reduces over-time labor. It is estimated that reducing snow removal service would provide approximately 400 man-hours available for other tasks. Staff would return to performing other inclement weather duties , such as sign repair , sign construction, graffiti removal, etc. earlier than under the current service policy . Ultimately, the reduction in snow removal would allow additional pavement repairs to be performed; thereby reducing the amount of pavement repair out-sourced each year. Estimated snow removal cost reduction Increased pavement patching Reduced pavement repair out-sourcing Total savings $44,000 -$18,000 $24,000 $50,000 Scenario #2, three trucks deployed (instead of the current four truck s ervice) There would be no savings in the cost of snow removal, but streets would be cleared from six to twenty-four hours later than currently performed. Reducing the size of the snow crews would facilitate a reduction of two FTE in the staff. Additional work would have to be out-sourced to accomplish the other services performed throughout the year by a reduced staff. Possible budget savings Two FTEs staff reduction Out-source street sweeping Out-source traffic signal maintenance Net additional cost $110 ,000 -$108 ,000 -$72,000 -$180,000 $70 ,000 If street sweeping were out-sourced, the capital cost of replacing the two street sweepers ($400 ,000) would not be necessary. However, when compared to performing the street sweeping in-house and assuming a six year useful life for street sweepers (the current sweepers are eleven years old), this option becomes budget neutral. Lodger's Tax Uses The 1998 ballot question establishing a hotel/motel tax designated that forty per cent (40%) of the lodger 's tax be used for redevelopment and public improvements within the City. The City Attorney has provided opinions that the revenues may be used for construction activities such as landscaping, traffic signals, and concrete rehabilitation anywhere within the City. Mr. Dahl has also determined that the funds could be used to operate and maintain improvement s constructed with the lodger's tax. This portion of the lodger 's tax may also be used for activities related to redevelopment and encouraging existing businesses to expand. Public Works Potential Reduction of Services June 10,2010 Page 4 While the C ity has historically used the lodger's tax revenues to construct streetscape improvements in the hotel! motel districts of the City, this money ($174,000/ year) could finance other on-going construction, maintenance and redevelopment activities including: Maintenance of the streetscape along Kipling Street and the [-70 Frontage Roads Sidewalk, curb and gutter replacement (City-wide) Salary and benefits of the Economic Development Specialist Econom ic development marketing and organization memberships Summary Yearly $30,000 $50,000 $70,000 $65,000 Engineering Staff could be reduced if the CTP is not expected to include design projects in 20 II. However, the trained and experienced employees should be retained if the CIP is expected to be funded in 2012. While the elimination of the Traffic Count Program will provide a yearly savings of$11 ,000, the program data is heavily used and does promote development within the City. Changing the Snow and Tce Control Policy to eliminate Priority 3 streets will save $50,000 each year. Priority 3 streets are located in the hilly residential sections of the C ity and property owners along these streets have become accustomed to receiving snow removal service. Servicing these streets is a minimal cost in relation to the total City Budget. The portion of the lodger's tax currently funding infrastructure improvements in the hotel! motel districts can be diverted to fund other programs, providing a $174,000 benefit to the General Fund Budget. As always , I am available to discuss the se matters and provide supporting information. ATTACHMENT: I. Snow Route Map