No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA-95-2CI~`Y OF WHEAT RIDGE - MEMORANDUM To LDR Task Force _ From John E. Hayes, Esq. ~~ City Attorney subiect Use of Resolutions Rather Date December 2, 1987 --- - --- an o ions Approved Date In discussing the administrative and legislative process. provisions of the City's land development regulations with Mr. Gidley, the subject has arisen as to the appropriate form which actions approving individual applications should take. The past practice of the City has been (at least recently) to adopt zoning changes by ordinance, and all other actions by motion. Specifically, according to Section 5.10 of the Home Rule Charter of -the City, an ordinance is required for any action "placing any burden upon or limiting the use of private property. This has been, and will continue to be, i{~terpreted as requiring that major zoning actions, or legislative actions, be by ordinance and all other actions (those which are administrative in nature) be enacted by some less formal mechanism. _ Administrative decisions would certainly include final approval of subdivision plats, as well as other miscellaneous plats, and, in many instances, preliminary and final site and/or development plan approval. Administrative approval of preliminary and final site plans as part of the PUD process would be administrative, however, only if undertaken separately from approval at the outline development plan stage, and only if the preliminary and/or final development plan conforms with the provisions of the approved outline development plan. With regard to the proper mechanism for approval of these administrative steps, I am convinced, based both upon my conversations with Mr. Gidley and my observation of incidents over the past eight years, that the better practice is approval by resolution rather than by motion.. The reasons for this belief include the higher degree of formality involved in adoption of a resolution than is in involved in the adoption of a motion, the more certain ability to record. such an action within the City's records and amongst the real property records of the County, and the resultant higher probability of notification to present and subsequent owners of the property and City staff as to the precise terms and conditions of approval. Unfortunately, over the years a number of actions approved by motion have not been retained and filed properly, resulting in enforcement problems and delays to property owners.. While a system of approval by resolution will not automatically resolve these problems, it does- seem to me to offer a.-stronger probability of accurate recordkeeping and resultant better enforcement, and it is for that reason that I commend this matter to you for your consideration. ~y ~,F''x~ { 1 ~.~ 5. `i-~t~ ._ ..h + t .< i. ~H ~''T 4 _4~ [Y~}. ~: :'e..:T T, ib t t {. . Colorado Chap#er _ '.American Planning Assoc~a~ion s :, .. , .. ~.. .; ~? :n It ~~ g ~ F r t ` ri x APACOLORAD ", ~l : ~~,~~~GOQ~`~'` Fourth~Ed~tion ;It, ~ ~°oF ~&o , ~">~ '~ w '1 ' t' IF aN Y e 7 i t,x t , y e 1 I fY elf a3x'J-(.992 ta' cc3T tyQ~~Q` ~.i ° ~~J~'7'#' f a~ Y~ it'ig1~1~1+~y r t 3 t T IZ 1','~"f~ tlS.Ay'1`h? JC V {i ':. !'~'i Y ~, v 1 xt N rvl t kli ~+~~`'Tq~"Nn` rx`~"LI 4.. R4.i d v'vi~v- ° ! ~+pN 1 NI ~ t.'t,11`~ t{ `t aLd x~ t 1 ~E1~11 "~: 1!L 4 4i% ~ 'i ~. Lit '. ,y PP i~xl t 1 i ii YJ +nu ~ + J. ;i i 1 I 1~ 1 j°.• Li } 4)t Ili ~' I l A~~` tl~Y~ ~ 4'x ~ 1 G ~t_ ~` f{C 5k ; 1 . I t Ig ~°r1 A'dG. ~v -3) ~ P ~ t ~ l t i'~ ~ ~. ~ i. ~ 1 v~ 4 1 t t 3. ~ }+ + S1 t .. e ~ r x .7: ~ ~. ~x z DonElliott. ~Esa., ;Editor ,. , l :~,.:~.~'l,` ~~, .. ,,}, III. ELANNED UNIT' DEVELOPMENTS Introduction Local zoning regulations generally dictate permissible uses, densities, floor areas, setback requirements, roadway and open space requirements on a district-by-district basis. In practice, however, they sometimes do not allow certain mixtures of residential, commercial, public and recreational uses. Nor do they generally permit a clustering of residences within broader expanses of shared open space. In recognition of the fact that the rigid separation of uses characteristic of common zoning ordinances sometimes does not allow the flexibility necessary to meet current needs and to adjust to changing demands, the Colorado general assembly in 1972 adopted the Planned Unit Development Act (the "PUD Act"). The planned development process also provides an opportunity to integrate design of the buildings and uses approved for a site (traditionally a zoning item) with the design of the site itself (often governed by subdivision regulations). Perhaps the most important aspect of the PUD Act, however, is that it-enables municipalities and counties=wide discretion to negotiate almost every aspect of the proposed development in return for PUD approval. In theory, the planned development process protects the public interest by trading off more flexi. -local governiuent regulations for a higher level of forethought advantage of-the additional flexibility provided by the PUD Act, for example, the landowner or developer often needs to prepare a more detailed application and development guide than would be required under standard zoning. The development guide often sets forth the particular controls, such as uses, density, setbacks and dedications for the PUD project, and the means for control and enforcement of those provisions. It is important to remember that PUDs are a form of zoning, and t3ie adoption of a PUD is _a_rezoning. This chapter should therefore be read in conjunction with the previous chapter on zoning. In addition, since PUDs and subdivision regulations often deal with overlapping issues, and since in many jurisdictions PUDs are subject to standard subdivision regulations, this chapter should be read in conjunction with the chapter on subdivision. 133 A. Authority for Planned Unit Developments C.R.B. $$ 24-67-101 through 108 1. Planned Unit Development Before State Authorization Some counties and municipalities had approved PUDS before the enactment of the PUD Act in 1972, and those actions have generally been upheld. In finding that PUDs were implicitly sanctioned by pre-existing zoning law, the Colorado Court of Appeals noted that a PUD rezoning allows for a change in use from the previous zoning, but is usually much more restrictive than a standard rezoning. Its intent is to permit diversification of uses, provided that such uses are in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood, must not jeopardize or reduce zoning standards in the area, and should promote the general welfare of the community.i Unlike a standard rezoning, however, changed conditions or prior error are not a prerequisite to the establishment of a PUD district. The prime requisite to establishment of a PUD is that it must be compatible with the existing zones from which it was carved and that it complies with and satisfies all of the standards, procedures and conditions of the local government's planned unit development ordinance.2 2. State Legislation C.R.B. $$ 24-67-101 through 108 The PUD Act provides that any county or municipality that enacted a resolution or ordinance providing for PUDs prior to enactment of the PUD Act (May 21, 1972), may continue to follow their earlier provisions if they wish, or can elect to follow the provisions of the PUD Act. C.R.B. 5 24-67-107. 3 Cities, towns, and counties that had not yet adopted planned development provisions must follow the provisions of the Act.- A county may only approve a PUD for territory within the unincorporated portion of the county and a municipality may approve a PUD for territory within its incorporated area. C.R.B. S 24-67-104(1). The=PUD Act states ten purposes for authorizing counties and municipalities to permit planned unit developments. Those reasons include: encouraging innovations in residential, commercial and industrial development and renewal; encouraging a more-efficient use of land; reflecting changes in the technology of land-development; and providing for necessary commercial, recreational and educational facilities conveniently located to housing. C.R.B. $ 24-67-102. PUDs are authorized in a jurisdiction by the local government's adoption of a resolution or ordinance (the "enabling ordinance"). The PUD Act requires that the enabling ordinance include the following: 134 7(a) A reference to the PUD Act; (b) A statement of objectives of development; (c) A designation of the commission, board or governing body of the county or municipality authorized to review PUD applications; (d) Standards of development consistent with the standards and conditions set forth in the PUD Act; (e) The procedures pertaining to the application for, hearing on, and tentative and final approval of a PUD that affords procedural due process to interested parties (At least one public hearing shall be held and public notice of the hearing must be given in the manner prescribed by C.R.B. $ 30-28-116 or S 31-23-304, whichever is applicable, for the amendment of zoning resolutions and ordinances. Written notice of the hearing shall be delivered or mailed at least fifteen days prior to the hearing to adjoining landowners); and (f) A requirement of a finding that the PUD plan is in general conformity with any master plan or comprehensive plan for the county or municipality. The PUD Act requires that adoption of the enabling ordinance and any amendments to it shall be in accordance with the procedures required for the adoption of an amendment to a zoning resolution or ordinance as prescribed by C.R.B. $ 30-28-116 (for counties) or C.R.B. S 31-23-305 (for municipalities). Note, however, that this requirement applies to the enabling ordinance, and not to applications for individual PUD rezoning ordinances once the enabling ordinance has been adopted. Approval of a PUD constitutes rezoning of the area within that development.4 A county or municipality is not required to have an underlying zoning resolution or ordinance in existence, however, to adopt a PUD ordinance or resolution.5 PUD ordinances and resolutions may be adopted by local governments even for areas that have no zoning regulations. Consistent with the general relationship between home rule powers and zoning W ,~, powers, a home rule municipality's PUD ordinance supersedes the PUD Act.6 4-67-107. B. Statutory ~2e~uirements of a PUD Enablin~Ordinance ,_ A local government authorizes the establishment of PUDs in its jurisdiction by passing a resolution or ordinance that sets forth the standards, procedures and conditions for a PUD in that jurisdiction. Each municipality and county must set forth the standards and conditions for evaluation of a proposed PUD. The local government is required to find that the PUD plan is in general conformity with any master plan or comprehensive plan for the county or municipality. C.R.B. $ 24-67-104(1)(f). An 135 '~u-~'s A~ttF Vo 4w~ T~4r~ Y application for a PUD must meet all standards, procedures and t conditions of the local government's PUD ordinance.? Further, no PUD may be approved without the.. written consent of the landowner whose properties are included within the PUD. C.R.S. S 24-67-105(1). Some local governments' ordinances or resolutions may define the term "landowner," but where the term is undefined or ambiguous, the legislative intent must be ascertained. In Arapahoe County, an application for a zoning change was submitted by an applicant after the applicant had conveyed the property, but prior to recording of the deed. The Court determined the applicant was not the "true" owner of the land and that only a person with an interest in the property may seek a zoning change 8 Frequently, the municipality or county will require proof of ownership of the property from the applicant requesting the PUD. The local ordinance must also include the following standards and conditions by which a PUD plan will be evaluated: (a) The uses permitted in a PUD and the minimum number of units or acres that may constitute a PUD, C.R.B. $ 24-67-105(2); (b) Standards governing the density or intensity of land use, or methods for determining such density or intensity in a PUD, C.R.B. $ 24-67-105(4); and (c) Information that must be submitted with the PUD application to ensure full evaluation of the application, provided that the reviewing board may require such additional relevant information as it may deem necessary. C.R.B. $ 24-67-105(5). The local ordinance may also include the following standards and conditions for approval, although these are not required: (a) The sequence. of development among the various types of uses, C.R.B. $ 24-67-105(3); and (b) Standards for inclusion of common open space. C.R.B $ 24-67-105(6). C. Additional Requirements Permitted in a PUD Enablin4 Ordinance 1. Re*~r,i;ar„~o„r ~f additional Reouirements for PUD Approval While the PUD Act provides requirements and suggestions for the inclusion of standards and conditions in local PUD ordinances and resolutions, it allows _counties and municipalities substantial 136 ( flexibility in adopting additional requirements and specific standards and conditions. It is important, therefore, to carefully review the actual local ordinance or resolution. Courts have held that approval of a PUD may be conditioned upon the availability of water and sewer services, approval of design and construction standards, and the adequacy of access roads, provided the local government has clearly indicated the standards ahead of time.9 ' In addition, the local ordinances may include development exactions, conditioning PUD approval on such issues as dedication of land to the public or payment by the developer for certain street improvements. (See Chapter VI on Exactions, Dedications and Impact Fees). Any such additional requirements imposed on a particular PUD application, however, must be for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety and welfare, and, must comply with constitutional due process and equal protection requirements. 2. Relationship of Aaaitxonal xeouiremenLS w1~ii C.R.B. $ 24-67-105(7) Additional requirements that a local government may include in its PUD ordinance or resolution. may be different from, or modifications of, the requirements applicable under general zoning or subdivision regulations of the county or municipality, so long as the PUD requirements substantially comply with the subdivision provisions of the state statutes and subdivision regulations. In addition, subdivision regulations applicable to PUDs may differ from those applicable to other subdivisions. 3. Adec(uacv of a Local Government's Additional Requirements __ _ . In order for a local government to include additional requirements for a PUD application, beyond those specifically authorized by the PUD Act, the local government must first enact general regulations sufficiently specific to empower the governing entity to impose such additional requirements and conditions in specific PUDs, The regulations must include the detail necessary to implement the intent and to support the additional requirements or conditions imposed.i0 The Colorado Supreme Court has upheld a county's requirement that the developer provide adequate access roads to the development. The Court found that it was within the county's power to impose on a developer the burden of providing reasonable improvements to public facilities made necessary by the development as a condition of approval of that development. The Court stated, however, that there must be sufficient detail to provide all 137 users and potential users of land with notice of the particular standards and requirements imposed by the county for PUD approval.ii In determining whether there is sufficient detail for notice to users of land, the Court may look not only at the local regulations, but also at the general standards and requirements for local land use planning and control in the state statutes and the procedural protections in state statutes. In at least one case, the Court found that there were insufficient safeguards because the regulations were not detailed enough to provide the necessary criteria to evaluate the adequacy of access. The Court also found that the county could not condition approval on the provision of emergency medical services because the county's regulations did not state that emergency medical service was a factor for development approval, and further, the regulations contained no standards for evaluating the sufficiency of emergency medical services.l2 D. Sufficiency of Local Government's Ordinance or Resolution Because PUD ordinances vest much discretion in a planning commission, city council and/or county commissioners, the Colorado courts have required that the ordinance meet the following requirements: (a) it must contain sufficient standards against which the zoning authority's action may be measured; (bj it must not be vague; and (c) it must be applied equally. A PUD ordinance must contain sufficient standards to serve the goals of allowing the flexibility that is the primary virtue of a PUD ordinance, while ensuring that a reviewing board's enhanced discretion will be guided by proper considerations, and that a benchmark for measuring the board's actions will be available in case of subsequent judicial review.l3 In one case, the Colorado Court of Appeals determined that a county's PUD regulations were adequate under the PUD Act where the regulations included such detailed standards as a definition of the calculation of density; a list of integrated uses in the statement of purpose; a requirement of narrative specifications dealing with density, allowable uses, and intensity of land use; and specified the minimum number of units or acres required. The regulations were also keyed to the availability of services, and required geologic and soils reports. Finally, the regulations required extensive submission requirements. The Court held that the regulations provided adequate constraints on the county and established standards facilitating meaningful judicial review of the county's action.l4 Where an ordinance vests unreviewable discretion in a zoning authority, the ordinance will be found void for vaqueness,l5 because the ordinance must contain sufficient standards to guide the zoning authority's discretion. 138 ~ E. Common 9gen Space A local PUD ordinance or resolution may require that common open space be included in the PUD. 1. 9wnershiQ and Mai~tp„an~A of Co mop ODe*+ SEIaCP C.R.B. g 24-67-105(6)(a) and (b) A resolution or ordinance that requires inclusion of common open space may also require that the landowner provide for and establish an organization for the ownership and maintenance of that common open space or that other adequate arrangements be made for the ownership and maintenance. Failure to Maintain Common 9men Space C.R.B. $ 24-67-105(6)(c) and (d) The PUD Act provides that if the organization established to own and maintain the common open space fails to do so in accordance with the PUD plan, the county or municipality may serve written notice"upon the organization or upon the residents of the PUD setting forth the manner in which the organization has failed to maintain the common open space in reasonable condition, with a demand that such deficiencies be cured within thirty days. The notice must also set a date and place of hearing on the matter to be held within fourteen days. If the open space maintenance deficiencies are not cured within the required time period, the county or-municipality may maintain the common open space for a period of one year. Before the expiration of the year, the county or municipality shall, upon its own initiative, or upon written request of the organization responsible for the maintenance, call a public hearing where such organization or the residents of the PUD shall=show cause why such maintenance shall not, at the election of the county or municipality, continue for another year. If it is determined that the organization is ready and able to maintain the common open space in a reasonable condition, the county or municipality shall cease maintenance at the end of the year. If not, it may, in its discretion, continue maintenance during the next year, subject to similar hearings and determinations each year ,t,,~-~- thereafter. ~ re~~^'6"~~ The cost of any maintenance performed by the county or municipality shall be paid by the owners of properties within the PUD that have the right to use of the common open space. Any unpaid assessments will become a tax lien on those properties. F. -Procedure for AnnrovaL of_ a_ P U Plan __-_ Each county or municipality allowing PUDs has a procedure for the submission and review of a PUD application. The PUD Act allows I39 municipalities and counties considerable flexibility in designing their application and approval system. The local PUD enabling ordinance and local land use regulations should be reviewed to determine the particular procedure and requirements. Typical provisions are described below. 1. Application Generally, a PUD application must be submitted, which application will typically require: (a) The legal description of the property; (b) The written consent of the landowners to be included in the development; (c) A list of adjacent property owners; (d) An improvement survey; (e) Site, landscaping and building plans; (f) A written statement addressing the criteria for approval; (g) A development schedule; and (h) Copies of any agreements or covenants that will govern use and maintenance of the property and any common areas. Often, a developer will need to prepare a development guide, which sets forth the standards and conditions for development in the PUD. A development guide may address such matters as permitted uses in the PUD; building setbacks;--lot sizes; building heights; densities; open space; recreational facilities; buffer requirements; lighting; sgnage; fencing; and landscaping. Essentially, the development guide will constitute the land use regulations applicable to the PUD. 2. Review and Consideration of Application Once an application has been completed and submitted, it will usually be reviewed by the local government's planning department staff, who will make a recommendation to the planning commission. The planning commission will hold a public hearing to review the application and its conformance with the local PUD regulations, and shall recommend approval or denial of the PUD to the governing body. The governing body will consider the PUD rezoning application at a public hearing, held after notice is given to the public and adjoining landowners in accordance with the PUD Act. At the hearing, the applicant should present evidence showing that it has met all of the requirements of the local.PUD enabling ordinance, and this evidence should be put into the record. At the hearing, the legislative body will generally approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve the application. In the event the application is disapproved or conditionally approved 140 ( the evidence presented at the hearing and placed in the record will be the only evidence available for judicial review. G. Recording of PUD Not Refired Upon approval of a PUD by a county or municipality, the PUD plan may be recorded in the county property records. Some local government PUD regulations provide .that the PUD plan is not effective until it is recorded. Where the local PUD regulations are silent-on recording, recording is not required because the PUD plans were approved following a public approval process. Thus, the object of recording, notice to the public, is satisfied, and recordation is not required to make PUD plans enforceable against subsequent purchasers of the property.l6 In practice, however, most counties and municipalities do record approved PUD plans in the county real estate records. In addition, an approving municipality need not take any action after approving the PUD plan and application in order to implement the provisions contained in a PUD plan. For example, where a PUD plan included parking provisions, the approving municipality was not required to do anything further after approval of the PUD proposal to cause those provisions to become an enforceable part of the PUD plan.l7 H. Modifications and Amendments to PUDs 1. Modification by Local Government C.R.B. $ 24-67-106(3)(a) and (b) Because those provisions of an approved PUD plan that relate to the use of land and the location of common space run in favor of the county or municipality, those provisions may only be modified., removed, or released by the county or municipality. No modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the PUD plan shall affect the rights that the residents, occupants, and owners of the PUD have in the PUD Act to maintain and enforce those provisions., In addition, no substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the PUD plan shall be permitted except upon a finding, following a public hearing, that the modification, removal or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire PUD and does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the PUD or the public interest, and is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. 2. Modification by Residents and Owners _ C.R.B. $ 24-67-106(3)(0) Residents and owners of the PUD may, to the extent expressly authori2ed by the provisions of the PUD plan, modify, remove, or 141 V y release their rights to enforce the provisions of the PUD plan, but such action shall not affect the right of the county or municipality to enforce the provisions of the PUD plan. I. Enforcement of PUD Plans 1. Enforcement by County or Municipality _ C.R.B. S 24-67-106(1) The provisions of a P-UD plan relating to the use of land and the location of common open space run in favor of the county or municipality, and are enforceable by the county or municipality. 2. Enforcement by Residents Occupants an_d Owners C.R.S. $ 24-67-106(2) All approved provisions of a PUD plan run in favor of the residents, occupants and owners of the PUD, but only to the extent expressly provided in the PUD plan. To that extent, those provisions, whether recorded by plat, covenant, easement or otherwise, can be enforced by residents, occupants or owners acting individually, jointly, or though an organization designated in.the PUD plan to act on their behalf. 3. Enforcement Under Ordinances Not Subiect to PUD Act Where a municipality had adopted a PUD ordinance prior to enactment of the PUD Act, and it continues to follow its own ordinance provisions in lieu of the provisions of the PUD Act, the enforcement provisions of the ordinance or resolution apply instead of those of the Act. Thus, if an ordinance or resolution adopted prior to enactment of the PUD Act allows persons other than residents, occupants or owners to enforce violations of a PUD plan, those persons shall be entitled to seek enforcement.l8 J. Challenge to PUD Enabling Ordinance See Introduction, "Judicial Review of Legislative acts" A PUD enabling ordinance is a legislative enactment, rather than a quasi-judicial decision. Therefore a facial challenge to an enabling ordinance must be brought in District Court as a declaratory judgment action under C. R.C.P. Rule 57. The party claiming the invalidity of a rezoning ordinance has the burden of establishing its invalidity "beyond a reasonable doubt."19 Facial challenges to the constitutionality and validity of a PUD enabling ordinance are far less common than attacks upon a governing entity's application of a PUD ordinance to a particular PUD proposal.. 142 M K. ~ha~~encres to Individual PUD Rezoning Ord;nancPs s.s introduotion, "Judicial Rsvisx o! Quasi-JuQioial sots" Appeals from county or municipal actions approving or denying an application for a specific PUD must be brought in District Court under C.R.C.P. Rule 106(a)(4). A court's review of the governing entity's decision is based only. on a review of the record and evidence presented at the hearing on the PUD application. Judicial review pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) permits the reviewing court to reverse the governing entity's decision only if there is "no competent evidence" to support the decision. The weighing of evidence and the determinations of fact are functions of the rezoning board and not matters for consideration by the reviewing court.20 The following parties generally have standing to appeal from a determination of the governing entity of a county or municipality on a PUD application. 1. Adiacent Property Owners An owner of property immediately adjacent to the property rezoned by a PUD plan has standing to bring an~action to challenge a rezoning that adversely affects his property.Zl Implicit in the decisions granting standing to adjacent property owners is the conclusion that a complaining property owner has a legally protected interest in insulating its property from adverse effects caused by the legally deficient rezoning of adjacent property.22 2. Adiacent Home Rule Municipality The Colorado constitution imposes constraints on legislative action impinging on the interests of home-rule municipalities. A home-rule municipality adjacent to property rezoned to a PUD has standing to challenge the legality of a county's zoning ordinances, such as whether there was compliance with applicable legal standards in exercising the county's zoning powers, or whether statutorily required procedures were violated. A home rule municipality may not challenge a county's discretionary land use decisions, such as approval or disapproval of a PUD plan. Thus, where a home rule city challenged a county's amendment to the county master plan to rezone certain areas to PUDs for research and development, the city did not have standing. The City would have had standing, however, to challenge the approval of a specific PUD application on the basis of violation of the county's own zoning ordinances, zoning powers, or required procedures.23 143 M E M O R A N D II M TO: (1~,'~ Gerry Dahl, City Attorney FROM:JGlen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development RE: I' Proposed Amendments to Planned Development Regulations DATE: April 4, 1995 The. attached proposal, if approved by Planning Commission and City Council, would amend Zoning Ordinance, Section 26-25. Planned Development district. .Bold and capitalized areas are additions and strike-thru areas are deletions. Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed changes in study session and ordered_a public hearing be scheduled.. Please review the attached and comment on any areas of concern that you may have. It would be best if we could meet to discuss the intent of the proposed revisions and go over any specific concerns which you have. If you have significant additional revisions, I would feel obligated to review those with Planning Commission prior to setting the public hearing date. If you do not have significant revisions, I would like to schedule the public hearing for May 4, which means I must publish the agenda item on April 13. GEG:slw Sec. 26-25. Planned development districts. (I) SCOPE There is hereby created a_Planned Development District to further promote the public health, safety and general welfare by permitting greater flexibility and innovation in land development based upon a comprehensive, integrated plan. For the purpose of applying certain regulations and standards, and to ensure maximum flexibility of this district, the district is divided into the following subdistrict designations, based on the primary land use of a proposed development plan or portion thereof: (A) Planned Residential Development--PRD (B) Planned Commercial Development--PCD (C) Planned Industrial Development--PID (D) Planned Mobile Home Development--PMHD (E) Planned Recreational Vehicle Park Development--PRVD (F} Planned Hospital Development--PHD By creating the above subdistricts, the city council recognizes-that all standards and regulations do not apply uniformly to all land uses. These subdistricts may exist singly or in combination within any approved Planned Development; provided, that the specific standards and regulations applicable to the subdistrict are met. (II) INTENT AND PURPOSE (A) The intent of the Planned Development District is to promote the establishment of well-designed, innovative developments which may not be permitted by a standard zone district, however, which may be permitted through the use of an approved development plan by assuring greater control and specificity of intended development char use operations and maintenance, while at the same < ime allowing flexi y an diversity. This district ~ ~ recognizes the great variety of land use intensities, densities and environmental and land use interfaces which are possible.. The protective standards for site use, development, operations and maintenance contained herein are intended to minimize any ~T adverse effect of-the planned development to the community by ANc'1 achieving maximum compatible integration of land uses, by assuring adequate provision of public services and facilit' s, by ~ preserving the aesthetic qualities of the area, and by p viding for safe and efficient use of the land resource itself.(~~It is the specific intent and requirement that all land under consideration for a planned development designation and all land .,~ so zoned shall be and remain under unified control throughout the planning and development phases, as well as after development through continuous operation, use, and maintenance. "Unified control," for purposes of this section, shall mean that the property shall be: - 1 - Cg) ~~ ~ ~ e C6~r7'Rac o (1) Subject to a single ownership, either by an individual, corporation, partnership or other legally recognized entity; or (2) Subject to a comprehensive management agreement, or other form of agreement, ~ h' w '-~„ "-' ' n ' F""' * ~-* ~ ';, which specifies that a distinct person r entity possesses and maintains the authority to make binding commitments on behalf of and thereafter to enforce. implementation of those commitments upon and on behalf of the owner(s) of the property. n p .~~ , ~ Unified control is vital to the city to ensure that planned development projects are developed according to their origin concept as approved and adopted by the city, and so that sa projects, once developed, continue to be o erated and maint in accordance with the original concept a approved and adop by the city council. (E) The general purposes of this section are as follows: al id ained ted (1) To accomplish compatible development with adjacent commercial, residential and/or industrial land uses through proper land use transitions and buffering techniques. (2) To promote flexibility in design and permit diversification in the location of structures. (3) To promote the. efficient use of land to facilitate a more economic arrangement of building, circulation systems, land use and utilities. (4) To preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and to minimize impacts on other natural features of the site. _- (5) To provide for more_usable space through the combination and grouping of structures, parking, loading and storage areas. (6) To combine and coordinate architectural styles, building forms and building relationships within the planned - 2 - developments. (7) To minimize traffic congestion on public streets, control street access, and to provide for well-designed interior circulation. (8) To ensure that adequate public utilities and facilities are available within. the area, to serve the specific development. (9) To promote conformance with the adopted comprehensive plan, established policies and guidelines for the area and fdr the community. (III) APPLICABILITY (A) A Planned Development District of any nature (private, public or quasi-public} may be approved for any single use or any combination of uses; provided, that the intent and purposes of this section are met, and provided that the general health, safety and welfare of the community are advanced through its approval. (B) The provisions herein contained shall apply to the following: (1) Any new application for a rezoning to a Planned Development District. (2) Any application for amendment to an existing Planned Residential (PRD), Planned Commercial (PCD), Planned Industrial (PID), Planned Mobile Home (PMHD), or Planned Recreational Park (PRVD), Development District approved by the City of wheat Ridge prior to the date of adoption of these provisions. (3) Any application for amendment to `an existing Planned Development District approved by Jefferson County prior to incorporation or annexation. (IV) USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ~A) General Regulations: Each Planned Development District establishes its own list of permitted uses, as well as development and use standards and requirements, and such are ;~~ specifically set forth in the OIITLINE development plan, and a,QNn~G~ reviewed by planning commission and approved by city ~ ~ `f council T~°' , agg~e~+xs-f----st=a€ec~in--th ~„t~ ' ~..---, ~ ~ , _. F .-w,. ~ ~/~ _ ~r -r--a~=--ev rr ~~-- C/~" ..~Pt' • 'F ~ .»17_.:-avt-. i ...~_ v_~ri ~ t ~ F ~-L, .. '.T. ... ri_ a...n ra .. a~ ~- - 3 - ~A on;ea - of iL,_ __ ~L .,ae m T ^ ^ ~a_ ~ s ~'1 J' fL nY(1n GYtiC C ~Y_ ~~~tvuiL'te ve i1-},i 7 ,..1 ~ F ~ e _ T..l l..r ,.L -,.. a..~ ~,Y ~a f ~- r•] i 1- • eC ..L... ~ e_ t ••3C~ RL-QSwl L l .i y ++airJ I / Approval of the outlin~elopment plan shall not be construed to be approva of a preli inary development plan or a final development e cept n r spect to - `'`°'°° ~ c4w~. R~wrQ.irvw.yg... .a-~.-Esc.-Aoaa~/r- di ~~Ni,cr„oa..fo . In reviewing a specific request to establish a Planned Development District, or amendment to an existing one, planning commission and city council shall consider standards for similar uses in other Wheat Ridge zone districts, unless otherwise specifically provided herein. Requirements for setback, lot coverage, height, density, area, buffering, landscaping, signage, etc., may be more or leas restrictive than such requirements in similar zone districts, based upon findings of the planning commission and city council which consider a combination of factors including, but not limited to, type and intensity of uses proposed, size and shape of parcel, location,-adjacent uses, adequacy of public facilities,- etc. E%CEPTIONS FROM STANDARD ZONE DISTRICT REGDLATION3 SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A ~ "VARIANCE", HOWEVER IN NO INSTANCE SHALL ANY STANDARD VIOLATE PROVISIONS OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CHARTER. It is the intent of this district to provide a means for allowing innovation and flexibility in design and use of n,,,,o ~~ j~ specific sites, but the provisions of this district shall /"'~"' not be used merely to circumvent the absolute standards of other similar districts. (B) Specific Regulations: (1) Planned Residential Developments (PRD): (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses hereinafter listed shall be permitted only as specifically designated on the approved € OIITLINE development plan: 1. All permitted uses and accessory uses in the residential districts. 2. The following retail service uses may be included within a PRD subject to the conditions set forth in subsection (k): a. Barber and beauty shops. b. Drugstore and pharmacies. c. Grocery store, convenience-type limited to five thousand (5,000) square feet maximum. 1 - 4 - d. Laundry and dry cleaning pickup, and coin-operated laundry establishments. e. Office for sales, lease, or other use reasonably associated with the Planned Residential District.. f. Other uses approved by the zoning administrator as_being similar in_ character and impact to__those uses specifically permitted under this section when consideration is given to traffic impact and parking needs associated with the recommended use. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with, the permitted uses as shown on the approved plan. (b) Area: Each Planned Residential Development District shall be a minimum of -one (1) acre. (c) Density: Maximum twenty-one (21) dwelling units per acre. (d) Height: Maximum thirty-five (35) feet. (e) Perimeter Setbacks: Setback requirements for buildings adjacent to the perimeter of a Planned + Residential Development District shall be - y _ ^^^~ established using setback regulations established .~ P ~~ in standard Wheat Ridge esidential Zone ~ Districts. Exceptions- o those standards may be approved by city council, based upon a finding that a lessor setback would not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties, would not negatively affect neighborhood property values, and would-not be - otherwise injurious to the public health, safety and welfare. (f) Lot Coverage: Maximum seventy-five (75) percent. (See section 26.5 for definition.) (g) Landscaping: Minimum twenty-five (25) percent. (See section 26.32.) (h) Parking: Based upon specific uses .(See section . 26-31.) (i) Fences and Walls: As specifically detailed on an approved Final Development Plan, otherwise follow requirements of Section 26-30.I. (j) Signage: As specifically detailed on and approved on Final Development Plan, otherwise follow requirements of Chapter 26, Article Iv. (k) Commercial IIse Conditions: i. Commercial uses shall be allowed only where specifically approved in a final development plan. 2. Commercial uses, including all associated land used for building space, parking and landscaping, shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the gross area included - 5 - within a particular Planned Residential Development District. 3. Land used for commercial uses shall be calculated separately, and may not be .included in the land area used to calculate the maximum of twenty-one (21) units per acre mandated by Wheat Ridge Home Rule Charter. To ensure this, where commercial uses are a part of a Planned Residential Development, the area used for commercial purposes shall be clearly delineated on the plan, including areas used for parking, ingress, egress, landscaping, etc. If the commercial uses ase part of a generally residential building, or for other reasons cannot be clearly separated from the residential areas, the land attributable to the commercial use shall. be considered to be the building square footage occupied by commercial uses, the required parking, and a proportionate share of the common areas such as ingress-egress, landscaping, roadways, etc. Commercial ventures solely for_the use of the residents, such as food service, laundry facilities, etc., shall be considered an amenity rather than a commercial use, and the land and buildings occupied by such uses are not required to be subtracted from the total acreage before computing the maximum of twenty-one' (21) units per acre. (2) Planned Commercial Developments (PCD): (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses herein after listed shall be permitted only as specifically designated on the approved €~aa~ OUTLINE development plan: 1. Any use permitted in the Commercial-One (C-1) or Commercial-Two (C-2) Districts. 2. Residential uses as approved by city council and subject to the conditions set forth in subsection (B)(2)(j). 3. Accessory uses and buildings customarily associated with allowable uses, as shown on the approved plan. (b) Area: NO MINIMUM. (c) Height: Commercial structures shall not exceed fifty (50) feet; residential structures shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet; residential uses located within a commercial structure shall not be permitted above thirty-five (35) feet. - 6 - (d) Perimeter Setbacks: Setback requirements for buildings adjacent to the perimeter of a Planned Commercial Development District shall be --- established using setback regulations established in standard Wheat Ridge Commercial,ZOne districts. Exceptions.-to those standards may be approved by PLANNING COr4~IISSION OR city council, based upon a finding that a lessor setback would not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties., would not negatively affect neighborhood property values, and would not be otherwise injurious to the public health, safety and welfare. (e) Lot Coverage: Maximum ninety (90) percent. (See section 26.5 for definition.). (f) Landscaping: Minimum ten (10) percent. (See section 26-32.) (g) Parking: Based upon specific uses. (See section 26-31.) (h) Fences and Walls: As specifically detailed on -- approved final development plan, otherwise follow requirements of section-26-30(I). (i) Signage: As specifically detailed on an approved final development plan, otherwise follow requirements of Chapter 26, Article IV. (j) Residential Use Conditions: 1. Residential uses shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. 2. Residential uses, including associated parking, land used for buildings, landscaping, etc., shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the gross area included within a particular Planned Commercial Development District. 3. Where residential uses are part of a Planned Commercial Development, the land used for commercial uses shall be calculated separately, and may not be included in the land area used to calculate the maximum of twenty-one (21) units per acre mandated by the Wheat Ridge Home Rule Charter. To ensure this, where residential uses are part of a Planned Commercial.. Development, the area used for commercial purposes shall be clearly delineated on the plan, including areas used for parking, ingress, egress, landscaping, etc. If the commercial and residential uses are mixed in the same building or for other reasons cannot be clearly separated from the residential area, the land attributable to the commercial use shall be considered to be the building square footage occupied by commercial uses, the required parking, and a proportionate share of the common areas - 7 - such as ingress-egress, landscaping roadways, etc. Commercial ventures solely for the use of residents, such as food service, laundry facilities, etc., shall be considered an amenity rather than a commercial use, and the land and-buildings occupied by such uses are not required to be subtracted from the total acreage before computing the maximum of twenty-one (21) units per acre. (3) Planned Industrial Development (PID): (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses hereinafter listed shall be permitted only as specifically designated on the approved £ OUTLINE development plan: 1. Any use permitted in the Light Industrial (I)District. 2. Other uses approved by the zoning administrator which are similar in character and impact to those uses specifically permitted under this section when consideration is given to the intent and purpose of this section. 3. Accessory uses and buildings customarily associated with allowable uses. (b) Area: NO MINIMIIM. ^~~` ^'' "' T"'"ctriw' (c) Height: Maximum fifty (50) feet. (d) Perimeter Setbacks: Setback requirements for buildings adjacent to the perimeter of a Planned Industrial-Development district shall be established using setback regulations set forth in the-Light Industrial (I) Zone District (Section 26-24.) Exceptions to those standards may be approved by PLANNING COMMISSION OR city council, based upon a finding that a lessor setback would not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties, would not negatively affect neighborhood property values, and would not be otherwise injurious to the public health, safety and welfare. (e) Lot Coverage: Maximum ninety (90) percent. (See section 26.5 definition.) (f) Landscaping: Minimum ten (10) percent. (See section 26.32.) (g) Parking: Based upon specific uses. (See section 26-31_) (h) Fences-and Walls: As specifically detailed on approved final development plan, otherwise follow requirements of section 26-30(I). - 8 - (i) Signage: as specifically detailed on approved final development plan, otherwise follow requirements of Chapter 26, Article IV. (j) Performance Standards: The following standards and conditions shall apply to the development, use, operations and maintenance of any Planned Industrial District hereinafter created, as well as to any Planned industrial District created prior. to adoption of this section. All environmental performances standards set forth are subject to the criteria established in current federal, state or local regulations, whichever criteria is most restrictive. 1. Building enclosures. Every use shall be operated in its entirety within a completely enclosed building unless otherwise specifically provided by the approved final development plan. 2. Outdoor storage and waste disposal: a. All outdoor storage facilities shall be enclosed by a view-obscuring fence, wall and/or landscaping which fully conceals such facilities from adjacent properties, public streets and pedestrian ways. Display of finished products for retail sale on the premises may be allowed, as such would be allowed and regulated in the C-1 and C-2 districts. b. No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a lot in such a form or manner that they may be moved from the lot by natural causes or forces.. c. All materials or wastes which may cause fumes or dust, constitute a fire hazard or may be edible or otherwise attractive to rodents and/or insects shall be stored only in closed containers. d. A11 toxic, corrosive, inflammable or explosive liquids, gases or solids shall be stored in compliance with currently adopted fire prevention code, Environmental Protection Agency standards or other similar standards or requirements adopted by an agency of the State of Colorado. 3. Noise. Noise shall be measured on any property line of the tract on which the operation is located and shall be muffled so as not to become objectionable due to intermittence, beat frequently, shrillness or intensity. Noise shall be regulated so - 9 - as to be in compliance with the Colorado Noise Abatement Act, Colorado Revised Statutes, subsection 25-12-101, as amended. 4. .Odors. Odors from any use hereafter begun shall not be discernible at the property line to a greater degree than odors from plants for the manufacturing or fabrications of books, textile weaves, electronic equipment or other plants in which operations do not result in greater degree of odors. The values given in Table III (Odor Thresholds) Chapter 5, "Physiological Effects," in the "Air Pollution Abatement Manual," by the Manufacturing Chemist's Association, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 1951, shall be used as standard in case of doubt concerning the character of odor emitted. In such cases, the smallest value given in Table III shall be the maximum odor permitted. Derailed plans for the prevention of odors crossing property lines may be required before the issuance of a building permit. Colorado Department of Health, Air Quality Control Commission's currently adopted "Odor Emission Regulation," shall be complied with when found to be more restrictive than the values of the "Air Pollution Abatement Manual." 5. Glare and Heat. Any operation producing intense glare and/or heat, e.g. welding conducted as a regular function of an operation, shall be performed within an enclosure in such a manner as to be imperceptible along any lot line of such operation without instruments, and shall meet the requirements of section 26-30(5). 6. Exterior lighting. Any lights used for exterior illumination shall direct light away from adjoining properties, and shall - meet the requirements of section 26-30(S). 7. Vibration. Vibration shall not be discernible at any property line to the human sense of feeling for three (3) . minutes or more duration in any one hour. Vibration at any time shall not produce an acceleration for more than 0.1 gravities or shall result in any combination of amplitudes and frequencies beyond the "safe" range of Table VI2, United States Bureau of Mines Bulletin No. 442, "Seismic Effects of Quarry Blasting," on any - 10 - structure. The methods and equations of said Bulletin No. 442 shall be used to compute all values for the enforcement of this provision. 8. Emission control of smoke, dust and gases: a. Smoke. Smoke emissions and opacity levels shall be regulated so as to be in compliance with the currently adopted Colorado Department of Health, Air Quality Control Commission's "Emission Control Regulations for Particulates, Smokes, and Sulfur Oxides for the State of Colorado." b. Dust and other particulates. Fugitive dust and other particulate matter from fuel-burning equipment, refuse-burning facilities, and manufacturing shall be controlled in accordance with the Colorado Department of Health, Air Quality Control Commission's currently adopted "Emission Control Regulations for Particulates, Smokes, and Sulfur Oxides for the State of Colorado." c. Gases. Detailed plans for the elimination of fumes or gases may be required before the issuance of a building permit. Sulfur oxide emissions shall be governed by the above-stated "Emission Control Regulations for Particulates, Smokes, and Sulfur Oxides for the State of Colorado." 9. Hazard. Any research operation shall be carried on with reasonable, precautions against fire and explosion hazards. 10. Radiation control_ Radiation and the utilization of radioactive materials shall be regulated so as to conform with Colorado Department of .Health's currently adopted "Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Radiation Control." 11. Electrical radiation. Any electrical radiation shall not adversely affect at any point any operations or .any equipment other than those of the creator of the radiation. Avoidance_of adverse effects from electrical radiation by .appropriate single or mutual scheduling of operations is permitted. (4) Planned Mobile Home District (PMD) (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses hereinafter listed shall be permitted only as specifically designated on the approved €~tb oIITL2NE - 11 - development plan: 1. Mobile homes which are used or intended to be used as a single-family residence upon the premises. General sales of mobile homes shall not be permitted; however, sale of used mobile homes which have been established as a residence in the district will be permitted. 2. Single family dwelling for park owner, operator, and/or caretaker. 3. Accessory uses and buildings customarily associated with and incidental to a mobile home park. This may include service uses, such as a laundry, or retail sales of convenience items where it is shown that such service or retail use is exclusively provided to serve the needs of the mobile home park occupants. (b) Area and Density: The minimum site requirement for a mobile home park site shall not be less than ten (10) acres. Each mobile home lot shall contain a minimum of three thousand (3,000) square feet except lots for .double-wide mobile homes where there shall be a minimum lot area of four thousand (4,000} square feet. In no case shall the density of a mobile home park exceed nine (9) units per acre. (c) Height: 1. The maximum height of mobile homes and accessory structures is twenty (20) feet. 2.' Permanent residence for park management or park resident use only shall not exceed thirty-five {35) feet in height. (d) Width of lot: The minimum width of lot for each mobile home shall be forty (40) feet except for lots for double-wide mobile homes where there shall be a width of fifty (50) feet. The minimum width of lots on curved drives or cul-de-sacs shall have an average width of not less than forty (40) feet. (e) Setbacks: All mobile homes, recreational coaches and accessory buildings shall be set back not less than ten (10) feet from all perimeter property lines, except the front or any other yard abutting a public street shall be at least twenty (20) feet and the yard space so formed shall be landscaped. Greater yards or setbacks may be required where, in the opinion of the _ planning commission and/or city council, such yards or_setbacks are necessary due to the topographic conditions, grading, drainage, and/or protection of adjacent property. No part of any - 12 - mobile home shall be located within any yard of a required setback area. (f) Yard requirements: Mobile homes shall be located so that there is at least twenty-five (25) feet of separation between any other mobile home on an adjacent lot. Accessory structures shall be located so that there is at least ten (10) feet of separation between any other accessory structure or mobile home on an adjacent lot. No mobile home (including the hitch) or accessory structure shall be located within five (5) feet from an interior lot line, road or walk. There shall be at all times adequate vision at intersections to preclude obstruction to view. (g) Site and Lot Coverage: Overall lot coverage within a mobile home park shall not exceed seventy-five (75) percent. Additionally, lot coverage of an individual mobile home lot shall not exceed ninety (90) percent. (h) Landscaping: In addition to landscape areas required under subsection (e) above, the total mobile home park shall be provided with at least twenty-five (25) percent landscape area, and each mobile home lot shall be provided with at least ten (10) percent landscape area. There shall be provided at least two (2) deciduous trees for each mobile home lot. There shall also be provided at the front or rear of the lots at least one (1) evergreen tree for every three (3) lots. All landscaping required herein shall meet the minimum size and maintenance requirements of section 26-32. (i) Enclosure of Mobile Home Park: The following provisions are applicable, in providing buffers between mobile home parks and adjoining properties and abutting public rights-of-way: A greenbelt planting strip of not less than twenty (20) feet in width shall be placed along the perimeter of the park where it abuts public rights-of-way or any other property. The greenbelt shall be developed with a mixture of hardy deciduous and coniferous plant material, grass or ground cover and maintained thereafter in a neat and orderly manner. In addition, a continual ornamental wall or fence six (6) feet in height above grade shall be erected along the property lines which abut other properties and twenty (20) feet from property abutting public rights-of-way, so that the landscape area is between, the street and fence. Walls on - 13 - right-of-way corners shall be constructed to allow for line of sight on the rights-of-way and in accord with the Zoning Ordinance. Such wall shall be landscaped with suitable materials along both sides of such wall for the total length of wall existing along right-of-way. Walls used on property lines not adjacent to streets or roads shall be landscaped on the park side and permitted with the approval of the adjacent property owners. The ornamental wall and landscape materials shall be acceptable to the planning commission and city council. The remaining areas shall be landscaped and maintained with a well-kept lawn or other materials acceptable to the planning and city council and shall be continually maintained in a healthy growing, neat and orderly condition. (j) Addressing and Internal Location System: Mobile home parks shall be addressed to the street from which primary access is obtained. The entire mobile home park shall have one address, with each lot being designated by unit number" (e.g., John Q. Citizen, Unit 27, 760D W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO, 80033). A location map shall be placed at all entrances to the mobile home park, which illustrates the internal road system, location of common facilities and buildings, manager's office, and each mobile home site. Each lot shall be designated by consecutive numbers. Where there is more than one (1) continuous road serving the park, the various roads should be designated as loops (e.g., Loop A., Loop D, etc.). (k) Performance Standards and Requirements: Any person desiring to enlarge, or establish a mobile home park shall meet or exceed the design standards as herein set forth: Access. A11 mobile home parks shall have access to a collector. street if directly abutting thereon. Parks not abutting a collector street shall show several direct routes to a collector street in order that the traffic be dispersed along several routes. Vehicle travel lanes. All roads"and driveways shall-be hard-surfaced and so constructed as to handle all - 14 - anticipated peak loads, adequately drained and lighted for safety and ease of movement of vehicles. Minimum pavement widths shall be twenty (20) feet for two-way roads with no on-street parking allowed, twelve.-(12) feet for one-way roads with no on-street parking allowed, and ten (10) feet for all driveways. The mobile home park road system should be- so designed as to prevent the use of such roads for through traffic: The entire width of the vehicle travel lanes shall be surfaced with approved materials and designed on a suitable road base as approved by the city engineer. Concrete curb and gutters shall be placed along both .sides of all roads. Type of curbs and gutters shall reflect topographic conditions and road design.. Walkways may be required on one (i) or both sides of roads providing access to park. Approval of the design for road system, curb and gutter, and walkways will be subject to the city engineer's approval. 3. Walkways. Public walks shall be provided on the public street side of each mobile home site. All public walks, such as from mobile homes to service buildings and along road and driveways, shall be at least four (4) feet in width. Walks used in common by one (1) to three (3) units, connecting the units to a common area or primary walk, shall be at least thirty (30) inches in width. Walks may be required on only one (1) side of drives leading to service areas. 4. Utilities and other services: a. All sanitary sewage utilities and water facilities, including connections provided to individual lots, shall meet the requirements of the applicable water and sanitation district operating within the city limits of Wheat Ridge and the Jefferson County Health Department. b. The plumbing connections to each mobile home lot shall be constructed so that all lines are protected from freezing, from accidental bumping or from - 15 - creating any type of nuisance or health hazard. c. An adequate amount of culinary water shall be piped to each mobile home lot. The water distribution system shall be acceptable to the water organization servicing such park. d. A drainage plan shall be submitted to the city and approved by the city engineer. Drainage facilities shall be constructed so as to protect those that will reside in the mobile home park as well as the property owners adjacent to the park. e. All electric, telephone and other lines from supply poles to each mobile home lot shall be underground. When meters are installed, they shall be uniformly located. f. Fuel, oil and propane gas storage and distribution systems shall be located designed in conformance with applicable state and city codes, and shall be reviewed and approved by the fire department. When separate meters are installed, each shall be located in a uniform manner. g. Facilities for the storage and disposal of trash and garbage in a sanitary manner shall be- provided in each park. h. When exterior television antenna installation is necessary, a master antenna shall be installed and extend to individual units by underground lines. Such master antenna shall be so placed as not to be a nuisance to park residents or surrounding areas. i. Yard lights, attached to standards approved by the city, shall be provided in sufficient number and intensity to permit the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians at night, and shall be effectively located to buildings, trees, walks, steps and ramps; however, these yard lights shall not cause off-site - 16 - glare, and shall meet the requirements of section 26-30(S). The erection, construction, reconstruction, repair, relocation and/or alteration of all permanent buildings and structures located within a park shall conform to the requirements of the building and fire code adopted by the City o_f Wheat Ridge. 5: Pads, mat's or platforms. Each mobile home lot shall be provided. with a gravel pad acceptable to the department of public works for each location and shall be treated to prevent the growth of weeds, or a concrete pad, mat or platform not less. than four (4) inches in thickness, or of equal bearing strength if reinforced [concrete] is used. Minimum pad dimensions for single mobile homes shall be .twelve (12) feet by fifty (50) feet; minimum pad dimensions for double-wide mobile homes shall be twenty-four (24) feet by fifty (50) feet. Anchor rings shall be provided every fifteen (15) feet in the parking pad, the design of which shall be approved by the building inspector. 6. Fire extinguishing equipment. Every mobile home park shall be equipped at all times with fire extinguishing equipment in good working order of such type, size and number and be so located within the park as to satisfy applicable regulations of the appropriate fire district. 7. Storage Sheds. Each mobile home lot shall be provided with one (1) storage shed constructed of'metal or other suitable material, which shall be uniform as to size and location throughout the mobile home park site. All sheds shall be kept clean, shall be maintained in good condition, shall be kept painted, shall contain a minimum of ninety (90) cubic feet of storage area, shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height, and shall meet minimum setback and yard requirements as set forth in subsections - 17 - (IV) (B) (4) (e) and (f) hereof. 8. On-site laundry. An on-site common laundry facility shall be provided if all mobile homes are not furnished with individual washers. and dryers. 9. Service area enclosures. The city council may require fencing or screen planting around areas containing garbage, rubbish or waste disposal or around service or recreational areas as a condition of approval of a mobile home park. 10. Recreational requirements. In addition to the minimum landscape requirements, a minimum of eight (8) percent of the gross site area shall be reserved for recreational development. These facilities and areas shall be designed with trees, grass, benches, equipment, etc., in relationship to park users. Provision of separate adult and tot lot recreational areas is encouraged. 11. Mobile home skirt. All mobile homes shall have the space between ground level and the underside of the floor enclosed by an opaque or solid, durable screening material.. 12. Patios. An outdoor. patio area of not less than one hundred twenty (120) square feet shall be provided at each mobile home lot, conveniently located to the entrance of the mobile home, and approximately related to open areas on the lot and other facilities for the purpose of providing suitable outdoor living space to supplement the interior space of _a mobile home. A permit shall be required for any canopy or awning used as a patio cover and for any screened, glassed-in or otherwise enclosed awning used as a patio cover and for any screened, glassed-in or otherwise enclosed awning or canopy. Any patio cover or enclosure must meet setback and yard requirements as set forth in subsection (e) and (f) hereof. 13. Federal standards. All mobile homes placed on lots or sites within a mobile home park must meet federal . standards which are no older than five (5} years at the time of placement. 14. Building Permit Requirement: a. It is unlawful for any person to - 18 - construct, enlarge, alter, improve or convert any mobile home park or to improve any lands for use as a park, or improve any lands .f or use as a park, or to cause the same to be done, or to set or establish a mobile home within a mobile home park unless such person holds a valid and existing permit issued by the building inspector for the performance of such work. No building permit shall be issued for any mobile home park, or any mobile home, unless plans for development are in full compliance with the approved final development plan and other related development codes. b. Upon completion of any such mobile home park and prior to the use thereof, and upon the placement of a mobile home upon a lot on site within such mobile home park, the owner or operator of said park, or mobile home, shall obtain a certificate of occupancy. (5) Planned Recreational Vehicle Park District (PRVD). It is the intent of this district to provide for safe, well-designed recreation vehicle. parks as a commercial use of land, approximately located to serve the needs of the tourist and interstate traveler. (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses hereinafter listed shall be permitted only as specifically designated on the approved €~xa~ OUTLINE development plan: 1. Recreational vehicle park which provides facilities to accommodate tourist or itinerant campers. Sale or storage of campers, motor homes, etc., is not permitted upon the premises. 2. Accessory uses and buildings customarily associated with and incidental to a recreational vehicle park district. (b) Area and Density: The minimum size requirement for a recreational vehicle park shall be not less than three (3) acres. In no case shall .the density of the recreational vehicle park exceed twenty (20) units per acre. (c) Height: Maximum thirty-five (35) feet for permanent structures. - 19 - (d) Perimeter Setbacks and Buffer Yards: All main structures, recreational vehicles and accessory buildings shall be set back not less than ten (10) feet from all property lines, except the front or any other yard abutting a public street shall be at least thirty (30) feet and the yard space so formed shall be landscaped. Greater yards or setbacks may be required where, in the opinion of the planning commission and/or city council, such yards or setbacks are necessary due to the topographic conditions, grading, drainage, and/or protection of adjacent property. No part of any recreational vehicle shall be located within any yard of a required setback area. Any yard which abuts property zoned residential shall be required to provide a ten-foot-wide landscape buffer strip and a six-foot-high ornamental, solid wall or fence along such border. This landscape buffer shall be developed with an acceptable mixture of ground cover, shrubs and/or trees to provide both a visual and a noise barrier between the recreational vehicle park and adjacent residential properties. (e) Lot Coverage: Overall lot coverage within a recreational vehicle park shall not exceed seventy-five (75) percent. (f) Landscaping: In addition to the specific requirements set forth herein, the overall minimum landscaping area shall not be leas than twenty-five (25) percent. (See section 26-32 for additional requirements.) (g) Parking and Circulation: Parking to be determined based upon the specific design and uses. All interior roads shall be constructed as to handle all anticipated peak loads, adequately drained and lighted for safety and ease of - movement of vehicles. Minimum widths shall be twenty (20) feet for two-way roads with no on-street parking allowed, twelve (12) feet for one-way roads with no on-street parking allowed. The recreational vehicle park road system shall be so designed as to prevent the use of such roads for through traffic. The entire width of the vehicle travel lanes shall be surfaced with an all-weather, dust-free material as approved by the city engineer. (h) Addressing and Internal Location System: Recreational vehicle parks sha_11 be addressed to the street from which primary access is obtained. The entire park shall have one (1).address, with each site being designated by unit number. A location map shall be placed at all entrances . to the park, which illustrates the internal road - 20 - system, location of common facilities and buildings, manager's office, and each recreational vehicle site. Each lot shall be designated by consecutive numbers. Where there is more than one (1) continuous road serving the park, the various roads should be designated as loops (e.g., Loop A., Loop D, etc.}_ (i) Fences and.Walls: As specifically detailed on an approved final development plan; otherwise, follow requirements of section 26-30(I). (j) Signage: As specifically detailed on the approved final development plan; otherwise, follow requirements of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26, Article IV. (k) Utilities: All water and sewer service and connections shall be designed and constructed so that they are protected from Freezing, from accidental bumping, or from creating any type of nuisance or health hazard. All water and sewer systems shall be reviewed and approved by the district which will serve the park, and are subject to review and inspection by the Jefferson County Health Department. All electric supply lines to each recreational vehicle site shall be underground. (1) Area Lights: Each park shall be designed to provide adequate lighting for pedestrians and vehicles within the park; however, the lights shall be designed so as to eliminate off-site glare, and shall meet the requirements of section 26.30(5). (m> Recreational requirements: In addition to the minimum landscape requirements, a minimum of eight (8) percent of the gross site area shall be reserved for recreational development. These facilities and areas shall be designed with trees, grass, benches, equipment, etc., in relationship to park users. Provision of separate adult and tot lot recreational areas is encouraged. (n) Building, Fire and Other Codes: 1. It is unlawful for any person to construct, enlarge, alter, improve or convert any recreational vehicle park or structures within such a park, or to improve any lands for use as a park, or to cause the same to be done, unless such person holds a valid and existing permit issued by the building inspector for the performance of such work. No building permit shall be issued for any recreational vehicle park unless plans for development are in full compliance with the - 21 - approved final development, and applicable building, fire, health or other related development codes. 2. Upon completion of any such recreational vehicle park and prior to the use thereof,. the owner or operator of said park shall obtain a certificate of occupancy. (6) (o) Business License Required: Recreational vehicle parks .are business establishments, and, therefore, must obtain and maintain a valid business license, and shall collect and pay sales, use, lodger and other taxes as may otherwise be required by law. Planned Hospital District (PHD): (.a) Allowable Uses: The following uses hereinafter listed shall be permitted only as specifically designated,on the approved-~:.,.,, OIITLINE development plan: 1. Public and private general hospital. 2. Hospitals or sanitariums for contagious diseases, or tY~e mentally disturbed or handicapped. 3. Homes for the aged, nursing homes, congregate care homes, hospices or similar residential facilities which are accessory to a hospital or sanitarium principal use. 4. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted uses as shown on the approved final development plan. (b) Area: Each Planned Hospital District shall be a minimum of five (5) acres, except as provided under subsection (6)(e) below. (c) Lot Width: Two hundred (200) feet minimum.. (d) Setback Requirements: Front: Fifty (50) feet minimum. Sides. Twenty-five (25) feet minimum plus, ten (10) feet for each story. The intent is to provide a minimum twenty-five-foot landscape buffer adjacent to residential zoned property. Rear: Twenty-five (25) feet minimum, plus ten (10) feet for each story. The intent is to provide a minimum twenty-five-foot landscape buffer adjacent to residential-zoned property. (e) Height: 1. Hospital buildings: Fifty (50) feet maximum, except as follows: - 22 - a. Sixty-five (65 )..feet where the lot on which the building is to be constructed is at'least fifty (50) acres in size. b. Additions attached to existing hospitals may be built to a height not to exceed the height of the existing building. 2. Offices: Fifty (50) feet maximum. 3. Residential: Thirty-five (35) feet maximum. 4. Accessory: Thirty-five (35) feet maximum. (f) Lot Coverage: Seventy-five (75) percent maximum overall site coverage. (g) Residential Density: No residential development, excluding nursing homes or intermediate nursing care facilities, shall exceed twenty-one (21) dwelling units per acre. (h) Landscaping: Minimum twenty-five (25) percent overall site requirement. Twenty-five-foot landscape buffer required along property lines adjacent to residential-zoned property. Unless otherwise specifically provided for on the approved plan, all landscaping shall meet the requirements set forth in section 26-32. - (i) Parkipg: Based upon specific uses. (See section 26-31.) (j) Fences and Walls: As specifically detailed on an approved final development plan, otherwise follow requirements of section 26-30(I). (k) Signage: As specifically detailed on an approved final development plan, otherwise follow requirements of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26, Article IV. (V) APPLICATION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. All applications for approval of a planned development, redevelopment, lteration addition shall be filed with the `department of ~anning and~velopment. There are three (3) basic steps to the. development approval process prior to issuance of a building permit. The three (3) basic steps are:_ (1) rezoning; (2) site plan and platting approval; and (3) building plan approval. These regulations.-deal only with the rezoning and site plan requirements. Platting or subdivision is regulated by the Subdivision Regulations, wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26, Article III. Building plan approval is regulated by the rules and regulations of the building inspection division in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 5 of the - 23 - Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. ,~ gyp) ~~~~ There are requirements-for an outline development plan a preliminary development plan, and for a final_ development plan, and, in certain cases.,. subdivision approval. -These plans may be submitted for review and approval either separately (regular procedures) or combined (expedited procedures) as described below. _ (A) Expedited Review Procedure: (1) Development Plans. = =___ ___ __.__ ' ~~,-~_--~,~*~y ~ tea' i.ab~ r~ an annl ' _-~- pending on- the ~,`~ ize and complexity of the proposed development, and on the confidence an applicant has that his plan is viable, as well as acceptable to the city. ~ r p~e~ ' - y dc~velogment p13n ""' ~~ ~ ' -, - a.,..-~,-.-'3. r'*~ l'urinary-gad/a-~-€iaazl~7an.__s.,__*he-Plait-~--9 - r~.~.... .......~ ...._ .. i, ~......, ..,~-o._.~ ,/( Subdivision/platting. subdivision or plat review may ALSO ~POR,g/•t~cgL be carried outer-e-ifa~tl~anee~ts33+ with the review of y' development plans required herein. All requirements of the subdivision regulations a preliminary and final plat, -gz:-nvcc'~EC xcxx cv cis-oi-~scxxmsxxcweT- erno must be satisfied if there are any parcel divisions created, or if there are any dedications for streets, easements or other public purposes, or if a previously approved subdivision is amended in any way by the proposed development. ~~ ~~~ ~ _ L~ ~ ,. / ~ AA ,V/// N ~ T ~- llb~ dP l ..'i = ~- ~ 1 (B) Regular Review Procedures: (1) Outline development-plan: THE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS THE REZONING STEP AND THEREFORE IS SIIBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26- 6(C) CHANGE OF ZONE. THE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, IN ADDITION TO CREATING A NEW ZONE DISTRICT BY LEGAL DESCRIPTION, ESTABLISHES THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BEING - 24 - CREATED: • GENERAL CHARACTER • LIST OF PERMITTED ffSES • MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY (IF RESIDENTIAL) • MAXIMUM FLOOR/AREA RATIO FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL • MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT • MINIMUM LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIREMENT ~~ISIIZIGT • MINIMUM ~ PERIMETER BUILDING SETBACKS ANY PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PLANNEDDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, ONCE THE OUTLINE DEVBLOPMENT PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED, THAT INVOLVES E%CEEDING THE MAXIMUM OR REDUCING THE MINIMUM STANDARDS, OR DEVIATES FROM TH8 LIST OF PERMITTED USES OR GENERAL CHARACTER, SHALL 8E CONSIDERED A REZONING ACTION, SUBJECT TO TH8 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26-6 (C) CHANGB OF ZONB. (a) Submittal Requirements: 1. An applicant shall submit an outline development plan for approval of a change of zone to a Planned Development District. The outline development-plan is the zoning ~ f~`113'T©2 and general concept step. It provides generalized graphic and written information ~~ V ~L~~ _ ~..u ~ _ on l~a~+out, ~ r`~`_'_ _ _ PERMITTED use~and int- ended c arh ac~er o~ t~3evelopment. ~(~(,l.(~G}-~ IOtJSI Since minimal engineering detail is required, this step provides the' lowest cost option for an applicant to gain approval of a change of zone and approval of general development-and use concept. The change of zone to planned development and the outline development plan shall be reviewed by planning and development staff, and other affected departments and agencies, prior to being set for public hearings before planning commission_and city council. For the purpose of-these review steps, there will be three (3) different submittals of the outline - development plan: First Submittal - Seventeen {17) copies of the outline development plan for staff and agency review. Second Submittal - Fifteen (15) copies of the outline development plan for planning commission public hearing. Third Submittal - Fifteen (15) copies of the outline development plan for city council public hearing. - 25 - The maps which are a part of the outline development plan may be in general schematic form and shall contain the following minimum information: a. Ownership/unified control statement. A list of all existing owners of real property included within the proposed Planned Development District, and a written statement which describes anticipated future ownership character (i.e. single ownership, partnership, condominium, etc.), and which indicates proposed manner of maintaining unified control throughout the planning, development, use, operation and continued maintenance of the planned development. b. DISTRICT USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AS FOLLOWS: • LIST OF PBRMITTED IISES FOR TH8 DISTRICT AND BACH SUBAREA • MAXIMUM RESIDBNTIAL DENSITY (IF RESIDENTIAL) • MAXIMUM FLOOR/AREA RATIO (IF NONRESIDBNTIAL) • MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT • MINIMUM DISTRICT PERIMETER BUILDING SETBACKS • GENERAL CHARACTER DESCRIPTION INCLUDING ANTICIPATED ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN CONCEPTS, AND OTHER PROJECT FEATURES THAT WILL ESTABLISH THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE PLAN AND PROVIDE A BASIS FOR REVIEWING AUTHORITIES TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ~ Eh € € d ~ . arae er e eve -- ---- ---- --r..----- ---- -- ---- -. -. .-j i___________ . sed ~_.___r...-___ _-_ ,.,-, ,. _--r_ _____,~ „w..,, proga . ;Qe i e~ h - t- €~ 1 i i € ~ t €~ n ~ , i s ...__-___ ___ __ -Fre - nt _____ ____ r__r_ e o , -_. ________ __ __ __ _______~ __. -__r...____ ________ ~_ ___r -___-~ -__ ___-__-___ ________-__~_~ ~~ k _ ~___ :_-_ __ l ` __,~__ _____r-- i~ ~~g s- to~~i~ti-se y e, _= -=-- - ~ievr~ -------- - cQ - 26 - .. a_._...- ,-.r s-u._ -l -y„ - eharae€e~is€~es, ~}}}}~i%.j~smrccii$i$ deve}epmer~~ #~re}t~di~g b*_v,_a s,.~,-__,_ aid €~-re-tdP ~~ea€mee€, _'~z~=o~~ r ,. ~.. ter' ~ Y°~9~~~ ~I ••Y ~• -.a l ..-.a-.-......J-. .-.F ^-.l l ..L.l t ..a r g ~ee~eaeieea} €aei}~€#es ~€ is €}3e ~~._ tw a~}#eartt-p~,4~ Ada a e}ear eeneise .~._._: ~ w_rf.._ ,a .,,, a .. _3. ". "g' "'g _, ,-.. u,-__aV c. The existing topographic character of the land at a contour interval not larger than five (5) feet. d. General indication of areas to be landscaped. - e. Property boundaries as per accompanying legal description. f. Existing and proposed lot lines, easements and rights-of-way on and adjacent to the site. g. Adjacent zoning, land use, streets, streams, etc. h. Location of all existing and proposed streets within the site and ingress/egress points. i. Approximate location and extent of major use areas WITH A XEY TO THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES. j. Any significant EXISTING landscape or land use features which may influence development. k. Scale (no less than one inch = one hundred (100) feet) and north arrow. 1. Sma11 scale location map as an inset which shows the subject property centered within a quarter-mile radius. m. Proposed name of the planned development. r r~~i}isaeien e€ €}~e } ed rsd-t,-}}s,: p~ssib~e ases ~e be iee~ttde~re tie r1......1 __...,.~. ne. Legal description (metes and bounds) of total site, including area. op. Surveyor's certification. - 27 - q. ~~e~ee~ dada €e~ the e~E~re~ize-~~ ~P!'eefi~. i r lax~seage-area aad-gereee~~ per. Development time schedule by phase (see subsection (VII) for limitations). 3. The outline development plan shall be recorded with the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder and, therefore, must meet their basic requirements for recordation. The following certifications, in addition to the required surveyor's certificate, shall also be placed upon the outline development plan: OWNER'S CERTIFICATION - The,below-signed owner(s), or legally designated agent(s) thereof, do hereby agree that the property legally described hereon will be developed as a Planned Development in accordance with the uses, restrictions and conditions contained in this plan, and as may otherwise be required by law. I (we) further recognize that the approval of 'rezoning to Planned Development, and approval of this outline development plan does not create a vested property right.. Vested property rights may only arise and accrue pursuant to the provisions of-section 26-6 (G) of the Code-of Laws. Signature of Owner(s) or Agent(s) NOTARY PUBLIC Subscribed and sworn to before me'this day of 19 Witness my hand and-official seal. NOTARY My commission expires SEAL PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION Approved this day of ,Planning Commission. _, 19 _, by the Wheat Ridge /s/ Chairman PLANNING AND-DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION - 28 - Approved this day of 19 by the wheat Ridge City Council ~J ~ ~} oRID 1 /`/F}NCh MuMlS~2- CITY SEAL Mayor ATTEST: COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS CERTIFICATE City Clerk This document accepted for filing in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder of Jefferson County at Golden, Colorado, on the day of A.D. 19_, in Book Page Reception Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder By: Deputy 4. Accompanying the application, the following is required: a. Fee: UNDER 3 ACRES = $500 3 ACRES OR MORE _ $500 PLUS $100 ADDITIONAL PER ACRE OR PART OF AN ACRE. .. h'.:iu..,...a a: a«.. a.,, ~ - - - - p+}an, e~-eembi~ed~~}an rev}ew. ~~~iewvy(-gee}imir~ar~ ; <: _n, -, __ r--._. 0 Y.,.... a.,...a a,.,, ,, Ih~nn nn1 ..,. T . b. Evidence that the required neighborhood referral meeting has occurred (See section 26-6(F){1)). c. Complete and notarized application. d. Proof of ownership, such as copies of deeds or title commitment. e. Power of attorney from owner(s) where an agent acts on behalf of the owner(s). f. Names and address of all adjacent property owners, including property across abutting streets. g. Names, addresses, telephone numbers of architects and engineers associated with the preparation of the plans. 5. Additional information may be required, including, but not limited to, geological stability report, traffic impact report, flood plain impact report, or general environmental impact report. - 29 - (b) Review Procedures: . ~ ~~ e `° U ~ ~ TDi~,, _ ~(~Q~~-~- "~~ V_ ~'' ~~ Q~~.,e~- - . ,/ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~'~. i. Staff Review: Upon filing of an application and other required documents, planning and development staff will refer copies of the plans to affected departments and agencies for review. All comments shall be forwarded to the applicant so that necessary revisions may be made by the applicant prior to scheduling the application before planning commission. Once staff is assured that all required documents and revisions thereto have been received, notice of public hearing shall occur in accordance with requirements set forth in section 26-6(F). 2. Planning commission hearing. Planning commission shall hold a public hearing and within ninety (90) days of the public hearing date, exclusive of time 'requested by the applicant for continuances, shall adopt a resolution which recommends to city council.-approval, approval. with modifications or denial, and such resolution shall state the reasons for such __ recommendations. 3. City council hearing: Upon receipt of the planning commission's resolution, the city clerk shall schedule 1ST AND 2 ING OF THS REZONING ORDINANCE SET a public hearing before city council and cause public notice as required by section 26-6(F). City Council shall hold a public hearing and within ninety (90) days of the public hearing, exclusive of time requested by the applicant for continuances, shall approve, approve with modifications or deny the ~~~ "__~`_'_c~ ORDINANCE- ON 2ND READING. tion: A11 approved outline ment plans shall be recorded 30 - with the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder. Such plans, and associated recording fees shall be submitted to planing and development department within thirty (30) days of council's final action. Should a recordable approved outline development plan not be provided to staff within sixty (60) days of .council's final action, staff shall schedule a public hearing-before city council, and city council MAY EXTEND SIICH TIME PERIOD, OR MAY ORDER THE CITY CLERK TO SCHEDULE AN ORDINANCE FOR 1ST AND 2ND READING AND 3ET ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING TO reconsider the previous approval. (2) Preliminary development plan (and preliminary plat): (a) Submittal Requirements: An application for approval of a preliminary development plan is required only for a multi-phased project where a final development plan is or will be submitted for only a portion of the area included within a Planned Development District. It permits the consideration of the platting details for the entire site as they relate to lots, streets, access, drainage, utilities, easements and other public (or common) improvements or needs. This step requires detailed preliminary plat information, but does not require the detailed site development information required with a final development plan. The preliminary development plan shall be consistent with the approved outline development plan. The preliminary development plan (and plat) shall be reviewed by planning and development staff, and other affected departments and agencies, prior to being set for public hearing before planning commission. For the purpose of these review steps, there will be two (2) different submittals of the preliminary development plan (and plat), except where an appeal of a planning commission decision to city council occurs. First Submittal -- Seventeen (17) copies of the preliminary development plan (and plat) for staff and review agencies. i - 31 - Second Submittal-- Fifteen (15) copies of the preliminary development plan (and-plat) for planning commission public hearing. 2 Third Submittal (optional) -- Fifteen (15) copies of the preliminary development plan (and plat), for city council appeal hearing. Accompanying the application, the following is required: a. Fee: UNDER 3 ACRES = $250 3 ACRES OR MORE _ $250 PLII3 $50 ADDITIONAL PER ACRE OR PART OF AN ACRE. ^""' '"'^a_.,a a,.~~...,.,. ,b~nn nn~ b. Complete and notarized application. c. Proof of ownership, such as copies o.f deeds or title commitment. d. Power-of attorney from owner(s) where an agent acts on behalf of the owner(s). e. Names and address of all adjacent property owners, including property across abutting streets. f. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of owner, licensed surveyor, licensed engineer and designer of plat. g. Agreements, provisions, condominium declarations, covenants, etc., which govern the development, use, maintenance and continued protection for the planned development and-any of its common areas or facilities. It is specifically required that uniform control be demonstrated. The preliminary development plan (and plat) shall be drawn at a scale of not less than. one (1) inch to one hundred (100) feet. and containing the following: a. Name of proposed plan (and plat), date of preparation, scale and north arrow. b. Legal description and area of entire parcel included within the Planned Development District. c. Small scale location map with zoning of adjacent surrounding properties. d. Location of all existing and proposed lot lines and numbering of lots and blocks. Where a plat or subdivision approval is proposed simultaneously. with development plan review, the requirements of the subdivision regulations for a preliminary plat - 32 - must be met. (Chapter 26, Article III.) e. Location of all-existing and proposed public and primate rights-of-way and easement lines located on and adjacent to the property which are proposed to be continued, created, relocated or abandoned. f. Existing grade and proposed finish grade of the site shown by contours with intervals not larger than two (2) feet. g. The approximate location of every existing and proposed structure or building envelope in the described parcel, the expected use or uses to be contained therein, the number of dwelling units (if applicable) and the maximum gross floor area. h. Location, dimension and elevations of all existing and proposed streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, alleys, easements, drainage areas, irrigation ditches, lakes or ponds, and other significant features within or adjacent to the tract to be subdivided or developed. i. Quantitative tabulations and percentages for building coverages, total lot coverage, parking areas, -- landscape areas, open areas, etc. j. Locations of all proposed curb cuts, parking areas and loading areas. k. Location of all proposed walks, malls and other open area as they may relate to the entire site. 1. All existing and proposed water and sewer lines and their source of supply and all electric lines and their maximum capacity. m. A drainage plan of the entire site. The. approximate volume of water generated by expected development and the proposed method of disposing of said water. n. All irrigation ditches shall be located and labeled with name of ditch company or owner(s), and name(s) and address(es) of the appropriate contact. Any proposed changes to irrigation ditches must be indicated, and a letter from the ditch owner(s) approving of such changes must be submitted. o. Geological stability information when requested by the city. - 33 - p. Designation of the 100-year flood plain and/or wetlands where applicable. q. Development schedule by phase which indicates expected time of beginning and ending of construction. Where improvements will be needed outside of an area for which a final development plan is or is,proposed to be approved in order for that area to properly function, a detailed phasing schedule and design plans shall be required for those improvements. (e.g., storm drainage facilities located within the Planned Development District, but outside of the area proposed for-final development plan approval). All temporary or interim facilities shall be so designated, and design specifications provided therefor. (See section 26-25 (VII) for limitations). (b) Review Procedures: 1. Staff Review: Upon filing of an application and other required documents, planning and development staff shall refer copies ,of the plans to affected departments and agencies for review. All comments shall be forwarded to the applicant so that necessary revisions may be made by the. applicant prior to scheduling the application before planning .commission. Once staff is assured that all required documents and revisions thereto have been received, notice of public hearing shall occur in accordance with requirements set forth in section 26-6(F). Z. Planning commission hearing. Planning commission shall hold a public hearing and within ninety (90) days of the public hearing date, exclusive of time requested by the applicant for continuances, shall adopt a resolution which approves, approves with modifications, or denies the preliminary development plans (and plat) and such resolution shall state .the reasons l for .action. Any applicant may appeal a ~ decision of planning commission to city council; however, such appeal must be filed with the city clerk within ten (SO)-~^l.. '~~^g ~~s days of that decision. t. City council hearing. Upon receipt of a petition of appeal, the city clerk shall schedule a public hearing before city - 34 - council and cause public notice as required by section 26-6(F). City council shall hold a public hearing and within ninety (90) days of the public hearing, exclusive of time requested by the applicant for continuances, shall ADOPT A MOTION WHICH approves, approves with modifications, or denyIES the application. (3) Final development plan (and final plat): (a) Submittal Requirements: The final development plan (and plat) provides the final engineering, platting ARCHITECTIIRAL CONCEPT and site design details for final. approval of one (1) or more phases of a proposed development. This is the final development plan and platting step and culminates all of the requirements prior to submittal of building plans. 'the _, a......,.. .,~ ..,_,,,-`/~ ^~ ^~\ ^\"^~ ~ \"^ "a aaxic co ~xic y_-~_. ______ ___ ____ - ymo _.~~ - Accompanying the application, the following is required: a. Fee: IINDER 3 ACRES ~ $250 3 ACRES OR MORE _ $250 PLIIS $50 ADDITIONAL PER ACRE OR PART OF AN ACRE. ^^^ '^„^~.,.^a a.,,, ^.,.,. /t,nn ~~\ b. Complete and notarized application. c. Proof of ownership, such as copies of deeds or title commitment.. d. Power of attorney from owner(s) where an agent acts on behalf of the owner(s). e. Names. and address of all adjacent property owners, including property across abutting streets. f. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of architects and engineers associated with preparation of the plans and plat. g. Copies of proposed agreements, provisions, covenants, condominium declarations, etc., which govern the... use, maintenance and continued protection of the planned development and any of its common areas and facilities, and which will guarantee unified control. h. Additional information may be required, including, but not limited to, geological stability report, - 35 - traffic impact report, flood-plain impact report or general environmental impact report. 3,. .Form and content of the final development plan. The final development plan (and plat) shall be consistent with the approved outline and preliminary development plans (if applicable). The final development plan (and plat) shall be drawn at a scale of no less than one (1) inch to one hundred (100) feet and contain the following: a. The requirements of both this section as well as the subdivision regulations for a final plat must be met. If a preliminary development plan has not previously been approved, the requirements of the subdivision regulations for a preliminary plat must be met... b. Legal description of the entire planned development, and if the final development plan is for only a portion of the site, a legal description of that portion of the site included within the final development plan. c. .Location, extent; type and surfacing materials of all proposed walks, malls, paved areas, turfing and other areas not to be covered by buildings or structures. d. Location, size, type, height and orientation of all signs. Signs not specifically approved as part of a final development plan shall not be permitted. e. A landscape plan which provides location, type, size and quantities of all existing (to remain) and proposed. plant material and other landscape features and materials. Common and botanical names of all plant materials shall be indicated. ,Location and type of irrigation 'system shall be indicated. All landscaping shall meet the requirements of this section as well as section 26.32_. f. Location, extent, types of materials and height of all walls and fences. g. .Exterior lighting devices; type, height, location and orientation. h. Location, extent, maximum height, number of floors and total floor area of all buildings and structures. i. Total number of dwelling units and - 36 - typical floor plans for residential projects. j. Elevations and perspective drawings of all proposed structures and improvements, indicating architectural.. style and building materials. The drawings need not be the result of ---- final architectural design but .of sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the proposed structure{s}, k. Off-street. parking and loading plan which indicates the size, location, and number of parking and loading spaces and which shows the proposed circulation of vehicles and pedestrians within the planned development and to and from existing or proposed public thoroughfares. Any special engineering features and traffic regulation devices needed to facilitate and ensure. the-safety of this circulation pattern, including fire lanes, must be shown. 1. Indication of all proposed uses for all buildings, structures and open areas. Outside storage and displays areas must be indicated if proposed. Description of any proposed temporary or interim uses of land or existing __ buildings prior to development in accordance with the .approved final development plan. m. A development schedule indicating the approximate date o~ which construction of the project can be expected to begin and approximate dates when construction will-be completed. If multi-phased project, indicate times for-each phase (see subsection VII) for limitations) n. The final development plan (and plat) shall be recorded with the. Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder and, therefore, must meet their basic __ requirements for recordation. The following certifications, and approvals, in addition to the required surveyor's certificate, shall also be placed upon the final development plan (and plat): OWNER'S CERTIFICATION The below signed owner_(s), or legally designated agent(s) thereof, do hereby agree that the property legally described herein will be - 37 - developed as a Planned Development in accordance with the uses, restrictions, end conditions contained in this plan, and as may otherwise be required by law. I (we) further recognize that the approval of Final Development Plan (and Plat) does not create a vested property right. Vested property rights may only arise and accrue pursuant to the provisions of section 26-6 (G) of Article I of the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge. Signature of Owner(s) or Agent(s) NOTARY PUBLIC Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19 . Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION- NOTARY SEAL Approved this day of, 19 by the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission. /s/ Chairman (~ PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR n ^ n ,{ ~r ~,. ~,.~y~- TTATn Ti 1~Pn-„I^I,II -~-rl- , .Y n. C~ ~ n//~_ J , ~1c't~. CITY... SEAL - - - - - ,~ ATTEST: City Clerk COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS CERTIFICATE This document accepted for filing in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder of Jefferson County at Golden, Colorado, on the day of A.D. 19 in the Book Page , Reception Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder By: Deputy - 38 - In addition to the above certifications and required land surveyor's certificate, the following approval signature blocks shall be placed upon plats and subdivisions. Public Service Company of Colorado Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph City of Wheat Ridge, Director of Public Works City of Wheat Ridge, Director of Parks and Recreation (b) Review Procedures: 1. Staff Review. Upon filing of an application and other required documents, the planning and development staff will refer copies of the plans to affected departments and agencies for review. All comments shall be forwarded to the applicant so that necessary revisions may be made by the applicant prior to scheduling the application before planning commission. Once staff is assured that all required documents and revisions thereto have been received, notice_of public hearing shall occur in accordance with requirements set forth in section 26.6(F). - 2. Planning Commission hearing. Planning Commission shall hold a public Bearing and within ninety (90) days of the public hearing date, exclusive of time requested by the applicant for continuances, shall ADOPT A RESOLUTION WHICH APPROVES, APPROVES WITH MODIFICATIONS, OR DENIES THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS (AND PLAT) AND SIICH RESOLUTION SHALL STATE THE REASONS FOR ACTION. ANY APPLICANT, ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, STAFF, OR COUNCIL MEMBER FROM THE DISTRICT WHERE THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED MAY APPEAL A DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL; HOWEVER, SIICH APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK WITHIN TEN (10) #~/_I ~C `61~ZK1I~8 DAYS OF THAT DECISION. ade~-a app~eval, approval wib}~ Enedi~iea-tis~ts, er .a .~.._..~ l J 1.. ,.. 11.~ L_l, L. GCG a1~23Q .TSGT2 Lt ~2-GtG2~If.Tt1LT22 SCLCC~CTtt. reaee~e €er-ae~i~~:- 3. City Council hearing. Upon receipt of A PETITION OF APPEAL :'-- -, __„;...,... r_~_______~ --' ••'-° -° the city clerk shall schedule a public hearing before city - 39 - council and cause public notice as required by section 26-6(F). City council shall hold a public hearing and withix`ninety (90) days of the public hearing, exclusive of time requested by the applicant for continuances, shall ADOPT A DSOTION WHICH approves, approves with modifications, or denyiES the application. (c) Recordation: All approved final development plans (and plats) shall be recorded with the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder. Such plans, and associated recording fees, shall be submitted to planning and development staff within thirty (30) days of council"s final action. Should a recordable approved final development (and plat) not be provided to staff within sixty (60) days of council's final action, the staff shall schedule a public hearing before city council, and city council shall reconsider their previous approval. (VI) .INTERPRETATION OF ERRORS AND OMISSIONS Detailed specifications and standards which should have been specifically set forth by an approved final development plan, but which were found subsequent to approval to have been omitted, may be interpreted by the zoning administrator to be those specifications and standards set forth in the Wheat Ridge Zone District in which the approved uses contained within the final developmeht plan would be permitted. In the event the approved uses are in fact permitted in more than one other zone. district, the zoning administrator is hereby authorized to determine, based upon the overall intent of the underlying districts, to determine the appropriate zone district's standards which shall be applied. The owner of any property who e~ . feels aggrieved by such determination by the zoning administrator shall be entitled to appeal said determination pursuant to the provisions of section 26-6(D)(4) of this Zoning Ordinance. (VII-) - CQ.":BT~~bC~~~.: TIME LIMITATION ~~~UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED UPON THE FACE OF AN APPROVED FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SUCH PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED FOR THREE (3) YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE QF APPROVAL. CONSTRUCTION MUST COMMENCE DURING THIS THREE-YEAR PERIOD. IIPON EXPIRATION OF THE THREE-YEAR TIME LIMITATION, OR OTHER TIME LIMITATION AS MAY HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL, NO PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION, SITE PREPARATION, OR USE SHALL BE ISSUED WITHOUT THE OWNER APPLYING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR, AND RECEIVING APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION OF TIME LIMITATION. PLANNING COMMISSION MAY EXTEND THE TIME LIMITATION, WITH OR WITHOUT MODIFICATIONS TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN, OR THEY MAY RESCIND APPROVAL OF THE PLAN AND RECOMMEND TO CITY COIINCIL REZONING OF THE PROPERTY OR A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ZONE CLASSIFICATION PRIOR TO - 40 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING, OR TO ANOTHER ZONE CLASSIFICATION WHICH CONFORMS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. e~~easis~~-a€-~i~nc~-as-~ta~.-i~R~~ees--granted fhe ecr~te~,-~~a~ (VIII) BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS All approved development plans shall be binding upon the owner(s), their successors and assigns, and shall limit the development to all conditions and limitations established in such plans, and as may be contained in separately recorded agreements, covenants, condominium declarations, etc., which were approved. by city council as part of a planned development approval.. (IX) AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT PLANS (A) The procedures and requirements for amending an approved _ development plan (outline, preliminary or final) shall~e the same as prescribed for original approval, except as provided for under subsection (B) below. All applications for amendment, EXCEPT WHERE THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE IS THE APPLICANT, must be approved in writing by a~ owners of AT LEAST FIFTY ONE (51) PERCENT OF THE real property contained within the area originally approved by the outline development plan, unless specific alternative provisions have been approved by city council as part of the unified control agreement. (B) Based upon showing of necessity therefor-, minor changes in the locations of structures and their accessory uses, fences, parking areas, landscaping and other site improvements may be permitted-as an "administrative amendment" by the director of planning and development, if such changes will not cause any of the following circumstances to occur: (1) Change in the character of the development. (2) Increase in the intensity (or density) of use. (3) Increase of the problems of -circulations, safety and - 41 - utilities. (4) Increase of the external effects on. the adjacent properties. (5) Increase in maximum building height. (6) Reduction in the originally approved setbacks from perimeter property lines. (7 Reduction in landscape area of total site, or relocation of landscape areas which are required as buffer yards or establish project character. (8) Increase in the gross floor area of structures beyond the authorized maximum allowed with the approved planned development. (C) Any changes or revisions of a final development plan which are approved, either administratively or by council action, must be recorded with the Jefferson County Recorder as amendments to the original recorded development plan. (X) TEMPORARY USE PROVISION Subsequent to rezoning to a Planned Development District-and approval of a final development plan, but prior to development and use of a parcel in accordance with the approved plan, the property may continue to be used in accordance with the previous zoning or for cultivation of agricultural products, or the raising and keeping of livestock, as would be permitted in any residential district; provided, however, that no new permanent structures or additions to existing structures will be permitted. (Ord. No. 1989-807, subsection 2, 9-25-89; Ord. No. 1990-827 subsection 1, 4-9-90) Cr\WP60\PC\PLDEVDIS.COD - 42 - NOTICB OF PIISLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on May 18, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public. Hearing or submit written comments. The following petition shall be heard: 1. Case No. ZOA-95-2: Proposed amendment to Wheat Ridge Code. of Laws, Chapter 26. Zoning Ordinance, Section 26-25 Planned Development Districts. Copies of the proposed amendments are available from the Planning and Development Department, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge CO 80215. t San ra Wiggins, etary ATTEST: Wanda Sang, City Clerk To be Published: May 4, 1995 Jefferson Sentinel b:\pc51895.phn RPR-26-1995 1636 Gorsuch Kirgis L.L.C. 303 298 0215 P.001i006 TO: OF: CITI FRO GORSTJCH i~RG~S L.L.c. ATTORNEYS AT LAW DATE: _ _ ~ .. PLEASE REVIEW MESSAGE: TIME: PLEASE RESPOND 716is message may constitute privileged attmney~rerrt communication or attorney work pnoducta~unauGh~vizedusearduclasureispnvh,7xtod Ifyotrarenattlieintended~5cipient of this message. please advise us by catl"in9 collect at f303J ?.99-$900 and fwwardmg tlra clacument to us by n~eeT to the address IFsted below. CLIENT NAME: ~U D~l/t¢.~GF(LE NO.: ~5~~~ ~'-- -~- L, p/~y~ FAX NO.:,_~~~ PHONE NO.: a~7 "'~~/1~6.r NUMBER OF PAGES TO FOLLOW: (not including this page! FOR liSSiSTANCE, CALL (303} 399-8900, EXTENSION 259 I.omtion: Mail'uig Address: Snite 1100 P.t?. Box 17180 1401 Seventeenth Street Denver, Colorado 80217-0180 Denver, Colorado 80.202 Telephone: (303) 299-8900 Fax: (303) 298-0215 APR-26-1995 i6~37 Gorsuch Kirgis L.L.C. 303 298 0215 P.002/006 b17ANDUM vIA TEI,ECOPY TO: Glen Gidley, Director of Planning Development, City of whew: Ridge FROM: Jerr;~ Dahl DATE: Apri:. 26, 1995 RE: Props>sed Amendments to Planned Development Regulations Glen, h~rc: are my comments. As a result of Counail~s action on the Applewood Shopping Center application, as well as the research I did qn Charter Section 5.10, I now have more specific and critical comments than those subsequent to my initial review_ 1. (IZ) Ia eat and Purpose jPa4e 3). I observe that the requirement in (A)(2) for +'unified control" provides for other single ownership or a comprehensive management agreement. How is 2 this different. from the ''written unified control statement mentioned at (Uj2 I assume that the written statement is made as ;,~ ~ a part of the uDP but merely describes the iuanagement agreement. ~~f,,~~ ~,.~t'b" As I know you are aware, other PUD ordinances generally impose the ~~ ~ ~nefits and 1DUrdens of the approved final PUD plan on the ;.~ ~ operty, and do not require continuing single ownership or ~y, _ ~„p ~~- additional doocmentatian for unified control. ~~~ :~~ ~~'~~ ~ ~z. .lly). IIse ana nevelo~ent xegu.~ations, With respect to fir' yp^~ subparagraph (,~) at pages 3 and 4 of the draft, I have the ~ ~ following specific comments: The secerid sentence of (A) describes the ODP as constituting only "tentative" approval of uses. Because of our discussions with Council on Monday, I wonder whether it would not be preferable tq more fully embrace the idea of the ODP being adopted by ordinance and finally determining, at that time, the uses permitted on the site, as well as other major constraints (density, setbacks, height, major circulation, etc.), if we are trying to emphasize - that the true zoning decision is made at the ODP stage and is approved by oz~dinance, I believe tIxat it is inconsistent to describe the OD:?'s approval of uses as only "tentative." with this in mind, 2 Would alter {A) to eliminate references to +'tentativeF" ~,- to affirmative;,y state that uses and other major constraints proposed at the: ODP stage are considered final at that stage if GED\53D27\121327.1 APR-26-1995 1637 Gorsuch Kirgis L.L.C. 303 298 0215 P.003i006 approved; and +ohile retaining the language o£ the second sentence of that subpare.graph, I would rework it to serve as the criteria by which the planning commission and council would be guided in making their final de•:srminativn on uses and major design constraints at the 4DP stage. Tn order to do this, the entire subsection (A) could be rewri':ten to read as follows: ~(, (~) outline Developn ~ n: Each Planned Development District, if approved, shall establish its own list of permitted uses, as well as development and use standards and requi~•ements. Such uses, standards and requirements shall be set Forth in the Outline Development Plan (ODP), which sha:Ll be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved, with or without modificatigns, by the city Council by ordinance. Approval of uses, density, and the following additional major design constraints [insert list] at the ODP stage shall constitute approval of only the uses, density and other matters so stated. L Cezzeral Standards for onP Review: In their review of the ~~ `~ oDP submission, the Planning Commission and City Council shall make findings, based upon evidence appearing in the record of the public hearing before them; concerning whether the uses, density and [other major design cvnstraint:s] proposed as part of the ODP submission are compatible: with uses made ar permitted on surrounding properties, or elsewhere within the Planned Development District; that such uses, density and other major design aanstraint•s as proposed would not create excessive traffic, noise or air pollution, would not result in a density oz' intensity of use which would be damaging or deleteriois to the stability, unified gperation, or integrity (both economic and aesthetio) of the surrounding area. C/ Effect of .Approval of Opg: Approval of the ODP shall not be construed to be approval of a preliminary development ~/ plan or a final development plan except in respect to uses, density [and the major design constraints listed]. CC.~) Sasis of _Decision: In reviewing applications for / approval of Planned Development Districts, or amendments to existing Planned Development Districts, the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider standards far similar uses in other none districts unless otherwise specifically provided herein. Requirements for setbacks, lot cove:°age, height, density, area, buffering, landscaping, signage and related matters may be yr more or lass rE:strictive than such requirements in similar GED\53D27~127327.1 -2- RPR-26-1995 1638 Gorsuch Kirgis L.L.C. 303 298 0215 P.004/006 zone districts, Without the requirement of application for or apE~roval of a variance under Sections 2-61 and 2- 6.D, of tt:e Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, based upon findings of the E~lanning Commission and City Council which consider a combination of factors, including, but not limited ta: type and intensity of uses proposed, size and shape of parcel, location, adjacent uses, adequacy of public facilities and [insert others]. / 3. I suggest that the paragraph in the middle of page 4 beginning with "it is the intent of this District to provide ," be moved to thE: section on intent and purpose at (II)(A). ~. At p+ige S, subparagraph (e), 2 suggest that the second sentence be amended to read: "Exceptions to those standards may be approved by th~a City Council upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, anti based upon a finding that a lessor setback ." /5. T ha~•e reviewed the specific requirements for individual Planned Development Districts at pages 6«25 and have no substantive comment on then.. As you oan see, most of my comments are directed toward the"rev~.ew process itself. 6. At page 23, Section (V) "Application for Planned Development," the three steps in the development approval process erg described as: (1) rezoning; {2) site plan and plattin approval; and (3) building plan approval. This material, all the way over to (E) on page 24, is actually general material which pertains to al:. forms of land use development within Chapter 26. xt might better be placed in a general section at the beginning of the chapter. / I. Page 24; subsection (B} Regular Review Procedures: I agree with the new material which describes the pDP as the rezoning step. I would modify subsection (1)(a) on page 25 to reference "Permitted use,>, density, [major design constraints as listed ~ above] and intended character of the development." I do note that some of these issues are listed at subsection 2.b. on page 26; perhaps a cross reference iri subsection (a).1 on page 25 would be sufficient. ~~8. On page 29, I suggest that the first two lilies for approval by the' Wheat Ridge City Council be modified to read as follows: "App]•oved this day of 19 by the i Wheat Ridge City council, vi ordiaaace cumber " 9. At p~ige 30, subsection (b) [review procedures]. I suggest that the sentence be further amended to read: GED~53027~921327.7 «$- APR-26-1995 16:38 C~rsuch Kirgis L.L.C. 303 296 0215 P.005/006 3. City Council Hearing: Upon the receipt of the Planning Commission resolution, the City clerk shall. schedule first and second reading of a rezoning ordinance approving the Outline Developmexit Plan in the form recommendesd by the Planning commission. If the Planning Gommissiw- has recommended denial of the Outline Developme:t<t Plan, t:he City Clerk shall nevertheless schedule first and second reading of a rezoning ordinanoe approving the ODP in the manner proposed by the applicant. Z`tte City Clerk shall set a public hearing before Cii;y Council and cause public notice as required by Section 26-6(F) to be given. The City Council shall hold ,se r/ l0. At p,ige 39, I observe that City Council will review a final development plan only upon receipt of a petition of appeal. Notwithstandin<{ this, a City Council certification is required (at page 38) for all such final development plans. In the standard case, in which an appeal is not taken from the Planning Coinmission•s action, the City Council will not.have the opportunity to act on the final development plan, making the certification for City Council aF>proval unnecessary or awkward. i suggest that the City council easrtificaticn for final development plans be altered by the additon of new matcerial to read: "CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION i'TO 8E COMPLETED ON IN THE EVENT OF AN APPEAL TO THE CITY/COUNCIL AItD FAVORABLE VOTE THEREON PURSUANT TO SECTION)." 11. At Xage 39, subparagraph (b).2, I suggest that the reference to tk:e time period far appeal to City Council be altered to read "ten (10) bu,,,,sxness days ." Alternatively, you could increase the period of time to "fourteen (14) palendar days " The term "working" days is not generally recognized in the statute. It would be better to use either business days or calendar days. ~2. At p~ige 40, Section (VII) on time limitation, I suggest the addition of a sentence at the beginning of this paragraph to read as followas: "For purpc+ses of Section 24-68-101, et Seq., C,R-$., and in exercise of the authority granted to the City by Section 2ir-68-102(4), C.R.S., the City hereby finds, determineac and declares that the final development plan approval :step, as defined in this Subsection VII, is and shall be cetermined to be the "site specific development plan for t>urposes of that statute." 13. I suc{gest the addition of an additional sentence at the end of the ir..troductory paragraph of existing subsection (V): "Application for Planned Developments," at the tog of page 24 and ssa:u \53 (127\127327.1 -4- fiPR-26-1995 16 39 Gorsuch Kirgis L.L.C. ~3 298 0215 P.006i006 prior to subp«ragraph. (Ay: °sxpedited procedure," to read as follows: "Except cis otherwise specifically provided in this Section 2ii-25, all aotioms of the Planning Commission; in reviewing planned developments shall be by resolution, and all acts of the City Council in reviewing planned developments shall be by motion or by resolution, at the election of thg City Council. Review of outline Development Plans by the City Council only shall be by ordinance, which ordinance shall be subject to the protest and review procedures set forth at Section 5.10 of the Ci1,y Charter. " I reoogn.ize that these comments may raise questions. I am planning to be at the City either Friday of this week; perhaps we could get together on two days. GED:ec GE0~53027~72'432T.1 -5- additional Thursday or one of those TOTFl1_ P.006 Case No. ZOA-95-2: M E M O RAND U M TO: Planning Commission FROM: Glen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development RE: Case No. ZOA-95-2/Public Hearing on Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinance, Section 26-24 Planned Development District DATE: Mav 12, 1995 Planning Commission reviewed proposed revisions to Sec. 26-25 at a study session on March 16 of this year. At that meeting, the only revision of substance that you suggested was to Subsection (VII) Time Limitations. The original draft applied time limits on all three steps (i.e., outline, preliminary and final), whereas you recommended it apply only to the final development plan. That change has been incorporated in this draft. Our new City Attorney, Gerald Dahl, since your study session has further reviewed the proposed amendments and has recommended numerous additional revisions, all of which I have incorporated. All of the changes that he recommended regarded process, especially relating to the Outline Development_Plan step, making it more clear that the Outline step is the rezoning step, and thus is subject to special charter rules. Although the revisions are shown by strike-thru (delete) and bold capi~al letters (additions), I will summarize the nature of the proposed revisions for you and others who may be interested in this matter: A. PROCESS There has been some confusion at recent City Council meetings regarding approval_procedures for the three types of plans (i.e., outline, preliminary and final). Therefore, we have added information that makes it clear that the outline plan and any future amendments to it, is the rezoning step and therefore requires approval by ordinance (pages 4, 24, 25 and 31), whereas preliminary (page 40) and final plans (page 39) and amendments to them, are site planning and platting steps and therefore are approved only by motion. 2. Based upon discussion between Council and Planning Commission .and a resulting consensus by Council, we have revised the process of approval for final development plans and amendments thereto by showing the Planning Commission as the approval authority, with an appeal process to City Council. (page 40) Memo to Planning Commission May 12, 1995 B. SUBSTANCE Page 2 1. The informational requirements associated with the Outline Plan have been loosely written. It is-,important that the basic zoning standards are clearly stated.at the rezoning step, therefore we have added those basic standards and criteria that must be upon the Outline Plan (See pages 25 & 27/ (B) (1)) . A specific time limit has been suggested (page 41) so that final development plans are meaningful based upon changing. neighborhood conditions. We have many old Planned Developments that were zoned and planned ten to 15 years ago, and no subsequent activity has occurred .on that particular property. Meanwhile, change s. have occurred on other surrounding properties, or in infrastructures or policies or laws that may affect the feasibility, desirability or 'advisability of following through with the previously approved plans. 3. There has been some confusion over bur requirements and intent regarding UNIFIED CONTROL, especially regarding multi-ownership situations where revisions are proposed. (Page 2) .Therefore,- we have recommended language which clarifies this issue. 4. There has also been confusion regarding departure from similar zone district standards and regulations (e.g. R-3 or C-1 front setback standards) as to whether a planned development district must conform to those standards or be treated as a variance under the Code provisions 2-61 and 26- 6.D. Traditional PUD law provides for '!flexibility in design" as a basic and fundamental planned development concept, not as a variance. Therefore, we have added language to address this issue. (Page 4) C. COST Planned Development zoning and plan processing involves a substantial amount of staff resources and direct costs. The current fee structure of $250/$100 doesn't even come close to covering actual cost to the City of processing such cases. Additionally, larger projects demand greater staff time than smaller projects. Therefore, we have recommended increasing the fees and indexing the fee to the size. of the project. GEG:slw attachment ~3 Sec. 26-25. Planned development districts. (I) SCOPE There is hereby created a Planned Development District to further promote the public health, safety and general welfare by permitting greater flexibility and innovation in land development based upon a comprehensive, integrated plan. For the purpose of applying certain regulations and standards, and to ensure maximum flexibility of this district, the district is divided into the following subdistrict designations, based on the primary land use of a proposed development plan or portion thereof: (A) Planned Residential Development--PRD (B) Planned Commercial Development--PCD (C) Planned-Industrial Development--PID (D) Planned Mobile Home Development--PMHD (E) Planned Recreational Vehicle Park Development--PRVD (F) Planned Hospital Development--PHD By creating the above subdistricts, the city council recognizes that all standards and regulations do not apply uniformly to all land uses. These subdistricts may exist singly or in combination within any approved Planned Development; provided, that the specific standards and regulations applicable to the subdistrict are met. (I I) _INTENT AND PURPOSE - - (A) The intent of the Planned Development District is to promote the establishment of well-designed, innovative developments which may not be permitted by a standard zone district, however, which may be permitted through the use of an approved development plan by assuring greater control and specificity of intended development character, use, operations and maintenance, while at the same time allowing flexibility and diversity. IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS DISTRICT TO PROVIDE A MEANS FOR ALLOWING INNOVATION AND FLEXIBILITY IN DESIGN AND IISE OF SPECIFIC SITES, BUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS DISTRICT SHALL NOT BE IISED MERELY TO CIRCUMVENT THE ABSOLIITB STANDARDS OF OTHER SIMILAR DISTRICTS. This district recognizes the great variety of land use intensities, densities and environmental and land use interfaces which are possible. The protective _standards for site use, development, operations and maintenance contained herein-are intended to minimize any adverse effect of ..the planned development to the community by achieving maximum compatible integration of land uses, by assuring adequate provision of public services and facilities, by preserving the aesthetic qualities of the area, and by providing for safe and efficient use of the land resource itself. (B) UNIFIED CONTROL: It is the specific intent and requirement that - 1 - all land under consideration for a planned development designation and all land so zoned shall be and remain under unified control throughout the planning and development phases, as well as after development through continuous operation, use, and maintenance. "Unified control," for purposes of this section, shall mean that the property shall be: (1) Subject to a single ownership, either by an individual, corporation, partnership or other legally recognized, entity; or (2) Subject to a comprehensive management 'agreement, or other form of agreement, (,vr' -t"'' - '"}"""'' ~~ ^~-~~-~~'-'" , which specifies that a distinct person or„entity possesses and maintains the authority to make binding commitments on behalf of and thereafter to enforce implementation of those commitments upon_and on behalf of the owner(s) of the property. Y _., ., _a ,~,...,., -(-E} Unified control is vital to the city to ensure_that planned development projects are developed according to their original concept as approved and adopted by the city, and so that said projects, once developed, continue to be operated and maintained in accordance with the original concept as approved and adopted by the city council. EXCEPT WHERE THE CITY IS THE APPLICANT, AFTER A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE DISTRICT AND OUTLINE PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED, OWNERS OF A MAJORITY OF THE LAND CONTAINED WITHIN THE DISTRICT MUST APPROVE SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT AND/OR USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE OUTLINE .DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND MUST APPROVE ANY PRELIMINARY AND/OR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS, OR AMENDMENTS THERETO, BEFORE THE CITY SHALL APPROVE SUCH PLANS OR REVISIONS, AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES. (1) To accomplish compatible development with adjacent commercial, residential and/or industrial land uses through proper land use transitions and buffering techniques. (2) To promote flexibility in design and permit diversification - 2 - (E) The general purposes of this section are as follows: in the location of structures. (3) To promote the efficient use of land to facilitate a more economic arrangement of building, circulation systems, land use and utilities. (4) To preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and to minimize impacts on other natural features of the site. (5) To provide 'for more usable space tY_rough the combination and grouping of structures, parking, loading .and storage areas. (6) To combine-and coordinate architectural styles, building forms and building relationships within the planned developments. (7) To minimize traffic congestion on public streets, control street access, and to provide for well-designed interior circulation. (8) To ensure that adequate public utilities and facilities are available within the area, to serve the.specific development. (9) To promote conformance with the adopted comprehensive plan, established policies and guidelines for the area_and for the community. (III) APPLICABILITY... (A) A Planned Development District of any nature (private, ' public or quasi-public) may be approved for any single use or any combination of uses; provided, that the intent and purposes of this section are met, and provided that the. general health, safety and welfare of the community are advanced through its approval. (B) The provisions herein contained shall apply to'the following: (1) Any new application for a rezoning to a Planned Development District. (2) Any application for amendment to an existing Planned.-- Residential (PRD), Planned Commercial (PCD), Planned Industrial (PID), Planned Mobile Home (PMHD), or Planned Recreational Park (PRVD), Development District approved by the City of Wheat Ridge prior to the date of adoption of these provisions. (3) Any application for amendment to an existing Planned Development District approved by Jefferson County prior to incorporation or annexation. - 3 - (IV) USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (A) General Regulations: Each Planned Development District establishes its own list of permitted uses, as well as development and use standards and requirements, and such are specifically set forth in the OUTLINE development plan, and reviewed by planning commission and approved by city council. BY ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE (SEE SUBSECTION 26- 25 (V) (B) (1) ) Heweve~-, aggre,tal~€~ses seed in-t~-oa=i$~e ~'-~=~---~egfae glee-eens~iEt~tes ~ea~-~}b-e app--exa~e~l~e€ the uses -`-ed-the-gla~~'~Q--Aem{n'ss}ems aed,~e~e}t~ eet~ne-01 ^~ Y -_j. ~~e--hrx3ade-e€ ~^a~d^en• yam' , r r z deitelgg~xent-}man agg~eaal trp~-air-ear-essedTi~ing, based '-~r"° .•a° as a~r ~asive -nd adeq'aate~aFgea~irtg i*~ thE-~eee~~e€-the~x~}ie hea-~ng be€ere e~the~ the~las~ing ee~r}seise e~ t}~e ei~~_=tat uses se liatized~~ denied _ ~.,~:~..,.. h ~ ... ... ,.~~ ..~ - _ ___-_:'r~--... ~... ..7 p YF1K1 P-Yf- ~ •• L -- _ .......... ., r....,L,.,.,.... .. .. ~.~ ~. ~n~~ - .t~£.£.~~~,°~ae_e~-air~e"etien, er that srseh~ases Ererx;' 1 a_-Zgi~xc~e~ elelete~}etas ee`the st-bility ••ni€ied epe~-a" e~i, er integrity-Ebeth eeeao~ic,--~-' ?es-t~:e~te~~~t-he s~t~rettndiag area. Approval of-the outline development plan shall not be construed to be approval of a preliminary development plan or a final development plan except in respect to ~___==~'_ ee~eeg-t- USES, DENSITY AND MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND/OR REQUIREMENTS. In reviewing a specific .request to establish a Planned Development District, or amendment to an existing one, planning commission and city council shall consider standards for similar uses in other Wheat Ridge zone ---- districts, unless otherwise specifically provided herein. Requirements for setback, lot coverage, height, density, area, buffering; landscaping, signage, etc., may be more or less restrictive than such requirements in similar zone districts, based upon findings of the planning commission and city council which consider a combination of factors including, but not limited to, type and intensity of 'uses proposed, size and shape of parcel, location, adjacent uses, adequacy of public facilities, etc. EXCEPTIONS FROM STANDARD ZONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A "VARIANCE" AS REGULATED BY WHEAT RIDGE CODE OF LAWS SECTIONS 2-61 AND 26-6.D., HOWEVER IN NO INSTANCE SHALL ANY STANDARD VIOLATE PROVISIONS OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CHARTER. ..,,.. ,tea s, ,. .•L•,: a,. ,.: ,-.. ..a „c ,.~~ ng s~+eei€~ie sites; _--- __-- r__------- ae~be~tsed-merely te-e~ireu~uext -~~~ai~t------~-°'~ -° - 4 - (B) Specific Regulations: (1) Planned Residential Developments (PRD): (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses hereinafter listed shall be_permitted only as specifically designated on the approved €~ab OUTLINE development plan: 1. All permitted uses and accessory uses in the residential districts. 2. The following retail service uses may be included within a PRD subject to the conditions set forth in subsection (k): a. Barber and beauty .shops. b. Drugstore and pharmacies. c. Grocery store, convenience-~ype limited to five thcusand (5,000) square feet maximum. d. Laundry and dry cleaning pickup, and coin-operated laundry establishments. e. Office for sales, lease, or other use reasonably associated with the Planned Residential District. f. Other uses approved by the zoning administrator as being similar in character and impact to those uses specifically permitted under this section when consideration is given to traffic impact and parking needs C~'V ~ \ associated with the recommended use_ \~3. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted uses as shown on the approved plan. (b) Area: Each Planned Residential Development District shall be a minimum of one (1) acre. (c) Density: Maximum twenty-one (21) dwelling units per acre. (d) Height: Maximum thirty-five (35) feet, (e) Perimeter Setbacks: Setback requirements for buildings adjacent to the perimeter of a Planned Residential Development District shall be established using setback regulations established in standard Wheat Ridge Residential Zone Districts. Exceptions to those standards may be approved b N RECO ENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, city counci based upon a finding that a lessor se ld not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties, would not negatively affect neighborhood property values, and would not be otherwise injurious to the public health, safety and welfare. (f) Lot Coverage: Maximum seventy-five (75) percent. - 5 - (See section 26.5 for definition.) (g) Landscaping: Minimum twenty-five (25) percent. (See section 26.32.) (h) Parking: Based upon specific uses (See section 26-31:) (i) Fences and Walls: As specifically detailed on an approved Final__Development Plan, otherwise follow requirements of Section 26-30.I. (j) Signage: As specifically detailed on and approved on Final Development Plan, otherwise follow requirements of Chapter 26, Article IV. (k) Commercial Use Conditions: 1. Commercial uses shall be allowed only where specifically approved in a final development plan. 2. Commercial uses, including all associated land used for-building space, parking and landscaping, shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the gross area included within a particular Planned Residential Development District. 3. Land used for commercial uses shall be calculated separately, and may not be included in the land area used to calculate the maximum of twenty-one (21) units per acre mandated by Wheat Ridge Home Rule Charter- To ensure this, where commercial uses are a part of a Planned Residential Development, the area used for commercial purposes shall be clearly delineated on the plan, including areas used for parking, ingress, egress, landscaping, etc. If the commercial uses are part of a generally residential building, or for other reasons cannot be clearly separated from the residential areas, the land attributable to the commercial use shall be considered to be the building square footage occupied by commercial uses, the required parking, and a proportionate share of•the common areas such as ingress-egress, landscaping, roadways, etc. Commercial ventures solely for the use-of the residents, such as food service, laundry facilities, etc., shall be considered an amenity rather than a commercial use, and the .land and buildings occupied by such uses'are not required to be subtracted from the total acreage, before computing the maximum of twenty-one (21) units per acre. (2) Planned Commercial Developments (PCD): (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses herein after listed shall be permitted only as specifically - 6 - designated on the approved ~ OUTLINE development plan: 1. Any use permitted in the Commercial-One (C-1) or Commercial-Two (C-2) Districts. 2. Residential uses as approved by city council and subject to the conditions set forth in subsection (B)(2)(j). 3. Accessory uses and buildings customarily associated with allowable uses, as shown on the approved plan. (b) Area: NO MSNIMUM. `' '' ~-c= ..1 .. rA ,. ..A ~] ..F C~ T1~-aere . (c) Height: Commercial structures shall not exceed fifty (50) feet; residential structures shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet; residential uses located within a commercial structure shall not be permitted above thirty-five (35) feet. (d) Perimeter Setbacks: Setback requirements for buildings adjacent to the perimeter of a Planned ~,j~N~y Commercial Development.District shall be ~^r° " established using setback regulations established in standard Wheat Ridge Commercial Zone /w' ~ districts. Exceptions to those standards may be ~~ approved by PLANNING COMMISSION OR city council, based upon a finding that a lessor setback would ~ ~y not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of t)~~ adjacent properties, would not negatively affect neighborhood property values, and would not be otherwise injurious to the public health; safety and welfare. (e) Lot Coverage: Maximum ninety (90) percent. (See section 26.5 for definition..) (f) Landscaping: Minimum ten (10) percent. (See section 26-32.) (g) Parking: Based upon specific uses. (See section 26-31.) (h) Fences and Wa11s: As specifically detailed on approved Final development plan, otherwise follow requirements of section 26-30(2). (i) Signage: As specifically detailed on an.approved final development plan, otherwise follow requirements of Chapter 26, Article IV. (j) Residential Use Conditions: Residential uses shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. Residential uses,.. including, associated parking, land used for buildings, landscaping, etc.; shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent o£ the gross area included within.a,particular Planned Commercial Development District. Where residential uses are part-of a - 7 - Planned Commercial Development, the land used for commercial uses shall be calculated separately, and may not be included in the land area used to calculate the maximum of twenty-one (21) units per acre mandated by the Wheat Ridge Home Rule Charter. To ensure this, where residential uses are part of a Planned Commercial Development, the area used for commercial purposes shall be clearly delineated on .the plan, including areas used for parking, ingress, egress, landscaping, etc. If the commercial and residential uses are mixed in the same building or for other reasons cannot be clearly separated from the residential area, the land attributable to the commercial use shall be considered to be the building square footage occupied by commercial uses, the required parking, and a proportionate share of the common areas such as ingress-egress, landscaping roadways, etc. Commercial ventures solely for the use of residents, such as food service, laundry facilities, etc., shall be considered an amenity rather than a commercial use, and the land and buildings occupied by such uses are not required to be subtracted from the total acreage before computing the maximum of twenty-one (21) units per acre. (3) Planned Industrial Development (PID): (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses hereinafter listed shall be permitted only as specifically designated on the approved OUTLINE development plan: 1. Any use permitted in the Light Industrial (I)District. 2. Other uses approved .by the zoning administrator which are similar in character and impact to those uses specifically permitted under this section when consideration is given to the intent and purpose of this section. 3. Accessory uses and buildings customarily associated with allowable uses. a r.., a., ,.~,~s_~3. - (b) Area: N0 MINIMUM. ~=---T-•~ ~ r ___ „~ (c) Height: Maximum fifty (50) feet. (d) Perimeter Setbacks: Setback requirements for buildings adjacent to the perimeter of a Planned - 8 - Industrial Development district shall be established using setback regulations set forth in the Light Industrial (I) Zone District (Section 26-24.). Exceptions to those standards P s ,~ may be approved by PLANNING COMMISSION OR city council, based upon a finding that a lessor setback would not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties, would not negatively affect neighborhood property values, and would not be otherwise injurious to the public health, safety and welfare. (e) Lot Coverage: Maximum ninety (90) percent. (See section 26.5 definition.) (f) Landscaping: Minimum ten (10) percent. (See section. 26.32.) (g) Parking: Based upon specific uses. (See section 26-31.) (h) Fences and Walls: As specifically detailed on approved final development plan, otherwise follow requirements of section 26-30(I). (i) Signage: as specifically detailed on approved final development plan, otherwise follow requirements of Chapter 26, Article IV. (j) Performance Standards: The following standards and conditions shall apply to the development, use, operations and maintenance of any Planned Industrial District hereinafter created, as well as to any Planned Industrial District created prior to adoption of this section. All environmental performances standards set forth are subject to the criteria established in current federal, state or local regulations, whichever criteria is most restrictive.. Building enclosures. Every use shall be operated in its entirety within a completely enclosed building unless otherwise specifically provided by the approved final development plan. Outdoor storage and waste disposal: a. All outdoor storage facilities'shall be enclosed by a view-obscuring fence, wall and/or landscaping which fully conceals such facilities from adjacent properties, public streets and pedestrian ways. Display of finished products for retail sale on the premises may be allowed, as such would be allowed and regulated in the C-1 and C-2 districts. b. No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a lot in such a form or manner that they may be moved from the lot by natural causes or forces. - 9 - c. A11 materials or wastes which may cause fumes or dust, constitute a fire hazard or may be edible or otherwise attractive to rodents and/or insects shall be stored only in closed - containers. d. A11 toxic, corrosive, inflammable or explosive liquids, gases or solids shall be stored in compliance with currently adopted fire prevention code, Environmental Protection Agency standards or other similar standards or requirements adopted by an agency of the State of Colorado. Noise_ Noise shall be measured on any property line of the tract on which the operation is located and shall be muffled so as not to become objectionable due to intermittence, beat frequently, shrillness or intensity. Noise shall be regulated sc as to be in compliance with the Colorado Noise Abatement Act, Colorado Revised Statutes, subsection 25-12-101, as amended.-. 4. Odors. Odors from any use hereafter begun shall not be discernible at the property .line to a greater degree than odors from plants for the manufacturing or fabrications of books, textile weaves, electronic equipment or other plants in ' which operations do not result in greater degree of odors. The values given ia1 Table III (Odor Thresholds). Chapter 5, "Physiological. Effects," in the "Air Pollution Abatement Manual," by the Manufacturing Chemist's Association, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 1951, shall be used as standard in-case of doubt concerning the character of odor emitted. In such cases, the smallest value given in Table III shall be the maximum odor permitted. Derailed plans for the prevention of odors crossing property lines may be required before the issuance of a building permit. Colorado Department of Health, Air Quality Control Commission's currently adopted "Odor Emission Regulation," shall be complied with when found to be more restrictive than the values of the "Air Pollution Abatement Manual." 5. Glare and Heat. Any operation producing intense glare and/or heat, e.g. welding conducted as a regular function of an - 10 - operation, shall be performed within an enclosure in such a manner as to be imperceptible along any lot line of such operation without instruments, and shall meet the requirements of section 26-30(S). 6. Exterior lighting. Any lights used for exterior illumination shall direct light away from adjoining properties, and shall meet the requirements of section 26-30(S). ___ 7. Vibration. Vibration shall not be discernible at any property line to .the human sense of feeling for three (3) minutes or more duration in any one hour. Vibration at any time shall not produce an acceleration for more than 0.1 gravities or shall result in any combination of amplitudes and frequencies beyond the "safe" range of Table VIS, United States Bureau of Mines Bulletin No. 442, "Seismic Effects of Quarry Blasting," on any structure. The methods and equations of said Bulletin No. 442 shall be used to compute all values for the enforcement of this provision. 8. Emission control of smoke, dust and gases: _- a. Smoke. Smoke emissions and opacity levels shall be regulated so as to be in compliance with the currently adopted Colorado Department of Health, Air Quality Control Commission's "Emission Control Regulations for Particulates, Smokes, and Sulfur- Oxides for the State of Colorado." b. Dust and other particulates. Fugitive dust and other particulate matter from fuel-burning equipment, refuse-burning facilities, and manufacturing shall be controlled in accordance with the Colorado Department of Health, Air Quality Control Commission's currently adopted "Emission. Control Regulations for Particulates, Smokes, and Sulfur Oxides for the State of Colorado." c. Gases. Detailed plans for the elimination of fumes or gases may be required before the issuance of a building permit. Sulfur oxide emissions shall be governed by the above-stated "Emission Control Regulations for Particulates, Smokes, and Sulfur Oxides for the State of Colorado." 9. Hazard. Any research operation shall be carried nh with reasonable precautions against fire and explosion hazards. - 11 - 10. Radiation control. Radiation and the utilization of radioactive materials shall be regulated so as to conform with Colorado Department of Health's currently adopted "Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Radiation Control." 11. Electrical radiation. Any electrical radiation shall not adversely affect at any point any operations or any equipment other than those of the creator of the radiation. Avoidance of adverse effects from electrical radiation by appropriate single or mutual scheduling of operations is permitted. (4) Planned Mobile Home District (PMD): (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses hereinafter listed shall be permitted only as specifically designated on the approved €i~-1 OUTLINE development plan: Mobile. homes which are used or intended to be used as a single-family residence upon the premises. General sales of mobile homes shall not be permitted; however, sale of used mobile homes which have been established as a residence in the district will be permitted. Single family dwelling for park owner, operator, and/or caretaker. Accessory uses and buildings customarily associated with and incidental to a mobile home park. This .may include service uses, such as a laundry, or retail sales of convenience items where it is shown that such service or retail use is exclusively provided to serve the needs of the mobile home park occupants. (b) Area and Density: The minimum site requirement for a mobile home park site shall not be less than ten (10) acres. Each mobile home lot shall contain a minimum of three thousand (3,000) square feet except 'lots for double-wide mobile homes where there shall be a minimum lot area of four thousand (4,000) square feet. In no case shall the density of a mobile home park exceed nine (9) units per acre. (c) Height: 1. The maximum height of mobile homes and accessory structures is twenty (20) feet. 2. Permanent residence for park management or park resident use only shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. - 12 - (d) Width of lot: The minimum width of lot for each mobile home shall be forty (40) feet except for lots for double-wide mobile homes where there shall be a width of fifty (50) feet. The minimum width of lots on curved drives or cul-de-sacs shall- have an average width of not less than forty (40) feet. (e) Setbacks: A11 mobile homes, recreational coaches and accessory buildings shall be set back not __ less than ten .(10) feet from all perimeter property lines, except the front or any other yard abutting a public street shall be at least twenty (20) feet and the yard space so formed shall be landscaped. Greater yards or setbacks may be required where, in the opinion of the planning commission and/or city council, such yards or setbacks are necessary due to the topographic conditions, grading, drainage, and/or protection of adjacent property. No part of any mobile home shall be located within any yard of a required setback area. (f) Yard requirements: Mobile homes shall be located so that there is at least twenty-five (25) feet _ of separation between any other mobile home on an adjacent lot.. Accessory structures shall be located so that there-is at least ten (10) feet of separation between any other accessory structure or mobile home on an adjacent lot. No mobile home (including the hitch) or accessory structure shall be located within five (5) feet from an interior lot line, road or walk. There shall be at all times_adequate vision at 'intersections to preclude obstruction to view. (g) Site and Lot Coverage: Overall lot coverage within a mobile home park shall not exceed - seventy-five (75) percent. Additionally, lot coverage of an individual mobile home lot shall not exceed ninety (90) percent. (h) Landscaping: In addition to landscape areas required under subsection (e) above, the total . mobile home park shall be provided with at least twenty-five (25) percent landscape area, and each mobile home lot shall be provided with at least ten (10) percent landscape area. There shall be provided at least two (2) deciduous trees for each mobile home lot. There shall also be - provided at the front or rear of -the lots at least one (1) evergreen tree for every three (3) lots. All landscaping required herein shall meet the minimum size and maintenance requirements of section. 26-32. (i)' Enclosure of Mobile Home Park: The following provisions are applicable, in providing buffers - 13 - between mobile home parks and adjoining properties and abutting public rights-of-,way: A greenbelt planting strip of not less than twenty (20) feet in width shall be placed along the perimeter of the park where it abuts_public rights-of-way or any other' property. The greenbelt shall be developed with a mixture of hardy deciduous and coniferous plant material, grass or ground cover and maintained thereafter in a neat and orderly manner. In addition, a continual ornamental wall or fence six (6) feet in height above grade shall be erected along the property lines which abut other properties and twenty (20) feet from property abutting public rights-of-way, so that the landscape area is between the street and fence. Walls on right-of-way corners shall be constructed to allow far line of sight on the rights-of-way and in accord with the Zoning Ordinance. Such wall shall be landscaped with suitable materials along both sides of such wall for the total length of wall existing along right-of-way. Walls used on property lines not adjacent to streets or roads shall be landscaped on the park side and permitted with the approval of the adjacent property owners. The ornamental wall and landscape materials shall be acceptable to the planning commission and city council.. T.he remaining areas shall .be landscaped and maintained with a well-kept lawn or other materials acceptable to the planning and city council and shall be continually maintained in a healthy growing, neat and orderly condition. (j) Addressing and Internal Location System: Mobile home parks shall be addressed to the street from which primary access is obtained. The entire mobile home park shall have one address, with each lot being designated by unit number" (e.g., John Q. Citizen, Unit 27, 7600 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO, 80033). A location map shall be placed at all entrances to the mobile home park, which illustrates the internal road system, location of common facilities and buildings, manager's office, and each mobile home site. Each lot shall be designated by consecutive numbers. Where there is more than one (1) continuous road - 14 - serving the park, the various roads should be designated as loops (e.g., Loop A., Loop D, etc.). - - (k) Performance Standards and Requirements.: Any person desiring to enlarge, or establish a mobile home park shall meet or exceed the design standards as herein set forth: 1. Access_ All mobile home parks shall have access to a collector street if directly abutting thereon. Parks not abutting a collector street shall show several direct routes to a collector . street in order-that the traffic be dispersed along several routes. 2. Vehicle travel banes. All roads and driveways shall be hard-surfaced and so constructed_as to handle all anticipated peak loads, adequately drained and lighted for safety and ease'of movement of_vehicles. Minimum pavement widths shall be twenty (20) feet for two-way roads with no on-street parking allowed, twelve (12) feet for one-way roads with no on-street parking allowed, and ten (10) feet for all driveways. The mobile home park road system should be so designed as to prevent the use of -- such roads for through traffic. The entire width of the vehicle travel lanes shall be surfaced with approved materials and designed on a suitable road base as approved by the city engineer. Concrete curb and gutters shall be placed along both sides of all roads. Type of curbs and gutters shall reflect topographic conditions and road design. Walkways may be required on one (1) or both sides of roads providing access to park. Approval of the design for road system, curb and gutter, and walkways will be subject to the city engineer's approval. 3. Walkways. Public walks shall be provided on the public street side of each mobile home site. A11 public walks, such as from mobile homes to service buildings and along road and driveways, shall be at least four (4) feet in width. Walks used in common by one (1) to three (3) units, connecting the units to a common area or primary walk, shall be at least - 15 - thirty (30) inches in width. Walks may be required on only one (1) side of drives leading to service areas. 4. Utilities and other services: a. All sanitary sewage utilities and water facilities, including connections provided to individual lots, shall meet the requirements of the applicable water and sanitation district operating within the city limits of Wheat Ridge and the Jefferson County Health. Department. b. The plumbing connections to each mobile home lot shall be constructed so that all lines are protected from freezing, from accidental bumping or from creating any type of nuisance or 'health hazard. c. An adequate amount of culinary water shall be piped.to each mobile home lot. The water - distribution system shall be acceptable to the water organization servicing such park. d. A drainage plan shall be submitted to the city and approved by the city engineer- Drainage facilities shall be constructed so as to protect those that will reside in the- mobile home park as well as the property owners adjacent to the park. e. All electric, telephone and other lines from supply poles to each mobile home lot shall be underground. When meters are installed, they shall be uniformly located.' f. Fuel, oil and propane gas storage and distribution systems shall be located designed in conformance with applicable state and city codes, and shall be reviewed and approved by the fire department. When separate meters are installed, each shall - be located in a uniform manner. g. Facilities for the storage and disposal of trash and garbage in a sanitary manner shall be provided in each park. - 16 - h. when exterior television antenna installation is necessary, a master antenna shall be installed and extend to individual units by underground lines. Such master antenna shall be so placed as not to be a nuisance to-park residents or surrounding areas. i. Yard lights, attached to standards approved by the city, shall be provided in sufficient number and intensity to permit the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians at night, and shall be effectively located to buildings, trees; walks, steps and ramps; however, these yard lights shall not cause off-site glare, and shall meet the requirements of section 26-30(S). j. The erection, construction, reconstruction, repair, relocation and/or alteration of all permanent buildings and structures located within a park shall conform to the requirements of the building and fire code adopted by the City of Wheat Ridge. 5. Pads, mats or platforms. Each mobile home lot shall be-provided with a gravel pad acceptable to the department of public works for each location and shall be treated to prevent the growth of weeds, 'or a concrete pad, mat or platform not less than four (4) inches in thickness, or of equal bearing strength if reinforced [concrete] is used. Minimum.pad dimensions for single mobile homes shall be twelve (12) feet by fifty (50) feet; minimum pad dimensions for double-wide mobile homes shall be twenty-four (24) feet by fifty (50) feet. Anchor rings shall be provided every fifteen (15) feet in the parking pad, the design of which shall be approved by the building inspector. 6. Fire extinguishing equipment. Every mobile home park shall be equipped at all times with fire extinguishing - 17 - 10. 11. 12. equipment in good working order of such type, size and number-and be so located within the park as to satisfy applicable regulations of the appropriate fire district. Storage Sheds. Each mobile home lot shall be provided with one (1) storage shed constructed of metal or other suitable material, which shall be uniform as to size and location throughout the mobile home park site. All sheds shall be kept clean, shall be maintained in good condition, shall be kept painted, shall contain a minimum of ninety (90) cubic feet of storage area, shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height, and shall meet minimum setback and yard requirements as set forth in subsections (IV) (B) (4) (e) and (f) hereof. _ On-site laundry. An on-site common laundry facility shall be provided if , all mobile homes are not furnished with individual washers and dryers. Service area enclosures. The city council may require fencing or screen planting around areas containing garbage, rubbish or waste disposal or around service or recreational areas as a condition of approval of a mobile home park. Recreational requirements. In addition to the minimum landscape requirements, a minimum of eight .(8) percent of the gross site area shall be reserved for recreational development. These facilities and areas shall be designed with trees, grass, benches, equipment, etc., in relationship to park users. Provision of separate adult and tot lot recreational areas is encouraged. Mobile home skirt. All mobile homes shall have the space between ground level and the underside of the floor enclosed by an opaque or solid, durable screening material. Patios. An outdoor patio area of not less than one hundred twenty (120) square feet shall be provided at each mobile home lot, conveniently located to the entrance of the mobile home, and approximately related to open areas on the lot and other facilities for the purpose of providing suitable outdoor living space to supplement the - 18 - interior space o£ a mobile home. A permit shall be required for any canopy or awning used as a patio cover and for any screened, glassed-in or otherwise enclosed awning used as a patio cover and for any screened, glassed-in or otherwise enclosed . awning or canopy. Any patio cover or enclosure must meet setback and yard requirements as set forth in subsection (e) and (f).hereof. 13. Federal standards. All mobile homes placed on lots or sites within a mobile home park must meet federal ii~ _~'~ s anaaras wnL~~~Yare.no older than five (5) years at the time of placement'. 14. Building Permit Requirement: a. It is unlawful for any person to construct, enlarge, alter, improve or convert any mobile home park or t~ improve any lands for use as a park, or improve any lands for use as a park, or to cause the same to be done, or to set or establish a mobile home within a mobile home park unless such person holds a valid and existing permit issued by the building inspector for , the performance of such work. No building permit shall be issued for any mobile home park, or any mobile home, unless plans for development are in full compliance with the approved final development plan and other related development codes. b. Upon completion of any such mobile home park and prior to the use. thereof, and upon the placement of a mobile home upon a lot on site within such mobile home park, the owner or operator of said park, or mobile home, shall obtain a certificate of occupancy. (5) Planned Recreational Vehicle Park District (PRVD). It is the intent of this district to provide for safe, well-designed recreation vehicle parks as a commercial use of land, approximately located to serve the needs of the tourist and interstate traveler. (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses hereinafter listed shall be permitted only as specifically - 19 - designated on the approved €~.a-b OIITLINE development plan: 1. Recreational vehicle park which provides facilities to accommodate tourist or itinerant campers. Sale or storage of campers, motor homes, etc., is not permitted upon the premises. 2. Accessory uses and buildings customarily associated with and incidental to a recreational vehicle park district. (b) Area and Density: The minimum size requirement for a recreational vehicle park sh_a11 be not less than three (3) acres. In no case shall-,the density of the recreational vehicle park exceed twenty (20) units per acre. (c) Height: Maximum thirty-five (35) feet for permanent structures. (d) Perimeter Setbacks and Buffer Yards: All main structures, recreational vehicles and accessory buildings shall be set back not less than ten (10) feet from all property lines, except the front or any other yard abutting a public street shall be at least thirty (30) feet and the yard space so formed shall be landscaped. Greater yards or setbacks may be required where, in the opinion of the planning commission and/or city council, such yards or setbacks are necessary due to the topographic conditions, grading, drainage, and/or protection of adjacent property. No part of any recreational vehicle shall be located within any yard of a required setback area. Any yard which abuts property zoned residential shall be required to provide a ten-foot-wide landscape buffer strip and a six-foot-high ornamental, solid wall or fence along such border. This landscape buffer shall be developed with an acceptable mixture of ground cover, shrubs and/or trees to provide both a visual and a noise barrier between the recreational vehicle park and adjacent residential properties. - (e) Lot Coverage: Overall lot coverage within a recreational vehicle park shall not exceed seventy-five (75) percent. (f) Landscaping: In addition to the specific requirements set forth herein; the overall minimum landscaping area shall not be less than twenty-five (25) percent. (See section 26-32 for additional requirements.) (g) Parking and Circulation: Parking to be determined based upon the specific design and uses. All interior roads shall be constructed as to handle all anticipated peak loads, adequately - 20 - drained and lighted for safety and ease of - movement of vehicles. Minimum widths shall be twenty (20) feet for two-way roads with no on-street .parking allowed, twelve (12) feet for one-way roads with no on-street parking allowed. The recreational vehicle park road system shall be sa_designed as to prevent the use of such roads for through traffic. The entire width of - the vehicle travel lanes shall be surfaced with an all-weather, dust-free material as approved by the city engineer. (h) Addressing and Internal Location System: Recreational vehicle parks shall be addressed to the street from which primary access is obtained. The entire park shall have one (1) address, with each site being designated by unit number. A location map shall be placed at all entrances to the park, which illustrates the internal road system, location of common facilities and __ buildings, manager's office, and each recreational. vehicle site. Each lot 'shall be designated by consecutive numb@rs. Where there is more than one (1) continuous road serving the park, the various roads should be designated as loops (e.g., Loop A., Loop D, etc.). (i) Fences and Walls: As specifically detailed on an approved final development plan; otherwise, follow requirements of section 26-30(I). (j) Signage: As specifically detailed on the approved final development plan; otherwise, follow requirements of :Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26, Article IV. (k) Utilities: All water and sewer service and connechions shall be designed. and constructed so that they are protected from freezing, from accidental bumping, or from creating any type of, nuisance or health hazard. All water and sewer systems shall be reviewed and approved by the district which will serve the park, and are subject to review and inspection by the Jefferson County Health Department. A11 electric supply lines to each recreational vehicle site shall be underground. (1) Area Lights: Each park shall be designed to provide adequate lighting for pedestrians and vehicles within the park; however, the lights shall be designed so as to eliminate off-site glare, and shall meet the requirements of section 26.30(5). (m) Recreational requirements: In addition to the. minimum landscape requirements, a minimum of eight (8) percent of the gross site .area shall be - 21 - (n) reserved for. recreational development. These facilities and areas shall be designed with trees, grass, benches, equipment, etc., in relationship to park users. Provision of separate adult and tat lot recreational areas is encouraged. Building, Fire and Other Codes: I~~ is unlawful for any person to construct, enlarge, alter, improve or convert any recreational ,vehicle park or structures within such a park, or to improve any lands for use as a park, or to cause the same to be done, unless such person holds a valid. and existing permit issued by the building inspector for the performance of such work. No building permit shall be issued for any recreational vehicle park unless plans for development are in full compliance with the approved final development, and applicable building, fire, health or other related _ development codes. Upon completion of any such recreational vehicle park and prior to the use thereof, the owner or operator of said park shall obtain a certificate of occupancy. (6) (o) Business License Required: Recreational vehicle parks are business establishments, and, therefore, must obtain and maintain a valid business license, and shall collect and pay sales, use, lodger and other taxes as may otherwise 'be required by law. Planned Hospital District (PHD): (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses hereinafter listed shall be permitted only as specifically designated on the approved €~~ OUTLINE development plan: 1. Public and private general hospital. 2. Hospitals or sanitariums for contagious diseases, or the mentally disturbed or handicapped. 3. Homes for the aged, nursing homes, congregate care homes, hospices or similar residential facilities which are accessory to a hospital or sanitarium principal use. 4. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted uses as shown on the approved final development plan. (b) minimumaof five (5)Hacresalexceptlas provided a under subsection (6)(e) below. - 22 - (c) Lot Width: Two hundred (200) feet minimum. (d) Setback Requirements: 1. Front: Fifty (50) feet minimum. 2. Side: Twenty-five (25) feet minimum plus ten (10) feet for each story. The intent is to provide a minimum twenty-five-foot landscape buffer adjacent to residential zoned property. 3. Rear: Twenty-five (25) feet minimum, plus ten (10) feet for each story. The intent is to provide a minimum twenty-five-foot -.- landscape buffer adjacent to residential-zoned property. (e) Height: i. Hospital buildings: Fifty (50) feet maximum, except as follows: a. Sixty-five (65) feet where the lot on which the building is. to be constructed is at least fifty (50) acres in size. b. Additions attached to existing hospitals may be built to a height not to exceed the height of the existing building. 2. Offices: Fifty (50) feet maximum. 3. Residential: Thirty-five (35) feet maximum. 4. Accessory: Thirty-five (35) feet maximum.. (f) Lot Coverage: Seventy-five (75) percent maximum overall site coverage. (g) Residential Density: No residential development, excluding nursing homes or intermediate nursing care facilities, shall exceed twenty-one (21) dwelling units per acre. (h) Landscaping: 1. Minimum twenty-five (25) percent overall site requirement. 2. Twenty-five-foot landscape buffer required along property lines adjacent to residential-zoned property. 3. Unless otherwise specifically provided for on the approved plan, all landscaping shall., meet the requirements set forth in section 26-32.' (i) Parking: Based upon specific uses. (See section , - 26-31.) (j) Fences and Walls: As specifically detailed. on an approved final development plan, otherwise follow - 23 - (V) ~~a' requirements of section 26-30(I). (k) Signage: As specifically detailed final development plan, otherwise requirements of Wheat Ridge Code 26, Article IV. APPLICATION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. on an approved follow of Laws, Chapter All applications for approval of a planned development, redevelopment, alteration or addition shall be filed with the Department of Planning and Development. There are three (3) basic steps to the development approval process prior to issuance of a building permit. The three (3) basic steps are: (1} rezoning; (2) site plan and platting approval; and (3) building plan approval. These regulations deal-only with the rezoning and site plan requirements. Platting or subdivision is regulated by the Subdivision Regulations, Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26, Article III. Building plan approval is regulated by the rules and regulations of the building inspection division in accordance with .the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 5 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. There are requirements for an outline development plan (THE REZONING STEP), a preliminary development plan, and for a final development plan, and, in certain cases, subdivision approval. These plans may be submitted for review and approval either separately (regular procedures) or combined (expedited procedures) as described below. (A) Expedited Review Procedure: (1) Development Plans. There - °-' a'^^'"^"-'-- ,.„.__„_ --=, _w, ^ -- --- ~_, ; _..` dDepending on the size and complexity-of~the1proposed development, and on the confidence an applicant has that his plan is viable, as well as acceptable to the city, AN APPLICANT MAY CHOOSE TO SIIBMIT A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND/OR A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REVIEW CONTEMPORANEOUSLY WITH THE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN/REZONING STEP, HOWEVER PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLANS MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY FROM THE OUTLINE PLAN. APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND/OR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS ONLY TENTATIVE UNTIL THE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND REZONING HA3 BEEN APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL. MODIFICATIONS TO TH8 OUTLINE PLAN THAT REQUIRES MAJOR REVISIONS TO A TENTATIVELY APPROVED PRELIMINARY AND/OR FINAL PLAN SHALL REQUIRE THAT THE REVISED PRELIMINARY AND/OR FINAL PLAN BE RE-SCHEDULED FOR PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING AND APPROVAL. MINOR MODIFICATIONS WHICH ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26-25(IX)(B) MAY BE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. - t,.. .. v..,.:. ..a r,.,.,. - 24 - ~E+.. .. .. .. , ... ,... ................. _-~_,~__ _____ ____~_- __..______ r-___ -.__-___ _____-____ _-_- (2) Subdivision/platting. Subdivision or plat review may ALSO be carried out CONTEMPORANEOUSLX __-••"_~-__~-'_1 with the review of development plans required herein. A11 requirements of the subdivision regulations for a preliminary and final plat, rn-a«Qitr~r`~ez ~-ef _.,, , _, __v.. .,_a F: __, a ....... .............. ... __.. must be satisfied if there. are any parcel divisions created, or if there are any dedications for streets, easements or other public purposes, or if a previously approved subdivision is amended in any way by the proposed development. --- ----- ------ =----=---- -=~--------. ~. , , rep ie;r-the-a~ lrea~ - - su~ri-~ se mate -''--~s~~: ~e~~~e~-Ala-8~4~i~i=-er-ma~~e~-Fa,_ --------- --- ---- s ..~.,.,.~ ~,.~ w.. a,...,.,,. ~~ ~,., ,,..,-,,.,s,~-~ ~ . , c ~ w ,. i., .. `, i ,. a . .., .- L. -..- fit, .... a o ~a L2~S~QS-ZT2C-.--lL3CCt~ \SJ 2216'1Z000G CLCKG. 5.~~~6tG C~J _-_--__r--.-___ r-___ -__- r_~_. (B) Regular Review Procedures: (1) Outline development plan: THE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS THE REZONING STEP AND THEREFORE IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26- 6(C) CHANGE OF ZONE. THE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, IN ADDITION TO CREATING A NEW ZONE DISTRICT BY LEGAL DESCRIPTION, ESTABLISHES THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BEING CREATED: • GENERAL CHARACTER • LIST OF PERMITTED USES • MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY (IF RESIDENTIAL) • MAXIMUM FLOOR/AREA RAT20 FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL • MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT • MINIMUM LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIREMENT • MINIMUM DISTRICT PERIMETER BUILDING SETBACItS ANY PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, ONCE THE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED, THAT INVOLVES EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM OR REDUCING THE MINIMUM STANDARDS, OR DEVIATES FROM TH8 LIST OF PERMITTED USES OR GENERAL CHARACTER, SHALL BE CONSIDERED A REZONING ACTION, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26-6(C) CHANGE OF ZONE. _- (a) Submittal Requirements: - 25 - 1. An applicant shall submit an outline development plan for approval of a change of zone to a Planned Development District. The outline development plan is the zoning and general concept step. It provides generalized graphic and written information . on layout, `_c:t~ti:•:•c PERMITTED uses, MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, and intended character of the development. Since minimal engineering detail is required, -- this step provides the lowest cost option for an applicant to gain approval of a change of zone and approval of general development and use concept. The change of zone to planned-development and the outline development plan shall be reviewed by planning and development staff, and other affected departments and agencies, prior to being set for public hearings before planning commission and city council. For the purpose of these review steps, there will be three (3) different submittals of the outline development plan_ First Submittal - Seventeen (17) copies of the outline development plan for staff and agency review. Second Submittal - Fifteen (15) copies of the outline development plan for planning commission public_hearng. Third Submittal - Fifteen (15) copies of the outline development plan for city council public hearing. 2. The maps which are a part of the outline development plan may be in general schematic form and shall contain the following minimum information: a. Ownership/unified control statement. A list of all existing owners of real property included within the proposed Planned Development District, and _a written statement which describes anticipated future ownership character ' (i.e. single ownership, partnership, condominium, etc.), and which indicates proposed manner of maintaining unified control throughout the planning, development, use, operation and continued maintenance of the planned development. - 26 - b. DISTRICT USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AS FOLLOWS: • LIST OF PERMITTED USES FOR THE DISTRICT AND EACH SUBAREA • MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY (IF RESIDENTIAL) • MAXIMIIM FLOOR/AREA RATIO (IF NONRESIDENTIAL) • MAXIMIIM BUILDING HEIGHT • MINIMIIM DISTRICT .PERIMETER BUILDING SETBACKS • GENERAL CHARACTER DESCRIPTION INCLIIDING ANTICIPATED ARCHITECTIIRAL AND SITE DESIGN CONCEPTS, AND OTHER PROJECT FEATURES THAT WILL ESTABLISH THE GENERAL INTENT GF THE PLAN AND PROVIDE A BASIS FOR REVIEWING AUTHORITIES TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT b Gb ~ € d ~ e t~ :~ ~ e~ . a-i~ a _ 4 - r__ .. e~e F i.4. e~Fn ~ . , . .., .. i. .. ..., ~ ~ ..r - i l~ b ~ t ~ ~R } e fie t ~~ ne e m______ ; }x .w . , ._ aa - .,., ~ w ~ ,. ..Y e , .. __~ ,._ _ w , a ~ ________ _ ..~ ~ __ _~_ ,, _ _-_- ., ,. D^ ___ -..,.a ,. y,. ,~,~ ._ .+1':~~ ,'L- aic<xr~ e~ar-ate -aura ~ r__r__ ~~. _- ..r.... , a~va~-~a ~--o€= tee s i€e' = =--=' . - ___ -_____ . r a a:~ ~ and €3. .3l~crrt ?'..... .... , _..,-- _ _a ~, .. ,., a,. ~F ...r .. , i~~~u., .- ..ate ~ ~ € =- ~t~r€s I~~T =e reereat ~ ae . ~ a .. .-. +- -.+, a ,- h 'Z `~ J ., , L .. L -.., - J c. The existing topographic character of the land at a contour interval not larger than five (5) feet. d. General indication of areas to be landscaped. e. Property boundaries as per . accompanying legal description. f., Existing and proposed lot lines, easements and rights-of-way on and adjacent to the site. g. Adjacent zoning, land use, streets, streams, etc. h. --Location of all existing and proposed streets within the site and ingress/egress points. i. Approximate location and extent of major use areas WITH A KEY TO THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES. j. Any significant EXISTING landscape or land use features which may influence- development. k. Scale (no less than one inch = one hundred -(100) feet) and north arrow. 1. Small scale location map as an inset which shows the subject property centered within a quarter-mile radius. m. Proposed name of the planned development. ___ __ ~_____~_ _._~__~____. __ _.._ _..r ___~~ riTS2GraGSQ~Cr2 2 TCTS g~essz~le-uses-t~-m ~,,.'~a `w~ a----, _~,.,,...~ _.-. __.- =r _._.___._.__. na. Legal description (metes and bounds) of total site, including area. o'p. Surveyor's certification. Y J••~ --J peree~t; --- _ __-_~ ~__~ ~___ r___-___, le-rrds eape-area-a~~er a en-t~~ per. Development time schedule by phase (see subsection (VII) for limitations). 3. The outline development plan shall be recorded with the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder and, therefore, must meet their basic requirements for recordation. The following certifications, in addition to the required surveyor's certificate, shall also be placed upon the outline development plan: OWNSR'S CERTIFICATION - 28 - The below-signed owner(s), or legally designated agent(s) thereof,.-do hereby agree that the property legally described hereon will be developed as a Planned Development in accordance with the uses, restrictions and conditions contained in this plan, and as may otherwise be-required by law. I (we) further recognize that the approval of rezoning to Planned ,Development, and approval of this outline development plan does-not create a vested property right. Vested property rights may only arise and accrue pursuant to the provisions of section 26-6(G) of the Code of Laws. Signature of Owner(s) or Agent(s) NOTARY PUBLIC Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19_ Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION- Approved this - day of Planning Commission. NOTARY SEAL 19 _, by the Wheat Ridge. /s/ Chairman PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION Approved this day of 19_, by the_ Wheat Ridge City Council. CITY SEAL ATTEST: /s/ Mayor City C7.erk COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS CERTIFICATE This document accepted for filing in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder of Jefferson_County at Golden, Colorado, on the day of A.D. 19_, i_n Book Page , Reception Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder By: Deputy - 29 - Accompanying the application, the following is required: _ a. Fee: UNDER 3 ACRES = $500 3 ACRES OR MORE _ $500 PLUS $100 ADDITIONAL PER ACRE OR PART OF AN ACRE. "' :- '.. _-. a._.,_a a=a.-.. a_~ ~ of ~di~isna'_ _~__=_ _`.w..;itt~azu.. f;.~ /-......1_ - F i .. l .-. ~ .. L.~,.._ ., a.....- i .. i..~~~'i.,..~..k-.,....,,a a a l+-. IF+nn nnlyu .. L.y b. Evidence that the required neighborhood referral meeting has occurred (See section 26-6(F)(1)). c. Complete and notarized application. d. Proof of ownership, such as copies of deeds or title commitment. e. Power of attorney from owner(s) where an agent acts on behalf of the owner(s). f. Names and address 'of all adjacent property owners, including property across abutting streets.- g. Names, addresses, telephone numbers of architects and engineers associated with the preparation of the plans. 5. Additional information may be required, including, but not limited to, geological stability report, traffic impact report, flood plain impact report, or general environmental impact report. (b) Review Procedures: Staff Review: Upon filing of an application.-and other required documents, planning and development staff will refer copies of the plans to affected departments and agencies for review. All comments shall be forwarded to the applicant so that necessary revisions may be made by the applicant-prior to scheduling the application before planning commission. Once staff is assured that all required documents and revisions thereto have been received, notice of public hearing shall occur in accordance with requirements set forth in - 30 - section 26-6(F). 2. Planning commission hearing. Planning commission shall hold a' public hearing and within ninety (90) days of-the public hearing date, exclusive- of time requested by the applicant for continuances, shall adopt a resolution which recommends to city council approval, approval with modifications or denial, and such resolution shall state the reasons for such recommendations. City council hearing: Upon receipt of the planning commission's resolution, the city clerk shall schedule 1ST AND 2ND READING OF THE REZONING ORDINANCE APPROVING TH8 OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THE FORM RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS DENIED THE REQIIEST AND THE APPLICANT HAS PROPERLY APPEALED THAT DENIAL, THE CITY CLERK SHALL SCHEDULE. FIRST AND SECOND READING OF A. REZONING ORDINANCE APPROVING THE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN A MANNER AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. THE CITY CLERK SHALL SET a public hearing before city council and cause public notice as required by section 26-6(F). City Council shall hold a public hearing and within ninety (90) days of the public hearing, exclusive of time requested by the applicant for continuances, shall approve, approve with modifications or deny the ~ie~t ORDINANCE ON 2ND READING. (c) Recordation: All approved outline development plans shall be recorded with the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder. Such pla~.s, and associated recording fees shall be submitted to planing and development department within thirty (30) days of council's final action. Should a recordable approved outline development plan not - 31 - be provided to staff within sixty (60) days of council's final action, staff shall schedule a public hearing before city council, and city council e~13--- MAY EXTEND SUCH TIME PERIOD, OR MAY ORDER THE CITY CLERK TO SCHEDULE AN ORDINANCE FOR 1ST AND 2ND READING AND SET ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING TO' reconsider the previous approval. (2} Preliminary development plan (and preliminary plat): (a) Submittal Requirements: 1. An application for approval of a preliminary development plan is required only for a multi-phased project where a final development plan is or will be submitted for only a portion of the area included within a Planned Development District. It permits the consideration of the platting details for the entire site as they relate to lots, streets, access, drainage, utilities, easements and other public (or common) improvements or needs. -- This step requires detailed preliminary plat information, but does not require the detailed site development information required with a final development plan. The preliminary development plan shall be consistent with the approved outline development plan. The preliminary development plan (and plat) shall be reviewed by planning and development staff., and other affected departments and agencies, prior to being set for public hearing before planning commission. For the purpose of these review steps, there will be two (2) different submittals of_the preliminary development plan (and plat), except where an appeal of a planning commission decision to city council occurs. First Submittal -- Seventeen (17) copies of the preliminary development plan (and plat) for staff and review agencies. Second Submittal-- Fifteen (15).copies of the preliminary development plan (and plat) for planning commission public hearing. Third Submittal (optional) -- Fifteen (15) copies of the preliminary development plan (and plat), for city council appeal - 32 - hearing. Accompanying the application, the following is required: a. Fee: UNDER 3 ACRES = $250 3 ACRES OR MORE ~ $250 PLUS $50 ADDITIONAL PER ACRE OR PART OF AN ACRE. t' a a ~ it~nn nn1 b. Complete and notarized application. c. Proof of ownership, such as copies of deeds or title commitment. d. Power of attorney from owner(s) where an agent acts, on behalf of the owner(s). e. Names and address of all adjacent property owners, including property across abutting streets. f. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of owner, licensed surveyor, licensed engineer and designer of plat. g. Agreements, provisions, condominium declarations, covenants, etc., which govern the development, use, maintenance and continued protection for. the planned development and any of its common areas or facilities. It is ,specifically required that uniform control be demonstrated. 3. The preliminary development plan (and plat) shall be drawn at a scale of not less than one (1) inch to one hundred (100) feet and containing the following: a. Name of proposed plan (and plat), date of,preparation, scale and north arrow. b. Legal description and area of entire parcel included within the Planned Development District. c. Small scale location map with zoning of adjacent surrounding properties. d. Location of all existing and proposed lot lines and numbering of lots and blocks. Where a plat or subdivision approval is proposed simultaneously with development plan review, the requirements of the subdivision regulations for a preliminary plat must be met. (Chapter 26, Article III.} e. Location of all existing and proposed public and primate rights-of-way and easement lines located on and adjacent to the property which are proposed to be continued, created, relocated or - 33 - abandoned. f. Existing grade and proposed finish grade of the site shown by contours with intervals not larger than two (2) feet. g. The approximate location of every existing and proposed structure or building envelope in the described parcel, the expected use or uses to be contained therein, the number of dwelling units (if applicable) and the maximum gross floor area. h. Location, dimension and elevations of all existing and proposed streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, alleys, easements, drainage areas, irrigation ditches, lakes or ponds, and other significant features within or adjacent to the tract to be subdivided or developed. i. Quantitative tabulations and percentages for building coverages; total lot coverage, parking areas,. landscape areas, open areas, etc. j. Locations of all proposed curb cuts, parking areas and loading areas. k. Location of all proposed walks, malls and other open area as they may relate to the entire site. 1. All existing and proposed water and sewer lines and their source of supply and all electric lines and their maximum capacity. m. A drainage plan of the entire site. The approximate volume of water generated by expected development and the proposed method of disposing of said water. n. All irrigation ditches shall be located and labeled with name of ditch company or owner(s), and name(s) and address(es) of the appropriate contact. Any proposed changes to irrigation ditches must be indicated, and a letter from the ditch owner(s) approving of such changes must be submitted. o. Geological stability information when requested by the city. p. Designation of the 10'0-year flood plain and/or wetlands .where applicable. q. Development schedule by phase which indicates expected time of beginning and ending of construction. Where improvements will be needed outside of - 34 - an area for which a final development _ plan is or is proposed to be approved in order for-that area to properly function, a detailed phasing schedule and design plans shall be required for __ those improvements. (e.g., storm drainage facilities located within the Planned Development District, but outside of the area proposed for final development plan approval). All temporary or interim facilities shall be so designated, and design specifications provided therefor. (See section 26-25 (VII) for limitations). (b) Review Procedures: 1. Staff Review: Upon filing of an application and other required documents, planning and development staff shall refer copies of the plans to affected departments and agencies for review. All comments shall be forwarded to the applicant so that necessary revisions may be made by the applicant prior to scheduling the application before planning commission. Once staff is assured that all required documents and revisions thereto have been received, notice of public hearing shall occur in accordance with requirements set forth in section 26-6_(F). 2. Planning commission hearing. Planning commission shall hold a public hearing and within ninety (90) days of the public hearing date, exclusive of time requested by the applicant 'for continuances, shall adopt a resolution which approves, approves with modifications, or denies the preliminary development plans (and plat). - and such resolution shall state the reasons for action. 'Any applicant may appeal a decision. of planning commission to city council; however, such appeal must be filed with the city clerk within ten (10) ..~°'_'_~~ BIISINESS days of that decision. 3. City council hearing. Upon receipt of a petition of appeal, the city clerk shall schedule a public hearing before city council and cause public notice as required by section 26-6(F). City council shall hold a public hearing and within ninety (90) days of the public .hearing, exclusive of time requested by the .applicant for continuances, shall ADOPT A MOTION WHICH approves, approves with modifications, or - 35 - denp~2ES the application. (3) Final development plan (and final plat): (a) Submittal Requirements: 1. The final development plan (and plat) provides the final engineering, platting ARCHITECTIIRAL CONCEPT and site design details for final approval of one (1) or more phases of a proposed development. This is the final development plan and platting step and culminates all of the requirements prior to submittal of building plans. platy s3~-rl~e-revie~ed~rs~r~t to-~Y3e - qu Rcuc ~--e °r-siiv$eccivi-~( •,~T "carrlT ,._ ~~ ~~ 2. Accompanying the application, the following is required: a. Fee: UNDER 3 ACRES = $250 3~ACRES OR MORE _ $250 PLUS $50 ADDITIONAL PER ACRE OR-PART OF AN ACRE. b. Complete and notarized application. c. Proof of ownership, such as copies of deeds or title commitment. d. Power of_attorney from owner(s) where an agent acts on behalf of the owner(s). e. Names and address of all adjacent property owners, including property across abutting streets. f. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of architects and engineers associated with preparation of the plans and plat. g. Copies of proposed agreements, provisions, covenants, condominium declarations, etc., which govern the use, maintenance and continued protection of the planned development and any of its common areas and facilities, and which will guarantee unified control. h. Additional information may be required, including, but not limited to, geological stability report, traffic impact report, flood-plain impact report or general environmental impact report. 3. Form and content of the final development plan. The final development plan (and plat) shall be consistent with the approved - 36 - outline and preliminary development plans (if applicable). The-final development plan (and plat) shall be drawn at a scale of no less than one (1) inch to one hundred (100) feet and contain the following: a. The requirements of both this section as well as the subdivision regulations for a final plat must be met. If a preliminary development plan has not previously been approved, the requirements of the subdivision regulations for a preliminary plat must be met. b. Legal description of the entire planned development, and if the final development plan. is for only a portion of the site, a legal description of that portion of the site included within the final development plan. c. Location, extent., type and surfacing materials of all proposed walks, malls, paved .areas, turfing and other areas-not to be covered by buildings or structures. d. Location, size, type, height and orientation of all signs. Signs not specifically approved as part of a final development-plan shall not be permitted. e. A landscape plan which provides location, type, size and quantities of all existing (to remain) and proposed plant material and other landscape features and materials. Common and botanical names of all plant materials shall be indicated. Location and type. of irrigation system shall be indicated. All landscaping shall meet the requirements of this section as well as section 26.32'. f. Location, extent, types of materials and height of all walls and. fences. g. Exterior lighting devices; type, height, location and orientation. h. Location,-extent,. maximum height, number of floors and total floor-area of all buildings and structures. i. Total number of dwelling units and typical floor plans for residential projects. j. Elevations and perspective drawings of. all proposed structures and. improvements., indicating architectural style and building materials. The drawings need not be the result of - 37 - final architectural design but of sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the proposed structure(s). k. Off-street parking and loading plan which indicates the size, location, and number of parking and loading- - spaces and which shows the proposed circulation of vehicles and __ pedestrians within the planned development and to and from existing or proposed public thoroughfares. Any special engineering features and traffic regulation devices needed to facilitate and ensure the safety of this circulation pattern, including fire lanes, must be shown. 1. Indication of all proposed uses for all buildings, structures and open areas. Outside storage and displays areas must be indicated if proposed. Description of any proposed temporary or interim uses of land or existing buildings prior to development in accordance with the approved final ' development plan. m. A development schedule indicating the. approximate date on which construction of the project can be expected to begin and approximate dates when construction will be completed. If multi-phased project, indicate times- for each phase (see subsection VII) for limitations)' n. The final development plan (and plat) -- shall be recorded with the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder and, therefore, must meet their basic requirements for recordation. The following certifications, and approvals, in .addition to the required surveyor's certificate, shall also be ' placed upon the final development plan (and plat): OWNER'S CERTIFICATION The below signed owner(s), or legally designated agent(s) thereof, do hereby agree. that the property legally described herein will be developed as a Planned Development in accordance with the uses, restrictions, and conditions contained in this plan, and as may otherwise be required by law. I (we) further recognize that the approval of Final Development Plan (and Plat) does not create a vested property right. Vested property rights may_only arise and accrue pursuant to the provisions of section 26-6 (G) of Article I of. the Code of Laws of the City of Wheat Ridge. - 38 - Signature of Owner(s) or Agent(s) NOTARY PUBLIC Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of 19_ Witness my hand and official seal. . My commission expi NOTARY SEAL PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATIOp7 Approved this day of 19_, by the Wheat Ridge Planning Commission. /s/ Chairman PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY C.OUNCZL_CERTIFICATION [REQUIRED ONLY WHEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVES PLANT Approved this .day of 19~, by the Wheat Ridge City Council. /s/ _ _ CITY SEAL Mayor ATTEST: - City Clerk COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS CERTIFICATE This document accepted for filing in .the office of the County Clerk and Recorder of Jefferson County at Golden, Colorado, on the __day of A.D. 19_,.in the Book Page , Reception Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder By: Deputy In additiosL to the above certifications and required land surveyor's certificate, the following appraval_signature blocks shall be ,placed upon plats and subdivisions. Public Service'Company of Colorado - 39 - Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph City of Wheat Ridge, Director of Public Works City of Wheat Ridge, Director of Parks and Recreation (b) Review Procedures: 1. Staff Review. Upon filing of an application and other required documents, the planning and development staff will refer copies of the plans to affected departments and agencies for review. All comments shall be forwarded to the applicant so that necessary revisions may be made by the. applicant prior to scheduling the application before planning commission. Once staff is assured that all required documents and revisions thereto have been received, notice of public hearing shall occur in accordance with requirements set forth in section 26.6(F)_ 2. Planning Commission hearing. Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and within ninety (90) days of the public hearing date, exclusive of time requested by the applicant for continuances, shall ADOPT A RESOLUTION WHICH APPROVES, APPROVES WITH MODIFICATIONS, OR DENIES THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS (AND PLAT) AND SUCH RESOLUTION SHALL STATE THE REASONS FOR ACTION. ANY APPLICANT, ADJACENT PROPBRTY rr, OWNER, STAFF, OR COUNCIL MEMBER FROM THE Vv -- DISTRICT WHERE THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED MAY APPEAL A DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION TO ~( CITY COUNCIL; HOWEVER, SUCH APPEAL MUST BE ~CY!`.7~' FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK WITHIN TEN (10) %~ BUSINESS_DAYS-OF THATMDECISION. adag~a„ , l .i .. L. .-.1 .. ~- .. L. l l ,H.. 4L. reaseaas €ar-~tian- 3. City Council hearing. Upon receipt of A PETITION OF APPEAL ~`~ r'_~: ..n, - ~~'••~'_-- the city clerk shall schedule a public hearing before city council and cause public notice as required by section 26-6(F). City council shall hold a public hearing and within ninety (90) days of the public hearing, exclusive of time requested by the applicant for continuances, shall- ADOPT A MOTION WHICH approves, approves with modifications, or - 40 - denyIES the application. (c) ,Recordation: .All approved final development plans (and plats) shall be recorded with the Sefferson County Clerk and Recorder. Such plans, and associated recording fees,- shall be submitted to planning and development staff within thirty (30) days of council's final action. Should a recordable approved final development (and plat) not be provided to staff within sixty (60) days of council's final action, the staff shall schedule a. public hearing before city council, and city council shall reconsider their previous approval. , (VI) INTERPRETATION OF ERRORS AND OMISSIONS Detailed specifications .and standards which should have been specifically set forth by an approved final development plan; but which were found subsequent to approval to have been omitted, may be interpreted by the zoning administrator to be those specifications and standards set forth in the Wheat Ridge Zone District in which the approved uses contained within the final development plan would be permitted. In the event the approved uses are in fact permitted in more than one other zone district, the zoning administrator is hereby authorized to determine.,- based upon the overall intent of the underlying districts, to determine the appropriate zone district's standards which shall be applied. The owner of any property who e~ k-feels aggrieved by such determination by the zoning administrator shall be entitled to appeal said determination pursuant to the provisions of section 26-6(D)(4) of this Zoning Ordinance. (VII) GodST:^~dti~ra: TIME LIMITATION (A) THE CITY HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND DECLARES THAT THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS DEFINED IN THIS SUBSECTION VII, IS AND SHALL BE DETERMINED TO BE THE "SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN" FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPLYING WITH SECTION 24-68-101 ET SEQ., C.P.S., AND IN EXERCISE OF THE AUTHORITY GRANTED TO THE CITY BY SECTION 24-68-102(4), C.P.S. (B) UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED UPON THE FACE OF AN APPROVED FINAL DEVELOPMENT PL_•.N, SUCH PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED FOR THREE (3) YEARS FRObi.THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPROVAL. CONSTRUCTION MUST COMMENCE DURING THIS THREE-YEAR PERIOD. UPON EXPIRATION OF THE THREE- YEAR TIME LIMITATION, OR OTHER TIME LIMITATION AS MAY HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL, NO PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION, SITE PREPARATION, OR USE SHALL BE ISSIIED WITHOUT THE OWNER APPLYING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR, AND RECEIVING APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION OF TIME LIMITATION.' PLANNING COMMISSION MAY EXTEND THE TIME LIMITATION, WITH OR WITHOUT MODIFICATIONS TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN, OR THEY MAY RESCIND APPROVAL - 41 - OF THE PLAN AND RECOMMEND TO CITY CODNCIL REZONING OF THE PROPERTY OR A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ZONE CLASSIFICATION PRIOR TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING, OR TO ANOTHER ZONE CLASSIFICATION WHICH CONFORMS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. -(~~r-e~~}~ati~~~seeh-es-fa3~lis~ted~n.. , : _:.,.: _~ ~2~mia~asiex~ e€ ~lr~ 4~i-~i~l-eitzee~~~iex~, er~~ @3etensien-o€-t}~a_.a~yee~r-gr~t~e~~hz~xe~; ~-=,~„ (VIII) BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS A11-approved development plans shall be binding upon the owner(s), their successors and assigns, and shall limit the development to all conditions and limitations .established in such plans, and as may be contained in separately recorded agreements, covenants, condominium declarations, etc., which were approved by city council as part of a planned development approval. (IX) AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT PLANS (A) The procedures and requirements for amending an approved development plan (outline, preliminary or final) shall be the same as prescribed for original approval, except as provided for under subsection (B) below. .All applications for amendment, EXCEPT WHERE TH8 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE IS THE APPLICANT, must be approved in writing by a3~ owners of AT LEAST FIFTY ONE (51) PERCENT OF THE real property contained within the area originally approved by the outline development plan, unless specific alternative provisions have been approved by city council as part of the unified control agreement. (B) Based upon showing of necessity therefor, minor changes in the locations of structures and their accessory uses, fences, parking areas, landscaping-and other site improvements may be permitted as an "administrative amendment" by the director of planning and development, if such changes will not cause any of the following circumstances to occur: (1) Change in the character of the development. - 42 - (2) Increase in the intensity (or density) of use. (3) Increase of the problems of circulations, safety and _- utilities. (4) Increase of the external effects on the adjacent properties. (5) Increase in maximum building height. (6} Reduction in the originally approved setbacks from perimeter property lines. (7 Reduction in landscape area of total site, or relocation of landscape areas which are required as buffer yards or-establish project character. (8) Increase in the gross floor area of structures beyond the authorized maximum allowed with the approved planned development. (C) Any changes or revisions of a final development plan which are approved, either administratively or by council action, must be recorded with the Jefferson County Recorder as amendments to the original recorded development plan. (X) TEMPORARY USE PROVISION - - _ - Subsequent to rezoning to a Planned Development District and approval of a final development plan, but prior to development and use of a parcel in accordance with the approved plan, the property may continue to be used in accordance with the previous zoning or for cultivation of agricultural products, or-the raising and keeping of livestock, as would be permitted in any residential district; provided, however, that no new permanent structures or additions to existing structures will be permitted. (Ord. No. 1989-807, subsection 2, 9-25-89; Ord. No. 1990-827, subsection 1, 4-9-90) B:\PDREGS2.AMD - 43 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 20, 1995 f ¢ MINIITES OF MEETING April 20, 1995 - CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson ECKHARDT at 7:32 p.m., on April 20, 1995 in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. . 2. ROLL CALL: MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Eckhardt Harry Williams James Owens - EXCUSED ABSENCE Jay Rasplicka Carl A. Cerveny George Langdon - EXCUSED ABSENCE Wallace Crumpton - EXCUSED ABSENCE Warren Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Glen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development Meredith Reckert, Planner Sandra Wiggins, Secretary PIIBLIC HEARING The following is the official copy of Planning Commission minutes for the Public Hearing of April 20, 1995. A copy of these minutes is retained both in the office of the City Clerk and.in. -. the Department of Planning and Development of the City of Wheat Ridge. .. ,~ ~a ~~ ~ y ' Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 April 21, 1995 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE T8E ORDER OF T8E AGENDA Mr. Gidley informed those present that the applicant for Case No. SUP-95-2 had requested a continuance to May 4, 1995_ Commissioner CERVENY requested the addition of two items under 10. New Business; CML in June and Senate Bill No. 149. With those changes Commissioner RASPLICKA moved to approve-the agenda as amended. Commissioner JOHNSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINIITES Commissioner CERVENY moved to approve the minutes for the meeting of April 6, 1995 as printed. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. 6. PIIBLIC FORIIM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing under Item 7 of the Public Hearing section of the agenda.) No one had signed the roster nor came forward to speak at that time. 7. PIIBLIC BEARING 2. Case No. SIIP-95-2: An application by Goodwill Industries for approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a manned semi-trailer as a donation station on. property located at 4200 Wadsworth Blvd. Commissioner RASPLICKA moved that Case No. SUP-95-2 be continued, at the, applicant's request, to May 4, 1995. Commissioner JOHNSON seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. 1. Case No. WV-95-2: An application by Doug Bacon, Trustee for the Kendall Street Trust for approval of a right-of-way vacation for portions of West 42nd Avenue, West 43rd Avenue and Aendall Street adjacent to 4265, 4275, 4285 and 4295 Readall Street. Ms. Reckert presented the staff report. Entered and accepted by the Chairman were the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, case file-and packet materials. ', Commissioner CERVENY asked if the property owner had maintained the streets in the past. Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 April 21, 1995 Ms. Reckert stated yes, the streets had been privately maintained. Dou~Bacon, 3420 Union Street, was sworn in. Mr. Bacon explained that the reason he wanted to vacate the right-of-way was to bring ownership back the property owner. He elaborated. Mr. Bacon asked about nonconformities if the right-of-way is vacated. Chairperson ECKHARDT explained that presently the property in question is public right-of-way and there are setback nonconformities. However, if the right-of-way is vacated, the property setbacks would no longer be nonconforming. He added that the streets would not have to be brought up to city standards, since they would no longer belong to the City. Ms. Reckert explained City standards for a public street. Mr. Bacon stated he had his attorney prepare an easement for his neighbor, assuring access to his property. A copy had been provided to staff. In_addition, the easement includes provision for utilities and the-fire department. He added that he had the certification of posting for the file. Commissioner JOHNSON asked Ms. Reckert about the necessity of the first condition in the staff report regarding the reservation of a non-exclusive utility easement. Ms. Reckert stated that staff is unaware of the location of utilities on the property. She added that the "blanket" easement request is standard. Commissioner JOHNSON asked if it was necessary to have the easement over the entire area being vacated. Unless the utility companies can pinpoint the location of their lines, this is usual procedure. Commissioner JOHNSON felt the condition was too vague. Discussion followed. Mr. Bacon announced that his sister lives in California and it would take several days to obtain a notarized affidavit from her. He was concerned that the wording on the easement was not adequate. Ms. Reckert reminded Mr. Bacon that there would be a second hearing before City Council. She added that the Ordinance to vacate would include verbiage regarding a blanket utility easement and ingress/egress easement. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 April 21, 1995 Commissioner RASPLICKA asked if everyone was clear regarding which areas would be posted "No Parking"? Ms. Reckert stated she had hoped to get the Fire Department out to indicate. those areas. She elaborated. Commissioner RASPLICKA that it was important for Mr. Bacon to have that information. Commissioner CERVENY moved that Case No. WV-95-2, an application by Doug Bacon, Trustee, for the Kendall Street Trust for approval of a right-of-way vacation for portions of West 42nd Avenue, West 43rd Avenue and Kendall Street adjacent to 4265, 4275, 4285 and 4295 Kendall Street and 6215, 6217 and 6219 West 41st Avenue, be Approved for the following reasons: 1. The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge and all posting and notification requirements have been met, therefore, there is jurisdiction to hear the case. 2. The "streets" are substandard according to today's requirements. 3. They have been privately maintained; and 4. It will eliminate many existing nonconformities. With the following conditions: 1. A non-exclusive utility easement be reserved over the entire area; 2. The vacated portion be designated as an emergency access lane and be posted accordingly; and 3. Access be reserved for occupants and guests of 4265, 4275, 4285 and 4295 Kendall Street and 6215, 6217 and 6219 West 41st Avenue. Commissioner WILLIAMS seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. 8. CLOSE THE PIIBLIC HEARING 9. OLD BIISINESS 4 10. NEW BIISINESS A. CML Conference f Planning Commission-Minutes April 21, 1995 Page 5 Discussion was heard regarding the CML Conference in June. This year the conference will be held iri Grand Junction, June 27 through July 1. B. Seaate Bill No. 149 Commissioner CERVENY passed out a S.B. 149 Fact Sheet to those present and gave a brief overview. Lively discussion followed. Commissioner CERVENY thanked everyone for their comments. 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS 13. ADJOIIRNMENT Commissioner JOHNSON asked that he be excused. Meeting by consensus adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Discussion, however, continued to 9:15 p.m. Sandra Wiggins, Secretary CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION CASE N0: WV-95-2 LOCATION: Portions of W 42nd Ave.,. W 43rd Ave and Kendall-St APPLICANT(S) NAME: Doug Bacon, Trustee OWNER(S) NAME: .Kendall Street Trust REQUEST: approval of a right-of-vacation APPROXIMATE AREA: n/a _ WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division has submitted a list of factors to be considered with the above request, and said list of factors is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, there was testimony received at a public hearing by the Planning-Commission and such testimony provided additional facts. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the facts presented and conclusions reached, it was moved by Commissioner CERVENY, seconded by Commissioner WILL2.=,MS, that Case No. WV-95-2, an application by Doug Bacon, Trustee for the Kendall Street Trust for approval of a right- of-way vacation for portions of West 42nd Avenue, West 43rd Avenue and Kendall Street adjacent to 4265,4275, 4285 and 4295 Kendall Street and 6215, 6217 and 6219 West 41st Avenue be APPROVED for the following reasons: 1. The property is within the City of Wheat Ridge and all posting and notification requirements have been met, therefore, there._is jurisdiction to hear__the.case. 2. The "streets" are substandard according to. today's requirements. 3. They have been privately maintained; and 4. It will eliminate many existing nonconformities. With the following conditions: 1. A non-exclusive utility easement be reserved over the entire _ area; 2. The vacated portion be designed as an emergency access lane and be posted accordingly; and 3. Access be reserved for occupants and guests of 4265, 4275, 4285 and 4295 Kendall Street and 6215, 6317, and 6219 West 41st Avenue. VOTE: YES: Eckhardt, Williams, Rasplicka, Cerveny and Johnson NO: Owens, Langdon, Crompton Planning Commission Resolution Case No. WV-95-2/Doug Bacon Trustee Page 2 I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the City of Wheat Ridge Planning. Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by a 5 - 0 vote of the members present at their regular meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the 20th day of April, 1995. 8 V3J S+l:nlaai ua., WHEAT RIDGE E rson Sandra w~.yyiua, ~_~~=~~-s COMMISSION WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION b:\wv952.res c-~- AGENDA CITY OF_WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMMISSION May 18, 1995 Notice is hereby given of a Public Meeting to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission on May 18, 1995 at 7:30 p.m., 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. 1. CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4 APPROVE THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA (Items of new and old . business may be recommended for placement on the agenda.) 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 20, 1995 6 PUBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any . subject not appearing under Item 6 of the Public Hearing Section of the Agenda.) 7. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No. ZOA-95-2: Proposed amendment to Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26. Zoning Ordinance;- Section 26- 25. Planned Development Districts. 8. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 9. OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion of Development Impact Fees - PLEASE BRING INFORMA,yTION INC~LTTDED .IlN MAY 4, 1995 PACKET 10 . NEW BUS NEB SSA ~~~ " ' 11. DSSCUSSION AND DECISION ITEMS 12. COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT REPORTS -~y~,, r/ ~,/ ~, /S 13. ADJOURNMENT ~ C.L A "d c:\wp60\pc\51895.age SST BmGE II~II'1~D rIEI May 18, 1995 To: Wheat Ridge Plannir.~; Cnr,.mission Re: Case No. SOA-95-2'/ Proposed Amendments to Zoning Or Section 26-24 Planned Development District Wheat Ridge United A'ei~;hborhoo's has reviewed very briefl;, _.... above proposal (43 page.=. plus a 2 page summary). 1'ie find certain portions unacceptable. Let's Agin with the sum- mary: 1 - A. Process - lines ~, 8, 9 & 10 - "final plans and amendments to them, are site planning and platting steps and therefore are_a_aproved only by motion." question. 2 - lines 3, 4, 5 & 6 "Process of approval for final de- velopment plans and amendments thereto by shocving the Plan- ning Commission as the approval authority, with an appeal process to City Council". question this authority. mhe following remarks will pinpoint those portions which, in our opinion, are most objectiohable - covering pages 1-43. page 5 (1) (e) line ~ - delete "BY" line 8 - add "TO" between "COi~'iISSION" and "city". page '7 (d) line ~ - change the ward "CR" to "AND" page 9 - top of cave line 5 - change "OR" to "AND" page 24 - (A) (1) lines 11, 12, 13 - "Approval of a Pre- liminary Development Plan, and/or Final Development Flan by the Planning Commission" (see notes on this sentence) " " - lines 1'7, 18, 19 - again 'Tfor Planning Com- mission" - we recommend adding "AND CITY COUNCIL+' ling 22 - we question minor modifications approval "BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPI~NT" . page 31 - We have some reservations or. the wording of "3." - may need some revisions , page 40 - (b) 2. We suggest deletion of lines 6-lE - re- word this portion - beginning with line 6 restate-use deleted wording lines 16 - 20 to read "shall adopt a resolution etc. etc. 3;. Strike line 1 - "A" - line 2 - strike "PE'PITIUN OF APPEAL"'_ restate " the plan- ping commission's resolution•'. page 41 - VII (B) line 8 - strike "OR" - use "AND" line 10 - add "AND CITY COUNCIL" You will note the foregoing remarks pertain specifically to the empovrerment of the Planning Commission and/or the Director of Planning and Development to make far reaching decisions wTSich could affect neighborhoods negatively 'A;e believe this right should be reserved for the elected officials. With all due re- - spect to the commissior. members and the staff, we respectfully ask that you consider these suggested amendments carefully. We feel confident you will protect the neighborhoods in this matter. iYBEAT RIDGE IINITED NEIfiHBURH00DS Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 May 18, 1995 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. APPROVE TED; ORDER OF THE AGENDA Mr. Gidley requested the addition of_ a Red Rocks update, under Item 9. Old Business and under Item 12, Committee & Department Reports, the addition of City Council Meeting update. With those additions, Commissioner JOHNSON moved to approve the agenda for the meeting of May 18, 1995 as amended. Commissioner RASPLICKA seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. 5. APPROVAL OF MINIITES Vice Chairman CERVENY pointed out on page 3, paragraph 2, the word "to!' should be added, following the-word "back". With that change, Vice Chairperson CERVENY accepted the minutes. for the meeting of April 20, 1995 as corrected. A vote was then taken, the minutes were approved 4-0, with Commissioner LANGDON abstaining. 6. PIIBLIC FORUM (This is the time for anyone to speak on any subject not appearing under Item 7 of the Public Hearing section of the agenda.) No one had signed the roster, nor came forward to speak at that time. 7. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Case No. ZOA-95-2: Proposed amendment to Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26. Zoning Ordinance, Section 26- 25. Planned Development Districts. Mr. Gidley informed those present of a letter Dorothy Thompson prepared and delivered this date regarding this case and stated that she had requested that it be read into the record. Ms. Thompson is a member ,of Wheat Ridge United Neighborhoods. Each Commissioner present received and read a copy of the letter. Vice Chairman CERVENY accepted the letter as part of the record. Mr. Gidley gave an overview of his memo to Planning Commission dated May 12, 1995. Following that, Commission reviewed the proposed amendments page-by-page and had the following recommendations: Page 1 - No recommended change Page 2 - CERVENY asked about the exception of the City a5 applicant.- GIDLEY explained. Page 3 - No recommended change Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 ( May 18, 1995 Page 4 - No recommended change Page 5 - 3. Add "such as schools, day care facilities and churches, but not limited to these". (e) Should read- _ "approved by city council, IIPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION". . Page 6 - No recommended change Page 7 - (d) Should read !'approved by city council OR PLANNING COMMISSION" . Page 8 - No recommended change Page 9 - (d) Should read "approved by city council OR PLANNING COMMISSION" . Page 10 - No recommended change_ Page 11 - No recommended change Page 12 - No recommended change Page 13 - No recommended change Page 14 - No recommended change Page 15 - No_recommended change -- Page 16 - No recommended change Page 17 - No recommended change ___ Page 18 - No recommended change Page 19 - Should read "All mobile homes placed on-lots or sites within a mobile home park must meet federal standards- which STANDARDS are no older than five (5) years at the time of placement". Page 20 - No recommended change Page 21 - No recommended._change Page 22 - No recommended change Page 23 - No recommended change Page 24 - Add: FEES ASSOCIATED WITH COMBINED DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW SHALL NOT BE ACCDMULATIVE. Page 25 - Change "bullets"-to either. numbers or letters Page 26 - No recommended change Page 27 - Change "bullets" t_o either numbers or letters Page 28 - No recommended change Page 29 - No recommended change Page 30 - No recommended change _, _ Page 31 - No recommended _change Page 32 - Notation added_to Page 24 re: combined-fees Page 33 - No recommended change_ Page_34 - No recommended change Page 35 - No recommended change Page 36 - No recommended change Page 37 - No recommended change Page 38 - No recommended change Page 39 - No recommended change Page 40 - Remove: OR COIINCIL MEMBER (conflicts with quas- judicial testimony) The above recommended change was b_y motion made by Commissioner - LANGDON, seconded by Commissioner RASPLICKA. Motion carried 5-0. Page 41 - No recommended change Page 42 - No recommended change Planning Commission Minutes _ Page 4 May 18, 1995 _. Page 43 - No recommended change Commissioner WILLIAMS_moved that Planning Commission had reviewed, page-by-page, the proposed amendments to Section 26-25. Planned development districts and had agreed in,principle to the recommended changes as. listed.. Commissioner LANGDON seconded the motion_ Motion carried 5.-0. _ 8. CLOSE THS PUBLIC HSARING 9. OLD BUSINESS A. Discussion of Development Impact Fees Mr. Gidley briefly summarized Jefferson County's plan to pass on impact fees t_o county residents. Discussion followed. B. Future Jeff Co Mr. Gidley informed those present that Kevin Nichols, Planning Director .with Jefferson County will present the "Future Jeff Co" plan at our next Commission meeting, June lst. Mr. Gidley plans to invite City Council to attend that meeting. . At 9:50 p.m., the Vice Chairman called a brief recess. Meeting reconvened at 9:58 p.m. C. Red Rocks/Ridge Road Improvements Mr. Gidley showed Planning Commission revisions made_ to the plan to improve and extend. Ridge Road. _ Discussion followed. 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. DISCIISSION AND DECISION ITEMS 12. COMMITTEE AND DEPARTMENT REPORTS A. City Council Update Mr. Gidley brought Planning Commission up-to-date on cases that had been forwarded to City Council from Planning Commission. In addition, Mr. Gidley gave a brief overview of the joint meeting with Planning Commission, City Council and the City Attorney Gerald Dahl this past Monday, May 15, 1995. PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LIST CASE NO: ZOA-95-2: DATE: May 18, 1995 REQUEST: Proposed amendment to Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26. Zoning Ordinance,. Section 26-25 Planned Development Districts. CERTIFICATION OF RESOLUTION CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COMIMISSION CASE NO: ZOA-95-2 LOCATION: City-wide APPLICANT(S) NAME: City of Wheat Ridge A proposal to amend the Wheat Ridge Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 26., Section 26-25. Planned Development Districts. WHEREAS, the City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division has submitted information to be considered with the above request, and said information is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, there was testimony received at a public hearing by the Planning Commission and such testimony provided additional facts. NOW, THEREFORE, based upon the facts presented and conclusions reached, it was moved by Commissioner WILLIAMS, seconded by Commissioner LANGDON, that Case No. ZOA-95-2, a proposal to amend the Wheat Ridge Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 26., Section 26-25, Planned Development districts, be APPROVED with the changes delineated on the attached list and forwarded to City Council. VOTE: YES: Williams, Rasplick:i, Cerveny, Langdon, and Johnson NO: None I, Sandra Wiggins, Secretary to the Ci*_y of Wheat Ridge Planning Commission, do hereby and herewith certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by a 5 - 0 vote of the members present at their reguiax meeting held in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, on the 18th day of May, 1995. r Cerveny, Vi e ~ irperson dra Wiggins, S Lary WHEAT RIDGE FLANNI COMMISSION WHEAT RIDGE PLANNING COfM1ISSI0N b:\zoa952.xes Page 1 - No recommended change Page 2 - CERVENY asked about the exception of the City as applicant. GIDLEY explained. Page 3 - No recommended change Page 4 - No recommended change Page 5 - 3. Add "such as schools and churches, but not limited to these". (e) Should read "approved by city council, UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION". . Page 6 - No recommended change Certificate of Resolution Page 2 ( Case No. ZOA-95-2 - Page 7 - (d) Should lead "approved by city council OR PLANNING COMMISSION" . Page 8 - No recommended change Page 9 - (d) Should read "approved by city council oR PLANNING COMMISSION" . Page 10 - No recommended change Page 11 - No recommended change Page 12 --NO recommended change Page 13 - No recommended change Page 14 - No recommended change Page 15 - No recommended change Page 16 - No recommended change Page 17 - No recommended change Page 18 - No recommended change Page 19 - Should read "All mobile homes placed on lots or sites within a mobile home park must meet federal standards which STANDARDS are no older than five (5) years at the time of placement". Page 20 - No recommended change Page 21 - No recommended change Page 22 - No recommended change Page 23 - No recommended change Page 24 - Add: FEES ASSOCIATED WITH COMBINED DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW SHALL NOT BE ACCUMULATIVE. - Page 25 - Change "bullets" to either numbers or letters Page 26 - No recommended change Page 27 - Change "bullets" to either numbers or letters Page 28 - No reconunended change Page 29 - No recommended change Page 30 - No recommended change Page 31 - No recommended change Page 32 - Notation added to Page 24 re: combined fees Page 33 - No recommended change Page 34 - No xecommerided change Page 35 - No recommended change Page 36 - No recommended change Page 37 - No recommended change Page 38 - No recommended change Page 39 - No recommended change Page 40 - Remove: OR COUNCIL MEMBER (conflicts with quasi- judieial testimony) The above recommended change was by motion made by Commissioner L,ANGDON, seconded by Commissioner RASPLICKA. Motion carried S-0. Page 41 - No recommended change Page 42 - No recommended change Page 43 - No recommended change Discussion of Development Impact Fees Please bring information included in May 4 1995 aacket. M E M O RAND II M TO: Panning Commission FROM: Glen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development RE: Intergovernmental Cooperation DATE: April 27, 1995 with the fiscal impacts placed upon local governments (cities, counties and special districts) by Amendment.l (TABOR) and the Galleger amendment, combined with the more recently expressed concerns by existing tax payers (both residential and business) that new development is not paying its' fair share for public facilities, these local governments are looking for ways to mitigate these issues. One way that the incremental costs associated with new development can be recovered is through the use of impact fees. wheat Ridge has had an impact fee for Parks and Recreation for many years associated with subdivision. This fee is in lieu of land dedication. Jefferson County School District has collected a fee in lieu of Land dedication for several years throughout the unincorporated areas of the .County and within several of the cities. They have asked the City of Wheat Ridge to participate in this program as Arvada, Golden and Lakewood have. The District will provide more information for discussion for our May 4th meeting. At the same time, Jefferson County has imposed a Traffic 'Impact Fee on new development in south JeffCo for many years, and are.. proposing to expand the assessment throughout the County. They have asked all of the cities to.consider adopting this assessment plan also, so that traffic impacts which are related to other jurisdictions' projects can be appropriately assessed without regard to jurisdiction. I have attached a copy of JeffCo's information for your review. A third issue is an initiative to improve intergovernmental cooperation through use of joint planning projects and intergovernmental agreements. The county planning directors have discussed the attached NINE POSSIBLE GOALS FOR COOPERATIVE ACTION. I will report to you the status of those discussions and ask for your input as well. I would ask that you think about these issues and be prepared to discuss these matters (informally) ~at your May 4th meeting. I hope to have the R-2 School information available for that meeting. GEG:slw attachments b:\gg42795.mem POSSIBLE GOALS FOR COOPERATIVE ACTION 1. Urban growth areas should be cleazly defined and implemented through intergovernmental agreements, where they do not exist. 2. Traffic impact fees should be formulated in a consistent manner and address improvements which may be needed between adjacent jurisdictions. 3. Planning for school sites should be done in a consistent manner by applying common standards to land dedications, fees and demographic projections regarding future need. 4. The county and cities should adopt a common approach to shazed water quality issues, such as Cleaz Creek, Beaz Creek and Stanley Lake. 5. The county and cities should develop and use common maps for future open space/trails, major transportation systems, existing road maintenance facilities, water/sewer service zones, and planned urban growth areas. 6. A common land use classification system should be developed and regularly maintained. 7. Common development standards should be developed, such as road templates. 8. Community identity should be promoted by using open space to separate communities. 9. A common approach to implementation of ADA standards should be developed to clearly define how to treat urban v. rural areas. Board of County Commissioners Gary D. Laura District No. , Betty J. Miller Disuict No. 2 John P. Stone nisuiU No. 3 To: Referral Agencies From: Jean Montoya, Transportation Planner Date: April 10, 1995 Re: LA 95-2 and PP 95-1: Revisions to the Land Development Regulation (I.DR) and to the Policy and Procedure Manual This referral concerns a proposal to adopt traffic impact fees on a countywide basis. A traffic impact fee is a fee paid by new development to help pay for the arterial streetlroad improvements necessary to accommodate additional traffic. At the present time, traffic impact fees aze assessed in the south Jefferson County azea only. The traffic impact fees now being considered for countywide adoption are the same fees cturent[y being assessed in south Jefferson County. The fees are: Tvpe of Develonment Traffic Imoact Fee single family dwelling with Z orless-car gazage X1039 /dwelling unit single family dwelling with 3 or more-car garage ~I41 I/dwelling unit multifamily dwelling unit S 363 I dwelling unit retail S 2.25 /square foot office ~ 1.52 /square foot industrial ~ .6~ /square foot Under this proposal, the County is divided into areas. Traffic impact fees collected in an area aze designated for arterial street/road improvements within the azea. The proposal to adopt traffic impact fees countywide is based on a study which determined that, over the ne;ct ten years, impact fees would be an,apgropriate source of funding for arterial street and road improvements that will be needed. The street/road improvement projects identified include the use of minimal landscaping; acceptance of moderate congestion (level of service D), and continued County contribution towards arterial improvements. The proposed changes to tYte LDR and to the Policy and Procedure Ivfanuai are enclosed for your review. In order for corriments to be included in the staff report to the Planning Commission, they must be received by Tuesday, April 18. Comments and questions should be forwarded to: Jean Montoya; Jefferson County Department of Highways and Transportation; 100 Jefferson County parkway, suite 3500; Golden, CO 80419; phone: 271-8470. The proposal hearing dates are: Planning Commission-May 3, 1995 Boazd of County Commissioners--IVlay 16, 1995 100 Jefferson County Parkway, Golden. Colorado 80419 (903)271 Sit REVISIONS TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGITLATIONS - PART ZV, SECTION 1 1.4 . TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES ^'" ""'°°"S~T X00 :"i ~• Prior to obtaining building permits for any development i-rt approved under this Regulation, the building permit applicant shall pay to the County the TRAFFIC IMPACT fees as set forth in Section 5.36 of the "Jefferson County Organization/Policy/Procedure .Manual". Said fees shall be in addition to all other fees', charges and improvement requirements of this Regulation. CiiAPTE_~ 5 COUNTY REGULATORY POLICIES 5.36 Traffic Impact Fees - sa:rt?~ea°-e ---- _ (originally adoncad as a portion of Chapter 5.6 Building Pe^,nit Application Procedures) (CC86-90; CC88-724; CC91-155) (CC94-454 ~,; CC94-872; CC95- ) 5.36.1 PURPOSES. To insure, consistent with applicable legal principles, that new development within the COUNTY ",- .mss rer..ne~=9- ?e--y--?L~ =aeteeete-_€-e= :~ ae==cr seamy- _ ..___ _ __ bears a proportional share of the cost of capital expenditures necessary to provide arterial STREETS AND roads in the area OF SUCH DEVELOPMENT. (CC94-454; CC95- ) 5.36.2 APPLICABILITY. Prior to obtaining a building permit for any building/structure :--~-tee a__~-ems t-kxe Serre?~taet--Qe=_c=sex _.. _.'_ ____, the applicant sha1L pay c=affic impact fees as required he rain. (CC94-454; CC95- ) 5.36.3 COMPIITATION OF THE P.MOLIVT OF TRAFFIC .IMPACT FEES. Amount of fees sha11 be determined by the Jefferson County Zoning Administrator according to the following schedule: (CC94-454; CC95- ) 5.36.3.1 Single family detached dwellings: 5.36.3.1.1 tJith two (2) or fewer car garage: $=9-2~e-9&1,039.00 per dwelling unit. (CC95- ) 5.36.3.1.2 with three (3) or morn car garage: $:~~ 1,411.00 per dwelling unit. (CC95- ) 5.36.3.2 Single family attached and multi-family dwellings: $a~9--3x8.63.00 per dwelling unit. (CC95- ) 5.36.3.3 Commercial retail buildings: $2.~-25 per square foot of gross Leasable area_ (CC95- ) 5.36.3.4 Office buildings: $1.52 per square foot of gross leasable area. (CC95- ) 5.36.3.5 Industrial and warehouse/wholesaling buildings: $-~3-. 65 per square foot of gross Leasable area. (CC95- ) Resolution CC44-45k was approved by the 3oard of County Commissioners on June.28, 1994, with a1L amendments to this Policy co be effective 3u1y 15, 1994. 5.36.3.6 In mised use cen~=rs, «~c~ r~tail, of~ice and/or induscriai uses, the Sef~_rson Counc~ Zoning ~dministrator sha11 decer,nine cne primari use or eac~ building based unon the percen~age of square ioocage (gros~ floor area) per use. The fee shaLl be assassed ac the race of c:~e primar~ use when such use equals or e:cceeds 60'percent of che gross floor area. Where ~: e use o= a building is unk^ocrn or indece*_minace ac che cime os building per.nic apoiicacion, the ~ee shaL1 be assasszd at che highes~. race for any o~ the ooteacial use cace~ories. . ' 5.36.3.7 A11 oeher uses sha11 pay che i=_e sec ~orch above ."or the most neazly similar use as determined by ~he J2t=~*SOII Councy Zoning Administracor, using comnarable trip-generation calculaced in t4e then-current I~~ Trio Ganeradon Kanual as a guide. (CC86-90) 5.36_3.8 Sn che case of chang_ oi usa, redevelopment, or ee~ansion or modi£ication oi an az'_scing use whic~ reauires tae issuance of a ouilding per,nic, tne tra£°ic imnacc f~e snali be bas.ed upon the nec posicive inc:ease in cra=~ic imoact fee `or cae new use as comnarzd co chz pravious use as dececmined by cne Sef~erson Coun~y Zoniag e?dminis~_acor. , _~____~ _..__, ___ --- -.._ ~L.,. ~u~-~=-__ _- _ ------ --_-_---_--- __-__- _-__-- _- :?_3 =°: -(CC94-454; CC45- ) 5.36.4 IvFLaTION ESC.~L~T_OR: T_he f=_° amouncs sec =ortn in 5.36.3 sha11 6e ef=eccive frors date of adootion chrougn :~+ I995. On January 1, 194~6 ar_d on Sanua:f 1 0£ each succeeding year, che fee amounts ?.ND ~~ COST ESTL`tATES ZN ATTr1CHMENT S sha11 be increased by che nercencage increase in Construction Cos u as decercnined by che S~ace of CoLorzdo. Provided, however, thac i£ the Board of Co~:ncy Commissioners sha11, on or be£ore December L oi the przceding year, hoid a hearing pursuanc co public nocice and shaZ? rzsoLve thac ehe increase shall be ~ higher or lower cnan cke Stace's decerninacion, such modi£ied figures sha11 then cake e=~ecc on the succeeding Sanuary 1. (CC86-90; CC91-155; CC?4-G.54; CC94-872; CC95- ) 5.36.5 P9Y.fE:TT OF FEES. Fees as computed by t:~e Jef£erson Count;r Zoning Adminiscrator saa11 be ga:d to the .Te~=ersoa Count,t Building Deparr.menc ac the time ot building pezmit issuance. (CC86-90; CC4L-15.5) 5. 36 _ 6 . ~~F'_'~T -_ r~-Sa.a _oe:i:= _' I~'-- -'•- =--- c• ~ TRe? Fr _C IMPACT FEE RORD Fu~ID• '~-iE~ SHAIS. BE FZ~1E (5) 2RAFFIC L`1PaGT Fc~ ~u'IIDTi~IG aRFAS AS Sc0`w'N ON AT_"'i-aCNMENT A. THE FG'NDIVG ARE35 ARE !G.`IOWN AS: SOU'L.3 Jc:i:.~ZSON CO(N:I, NOKTEi PL2.LVS, CENT~2AT. NORTH MOWiTdIYS A.VD ~T7?~G'itEc:v/CONIrF~. A11 monies collec*_ed -~- under this chapter shall be properly identified and promptly transferred to the :__V ____ sttae~ APPROPRIATE FUNDING AREA in the Jefferson County Road and Bridge Fund and shall be held in this separate, interest-bearing account. (CC94-454; CC95- ) 5.36.7 USE OF FUNDS. A11 monies deposited in E-'xP-;9rrt~e=se 'a-=~z Eare?e~y-~-:r_T=.a_ :~aed=zg EACH FUND shall be used solely to study, design, plan and construct arterial streets AND ROADS, arterial interchanges, and associated facilities within SUC$ FUNDING AREA _ -_ _ _ -- _ __ _ ___ .__. as shown on the Jefferson County Major Thorough=are Plan. (CC86-9O; CC88-724; CC91-155; CC94-454; CC94-872; CC95- ) 5.36.8 CREDIT AGAINST PAYMENT OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES FOR SOUTH JEFFERSON COUNTY FUNDING AREA. (CC94-454; CC95- ) 5.36.8.1 No credit shall be given far site-related improvements or site-related right of way dedications required by the Jefferson County Land Development Regulations. (CC94-454) 5.36.8.2 WITHIN THE SOUTH JEFFERSON COUNTY FUNDING AREA a person may obtain credit against. a1I or-a portion of traffic impact fees otherwise due or to become due by offering to construct any of the segment or intersection improvement projects identified in A,--,yes-":. k ATTACHMENT B. This offer must specifically request or provide for a traffic impact fee credic_ Such construction must be in accordance with County design standards. If the County Manager accepts such an offer, the credit shall be determined and provided in the following manner- (CC44-454; CC94-872; CC45- ) 5.36.8.2.1 Applicants for credit for construction o£ a project identified in hgpesd-i~~ ATTACHMENT ~B shall submit A REQUEST aee c-=="_- ems;- -- - - s~c~-i-e4~_e~~, _rd e___=`___`__- =ase esEi:~~sees to the County Manager. The County Manager shall determine credit for roadway construction NOT TO EXCEED 85~ OF THE COST ESTIMATE ZNV ATTACHMENT B. eased ert eieset c.~se ess-e esf:s~_3e-else.. ees6 ese~ees __ t:e es~srt-}• _- __ ~_~=?ae_ -. -'.~.3~_- _ __---~_-`-. The Cooney Manager shall provide the applicant with a letter or certificate setting forth the dollar amount of the credic, the reason for the credic, and the Legal description or other adequate description of the project or development to which the credic may be applied. The applicant must sign and dace a duplicate cony of such Letter or certificate -3- indicating his agreement to the terms of the letter or certificate .and return such signed document to the County Manager before credit will be given. The failure of the applicant to sign, dace, and return such document within sixty (60) days shall nullify .the credit. (CC94-454; CC94-872; CC95.- ) 5.36.8.2.2 Except as provided in 5.36.8.2.1, credit against traffic impact fees other.~ise due will not be provided until: (CC94-454) 5.36.8.2.2.1 The construction is completed and accepted by the County; 5.36.8:2.2.2 A suitable maintenance and warranty ,performance guarantee.is received and approved by the County; and 5.36.8.2.2.3 A11 design, construction, inspection, testing, bonding, and acceptance procedures are in strict compliance with the then current county requirements, when applicable. (CC94-454) 5.36.8.2.2.4 Credit may be provided before completion of projects specified in ~--a ATTACHMENT S if adequate assurances are given by the applicant chat the standards sec out in 5.36.8.2 will be met and if the traffic impact fee payer posts security as provided below for the cost of construction. Security in the form of a performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit, or .cash escrow shall be tendered to the County in an amount determined by the County Department of highways and Transportation and in a form acceptable to the County Attorney. (CC94-454; CC95- ) 5.36.8.2.2.5_ Any claim for credit must be made no later Chan the time of application for a building permit. any claim not so made shall be deemed waived. (CC94-454) 5.36.9 EXEMPTIONS FROM PAYMENT OF TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES. The following shall be exempted from payment of the traffic impact fee: (CC94-454) 36.9.1 5 Alterations ar expansion of an existing building where no - . not changed, additional units are created, where the use is and where no additional vehicular trips will be produced over and above those produced by the existing use as determined by the Jefferson County Zoning Administrator. (CC94-454) 5.36.9.2 The construction of accessory buildings or structures which will not produce additional vehicular trips over and above -4- those produced by the principal building or use of the land the Jefferson County Zoning Administrator. rmined b t d y e e as (CC94-454) 36.9.3 5- The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed . building or structure with a new building or structure of the same size and use provided that no additional trips will be produced over and above those produced by the original use of the land as determined by the Jefferson County Zoning Administrator. (CC94-454) _. 5.36.10 Definitions. (CC86-90; CG91-155; CC94-454) 36.L0.1 5 Gross Floor Area: Area of each floor based upon exterior . dimensions of building. (CC86-40; CC91-155) 10.2 36 5 Gross Leasable Area: EighvJ (80) percent of gross floor . _ area, unless it can be demonstrated other-.rise to the Zoning Administrator, based on the GLA definition contained in Section 32 a£ the Zoning Resolution. (CC86-90; CC91-155) 10 3 36 5 Single-family attached: Dwelling units attached by a . . . liveable space or garage totally enclosed with full foundation. (CC86-90; CC91-155) 4 10 36 5 Multi-family: Attached single-family structures or dwelling . . . units stac'~ed on top of each other. <CC86-90; CC91-L55) -5- . .J a i ~ :.._ -.. Y - ~ - ., j ~p . _ ~,a ~.. PULL'S i; ~T . ;; E , . =; -- ~~`~~ 7 }` : ' ,~T~ ` 4 , I 1(~ "` 1;~i 1.'. .:': .'ftR6m>'.~ ~ ". .TY via 1, n ~ 1 ~ ~ ~e -z 4u ~ :_..... ~ ~ _ _~<... \ 1 a.. .1... t-.1.:AY~ ~• , NORTR r?-?-+ as ~ r,. I 's..m~ . i ' ~ YOON CADVS ~";;LC"_ \."., w,..~,.~.' wuia.\.ji.;...:.:~-\ > ~ , , , ~ r / - _ a' ~ ~ - ~ -- I ~_ / ,., O l ~ ,. ~......, • ~ ~ ~ e...n ... . , e G r "_ -- - ~ .~ ~ p( j "'" ~ a p,' ~ :a .~ I ` ~ ,~__ _ a :~ ti /Q: .... as ~ ~ ~ ` ' ~~~ ~ i ~ a l y ~ UacEtaOCL I S ~ i i ~ I ® '-'..... ~ cE.r-rRAt~. ~~ a :.r;',f ~ .._ .n _.,__ _ .~_ _ _t T 1 ^'~ .. ~'- -.. ~'~ y J^ r-1 • _ r h ~~~~~ ~ ~ l Q - -r , ~ I a Y ~ \ ~ B0~ \ ~ ti - __ I :1 • ~ ' __ _ a ~ r \ '\ ® ~ . ~. i IG ' ~. I ~ j l _ ~ \ , ~ a r / ~ 1 I ~ ~ \ a-r ' 1 rt )J ~ a ~ ~ -.~- ~._ ~' ~ J ' 1 ~ EvERCREEx/comFER 1 ' J " ~_ I a ~G4 •~ a QQ , >.,._~ ~. . . ~ j ....A. ~ ~ ~ ` ~~~ M 'a ~ ~1 1, Cda~ Nli\ rrY COYi fi ~~ 9Q9 ~Y/rr) W~SMSS _ .Q ~n C1\R SwYiS ~ v.C! R SM~ _ __ • ~ ~-~~ uf~ tlW..C C rr .~ • :'~_ = 9 ~' i~?9,1° jn ~~ ~ r-) s I4 _ ~IO~I'n ~_ a v ~Igl. YuOR TESOROUCHPARE PUN l31'~QJ CIIMY ~nvnn xo r i ~ I I I Ili ~Cji .slr~ ~i! ~ wITR TRAI''FIC 6lPAC1' FEE FUNDING AREAS 1p„ *-~ m ., -wra ~, FFCO C , °"" S ' /~J , _ ~ ~. i `_~ ~~.J v' S t r'~' i r' I ~ i ..f' < . j f~ I l ~. ..~ ..... ~ .,., ,.~, ~[me p ... g .~. ~ _ --- c a --- - -- ® ...~ 1 1 r.n r¢ tnor r ~ IL{JOR 'fHOR0008PARE PL1N lf[[FI TRAPF[C DIPACf FES FUNDING ARP.l4 iPJt14LTDCLZ7 ~.,,~.«~ Attachment B South Jefferson Ccunty Impact Fie Project Costs Segment Projects 1995 Portion rn ConsWcGon Segment From To Jeffco Cast Belleview ' Eldridge Alkire 1.00 5559,496 Belleview Wadsworth Bowies 0.25 5827,118 Bowles Eldridge C 470 1.00 5270,459 Chatfield Pierce Platte Cany 1.00 51,359,319 Coaf Mine Simms 1Gpling 1.00 31,363,527 Quincy Alkire Simms 1.00 51.970,231 Quincy fGpfing Wadsworth 0.8'1 51,973,774 Simms Quincy Belleview 1.00 52,475,702 S Valley Road Valley Pkwy Mrtn Mrrta 1.00 51,271,169 Intersecticn Projects 1995 Portion in Construction lntersecfion Jeffco Cast Alkire/8elleview 1.000 5883,395 Alkire/Bowfes 0.875 5556,810 iGpiing/Quincy 0.500 5334,275 IGpling/Coai Mine 0.500 5785,516 Kpling/Ken Caryl 0.750 5415,067 KpfinglChatfield 1.000 5380,426 Pierce/Chatfield 1.000 5422,331 Simms/Quincy 1.000 31,074,425 Simms/Belleview 1.000 3829,386 SimmslBowies 1.000 3320,683 Simms/Ken Caryl 1.000 5457,477 4 § 26.24 WfD;AT RIDGE CITY CODE not apply uniformly to all land uses. These sub• districts may exist singly or in combination within any approved planned development; provided, that the spec standards and regulations applicable to the subdistrict are met. (II) INTENT AND PURPOSE Sec. 26.26. Planned development districts. (D SCOPE There is hereby created a Planned Develop- ment District to further promote the public health, safety and general welfaze by permitting greater flexibility and innovation in land development based upon a comprehensive, integrated plan. For the purpose of applying certain regulations and standazds, and to ensure maximum flexibility of this district, the district is divided into the fol- lowing subdistrict designations, based on the pri- mary land use of a proposed development plan or portion, thereof (A) Planned Residential Development-PRD. (B) Planned Commercial Development-PCD. (C) Planned Industrial Development-PID. (D) Planned Mobile Home Development- PMHD. (E) Planned Recreational Vehicle Park Devel• opment-PRVD. (F) Planned Hospital Development-PHD. By creating the above subdistricts, the city council recognizes that all standards and regulations do Supp. No. 5 1744 (A) The intent of the Planned Development Dis- trict is to promote the establishment of well- designed, innovative developments which may not be permitted by a standard zone district, however, which may be permitted through the use of an approved development plan by assuring greater wntrol and specificity of intended development character, use, operations and maintenance, while at the same time allowing flexibility and diver- sity. This district recognizes the great variety of land use intensities, densities, and environmental and land use interfaces which aze possible. The protective standards for site use, development, op- erations and maintenance contained herein aze intended to minimize any adverse effect of the planned development to the community by achieving maximum compatible integration of land uses, by assuring adequate provision of public services and facilities, by preserving the aesthetic qualities of the azea, and by providing for safe and efficient use of the land resource itself. It is the specific intent and requirement that all land under consideration for a planned development designation and all land so zoned shall be and remain underunified control throughout the plan- ning and development phases, as well as after de- velopment through continuous operation, use and maintenance. "Unified controI," for purposes of this section, shall mean that the property shall be: (1) Subject to a single ownership, either by an individual, corporation, partnership or other legally recognized entity; ar (2) Subject to a comprehensive management agreement, or other form of agreement (which shall be denominated a "Unified Control State"), which specifies that a dis- tinct person or entity possesses and,main- tains the authority to make binding com- mitments on behalf of and thereafter to enforce implementation of those commit- ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ments upon and on behalf of the owner(s) of the property. (B) Said unified control shall be required to be in place and maintained: (1) Throughout the application process to ob- tain aPlanned Development District zoning designation; and (2) Throughout construction and/or develop- ment of the property so zoned; and (3) For so long as the property is zoned and/or used as a planned development. (C) Unified control is vital to the city to ensure that planned development projects aze developed according to their original concept as approved and adopted by the city, and so that said projects, once developed, continue to be operated and main- tained in accordance with the original concept as approved and adopted by the city council. (D) Unified control shall be achieved through a written unified control statement, which shall be approved by the city council as part of the ap- proval of the outline development plan. (E) The general purposes of this section are as follows: (1) To accomplish compatible development wiih adjacent commercial, residential and/or in- dustrial land uses through proper land use transitions and buffering techniques. (2) To promote flexibility in design and permit diversification in the location of structures. (3) To promote the efficient use of land to fa- cilitate amore economic arrangement of building, circulation systems, land use and utilities. (4) To preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and to min- imize impacts on other natural features of the site. {5) To provide for more usable space through the combination and grouping of structures, parking loading and storage areas. (6) To combine and coordinate architectural styles, building forms and building relation- ships within the planned developments. Supp. No. 5 § 26.25 (7) To minimize traffic congestion on public streets, control street access, and to provide for well-designed interior circulation. (8) To ensure that adequate public utilities and facilities aze available within the azea, to serve the specific development. (9) To promote conformance with the adopted comprehensive plan, established policies and guidelines for the azea and for the com- munity. (III) APPLICABILITY (A) A Planned Development District of any na- ture !private, public or quasi-public) may be ap- proved For any single use or any combination of uses; provided, that the intent and purposes of this Section are met, and provided that the gen- eral health, safety and welfaze of the community are advanced through its approval. (B) The provisions herein contained shad apply to the following: (1) Any new application for a rezoning to a Planned Development District. (2) Any application for amendment to an ex- istingPlanned Residential (PRD), Planned Commercial (PCD), Planned Industrial (PID), Planned Mobile Home (PMHD) or Planned Recreational Pazk (PRVD) Devel- opment District approved by the City of Wheat Ridge prior to the date of adoption of these provisions. (3) Any application for amendment to an ex- isting Planned Development District ap- proved by Jefferson County prior to incor- poration or annexation. (IV) USE AND DEVELOPMENT RE(sITLA- TIONS ~I4ti~` ~/ (A) Gener¢l Re l¢tions: Each Planned Devel- opment District stablishes its own list of per- mitted uses, as ell as development and use stan- dards and requ' ements, and such are specifically set forth in the development plan and reviewed by -the planning commission and approved by city council. However, approval of uses stated in the outline development plan constitutes tentative ap- proval only of the uses so stated. The planning 1745 § 26.25 WFIEr1T RIDGE CITY CODE commission and/or city council specifically retains jurisdiction to limit the approved uses to be made of, and on, the property at the time of final devel- opment plan approval upon an expressed fording, based upon evidence deemed persuasive and ade- quately appeazing in the record of the public hearing before either the planning commission or the city couxacil, that the uses so limited or denied are incompatible with uses made on surrounding properties or elsewhere within the Planned De- velopment District; or such uses as proposed would create excessive traffic, noise or air pollution; or that such uses would result in a density or inten- sity of use which would be damaging or delete- rious to the stability, unified operation or integ- rity (both economic and aesthetic) of the surrounding area. Approval of the outline development plan shall not be construed to be approval of a preliminary development plan or a final development except in respect to general concept. In reviewing a specific request to establish a Planned Development District, or amendment to an existing one, the planning commission and city council shaII consider standards for similar uses in other Wheat Ridge zone districts, unless other- wise specifically provided herein. Requirements for setback, lot coverage, height, density, area, buffering, landscaping, signage, etc.; may be more or less restrictive than such requirements in sim- ilazzone districts,, based upon findings of the plan- ning commission and city council which consider; a combination of factors, including, but not lim- ited to, type and intensity of uses proposed, size and shape off parcel, location, adjacent uses, ade- quacy of public facilities, etc. mi:~ ^,; It is the intent of this district to provide a means for allowing innovation and flexibility in design and use of specific sites, but the provisions of this district shall not be used merely to circumvent the absolute standazds of other similar districts. (B) Speci/zc Regultions: (1) Pl¢nr~.ed Residential Developments (PRD): (a) AYlowable Uses: The following uses hereinafter listed shall be permitted ~, only as speci~lly designated on the approveddevelopment plan: I. All permitted uses and accessory uses in the residential districts. 2. The following retail service uses may be included within a PRD sub- ject to the conditions set forth in subsection (k): a. Barber and beauty shops. b. Drugstore and pharmacies. c. Grocery store, convenience- type, limited to five thousand (5,000) squaze feet maximum. d. Laundry and dry cleaning pickup, and coin-operated laundry establishments. e. Office for sales, lease or other use reasonably associated with the Planned Residential Dis- trict. f. Other uses approved by the zoning administrator as being similar in character and im- pact to-those uses specifically permitted under this section when consideration is given to traffic impact and parking needs associated with the rec- ommended use. 3. Accessory uses and structures cus- tomarily associated with the per- mitted uses as shown on the ap- proved plan. (b) Area: Each Planned Residential Devel- opment District shall be a minimum of one (1) acre. (c) Density: Maximum twenty-one (21) dwelling units per acre. (d) Height: Maximum thirty-five (35) feet. (e) Perimeter Setbacks: Setback require- ments for buildings adjacent to the pe- rimeter of a Planned Residential De- velopment District shall be established using setback regulations established in standard Wheat Ridge Residential Zone Districts. Exceptions to tho standards may be approved b council, based upon a finding that a /. Supp. No. 5 1746 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT § 26.25 lessor setbackwould not be detrimental azated from the residential areas, to the use and enjoyment of adjacent the land attributable to the com- properties, would not negatively affect mercial use shall be considered to neighborhood property values, and be the building squaze footage oc- would not be otherwise injurious to the cupied by commercial uses, the re- public health, safety and welfaze. quired parking, and a propor- (f) Lot Coverage: Maximum seventy-five tionate share of the common areas, (75) percent. (See section 26.5 for deli- such as ingress-egress, land- nition.) soaping, roadways, etc. Commer- (g) Landscaping: Minimum twenty-five cial ventures solely for the use of (25) percent. (See section 26.32.) the residents, such as food service, (h) Parking. Based upon specific uses. (See laundry facilities, etc., shall becon- section 26-31.) sidered an amenity rather than a (i) Fences and Walls: As specifically de- commercial use, and the land and tailed on an approved Final Develop- buildings occupied by such uses aze ment Plan, otherwise follow require- not required to be subtracted from ments of Section 26-30.I. the total acreage before computing (j) Signage: As specifically detailed on and the maximum of twenty-one (21) approved on fmal development plan, units per acre. otherwise follow requirements of (2) Planned Commercial Developments (PCD): Chapter 26, Article N. (k) Commercial Use Conditions: 1 (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses Commercial uses shall be allowed 1 I1 hereinafter listed shall be permitted ' . only where specifically approved in ically designated on the only as spec a fmal development plan. _ - ;approved development plan: '~- -- 2. Commercial uses, including all as- 1. Any use permitted in the sociated land used for building Commercial-One (C-1) or space, parking and landscaping, Commercial-Two (C-2) districts. shall not exceed twenty-five (25) 2. Residential uses as approved by percent of the gross area included city council and subject to the con- within a particulaz Planned Resi- ditions set forth in subsection dential Development District. (B)(2)(j)• 3. Land used for commercial uses 3. Accessory uses and buildings cus- shaIl be calculated sepazately and tomarily associated with allowable may not be included in the land uses, as shown on the approved azea used to calculate the max- plan• imum of twenty-one (21) units per (b) Area: Each Planned Commercial De- acre mandated by Wheat Ridge velopment District shall be a minimum Home Rule Charter. To ensure of one (1) acre. this, where commercial uses area (c) Height: Commercial structures shall part of a Planned Residential De- not exceed fifty (50) feet; residential velopment, the area used for com- structures shall not exceed thirty-five mercial purposes shall be clearly (35)feet;residential uses located within delineated on the plan, including a commercial structure shall not beper- areas used for parking, ingress, miffed above thirty-five (35) feet. egress, landscaping, etc. If the com- (d) Perimeter Setbacks: Setbacks require- mercial uses are part of a gener- ments for buildings adjacent to the pe- ally residential building, or for rimeter of a Planned Commercial De- otherreasons cannot be clearly sep- velopment District shall be established Supp. No. 5 1747 § 26.25 WfD;AT RIDG CODE using setback regulations established ~ - clearly delineated on the plan, in- in standazd Wheat Ridge Commercial- chiding azeas used for parking, in- Zonedistricts. Exceptions to those stan- gress, egress, landscaping, etc. If dazds maybe approved b city council, the commercial and residential based upon a finding that a Iesser set- uses are mixed in the same back would not be detrimental to the building or For other reasons use and enjoyment of adjacent proper- cannot be clearly separated from ties, would not negatively affect neigh- the residential area the land at- borhood pmpertyvalues, and would not , tributable to the commercial use be otherwise injurious to the public shall be considered to be the health, safety and welfare. building square footage occupied (e) Lot Coverage: Maximum ninety (90) by commercial uses, the required percent. (See section 26.5 for defini- parking, and a proportionate shaze (fl tion.) Landscaping: Minimum ten (10) per- of the common areas, such as cent. (See section 26.32.) ingress-egress, landscaping road- (g) Pazking: Based upon specific uses. (See ways, etc. Commercial ventures section 26.31.) solely for the use of residents, such (h) Fences and Walls: As specifically de- as food service, laundry facilities, tailed on approved final development etc., shall be considered an ame- plan, otherwise follow requirements of .nity rather than a commercial use, section 26-30(I). and the land and buildings occu- (i) Signage: As specifically detailed on an pied by such uses aze not required approved final development plan, oth- to be subtracted from the total erwise follow requirements of Chapter acreage before computing the max- 26, Article N. imum of twenty-one (21) units per (j) Residential Use Conditions: acre. 1. Residential uses shall not exceed (3) Planned Industrial Development (PID) thirty-five (35) feet in height. (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses 2. Residential uses, including associ- ' hereinafter list shall be permitted ated pazking, land used for build- only as speci ly designated on the ings, landscaping, etc., shall not ex- approved ~L devel- opm~ plan: teed twenty-five (25) percent of the e gross azea included within a paz- 1. Any use permitt d in the Light In- titular Planned Commercial De- dustrial (I) District. velopment District. 2. Other uses approved by the zoning 3. Where residential uses are part of administrator which are similaz in a Planned Commercial Develop- character and impact to those uses meni, the Iand used for commer- specifically permitted under this cial uses shall be calculated sepa- section when consideration is given rately, and may not be included in to the intent and purpose of this the land area used to calculate the section. maximum of twenty-one (21) units 3. Accessory uses and buildings cus- per acre mandated by the Wheat tomazily associated with allowable Ridge Home Rule Charter. To en- uses. sure this, where residential usea (b) Area: Each Planned Industrial Devel- are part of a Planned Commercial opment District shall be minimum of Development, the area used'for one (1) acre. commercial purposes shall be (c) ,Height: Maximum fifty (50) feet. Supp. No. 5 E TY 1748 (d) (e) (fl (g) (h) (i) G) ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT Perimeter Setbacks: Setback require- ments for buildings adjacent to the pe- rimeter of a Planned Industrial Devel- opment District shall be established using setback regulations set forth in the Light Industrial (A Zone District (section 26-24.). Exceptions to those standards may be approved by city council, based upon a finding that a lesser setback would not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties, would not negatively affect neighborhood property values, and would not be otherwise injurious to the public health, safety and welfare. Lot Coverage:Maximum ninety (90) percent. (See section 26.5 for defmi- tion.) Landscaping. Minimum ten (10) per- cent. (See section 26.32.) Parking. Based upon specific uses. (See section 26-31.) Fences and Walls: As specifically de• tailed on approved final development plan, otherwise follow requirements of section 26-30(I). Signage: As specifically detailed on ap- proved fmal development plan, other- wisefallow requirements of Chapter 26, Article IV. Performance Standards: The following standards and conditions shall apply to the development, use, operations and maintenance of any Planned Industrial District hereinafter created, as well as to any Planned Industrial District cre- ated prior to adoption of this section. All environmental performance stan- dards set forth are subject to the cri- teria established in current federal, state or local regulations, whichever criteria is most restrictive. 1. Building enclosures. Every use shall be operated in its entirety within a completely enclosed building unless otherwise specifi- cally provided by the approved final development plan. 2. Outdoor storage and waste dis- posal: ¢ 26.25 a. All outdoor storage facilities shall be enclosed by aview-obscuring fence, wall and/or landscaping which fully conceals such facilities from adjacent properties, public streets and pedestrian ways. Dis- play of fuushed products for retail sale on the premises may be al- lowed, as such would be allowed and regulated in the G1 and C-2 districts. b. No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a lot in such a form or manner that they may be moved from the lot by natural causes or forces. c. All materials or wastes which may cause fumes or dust, con- stitute afire hazard, or may be edible or otherwise attrac- tive to rodents and/or insects shall be stored only in closed containers. d. All toxic, corrosive, inflam- mable or explosive liquids, gases or solids shall be stored in compliance with the cur- rently'adopted fire prevention code, Environmental Protec- tion Agency standards, or other similar standazds or re- quirements adopted by an agency of the State of Colo- rado. 3. Noise. Noise shall be measured on any property line of the tract on which the operation is located and shall be muffled so as not to be- come objectionable due to intermit- tence, beat frequently, shrillness or intensity. Noise shall be regu- lated so as to be incompliancewith the Colorado Noise Abatement Act, Colorado Revised Statutes, § 25- 12-101, as amended. 4. Odors. Odors from any use here- after begun shall not be discern- Supp. No. 5 1749 § 26-25 Sapp. No. 5 WIiEAT RIDGE CITY CODE ible at the property line to a three (3) minutes or more duration greater degree than odors from in any one (1) hour. Vibration at plants for the manufacturing or any time shall not produce an ac- fabrications of books, textile celeration for more than 0.1 grav- weaves, electronic equipment or ities or shall result in any combi- other plants in which operations nation of amplitudes and do not result in greater degree of frequencies beyond the "safe" odors. range of Table VII, United States Bureau of Mines Bulletin No. 442, The values ven in Table III (Odor ~ Seismic Effects of Quarry Thresholds), Chapter 5, "Physio- Blasting," on any structure. The logical Effects," in the "Air Pollu- methods and equations of said Bul- tion Abatement Manual," by the letin No. 442 shall be used to com- ManufacturingChemist'sAssocia- pate all values for the enforce- tion, Inc., Washington, D.C., copy- ments of this provision. right 1951, shall be used as Stan- g, Emission control of smoke, dust dazd in case of doubt concerning and gases: the chazacter of odor emitted. In such cases, the smallest value a. Smoke. Smoke emissions and given in Table III shall be the max- opacity levels shall be regu- imum odor permitted. Detailed late so as to be in compliance plans for the prevention of odors with the currently adopted crossing property lines may be re= Colorado Department of quired before the issuance of a Health, Air Quality Control building permit. Colorado Depart- Commission's "Emission Con- ment of Health, Air Quality Con- trot Regulations for Particu- trol Commission's currently fates, Smokes, and Sulfur Ox- adopted "Odor Emission ides for the state of Colorado." Regulation," shall be complied b. Dust and other particulates. with when found to bemore restric- Fugitive dust and other paz- tive than the values of the "Air ticulate matter from fuel- Pollution Abatement Manual." burning equipment, refuse- s. Glazeandheat.Anyoperationpro- burning facilities, and during intense glare and/or heat, manufacturing shall be con- e.g. welding conducted as a reg- trolled in accordance with the ulazfunctionofanoperation,shall Colorado Department of be performed within an enclosure Health, Air Quality Control in such a manner as to be imper- Commission's currently ceptible along any lot line of such adopted "Emission Control operation without instruments, Regulations for Particulates, and shall meet the requirements. Smokes, and Sulfur Oxides for of section 26.30(5). the State of Colorado: ' 6. Exterior lighting. Any lights used c. Gases. Detailed plans for the for exterior illumination shall di- elimination of fumes or gases rect light away from adjoining maybe required before the is- properties, and shall meet the re- seance of a building permit. quirements of Section 26-30(5). Sulfur oxide emissions shall be 7. Vibration. Vibration shall not be governed by the above-stated discernible at any property line to "Emission Control Regula- the human sense of feeling for tions for Particulates, Smokes, 1750 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT § 26.25 and Sulfur Oxides for the (b) Area and Density: The minimum site State of Colorado." requirement for a mobile home park site shall not be less than ten (10) acres. 9. Hazard. Any research operation Each mobile home lot shall contain a shall be carried on with reason- minimum of three thousand (3,000) able precautions against fire and square feet except lots for double-wide explosion hazazds. mobile homes, where there shall be a 10. Radiation control. Radiation and minimum lot area of four thousand the utilization of radioactive ma- (4,000) squaze feet. In no case shall the terials shall be regulated so as to density of a mobile home park exceed conform with Colorado Depart- nine (9) units per acre. went of Health's currently adopted (c) Height: "Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Radiation Control." 1. The maximum height of mobile 11. Electricalradiation. Any electrical homes and accessory structures is radiation shall not adversely af- twenty (20) feet. fect at any point any operations or 2. Permanent residence for park man- any equipment other than those of agement or park resident use only the creator of the radiation. Avoid- shall not exceeded thirty-five (35) ante of adverse effects from elec- feet in height. trical radiation by appropriate (d) Width of Lot: The minimum width of single or mutual scheduling of op- lot for each mobile home shall be forty erations is permitted. (40) feet except for lots for double-wide mobile homes, where there shall be a (4) Planned Mobile Home District (PMD): width of fifty (50) feet. The minimum (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses width of Lots on curved drives or cuI- hereinafter lis d shall be permitted de•sacs shall have an average width of only as specifically de ignated on the not less than forty (40) feet. approved-~x~devel mentplan: (e) Setbacks: All mobile homes, recre- ational coaches and accessory build- 1. Mobile homes whi are used or ings shall be set back not less than ten intended to be used as a single- (10) feet from all perimeter property family residence upon the pre- lines, except the front or any otheryazd raises. General sales of mobile abuttingapubIicstreetshallbeatleast homes shall not be permitted; how• twenty (20) feet, and the yazd space so ever, sale of used mobile homes formed shall be landscaped. Greater which have been established as a yards or setbacks may be required residence in the districtwill beper- where, in the opinion of the planning witted. commission and/or city council, such 2. Single-family dwelling For park yards or setbacks are necessary due to owner, operator and/or caretaker. the topographic conditions, grading, 3. Accessory uses and buildings cus- drainage and/or protection of adjacent tomarily associated with and inci- property. No part of any mobile home dental to a mobile home park. This shall be located within any yard of a may include service uses, such as required setback area. a laundry, or retail sales of conve- (fl Yard Requirements: Mobile homes nience items where it is shown that shall be located so that there is at least such service or retail use is exclu- twenty-five (25) feet of separation be- sively provided to serve the needs tween any other mobile home on an of the mobile home park occupants. adjacent lot. Accessory structures shall Supp. No. 5 1751 § 26.25 (g) fh) R'HEAT RIDGE CITY CODE be located so that there is at least ten (10) feet of separation between any other accessory structure or mobile home on an adjacent lot. No mobile home (including the hitch) or accessory structure shall be located within five (5) feet from an interior lot line, road or walk. There shall be at all times ade- quate vision at intersections to pre- clude obstruction to view. Site and Lot Coverage: Overall lot cov- erage within a mobile home park shall not exceed seventy-five (75) percent. Ad- ditionally, lot wverage of an individual mobile home lot shall not exceed ninety (90) percent. Landscaping: In addition to.landscape areas required under subsection (e) above, the total mobile home park shall be provided with at least twenty-five (25) percent landscape area, and each mobile home Iot shall be provided with at least ten (10)percentlandscape area. There shall be provided at least two (2) deciduous trees for each mobile home lot. There shall also be provided at the front or rear of the lots at least one (1) evergreen tree for every three (8) lots. All landscaping required herein shall meet the minimum size and mainte- nance requirements of section 26.32. (i) Enclosure of Mobile Home Park: The following provisions aze applicable, in providingbuffersbettyeen mobile home pazks and adjoining properties and abutting public rights-of--way: 1. A greenbelt planting strip of not less than twenty (20) feet in width shall be placed along the perim- eter of the park where it abuts public rights-of--way or any other property. The greenbelt shall be de- veloped with a mixture of hazdy deciduous and coniferous plant ma- terial, grass or ground cover, and maintained thereafter in a neat and orderly manner. 2. In addition, a continual orna- mental wall or fence six (6) feet in height above grade shall be erected along the property lines which abut other properties and twenty (20) feet from property abutting public rights-of--way, so that the landscape area is between the street and fence. Walls on right- of-way corners shall be constructed to allow for line of sight on the rights-of--way and in accord with this Zoning Ordinance. Such wall shall be landscaped with suitable materials along both sides of such wall for the total length of wall ex- isting along right-of-way. Walls used on property lines not adja- cent to streets or roads shall be landscaped on the pazk side and permitted with the approval of the adjacent property owners. The or- namental wall and landscape ma- terials shaIl be acceptable to the planning commission and city council. The remaining azeas shall be landscaped and maintained with swell-kept lawn or other ma- terials acceptable to the planning and city council and shall be con- tinually maintained in a healthy growing, neat and orderly condi- tion. (j) Addressing and Internal Location System: Mobile home pazks shall be ad- dressed to the street from which pri- mary access is obtained. The entire mo- bile home park shall have one address, with each lot being designated by unit number (e.g., John Q. Citizen, Unit 27, 7600 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033). A location map shall be placed at all entrances to the mobile home park, which illustrates the internal road system, location of common facilities and buildings, manager's office, and each mobile home site. Each lot shall be designated by consecutive numbers. Where there is more than one (1) con- tinuousroad serving the park, the vaz- Supp. No. 5 1752 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ious roads should be designated as loops (e.g., Loop A., Loop D, etc.). (k) Performance Standards and Require- ments: Any person desiring to enlarge or establish a mobile home park shall meet or exceed the design standards as herein set forth: 1. Access. All mobile home parks shall have access to a collector street if directly abutting thereon. Parks not abutting a collector street shall show several direct routes to a collector street in order that the traffic is dispersed along several routes. 2. Vehicle travel lanes. All roads and driveways shall be hard-surfaced and so constructed as to handle all anticipated peak loads, adequately drained and lighted for safety and ease of movement of vehicles. Min- imum pavement widths shall be twenty (20) feet for two-way roads with no on-street parking allowed, twelve (12) feet for one-way roads with no on-street parking allowed, and ten (10) feet for all driveways. The mobile home pazk road system should be so designed as to pre- vent the use of such roads for through traffic. The entire width of the vehicle travel lanes shall be surfaced with approved materials and designed on a suitable road base as approved by the city engi- neer. Concrete curb and gutters shall be placed along both sides of all roads. Type of curbs and gut- ters shall reflect topographic con- ditions and road design. Walkways maybe required on one (1) or both sides of roads providing access to park. Approval of the design for road system, curb and gutter, and walkways will be subject to the city engineer's approval. 3. .Walkways. Public walks shall be provided an the public street side of each mobile home site. All public § 26-25 walks, such as from mobile homes to service buildings and along road and driveways, shall be at least four (4) feet in width. Walks used in common by one (1) to three (3) units, connecting the units to a common area or primary walk, shall be at least thirty (30) inches in width. Walks may be required on only one (1) side of drives leading to service areas. 4. Utilities and other services: a. All sanitary sewage utilities and water facilities, including connections provided to indi- vidual lots, shall meet the re- quirements of the applicable water and sanitation district operating within the city limits of Wheat Ridge and the Jefferson County Health De- partment. b. The plumbing connections to each mobile home lot shall be constructed so that all lines are protected from freezing, from accidental bumping or from creating any type of nui- sance or health hazazd. c. An adequate amount of culi- nary water shall be piped to each mobile home lot. The water distribution system shall be acceptable to the water organization servicing such park. d. A drainage plan shall be sub- mitted to the city and ap- proved by the city engineer. Drainage facilities shall be constructed so as to protect those that will reside in the mobile home park as well as the property owners adjacent to the park. e. All electric, telephone and other lines from supply poles to each mobile home lot shall be underground. When meters Supp. No. 5 1753 § 26-25 Supp. No. 5 WHEAT RIDGE CITY CODE are installed, they shall be uni- with a gravel pad acceptable to the formly located. depaztment of public works for f Fuel, oil and propane gas each location and shall be treated storage and distribution sys- to prevent the growth of weeds, or terns shall be located and de- a concrete pad, mat or platform not signed in conformance with less than four (4) inches in thick- applicable state and city codes, ness, or of equal beazing strength and shall be reviewed and ap- if reinforced [concrete) is used. proved by the fue department. When sepazate meters are in- Minimum pad dimensions for stalled, each shall be located single mobile homes shall be in a uniform manner. twelve (12) feet by fifty (50) feet; g. Facilities for the storage and minimum pad dimensions for disposal of trash and garbage double-wide mobile homes shall be in a sanitary manner shaIl be twenty-four (24) feet by fifty (50) provided in each park. feet. Anchor rings shall be pro- h. When exterior television an- vided every fifteen (15) feet in the tenna installation is neces- Parking pad, the design of which sary, a master antenna shall shall be approved by the building be installed and extend to in- inspector. dividualunitsbyunderground 6. Fire extinguishing equipment. lines. Such master antenna Every mobile home park shall be shall be so placed as not to be equipped at all times with fire ex- a nuisance tc park residents tinguishing equipment in good or surrounding azeas. working order of such type, size i. Yard lights, attached to Stan- and number and shall be so located dazds approved by the city, within the park as to satisfy appli- shall be provided in sufficient cable regulations of the appro- number and intensity to priate fire district. permit the sale movement of 7. Storage sheds. Each mobile home vehicles and pedestrians at lot shall be provided with one (1) night, and shall be effectively storage shed constructed of metal located to buildings, trees, or other suitable material, which walks, steps and ramps; how- shall be uniform as to size and lo- ever, these yard lights shall cation throughout the mobile home not cause off-site glare, and park site. All sheds shall be kept shall meet the requirements of clean, shall be maintained in good section 26-30(S). condition, shall be kept painted, j. The erection, construction, re- shall contain a minimum of ninety construction, repair, relocation (90)cubicfeetofstorageazea,shall and/or alteration of all perma- be a **+;,,;,,,um of six (6) feet in vent buildings and structures height, and shall meet minimum located within a park shall setback and yard requirements as conform to the requirements set forth in subsections (I~(B)(4)(e) of the building and fire code and (t) hereof. adopted by the City of Wheat 8• On-site laundry. An on-site Ridge. common laundry facility shall be provided if all mobile homes are 5. Pads, mats or platforms. Each mo- not furnished with individual bile home lot shall be provided washers and dryers. 1754 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT Service area enclosures. The city council may require fencing or screen planting around areas con- taining garbage, rubbish or waste disposal or around service or rec- reational areas as a condition of approval of a mobile home park. Recreational requirements. In ad- dition to the m;n;mum landscape requirements, a m;n;mum of eight (S) percent of the gross site area shall be reserved for recreational development. These facilities and areas shall be designed with trees, grass, benches, equipment, etc., in relationship to park users. Provi- sion of sepazate adult and tot lot recreational areas is encouraged. Mobile home skirt. All mobile homes shall have the space be- tween ground level and the under- side of the floor enclosed by an opaque or solid, durable screening material. Patios. An outdoor patio area of not less than one hundred twenty (120) square feet shall be provided at each mobile home lot, conveniently located to the entrance of the mo- bile home, and approximately re- lated to open areas on the lot and other facilities for the purpose of providing suitable outdoor living space to supplement the interior space of a mobile home. A permit shall be required for any canopy or awning used as a patio cover and for any screened, glassed-in or oth- erwise enclosed awning used as a patio cover and for any screened, glassed-in or otherwise enclosed awning or canopy. Any patio cover or enclosure must meet setback and yard requirements as set forth in subsections (e) and (f) hereof. Federal standards. All mobile homes placed on lots or sites within a mobile home park must meet fed- eral standazds which are no older than five (5) years at the time of placement. § 26.25 14. Building permit requirement: a. It is unlawful for any person to construct, enlazge, alter, im- prove or convert any mobile home pazk or to improve any lands for use as a park, or to cause the same to be done, or to set or establish a mobile home within a mobile home pazk unless such person holds a valid and existing permit is- sued bythe building inspector for the performance of such work. No building permit shall be issued for any mobile home pazk, or any mobile home, un- less plans for development are in full compliance with the ap- proved final development plan and other related development codes. b. Upon completion of any such mobile home park and prior to the use thereof, and upon the placement of a mobile home upon a lot on site within such mobile home pazk, the owner or operator of said park, or mo- bile home, shall obtain a cer- tificate of occupancy. (5) Pl¢nned Recreational Vekicle Park District (PRVD). It is the intent of this district to pro«de for safe, weA-designed recreational vehicle parks as a commercial use ofIand, approximately located to serve the needs of the tourist and interstate traveler. (a) AL'.owable Uses: The foIlowing uses hereinafter d shall be permitted only as spe ~ ically d~sfgnated on the approved+Fiad dev opment plan: 1. Recreatioicle park which provides facilities to accommodate tourist or itinerant campers. Sale or storage of campers, motor homes, etc., is not permitted upon the premises. 2. Accessory uses and buildings cus- tomarily associated with and inci- Supp. No. 5 1755 § 26-25 WHEAT RIDGE CITY CODE dental to a recreational vehicle pazk district. (b) Area and Density: The minimum size requirement for a recreational vehicle pazk shall be not less than three (3) acres. In no case shall the density of the recreational vehicle park exceed twenty (20) units per acre. (c) Height: Maximum thirty-five (35) feet for permanent structures. (d) Perimeter Setbacks and Buffer Yazds: All main structures, recreational vehi- cles and accessory buildings shall be set back not less than ten (10) feet from all property lines, except the front or any other yard abutting a public street shall be at least thirty (30) feet and the yard space so formed shall be land- scaped. Greater yards or setbacks may be required where, in the opinion of the planning commission and/or city council, such yards or setbacks are nec- essary due to the topographic condi- tions, grading, drainage and/or protec- tion of adjacent property. No part of any recreational vehicle shall be lo- catedwithin any yazd of a required set- back area. Any yazd which abuts property zoned residential shall be required to provide a ten-foot-wide landscape buffer strip and asix-foot-high ornamental, solid wall or fence along such border. This landscape buffer shall be developed with an acceptable mixture of ground cover, shrubs and/or trees to provide both a visual and a noise barrier be- tween the recreational vehicle park and adjacent residential properties. (e) Lot Coverage: Overall lot coverage within a recreational vehicle park shall not exceed seventy-five (75) percent. (fl Landscaping: In addition to the spe- cificrequirements set forth herein, the overaII minimum landscaping area shall not be leas than twenty-five (25) percent. (See section 26.32 for addi- tional requirements.) (g) Parking and Circulation: Parking to be determined based upon the specific de- sign and uses. Ali interior roads shall be constructed as to handle all antici- pated peak loads, adequately drained and lighted for safety and ease of move- ment of vehicles. Minimum widths shall be twenty (20) feet for two-way roads with no on-street parking al- lowed, twelve (12) feet for one-way roads with no on-street parking al- lowed. The recreational vehicle pazk road system shall be so designed as to prevent the use of such roads for through traffic. The entire width of the vehicle travel lanes shall be surfaced with anall-weather, dust-free material as approved by the city engineer. (h) Addressing and Internal Location System: Recreational vehicle parks shall be addressed to the street from which primary access is obtained. The entire pazk shall have one (1) address, with each site being designated by unit number. A location map shall be placed at all entrances to the pazk, which illustrates the internal road system, location of common facilities and buildings, man- ager's office, and each recreational ve- hicle site. Each lot shall be designated by consecutive numbers. Where there is more than one (1) continuous road serving the park, the various roads should be designated as loops (e.g., Loop A., Loop D, eta). (i) Fences and Walls: As specifically de- tailed on an approved final develop- ment plan; otherwise, follow require- ments of section 26-30(I). (j) Signage: As specifically detailed on the approved final development plan; oth- erwise, follow requirements of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26, Ar- ticle IV. (k) .Utilities: AII water and sewer service and connections shall be designed and constructed so that they aze protected from freezing, from accidental Supp. No. 5 1756 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT $ 26.25 bumping, or from creating any type of ator of said pazk shall obtain a cer- nuisance or health hazard. All water tificate of occupancy. and sewer systems shall be reviewed and approved by the district which will (o) Business License Required: Recre- serve the park, and are subject to re- ational vehicle pazks are business es- view and inspection by the Jefferson tablishments, and, therefore, must ob- County Health Department. twin and maintain a valid business license, and shall collect and pay sales, All electric supply lines to each recre- use, lodger and other taxes as may oth- ational vehicle site shall be under- erwise be required by law. ground. (6) PZ¢nned Hospital District (PHD): Q) Area Lights: Each park shall be de- (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses signed to provide adequate lighting far hereinafter list shall be permitted pedestrians and vehicles within the park; however, the lights shall be de- signed so as to eliminate off-site glaze, only as speciy design ed on the approved-develo nt plan: and shall meet the requirements of sec- 1. Public and private general hos- tion 26.30(5). pital. (m) Recreational Requirements: In addi- 2. Hospitals or sanitariums for con- tion to the m;n;muIn landscape require- tagious diseases, or the mentally ments, a minimum of eight (8) percent disturbed or handicapped. of the gross site azea shall be reserved 3. Homes for the aged, nursing for recreational development. These fa- homes, congregate care homes, hos- ciIities and azeas shall be designed with pices or similaz residential faciIi- trees, grass, benches, equipment, etc., ties which aze accessory to a hos- in relationship to pazk users. Provi- pital or sanitarium principal use. lion of separate adult and tot lot rec- 4. Accessory uses and structures cus- reational areas is encouraged. tomarily associated with the per- (n) Building, Fire and Other Codes: witted uses as shown on the ap- t. It is unlawful for any person tocon- proved final development plan. struct, enlarge, alter, improve or (b) Area: Each Planned Hospital District convert any recreational vehicle shall be a minimum of five (5) acres, pazk or structures within such a except as provided under subsection park, or to improve any Iands for (6)(e) below. use as a park, or to cause the same (c) Lot Width: Two hundred (200) feet min- to be done, unless such person ~~. holds a valid and existing permit (d) Setback Requirements: issued by the building inspector for the performance of such work. No 1. Front: Fifty (50) feet minimum. building permit shall be issued for 2. Side: Twenty-five (25) feet min- any recreational vehicle park un- imam plus ten (10) feet for each less plans for development are in story. The intent is to provide a full compliance with the approved minimum twenty-five-foot land- final development, and applicable scope buffer adjacent to residen- building, fire, health or other re- tial zoned property. fated development codes. 3. Rear: Twenty-five (25) feet min- t. Upon completion of any such rec• imam, plus ten (10) feet for each reational vehicle park and prior to story. The intent is to provide a the use thereof, the owner or oper- minimum twentyfive-foot land- Sapp. No. b ' 1757 § 26.25 WHEAT RIDGE CITY CODE scope buffer adjacent to residen- tial zoned property. (e) Height: 1. Hospital buildings: Fifty (50) feet maximum, except as follows: a. Sixty-five (65) feet where the lot on which the building is to be constructed is at least fifty (50) acres in size. b. Additions attached to existing hospitals may be built to a height not to exceed the height of the existing building. 2. Offices: Fifty (50) feet maximum. 3. Residential: Thirty-five (35) feet maximum. 4. Accessory: Thirty-five (35) feet maximum. (fl Lot Coverage: Seventy-five (75) percent maximum overall site coverage. (g) Residential Density: No residential de- velopment, excluding nursing homes or intermediate nursing raze facilities, shall exceed twenty-one (21) dwelling unit per acre. (h) Landscaping: 1. Minimum twenty-five (25) percent overall site requirement. 2. Twenty-five-foot landscape buffer required along property lines ad- jacent to residential zoned prop- erty. 3. Unless otherwise specifically pro- videdfor on the approved plan, all landscaping shall meet the require- ments set forth in section 26-32. (i) Pazlcing. Based upon specific uses. (See section 26.31.) (j) Fences and Walls: As specifically de- tailed on an approved final develop- ment plan, otherwise follow require- ments of section 26-30(I). (k) Signage: As spec~cally detailed on an approved final development plan, oth- erwise follow requirements of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26, Ar- ticle IV. (~ APPLICATION FOR PLANNED DEVELOP- MENTS All applications For approval of a planned de- velopment, redevelopment, alteration or addition shall be filed with the department of planning and development. There aze three (3) basic steps to the development approval process prior to issu- ance of a buildingpermit. The three (3) basic steps are: (U rezoning; (2) site plan and platting ap- proval; and (3) building plan approval. These reg- ulations deal only with the rezoning and site plan requirements. Platting or subdivision is regulated by the Subdivision Regulations, Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26, Article III. Building plan approval is regulated by the rules and regulations of the building inspection division in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 5 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. There are requirements for an outline develop- ment plan, a preliminary development plan, and for a final development plan, and, in certain cases, subdivision approval. These plans may be sub- mitted for review and approval either separately (regular procedures) or combined (expedited pro- cedures) as described below. (A) Expedited Review Procedure: (1) Deuel¢pment plans. There are several dis- cretionary options available to an appli- cant, depending on the size and complexity of the proposed development, and on the confidence an applicant has that his plan is viable, as well as acceptable to the city. The outline development plan may be sub- mitted for consideration by itself or it may be combined with a preliminary develop- ment plan and/or final development plan. When the outline development plan is com- bined with preliminary and/or final plans, the plan shall be so designated, and all in- formational requirements of the combined plans shall be met. All the plans may be merged onto a single combined plan which contains all the required information in a legible form. (2) Subdivision/pl¢tting. Subdivision or plat re- view may be carried out simultaneously with the review of development plans re- Stepp. No. 5 1158 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT quired herein. All requirements of the sub- division regulations for a preliminary and final plat, in addition to those of prelimi- nary and final development plans, must be satisfied if there are any pazcel divisions created, or if there are any dedications for streets, easements or other public purposes, or if a previously approved subdivision is amended in any way by the proposed devel- opment. Incases where subdivision require- ments are to be met simultaneous with de- velopment plan review, the applicant may submit separate sheet(s) in addition to the subject development plan ar the required platting information may be included on the same sheet(s) as the development plan so long as the title of the sheet(s) indicate that they are both a development plan and plat. (B) Regular Reuiew Procedures: (1) Outline development pl¢n: Submittal Requirements: § 26-25 ferent submittals of the outline de- velopment plan: First Submittal-Seventeen (17) copies of the outline development plan for staff and agency review. Second Submittal-Fifteen (15) copies of the outline development plan for- planning commission public hearing. Third Submitt¢l-fifteen (15) copies of the outline development plan for city council public hearing. 2. The maps which are a part of the outline development plan may be in general schematic form and shall contain the following min- imum information: a. Ownership/unified control statement. A list of all existing owners of real property in- cluded within the proposed 1. An applicant shall submit anout- Planned Development Dis- linedevelopment plan for approval trio, and a written statement of a change of zone to a Planned which describes anticipated fu- Development District. The outline ture ownership character (i.e. development plan is the zoning and ~ . „~ single ownership, partnership, general concept step. It pr 'des condominium, etc.), and which generalized graphic and writ nn i~ indicates proposed manner of formation on layout, uses maintaining unified control and intended chazacter of the de- throughout the planning, de- velopment. Since minimal engi- velopment, use, operation and veering detail is required, this step continued maintenance of the provides the lowest cost option for _~_. planned development. ari applicant to gain approval of a -- change ofzone and approval of gen- eral development and use concept. - ~ '' ° '"`";"'2~°` The change of zone to planned de- velopment and the outline devel- opment plan shall be reviewed by planning and development staff, and other affected departments and agencies, prior to being set for the public hearings before the plan- ning commission and city council. For the purpose of these review steps, there will be three (3) dif- ~: ~. • - .sy - - - r ,9 --- -- , a ~e = 'D\ ' r Supp. No. 5 1759 § 26-25 c. d. e. f. g. 1~~h. '" i. ..-- Supp. No. 5 WFIEAT RIDGE CITY CODE ..:.•- ~--a=s - ,_. sea a,....,i_--- - ..7..aaM -'-- _n __ _- r ___. r.,, ~nuawanY~.f ~L r £n.. ll. . -__-____-_ L _4, L..u __ -._~,~,.t.._A._LL .... -b~eed~+~- The existingtopographic chaz- acter of the land at a contour interval not Iazger than five (5) Feet. General indication of areas to be landscaped:' Property boundazies as per ac- companyinglegal description. Existing and proposed lot lines, easements and rights- of-way on and adjacent to the site. Adjacent zoning, land use, streets, streams, etc. Location of all existing and proposed streets within the site and ingress/egress points. Approximate location and ex- k. Scale (no less than one inch = one hundred (100) feet) and north arrow. 1. Small scale location map as an inset which shows the subject property centered within a quarter-mile radius. m. Proposed name of the planned development. ~,-er Legal description (metes and / bounds) of total site, including azea. 0 ~. Surveyor's certification. 'n~l~d, yea ~,,,t ..e., ~ ~ --'- 4~ana ~ t -c P -r. Development time schedule by phase (see subsection (VII) of this section for limitations). 3. The outline development plan shall be recorded with the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder and, therefore, must meet their basic re- quirements for recordation. The following certifications, in ad- dition to the required surveyor's - certificate, shall also be placed upon the outline development plan: OWNER'S CERTIFICATION The below-signed owner(s), or legally designated agent(s) thereof, do hereby agree that the prop- ertylegally described hereon will be developed as a Planned Development in accordance with the uses, restrictions and conditions contained in this plan, and as may otherwise be required by law. I (we) further recognize that the approval of re- zoning to Planned Development, and approval of this outline development plan, does not create a nt o mayor use areas. vested property right. Vested property rights may Any significant}landscape or only arise and accrue pursuant to the provisions land use featur which may of section 26.6(G) of the Code of Laws. influence deveI pment. ~` Signature of Owner(s) or Agent(s) 1760 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT NOTARY PUBLIC Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of , 19_. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires NOTARY SEAL PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION Approved this day of 19_, by the Planning Commis- sion. /s/ Chairman PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION Approved this day of 19_, by the Wheat Ridge City Council. /s/ Mayor CITY SEAL ATTEST: City Clerk COUNTY CLERK AND This document accepted for filing in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder of Jefferson County at Golden, Colorado, on the day of A-D. 19_, in the Bcok Page Reception Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder By: Deputy / 4. Accompanyingthe applicatior}; the a// following is required: V/ ,~ a. Fee: ..~r.. ~-~--F° § 26.25" ~~'~r~' b. Evidence that the required neighborhood referral meeting has occurred (see section 26- 6(F)(1)). c. Complete and natazized appli- cation. d. Proof of ownership, such as copies of deeds or title commit- ment. e. Power of attorney from own- -- -. er(s) where an agent acts on behalf of the owner(s). f. Names and addresses of all ad- jacent property owners, in- cluding property across abut- ting streets. g. Names, addresses, telephone numbers of azchitects and en- gineers associated with the prepazation of the plans. 5. .Additional information maybe re- quired, including, but not limited to, geological stability report, traffic impact report, floodplain im- pact report or general environ- mental impact report. (b) Review Procedures: 1. Staff review: Upon filing of an ap- plication and other required docu- ments, planning and development staff will refer copies of the plans to affected departments and agen- - Gies for review. All comments shall be forwarded to the applicant so that necessary revisions may be made by the applicant prior to scheduling the application before planning commission. Once staff is assured that all required docu- ments and revisions thereto have been received, notice of public hearing shall occur in accordance with requirements set forth in sec- tion 26-6(F). Supp. No. 5 1761 § 26-25 l (c) WFIEAT RIDGE CTTY CODE 2. Planning commission hearing. Planning commission shall hold a , public hearing and within ninety (90) days of the public hearing date, exclusive of time requested by the applicant for continuances, shall adopt a resolution which recom- mends to city council approval, ap- proval with modifications or de- nial, and such resolution shall state the reasons for such recom- mendations. 3. City council hearing. Upon receipt of the planning commission's res- olut~the city clerk shall schedule a public hearing before the city council and cause public notice as required by section 26- 6(F). City Council shall hold a public hearing and within ninety (90) days of the public hearing, ex- clusive oftime reque ed by the ap- plicant for contin~ces, shall ap- / prove, approve wit modifications, _~/ or deny the -_ ~~* - , RecorcTa~on: All, approval o 'tline de- velopment plans shall be recorded with the Jefferson County CIerk and Re- corder. Such plans, and associated re- cordingfees shall be submitted to plan- ning and development department within thirty (30) days of council's final action. Should a recordable approved outline development plan not be pro- vided to staff within sixty (60) days of council's final action, staff shall ~chedule a public hearing before city ouncil and city counciln~glaoil. recon- sider the previous approval. iminary development plan (and prelim- inary plat): (a) Submittal Requirements: 1. An application for approval of a preliminary development plan is- required only fora multiphased project where a final development plan is or will be submitted for only a portion of the area included within a Planned Development District. It permits the consider- ation of the platting details far the entire site as they relate to lots, streets, access, drainage, utilities, easements and other public (or common) improvements or needs. This step requires detailed prelim- inary plat information, but does not require the detailed site devel- opment information required with a final development plan. The pre- liminary development plan shall be consistent with the approved outline development plan. The preliminary development plan (and plat) shall be reviewed by planning and development staff, and other affected departments and agencies, prior to being set for public heazingbefore the planning commission. For the purpose of these review steps, there will be two (2) different submittals of the preliminary development plan (and plat), except where an appeal of a planning commission decision to city council occurs. First Submittal-Seventeen (17) copies of the preliminary develop- ment plan (and plat) for staff and review agencies. Second Submittal-Fifteen (15) copies of the preliminary develop- ment plan (and plat) for planning commission public hearing. Third Submittal (optional)-Fif- teen (15) copies of the preliminary development plan (and plat) for city council appeal hearing. Supp. No. 5 1762 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT § 26-25~ 2~Accompanyingtheapplication,the Where a plat or subdivision / following is required: ~ approval is proposed simulta- / F neously with development a. ee. ~ plan review, the requirements ( ` b. Complete and notarized appli- of the subdivision regulations cation. for a preliminary plat must be c. Proof of ownership, such as met. (Chapter 26, Article III.) copies of deeds or title commit- e. Location of all existing and went. proposed public and private d. Power of attorney from own- rights-of--way and easement er(s) where an agent acts on lines located on and adjacent behalf of the owner(s). to the property which are pro- e. Names and address of all ad- posed to be continued, created, jacent property owners, in- relocated or abandoned. eluding property across abut- f. Existing grade and proposed ting streets. ~ finish grade of the site shown £ Names, addresses and tele- by contours with intervals not phone numbers of owner, li- larger than two (2) feet. tensed surveyor, licensed en- g. The approximate location of gineer and designer of plat. every existing and proposed g. Agreements, provisions, con- structure or building envelope dominium declarations, cave- in the described pazcel, the ex- nants, etc., which govern the petted use or uses to be con- ' development, use, mainte- tained therein, the number of Hance and continued protec- _ dwelling units (if applicable) tion for the planned develop- and the maximum gross floor ment and any of its common azea. areas or facilities. It is specif- h. Location, dimension and ele- ically required that uniform vations of all existing and pro- control be demonstrated. posed streets, sidewalks, 3. The preliminary development plan curbs, gutters, alleys, ease- (and plat) shall be drawn at a scale ments, drainage areas, irriga- of not less than one (1) inch to one tion ditches, lakes or ponds; hundred (100) feet and containing and other significant features the following: within or adjacent to the tract to be subdivided or developed. a. Name of proposed plan (and i. Quantitative tabulations and plat), date of preparation, scale percentages for building cov- and north arrow, erages, total lot coverage, b. Legal description and area of parking areas, landscaped entire parcel included within areas, open areas, etc. the Planned Development Dis- j. Locations of all proposed curb trict. cuts, parking areas and c. Small scale location map with loading areas. zoning of adjacent sur- k. Location of all proposed walks, rounding properties. malls and other open area as d. Location of all existing and they may relate to the entire proposed lot lines and Hum- site, bering of lots and blocks. Supp. No. 5 1763 § 26-25 Sapp. No. 5 1. m. n. o. P• 4• WHEAT RIDGE CITY CODE All existing and proposed (b) Review Procedures: water and sewer lines and their source of supply and all 1. Staff review. Upon filing of an ap- electric lines and their max- placation and other required docu- imam capacity. menu, planning and development A drainage plan of the entire staff shall refer copies of the plans site. The approximate volume to affected de artments and a en- of water generated by expected Gies for review. All comments shall development and the proposed be forwazded to the a hcant so PP method of disposing of said that necessary revisions may be water. made by the applicant prior to All irrigation ditches shall be scheduling the application before located and labeled with name the planning commission. Once of ditch company or owner(s), staff is assured that all required and name(s) and address(es) of documents and revisions thereto the appropriate contact. Any have been received, notice of public proposed changes to irrigation hearing shall occur in accordance ditches must be indicated, and with requirements set forth in sec- s letter from the ditch own- tion 26.6(F). er(s) approving of such 2. Planning commission hearing. changes must be submitted. Planning commission shall hold a Geological stability informa- public hearing and within ninety tibn when requested by the (90) days of the public heazing date, city. exclusive of time requested by the Designation of the 100-year applicant for continuances, shall floodplain and/or wetlands adopt a resolution which approves, where applicable. approves with modifications, or de- Development schedule by nies the preliminary development phase which indicates ex- plans (and plat) and such resolu- pected time of beginning and tion shall state the reasons for ac- ending ofconstruction. Where tion. Any applicant may appeal a improvements will be needed decision of planning commission to outside of an area for which a city council; however, such appeal final development plan is or is must be filed with the city clerk proposed to he approved in within ten (10) working days of order for that area to properly that decision function, a detailed phasing schedule and design plans . 3. City council hearing. Upon receipt shall be required far those im- of a petition of appeal, the city provements (e.g., storm clerk shall schedule a public drainage facilities located heazing before city council and within the Planned Develop- cause public notice as required by _ ment District, but outside of section 26.6(F). City council shall the area proposed for final de- hold a public hearing and within velopment plan approval). AlI ninety (90) days of the public temporary or interim facilities hearing, exclusive of time e- shall be so designated, and de- quested by the applican ~ con- sign specifications provided tinuances, shail~.ppropprov therefor. (See section 26• withmodif~catio s, or de hea ~ t ~ 25(VIn for limitations). placation. n _ ' i 1764 rf ZONING AND DEVELS3PMENT / § 2&ZS / (3) Final development plan (and jcnal plat): limited to, geological stability (a) Submittal Requirements: report, traffic impact report, floodplain impact report or 1. The final developme plan (and general environmental impact plat) provides tll final engi- report. nearing, platting and site design 3. Form and content of the final de- details for final approval of one (1) velopment plan. The final develop- or more phases of a proposed de- went plan (and plat) shall be con- velopment. This is the final devel- sistent with the approved outline opment plan and platting step and and preliminary development culminates all of the requirements plans (if applicable). The final de- prior to submittal of building t velopment plan (and plat) shall be e plans a ~ „ ,, _ ~ drawn at a scale of no less than ^ ~ „ ~~n} F ~ one (1) inch to one hundred (100) -- feet and contain the following. 2. Accomp a application, the % a. The requirements of both this following is required: / section as well as the subdivi• / lion regulations for a final plat a. Fee:- must be met. If a preliminary b. Complete and notarized appli- development plan has not pre- cation viously been approved, the re- . such as c. Proof of ownership quirements of the subdivision , copies of deeds or title commit regulations for a preliminary plat must be met. ment. b. Legal description of the entire d. Power of attorney from own- Planned development, and if er(s) where an agent acts on the final development plan is behalf of the owner(s). for only a portion of the site, a e. Names and addresses of all ad- legal description of that por- jacent property owners, in- tion of the site included within cluding property across abut- the final development plan. ting streets. c. Location, extent, type and sur- f. Names, addresses and tale- facing materials or all pro- ' phone numbers of architects posed walks, malls, paved and engineers associated with areas, turfing and other areas preparation of the plans and not be covered by buildings or plat. structures. g. Copies of proposed agree- d. Location, size, type, height and manta, provisions, covenants, orientation of all signs. Signs condominium declarations, not specifically approved as etc., which govern the use, part of a final development maintenance and continued plan shall not be permitted. protection of the planned de- e. A landscape plan which pro• velopment and any of its vides location, type, size and common areas and facilities, quantities of all existing (to re- andwhich will guarantee uni- main) and proposed plant ma- fied control. terial and other landscape fea- h. Additional information may tares and materials. Common be required, including, but not ' and botanical names of all Sapp. No. 5 1765 § 26.25 WI~'AT RIDGE CITY CODE - plant materials shall be indi- must be indicated if proposed. sated. Location and type of ir- Description of any proposed rigation system shall be indi- temporary or interim uses of sated. All landscaping shall land or existing buildings meet the requirements of this prior to development in accor- section as well as section dance with the approved final 26.32. development plan. f. Location, extent, types of ma- m. A development schedule indi'- terials and height of all walls sating the approximate date and fences. on which construction of the g. Exterior lighting devices; type, project can be expected to height, location and orients- begin and approximate dates tion. when construction will be com- b. Location, extent, maximum pleted. If a multiphased height, number of floors and project, indicate times for each total floor area of all build- phase (see subsection (VII) For ings and structures. limitations) i Total number of dwelling n. The final development plan units and typical floor plans (and plat) shall be recorded for residential projects. with the Jefferson County j. Elevations and perspective Clerk and Recorder and, there- drawings of all proposed strut- fore, must meet their basic re- tures and improvements, indi- quirements for recordation. sating azchitectural style and building materials. The draw- The following certifications, and ings need not be the result of approvals, in addition to the re- fmal architectural design but quired surveyor's certificate, shall of sufficient detail to permit also be placed upon the final de- evaluation of the proposed velopment plan (and plat): structure(s). ~-OWNER'S CERTIFICATION k. Off-street pazking and loading ` -/~\ plan which indicates the size, The below-signed owner(s), or legally designated location and number of agent(s) thereof, do hereby agree that the prop- pazking and loading spaces ~y legally described hereon will be developed as and which shows the proposed a Planned Development in accordance with the circulation of vehicles and pe- uses, restrictions and conditions contained in this destrians within the planned plan, and as may otherwise be required by law. I development and to and from (we) further recognize that the approval of Final existing or proposed public Development Plan (and Plat) does not create a thoroughfares. Any special en- vested roe ri ht. Vested ro e p p ~ g p p ri3' nghts may gineering features and traffic only arise and accrue pursuant to the provisions regulation devices needed to of section 26.6(G) of Article I of the Code of Lawa facilitate and ensure the safety of the City of Wheat Ridge. of this circulation pattern, in• chiding fire lanes, must be Signature of Owner(s) or Agent(s) shown. NOTARY PUBLIC 1. Indication of all proposed uses for all buildings, structures Subscribed and sworn to before me this and open areas. Outside day of , 19_._ - - storage and display areas Witness my hand and official seal. Supp. No. 5 - - - 1766 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT § 26-25 My commissicn expires _NOTARY SEAT, City of Wheat Ridge, Director of Pazks and Rec- . reation PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION Approved this day of 19_, by the Wheat Ridge Plan• Wing Commission. Isl Chairman PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION Approved this day of 19_, by the Wheat Ridge City Council. _ Isl Mayor CITY SEAL ATTEST: City Clerk COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS CERTIF- ICATE This document accepted for filing in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder of Jefferson County at Golden, Colorado, on the :day of A.D. 19_, in the Book Page Reception . Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder By: Deputy In addition to the above certifications and re- quired land surveyor's certificate, the following approval signature blocks shall be placed upon plats and subdivisions. Public Service Company of Colorado Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph City of Wheat Ridge, Director of Public Works Supp. No. 5 (b) Review Procedures: 1. Staff review. Upon filing of an ap- plication and other required docu- ments, the planning and develop- went staff will refer copies of the plans to affected departments and agencies for review. All comments shall be forwarded to the appli- cant so that necessary revisions may be made by the applicant prior to scheduling the application be- -fore the planning commission. Once staff is assured that all re- quired documents and revisions __t~iereto have.been received, notice of public heazing shall occur in ac- cordance with requirements set forth in section 26.6(F). 2.-"Planning-commission hearing. planning commission shall hold a / public hearing and within ninety V (90) days of the public hearing date, exclusive of time requested by the _ _ applicant for continuances, shall - ~. urY. .._, _r council hearii~. Upon receipt L''e}etCi,~rr, the city clerk shall schedule a public hearing before city council and cause public no- tice as required by section 26.6(F). City council shall hold a public hearing and within ninety (90) days of the public hearing, exclu- sive of t' a requ ted by the plicant oror cont' ances, shall ap- provd~=appr _ "th modifications or de` t application. „_ _ . P 1767 ~ ' Z~ § 26.25 wIIEAT RIDGE CITY CODE (c) Recordation: All approved final devel- opment plans (and plats) shall be re- cordedwith the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder. Such plans, and associ- ated recording fees, shall be submitted to the planning and development staff within thirty (30) days of council's final action. Should a recordable approved final development (and plat) not be pro- vided to the staff within sixty (60) days of council's final action, the staff shall schedule a public heazing before city council and city council shall recon- sider their previous approval. (VI) INTERPRETATION OF ERRORS AND OMISSIONS Detailed specifications and standazds which should have been specifically set forth by an ap- proved final development plan, but which were found subsequent to approval to have been omitted, maybe interpreted by the zoning admin- istrator to be those specifications and standards set forth in the Wheat Ridge Zone District in which the approved uses contained within the final de- velopment plan would be permitted. In the event the approved uses are in fact permitted in more than one other zone district, the zoning adminis- trator is hereby authorized to determine, based upon the overall intent of a underlying dis- tricts, to determine the app priate zone district's standards which shall b applied. The owner of any property who~ai~dr feels aggrieved by such determination by the zoning administrator shall be entitled to appeal said determination pursuant to the provisions of section 26.6(D)(4) ofth' 'Zoning ',,.~~ ~rdinance. „;~ (VIn CONSTRUCTION _ __ ...Li..~..L~II L__-____ ~ ... =~~ - _ - - is- Y j~ 4°-P ., ~- ~;e:~..o-t4^e..-~.~~esffi~t2 to a (VIII) BINDING UPON SUCCESSORSAND AS- SIGNS All approved development plans shall be binding upon the owner(s), their successors and assigns, and shall limit the development to all conditions and limitations established in such plans, and as may be contained in separately recorded agree- ments, covenants, condominium declarations, etc., which were approved by city council as pazt of a planned development approval. (IX) AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT PLANS (A) The procedures and requirements for amending an approved development plan (out- line, preliminary or final) shall be the same as prescribed for original approval, except as pro- vided for under subsection (B) below. All applica- tionsfar amendment must be approved in writing by all owners of real property contained within the area originally approved by the outline devel- opment plan, unless specific alternative provi- sions have been approved by city council as part of the unified control agreement. (B) Based upon showing of necessity therefor, minor changes in the Iocations of structures and their accessory uses, fences, pazking areas, land- scapingand other site improvements may be per- mitted as an "administrative amendment" by the director of planning and development, if such changes will not cause any of the following cir- cumstances to occur: (1) Change in the character of the develop- ment. ' (2) Increase in the intensity (or density) of use. (3) Increase of the problems of circulations, safety and utilities. (4) Increase of the external effects on the ad- jacent properties. (5) Increase in maximum building height. (6) Reduction in the originally approved set- backs from perimeter property lines. Supp. No. 5 1768 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT (7) Reduction in landscape area of total site, or relocation of landscape areas which are re- quired as buffer yards or establish project chazacter. (8) Increase in the gross floor azea of struc- tures beyond the authorized maximum al- lowed with the approved planned develop- ment. (C) Any changes or revisions of a fmal develop- mentplan which aze approved, either administra- tively or by council action, must be recorded with the Jefferson County Recorder as amendments.to the original recorded development plan. (X) TEMPORARY USE PROVISION Subsequent to rezoning to a Planned Develop- mentDistrict and approval of a f'mal development plan, but prior to development and use of a pazcel in accordance with the approved plan, the prop- erty may continue to be used in accordance with the previous zoning or for cultivation of agricul- turalproducts, or the raising and keeping of live- stock, as would be permitted in any residential district; provided, however, that no new perma- nent structures or additions to existing structures will be permitted. (Ord. No. 1989-807, § 2, 9-26-89; Ord. No. 1990- 827, § 1, 4-9.90) Secs. 26.26-26.29. Reserved. § 28.30 Supp. No. 6 1769 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning Commission FROM: Glen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development RE: Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinance, Section 26-24 Planned Development District DATE: February 9, 1995 The accompanying Sec. 26-24 is submitted for review-and .- discussion. Proposed revisions are shown by strike-thru (delete) and bold capital letters (add). The nature of the proposed revisions are summarized as follows: A. PROCESS 1. There has been some confusion at recent City Council meetings regarding approval procedures for three types of plans (i.e., outline, preliminary and final). Therefore, we have added information that makes it clear that the outline plan and any future amendments to it, is the rezoning step and therefore requires approval by ordinance (page 30), whereas preliminary (page 35) and final plans (page 39) and amendments to them, are site planning-and platting steps and therefore are approved only by motion. 2. Based upon discussion between Council and Planning Commission and a resulting consensus by Council, we have revised the process of approval for final development plans and amendments thereto by showing the Planning Commission as the approval authority, with an appeal process to City Council. (page 39) B. SUBSTANCE . The informational requirements associated with the Outline Plan have been loosely written. It is important that the basic zoning_standards are clearly stated at the_rez_oning step, therefore we have added those basic standards and criteria that must be upon the Outline Plan .(See pages 24 & 25/(B)(1)). 2. A specific time limit has been suggested (page 40) so that development plans are meaningful based upon changing neighborhood conditions. We have many old Planned Developments that were zoned and planned ten to 15 years ago, and no subsequent activity has occurred Memo to Planning Commission Page 2 February 9, 1995 on that particular property. Meanwhile, changes have occurred on other surrounding properties, or in infrastructures or policies or laws that may affect the feasibility, desirability or advisability of following through with the previously approved plans. C. COST Planned Development zoning and plan processing involves a substantial amount of staff resources and direct costs. The current fee. structure of-$250/$100 doesn't even come close to covering actual cost to the City of processing such cases. Additionally, larger projects demand greater staff time than smaller projects. Therefore, we have recommended increasing the fees and indexing the fee to-the size of the project. - After you have reviewed this proposal and made revisions as needed, the next step would be to set this amendment for a public hearing. I don't expect that you will be_ able to. complete your review at the February 16, 1995 meeting, so continuation onto future agendas, or a study session, would be appropriate as the case may be. GEG:slw Sec. 26-25. Planned development districts. (I) SCOPE There is hereby created a Planned Development District to further promote the public health, safety and general welfare by permitting greater flexibility and innovation in land development based upon a comprehensive, integrated plan. For the purpose of_applying certain regulations and standards, and to ensure maximum flexibility of this district, the district is divided into the following subdistrict designations, based on the primary land use of a proposed development plan or portion thereof: (A) Planned Residential Development--PRD ' (B) Planned Commercial Development--PCD (C) Planned Industrial Development--PID (D) Planned Mobile Home Development--PMHD (E) Planned Recreational Vehicle Park Development--PRVD (F) Planned; Hospital Development--PHD By creating the above subdistricts, the city council recognizes that all standards and regulations do not apply uniformly to all land uses. These subdistricts may exist singly or in combination within any approved Planned Development; provided, that the specific standards and regulations applicable to the subdistrict are met. (II) INTENT AND PURPOSE (A) The intent of the Planned Development District is to promote the establishment of well-designed, innovative developments which may not be permitted by a standard zone district, however, which may be permitted through the use of an approved development plan by assuring greater control and specificity of intended development character, use, operations and maintenance, while at_the same time allowing flexibility and diversity. This district recognizes the great variety of land use intensities, densities and environmental and land use interfaces which are possible. The protective standards for site use, development, operations and maintenance contained herein are intended to minimize any adverse effect of the planned development to the community by achieving maximum compatible integration of land uses, by assuring adequate provision of public services and facilities, by preserving the aesthetic qualities of the area, and by providing for safe and efficient use of the land resource itself. It is the specific intent and requirement that all land under consideration for a planned development designation and all land so zoned shall be and remain under unified control throughout the planning and development phases, as well as-after development through continuous operation, use, and maintenance. "Unified control,~~ for purposes of this section, shall mean that the property shall be: - 1 - (1) Subject to a single ownership, either by. an individual, corporation, partnership or other legally recognized entity; or (2) Subject to a comprehensive management agreement, or other form of agreement, (which shall be denominated a "Unified Control State"), which specifies that a distinct person or -- entity possesses and maintains the authority to make binding commitments on behalf of and thereafter to enforce implementation of those commitments upon and on behalf of the owner(s) of the property. (B) Said Unified Control shall_be required to be in place and maintained: (1) Throughout the application process to obtain a Planned Development district zoning designation; and (2) Throughout construction and/or development of the property so zoned.; and (3) For so long as the property is zoned and/or used as a planned development. (C) Unified control is vital to the city to ensure that planned development projects are developed according to their original concept as approved and adopted by the city, and so-that said projects, once developed', continue to be operated and maintained in accordance with the original concept as approved and adopted by the city council. (D) Unified control shall be achieved-through a written unified .control statement, which shall be approved by the city council as part of the approval of the outline development plan. - ~ (E) The general purposes of this section are as follows: (1) To accomplish compatible development with adjacent commercial, residential and/or industrial land uses through proper land use transitions and buffering techniques. (2) To promote flexibility in design and permit diversification in the location of structures. (3) To promote the efficient use of land to facilitate a more economic arrangement of building, circulation systems, land use and utilities. (4)~ To preserve, to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape-features and to minimize impacts on other natural features of the site. (5) To provide for more usable space through the combination and grouping of structures, parking, loading and storage areas. (6) To combine and coordinate architectural styles, building forms and building relationships within the planned - 2 - developments. (III) (7) To minimize 'traffic congestion on public streets, control street access, and to provide for well: designed interior circulation. (8) To ensure that adequate public utilities and facilities are available within the area, to serve the_specific development. (9) To promote conformance with the adopted comprehensive-plan, established policies and guidelines for the area and for the community. `APPLICABILITY (A) A Planned Development District of any nature (private, public or quasi-public) may be approved for any single use or any combination of uses; provided, that the intent and purposes of this section are met, and provided that the general health, safety and welfare of the community are advanced through its approval. (B) The provisions herein contained shall apply to the following: - (1) Any new application for a rezoning to a Planned Development District-_ (2) Any application for amendment to an existing Planned Residential (PRD), Planned Commercial (PCD), Planned Industrial. (PID), Planned Mobile Home (PMHD), or Planned Recreational Park (PRVD), Development District approved by the City of Wheat Ridge prior to the date of adoption of . these provisions. (3) Any application _f or. amendment to an existing Planned Development District approved by Jefferson County prior to incorporation or 'annexation. (IV) USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (A) General Regulations: Each Planned Development District establishes its. own list of permitted uses, as well as development and use standards and requirements, and such-are specifically set forth in the OUTLINE development plan, and reviewed by planning commission and approved by city council ._ However, approval of uses stated in the autli.ne development plan constitutes tentative.. approval only of the uses so stated. The planning commission and/or city council specifically retains jurisdiction to limit the approved uses to be made of,_and on, the property at the time of final ' development plan approval upon an expressed finding, based upon evidence. deemed persuasive and adequately appearing in - 3 - the record of the public hearing before either the planning commission or-the city council, that the uses so limited or denied are incompatible with uses made on surrounding properties or elsewhere within the Planned Development District; or such uses as proposed would create excessive traffic, noise or air pollution; or that such uses would result in a density or intensity of use which would be damaging or deleterious to the stability, unified operation, or integrity (both economic and aesthetic) of the (B) surrounding area. Approval. of the outline development plan shall not be construed to be approval of a preliminary development plan or a final development except in respect to general concept. In reviewing a specific request to establish a Planned Development District, or amendment to an existing one, planning commission and city council shall consider standards for similar uses in other-Wheat Ridge zone districts, unless otherwise specifically provided herein. Requirements for setback, lot coverage, height, density, area,'buffering, landscaping, signage, etc., may be more or less restrictive than such requirements in similar-zone districts, based upon findings of the planning commission and city council which consider a combination of factors including, but not limited to, type and intensity of uses proposed, size and shape of parcel, location, adjacent uses, adequacy of public facilities, etc. EXCEPTIONS FROM STANDARD ZONE DISTRICT REGULATIONS SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A "VARIANCE", HOWEVER IN NO INSTANCE SHALL ANY STANDARD VIOLATE PROVISIONS OF THE WHEAT RIDGE CHARTER. It is the intent of this district to provide a means for allowing innovation and flexibility in design and use of specific sites, but the provisions of this district shall not be used merely to circumvent the absolute standards of other similar districts. Specific Regulations: (1) Planned Residential Developments (PRD): (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses hereinafter listed shall be permitted only as specifically designated on the approved € OUTLINE development plan: 1. All permitted uses and accessory uses in the residential districts. 2. The following retail service.,-uses may be included within a PRD subject to the conditions set forth in subsection (k): a. Barber and beauty shops. b. Drugstore and pharmacies. c. Grocery store, convenience-type - 4 - limited to five thousand (5,000) square feet maximum. d. Laundry and dry cleaning pickup, and coin-operated laundry establishments. e. Office for sales, lease, or other use reasonably associated with the Planned Residential District. f. Other uses approved by the zoning administrator as being similar in character and impact to those uses specifically permitted under this section when consideration is given to traffic impact and parking needs associated with the recommended use. 3. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted uses as shown on the approved plan. (b) Area: Each Planned Residential Development District shall be a minimum of one (1) acre. (c) Density: Maximum twenty-one (21) dwelling units per acre.- (d) Height: Maximum thirty-five (35) feet. (e) Perimeter Setbacks: Setback requirements for buildings adjacent to the perimeter of a Planned Residential Development District shall be established using setback regulations established in standard Wheat Ridge Residential Zone Districts. Exceptions to those standards may be approved by PLANNING COMMISSION OR city council, based upon a finding that a lessor setback would not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties, would not negatively affect neighborhood property values, and_would not be otherwise injurious to the public health, safety and welfare. (f) Lot Coverage: Maximum seventy-five (75) percent: (See section 26.5 for definition.) (g) Landscaping: Minimum twenty-five (25) percent. (See section 26.32.)- (h) Parking: Based upon specific-uses (See section -- 26-31.) (i) Fences. and Walls: As specifically detailed on an approved Final Development Plan, otherwise follow requirements of Section 26-30:I. (j) Signage: As specifically detailed on and approved on Final Development Plan, otherwise follow requirements of Chapter 26, Article IV. _ (k) Commercial Use Conditions: i. Commercial uses shall. be_allowed only where specifically approved in a final development plan. 2. Commercial uses, including all associated• land used-for building space, parking and = 5 - landscaping, shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the gross area included within a particular Planned Residential Development District. Land used for commercial uses shall be calculated separately, and may not be included in the land area used to calculate the maximum of twenty-one (21) unit s. per acre mandated by Wheat Ridge Home Rule Charter. To ensure this, where commercial - uses are a part of a Planned Residential Development, the area used .for commercial purposes shall be clearly delineated on the plan, including areas used for parking, ingress, egress, landscaping, etc. If the commercial uses are part of a generally residential building, or for other reasons cannot be clearly separated from the residential areas, the land attributable to the commercial use shall be considered to be the building square footage occupied by commercial uses, the required parking, and a proportionate share of the common areas such as ingress-egress, landscaping, roadways, etc. Commercial ventures solely for the use of the residents, such as food service, laundry facilities, etc., shall be_ considered an amenity rather than a commercial use, and the land and buildings occupied by such uses are not required to be subtracted from the total acreage before computing the maximum of twenty-one (21) units per acre. (2) Planned Commercial Developments (PCD): (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses herein after listed shall be permitted only as specifically designated on~the approved €}xa~ OUTLINE development plan: 1. Any use permitted in the Commercial-One (C-1) or Commercial-Two (C-2) Districts. 2. Residential uses as approved by city council and subject to the conditions set forth in subsection (B)(2)(j). 3. Accessory uses and buildings customarily associated with allowable uses, as shown on the approved plan. (b) Area: Each Planned Commercial Development District shall be a minimum of one (1) acre. (c) Height: Commercial structures shall not exceed fifty (50) feet; residential structures shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet; residential uses located within a commercial structure shall not- - 6 - be permitted above thirty-five (35) feet. (d) Perimeter Setbacks: Setback requirements for buildings adjacent to the perimeter of a Planned Commercial Development District shall be established using setback regulations established in standard Wheat Ridge Commercial Zone districts: Exceptions to those standards may be approved by PLANNING COMMISSION OR city council, based upon a finding that a lessor setback would not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties, would not negatively affect neighborhood property values, and would not be otherwise injurious to the public health, safety. and welfare.. (e) Lot Coverage: Maximum ninety (90) percent. (See section 26.5 for definition.) (f) Landscaping: Minimum ten (10) percent. (See section 26-32.) (g) Parking: Based upon specific uses. (See section 26-31.) (h) Fences and Walls: As specifically detailed on approved final development plan, otherwise follow requirements of section 26-30(I). (i) Signage: As specifically detailed on an approved final development plan, otherwise follow requirements of Chapter 26, Article IV. (j) Residential Use Conditions: 1. Residential uses shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height. 2. Residential uses, including associated parking, land used for buildings, landscaping, etc., shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the gross area included within a particular Planned Commercial Development District. 3. Where residential uses are part of a Planned Commercial Development, the land used for commercial uses shall be calculated separately, and may not be included in the land area used to calculate the maximum of twenty-one (21) units per acre mandated by the Wheat Ridge Home Rule Charter. To ensure this, where residential uses are part of a Planned Commercial Development, the area used for commercial purposes shall be clearly delineated on the plan, including areas used for parking, ingress, egress, landscaping, etc. if the commercial and residential uses are mixed in the same building or for other reasons cannot be clearly separated from the residential area, the land attributable to the commercial use shall- be considered to be the building square footage occupied by commercial uses, the required parking, and - 7 - a proportionate share of the common areas such as ingress-egress, landscaping roadways, etc. Commercial ventures solely for the use of residents, such as food service, laundry facilities, etc., shall be considered an amenity rather than a commercial use, and the land and buildings. occupied by such uses are not required to be subtracted-from the total acreage before computing the maximum of twenty-one (21) units per acre. (3) Planned Industrial Development (PID): (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses hereinafter --- __ listed shall be permitted only as specifically designated on the approved € OUTLINE -- development plan: Any use permitted in the Light Industrial. (I)District. - - - Other uses approved by the zoning administrator which are similar in character and impact to those uses specifically permitted under this section when consideration is given to the intent and purpose of this section. Accessory uses and buildings customarily associated with allowable uses. (b) Area: Each Planned Industrial Development' District shall be minimum of one (i) acre. (c) Height: Maximum fifty (50) feet. (d) Perimeter Setbacks: Setback requirements for buildings adjacent to the perimeter of a Planned Industrial Development district shall be established using setback regulations set forth in the Light Industrial (I) Zone District- (Section,26-24.). Exceptions to those standards may be approved by PLANNING COMMISSION OR city council, based .upon a finding that a lessor setback would not be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties, would not negatively affect neighborhood-property values, and would not be otherwise injurious to the public health, safety and welfare. (e) Lot Coverage: Maximum ninety (90) percent. (See section 26.5 .definition.) (f) Landscaping: Minimum ten (10) percent. (See section 26.32.)- - - (g) Parking: Based upon specific uses. (See section _ 26-31.) (h) Fences and Walls: As specifically detailed_on approved final development plan, otherwise follow requirements of section 26-30(I). - 8 - (i) Signage: as specifically detailed on approved final development plan, otherwise follow requirements of Chapter 26, Article IV. (j) Performance Standards: The following standards and conditions shall apply to the development, use, operations and maintenance-of any Planned Industrial District hereinafter created, as well as to any Planned Industrial District created prior to adoption of this section. All__ environmental performances standards set forth are subject to the criteria established in current federal, state or local regulations, whichever criteria is most restrictive. Building enclosures. Every use shall be operated in its entirety within a completely enclosed building unless otherwise specifically provided by the approved final development plan. Outdoor storage and waste disposal: a. All outdoor storage facilities shall be enclosed by a view-obscuring fence, wall and/or landscaping which fully conceals such facilities from adjacent properties, public streets and pedestrian ways. Display of finished products for retail sale on the -- premises may be allowed, as such would- be allowed and regulated in the C-1 and C-2 districts.- b. No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon a lot in such a form or manner that they may be moved from the lot by natural causes or forces. c. All materials or wastes which may- cause fumes or dust, constitute a fire hazard or may be edible or otherwise - - attractive to rodents and/or insects shall be stored only in closed _ containers. _ d. All toxic, corrosive, inflammable or explosive liquids, gases or solids shall be stored in compliance with currently adopted fire prevention code, Environmental Protection Agency standards or other similar standards or requirements adopted by an agency of the_State of Colorado. Noise. Noise shall be measured on any property line of the tract on which the operation is located and shall be muffled so as not to become objectionable due to- intermittence, beat frequently, shrillness or intensity. Noise shall be regulated so - 9 - as to be in compliance with the Colorado Noise Abatement Act, Colorado Revised - Statutes, subsection 25-12-101, as amended. Odors. Odors from any use hereafter begun shall not be discernible at the property line to a greater degree than odors from plants for-the manufacturing or fabrications-of books, textile weaves, electronic equipment or other plants in which operations do not result in greater degree of odors. The values given in Table IIS (Odor Thresholds) Chapter 5, "Physiological Effects," in the "Air Pollution Abatement Manual," by the Manufacturing. Chemist's Association, Inc., Washington, D.C., copyright 1951, shall be used as standard in case of doubt concerning the character __ of odor emitted. In such cases, 'the smallest value given in Table III shall be the maximum odor permitted. Derailed plans for the prevention of_odors crossing property lines may be required before the issuance of a building permit. Colorado Department of-Health, Air Quality Control Commission's currently adopted "Odor Emission Regulation," shall be complied with when-found to be more restrictive than the values of the "Air Pollution Abatement Manual." 5. Glare. and Heat..Any operation producing intense glare and/or heat, e.g. welding conducted as a regular function of an operation, shall be performed within an enclosure in such a manner as to be imperceptible along any lot line of such operation without instruments, and shall meet the requirements of section 26-30(S). 6. Exterior lighting. Any lights used for exterior illumination shall direct light away from adjoining properties, and shall meet the requirements of section 26-30(S). 7. Vibration. Vibration-shall not be discernible at_any property line to the human sense of feeling-for three (3) -- minutes or more duration in any one hour. Vibration at any time shall not produce an acceleration for more than 0.1 gravities or shall result in any combination of amplitudes and frequencies beyond the "safe" range of Table VII, United States Bureau of Mines Bulletin No. 442, "Seismic Effects of Quarry Blasting," on any - 10 - structure. The methods and equations of _ - said Bulletin No. 442 shall be used to compute all values for. the enforcement of this provision. 3. Emission control of smoke, dust and gases: a. Smoke. Smoke emissions and opacity levels shall be regulated so as to be in compliance with the currently adopted Colorado Department of Health, Air Quality Control Commission's -- -- "Emission Control Regulations for Particulates, Smokes, and Sulfur Oxides for the State of Colorado." b. Dust and other particulates. Fugitive dust and other particulate matter from fuel-burning equipment, refuse-bux-ning facilities, and manufacturing shall be controlled in accordance with the Colorado Department of Health, Air Quality Control Commission's currently adopted "Emission Control Regulations for Particulates-, Smokes, and Sulfur Oxides for the State ,of Colorado." c. Gases. Detailed plans for the elimination of_fumes or gases may be required before the issuance of a building permit. Sulfur oxide emissions shall be governed by the above-stated "Emission Control _ Regulations for Particulates, Smokes, and Sulfur Oxides for the State of Colorado." 9. Hazard. Any research operation shall be carried on with reasonable precautions against fire and explosion hazards. 10. Radiation control. Radiation and the utilization of radioactive materials shall be regulated so as to_conform with Colorado Department of Health's currently adopted "Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Radiation Control." il. Electrical radiation.' Any electrical radiation shall not adversely affect at any. .point any operations or any equipment other than those of the creator of .the radiation. Avoidance of adverse effects from electrical radiation by appropriate single or mutual scheduling of operations is permitted. (4) Planned Mobile Home District (PMD): (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses hereinafter listed shaL1 be_permitted only as specifically designated on the approved OUTLINE - 11 - development plan: 1. Mobile homes which are used or intended to be used as a single-family residence upon the premises. General sales of mobile homes shall not be permitted; however, sale of used mobile homes which have been established as a residence in the district will be permitted. 2. Single family dwelling for park owner, operator, and/or caretaker. 3. Accessory uses and buildings customarily associated with and incidental to a mobile home park. This may include service uses, such as a laundry, or retail sales of convenience items where it is shown that such service or retail use is exclusively provided to serve the needs of the mobile home park occupants. (b) Area and Density: The minimum site requirement for a mobile home park site shall not be less than ten (10) acres. -Each mobile home lot shall contain a minimum of three thousand (3,000) square feet except lots for double-wide mobile homes where there shall be a minimum lot area of four thousand (4,000) square feet. In no case shall the density of a mobile home park exceed nine (9) units per acre. (c) Height: 1. The maximum height of mobile homes and accessory structures is twenty (20) feet. 2. Permanent residence for park management or park resident use only shall not exceed thirty-five (35) feet_in height.. (d) Width of-lot.: The minimum width of lot for each mobile home shall be forty (40) feet except for lots for double-wide mobile homes where there shall be a width of fifty (50) feet. The minimum width of lots on curved drives or cul-de-sacs shall have an average width of not less than forty (40) feet. (e) Setbacks: All mobile homes, recreational coaches and accessory buildings shall be set back not less than ten (10) feet from all perimeter property lines, except the front or any other yard abutting a public street shall be at least twenty (20) feet and the yard space so formed shall be landscaped. Greater yards or setbacks may be required where-, in the opinion of the planning commission and/or city council, such yards or setbacks are necessary due to the topographic conditions, grading, drainage; and/or protection. of adjacent property. No part of any - 12 - mobile home shall be located within any yard of a required setback area. (f) Yard requirements: Mobile homes shall be located so that there is at least twenty-five (25,) feet of separation between any other mobile home on an adjacent lot. Accessory structures shall be located so that there is at least ten (10) feet of separation between any other accessory structure or mobile home on an adjacent lot. No mobile home (including the hitch) or accessory structure shall be located within five (SJ feet from an interior lot. line, road or walk. There shall be at all times adequate vision. at intersections to preclude obstruction,to view. (g) Site and Lot Coverage: Overall lot coverage within a mobile home park shall not exceed seventy-five (75) percent. Additionally, lot coverage of an individual mobile home lot shall not exceed ninety (90) percent. (h) Landscaping: In addition to landscape. areas' required under subsection (e) above, the. total mobile home park shall be provided with at least twenty-five (25) percent landscape area, and each mobile home lot shall be provided with at least ten (10) percent landscape area. There shall be provided at least two (2) deciduous trees for each mobile home lot. There shall also be provided at the front or rear-of the lots at least one (1) evergreen. tree for .every three L3 ), lots. All landscaping required herein shall meet the minimum size and maintenance requirements of _ section-26-32. (i) Enclosure,of Mobile Home Park: The following provisions are applicable, in providing buffers . between mobile_home parks and adjoining properties and abutting public rights-of-way: A greenbelt planting strip of not less than twenty (20) feet in width shall be placed along the perimeter of the park where it abuts public rights-of-way or any other property. The greenbelt shall be developed with a mixture of hardy deciduous and coniferous plant material, grass or ground cover and maintained thereafter in a neat and orderly manner. In addition, a continual ornamental wall or fence six (6) feet in height above grade shall be erected along the property lines which abut other properties and twenty (20) feet from property abutting public rights-of-way, so that the landscape area is between the street and fence. Wa11s on - 13 - right-of-way corners shall be constructed to allow for line of-sight on the rights-of-way and in accord with the Zoning Ordinance. Such wall shall be landscaped with suitable materials along-both sides of such wall for the total length of wall existing along right-of-way. Walls used on property lines not adjacent to streets or roads shall be landscaped on the park side and permitted with the approval of the adjacent property_owners. The ornamental wall and landscape materials shall be acceptable to the planning commission. and city council. The remaining-areas shall be landscaped and maintained with a well-kept lawn or other materials acceptable to the planning and city council and shall be-- continually maintained in a healthy growing, neat and orderly condition. (j) Addressing and Internal Location System: Mobile home parks shall be addressed to street from which primary access is the 1 obtained. The entire mobile home park shall have one address, with each lot being designated by unit number" (e.g „ John Q. Citizen, Unit 27, 7600 W. 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, CO, 80033). A location map shall be placed at all entrances to the mobile home park, which illustrates the internal road. system, location of common facilities and buildings, manager's office, and each mobile home site. Each lot shall be designated by consecutive numbers. Where there is more than one (1) continuous road serving the park, the various roads should be designated as loops (e.g., Loop A., Loop D, etc.): (k) Performance Standards and Requirements: Any person desiring to enlarge, or establish a mobile home park shall meet or exceed the - design standards as herein set forth: 1. Access. All mobile home parks shall have access to a collector street if directly abutting thereon. Parks not abutting a collector street shall show several direct routes to a collector street in order that the traffic be - dispersed along several routes.. 2. Vehicle travel lanes. All roads and driveways shall be"hard-surfaced and -_ so constructed as to handle all - 14 - anticipated peak loads, adequately drained and lighted for safety and ease of movement of vehicles. Minimum pavement widths shall be twenty (20) feet for two-way roads with no on-street parking allowed, twelve (12) feet for one-way roads with no on-street parking allowed, and ten (10) feet for all driveways. The mobile home park road system should be so designed as to prevent the use of such roads for through traffic. The ---- entire width of the vehicle travel lanes shall be surfaced with approved materials and designed on a suitable road base as approved by the city engineer. Concrete curb and gutters shall be placed along both sides of -- all roads. Type of curbs and gutters shall reflect topographic conditions and road design. Walkways may be required on one (1) or both sides of -- roads providing access to park. Approval of the design for road system, curb and gutter, and walkways will be subject to the city engineer's approval. 3. Walkways. Public walks shall be provided on the public street side of each mobile home site. All public walks, such as from mobile homes to service buildings and along road and driveways, shall be at least four (4) feet in width. Walks used in common by one (1) to three (3) units, connecting the units to a common area or primary walk, shall be at least thirty (30) inches in width. Walks may be required on only one (1) side of drives leading to service areas. 4. Utilities and other services: a. All sanitary sewage utilities and water facilities, including connections provided to __ individual lots, shall meet the requirements of the applicable water and sanitation district. operating within the city limits of Wheat Ridge and the Jefferson County Health Department. b. The plumbing connections to each mobile home lot shall be _ constructed so that all lines are protected from freezing; from accidental bumping or from.. - 15 - creating any type of nuisance or health hazard. c. An adequate amount of culinary water shall be piped to each mobile home lot. The water distribution system shall be acceptable to the water organization servicing such park. d. A drainage plan shall be submitted to the city and approved by the city engineer. Drainage facilities shall be constructed so as to protect those that will reside in the mobile home park as well as the property owners adjacent to the park. _ _ e. All electric,-.telephone and other lines from supply poles to each mobile home lot-shall be underground. When meters are installed, they shall be uniformly located. f. Fuel, oil and propane gas storage and distribution systems shall be located designed in conformance with applicable state and city codes, and shall be reviewed and approved by the fire department. When separate meters are installed, each shall be located in a uniform manner. g. Facilities for the storage and disposal of trash and garbage in a sanitary manner shall be provided in each park. h. When exterior television antenna installation is necessary, a master antenna shall be - installed and extend-to individual units by underground lines. Such master antenna shall be so placed as not to be a nuisance to park residents or surrounding areas., i. Yard lights, attached to standards .approved by the city, shall be provided in sufficient number and intensity to permit the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians at night, and shall be effectively located to buildings, trees, walks, steps and ramps; however, these yard lights shall not cause off-site - 16 - glare, and shall meet the requirements of section. 26-30(S). The erection, construction, reconstruction, repair, relocation and/or alteration of all permanent buildings and structures .located within a park shall conform to the requirements of the building and fire code adopted by the City of wheat Ridge. Pads, mats or platforms. Each mobile.. home lot shall be provided with a gravel pad acceptable to the department of public works for each' location and shall be treated to. prevent the growth of weeds, or a concrete pad, mat or platform not less than four (4) inches in thickness, or of equal bearing strength if reinforced [concrete] is used. Minimum pad dimensions for single mobile homes shall be twelve (12) feet by fifty (50) feet; minimum pad dimensions for double-wide mobile homes shall be twenty-four (24) feet. by fifty (50) feet. .Anchor rings shall'be provided every fifteen (15) feet in the parking pad, the design of which shall be approved by the building inspector. 6. Fire extinguishing equipment. Every mobile home park shall be equipped at all times with fire extinguishing equipment in good working order of such type, size and number and be so located within the park as to satisfy applicable regulations of the appropriate fire district. 7. Storage Sheds. Each mobile home lot. shall be provided with one (1) storage shed constructed of metal or other suitable material, which shall be uniform as to size. and location throughout the mobile home park site. All sheds shall be kept clean, shall be maintained in good condition, shall be kept painted, shall contain a minimum of ninety (90) cubic feet of storage area, shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height, and shall meet minimum setback and yard requirements as set forth in subsections - 17 - (IV) (B) (4) (e) and (f) hereof. 8. On-site laundry. An on-site common laundry facility shall be provided if all mobile homes are not furnished with individual washers and dryers. 9. Service area enclosures. The city council may require fencing or screen planting around areas containing garbage, rubbish or waste disposal or around service or recreational areas as a condition of approval of a mobile home park. 10. -Recreational requirements ._ In - addition to the minimum landscape requirements, a minimum of eight (8) percent of the gross _site area shall ,_ be reserved for recreational development. These facilities and areas shall be designed with .trees, grass, benches, equipment, etc., in relationship to park users. Provision of separate adult and tot lot_ recreational areas is encouraged._ il. Mobile home skirt. All mobile homes shall have the space between ground level and the underside of the floor. enclosed by an opaque or solid, durable screening material. 12. Patios. An outdoor patio area of not less than-one hundred twenty (120) square feet shall be provided at each mobile home lot, conveniently located to the entrance of the mobile home, and approximately related to open areas on the lot and other facilities for the purpose of providing suitable outdoor living space to supplement the interior space of a mobile home. A permit shall be required for any canopy or awning used as a patio cover and for any screened, glassed-in or otherwise enclosed_awning used as a patio cover and for any screened, glassed-in or otherwise enclosed awning or canopy. Any patio cover or enclosure must meet setback and. yard requirements as set forth in subsection (e) and (f) hereof.- 13. Federal standards. All mobile homes placed on lots or sites within a mobile home park must meet feder~ standards which are no older than five (5)'years at the time of .placement. 14. Building Permit Requirement: a. It is unlawful for any person to - 18 - construct, enlarge, alter, improve or convert any mobile home park or to improve any lands for_use as a park, or improve any lands for use as a park, or to cause the same to be done, or to set or establish a mobile home within a mobile home park unless such_person holds a valid and existing permit issued by the building inspector for the performance of such work. No building permit shall be issued for any mobile home park, or any mobile home, unless plans for development are in full compliance with the approved final development plan and other related development codes. b. Upon completion of any such mobile home park and prior to the use thereof, and upon the placement of a mobile home upon a lot on site within such mobile home park, the owner or operator of .said park, or mobile home, shall obtain a certificate of occupancy. (5) Planned Recreational_Vehicle Park District (PRVD). It is the intent of this district to provide for safe, well-designed recreation vehicle parks as a commercial use of land, approximately located to. serve the needs. of the tourist and interstate traveler. (a) Allowable Uses: The following. uses hereinafter listed shall be permitted only as specifically designated on the approved €~~ OUTLINE development plan: 1. Recreational vehicle park which provides facilities to accommodate tourist or itinerant campers. Sale or storage o£ campers, motor homes, etc., is not permitted upon the premises. 2. Accessory uses and buildings customarily associated with and incidental to a recreational vehicle park district. (b) Area and Density: The minimum size requirement for a recreational vehicle park shall be not less than three (3) acres. In no case_shall the density of the recreational vehicle park exceed twenty (20) units per acre. (c) Height: Maximum thirty-five (35) feet for permanent structures. - 19 - (d) Perimeter Setbacks and Buffer Yards: All main structures, recreational vehicles and accessory buildings shall be set back not less than ten (10) feet ,from all property lines, except the front or any other yard abutting a public street ,- shall be at least thirty (30) feet and the .yard space so formed shall be landscaped. Greater yards or setbacks may be required where, in the opinion of-the planning commission and/or city council, such yards or setbacks are necessary due to the topographic conditions, grading, drainage, and/or protection of adjacent property. No part of any recreational vehicle shall be located ... within any yard of a required setback area.,.. Any yard which abuts property zoned residential shall be required to provide a ten-foot-wide landscape buffer strip and a six-foot-high ornamental, solid wall or fence along such border. This landscape buffer shall be developed with an acceptable mixture of ground cover, shrubs and/or trees to provide both a visual and a noise barrier between the recreational vehicle park and adjacent residential properties. (e) Lot Coverage: Overall lot coverage within a recreational vehicle park shall not exceed seventy-five (75) percent. (f) Landscaping: In addition to the specific requirements set forth herein, the overall minimum landscaping area shall not be less than twenty-five (25) percent. ,(See section 26-32 for additional requirements.) (g) Parking and Circulation: Parking to be determined based upon the specific design and uses. All interior roads shall be constructed as to handle all anticipated peak loads, adequately drained and lighted for safety and ease of movement of vehicles. Minimum widths shall be twenty (20) feet for two-way .roads with no on-street parking allowed, twelve (12) feet for. one-way roads with no on-street parking allowed. The recreational vehicle park road system shall be so designed as to prevent the use of such roads for through traffic. The entire width of the vehicle. travel lanes shall be surfaced with an all-weather, dust-free material as approved by the city engineer. (h) Addressing and Internal Location_System: Recreational vehicle parks shall be addressed to the street from which primary access is obtained. The entire park shall have one (1) address,. with each site being designated by unit number. A location map shall be placed at all entrances to the park, which illustrates the internal road - 20 - system, location of common facilities and -- buildings, manager's office, and each recreational vehicle site. .Each lot shall be designated by consecutive numbers. Where there is more than one (1) continuous road serving the park, the various roads should be designated as loops (e.g., Loop A., Loop D, etc.). (i) Fences and Walls: As specifically detailed on_an approved final development plan; otherwise, follow requirements of section_26-30(I). (j) Signage: As specifically detailed on the approved final development plan; otherwise, follow requirements of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26, Article IV. (k) Utilities: All water and sewer service and connections shall be designed and constructed so that they are protected from freezing, from accidental bumping, or from creating any type of nuisance or health hazard. All water and sewer systems shall be reviewed and approved by the district which will serve the park, and are subject to review and inspection by the Jefferson County Health Department. All electric supply lines to each recreational vehicle site shall be underground. (1) Area Lights: Each park shall be designed to provide adequate lighting for pedestrians and vehicles within the park; however, the lights shall be designed so as to eliminate off-site glare, and shall meet the requirements of section 26.30(5). (m) Recreational requirements: In addition to the. minimum landscape requirements, a minimum of eight (8) percent of the gross site area shall be reserved for recreational development. These facilities and areas shall be designed with trees, grass, benches, equipment, etc.', in - relationship to park users. Provision of separate adult and. tot lot recreational areas is encouraged. (n) Building, Fire and Other Codes: 1. It is unlawful for any person to construct, enlarge, alter, improve or convert any recreational vehicle .park or structures within such a park, or to improve any lands for use as a park, or to cause the same to be done, unless such- person holds a valid- and existing permit issued by the building inspector for the performance of such work. No building permit shall be issued for any recreational vehicle park unless plans for development are in full compliance with the - 21 - approved final development, and applicable building, fire, health or other related development codes. 2. Upon completion of any such recreational vehicle park and prior to the use thereof, the owner or operator of said park shall obtain a certificate of .occupancy. (6) (o) Business License Required: Recreational vehicle parks are business establishments, and, therefore, must obtain and maintain a valid business license, and shall collect and pay sales, use, lodger and other taxes as may otherwise be required by law. Planned Hospital District (PHD): (a) Allowable Uses: The following uses hereinafter listed shall be permitted only as specifically designated on the approved €i~3a-1 OUTLINE development plan: 1. Public and private general hospital. 2. Hospitals or sanitariums for contagious diseases, or-:the mentally disturbed or handicapped . 3. Homes for the aged, nursing homes, congregate care homes, hospices or similar residential facilities which are accessory to a hospital or sanitarium principal use. 4. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted uses as shown on the approved final development plan..- (b) Area: Each Planned Hospital District shall be a minimum of five (5) acres, except as provided under subsection (6)(e) below. (c) Lot Width: Two hundred (200) feet minimum. (d) Setback Requirements: - Front:. Fifty (50) feet minimum. Side: Twenty-five (25) feet minimum plus ten (10) feet for each story. The intent is to provide a minimum twenty-five-foot landscape buffer adjacent to residential zoned property. Rear: Twenty-five (25) feet minimum, plus ten,(10) feet for each story. The intent is to provide a minimum twenty-five-foot landscape buffer adjacent to residential-zoned property. (e) Height: Hospital buildings: Fifty (50) feet maximum, except as follows: - 22 - a. Sixty-five (65) feet where the lot on- which the building is to be constructed is at least fifty (50) acres in size. b. Additions attached to existing hospitals may be built to a height not to exceed the height of the existing building. 2. Offices: Fifty (50) feet maximum. 3. Residential: Thirty-five (35) feet. maximum. 4. Accessory: Thirty-five (35) feet maximum. (f) Lot Coverage: Seventy-five (75) percent maximum overall site coverage. (g) Residential Density: No residential development, excluding nursing homes or intermediate nursing care facilities, shall exceed twenty-one (21) dwelling units per acre. (h) Landscaping: Minimum twenty-five (25) percent overall site requirement. - Twenty-five-foot landscape buffer required along property ,lines adjacent to residential-zoned property. Unless otherwise specifically provided for on the approved plan, all landscaping shall meet the requirements set forth in section 26-32. (i) Parking: Based upon specific uses. (See section. 26-31.) (j) Fences and Walls: As specifically detailed on an approved final development plan, otherwise follow requirements of section 26-30(I). :_ (k) Signage: As specifically detailed on an approved final development plan, otherwise follow- requirements of Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26, Article IV. (V) APPLICATION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. All applications-for approval of a planned development, redevelopment, alteration or addition shall be filed with the department of planning and development. There are three (3) basic steps to the development approval process prior to issuance of a building permit. The three (3) basic steps are: (1) rezoning; (2) site plan and platting approval; and (3 )„ building plan approval. These regulations deal only with the rezoning and site plan requirements. Platting or subdivision is regulated by the Subdivision Regulations, Wheat Ridge Code of-Laws, Chapter 26, Article III. Building plan approval is regulated by the rules and regulations of the building inspection division in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 5 of the - 23 - Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. There are requirements for an outline development plan, a preliminary development plan, and for a final development plan, and, in certain cases, subdivision approval. -These plans may be submitted for review and approval either separately (regular procedures) or combined (expedited procedures) as described _ below. (A) Expedited Review Procedure: (1) Development Plans. There are several discretionary options available to an applicant, depending on the size and complexity of the proposed development, and on the confidence an applicant has that his plan is viable, as well as acceptable to_the city.- - The outline development plan may be submitted for consideration by itself or it may be combined with a preliminary development plan and/or final development plan. When the outline .development plan is. combined with preliminary and/or final plans, the plan shall be so designated, and all informational requirements of the combined plans shall be met. All the plans may be merged onto a single combined plan which contains all the required information in a legible form. (2) Subdivision/platting. Subdivision or plat review may be carried out simultaneously with the review of development plans required herein. All requirements of the subdivision regulations for a preliminary and -- final plat, in addition to those. of preliminary and final development plans, must be satisfied if_there are any parcel divisions created, or if there are any dedications for streets, easements or other public purposes, or if a previously approved subdivision is amended in any way by the .proposed development. In cases where subdivision requirements are to be met simultaneous with development plan review, the applicant may submit separate sheet_(s) in addition to the subject development plan or the required platting information may be included on the same sheet(s) as the development plan so long as the title of .the sheet(s) indicate that they are both a development plan and plat. (B) Regular Review Procedures: (1) Outline development plan: THE OIITLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS THE REZONING STEP AND THEREFORE IS SUBJECT TO THS PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26- _ 6(C) CHANGE OF ZONE. THE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, LN ADDITION TO CREATING A NEW ZONE DISTRICT BY LEGAL DESCRIPTION, ESTABLISHES THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BEING - 24 - CREATED:, • GENERAL CHARACTER • LIST OF PERMITTED USES • MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY (IF.RESIDENTIAL) • MAXIMUM FLOOR/AREA RATIO FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL • MAXIMUM BUILDING HE%GHT • MINIMUM LANDSCAPE AREA REQUIREMENT • MINIMUM LOT PERIMETER BUILDING SETBACKS ANY PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, ONCB THE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED, THAT INVOLVES EXCEEDING TH8 MAXIMUM OR REDIICING TH8 MINIMIIM STANDARDS, OR DEVIATES FROM THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES OR GENERAL CHARACTER, SHALL BS CONSIDERED A REZONING ACTION, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26-6(C) CHANGE OF ZONE. (a) Submittal Requirements: i. An applicant shall submit an outline development plan for approval of a change of zone to a Planned Development District.. The outline development plan is the zoning and general concept step. It provides generalized graphic and written information on layout, 2 PERMITTED uses and intended character of £he development. Since minimal engineering detail is required, this step provides the lowest. cost option for an applicant to gain approval of a change of zone and approval of general development and use concept. The change of zone to planned development --- and the outline development plan shall be reviewed by planning and development staff, and other affected departments and agencies, prior to being set for public hearings before planning commission and city council. For the purpose of these review steps, there will-be three (3) different submittals of the outline development plan: First Submittal - Seventeen (17) copies of the outline development plan for staff and agency review. Second Submittal - Fifteen (15) copies of the outline development plan for planning commission public hearing. Third Submittal - Fifteen (15) copies of the outline development plan for .city council public hearing. - 25 - The-maps which are a part of the outline development plan may be in general schematic form and shall contain the following minimum information: a. Ownership/unified control statement. A list of all existing owners of real property included within the proposed Planned Development District, and a written statement which describes anticipated future ownership character (i.e. single ownership, partnership, condominium, etc.), and which. - indicates proposed manner of maintaining unified control throughout the planning, development, use, operation and continued maintenance of the planned development. b. DISTRICT USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AS FOLLOWS: • LIST OF PERMITTED USES FOR THE - DISTRICT AND EACH SUBAREA • MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY (IF - -- RESIDENTIAL) • MAXIMIIM FLOOR/AREA RATIO (IF NONRESIDENTIAL) • MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT - • MINIMUM DISTRICT PERIMETER BUILDING SETBACKS • GENERAL CHARACTER DESCRIPTION INCLIIDING ANTICIPATED ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN CONCEPTS, AND OTHER PROJECT FEATURES THAT WILL ESTABLISH THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE PLAN AND PROVIDE A BASIS FOR REVIEWING AUTHORITIES TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT b. ~haraeter a€~e~ e€~ers-~ ~ .._.__r _____ __ ____ __ ____ __. ___r...____ -~ ~_____~ ~___ __ _ ___~__.-___ ____ [ i__._______._ __.___r ~~~'6~@3e~. T-)339 9~ ~ l ~ ~ ` -- ` ` o ...____ ___ Bccmcrr`c ~i '7 ~ ___r_ _____' 9~h=~i} - _ o i s E3c ~h ~ k t r 2v c ____._-___ ___ _______ ___ _. ___r...____ ...____ ~ ~#t . c _ r__r__ __ _____ - o- ic ~_ ___ ____ - ________ ~_ ._.r __ ~~ F ) ~z~ i d ~___ ___ .- v,., ___________. ,-. ,. a ~ 3 B see ~ _._____________ ~__ i l ~ f l ____ ___ - ° _~__ ______r __ ~ze t rng s- i e; _ ___ _ ":J __________ - 26 - e~xa~e~e~s-rtes; ,~.:==a__~ M-----_,_ -(,-t~`gc~tex~t~r-es-~-r~3d~elars~i ; ,...~,.. F.., -r ______ _____-r __ -1 .. ______ ___- r__r ___- _~...-..L......__.. ..~_._ ............. ...-- ..-..._... _z de~elagt; ----------_ -----_-_=---__----- af2E~€ucaaaczrEa~. ,.. _r ___ _, e~eee; ___________, __ r________a _______; ______-____-_-- __...r-__--_-_1 -__- ___ _____ _____-___.y____,~ y________ ____ ree~ea-trex~a} €aei}€z}~s.~2e _____-_-___ r___-_ - __ __ ________ .. i.....,.:.. i...., r ,- ,. ,.. ~, a...,.,. r -.,., a .. w ,. ___r __-_ _ __ -_ -_-__ c. The existing topographic character of the land at a contour interval not larger than five (5) feet. d. General indication of areas to be landscaped. e. Property boundaries as per -- accompanying legal description. f. Existing and proposed lot lines, easements and rights-of-way on and adjacent to the site.. g. Adjacent zoning, land use, streets, streams, etc. h. Location of all existing and proposed streets within the site and ingress/egress points. i. Approximate location and extent of major use areas WITH A REY TO THE LIST OF PERMITTED DSES. j. Any significant EXISTING landscape Or- land use features which may influence development. k. Scale (no less than one inch =-one hundred (100) feet) and north arrow. 1. Small-scale location map as an inset which shows the subject property centered within a quarter-mile radius. m. Proposed name of the planned development. ~6393~12--k3529--t~~e iFxc ~s~vca-xi2z.2ie a .. ..... .............. _ ne. Legal description (metes and bounds) of total site, including area. op. Surveyor's certification. - 27 - a, r.. ri., ,. .,e-; ,,. ..a }~te~tte~}ng, ~b~33ase• ,., • , a, .,~a E,e ~ e ett~ , - per. Development-time schedule by phase (see subsection (VII) for limitations). 3. The outline development plan shall be recorded with the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder and, therefore, must meet their basic requirements for recordation. The following certifications, in addition . to the required surveyor's certificate, shall also be placed upon the outline development plan: OWNER'S CERTIFICATION The below-signed owner(s), or legally designated agent(s) thereof, do hereby agree that the property legally described hereon will be developed as a Planned Development in accordance with the uses, restrictions and conditions contained in this plan,- and as may otherwise. be required by law. I (we) further recognize that the approval of rezoning to Planned Development, and approval of this outline development plan-does not create a vested property right., Vested property rights may only arise and accrue pursuant to the provisions of section 26-6(G) of the Code of Laws. Signature of-Owner(s) or Agent(s) NOTARY PUBLIC Subscribed and sworn to before me,this day of 19_ Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires NOTARY SEAL PLANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION Approved. this day of Planning Commission. 19 _, by the Wheat Ridge /s/ Chairman PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION - 28 - Approved this day Council CIT-Y SEAL ATTEST: `City Clerk COUNTY CLERK .AND RECORDERS CERTIFICATE This document accepted for filing in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder of Jefferson County at Golden, Colorado, on the day of A.D. 19_, in Book Page , Reception Jefferson .County Clerk and Recorder B1'' 4. Accompanying the application, the following is required: _ a. Fee: UNDER 3 ACRES a $500 3 ACRES OR MORE _ $500 PLUS $100 ADDITIONAL PSR ACRE OR PART.OF AN ACRE• 3^a......] F: Ff.• --a--l "1 .. E$~se ee) a ~~"' _ _ - ~ .. 1....: t 1-.~.] l .. - F..... f 6 ea (grel}m}na~'~ F; _~ p~-. _ /h~nn nn\ L~ - b. Evidence that the required neighborhood referral meeting has occurred (See section 26-6(F)(1)). __ c. Complete and notarized application. d. Proof of .ownership, such as copies of deeds or title commitment. e. Power of attorney from owner(s) where an agent acts on-behalf. of the owner(s). f. Names and address of all adjacent property owners, including property across abutting streets. g. Names, addresses, telephone numbers of architects and engineers associated with the preparation of the. plans. 5. Additional information may be required, _- including, but not limited to, geological stability report, traffic impact report, flood plain impact report, or general environmental impact report. 19 by the Wheat Ridge City ~s~ __ - Mayor - 29 - (b) Review Procedures: Staff Review: Upon filing of an application and other required documents, planning and development staff will refer copies of the plans to affected. departments and agencies for review. All comments shall be forwarded_to=the-applicant so that necessary revisions may be made by the applicant prior to scheduling the application before planning commission. Once staff is assured that all - required documents and revisions thereto have been received, notice of public hearing shall occur in accordance with requirements set forth in section 26-6(F). Planning commission hearing. Planning commission shall hold a public hearing and within ninety (90) days of the public hearing date, exclusive of time requested by the_applicant for continuances, shall adopt a resolution which recommends to city council approval, approval with modifications or denial, and such resolution shall state the reasons for such recommendations. City council hearing: Upon receipt of the planning commission's resolution, the city clerk_sha11 schedule 1ST AND 2ND READING OF THE REZONING ORDINANCE AND SET a public hearing before city council and cause public notice as required by section 26-6(F). City Council shall hold a public hearing and within ninety (90) days of the public hearing, exclusive of time requested by the applicant for continuances, shall approve, approve with modifications or deny the agp~ea~i~r ORDINANCE ON 2ND READING. (c) Recordation: All approved outline development plans shall be recorded - 30 - with the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder. Such plans, and associated recording fees shall be submitted to planing and development department within thirty (30) days of council's final action. Should a recordable approved outline development plan not be provided to staff within sixty (60) days of council's final action, staff shall schedule a public hearing before city council,_and city council MAY EXTEND SUCH TIME PERIOD, OR MAY ORDER THE CITY CLERR TO SCHEDULE AN ORDINANCE FOR 1ST AND 2ND READING AND SET ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING TO reconsider the previous approval.. (2) Preliminary development plan (and preliminary plat): (a) Submittal Requirements: An application for approval of a preliminary development plan is required only for a multi-phased project where a final development plan is or will be submitted for only a portion of the area included within a Planned Development District. It permits the consideration of the platting details for the entire site .as they relate to lots, streets, access, drainage, utilities, easements and other public (or common) improvements or needs. This step requires detailed preliminary plat information, but does .not require the detailed site development information required with a final development plan. The preliminary development plan shall be consistent with the approved outline development plan. The preliminary development plan (and plat) shall be reviewed by planning and development staff, and other. affected departments and agencies, prior to being set for public hearing before planning commission. For the purpose of these review steps, there will be two (2) different submittals of the preliminary development plan (and plat), except where an appeal of a planning commission decision to city council occurs. First_.Submittal -- Seventeen (17) copies of the preliminary development plan (and plat) for staff and review agencies. - 31 - Second Submittal-- Fifteen (15) copies of the preliminary development plan (and plat) for planning commission public .hearing. 2. Third Submittal (optional) -- Fifteen (15) copies of the preliminary development plan (and plat), for city council appeal- hearing. Accompanying the application, the following is required: e. Names and address of all adjacent property owners, including property across abutting streets'. f. Names, addresses and telephone numbers.. of owner, licensed surveyor, licensed engineer and designer of plat. g. Agreements, provisions, condominium declarations, covenants, etc., which govern the development, use, maintenance and continued protection for the planned development and any of its common areas or facilities. It is specifically required that uniform control be demonstrated. a. Fee: UNDER 3 ACRES = $250 3 ACRES OR MORE _ $250 PLUS $50 ADDITIONAL PER ACRE OR PART OF AN ti a ~ .. (h~nn nn~ ' ACRE. vx3c-zrmRrc~r-vv~rui.. .r _.._. b. Complete and notarized application. c. Proof of ownership, such as copies of deeds or title commitment. d. Power of attorney from owner(s) where an agent acts _on behalf of the owner(s) 3. The preliminary development--plan (and plat) shall be drawn at a scale of not less than one (1) inch to one hundred (100) feet and containing the following: a. Name of proposed plan (and plat), date of preparation, scale and north arrow. b. Legal description and area of entire parcel included within. the Planned Development District. c. Small scale. location map with zoning of adjacent surrounding properties_ d. Location of-all existing and proposed lot lines and numbering of lots and._ blocks. Where a plat or subdivision approval is proposed simultaneously with development plan review, the requirements of the subdivision regulations for a preliminary plat - 32 - must be met. (Chapter 26, Article II2.) e. Location of all existing and proposed public and primate rights-of-way and easement lines located on and adjacent to the property which are proposed to be continued, created, relocated or . abandoned. f. Existing grade and proposed finish grade of the site shown by contours with intervals not larger than two (2)_ feet. g. The approximate location of every existing and proposed structure or building envelope in the described parcel, the expected use or uses ,to be contained therein, the number of dwelling units (if applicable) and the maximum gross floor area. h. Location, dimension and elevations of all existing and proposed streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, alleys, easements, drainage areas, irrigation ditches, lakes or ponds, and other significant features within or adjacent to the tract to be subdivided or developed. i. Quantitative tabulations and percentages for building coverages, total lot coverage, parking areas, landscape areas, open areas, etc. j. Locations of_all proposed curb cuts, parking areas and loading areas. k. Location of all proposed walks, malls and other open area as they may relate to the entire site. _ 1. -All existing and proposed water and sewer lines and their source of supply _ and all electric lines and their. maximum capacity. m. A drainage plan of the entire site. The approximate volume of water -- generated by expected development and the proposed method of disposing of said water. n. All irrigation ditches shall be located and labeled with name of ditch company or owner(s), and name(s) and address(es) of the appropriate contact. Any proposed changes to irrigation ditches must be indicated, and a letter from the ditch owner(s) _ approving of such changes must be submitted. o. Geological stability information. when requested by the city. - 33 - p. Designation of the 100-year flood plain and/or wetlands where -- applicable. q. Development schedule by phase which indicates expected time of beginning and ending of construction: Where improvements will be needed outside of an area for-which a final .development plan is or is proposed to be approved in order for that area to properly function, a detailed phasing schedule and design plans shall be required for those improvements. (e.g., storm drainage facilities located within the _ . Planned Development District, but outside of the area proposed for final development plan approval). All temporary or interim facilities_~hall be so designated, and design specifications provided therefor. (See section 26-,25(VI L) for limitations). (b) Review Procedures: 1. Staff Review: Upon filing of an .application and other required documents, planning and development staff shall refer copies of the plans to affected departments and agencies for review. All comments shall be forwarded to the applicant so that necessary revisions may be made by the. .. applicant prior to scheduling 'the application before planning commission. Once staff is assured that all required documents and revisions thereto have been received, notice of public hearing shall occur in accordance with requirements set forth in section 26-6(F). 2. Planning commission hearing. Planning commission shall hold a public hearing and within ninety (90) days of the public hearing date, exclusive of time requested by the applicant for continuances, shall adopt a resolution which approves, approves with modifications, or denies-the preliminary development plans (and plat) and such resolution shall state the reasons for action. Any applicant may appeal a decision of planning commission to city council; however, such appeal must be filed with the city clerk within ten (10) working days of that decision. 3. City council hearing. Upon receipt of a petition of appeal, the city clerk shall schedule a public hearing before city - 34 - council and cause public notice as required by section 26-6(F). City council shall hold a public hearing and within ninety (90) days of the public hearing, exclusive of time requested by the applicant for continuances, shall ADOPT A MOTION WHICH approves, approves with modifications, or denyIES the application. (3) Final development plan (and final plat): (a) Submittal Requirements: The final development plan (and plat) provides the _final engineering, platting ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT and site design details for final approval of one (1) or more phases of a proposed development. This is the final development plan and platting step and culminates all of the requirements prior to submittal of building plans. §' ° • --, a ....... .. ..... . .. i...,a ..,, .. ,- ~ .,w , , t..,. ..aNM r...F„ ,-i.... .,aV ,.~- ,.a ins r, ~ ,.1 . 'L..........F '11LZ4Vf _ - Accompanying the application, the following is required: a. Fee: UNDER 3 ACRES = $250 3 ACRES OR MORE _ $250 PLUS $50 ADDITIONAL PER ACRE OR PART OF AN ACRE. a a , rt,~~ ~~)_ vrkci~c~cc-avxius., ~r...., ... b. Complete and notarized application. c. Proof of. ownership, such as copies of deeds or title commitment. d. Power of attorney from owner(s) where an agent acta_on behalf of the owner(s). e. Names and address of all adjacent property owners, including property across abutting streets. f. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of architects and engineers associated with preparation of the plans and plat. g. Copies of proposed agreements, provisions, covenants, condominium declarations, etc., which govern the use, maintenance and continued protection of the planned development and any of its common areas and facilities, and which will guarantee unified control. h. Additional information may be required, including, but not limited to, geological stability report, - 35 - traffic impact report, flood-plain impact report or general environmental impact report. Form and content of the final development plan. The final development plan (and plat) shall be consistent with the approved outline and preliminary development plans (if applicable). The final development plan (and plat) shall be drawn at a scale. of no less than one (1) inch to one hundred (100) feet and contain the following: a. The requirements of both this section. as well as the subdivision regulations for a final plat must be met. If a preliminary development plan has not previously been approved, the requirements of the subdivision regulations for a preliminary plat must be met. b. Legal description of the entire planned development, and if the final development plan is for only a portion of the site, a legal description of that portion of the site included within the final development plan. c. Location, extent, type and surfacing materials of all proposed walks, malls, paved areas, turfing and other areas .not to be covered by buildings or structures. ' d. Location, size, type, height and orientation of all signs. Signs not specifically approved as part of a final development plan shall not be permitted. e. A landscape plan which provides location, type, size and quantities of all existing (to remain) anal proposed plant material and other landscape features and materials. Common and botanical names of-all plant materials shall be indicated. Location and_type of irrigation system shall be indicated. All landscaping shall meet the requirements of this section as well as section 26.32. f. Location, extent, types of materials and height of all walls and fences. g. Exterior lighting devices; type, height, location and orientation. h. Location, extent, maximum height, number of floors and total floor area. of all buildings and structures. i. Total number of dwelling units and - 36 - typical floor plans for residential projects. j. Elevations and perspective_drawings of all proposed structures and improvements, indicating architectural style and building materials. The drawings need not be the result of final architectural design but of sufficient detail to permit evaluation of the proposed structure(s). k. Off-street parking and loading plan which indicates the size, location, and number of parking and loading spaces and which shows the proposed circulation of vehicles and pedestrians within the planned development and to and from existing or proposed public thoroughfares. Any special engineering features and traffic regulation. devices needed to facilitate and ensure the safety of this circulation pattern, including fire lanes, must be shown. 1. Indication of all proposed uses for all buildings, structures and open areas. Outside storage and displays areas-must be indicated if proposed. Description of any proposed temporary or interim uses of land or existing buildings prior to development in accordance with the approved final development plan. m. A development schedule indicating the approximate date on which construction of the project can be .expected to begin and approximate dates when construction will be completed. If multi-phased project, indicate times for each phase (see subsection VII) for limitations) n. The final development plan (and plat) shall be recorded with the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder and, therefore, must meet their basic requirements for recordation. The following certifications, and approvals, in addition to the required surveyor's certificate, shall also be placed upon the final development plan (and plat): . OWNER'S CERTIFICATION __- The below signed owner(s), or legally designated agent(s) thereof, do hereby agree that the property legally described herein will be - 37 - developed as a Planned Development in accordance with the uses, restrictions, and conditions contained in this plan, and as may otherwise be required by law. I (we) further recognize that the approval of Final Development Plan (and Plat) does not create a vested property right. Vested property rights may only arise and accrue. pursuant to the provisions of section 26-6(G)-of Article I of the Code of Laws of the_City of Wheat Ridge. Signature of Owner(s) or Agent(s) NOTARY PUBLIC Subscribed and-sworn to before me this day of 19_ Witness my hand and official seal. My commission exp NOTARY -SEAL PliANNING COMMISSION CERTIFICATION Approved this day of Planning Commission. - 19_, by the WheaC Ridge -__ /s/ Chairman PliANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL_CERTIFICATION Approved this day of 19_, by the Wheat Ridge City Council. /s/ CITY SEAL Mayor ATTEST: -- _ City Clerk COUNTY CLERK. AND RECORDERS CERTIFICATE This document accepted for filing in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder of Jefferson County at Golden, Colorado, on the day of A.D. 19_, in the Book Page , Reception Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder - - - By: Deputy - 38 - In addition. to the above certifications and required land surveyor's certificate,. the following approval signature blocks shall be placed upon plats and subdivisions. -r Public Service Company of Colorado _ Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph -_ City of Wheat Ridge, Directbrof Public Works City of Wheat Ridge, Director of Parks and Recreation (b) Review Procedures: 1. Staff Review. Upon filing of an application and other required documents, the planning and development staff will refer copies .of the plans to affected departments and agencies for review. All comments shall be forwarded to the applicant so that necessary revisions may be made by the applicant prior to scheduling the application before planning commission. Once staff is assured that all required documents and revisions thereto have been received, notice of public hearing shall occur in accordance with requirements set forth in section 26.6(F). 2. Planning commission hearing. Planning commission shall hold a public hearing and within ninety (90) days of the public hearing date, exclusive of time requested by the applicant for continuances, shall ADOPT A RESOLUTION WHICH APPROVES, APPROVES WITH MODIFICATIONS, OR DENIES THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS (AND PLAT) AND SUCH RESOLUTION SHALL STATE THE REASONS FOR ACTION. ANY APPLICANT ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, STAFF, OR COUNCIL MEMBER FROM THE DISTRICT WHERE THE PROJECT IS PROPOSED MAY APPEAL A DECISION OF PLANNING COMMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL; HOWEVER,- SUCH APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK WITHIN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS OF THAT DECISION. ae~kag~a ... a,. ... : , - `y , 3. City council^hearing. Upon receipt of A PETITION OF APPEAL ~~~^~~, the city clerk shall schedule a public hearing before city - 39 - council and cause public notice as required by section 26-6(F). City council shall hold a public hearing and within ninety (90) days of the public hearing, exclusive of time requested by the applicant for continuances, shall ADOPT A MOTION WHICH approves, approves with modifications, or dengsIES the application.- (c) Recordation: All-approved final development plans (and plats) shall be recorded with the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder. Such plans, and associated recording fees, shall be submitted to planning and development staff within thirty (30) days of council's final action. Should a recordable approved final development (and plat) not be provided to staff within-sixty (60) days of council's final action, the staff shall schedule a public hearing before city council, and city council shall reconsider their previous approval. (VI) INTERPRETATION OF ERRORS AND OMISSIONS Detailed specifications and standards which should have been specifically set forth by an approved final development plan, but which were.-found subsequent to approval to have been omitted, may be interpreted by the zoning administrator to be those specifications and standards set forth in the Wheat Ridge Zone District in which the approved uses contained within the final development plan would be permitted. In the event the approved uses are in fact permitted in more than. one other zone district,-the zoning administrator is hereby authorized to determine, based upon the overall intent of the underlying districts, to determine the appropriate zone district's standards which shall be applied. The owner of any property who er ",.men feels aggrieved by such determination by the zoning administrator shall be entitled to appeal said determination pursuant to the provisions of section 26-6(D)(4) of this Zoning Ordinance. (VII) ^^'v%i TIME LIMITATION IINLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED UPON THE FACE OF AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN (I.E., OUTLINE, PRELIMINARY, OR FINAL), EACH INDIVIDUALLY APPROVED PLAN OR COMBINED PLANS SHALL BE SO APPROVED FOR THREE (3) YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPROVAL. IN THE CASE OF AN APPROVED OIITLINE PLAN; THE PRELIMINARY AND/OR FINAL PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL DURING THIS THREE-YEAR PERIOD. IN THE CASE OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN, THE PRELIMINARY AND/OR FINAL PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL DURING THIS THREE-YEAR PERIOD. IN THS CASE OF A FINAL PLAN, CONSTRUCTION MUST COMMENCE DURING THIS THREE-YEAR PERIOD ON ONE OR MORE PHASES OF THE PROJECT. UPON COMPLETION OF ANY PHASE OR PHASES,-THE THREE-YEAR PERIOD SHALL BEGIN ANEW FOR THE UNCOMPLETED PHASES OF THE PROJECT, UNTIL THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS COMPLETE. - 40 - IIPON EXPIRATION OF TH8 THREE-YEAR TIME LSMITATION, OR OTHER TIME LIMITATION AS MAY HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL,-THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SHALL SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECONSIDERING THE PLAN AND/OR ZONE CLASSIFICATION. PLANNING COMMISSION MAY EXTEND THE TIME LIMITATION, WITH OR WITHOUT MODIFICATIONS TO THS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN, OR THEY MAY RESCIND APPROVAL OF THE PLAN AND RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL REZONING OF THE PROPERTY OR A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ZONE CLASSIFICATION PRIOR TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING, OR TO ANOTHER ZONE CLASSIFICATION WHICH CONFORMS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. - ANY OUTLINE, PRELIMINARY OR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE PROVISIONS ( ) WHICH DID NOT SPECIFY A TIME SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION, OR WHICH DID SPECIFY SIICH A TIME PERIOD, HOWEVER SUCH PERIOD HA3 BXPIRED, SHALL BE-AUTOMATICALLY GRANTED A THREE-YEAR TIME PERIOD FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE PROVISIONS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE NEXT REQUIRED APPROVAL, AS EACH CASE MAY B8 (I.E., APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, APPROVAL OF A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR APPROVAL OF A BUILDING PERMIT). (VIII) BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS All approved development plans shall be binding upon the owner(s), their successors and assigns, and shall limit the development to all conditions and limitations established in such plans, and as may be contained in separately recorded agreements, covenants, condominium declarations, etc., which were approved_by city council as part of a planned development approval. (IX) AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT PLANS (A) The procedures and requirements for amending an approved development plan (outline, preliminary or final) shall be the same as prescribed for original approval, except as - 41 - provided for under subsection (B) below. All applications for amendment must be approved in-writing by all owners of real property contained within the area originally approved by the outline development plan,- unless-specific alternative provisions have been approved_by city council as part of the unified control agreement. (B) .Based upon showing of necessity therefor, minor changes in the locations of structures and their accessory uses, fences, parking areas, landscaping and other site - improvements may be permitted as an "administrative. amendment" by the director of planning and. development, if such changes will not cause any of the following circumstances to occur:- (1) Change in the character of the development. (2) Increase in the intensity (or density) of use. (3) Increase of the problems of circulations, safety and utilities. (4) Increase of the external effects-on the-adjacent properties. (5) Increase in maximum building height. (6) Reduction in the originally approved setbacks from perimeter property lines. (7 Reduction in landscape area of total site, or relocation of landscape areas which are required as buffer yards or establish project character. (8) increase in the gross floor area of structures beyond the authorized maximum allowed with the approved planned development. (C) Any changes or .revisions of a final development plan which are approved, either administratively or by council action, must be recorded with the Jefferson County Recorder as amendments to the original recorded development plan. (X) TEMPORARY USE PROVISION Subsequent to rezoning to a Planned Development District and -.- approval of a final development plan; but prior to development and use of a parcel in accordance with the approved. plan;. the property may continue to be used-in accordance with the previous zoning or'for cultivation of agricultural products, or the raising and keeping of .livestock, as would be permitted in any .residential district; provided, however, that no new permanent structures or additions to existing structures will be permitted. (Ord. No. 1989-80'7, subsection 2, 9-25-89; Ord: No. 1990-827, subsection 1-, 4-9-90) - - 42 - The JEFFERSONi SENTINELS 1224 Wadsworth Blvd Lakewood, CO 80215-5108 239-9890 05/05/95 THE CITY CLERKS OFFICE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 7500 W. 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215 INVOICE: LEGAL IVOTICE PUBLICATION Our number: JW0093.504 Your identification: PUBLICATION DATES: 95/05/04 through 95/05/04 NUMBER OF LINES: 25 COPIES REQUESTED: S Printing: 10.50 Copies: 0.00 TOTAL DUE: ~ 10.50 Thank you for advertising in the Jefferson Sentinel Newspapers! The JEFFERSON SENTINELS 1224 Wadsworth Blvd Lakewood, CO 80215-5108 239-9890 05/05/95 THE CITY CLERKS OFFICE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE 7500 W. 29TH AVENUE WHEAT RIDGE, CO 80215 INVOICE: LEGAL NOTICE PUBLICATION Our number: JW0093.504 Your identification: PUBLICATION DATES: 95/05/04 through 95/05/04 NUMBER OF LINES: 25 COPIES REQUESTED: 3 Printing: 10.50 Copies: 0.00 TOTAL DUE: ~ 10.50 NOTICE OF PUBLJC NEARWO Notice V heroby pprven that a Publlc Headnp k to M held bsrora Na CHy of Wheat Ridge PAmirg CamMeabh an May 73, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at 7600 bleat 2gN Avenue, Wfieat Ridge, Colorado. Ax 1Ptensted cltizeaa aro invited to speak at the Publlc Hearing or submit written eommente. The rollowing petxbn shall be heats: t. Casa No. 20A•96.2: Proposed amendment to Wheat Ridge Code of Laws, Chapter 26. Zoning Ordinance, Section 26-26 Planned Development Districb. Copies o4 the proposetl amendments ors avallablo from the Planning and Dawbpm~nt Depadmanq ' 7500 Went 29th Avenue, lNhest RHge, C0 8027b. !s/Santln Wiggins, Seorolery ATTEST: /slWanda Sang, Cxy CNrk Publbhetl: May 4, 1996 Publbhed In: Tha JeNanon Sentinel JW0093S0t Thank you for advertising in the Jefferson Sentinel Newspapers! of WHEAT MEMORANDUM _ h P•o v m To: City Affairs Committee From: Glen Gidley, Director of Planning & Development °~ioRPo° Re: Planned Development Regulations -Proposed Amending Council Bill Date: May 8, 1996 The attached proposed Council Bill is submitted to City Affairs Committee for comment prior to scheduling it on First Reading before City Council. Planning Commission held a public hearing on this proposal May 18, 1995 and recommended approval, with several revisions. Those revisions have been incorporated. This Council Bill went to the prior City Council for First Reading in June of last year, however was referred to City Affairs Committee for review and comment. The City Affairs Committee did not complete their review, hence it is scheduled for your review and comment. I have attached a copy of the Planning Commission resolution and a copy of a Wheat Ridge United Neighborhoods review and suggestions. 1 have also attached a copy of the Planned Unit Development chapter of the Colorado Land Planning and Development Law handbook, Fourth Edition, 1992. This will help you understand the general concepts of PUD zoning as distinguished from straight zoning. Although the revisions are shown by strike-thru (delete) and bold capital letters tadditions), I will summarize the nature of the proposed revisions for you and others who may be interested in this matter: A. PROCESS There has been some confusion at past City Council meetings regarding approval procedures for the three types of plans (i.e., outline, preliminary and final). Therefore, we have added information that makes it clear that the outline plan and any future amendments to it, is the rezoning step and therefore requires approval by ordinance (pages 4, 24, 25 and 31), whereas preliminary (page 32) and final plans (page 36) and amendments to them, are site planning and platting steps and therefore are approved only by motion. 2. Based upon discussion between Council and Planning Commission and a resulting consensus by Council, we have revised the process of approval for final development plans and amendments thereto by showing the Planning Commission as the approval authority, with an appeal process to City Council (page 41). B. SUBSTANCE Memo to City Affairs Committee May 8, 1996 Page 2 The informational requirements associated with the Outline Plan currently are loosely written. It is important that the basic zoning standards are clearly stated at the rezoning step, therefore we have added those basic standards and criteria that must be upon the Outline Plan (see pages 26 & 27/(6)(1)). 2. A specific time limit has been suggested (page 42) so that final development plans are meaningful based upon changing neighborhood conditions. We have many old Planned Developments that were zoned and planned ten to 15 years ago, and no subsequent activity has occurred on that particular property. Meanwhile, changes have occurred on other surrounding properties, or in infrastructures or policies or laws that may affect the feasibility, desirability or advisability of following through with the previously approved plans. 3. There has been some confusion over our requirements and intent regarding UNIFIED CONTROL, especially regarding multi-ownership situations where revisions are proposed (page 2). Therefore, we have recommended language which clarifies this issue. 4. There has also been confusion regarding departure from similar zone district standards and regulations (e.g. R-3 or C-1 front setback standards)) as to whether a planned development district must conform to those standards or be treated as a variance under the Code provisions 2-61 and 26-6.D. Traditional PUD law provides for "flexibility in design" as a basic and fundamental planned development concept, not as a variance. Therefore, we have added language to address this issue (page 5). C. COST Planned Development zoning and plan processing involves a substantial amount of staff resources and direct costs. The current fee structure of $250/$100 doesn't even come close to covering actual cost to the City of processing such cases. Additionally, larger projects demand greater staff time than smaller projects. Therefore, we have recommended increasing the fees and indexing the fee to the size of the project (pages 30, 33 & 36). GEGsIw attachment ~~ _~-- H@PpR'1 NO. 291 MAY 1973 ~ ~antliir~ A~dVi-'y viic~ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPI~/IENT ORDINANCES Franks. So David R. Mosena Frank S.gangs,Jr. This report was prepared by the American Society of Planning Officials as part of its Sponsored Research Program. The ASPO research program is an independent reseazch activity supporxed by grants and contracts and devoted to advancing pubfic agency planning practice, Individual research reports are not reviewed for approval by the Board of Directors or by the membership of the Society. Frank Beal, Assistant Director for Reseazch (312) 3243400. Planning Advisory Service is a subscription research service of the American Socety of Planning Officials. Reports are issued monthly; memos are issued irregulazly. Frank S. So, Assistant Director for Advisory Services; Michael J. Meshenberg, Planning Advisory Service Director. Planning Advisory Service Reports are produced at ASPO. Ed A1cCahill, Publications Director; Paul O'Mara, Marjorie Adams, Adele Roihblatt, Robert Cassidy, Assistant Editors; Lindsay Kincaid, Maria Schneider, Robert Frausto, Production Staff. Copyright p1973 by American Society of Planning Officials, All rights reserved. No part of this may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the American Society of Planning Officials. American Society of Planning Of£cials, 1313 East Sixtieth Street, Chicago, IL 60637. Israel StolIman, Executive Director. Planned Unit ®evelopment Ordinances By Frank S. So, David R. IVlosena, and Frank S. Bangs, Jr. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introduction ....................... . ............... 1 The Premise The Purpose Methodology Chapter 2. Where Does PUD Stand Today?~ ......... ..... . .... . .. 3 Emerging Trends - Axtimdes Towazd PUD Some Realities of PUD Chapter 3. Basic Ordinance Mechanics ............................... 9 Zoning Techniques Coordinating Regulatory Devices Purpose Clauses Definitions Permitted Uses - - Ownership Requirements Availability of Public Services Processing Fees Chapter 4. Site Plan Review Procedures ... ..................... ...... 13 Basic Principles Recommended Procedure Preapplication Conference Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan Building Spacing Requirements Amendments to the Final Development Plan Enforcement Chapter 5. Substantive Design Standards ............... ................. 25 Density Parcel Siu Open Space Environmental Design Traffic Circulation Private S[reets Parking Standards PUD Perimeters Nonresidential Development Chapter 6. Legal Aspects of Drafting PUD Ordinances .......... ............. 45 _ . PUD and Local Land Development Regulation Legal Problems in Administration Chapter 7. Conclusion ........................... ........... 57 Appendix: The Land-Use Intensity Rating System ......................... 59 Bibliography ...............................................65 This study was assisted by the National Association of Home Builders which provided most of the funds to conducx ix, helped identify builders to respond to quesxionnaires and inxerviews, and commented on draft reports. ASPO is thankful for NAfiB's assistance. The writing of the report itself-in its developmenx, analyses, and conclusions-is solely the work of ASPO's staff and does not necessarily reflect the views of its Board, members, or project sponsors. Cover by Sally Hughes, Chicago Photographs by Robert Frausto (pp. 8, 19, 35, 43, 53) and The Urban Land Institute/National Association of Home Builders from "PUD: A Flexible Land-Use Concept" (pp. 7, 15, 23, 52) Chapter 1. Introduction Planned Unix Development (PUD) is a distinct type of` land development project which reflects a growing trend in the way in which the development industry converts vacant land to urban uses. Before World War II the development industry was characterized by a fragmented approach. A land speculator purchased land from a farmer, then sold ix to a land sub- divider who in taro sold single lots xo individual purchasers who hired a home builder to constmct a house. The typical home builder probably built one or two dozen homes in a year. Other builders speciahzed in constructing apartments, commercial buildings, or industrial sxmcxures. The public regulatory system was composed of two basic tools: land subdivision regulations and zoning ordinances. In the context of the existing development process they worked reasonably well, since most development and regu- lation took place ~on a lot-by-lot basis. And, it should be noted thaz xegula[ion was "preset." It was possible to draft regulations and proceed to lay out, say, a small subdivision of single-family houses. From the governmental perspective, regulation was the process of checking the subdivision plat for conformance to regulations. Following World War II the scale but not necessarily the complexity of development grew markedly. To meet the demand for housing, the market responded with large-scale developments. The entire subdivision became the typical unit of development. The larger development firms h'ke Levitt were building entire new towns with numerous neighborhoods, but the basic regulatory system, neverthe- less, remained lazgely unchanged. It is not possible to pinpoint precisely when planned unit developments with a mixture of uses and dwelling types started appearing. But by the early 1960s the number of features on PUD in such magazines as (louse and Home began to appear with greater frequency. By the mid 1960s entire publications on PUD were being supported or pub- lished by the National Association of Home udders, the Urban Land Institute, and the American Society of Plan- ning Officials. The concept of planned development has been around for some time. In this country, perhaps the best early known efforts were the work of Clarence Stein and Henry Wright and the building of a few, small New Deal new towns. If one examines the literature of those efforts it is worth noting that these developments were planned and built with no land-use control regulations in effect. We point- this out not because we think most local governments should or will renounce development controls. As developments grow in size and in the resulting environ- mental impact, regulation will probably increase. Rather the point illustrazes the central dilemma of regulating planned unit development: the PUD ordinance, which allows the greatest amount of flexibility, ideally will have a tendency xo allow better design. But as problems in actually administering PUDs as defined by developers, planners, lawyers, and public officials are addressed, ordinances are amended and thus become less flexible, and thereby have a tendency to decrease the chance for better design. This seemingly paradoxical observation ought to be remembered throughout this report. The Premise The PUD concept is a rational and sound alternative to the traditional, lot-by-lot residential development that has shaped the pattern of most of suburban America since World War ll. The concept made sense in the 1930s in Radburn, New Jersey, and, if anything, makes even more sense now. We feel that designing residential developments by means of a flexible bur unitary site plan which integrates housing types, circulation systems, and nonresidential facili- ties, and which clusters dwelling units for the preservation of open spaces and natural features is a significahx and im- portant departure from traditional prat-cite. We endorse the concept, and encourage. the adoption of ordinances at the local level to permit.PUD as a standard alternative to con- ventional development schemes. This strong endorsement, however, must be tempered with a few faces of life. A good ordinance is not an absolute guarantee of awell-designed PUD. It certainly improves the odds, bur the human elements involved in the PUD process are too numerous to consider regulatory devices as com- plete insurance. PUD ordinances are not as self-executing as conventional development regulations. A high degree of administrative discretion is left to planners, commissioners, and public officials, and developers have considerably more flexibility under PUD procedures to exercise a variety of choices. As a result of these increased human variables, the PUD concept has been abused with the resulting product no im- provement over the status quo. Unfortunately, the bad press resulting from -such breakdowns in the PUD process has tended to tarnish the concept itself rather than its product. Some members of the general public equate the term with higher densities or apartment developments. Even a few professional planners view PUD as a zoning loophole through which developers can avoid ~moxe strict conventional regulations or obtain higher zoning classifica- tions with-greater ease. Such feelings, regardless o£ their foundation, have created resistance to the PUD concept. Even more serious, they have fostered misundersxandings in areas where experiences have not supported them. We view such failures as a consequence of poor imple- mentation, not indictments against the PUD concept itself. A rnmbination of developers who use competent designers coupled with a good PUD ordinance properly administered by competent professional staff and informed commis- sioners and public officials can frequenxly ensure the developmenx of superior residen iial environments. This report is an attempt to help that process come about. The Purpose This report will assist planning agencies in local govern- menu to write PUD ordinances and revise existing ones. The report sxarts with the given that the PUD concept is good and needs little defense. This is a technical document designed fox use as a working manual and deals with two major elements of PUD regulation: the administrative pro- cedures for processing development proposals and the sub- stanxive design standazds basic to quality development. In terms of PUD types the report will focus predomi- nantly on residential developments. Planned shopping cenxers and planned industrial disxricts are beyond the scope of the report, but it wIll discuss related commercial land uses in predominantly residential projects. We do not propose a model PUD ordinance. Instead, we consider the fundamental elements of a good PUD ordi- nance by presenting and discussing a variety of ordinance provisions currently in use. While each of the xopirs dis- cussed in this report should be considered in any PUD re- view process, there is often no-single best approach to a patticular regulatory problem. Detailed ordinance provi- sions must of necessity vary from place to place xo reflect focal conditions and atxitudes. A density provision adopted in one city may not necessarily be appropriate for another. Also, many of the regulatory problems faced in the PUD process are not cut and dry issues. Often there are different costs associated with different alternatives, and some trade- offs will have to be made. Rejecting the notion of a model ordinance and therefore presenting a shopping list of ordinance provisions is based on one of the study's findings. Local communities vazy considerably in terms of the sophistication (and especially the detail) of their zoning ordinances. In those communities which have dealt wixh complex projects, the PUD section of the zoning ordinance can be quite general. However, in those communities in which there have been few lazge projects, officia]s will be dealing for the &rst time with regulatory issues such as mixtures of ]and uses, private sxreets, and common open spaces, and other portions of zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations will need amendment simultaneously when adopting PUD provisions. Some jurisdictions have chosen to include such provisions within the PUD sections. Numerous ordinance provisions have been cited through- out in order to stimulate the reader's thinking and en- courage him to consider the logic behind alternative ap- proaches xo regulatory issues. Hopefully, this approach will stimulate a more critical evaluation of the choices available, and assist readers in making PUD ordinance decisions more appropriate to the needs of xheir specific jurisdictions. PUD is becoming a household term among planners and developers. -Yet there are many variations in the termi- nology scaxxered throughout ordinances and the literature. For example, such -terms as "planned development," "planned residential development," "planned community development," and "planned apartment development" are common. Most of them are vaiiations on the same theme, but they often mix process with product and are not inter- changeable. This report uses the term "planned unit development" throughout, meaning predominantly PUDs in which the primazy land use is residential Accessory uses related to the needs of the residents are appropriate, as well as limited commercial and office uses. Others have chosen the more accurate term, "planned unix residential development" (PURD), [hereby avoiding confusion with "planned unit commercial development" or "planned unit industrial developmenx." We define PUD as a land developmenx project compre- hensively planned as an entity via a unitary site plan which permits flexibilit}' in building siting, mixtures of housing types and land uses, usable open spaces, and the preser- vation of significant natural features. - "Pfanned," "unit," "flexibility," and "process" are key words. The PUD process allows a much freer placement of buildings on the land than conventional lot-by-lot systems. The total pazcel rather than a single lot is the unit of regula- tion, and controls apply to entire developments_ Densities may be calculated on a project basis, allowing the clustering of buildings to create useful open spaces and preserve natural site features: -Increased flexibility allows project elements-housing, transportation systems, open spaces, nonresidential uses-to be interrelated with one another. Traditionally tight controls over use districting are also relaxed, permitting mixtures in dwelling unit types and~land uses within the same project. In essence, the PUD process discards the traditional use districting, self-executing development regulation for the more open process permitting the application of sound planning principles to the development of various size paz- cels ranging from small cluster developments to entire new communities. A site plan review process, guided by a com- bination of specific design standards and performance criteria, replaces the self-executing ordinance. Adminisxra- tive discretion and negotiation are increased as well as opportunities for developmenx incentives. Methodology The study staff, two planners and one attorney, examined the ASPO files and ordinance library which in- cluded review of all inquiries on PUD from planning agencies to determine any problems with PUD. Following a review of the significant literature, xwo questionnaires were developed to address specific PUD issues. (One question- naire wenx to planners, another to builders.) With these questionnaires as a basic guide, a series of field interviews were then held with planning directors and developers active in the PUD process. Interviews were held in six metropolixan areas: Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Chi- cago, Denver, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, and included both large and small city and county planning agencies, as well as a wide range of builders and developers. The questionnaires were revised in tight of the field interviews and then mailed to 300 planning agency mem- bers of ASPO's Planning Adtdsory Service and 300 members of the National Association of Home Builders. Chapter 2. Where Does PUD Stand Today? Emerging Trends There are a number of trends or factors influencing the growing popularity of PUD. An important one is the sub- stantial advantages it can afford builders and developers- often higher densities, greater design flexibility, improved mazketability. In response to these opportunities, the homebuilding and land development industries Nave been promoting the concept heavily in recent years. Lenders and financial institutions have shown increas- ingly positive attttudes coward PUD, primarily because it has passed the tests of xhe marker. Many of the beater projects_we visited during our field research sold out very fasx. Appreciation in value has also been high, in some cases _ as high as 10 per cent annually. Such examples have made lenders much more favorable toward this form of develop- menx than they were 10 years ago. Thirt}'-eighx pec cent of the developers responding said that Lenders and financial institutions favored PUD over conventional development, and another 48 per cent said they ranked about the same. The planning profession has also become increasingly receptive to the PUD concept. PUD ordinances were drafted and adopted ax the inixiative of local governments -- in 72 per cent of the planning agencies surveyed. Most of the professional planners sun•eyed considered PUD aprefer- ablealternative to conventional residential development. While generally slower xo accept new ideas, planning commissioners and local legislators nevertheless have warmed up to PUD considerably. Especially appealing is the increased con[rol over the development process [hey have through site plan review. PUD ordinances are not as self- executing as conventional ones, and many local govern- ments have welcomed the increased discretionary powers and negotiation as methods for securing more amenities and concessions from developers. Changes in consumer demand and xastes over the last decade have been another important factor in the popu- lazity of PUD. The dominant preference for single-family homes has shown signs of erosion; apartments have become more popular, and condominium sales are booming. The common open spaces and recreation facilities of PUDs have also increased consumer appeal. Once a specialized market- ing tool bur now almost a requirement for survival, de- veloped recreational amenities are becoming commonplace in PUDs. Many include golf courses, swimming pools, riding stables, tennis courts, and community centers or club' houses. Maintenance chores for individual homeowners are fewer.-The status symbol of a neatly manicured front lawn and a picture window is being traded for garden apazx- menxs, patio homes, and xown houses with less private space to maintain and more usable common open space. Shared ownership is gaining popularity as homeowners' associations (fiOAs) have generally proven a successful means of controlling and maintaining common properties and facilities. Many of the developers interviewed were motivated to enter the PUD business as much by the mar ket preferences of consumers as by the other advantages of increased density and flexibility. Over 58 per cent of the developers surveyed said that PUDs were easier xo mazket than conventional developments. Housing demands have changed in other evays too. The age struMUre of the country's population has expanded ax two important points. The posx-World War II baby boom is now coming inxo the housing market, and many young couples and small families need lower-cost housing than the tradixional single-family structure. Also, as the number of elderly persons grows, more empty nesters aze in xhe mar- ker for smaller, less expensive dwelling units. Following similar recent shifts of industry _and jobs, the location of xhese demands has also shifted further into the urban fringe. Boxh of these changes have greatly improved the .suburban PUD market all across the country. Attitudes Toward PUD The above trends may pain[ a glowing picture for PUD's future, but there are still some serious pockets of resistance from certain secxors of the local community. The ASPO survey asked both planners and developers xo characxerize xhe attitudes of several different groups toward PUD as they themselves perceived them. The results are shown in Table 1 on page 4. The respondents felt that professional planning staffs and lay planning commissioners held predominantly favor- able attitudes toward PUD which is probably axtributable to the fact that they are the most informed of the several groups listed. Elected public officials showed somewhat less enthusiasm and more indifference; many of them do not understand the planning concepts behind PUD. Too often their frames of reference aze shaped by conventional wisdoms and fears concerning density and apartments rather than experience. And many of them have never actually seen a PUD. Consumers were also rated of mixed opinion, generally due to their unawareness. However, very few of them were considered negaxive toward it. The general public, or more specifically suburban, Favorable Indifferent Unfavorable Planners Developers Planners Developers Planners Developers (Per Cent) (Per Cenx) (Per Cent) (Per Cent) (Per Cent) (Per Cent) Professional Planners 98.9 92.2 0,0 7.8 11 0.0 Lay Planning Commission Members 89.2 62.7 9.6 29.5 1.2 7.8 Eletted Public OFfiLials 58.3 51,9 34.4 42.3 7.3 5.8 The Consumer_Public (to whom the PUD 41.0 72.2 36.6 24.1 2.4 3.7 product is marketed) The General Public (typically property 22.1 19.2 43.2 30.8 34.7 - 50.0 owners residing adj acent to PUD sixes) _ TABLE 1. Attitudes Toward PUD as Rewcd by Planners and Developers single-family homeowners, are another story altogether. Over one-third of the planners and one-half of the de- velopers said this group was not in favor of PUD, a fact which was also borne out in our own field research. One of the most consistent findings throughout the study was the opposition of established suburban residents to PUDs. The suburban resident Sees PUDs creating higher densities and multifamily housing. These are threats to an established life style and neighborhood chazacter. Sales prices and rents in PUDs are also major concerns of established homeowners, since they largely determine the socioeconomic class likely to move in nexfdoor. What has come to be defined as the "nongrowth" senti- ment also accounts for some of this suburban resistance_ Many people want no change at all. One planner stated, "There is considerable opposition to PUDs in this area, ir- respective of excellence of design." Another stated, "Some old mossbacks don't like ix-but they don't like any type of development that brings people within 100 feet of one another." Developers are well aware of this resistance and often spend more time and effort educating local community groups and neighborhood clubs than, planning commis- sioners and councilmen. A strategy used by one developer was to identify acxive community groups in the area of the proposed project, and then hold extensive meetings with them in an attempt to educate ffiem to the PUD mncept. Developers found less resistance where experience with PUDs demonstrated that they did not reduce the value of adjacent properties. Also, in many cases, resistance had decreased where growth was considered inevitable. Some suburbanites have opted for PUD rather than leaving the land to conventional development practices. It is clear from all this chat educating some groups would likely increase favorable attitudes toward PUD. Most of the lay public, and many commissioners and public officials, simply do not understand it. However, the strong resistance of-dbngr~3vocates raises policy questions outside the realm of PUD. Suffice it to say that where development does occur, PUD is a sensible alternative and should be promoted through greater efforts to educate the doubtful. There is no such thing as a typical PUD. The flexibility of the concept permits such a wide latitude in the final product that there is no real norm; this is one of the beauties of ehe concept. Some PUDs are very small residen- tial clusters, occasionally as small as two or three acres. Others may be over 500 acres and include substantial recreational and commercial facilities. In spite of the prevailing conventional wisdom, PUDs do not necessarily mean higher densities. Many ordinances per- mit the clustering of dwelling units to allow open spaces, but do not allow any increases in overall density. If there are no truly typical PUD projects, there aze, however, some commonalities found in most of them. Open space is probably the single element most common to all PUDs. While the size and quality of that open space vazies considerably, most residential PUDs contain it in some form or another. Developed recreational facilities, often designed in conjunction with common open space, are more frequently included. Developer's investments in these "amenity packages" also vary widely as shown in Table 2, which presents their average costs on a per dwelling unit basis. Over half of the responding developers spent more than $500 per dwelling unit on recreational facilities. One- fifth ofthem spent over $1,000 per unit. TABLE 2. Average Cost Per Dwelling Unit of "Amenity Packages" in PUDs Dollars Responses (Per Cent) $ 249 or Tess 11.6 250 - 499 25.6 500 - 999 - 39.5 1,000 - 1,999 16.3 2,000 or more 7.0 A mixture of dwelling unit types is also common. Seventy per cent of the developers said their projects mixed single-family detached units, townhouses, and apartments in the same project. The ratios of various housing typed to one another were scattered across a wide range, with single- family units accounting for between 20 and 60 per cent of the total dwelling units in one-third of the projects. Another third were between SO and 100 per cent single family. Mixtures of land uses are also becoming more common in PUDs, but not yet to the extent of mixed housing types. One-half of the developers built PUDs with mixed land uses. Most were combinations of residential and commercial uses, with roughly half of the commercial facilities of the "neighborhood" variecy, oriented to the convenience com- mercial needs of the PUD residents, and one-third major commercial facilities serving a wider market external co the PUD in which they were located. Beyond ffie above, PUD projects vary widely on such items as size, density, and the price of dwelling units. Half of xhe developers responding were building PUDs averaging between 50 and 250 dwelling units each. Another 18.8 per cent average from 250 to 500 units, and 12.5 per cent contained over 500 units each. Acreages also vazied a great deal, with 37 per cent of the developers' projects averaging between 6 and 15 acres, and ~20 per cent between 50 and 100 acres in size. Very few had developed parcels of more than 100 acres. Dwelling unit sales prices ranged from a low of near $15,000 to a few priced at over $100,000 each, Nearly half of the dwellings sold for $25,000 xo $35,000. Projects-which included rental units tended toward more expensive rentals, with 66.7 per cent of the average monthly rentals falling between $200 and $300 and another 16.7 per cent between $300 and $400. Densities also covered a wide range. Just over 15 per cent of the respondents had built PUDs with densities as low as from one to two dwelling units per acre. Average densities fell in the 5 to 15 dwellin¢ units per acre range, with 58.9 per cent of the projecxs averaging $ to 8 units per acre. These figures represent overall projecx densities; micro densities-within PUD projects are usually higher. in summary, most of the developers responding built PUDs with mixtures of dwelling unix xypes, although asub- stantial number contained only one xype of dwelling unix per project. Limited commercial facilities were common but do not yet appear to be the rule. Overall projecx densities were moderate, usually from 5 to 15 dwelling units per acre.--Common open spaces were neazly standard, and developed recreational facilities or "amenity packages" appear on xhe rise. Some Realities of PUD In theory, the PUD process clearly presents more oppor- tunixies for creative and high quality residential design. In psctice, it has not always turned out that way. The PUD process is sxill very new to many planners and developers, and it may rake several more years to iron out all the kinks. In order to get some idea about the PUD projects which have been bui1C xo date, we asked planners: "Has [he PUD process resulted in significantly better design of neighbor hoods in your community as compared to conventional neighborhood designs?" Two-thirds of them answered yes. The departure from conventional ordinance require- ments such as sexbacks, Yazd dimensions, and minimum lox sizes has. resulted in design innovations often impossible before. The feelings of many were summed up by one respondenx who stated, "PUDs so faz have been better than conventional designs of the same density." Most often mentioned was the increased environmental sensitivity of development. Flexibility in site design has both allowed and encousged developers to tailor their development plans to the natusl amenixies of the land. Natusl features such as groves of trees, ground cover, bodies of waxer, ravines, and rock outcroppings have b«n successfully inrnrporated inxo PUD site designs. Environmental design questions were major issues in the approval of PUD projecxs for over 60 per cent of the developers surveyed. Several of them stated that environ- mental issues were being given a much higher priority than ever before, and that these issues could only be dealt with effectively through the PUD process. Many developers are responding to increased environmental concerns by em- ptoying more design skills in their planning processes. One planner stated: "In each case, developers have employed professional site design consultants to prepare the overall development plan while conventional development plans are prepared by in-house surveyors and engineers." Preserving natural features in PUDs has had other im- portant effects. Building sites are oriented to rake full advantage of natural features, increasing overall project amenity. Flexibility in siting structures-has reduced the visual monotony common to many conventional neigh- borhoods. One planner stated that, "The PUD process has resulted in bringing relief to the `cookie cutter' single- family neighborhoods." More open space has also resulted, and clustering has reduced the sizes of front and side yards, aggregating the land into common open spaces more useful for a variety of acxive and passive recreatonal activities. PUD open spaces have also given many local governments much needed relief in open space acquisition, as well as in future maintenance and operating costs when they are borne by homeowners' associations. Some communities have no acxive open space acquisition programs, and addi- tions through PUD aze therefore even more impottant. Land utilization has been more efficient in PUDs. Odd- shaped parcels are incorporated into projects more effec- tively, and installation costs for streets and public utilities are reduced. Sevenxy per cent of the planners responded that PUDs had actually reduced local municipal mainte- nance costs both through absolute reductions in the amount of physical facilities, and also through institutional changes such as private street systems and common open spaces maintained and operated by homeowners' associa- tions. In several communities PUDs had improved tax stables. Also, dwelling unit sizes for smaller families common in many PUDs have decreased burdens on local school systems below chose of traditional single-family neighborhoods. The architectusl quality of YUDs was the subject of artoxher question to both planners and developers. Eighxy per cent of the planners and 76 per cent of xhe developers agreed that PUDs offered more opportunities for higher quality architectural design than conventional develop- ments. There has been more "freedom to attach, detach, and cluster" dwelling units and greater freedom in "building and living space design." Respondents stared that it was easier to carry out architectusl themes in PUDs by relating buildings and groups of buildings io one another. PUD also offers more opportunities to relate interior build- ing spaces to exxerior spaces, natusl features, and vistas. _ Many respondents felt that simply creating opportunities for bexxer architecture and design had self-fulfilling effects. One stated, "Freedom from the standard zoning and sub- division minimums seems to encousge developers to be more innovative in design. Also, most developers working on PUDs will make the extra investment for good azchiter cural design because of the potential returns on well- designed PUDs. They are caxering to a marker that is looking for something more than the standard tract house." Several others felt thax greater public scrutiny through the sire plan review process was having a positive effect on architectural standards. One planner said, "The increased participation of planning personnel and planning commis- sioners with the opportunity to negotiate for the com- munity results in generally better architecture." However, many developers voiced strong feelings about planners and laymen tinkering with the design of their PUD projecxs. There were proportionazely fewer negative comments on the quality of PUD projects. Most were expressions of dis- 5 appointment that some PUD projects had not resulted in significantly better residential developments than conven- tional practices. Some looked "jusx like standard apartment developments." A few respondents had experienced specific design problems. For example, some cited problems wixh reduced street standards which restricted emergency vehicle access. One stated that emergency vehicles had problems finding addresses in some PUDs wixh more complex site designs, and another mentioned [hat longer processing rimes were costing the public more money. There seems to be a fairly strong consensus of opinion xhat PUDs are, in fact, better than conventional develop- ments. At least the PUD process provides the oppottunixy to be better. However, some people seem to expect more from xhe_ PUD process than it was designed to produce. For example, a criticism fxequendy heard is that xhe PUD process ignores the (and outride its boundazies, xhe land between various PUDs. But PUD is not the same as compre- hensive planning. It was only designed to deal wixh con- tiguous units or parcels of land. True, such parcels may be large enough to constitute new towns which would elevate the scope of PUD co its highest level. But in actual practice, xhe PUD process, especially in its residential form, cannot 6e expected to take over the function of comprehensive planning. It should be used as a tool for implementing master plan policies on a discrete basis. Like any other new development, ii musx still be coordinated with adjacent areas. Because of xhese. limitations, some people feel that the planning advantages of PUD can only be achieved at a rela- tively large scale of development such as 100 acres or more, So we asked both planners and developers what they thought of a mandatory requirement that all new develop- ment above some minimum parcel size be developed under PUD provisions. Planners were split on the issue; 55 per cenx favored the idea. Several even responded that they ei[her had or were considering using xhis approach, re- quiring all new development to go through a site plan review process. One county had designated areas wixhin the comprehensive plan in which PUD procedures are required due to unique topography and other natural features. Another city required the PUD process for all aparxment developments. (As this report was going to press xhe Cixy of Chicago Department of Planning and Development has pro- posed that the PUD sections of [he zoning ordinance be amended so as to require developments of some minimum size-acres and number of dwelling units-xo follow a PUD review process.) Same negative viewpoinxs were also expressed. Several planners stated that some developers did nor have the necessary skills or finances to design PUDs and would there- fore be excluded from the process. Others mentioned xhax the idea had merit, but that [hey did not have enough qualified staff xo conducx the increased review workload. Several argued that there was still a genuine need for single- family housing, stereotyping-PUD as a particular product type, rather than a process just as appropriate for single- family development as for multifamily. Two-thuds of xhe developers opposed the idea of man- datory PUD above a certain parcel size. However, many of them seemed more opposed to the notion of PUD being mandatory rather than actually using PUD in kuge projects. They also had misgivings about the ability of public agency staffs to conducx reviews. Thinking about the notion of a mandatory PUD ap- proach did evoke several other ideas. Several developers felx that PUD forced its practitioners to "plan" much more than ever before, and that was good. They did not approve of dictating such items as parcel sizes and product types to developers, items which must realistically reflecx the scale of operation a particular developer is capable of and the constraints of the local market. Several developers felt that this is xhe direction in which we are going anyway, and saw no harm in it as long as it is a process and not a product that is being pushed. On the other hand, the PUD de- veloper, in contrast to the conventional developer, felt xhax he should not be required to submit more data, plans, and so one, which might act as a disincentive for building PUDs. Unless and until PUD becomes a mandatory process, howeveq scattered PUDs will have to be integrated into the total urban fabric through some other device, such as care- ful public agency review based on the comprehensive plan. Over half of the ordinances reviewed now require de- velopers to relate their PUDs.to the community's compre- hensive plan, often through the use of a written statement submitted along with other application materials. Most planning staffs make their recommendations to the plan- ning commission based partially on the relaxionship of pro- posed PUDs io the comprehensive plan. Not all communities have comprehensive plans nor the staff time to keep ahem current. In these situations, the PUD process has been used as a device for reacting to development proposals rather than planning. One-half of the planners surveyed agreed with xhe following statement: "Some planners say that one of xhe reasons for PUD's populazixy is that communities themselves do not know what they want deve]oped on their vacant land, and that the PUD process forces developers to make specific pro- posals to which the community can react." Reacting to proposals is not planning and we don'L condone it, but it is a fact of life, especially in rapidly urbanizing areas with large amounts of vacant, developable land. If "reactive plan- ning" is all a community is capable of, then the PUD process does afford greater public control by providing a review process through which to evaluate new development proposals. One possibility is [hat more communities will be forced by state statute to have up-to-date plans if they want to continue exercising land-use conttol powers-and es- pecially if they want to have xhe wider range of discre- tionary power that PUD provides. Another important trend in xhe PUD process today is the increasing degree of negotiation which takes place between the local government and the developer. Flex- ibility in ordinance design standards varies considerably, but most ordinances leave a great deal more items open to negotiation. (Flexibility in design standards will be dis- cussed in more detail in Chapter 4.) And with zoning changes and building permits contingent upon xhe approval of site plans, the stage has been set for more bargaining than ever before. Sixty-three per cent of the planners and 75 per cent of xhe developers agreed that the PUD process was essentially a negotiation process between the community and the de- veloper. Asked approximately whax per cent of the total review process was negotiated and not governed by pre-set standards in the PUD ordinance, over half of the re- spondents said that negotiation accounxed for more than 50 per cent of the outcome of the final PUD product. Density is the most commonly negotiated ixem. It is of prime im- portance to a developer's cost and profit picture and, a[ the same time, is the local government's most valuable item for barter. Communities often trade higher densities for such amenities as additional open spaces, increased landscaping, and school site dedications. Sweet standards are another important item and are sometimes negotiated. From the point of view of the planners and developers there is nothing inherently wrong with the increased level of negotiations occurring in the PUD process. Both parties believe they have something to gain. Many planners stated that their local governments welcomed the PUD process partly because of the increased level of discretionazy con- trol it afforded them through such negotiations. And most developers would rather sit down and reason out design specifics rather than comply with pre-set standards. _ There are some dangers in negotiation, however. It is a human process which pits personalities against one another, and xhe stronger pazty usually wins. Communities with in- sufficient professional skills in PUD design may be taken advantage of by developers who know much more than they do and can overwhelm them with information they are not qualified to evaluate. Conversely, developers are some- times taken advantage of by heavy-handed local officials who have density bonuses and site plan approvals on their side. Unreasonable demands are sometimes made of de- velopers, but they tend to comply in order co receive project approval. Over 60 per cent of xhe developers sur- veyed stated that-xhey aze occasionally required to provide some facility. or meet some development criteria which are nor specifically required in the local ordinances. But ordinances, especially PUD ordinances, cannot cover every possible item relaxed to a particulaz development pro- posal. Much negotiation already occurs under conventional sell-regulating ordinances. Planners and public officials should, however, be aware of the implications of the bar- gaining choices chey are making and the public interests they must guazd. Waznings about the possibilities fur mis- judgment, abuse, and corruption through increased adminis- trative discretion in the development process cannot be overstressed. The above discussion reflects the feelings of many planners and developers that negotiation is a fact of life. Yet, chey and we have a feeling of discomfort and wish for better guidelines for negodaring. Unfortunately, except for eemmmending strict procedural guidelines which we hope can result in open discussions, few meaningful guidelines' about subsxantive design issues can be offered. Perhaps none can ever be offered. The basic problem is that the legal rationale underlying police power is difficult to relate to questions of urban _ design which is highly a matter of subjective taste. (Compare, for example, what urban design and architectural criticism in the press and in design juries would be like if only questions of health and safety could be discussed.) As will be discussed below under legal aspects of PUD, the issue of negotiation, per se, has not been addressed to any great extent. Perhaps this is because the two pazties to negotiations-local government and the developer-have not felt their interests to be hurt enough to litigate. This, of course, begs the question of third party interests: the public. How should it view its interests when at public hearings the public's elected and appointed officials seem to be cozy partners with a developer? What took place at all those preapplication conferences? ~Vho agreed to what? Clearly, professional planners and officials must ap- proach negotiation with the utmost caution and humility. The "wheeling and dealing" can be heady stuff. PUD is a development project comprehensively planned via a unitary site plan having building sting flexibility and a mixture of housng types. Professional planners, lay commissioners, and public oFficials have often been accused of having a less than thorough understanding of the economics of the housing and land development markets. This point was repeatedly stressed in interviews with developers during the field re- search. Consequently, we included several questions on the "economics-of PUD" in the survey. There was common agreement on many points, but also some differences of opinion- One basic notion is that higher densities always mean higher profits. There is simply more money to be made if more dwelling units can be built on a pazticular parcel of land. All other things being equal, this is true and happens in many PUDs. However, in many other PUDs profits are not higher. Three-fottrths of the developers responded that the economies of scale in PUD did result in cos[ savings over conventional development practices. But 46.2 per cent found PUD profits roughly equivalent with those of con- ventional developmenu; 11.5 per cent found them less profitable. Most ~ developers stated that cost savings do occur through the PUD process from such things as reduced infra- structure costs (e.g., reduced lengths of streets and utility systems possible with flexible site designs and clustering), lower unit costs due to higher densities, and higher turnover rates (meaning shorter mazketing periods which reduce sales costs and carrying charges while increasing cash flows). SGghtl}' less than half of the developers seated that these savings enabled them to produce lower cost housing; 57 per cent of the planners responding also agreed. But while such savings are common to PUDs, there are frequently offsetting costs which keep them from being passed on to the developers in the form of higher profits, or the consumers in the form of lower housing costs. One- fourth of the developers stared that virtually all of the cost savings obtained from such economies of scale were plowed back into their developments in the forms of increased costs for interest on borrowed money, planning and design, processing, and project amenities such as recreational facili- tiesand increased ]andscaping. Many developers stressed the increased costs of designing PUDs. One stared: "A much higher degree and completeness of architectural and land- scape planning is mandatory in PUD. Processing time is taro to three times longer. Every phase of the professional work is far more complex and time consuming." Planners seemed awaze of the basic economics of the PUD process in most cases. They generally agreed that many offsetting costs were intoned in the PUD process, and lower-cost housing was not guaranteed. However, many of them disagreed with developers on the economics of processing times. Lengthy public processing of PUD appli- cations is viewed as a major problem by developers. They argue that it slows them down and costs them money in staff, overhead, and carrying chazges. However, 65 per cent of the planners responded that faster PUD application processing would not significantly reduce developer's costs. One of them stated: "The bulk of the developer's time is spent in his plan preparation, not city processitg."Another said: "Faster processing would be a benefit and a con- venience to the developer, but not a great cost reduction." Obviously, the quicker revenues are generated, the lower the costs incurred To the extent that processing lengthens the time between the beginning of project design and the generation of revenues, it does cost developers money. But how much or how significant this sum is in relation to their total design and planning costs was not determined. Nevertheless, it is, and has been, our impression that processing time for all development applications-nor just PUD-is ridiculously long in too many jurisdictions. 1Vhile it is true that developers may contribute to delay by not pro- viding the right information at the right time, local govern- ments are guilty of some bad practices. Too often, because they are uncertain of the details and implications of pro- posals, members of commissions and boards put off a deci- sion meeting after meeting. Clearly, the staffs serving these bodies have much more educating to do so they can carry out their duties with greater confidence and thus with more dispatch. In addition, many hearing bodies meet too in- frequently, sometimes only once a month. In rapidly developing areas weekly meetings should be reasonable. Changes in consumer demand and cattes over the Last decade hace been an important factor in the popularity of planned unit developments. Chapter 3. basic Ordinance Mechanics Zoning Techniques Choosing an appropriate zoning technique for PUD will depend on a number of things, including existing state statures and local ordinances, the organizational structure of local government, and, to some extent, the preferences of local legislaxors. The ramifications of some of these facxors will be discussed later in the report in the legal section. Beyond these fundamental limitations, the critical vaziables in choosing an appropriate regulatory technique are land use and development density. Cluster Option. If the community contemplates no change of use or density permitted by xhe existing regula- tions, and seeks only to transfer densities within a project xhrough the relaxation of mnventional lot and building bulk controls, the community may implement this policy by simply amending eaisiing -district regulations xo permit such density transfer or "cluster subdivisions" as of right. In any district amended in this fashion, the developer has the option of choosing either conventional or cluster de- velopmenx; the laxxer requiring no special permission from xhe local legislative body. In either case, however, project plans aze subject to review and approval by the planning commission under the subdivision ordinance. The local legislative body will have amended the subdivision regula- tions to include standards and criteria governing cluster sub- division review. The significant point is thax the legislative body has established general policies regarding density transfer-the zoning districts in which they aze permitted and the- criteria against which individual projects will be judged-and subsequently its role becomes passive, as the regulatory function assumes a primarily administrative character. One ordinance reviewed in this study permitted density transfer of this type in all districts: PUD-1, Density Transfer Developments may permit the transfer of density (dwelling un_ its) from one portion of xhe tract to another, and will permit [he clustering of dwelling units in one or more locations upon the tract. The uses permitted within the PUD-1 development shag be the same as those permitted in the zoning district in which it is located. The PUD-1 shall be considered a `.`use by right" in all districts and shall not require a zone change, but shall be subject to all other applicable pro- visions of this ordinance. The application of a PUD-1 development shall result in a permitted number of dwell- ing units w~tich shall in no case exceed the nttmbex which could be permitted, in the Planning Commission's judgment, if the land were subdivided into lots conform- ing to the minimum lot size and density requirements of the zoning districts or districts in which the land is sixuated. Locating PUD in the Zoning Ordinance. The PUD process we have focused on in xhis report usually encom- passes more than the simple density transfer described above. Among the more obvious additional elements found in PUD are: mixed uses, density bonuses, and relaxed public improvement standards granted in return for betxer design, more open space, and higher project amenixy levels. These objectives berg often involve substantial departures from previous policy decisions as expressed by existing zoning district regulations. Multipie-family and commercial uses may be proposed where the present zoning designation is single family; and ix is almost axiomatic that the pro- posed densities will be greater than existing zoning would permit. The conventional legal rubric for local government func- tions would label changes of such degree legislative in character, requiring action by the local legislative body. Considering xhe reality of much suburban zoning, where the wait-and-see, low-density disxricting of vacant land evi- dences litxle in the way of a public decision aboux future use or density, we might quibble about the value of this legislative/administrative distinction regarding zoning changes, i.e., m xhe absence of any zoning policy, every change is xhe policy. Nevertheless, we do believe that in- dividual PUD proposals raise sufficiently important developmenx issues in most communities that action by the legislative body is necessary. Therefore, the ordinance drafter will find ix necessary to locate the basic elements of PUD approval and review in the zoning ordinance with its direct concern with use and density questions. There were so many varying approaches, so many nuances of structure and technique among the ordinances surveyed, that we found it impossible to draw any quantifi- able conclusions about xhe ways in which respondents im- plemented PUD in their zoning ordinances. Two basic approaches, however, did emerge from this generally con- fusing picture. PUD as a Separate Za Wing District. In the first of these nvo approaches, used by over one-third of xhe respondents, the community adds a_ new districx to its ordinance, xhe PUD zone. Unlike conventional zoning districts, this PUD district is not located on the zoning map, but would be affixed to particular parcels only after application by the developer and approval by a designated public body. In this respect the PUD district is akin to what is commonly re- ferred to in zoning parlance as a "floating zone." Moreover, ordinance language describing the PUD district does not sex down the rigid area and bulk restrictions characteristic of conventional zoning districts. Instead it describes a pro- cedure for a: public review of the developer's plans. The print"ipal identifying- chazacteristic of this approach is that public approval of the PUD takes the form of as ametid- ment of [he zoning ordinance. Beyond this point, generalizations about the approach of PUD as a separate zoning district are difficult xo make.lYith respect to use and density considerations, there is much variation. At one end of the spectrum, language describing the PUD district is superimposed. If the developer desires different uses or gceaxer densities than permitted by exist- ing zoning, he must simultaneously seek rezoning of the underlying district. In another variation, language describ- ing the PUD district itself contains use and density para- meters within which the developer and the approving agency negotiate. Or the PUD district regulations may be silent on the question, leaving it entirely up to the review and approval process. Where the existing district regulations aze not vacated by the superimposed PUD district, the planning commission may be able to approve the PUD designation, as well as review and approve the developer's plans. But in most of the ordinances surveyed which followed the separate dis- trict approach, [he zone change to PUD required legislative action, even°though such action usually followed at least preliminary planning commission review of the application. The essence of the PUD district approach is an amendment of the zoning ordinance based on an essentially administra- tive f`uiiaion of site plan review. This is a logical choice, since under typical state enabling legislation the planning commission already has the task of administering subdivi- sion regulations, and the commission may have a profes- sional staff to assist it in the more technical aspects of PUD review. The PUD "overlay zone" is one variant of the PUD dis- trict approach used by a few communities. Unlike the "floating zone," it is located on the community's zoning map when enacted by the legislative body. Uses and den- sities may be determined by [he underlying zoning designa- tion, or the overlay provisions may alter them. The im- portant distinction, however, is that for the developer whose land is affected by the overlay, PUD is no longer an optional development method; it is mandatory. This tech- nique is usually applied to areas with special topographical features the development of which requires substantial vari- ation from conventional lot area and bulk regulations, even though basic use and density restrictions remain valid. PUD as a Special or Conditional Use. The second of the two major approaches-again followed by approximately one-third of the communities responding to our question- naire-is to treat PUD as a special use, special exception, or conditional use (all three devices are treated as essentially the same thing for the purposes of this report). In this approach, PUDs are permitted as special uses in designated zoning districts by including PUD among other special uses listed in the individual district regulations. Thus, a de- veloper can consult the zoning ordinance and then deter- mine on the zoning map where, subject to public approval, PUDs may be located. Approval of an individual PUD project requires planning rnmmission and/or local governing body action. In almost 60 per cent of the ordinances reviewed which used the special use approach, the legislative bodies were given final approval power for PUDs. This is probably due in part to the fact that many state enabling acts do not confer the authority xo grant special use permits on planning commis- sions. Planning commissions, despite unclear authority, granted permits in many other cases, often with referrals to the legislative body only on appeal. Primarily because of other restrictive language in state enabhng acts some ordi- nances assign the task of approving special uses, lilce vari- ances, to the board of zoning appeals. This seems an in- appropriate choice. The board of appeals is aquasi-judicial body, making case-by-case decisions on the basis of a strict hardship standard. R is difficult to accommodate the boazd's normal functions to the flexibility objectives of the PUD process. Coordinating Regulatory Devices Any planner who has worked with large complex de- velopment projects soon realizes the basic silliness of our traditional method of separating development controls so- that some appear in zoning ordinances and some in land subdivision regulations. Ideally all communities should have unified development ordinances. ($ee F.H. Bair, Jr., Special Public Interest Distrito: A Multipurpose Zoning Device, Planning Advisory Service Repott No. 287 [Chicago: ASPO, 1973] .) However, stnce the vast majority of jurisdic- tions still have separate ordinances, we believe that the zoning ordinance is the appropriate location for PUD regu- lations. Three-fourths of the regulations surveyed were found there. However, PUDs which subdivide land into lots automatically become subject xo two different regulatory devices. Wherever this is likely to occur, the PUD applica- tion procedure should be made as simple and uncompli- cated as possible by coordinating the two regulations. Sub- diJision and PUD review should be conducted simul- taneously in one single review process by the planning com- mission and may be achieved simply by including a state- ment in the PUD ordinance to thaz effect. One ordinance includes a coordinating settion which reads as follows: - - Coordination with Subdivision Regulation Ordinance A. It is the intent of this ordinance that subdivision review under the subdivision control ordinance be cazried out simultaneously with the review of a Planned Unit Development under this section of the zoning ordi- nance. B. The development plans submitted under subsection _ of this section must: be submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the subdivision control ordinance for preliminazy and final plats. _ _ C. The requirements for both this section of the zoning ordinance and those of the subdivision regulations shall apply to all Planned Unit Developments, and all actions of the City Council pertaining to Planned Unit Develop- ments shall be based upon a recommendation by the Planning Commission. For greater clarity, some PUD ordinances are cross- - - referenced to portions of the subdivision regulations wherever they are applicable. Over half of the ordinances we reviewed did this to varying extents. Some agencies have - to prepued regulatory "packets" or manuals containing the two regulations and explaining their interrelationships to developers. This is especially helpful when large numbers of out-of-town developers are working in a particular com- munity. As stated above, whenever communities are starting from scratch, or overhauling existing systems, they should consider drafting a single, comprehensive land development ordinance, containing all regulatory devices in one central location. We asked planners if they considered this idea useful and 57 per cent disapproved. However, most of them qualified this opinion by stating chat they were too locked into their existing routine xo change it. The advantages of clarity and convenience in a unified development ordinance were considered too mazginal for xhe level of confusion it would cause for those familiar with existing methods. Purpose Clauses Purpose clauses (or intent statements, as they are some- times called) help to explain xhe objectives of a PUD ordi- nance. They also provide a statement of policy which may sex've as a useful guide to those administering the ordinance. Such clauses generally address the common elements or chazacteristics of a good PUD such as design flexibility, the mixture of housing opportunities, efficient c-uculation, and the preservation of open space and natural features. They should be limited to statements of principles and objectives, without substantive requirements of any kind. One purpose clause included the following objectives: :'(1) To promote flexibility in design and permit planned ' diversification in the location of structures; t (2) To promote xhe efficient use of land to facilitate a more economic-azrangement of buildings, circulation '~ systems, land use, and utilities; ~'i (3) To preserve to the greatest extenx possible the exist- , ing landscape features and amenities and to utilize such • features in a harmonious fashion; •~, (4) To provide foe more usable and suitably located recreation- facilities and other public and common facili- ties than would otherwise be provided under conven- tional land development procedures; (5) To mmbine and coordinate architectural styles, building forms and building relationships within the ~~ planned unit developments; and ~'i (~ To insure a quality of construction commensurate with other developments within the city. A more -mncise statement covering very similaz principles reads: - - - - The intent of the PUD regulations is co permit greater flexibility and, consequently, more creative and imagina- tive design for the development of residential areas than generally is possible under conventional zoning regula- tions. Ic is further intended to promote more economical and efficient use of the land while providing a har- monious variexy of housing choices, a higher level of urban amenities, and preservation of natural scenic quali- ties of open spaces. Some purpose clauses go further by stating procedural objectives, in addition to objectives for PUD products. For example: - - - - ...and to give the developer reasonable assurance of ultimate approval before expending complete design monies while providing city officials with assurances that the project will retain the characxer envisioned at the time ofconcurrence. Definitions A section of definitions near the beginning of a PUD ordinance is also useful for improved clarify. Sihce most zoning ordinances contain definition sections anyway, only terms unique to PUD need to be included. DeSnitions typically include terms such as nonresidential uses, home- owners' associations, common open space, private streets, net project area, and newer dwelling types not previously defined in other sections of the ordinance, such as paxio homes, town houses, and quadruplexes. Such terms are dis- cussed further in the vazious relevant portions of this report. Permitted Uses A PUD ordinance should contain a section dealing with permitted uses. In most ordinances, it is common to allow the uses permitted in the original zoning district by right. Accessory and additional uses may either be listed or per- mitted only on approval of the review authority. Some PUD ordinances specifically list all permissible uses, while a few go to the opposite extreme of permitting any uses deemed appropriate by [he review authority. Listing the uses allowed by right with provisions for approving addi- tional uses based upon site plan review seems the most sensible approach since it provides the developer with some guidance at the outset and also leaves room for the needed flexibility. Many PUD ordinances allow mukifamily dwellings by right but a few go further by specifying the particular types of dwelling units which may be mixed in a PUD. However, chis seems like an unnecessary control and should probably be left to the developer to decide what is marketable. Besides, whatever uses are permitted, they will be subject to the standards and criteria listed in the PUD ordinance and to the final approval of the review authority. One ordinance states chis in the following manner: Any use permitted in RA-3 District of this ordinance shall be permitted in a PUD subject to xhe criteria established in Section _of this ordinance. No use shall be permitted except in conformity with a specific and precise Final Development Plan pursuant to the pro- cedural and regulatory provisions hereinafter set fortlL Nonresidential uses like convenience commercial are per- mitted in a few PUD ordinances by right, usually to the "extent that they are to be designed or intended for the use of the residents of the planned unit development." how- ever, 70 per cent of the ordinances reviewed allowed com- mercial and other nonresidential uses only upon approval. Wherever nonresidential uses aze included in a pre- dominantly residential PUD, they should be subject to specific standards, as discussed in Chapter 5. Ownership Requirements Most PUD ordinances require the applicant co meet ownership qualifications which address one or both of the following questions: First, must the applicant be the owner of the land at the time of application, or is it sufficient that he acquire xitle before final approval? Second, will multiple owners be permitted to apply2 Frequently a prospective 11 PUD developer will acquire options to purchase land for his project, with actual transfer of ownership contingent on preliminary public approval of the developer's plans. The public interest is sufficiently protected if the ordinance requires that the developer demonstrate a substantial con- tractual interest in the land as a prerequisite for filing an application for PUD approval For example, one ordinance provides: An application for approval of a PUD may be filed by a person having an interest in the property to be included in the planned unit. The PUD applications shall be filed in the name or names of the recorded owner or owners of property included in the development. However, the applications may be filed by holder(s) of an_ equitable interest in such property. Such a provision must be complemented b}' a further requirement that the applicant evidence a full ownership interest in the land-legal title or the execuxion of a binding sales agreement-before final approval of his plan. A related problem arises where several owners of adjoin- ing property wish to- make a joint application for PUD approval [n this situation there is always the possibility that one of the owners may become insolvent, or for other reasons withdraw from the project. Assuming the other owners are unable to purchase xhat land, the project may be left dangling. Because of this possibility and the difficulty of creating legally binding agreements among the owners affecting the future use of their land, the community should require thax the project be in single ownership by the time the final development plan is approved. Availability of Public Services In addition to ownership requirements, ordinances in- creasingly include requirements on xhe availability of public services at developmenx sites. PUD approvals aze not granted unless such facilities as waxer, sewer lines, and high- ways exist in-sufficient quantity to service the proposed new developmenx, or unless the developer is willing to in- stall them at his own expense. (Actually, the installation of such facilities is frequenxly a key issue in negotiations) A PUD ordinance including such a statement reads as follows: Relation to Major Transportation Facilities-PUD dis- tricts shall be so located with respect to major streets and highways_ or other transportation facilities as to pro- vide direct access to such districts without creating traffic along minor streets in residential neighb_o_rho_ods outside such districts. Relation to Utilities, Public Facilities-PUD districts shall be so located in relation to sanitary sewers, water lines, storm and surface drainage systems, and other utilities systems and installations that neither extension nor enlargement of such systems will be required in manner, form, character, location, degree, scale, or timing resulting in higher net public cost or earlier incur- sion of public cost-than would development in a form generally permitted in the area. Such districts shall be so located with respect to schools, pazks, playgrounds, and other public facilities required as to have access in the same degree as wovid development in a form generally permitted in the azea. However, if developers will (a) provide private utilities, facilitie§, or services approved by the public agencies which would normally provide such utilities, facilities, or services as substituting on an equivalent basis, and assure their satisfactory continuing operation and maintenance permanently or until equivalent public utilities, facilities, or services aze available, or (b) make provision accept- able to the county for off-setting any added net pubhc cost or early commitment of public funds necessitated by such development, the Location of the PUD district may be approved. In any computations of added net public costs, the difference in anticipated public installa- tion, operation, and maimenance costs, and the differ- ence in anticipated public revenue shall be given due consideration, among other pertinent factors. Costs for making such determinations, as may be required above, shall be paid by applicants. The determinations shall be made by the county or by experts acceptable xo the county. Processing Fees At the time of formal application for a PUD (which may include a zone change application) a filing fee is often re- quired. The purpose of such fees is to help defray costs of reviewing PUD proposals. Such fees have been upheld by the courts when they reasonably reflect the actual costs of review. They cannot, however, be used as revenue collet tion devices. Methods of calculating such application fees vary. The same fee that is required for filing a zoning amendment or subdivision- application is used in many cases. Other agencies require the mning amendment fee and an addi- tional fee to cover substantive PUD review. However, most ordinances lump both fees into one, based on a variety of assessment techniques. Over 75 per cent of the respondents required single flat filing fees ranging from $50 to $S00 to be paid by one and all, regardless of the size of the develop- ment proposed. Others used sliding scales above a minimum base amount, vazying according to the number of acres to dwelling units included in the project. This latter method is more equitable and distributes the msts of review more fairly among applicants. Planners should be careful when making the distinction between acres and dwelling unitsas bases for sliding scales since they will often produce quite different results depending on the intensity of develop- ment. 12 Chapter 4. Site Plan Review Procedures Basic Principles Fundamental to the PUD process is site plan review. It is the major tool used to implement the objectives of PUD and may also be required to substantiate the zone change associated with PUD approval, as well as for applicable pro- visions of the subdivision ordinance. All PUD ordinances should crontain procedural guidelines which spell out the various steps in the review process. A number of basic prin- ciples should be observed when designing such guidelines: Badanced Representatdon. There are three basic groups of actors in the PUD process: the developer submitting the application for a PUD project-and his clients; the public review authority usually represented by the professional planning staff, the planning commission, legislative bodies, and other agencies and departments of local government; and the general pubGe-those people who reside in the area of the proposed new development, consumers in the housing market, and other interested citizens. Care must be taken to assure that each of these groups receives a fair opportunity to participate in the review process without abusing the interests of the others. For example, the process of the preapplication conference should not be a vehicle to hide actions from the public. On the other hand, one of the most sensitive portions of the review process is the public hearing, especially when the proposed develop- ment is controversial. While xhe public must be given fair opportunity to participate in the review -process, this process must not be allowed to get bogged down through excessive public hearings a[ different stages of xhe process. Developers should be required to present comprehensive substantive project information to the public at one major hearing (with continuances if necessary). Bura multiple- s[ep review process need not involve public hearings at each stage, unless the concept of the proposal has changed sub- stantially during review. Effieiency. Another key concept in designing a PUD re- view procedure is efficiency. Detailed review of complex PUD applications cakes time: time of planning staffs; time of commissioners in public hearings; time for legislative ,actions; time of interested citizens; and time of developers in design work, presentations, redesign, and so on. Time costs money. The front end costs incurred by developers are high, and they may be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher housing costs. Staff review time rnsts a public plan- ning agency_ money, as well as using resources which could be allocated in alternative ways. - Efficient PUD review u therefore in the interest of all participants. However, thaz efficiency must never take precedence over the adequacy of review; there must be a balance between the two objectives. Review procedures must be sufficient to Eully evaluate subjective design ele- ments of PUD applications without creating unnecessary delays in administrative red tape, The ASPO survey questioned both planning agencies and developers about the length of time a PUD application spends in review. Table 3 on page 14 presents compari- sons of processing time between PUDs and conventional development as estimated by planners and developers. It is remarkable that only one out of three planners thinks PUDs are processed slower, while two out of three de- velopers think so. What is significant about this is that some developers might avoid using the PUD process-an unfor- tunate event in our opinion. Both groups were also asked to provide rough estimates of average processing time for PUD applications. In Table 4, the same pattern of differences in perception is evident. Although these figures are only rough estimates, they indi- cate that the typical PUD project takes somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 to-9 monffis to complete processing. Of course, this average will vary according to many factors, including the developer's level of preparedness, the effi- ciency of the public review process, the community reac- tion to the plan, the size and complexity of the project, and the available manpower to conduct review. There are some valid reasons for a longer processing time: more regulations, more attention to detail, more parties involved, vague substantive requirements, and, the concept itself is less well understood by aB parties in- volved. Also, if PUD involves a zone change and increased densities, this may require some policy changes in local government, as well as arouse community resistance to development, especially if PUD means apartments near or adjacent to existing single-family development. Since PUDs almost inevitably require more processing time than con- ventional developments, it is absolutely essential to stream- line review procedures. One suggestion uncovered during the study was to pro- mote PUD as a development alternative by speeding up the processing time. This could be done by giving PUD applica- tions ahigher priority on the review docket. The assump- tion is that PUD is a sound, if not preferable, alternative to conventional lot-by-lot development, and should therefore be encouraged through greater efficiency of administration. 13 TABLE 3. Estimated Comparisons in Processing Time Between PUD and Conventional Development Plamters Per Cent Developers Per Cent Of Responses Of Responses PUDS are processed 2.2 - - - 6.8 significantly faster About the same 64.7 24.4 PUDs aze processed 33.1 68.8 significantly slower Tonal Responses 100A 100.0 TABLE 4. Estimated Processing Time fur PUD Applications Planners Per Cent Developers Per CRnT Of Responses Of Responses Less than 3 months 23.4 12.4 3--5 months 49.4 a2.a B - 8 months 12.4 22,2 9 - l1 months 8.6 8.8 12 months or more 6.2 33.4 Total Responses 100.0 100.0 No ordinances or agencies surveyed in this study took this approach. On the contrary, some agencies appear to have taken the opposite tack by making procedural requirements so complex that only the most determined developer would attempt to go the PUD route in developing his land. Roles in the Review Process. Authors of PUD ordinances must make some decisions about the roles that different actors will play in the review process. The parties involved include the public agency planning staff, other professionals from related departments or agencies-engineering, a[tor- ney's office, public works, police and fire, aaffic control, and parks and recreation; the planning commission or board, including zoning boards, and subdivision review committees; and the local legislative body-city council, board of supervisors. Each of these groups has a definite role to play, but there u not widespread agreemen[ on just how [here roles should be defined. For example, some PUD ordinances involve legislative bodies in detailed substantive review, nor leaving legislators to merely decide policies and pass laws which is their intended function. Local circumstances will have a major effect on how various roles will evolve in the PUD process but some guiding principles should be stated nevertheless. The profes sional planning staff should be involved in the substantive review of all proposals from [heir inception, in assisting the developer to understand substantive ordinance require- ments and policies, and in providing technical review assis- tance to the planning commission. Where pmfessional plan- ning staffs do not exist, outside expertise must be obtained to provide technical consultation and evaluation. In some cases, the role of the professional staff has been cazried a step funher. Several of the ordinances reviewed vest limited approval authority with the planning director for some types of projects. Authority has been vested in professional staff primarily-when major policy decisions were not in- volved. This approach presents no problem where adminis- trative guidelines and policies need little interpretation. For example, cluster developments and density transfer systems which require no zoning changes could easily be handled in this manner. Bur where policy questions arise, appeals or call-up procedures may be used to initiate higher level reviews. Since the planning commission is traditionally author- ized to review the subdivision plats which often accompany PUD applications and to conduct rezoning hearings as well, it is logical for them to conduct the major substantive review and hold a public hearing on the PUD application. The planning commission is the official body which should conduct substantive design review of all PUD applications, with the assistance of the planning staff and skilled design consultants. This point is purposely made several times in this report. A lay body must have the professional assis- tance of a design specialist in reviewing a PUD. Advice from a generalist planner is not enough. Our field work revealed that developers who spend thousands of dollars on archi- tects and landscape architects become furious when laymen or non-design professionals begin to "tinker" and "play" at being a "designer for a day." The role of the legislative body is to establish policy and conduct legislative acts. This includes zone changes related to PUD, ordinances and amendments, accepting public dedications and final plan documents. While they must often approve the actions of the planning commission, legis- lative bodies should not get bogged down in substantive review of individual projects. Where there are many PUD applications, they will not have the time, but in many smaller communities there will be temptations fox legisla- tive bodies to conduct substantive review. It should be avoided. Ordinance Clarity. Ordinances are typically not very readable documents, and some of their authors may not want ahem to be. However, after reviewing over 100 sepaz- axe PUD ordinances in the course of this study, we strongly encourage ordinances which clearly spell out review pro- cedures in a clear, step-by-step manner. This means pre- senting procedural seeps and submission requirements in outline form. Often it is helpful, especially in more com- plicated procedural processes, to provide developers with procedural guidelines and diagrams, indicating xhe steps they must go through and the materials and presentations necessazy at each step of the way. Some communities even publish procedural manuals explaining development policies. Recommended Procedure The ASPO study uncovered a wide range of pro ceduml alternatives in PUD ordinances. They ranged along a com- plexity continuum from aone-step process in which the planning director had approval powers (with the planning commission and city council only involved on appeals), to a four-step process involving xhe planning staff, the planning commission, the zoning board, and the legislative body, with public hearings ax almost every step of the way. Obviously, review procedures will vary from one com- munity to another according to such things as existing ordi- nances with which they must be integrated and state enabling legislation. The zoning mechanisms used for PUDs-floating zone, preestablished districts, special use permits-will also dexermine the form of the review process. In smaller communities, it seems likely that the legislative body, and some ke}' city officials such as the mayor or city manager, will want to play a more detailed role in the re- view process. Larger cities under heavy development pres- la sores may experience heavier review loads and be forced to delegate review functions downwazd as much as possible. No one model can possibly fit all such circumstances. How- ever, this report recommends a single basic model [o serve as the fundamental mre of most of procedural situations. A report by Daniel Mandelker, Controlling Planned Resi- dential Development, published by ASPO in 1966, and now out of. print, presented afour-step review process which included. (1) a preapplication conference; (2) an outline developmenx plan stage to be conducted at xhe developer's option; (3) a preliminary development plan stage, and (4) a £nal development plan stage. This model has been adopted by a number of planning agencies, and several important poinxs have been learned from its application. The primary one regards the point at which an official zoning change is granted. Mandelker recommended that the zoning change follow the approval of xhe outline development plan. However, many local governments aze highly proactive of their zone change powers, preferring to grant it lacer in the review process, tifren not until after approval of the final development plan. This deviation from Mandelker's original model negates the necessity for sap two since its purpose was to provide the local government with just enough information about the proposed developmenx to rake legis- lative action on the zoning request for the parcel. When this approach is taken, the only remaining function of step two is to give the developer some formal feedback on his pro- ject. In some ordinances, such feedback takes the form of tentative approval, so noted on the zoning map. However, tentative approval is not legally binding and merely gives the developer the green light for investing further in his plans. Those ordinances which did grant the zone change based upon the findings of the outline development plan actually were in danger of raking this legislazive action too early is xhe review process. It was felt that some ordinances did nor require sufficient information about the proposed PUD to make a sound decision-at this stage in the review process. Requiring- further submission -materials in this step, however, would make it too similar to the preliminary plan requirements to merit iu necessity. -, _~ This study, therefore, recommends a xhree-step review I process: (1) a preapplication conference; (2) a preliminary ,- development plan; and (3) a final development plan. - We suggest a more formalized detailed preapplication conference designed to inform the developer of the local government's regulations and policies concerning deveIop- ment alternatives and to inform the local government of the developer's intentions, enough to be able to give him some informal, nonbinding feedback on the accepxability of his ideas. The second step is a preliminazy development plan .stage requiring enough information from the developer to permit Legislative action on any zoning changes necessary. The final development plan stage requires further, more detailed information from the developer, and 'formal acceptance of dedicated properties or streets will be per formed at this stage. While this process will not meex the needs of all local govemmenu involved in PUD, we consider it to be sound in both principle and subsxanxive procedure, and it should be a useful model for the majority of _ _ communixies. preapplication Conference. The preapplication confer ence in PUD has not traditionally been a formalized, required sap. It has generally consisted of an optional 15 This planned unit developmenx iri Connecticut features a trail and path system connetting individual condominium units and dusxer groupings. meeting between the developer and the planning staff in which they each got a sense of each other's intentions. We believe that communities should seriously consider making the preapplication nfer~n~g-a;mand~ scep in the review process; few developers would commit any substan- tial resources to a PUD plan until meeting with local authorities anyway. The meeting is primarily an informa- tion exchange which gives the developer an oppottunity to sit down with xhe planning staff (and possibly other local officials from related departmenu and agencies) and discuss his range of options concerning the development of a particular piece of property. The developer not only informs the local government of his development concept but he geu some feedback on their feelings about land use, density, and other basic policy issues. The planning staff gets an opportunity to familiarize the developer with the local PUD process, explaining what requirements he has co meet, what issues he should consider in his planning, and an opinion of how the review authori[y may react to his proposal. It must be made clear that state- ments made in a preapplication conference are not legally binding commitments but are merely informed reactions to development proposals which should guide developers in preparing preliminary plans. A standardized preapplication conference should speed up the ensuing review process. The planning agency would gain knowledge about whaz the developers want to do and the developer would gain an understanding of what will be required of him-xo develop a parcel under the PUD provi- sions. Akey factor in mutual understanding and-speed of review will be the extent to which both developer and community have had previous experience with PUD. Below is an example of an ordinance provision regarding the preapplication conference: To obtain information, each applicant shall confer with the director of planning and interested department heads ~'. in connection with the preparation of the planned unit development application. It shall be the responsibility of the planning director to contact and invite these depart- ' ment heads to a joint meeting. The general outlines of -- 1 the proposal, evidenced schematically by sketch plans, are to be considered before submission of the planned unit development application. Thereafter the director of planning shag furnish the applicant with his wri[ten comments- regarding such conference, including appro- priate recommendations to inform and as§ist the appli- cant prior--to his preparing the components of the planned unit development application. The preapplication conference can be a more efficient- coordinating device, allowing other governmental depart- menu and agencies to be included in the preapplication conference. Over 90 per cent of the agencies surveyed stated that they routinely involved other governmental departments in the preapplication conference. Some plan- ning agencies form a preapplication conference team which routinely conducts this function. Such teams often include several members of the planning staff, especially those with site design expertise, and others from relaxed departments such as engineering; public works, trafFic, police and fire, and parks and recreation. An ordinance provision following such a procedure appears below: There is hereby created a Planning Coordinating Com- mittee composed of the Planning Director (Chairman), Director of Public Works, Director of Building & Safety, Fire Chief, or their authorized representatives, and any ocher department representative as requested by the Chairman. Before filing any application for a Planned Unit Development, the prospective applicant shall submit to the Planning Coordinating Committee prelim- inary plans and sketches and basic site information for consideration and advice as to the relation of the pro- posal to general developmental objectives to be attained in the area and as to the policies o-f the Commission and Council with reference thereto. Another ordinance provision requires that the preapplica- tion conference involve the planning commission as well. There should be no particular requirements for submis- sion of materials and plans by a developer at a preappli- cation conference. However, the more information-sketch plans, land uses, site information, adjacent land uses, pro- posed density-the developer has, the more feedback he may get from the conference. In addition, the more formalized the nature of the information the community has available at such a conference, the further both parties can proceed at this stage. It is helpful for local governments to prepare printed procedural guidelines including a check- list of submission requirements for various stages of the review process: Ordinance provisions and subdivision regula- tions should be explained together and cross referenced at this step of the process. The developer should be informed of all the necessary requirements he must meet; he should be given forms and application materials, guidelines, check- lists, and, if necessary, copies of zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations pertaining to his particular proposal The greater the level of common understanding between the developer and the local government that can be achieved at the preapplication conference stage, the smoother the remaining steps of the review process will be. A single, formalized conference as recommended here will not be the only contact between the developer and the community prior to the submission o£ a formal PUD appli- cation. It is likely that a developer may meet with planning staff -several times during the course of his early project planning. however, regardless of the extent to which such informal communications occur, a systematized preapplica- tion conference should be required as the first step in xhe site plan review process. Preliminary Development Plan. The preliminary develop- ment plan stage is the most critical step in this three-step review- process. It is xhe point at which major substantive review of the proposed PUD takes place, and recommenda- tions are made on any necessary zoning changes, where applicable. Finally, it is the lay citizen's only chance for a major response through a public hearing. This step is initiated by [he developer through the submission of a formal application for a PUD (which will also include an application for a zone change when rele- vant). If subdivision regulations are involved, preliminary subdivision plans should also be reviewed at this stage. This can generally be done simultaneously with other reviews of the same project, since it is usually the planning commis- sion that reviews them both. Where zoning changes are not needed, such as in cases of rnnditional use permits, this step is still important as it gives xhe developer a forma] reaction from the review authorit}', without investing great sums i_n [he final development plan process. Formal PUD application should be made to the planning commission or similar review body through the professional planning staff. Staff members should review the proposed I6 PUD in detail and convey their findings and recommenda- tions in writing to the planning commission prior to the scheduled public hearing. Where there is no professional planning staff, consultants should be retained to assist in evaluating the application. (In some areas county or metropolitan planning agencies can provide such technical assistance.) Ordinances should place time limits for profes- sional staff review and should also specify the minimum and maximum number of days that may elapse between the application date and the date on which the application shall be placed on the planning commission's agenda for a public hearing. The heazing on the proposed PUD should be announced in accordance with notification and announce- ment procedures in the zoning ordinance and as required by state law. Time limits are commonly placed on the review author- ifies requiring-that proposals be reviewed and actions taken with a specified time-usually between 30 and 90 days. Failure to comply results in automatic approval of the proposed development. Ordinances should allow for contin- uation of public hearings since the size of a particular project or-.the local review load may be so high that a pazticular proposal cannot be sufficiently dealt with in one hearing. Time limits should also be placed on such review continuations. However, at this stage, review should not involve detailed trivial matters. _ _ Many PUDs will be subject to two regulatory devices: the PUD provisions-- of the zoning ordinance and the conventional subdivision regulations. Since it is a traditional function of the planning commission to review subdivision applications, PUD review should be conducted subject to the provisions of both regulations concurrently. In an effort to clarify PUD requirements, the two regulations should be formally cross referenced wherever necessary. Roughly 45 per cent of the ordinances reviewed in this study made some explicit attempt to interrelate the two regulatory devices.. A combined development ordinance once again makes great sense. One of the most important elements of the preliminary development plan stage is the list of documents, site plans, maps, etc., which the developer must submit in support of his PUD application. These materials form xhe basis of information upon which the review authority must make a decision. Due to the high cost of preparing such materials and doing the preliminary planning behind them, ordi- nances should require only those items which the review authority feels are necessary to make a commitment or .grant a, zoning change. We found that no two ordinances agree on the exact. contents of a list of submission requirements; however,-there are some basic ingredients which are essential. Submission requirements may be divided into two categories: (1) written statements and documents; and (2) site plans, drawings, maps, -and sketches. Whether or not they are divided into these two groups in the ordinance is essentially a matter of clarity and organization. The following items should be considered basic: (I) Written Documents - - (a) A legal description of the total site proposed for development, including a statement of present and proposed ownership and present and proposed zoning. (Some ordinances also require that the names and addresses of all owners of adjacent property be submit- ted as weI1J (b) A statement of planning objectives to be achieved by the PUD xhrough the particular approach proposed by the applicant. This statement shouki include a description of the character of the proposed develop- ment and the rationale behind the assumptions and choices made by the applicant. (This is a very important requiremenx. H forces the developer io "think out his intentions." Such a requirement is an attempt to place the burden of considering all feasible design alternatives on the shoulders of the developer-to force him to plan.) (c) A development schedule indicating the approximate date when construction of the PUD or stages of the PUD can be expected to begin and be completed. (d) A statement of the applicant's intentions with regard to the future selling or leasing of all or portions of Che PUD, such as land areas, dwelling units, etc. (e) Quantitative data for the following: total number and type of dwelling units; parcel size; proposed lot coverage of buildings and structures; approximate gross and net residential densities; total amount of open space (including a separate figure for usable open space); total amount of nonresidential construction (including a sepazate figure for commercial or instituxional facilities); economic feasibility studies or market analysis where necessary; and other studies as requ'ued by the review authority. (2) Site Pian and Support¢ng Maps. A site plan and any maps necessary to show the major details of the proposed PUD must contain. the following minimum information: (a) The existing site conditions including contours at _ foot intervals (depending on local topographic condi- tions), waxer course, -flood plains, unique natural fea- tures, -and forest cover. (Some ordinances require more detail in this section such as the inclusion of isolated trees of a given number of inches or more in diameter.) (b) Proposed lot lines and plot designs. (c) The location and floor area size of all existing and proposed buitdings, structures, and other improvements including maximum heights, types of dwelling units, density per type, and nonresidential structures, including commercial facilities. (Some ordinances require prelimi- nary evaluations and/or architeMUral renderinQS of typi- cal structures and improvements. Such drawings should be sufficient to relay the basic architectural intent of the proposed improvements, but should not be encumbered with final detail at -this stage. (Our field research indicated that developers are increasingly including such information as a matter of course, whether required to or not.) (d) The location and size in acres or square feet of all areas to be conveyed, dedicated, or reserved as common open spaces, public parks, recreational areas, school sites, and similaz public and semipublic uses. (e) The existing and proposed circulation system of arterial, collector, and local streets including off-street parking areas, service areas, loading areas, and major points of access to public rights-of-way (including major points of ingress.~and egress to the development). Notations of proposed ownership-public or private- should be included where appropriate. (Detailed engi- 17 neering drawings of cross sections and street standards should be handled in the final development plan stage.) (f) The ,existing and -proposed pedestrian circulation system, including its interrelationships with the vehicular circulation system, indicating proposed treatments of points of conflict. (g) The existing and proposed utility systems including sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and water, electric, gas, and telephone Gnes. - (h) A general landscape plan indicating the treatment of materials used for private and common open spaces. (The landscape plan should be in general schematic form at this stage. Some ordinances require a grading plan as well.) (i) Enough information on ]and areas adjacent to [he proposed PUD to indicate the relationships between the proposed development and existing and proposed adja- cent areas, including land uses, zoning classifications, densities, circulation systems, public facilities, and unique natural features of the landscape. (j) The proposed treatment of the perimeter of the PUD, including materials and techniques used such as screens, fences, and walls. (k) Any additional information as required by the review authority necessary to evaluate the chazacter and impact of the proposed PUD. (Such information should be kepi to a minimum and not required at this stage in the.review process unless it is considered essential to the derision of approving the general intent and chazactCr of the development and for purposes of granting zoning changes.) This information must be submitted for all of the land intended to be included in the application. Where projects are developed in stages, formal application can only be considered for the stage for which the above materials have been presented. Sketch plans including the bare essentials- land uses, densities, site design, adjacent uses, circulation- should be submitted for the remaining lands to be developed in future stages of the project even though they are not under consideration for approval at this time. At the public hearing held by the planning commission, the developer presents his proposal. The review authority should have before it the recommendations ofthe planning staff or-consultants, who should also be present during the heazings. The commission must rake into consideration the information presented by the developer, the recommenda- tiotssaf the planning staff, and the viewpoints of the public expressed ax the hearing. After weighing all the evidence, the commission musx take formal action in writing, either approving the plan as presented, approving it subject to certain specified modifications,-or disapproving it. If a zoning change is required, the findings of the planning commission must be submitted ro Che legislative body for action at the next regulazly scheduled meeting. The legislative body musx weigh the evidence before it as related to the request for the zoning change. This inevitably results in some detailed questioning of the PUD proposal. However, it should be stressed that the role of the legislative body is to grant, grant with conditions, or deny the zone change, and not to get bogged down in substantive review of the PUD design itself. While such legislative meetings are open to the public, they should not be is considered formal public hearings as in the planning commission. The principle that administrative bodies should conduct public hearings rather than legislative bodies should be adhered to lilt spite of the fact that many d0 ROT). Approval of the preliminary development plan should result in the adoption of an ordinance changing the necessary caning. However, prelimitiazy plans approved subject to certain conditions presem a problem. Most legislative bodies prefer not to grant a zoning change in such situations. Some of them defer the zoning change until after final approval. For example: If the preliminary development plan is approved subject to modifications, the City Commission shall not amend the zoning map and no building permits may be issued on land within the Planned Unit Development until the final development plans fox the total project area have been approved by the Planning Commission. Another approach is to require the applicant to agree in writing to the conditions specified by the legislative body as conditional to the zone change before the actual change is made. If the preliminary development plan is approved with modifications, the Official Zoning Map shall not be amended until the applicant has filed with the County Board written consent to the Preliminary Development Plan as modified. When the cone change is made, it requires a formal designation to be made on the zoning map. At this point, most ordinances include a statement to the effect xhat such a map change does not constitute recording of a plat nor authorize the issuance of building permits. Only after the approval of the final development plan can such actions be taken. Following preliminary approval, the ordinance should specify some time Gmit within which the developer must present a final development plan for the PUD. Most ordinances allow a period of between six months to one year, usually with an option for an extension of an equal time period upon showing justifiable need. For example: Within a maximum of _ months following the approval of the preliminary development plan, the applicant shall file with the Planning Commission a final development plan containing in a final detailed form the information required in Section At its discretion and for good cause, the Planning Commission may extend for six (6) months the period for filing of the final development plan. This requirement is primarily an antispeculation device. If a developer fails to submit a final development plan or abandons the PUD project altogether, some action must be taken to ensure proper -zoning treatment of the property. Where no zoning change has been granted and the developer merely has tentative approval, one type of reversion clause may be used to protect the status of the land. Such a clause states that if no final development plan is submitted, all approvals to date are null and void. The following ordi- nanceprovision is an example of such a reversion clause: If the applicant fails to apply for final approval for any reason, the tentative approval shall be deemed rn be revoked and all that_porrion of the area included in the development plan for which final approval has not been given shall be subject to the zoning and subdivision ordinances otherwise applicable thereto. Where a zoning change has been granted following the approval of the preliminazy development plan, many communities will be required by statute to again change the zoning through a legislative act. By whatever means allowed in state statutes, PUD ordinances should contain a provision which specifically requires action to rerum land to its original state upon evidence that the developer has aban- doned the project. If this is nbi done,-the land remains in a state of regulatory limbo, often with a more intensive use classification and no controls to guide development other than conventional standards of the applicable zoning district. Final Developnreret Plan. The final development plan stage serves several important functions. It wraps up the design spec~ics of the preliminary development plan in their final form and includes the review of some additional items not presented in the preliminary design stage. It is the last opportunity the review authority will have to ensure that the PUD rnnforms co the intent of the ordinance. This stage should not be a time to reopen negotiations on matters that were previously discussed and agreed to in the preliminary stage. As with the preliminary development plan, the final development plan should be submitted to the planning commission-(or other substantive review authority) through the .professional planning staff. They should again be required to complete [heir review within a reasonable length of [ime (perhaps within 30 days) specified in the ordinance. _ _ -- The function of the review authority is twofold. They must be sure that the final development plan does not vary' substantially from the previously approved preliminary development plan. And they must review all new informa- tion provided by the developer to determine its quality and compliance with the substantive ordinance requ¢ements. Some ordinances merely state this fact; others spell out what constitutes substantial compliance. For example: The final Development Plan shall be deemed in substan- tial compliance with the Preliminazy Development Plan, provided modification by the applicant does not involve a change of one or more of the following: (a) Violate any provision of this Chapter of the ordi- nance; (b) Vary the lot area requirement by more than ten (10) per cent; (c) Involve a reduction of more than ten (10) per cent of the area reserved for the common open space and/or usable open space; (d) Increase the floor area proposed for nonresidential use by more than ten (10) per cent; and (e) Increase the total ground area covered by buildings by more than five (5) per cent. While the above ordinance provision almost assumes that the developer will make the vazious changes which it allows, review authorities muse realize that redesigning and refining site plans prepared in the preliminary development stage will almos[ always mean some variation from them. If substantial compliance with the preliminary development plan is not established, [he new plan must repeat the pubhc hearing process for review of changes. In addition to ensuring substantial crompliance with the preliminary development plan, the final development plan stage must review all -of the information required for the preliminary development plan in its finalized, detailed form. This includes site plans sufficient for recording and engineering drawings. All schematic plans presented in the preliminary development plan stage such as a landscape plan must be presented in their detailed form. Any items not submitted during the preliminary stage must be reviewed, and any final plats and public dedication docu- ments should also be submitted at this rime. _ - - Based on the establishment of compliance with the preliminary developmenx plan through the review of final- ized site-plans and specifications, and xhe review of any new materials required by the review authority, the final development plan should be approved, approved with I modifications, -or disapproved. Final approval should be 1 determined by the planning commission with the assistance ~ of the planning staff or consultants. No public hearing should be necessazy at this stage since no new substantive. - information requiring policy considerations will be pre- 'sented_by the developer. The planning commission should have the authority to grant final approval; xhe legislative ~ body only needs to conduct necessary legislative actions 'i, relevant to the project, such as accepting and recording site plans and plats, accepting any dedicated properties, streets, rightsof-way, and so forth. These actions must then be certified by the_ proper officials and recorded. If the planning commission-does not approve a final development ~, plan, [heir specific reasons for disapproval should be sxated in writing and made pazt of the public record, as well as presented to the developer. Following formal acceptance and recording, building permits may be issued and construction may begin. Final approvals subject to modifications or conditions should be agreed to in v<rciting by the developer before recording and formal acceptance. Where a PUD does not require a zoning change, the legislative body _may, neverffieleu, have xo exercise £nal approval, since the approved plan may constitute the only legal control over the propetty. Building Spacing Requirements The function, purpose, and objectives of building spar ing requirements must be addressed in PUDs. These objectives aze adequate light, ventilation, and privacy. Traditional yard and bulk requirements in zoning ordi- nances are not readily adaptable to PUDs rnntaining a variety of new housing types and innovative site designs. Before-addressing These design issues specifically, it is important- to state the underlying principles upon which xhey are based. Th e,_gcime obiective is assurance of adeq`ua~e 1ig,hL vertirl~tion. and priva addition, such requiremenxs provide for increased amenity through view protecxion and provide for access within the PUD. The mnvenxional approach m regulation has been through heighx and yard requirements-staggered building heights, setbacks, side and rear yards, and so on. Obviously, such alot-by-lot approach is inconsistent with the concept of PUD and would preclude many design innovations. Concepts such as zero-lot-lines, common open space, and mixxures of dwelling types do not lend themselves xo the traditional lot-by-lot approach. However, a surprising number of the PUD ordinances reviewed in this study still attempx to apply this technique to PUD developments. Some of them vary the requirements according to types of housing development, retaining xraditional setbacks and yard requirements in single-family development, and desig- nating rear yards in townhouse, patio home, and other axtached single-family development. At the other extreme of the regulatory continuum are those ordinances that provide no specific dimensional criteria whatsoever. For example: Each development shall provide reasonable visual and . arnustical privacy for dwelling units. Fences, insulation, ~ walks, barriers, and landsaping shall be used, as appro- priate, for the protecxion and aesthetic enhancement of property and the privacy of its occupants, screening-of 1 objectionable views, or uses and reduction of noise. High-rise buildings shall be located within a Planned Unit Development in such a way as to dissipate any adverse ~ impact on adjoining low-rise buildings and shall nox ;invade the privacy of the occupants of such low-rise i buildings. Yazd, setback, loi size, xype of dwelling unit, height, j frontage requiremenxs, and use restricxions may be ~ waived for the Planned Unit Development, provided ~ that the spirit and intent of this section aze complied within the total development plan, as determined by xhe Plan Commission. The Plan Commission may determine i thax certain setbacks be required within all or a portion of the perimeter of the site and shall exercise ultimate ~, discrexion as xo whexher the total development plan does ! comply with the spirit and intenx of this section. Drafters of such general ordinance language must be aware of the higher degree of responsibility ix places upon the review authority to decide what is "appropriate." Another ordinance allows flexibility from traditional, pre-set standazds, but wisely provides to reviewers the following sets of principles: (1) Building Spacing: The requirement for building spacing or side yards as they are often defined is based on several related factors. (a) Privacy: The minimum building spacing require- ment is intended to provide privacy within the dwelling unit. Where windows are placed in only one of two facing walls or there are no windows, or where the builder provides adequate screening for windows, or where the windows are at such a height or location to-provide adequate privacy, the building spacing may be reduced. (b) Light and Air: The building spacing provides one . method of ensuring that each room has adequate light and air. Building spacing may be reduced where there aze no windows or very small window azeas and where rooms have adequate provisions for light and air from another direction. (c) Use: Areas between buildings are often used as service yards, for storage of trash, clotheslines, or other utilitarian purposes. Where this use is similar for both houses, a reduction of building space permitting effective design of a utility space shall be permitted. Kitchens and garages are suitable uses for rooms abutting such utility yards. (d) Building Configuration: Where building configu- raxion ~is irregular so that the needs expressed in (a), 20 (b), and (c) above are met by the building configure- - xion, reduced building spacing is permissible, as determined by average spacing or by measuring spacing where rooms open toward adjacent buildings. (2) Front Yazd: The minimum front yard is intended to provide privacy and usable yard area fox residents. In practice, however, front yazds are rarely used, so that only the privacy factor is important. Where the devel- oper provides privacy by reducing traffic flow through street layout such as cul-desacs, or by screening or planting, or by facing the structure towazd open space or a pedestrian way, or through the room layout of front evaluation, it is possible ro reduce the front-yard requirement. (3) Lot Width: A minimum lot width is intended to prevent the construction of tong, narrow buildings with inadequate privacy, lighc, and air. There are situations as in cul-de-sacs, steep slopes, or off-set lots where, because of lot configuration or topography, narrow or irregular lots provide the best possible design. Where the design is such that light, air, and privacy can be provided, especially for living spaces and bedrooms, a narrower lot width may be permitted. (4). Where. designs are such that [he above standards are not met, site requirements in the Table of Dimensional Requirements may be increased. An approach becoming more popular is the building spacing standards which specifies the distance between structures. The standards do not specify front or rear yards, but instead specify distances between buildings which are dependent on a number of vaziables: whether any windows are present on a building wall; whether provided windows are living Boom-viindows or not; the height of the building; and [he length of the building. These standards aze based on FHA's requirements as modified for local zoning ordinance use. The following example is taken from a model ordinance (F.H. Bair, Jr., Planning Cities [Chicago: ASPO, 1970]) 1. Living rooms are required to have exterior glassed areas equal to a[ least 10 per cent of floor area. (There is nothing new or startling about this. Most housing codes require it.) 2. Yards, courts, and other open spaces are related zo glassed areas and to walls, and need not be "ground to sky," and may in some cases be partly off the building site. Thus: (a) Where a wall contains less than 25 per cent of total required glassed area of any dwelling unit at or below the third floor, up to half of the required yazd depth may be in the adjacent half of a street. (b) Where a wall contains glassed area for dwelling unixs at or above the fourth floor, up to half of the required yard depth may be in the adjacent half of a street regardless of orientation of required glassed areas. (c) Where a wall contains 25 per cent or more of total required glassed area of a dwelling, up to half of the required depth may be in the adjacent half of any common livability space of suitable character, such as a park, a stream, a lake, or other open space of a similar nature. 3. BuSding height and building length relate to exterior space requirements, walls, and glassed areas as follows: (a) Where two opposing walls contain no glassed areas (required or other), sepazation shall be as required by fire regulations. (b) For other walls, related exterior space require- mentsare asfollows: (1) Where a wall contains 25 per cent or more of required principal glassed area of any dwelling unit, depth of yard shall be 10 feet plus 2 feet for each story in height plus 1 foot for each 15 feet of building length. (2) Where a wall contains some, but less than 25 per cent of, required principal glassed area of any dwelling unit, depth of exterior space shall be 5 feet plus 1 foot for each story in height plus 1 foot for each 15 feet of building length. (3) Where a wall contains none of the required glassed area of a dwelling unit, no yard is required except for compliance with fire regulations or if the nature or locaxion of any other glassed areas involves loss of reasonable privacy for interior space requiring such privacy. Amendments to the Final DeveBopment Plan Often, site conditions or other complications in the physical development of the project will not be realized until after final development plans are approved and recorded and construction has begun. PUD ordinances should be ready for such situations by including specific provisions for amending the final development plan. Administrative efficiency is served if such amendments are divided into two categories: minor and major changes. Minor changes are generally defined as changes which do not substantially change the concept of the PUD as approved and are limited to small site alxerations such as realigning a minor road or shifting a setback slightly. Such changes should be routinely handled as administrative problems to be taken Gaze of by the professional planning staff or some enforcemenx officer such as the building inspector. Major changes are substantial deviations from the concept which was approved by the review authority and require more attention for revision. They typically include such things as changes in density, open space, land use, or lot size. With major changes some ordinances require developers to- j;o back through the entire review process, including public heazings. Others require planning commis- sion approval only. Usually, such changes will involve legislative approval, since the change might have affected the original legislative action and since the recorded PUD plan is usually held to be a regulatory device adopted by resolution of the local legislative body.. Amendments xo it must therefore be treated as regular zoning amendmenu in most cases. The following ordinance provision-requires a complete reprocessing of major changes: Minor changes in the locaxion, siting, or chazuter of buildings and structures may be authorized by the zoning administrator, if required by engineering or other { circumstances not foreseen at the time the final develop- f ment program was approved. No change authorized by f~~~ the zoning administrator under this section may incrase ~ the size of any building or structure by more than ten ~' per cent, nor change the locaxion of any building or 21 structure by more xhan_.ten feet_n any direction; .provided, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing, the 1 zoning administrator may not permit changes beyond i~the minimum or maximum requirements set forth in this ~ ordinance; 1All other changes in the planned unit, including changes fn the sire plan and in the developmenx schedule, must j be made under the procedures that are apphcable to the `,. ;initial approval of a planned unit. Many ordinances leave the business of determining which specific changes are minor and which are major to the discretion of public officials such as the planning direcxor or the zoning officei. however, the importance of changes in the final development plan may require more defitiite legislative guidance through specific criteria included in the ordinance. Several major changes could drastically abet the chazacter and effect of a project. An example of ordinance language which includes criteria for distinguishing between major and minor changes follows: Minor changes in the location, siting, and height of buildings and structures may be authorized by the Plan Commission without additional public hearings if re- quired by engineering or other circumstances not fore- seen at the time the final plan was approved. No change authorized by this subsection may cause any of the following: - (a) A change in the use or character of the development; (b) An increase in overall coverage of structures; (c) An increase.in the intensity of use; (d) An increase in the problems of traffic circulation and public utilities; (e) A reduction in approved open space; (f) A reduction of off-street parking and loading space; (g) A reduction in required pavement widths. All other changes in use, or reazrangement of lots, blocks, and building tracts, or any changes in the provision of -common open spaces and changes other than listed above, must be made by the City Council after report of the planning staff and recommendation by the Plan Commission. Such amendments may be made only if they are shown to be required by changes in conditions that have occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in community pohcy. Any changes which are approved in the final plan must be recorded as amendments in accordance with the proce- dure established for the recording of the initial final plan documents. Some of the ordinances reviewed required major amend- ment procedures to go into effect at the first sign of a change. Others allowed some leeway, such as density increases- up to -10 per cent. This is an attempt to distinguish between density increases which may actually affect the project chazacter and small, insignificant ones caused purely by minor plan changes. Allowing some leeway may be more rational, but the. aggregate effect of such mazginal allowances from basic design standards should be closely watched. Many ordi- nances include language (such as described earlier) which stares that final development plans must be in substantial compliance with the preliminary development plan, with substantial compliance defined as density increases of 10 per cent or less. The ordinance may also use the 10 per cent density increase criteria xo define major and minor amend- ments. Enforcement PUD ordinances should include a section on enforce- ment to ensure xhat xhe proposal approved in the final development plan stage is carried out. The section should include provisions for enforcing development schedules (including the start of construction) and development phasing control. Primazily as an antispeculation function, many PUD ordinances contain a provision entitled, "Failure To Begin Development." This provision requires that construction on the approved filial developmenx plan must begin within a specified time period after finai approval has been granted, usually between 6 and 18 months. Extensions are granted when good cause for them can be shown. Another approach is to require that the approved development be completed within a specified time period, again with extensions granted upon the showing of good cause. Examples of both types of provisions follow: If no construction has begun in the PUD within months from the approval of the PUD and recording of documents, said approval shall lapse and be of no further effect. The Plan Commission, upon showing of good cause by the developer, may extend for period(s) of _ months, the time for beginning construction. The applicant must begin and substantially complete the development of the planned unit within years from the time of its final approval. If xhe planned unit is to be developed in stages, the applicant must begin and substantially complete xhe development of each stage within two years of the time provided for the start of construction of each stage in the development schedule. If the applicant does not begin and substantially complete the planned unit, or any stage of the planned unit, within the time limits imposed by the preceding section, the planning department shall review ffie planned unit and may recommend chat the time fox completion of the planned unit be extended, that the approval of the planned unit be revoked, or that the planned unit be amended. The planning depazimeni's recommendation shall be subject to the procedures authorized by Section -governing the approval of an initial application for a planned unit. If the final development plan is revoked because of lack of compliance with the above provisions, xhe state of the land can be somewhat nebulous. If a zoning change was granted, then the provisions of the new zoning district may govern the use of the land. However, this is usually a higher density zoning district than the original one, and the local government may wish to revert to the original districx regulations. If so, a reversion clause and/or legislative action changing the zoning (as provided for in the preliminary development plan stage) is in order. If a PUD is handled as a conditional use, a simple clause may be used which states that revocation of the final development plan assumes automatic reversion to the original zoning conxrols, with no necessary legislative act. One ordinance provision states the following: - If no substantial construction has begun or no use u established in the PUD within the time stated in xhe final development and construction schedule, the Final Devel- opment Plan shall ]apse upon written notice xo xhe applicant from the County Boazd 2nd shall be of no further effect. In its discrexion and for good cause, the County Boazd may extend for a reasonable time, not to exceed one year, xhe period for the beginning of construction or xhe establishment of a use. If a Final Development Plan lapses under xhe provisions of this section, the Zoning Officer shall remove the Planned Developmenx conditional use permit from xhe Official Zoning Map and shall file a notice or revocaxion with the recorded Final Development Plan. The zoning regula- tions applicable before the development was approved shall then be in effect. Another ordinance provides for a similar action as follows: If no development has occurred pursuant to the adopted plan (a) within _ months after the dare of the adoption of xhe PUD, or (b) upon expiration of any extens;on of time for starting development granted by the City Council, the approved plan shall become null and void and a new precise plan shall be required for any development on subject properxy. Local officials should check state statutes and consult local attorneys xo determine what is necessazy. Regardless of what they dictate, PUD ordinances should include the necessazy protection by stating how the land is to be controlled if the approved plan is not implemented. In PUDs proposed to be built in several stages, provisions for controlling the timing of various stages are an imporxant proxective device. They are based on the premise that unforeseen circumstances may occur which interfere with the development process before all of xhe various stages have been completed. Phasing controls aze generally concerned with three fundamental PUD elements: density, open spaces, and nonresidential land uses (primarily commercial). By defini- tion, aPUD only maintains its integrity when all of the complementazy pazts of the whole product are intact. If one element is deficient or omitted, or if one element is out of propottion with xhe others (such as the commercial- residenxial ratio), the development sacrifices -its planned integrity and may be seriously damaged. For example, if in a PUD containing a mixture of housing types and open spaces, the higher density housing is constructed in the earlier stages of the project with major open spaces included in the laxxer stages, the intent of the planned unit design will be seriously violated if the project stops midway. Since PUD encourages density transfers within projects, micro densities within subregions of a project may be much higher than average project densities. If high density areas aze constructed first and the remaining area is not completed, essential facilixies may be absent. A variety of approaches have been used to guard against such eventualities. The most common one is to require the simultaneous developmenx of different project elements in reasonable proportion to one another. Typical ordinance provisions stipulate that the density for any one sxage of a project cannot exceed overall projecx densities by some pre-sex amount, somcximes nox az all. Similar provisions 23 This service station in a California P1JD is in a planned commercial area also including a neighborhood shopping center, a church, and a park. exist for open space and commercial areas. They require that common open space and other project amenities be provided in each stage of the project in proportion to the rate of housing consxruction for [hat stage. Some ordi- nances are more Strict on commercial development, denying any commercial building permits until some pre-set amount of proportion of housing is constructed. Where commercial developmenx is allowed on the basis of preexisting market demand, some leeway may be appropriate- Below is an example of an ordinance provision regulating staged devel- opment in this manner: If the sequence of construction of various portions of the developmenx is to occur in stages, then the open space and/or recreational facilities shall be developed, or committed thereto, in proportion xo the number of dwelling units intended to be developed during any given stage of construction as approved by the Planning Commission. Furthermore, at no -time during the con- struction of xhe project shall the number of constructed dwelling units per acre of developed land exceed the overall density per acre established by the approved Conditional Usp Permit. A more general provision based on the same principle states: After general construction commences, the Director of Planning shall review, at least once every six (6) months, all building permits issued and compare them to xhe overall development phasing program. If he determines that the rate of construction of residential units or nonresidential structures subsxantially differs from the phasing program, he shall so notify the developer and Building Commissioner, in writing: thereafter, the Build- irig Commissioner may issue such orders ro the developer as it sees fit, and upon continued violation of this subsection may suspend the developer from further construction of dwelling units or nonresidential struc- tures until compliance is achieved. The above provisions assure the local communixy that no PUD element will become out of balance with the others. Some even state that if a PUD is proposed to be built in stages, that each stage must stand on its own as a complete unit, meeting the requirements of the ordinance for density, open space, commercial facilities, exc, In spite of the guazantees, such requiremenu may severely restrict design oppor[unities. There may well be site conditions which are ideally suited to common open spaces clustered in onb-portion of the development, constraints which may enconeage a developer to proceed with higher density portions of the PUD first in order to relieve cash flow problems resulting from high front-end costs. These prob- lems aze very real ones to which the above kinds of provisions show little sensitivity. A more flexible approach is to use other forms of guarantees that the various stages of the total development will be constructed as planned and approved. For example, financial sureties which guazanxee the provisions of major open spaces in later project stages mold be used. Some ordinances use bonding procedures, escrow agreements, and similaz legal devices xo serve this function. For example: t The Planning Commssion may require a performance bond be furnished and filed with the City -Clerk for ,~ ~~ private improvements. An escrow agreement and account approved by the City Axtorney as to form and '; II content and by the Planning Commission shall be i required in the amount of one hundred and twenty-five I~ (125) per cent of the estimated construction cost and -~ engineering. These Funds may be dispersed upon certifi- ~• i cation by xhe Project Engineer and by the City acting ~' through the Duecror of Pubic Works. Said escrow shall accompany the request for final approval to insure ;.completion of aIl public site improvement, streets, r~~iparking areas, sewers, utilities, landscaping, plantings, sand screening. Another ordinance provision provides alternative guarantees that open space will be included as stated in the plan: The Planning Commission may require adequate assur ante, in a form and manner which it approves, that the common open space shown in the final development plan will be provided and developed. The following methods of assurance aze intended as illustrative and they ma}' be used singly or in combination or in conjunction with other similar methods: 1. The City may accept a bond, corporate surety, or other acceptable financial guazantee, in a form which complies wixh the provisions of xhe subdivision regulations of the City and in an amount suf£cient to purchase the common open space shown in the final development plan or alternative acreage which is equivalenx in size and character. 2. The title to the land shown as common open space _ may be put in escrow. The escrow agreement to provide that the land is to be held in escrow until xhe Planning Commission has certified to the escrow agent that the planned development has been com- pleted, at which time the common open space is to be conveyed as provided in subsection of this ordinance. The escrow agreement may provide for the - release of common open space by the escrow agent in stages. The Planning Commission is to certify the complexion of each stage of the planned development to the escrow agent. The escrow agreement must provide that a portion of the open space is conveyed in the manner provided in section if the planned development is not completed. In this even[, the open space which is conveyed is to be of the same proportions to the open space provided on the final development plan as the dwelling units that have been built are to the total number of dwelling units which are allowable by the final development plan. 3. In conjunction with paragraph (1) of [his section, if any of the planned development which includes common open space is held by the developer on option, the developer may assign to the City xhe right to exercise the option to acquire the common open space. 24 Chapter 5. Substantive Design Standards Including a chapter entixled "Substantive Design Stan- dards" in a report on PUD must seem at first glance rnnxcadictory. After all, one might argue, is not PUD a way to get away from rigid standards that more often xhan not gex in the way of creuive designers? Yet, most planning officials seem reluctant to completely abdicate, with good reason, some minimum controls relating to health and safety-and, increasingly, amenity as well. The present state of the art strongly suggests that mosx jurisdictions are allowing more, but not complete, flexibility from tradi- tional standards. Some things like overall density are still relatively tighxly controlled, while in other things such as building type mix and spacing there aze broad guidelines. Such enhanced flexibility generally increases the level of administrative discretion exercised by public -officials, making the PUD process a more administrative than legislative control mechanism. Some ordinances leave most of the task of establishing desigt crixeria to the discretion- azy judgment of planning commissions and legislative bodies conducting PUD-review. Others choose to tie down critical design elements by including specifc crixeria in ordinance language. Some of xhese standards may be selectively xransposed from traditional zoning and subdivi- sioaregulations while others must be tailored specifically to the PUD mncepx. Still other design elemenu may go entirely unregulated, leaving the developer free to exercise a variety of options. Authors of PUD ordinances must be especially sensitive to xhe needs of their particular commu- nity and the fundamental principles of the PUD concept to ensure that substantive design standards promote high quality development of lasting amenity without destroying the basic concept of the PUD process. - PUD ordinance flexibility has been a subject of continu- ing controversy between planners and developers. Many local governments have been reluctant to give up their traditionally tight hold rn~er development standazds and adopt PUD ordinances which read like building codes. (One California community, according to one developer, uses xhe "encyclopedia" approach in lengxh and depth or ordi- nance.) Such ordinances inhibit creativity in development and severely restricx the developer's options, and in fact discourage them from making application under PUD provisions in the first place. At the other extreme, some local governments have been quick to adopt flexible ordinances full of ambiguous policy statements which leave the bulk of the design specifics to be hammered out through negoxiations between developers and local officials as each PUD application is reviewed. In some of these communities officials have found the finished product far inferior -to what they had expected. In other similar circumstances developers have felx so absurd in the give and take that they will never build a PUD in that place again. In either case, iLl will usually results and the PUD concept gets a bad name locally, depriving the community of some -- possibly good projects in xhe future. A workable balance.musx therefore be achieved through selective flexibility in a PUD ordinance. Local officials coos[ decide which design elements merit specific standards- density, open space, parking. This does nor mean that any design element which is easily controlled through quantifi- able standards should be so treated in an ordinance. Minimum lot sizes are easily quanti£able, but there aze more ~ flexible ways to control the same design elements in question. The impottant point is that only the mast critical design elements of a PUD should be controlled through specific numerical standards. Other design elements may be handled by including performance policies in ordinance language, Leaving the developer-free to pursue a variety of options, while still providing guidance toward desirable community goals. Such policies fet the developer know how his final product is expected to perform, yet leave him free to arrive at that point in any way he sees fit. For example, many PUD ordinances require specific design [reaxment of the perim- eter of PUD projects, such as special setback requirements. But one specific setback requirement cannot ~ meet all possible sire conditions. The more flexible approach would be xo include performance policies in the ordinance which outline desirable perimeter conditions without specifying how the}~ are to be achieved. This approach places the burden of proof on xhe developer to justify his design choices, rather than requiring him to meet-specific stan- dards which might be totally inappropriate for'xhe site in question. Authors of PUD ordinances musx consider the qualifiea- tions of the various actors involved in the review process when drafting development standazds. There will usually be a number of basic design elemenu for which any local government will want to have specific standards in their ordinance. However, beyond this point, standard setting should reflect the qualifications of the review authority. Generally speaking, xhe higher xhe qualifications or design expertise of the planning staff and commission, the greater their ability to administer a highly flexible ordinance zs requiring numerous discretionary judgments. Some ordi- nance provisions such as "maximum residential density shall not adversely affect adjacent development," leave PUD administrators with very little guidance for making decisions. Such ambiguous provisions require much higher degrees of technical sophistication to administer than specific numerical standards. With qualified professional assistance, more design details may be left to evolve from the negotiation process rather than being xied down in ordinance language. On the other hand, in smaller commu- nities where design review may not be all that skillful it may be desirable to adopt a more detailed ordinance. This not only makes an ordinance easier to administer, but it helps to reduce the dangers of arbitrary decisions favoring or discriminating against various developers. The attitudes of planners and developers towazd flexibil- ity in PUD design standards vazy considerably. On the whole, planners tend to favor more specific standards while most developers feel the reverse. however, the ASPO survey results indicated a considerable mixture of opinion in both camps, more than might have been expected. Planners and developers were asked to respond to a']ist of design elements for which specific standards might be included in ordinance language. Table 5 presents the results. Most striking is the fact that a higher percentage of developers favored specific standards for permitted land uses and density than public agency planners. Both planners and developers did not favor architectural standards and win- dow-wall location requirements. A higher percentage of planners than developers favored specific standards for mosx other design elements, although no item received their overwhelming approval. Only one-quarter to one-third of the developers surveyed favored specific standazds to most of the items listed. Another survey question sheds further light on the issue of flexibility. Planners were asked to describe the most innovative and weakest portions of their PUD ordinances. Comments on innovative ordinance provisions generally stressed their increased level of flexibility, whereas most of the weak points of PUD ordinances were examples of vague ordinance language which needed to be more specific In addition to these remarks, over 37 per cent of the planners interviewed had amended their PUD plans for the commu- nity as a whole. This principle should apply regardless of whether PUD is treated as a floating zone, a conditional use, or a predesignated special district on the caning map. PUD densities must relate to existing and planned commu- nity facilities: schools, parks, transportation facilities, water and sewer extensions, and capital expenditure programs. Criteria for granting density bonuses above underlying district regulations must be based on sound planning principles, not merely political prerogative. They must be granted in exchange for design amenities and innovations. Density There are only two basic approaches to PUD density: projects which do not increase overall gross densities and projects which do. Controls in the first category, regazdless of how they aze handled, generally result in some form of density transfer system allowing a reduction in lot sizes to permit the clustering of dwelling units usually in exchange for common open spaces. Micro densities in such PUDs may be increased well beyond the limits placed on the overall project density. However, gross project densities will be no greater than those permitted in the original zoning district regulations. TABLE 5. Attitudes Toward Ordinance Design Standards for PUDs Planners and Developers Fawring Ordinance Standard Design Elements Per Cent of Ord'utances With Specific Standards Per Cent of Planners Per Cent of Developers Uses permitted 7g.p Density 77.8 Minimum parcel siu 92,6 Usable public open space 46.9 Private open space 3;,3 Mardmum site coverage 51.9 Building spacing - 44.4 Building bulk and height 46.g Building architecture 4,q Location of window walls 7,4 Quantity of parking spaces 74,1 Location of parking spaces ~ 24.7 Perimeter requirements 34.6 School and recreation site dedication 25.9 Streets and utilities 48.1 Landscaping 33.3 Signs and street lighting 35.8 Screening and fenang 3g,3 View protection 16.0 50.0 g3,p 61.3 70.2 57.5 31.9 57.6. 38.3 - - 61.3 31.9 60,0 57.4 35.0 31.9 35.0 36,2 15.0 14.9 15.0 _ _. 10.6 - - 63.8 72.3 35.0 19.1 60.0 29.8 61.3 36.2 52.5 44,7 67.5 27.7 57.5 -. 27.7 61.3 29-g 56.3 27,7 26 A wmbination-of tools may be used to control micro densities within such projects. Minimum lot sizes may be reduced to allow_ clustering, retaining floor area and building height requirements. Some ordinances only estab- lish maximum gross project densities at "x" number of dwelling units per acre, using a building spacing require- ment to rake over the minimum lox size funcxion. Building heights and floor areas may also be used in combination with the above xechniques xo establish the upper limits of micro densities within a project. Density transfees allow more flexibility [han conven- xional zoning techniques (depending on how micro densities are controlled and to what level). Innovations in sire design and open space planning are possible, as well as lower costs through reduced street lengths and public service exten- sions. Such methods might be appropriate in some zoning districts where only slight deviations from conventional development patterns are desired. In fact, most simple cluster developments really still only permit one type of dwelling unit and are nor as flexible as more complex PUDs xhat permit dwelling type mixtures. Thus, we might say that there aze. two subcategories of projects which do not increase density: those that still permit only one type of dwelling unit-and those which allow a mixture. Allowing density bonuses in PUDs is another approach which is becoming more and more common. Over 45 per cent of the PUD ordinances reviewed in [his study allowed such bonuses. Table 6 indicates xhat the amount of xhese bonuses-ranged considerably: one-fifxh of the ordinances allowed increases up to 10 per cent, and another two-fifths allowed bonuses of between l I and 25 per cent. TABLE 6. Per Cent of Density Bonuses Allowed in PUD Ordinances Per Cen[ Bonuses in Density Allowed Per Cent of Responses o - la zo.7 11 - 25 41.4 26 - 50 27.6 51 - 75 - 76 - 100 10.3 Total Responses 100.0 Some local governmenxs consider xhe PUD approach inherently superior to conventional developments and therefore grant higher densities to PUDs as a matter of right in hopes oP encouraging developers to choose xhis alterna- tive. However, the more common approach is to grant density increases or bonuses only upon compliance with certain ordinance criteria whether they be purely subjective evaluations or strict numerical standards. Unfortunately, some ordinances simply include a very generalized policy statement which says that any density increase is allowable if it meets the approval of [he review authority. Under this method presumably every PUD application is granted a density bonus depending upon the merits of the proposal in relation xo the site, surrounding development conditions, amount of open space, and so forth. - These design issues are important ones and should be addressed in any request for increased density. however, this poor method stops short of providing decision makers -wish any concrete measures to assist them in deciding what level of "quality and distincxion" is necessary before developers are compensated for a particulaz density level. Granting prespecified density increases in exchange for some more-orless specific project amenities is a moce common and a sounder approach xo dealing wnh density increases. One good example of such an ordinance provi- siondesigned to meex the needs of a particular community is: Density encreases, Density increases shall be governed by the precepts listed below, which are to be treated as additive, and nor compounded. A. Open space reservation shall be considered for density increases according to the following provision: For unproved and unimproved common open space 1. The first acre of common open space per 20 acres of gross, if improved, permits a maximum increase of eight (8) per cent; if firsx acre of common open space is unimproved, six (6) per cent is allowed. 2. The second acre of common open space per 20 acres of gross, if improved, permits a maximum increase of four (4) per cent; if unimproved, three (3) per cent is allowed. 3. Each additional acre of common open space per 20 acres of gross, if improved, permits a maximum increase of three. (3) per ten x; if unimproved, two (2) per cent is allowed. B. Charaaer, identity, and architectural and siring varia- tidn incorporated in a development shall be considered cause for density increases not to exceed fifteen (15) per cent, provided these factors make a substantial contribu- tion to the objectives of a Planned Unit Development. The degree of distinctiveness and the desirable variation achieved shall govern the amount of density increase which xhe Plan Commission may approve. Such vazia- tions may include, but aze not limixed to, the following: 1. Landscaping (a maximum increase of five (5) per cent); streetscape; open spaces and plazas; use of existing landscape; pedestrian way treatment; and recreational areas. 2. Siting (a maximum increase of five (5) per cent); visual focal points; use of existing physical features such as topography; view; sun and wind orienxation; circulation pattern; physical environment; variation in building sexbacks; and building groups (such as clustering). 3. Design features (a maximum increase of five (5) per cent); street sections; architectural sxyles; harmo- nious use of maxerials; pazking areas broken by landscape features; and varied use of house types. Another less detailed ordinance provision uses the following criteria for graining density increases by allowing reductions in minimum lot sizes: - - - The Planning Commission may further authorize a partial reduction in the lot area requirement in the Planned Unit Development net project area according to xhe following: A. For undeveloped common open space, a maximum reducxion of three (3) per cent; B. For distinctiveness and excellence in design and land- scaping, amaximum reduction of five {5) per cent; and C. For, the removal of deteriorating residential sxrucxures occupying the Planned Unit Developmenx site, a maxi- mum reduction of fifteen (15) pet cent. z7 Both of the above examples go considerably further than the first density bonus method by tying-down the specific design elements to be exchanged for increased densities. They also specify the maximum amount of density in- Qeases permitted, providing the PUD review authority with a more specific guideline for making their decisions. There is sti1L much room for subjective analysis-deciding what constitutes "distinctiveness and excellence in design and landscaping"-but this cannot be avoided if maximum flexibility is to be obtained. While some ordinances go to the extreme of only allowing density bonuses in exchange for pre-sex amounts of open space, there are definitely some design amenities, not easily quantified, which are worth bargaining for. The subjective evaluations-of qualified staff members must be relied upon to adminisxer such criteria. As a converse to density increases, some ordinances also contain provisions for reducing densities below the normal limits when specific conditions so warrant. For example: The Planning Commission and/or City Council reserves the right to reduce the density on a pazticulaz parcel when it has.been determined that such reduction is warranted by conditions specifically applicable to the parcel, such as topography, character of the surrounding property, etc. Another ordinance provision contains more specific criteria for guiding density reduction decisions. They include the following: A. Inconvenient or unsafe access of the development. B. Traffic congestion for streets adjoining the develop- ment. C. An excessive burden imposed on parks, recreational areas, schools, and other public facilities which serve or are proposed to serve the development. While we found such examples, it would probably be quite difficult in particular circumstances to implement such provisions. Ordinances containing both criteria for density increases and decreases are really moving in the direction of performance zoning, establishing a density base from which permitted densities may vazy upward or downward depend- ing on the pazticulaz conditions relevant to each PUD proposal. It should be obvious that there is a wide range of alternatives available for tailoring density bonus criteria to local needs. Open space and design excellence are the two most common tradeoff items. However, respondents to the ASPO survey indicated xhat density bonuses were granted in exchange for a variety of items or conditions including the following[ minimized grading and the preservation of certain natural features; underground utilities; the inclusion of certain amounts of low-income housing in PUDs; developed recreational facilities; excellence in dwelling unit design; decreases in publicly dedicated streets; and larger size projects-the larger xhe PUD, the higher the density bonus allowable. In theory, conditions met by developers in exchange for density bonuses should be aimed at increasing the amenity of a PUD. In practice, the requirements of local govern- ments sometimes go far beyond this point. Local govern- ments should use some caution in this matter, keeping their demands reasonable and relevant to the needs of the PUD in question. Density bonus criteria should not be used as a leverage mechanism to, prop up a poorly written ordinance, and design standards which should normally be met by developers in the first place should not be items for [he baggaining table. Density bonus criteria do not have to be purely quantifiab]e. However, they should at least consist of established policy guidelines in ordinance language. Leaving density bonus decisions to administrative discretion with- out some established policies does not provide local governments with enough guidance ~in the negotiating process, and the temptations for the azbi[rary treatment of applicants cannot be overstressed. A variety of methods are being used to control densities in PUDs, although most of them vary little from conven- tional techniques. Dwelling units per acre and minimum lot sizes are the most common methods. The actual breakdown on the techniques used by respondents appears in Table 7. TABLE 7. Density Control Techniques Basis of Measurement Per Cent of Responses Dwelling Unit/A¢e 45,E lut Area/Dwelling Unit 23.8 I-o[ Area/Dwelling Unit t,g based on number of bedrooms Floor Area Ratio g.b Other ~p.0 Total Responses _ 100.0 Many ordinances actually use a combination of the above techniques and most of the responses in the "other" category were combinations of several techniques including land-use intensity systems, bulk standards, open space ratios, impervious surface ratios, and bedrooms per acre. Several ordinances use a system of dwelling units or bedrooms per acre based on the dwelling unit types allowed in various zones. Most ordinances which treat PUD as a floating Zone or a conditional use specify density based on the standard zoning districts in which PUDs are allowed. SVhere a proposed PUD overlaps more than one zone, the densities of the various zones may be averaged, or densities may be calculated separately for the portions of the PUD in each of the different zones. Where PUDs are treated as predesig- nated zones on the official zoning map, vazious density requirements may be used for different PUD districts, according to the vazious conditions of their geographic location. Ordinances using acreage as the basis of density calculation should always specify whether densities are to be calculated on gross or net project acreage and should spell out exactly what constitutes nex acreage. We believe it is useful to discuss at this point the land-use intensity rating system of land development planning. It was originally developed to be used as a guide by the Federal Housing Administration to apply to insur- ance guazantee standards-not as an element of local zoning controls based on traditional state enabling statutes. Never- theless, the system should be examined and carefully considered by any jurisdiction either adopting or amending a PUD provision. The "LUI" system is basically a method of relating floor area ratio to land area as a density control technique, coupled with a series of numerical ratios of open space, parking space, and other measures. (Readers unfamil- 2S tar with the LUl technique should read the Appendix, which contains a full descrip[ion of the system) LUI is particu- larly adaptable to PUD because of the flexibility in mixing dwelhng units of different kinds. While some authorities (like F.H. Bair, Jr., in Plartnang Cities, Chicago: ASPO, 1970) heartily recommend adoption of LUI concepts in zoning ordinances as a general principle, we must take note of the relatively slow growth-after a decade-in the number of ordinances that use LUI. Some officials feel uncomfortable wixh a new technique, espe- cially if it appears complex, and the complexity does demand skilled review personnel. Also, there is some resistance to the apparent inflexibility in LUI iuelf. LUI was not designed to be an exact straightjacket; it was designed as a guide to site plan review. Finally, and we suspect mos[ important, many suburban officials don't want a system that takes away the power to dictate the type and proportion of dwelling units to be built in a PUD. Parcel Size There is considerable disagreement over what constitutes an appropriately sized PUD. A few planners and developers feel strongly_that there should,be no minimum parcel size requirement at all. Most, however, favor such requirements, but disagree widely over what an appropriate minimum parcel size should be. The ASPO survey asked planning agency staffs to state the minimum parcel sizes required by their ordinances. It a)so asked what parcel sizes they preferred, irrespective of their ordinance requirements. Table 8 presents their an- swersto both of these questions. TABLE 8. Minimum Parcel Sizes Required by Ordinance and Preferred by Planners - Minimum Parcel Size Required in Ordinance Minimum Parcel Size per Cent of Preferred Per Cent Minimum Parcel Size Responses of Responses No minimum 15.1 17.1 5 acres or [ess - 32.1 53.6 6 - 20 acres 26.4 12.2 21 - SO aces 20.7 12.2 _ 51 acres or more 5.7 4.9 Total Responses 100.0 100.0 As shown in Table 8, minimum parcel sizes required by ordinances were relatively uniform across the various categories up to 50 acres, with the largest percentage falling in the five acres or less category. Most planners responding to the surrey disagreed with their ordinances, generally preferring a lower minimum requirement. Support for no minimum--was relatively small; however, a majority of the respondents preferred minimum requirements of five acres or less, with two acres approximately the bottom limit. Developers' opinions covered a broader range, bu[ they also tended to favor smaller minimum pazcel size requirements. The comments of planners and developers contained in the questionnaires provide some helpful insights into the arguments for and against minimum parcel sizes. Fropo- nents of no minimums argue that there are not enough criteria [o decide what constitutes good development, and therefore any minimum parcel size requirement must be arbitrarily accepted. Some of their arguments wer2 sup- ported by actual experience. One planner stated that "many imaginative redevelopment schemes" had been "killed" in older sections~of his city due to a two-acre minimum requirement. Others stated that through careful design, PUDs as,small as one acre could and had been successful. -- Advocates of low minimum parcel :sizes also cite the arbitrariness of higher cut-off points. They aggue that high minimum acreage requirements arbitrarily exclude smaller parcels nearer the fringe which have been skipped over as urban growth has moved outwazd. PUDs have been success- ful in urban redevelopment and spot renewal programs. Some local governments prefer lower minimum parcel size requirements since they offer a wider range of development options to more land. A1any would prefer that small parcels be developed under PUD provisions since local governments have more discretionary control over the development process than under conventional regula[ions. Developers advocating smaller minimum req. uiremeuts state that the economics of local markets and unique site characteristics were important factors in determining the appropriateness of PUD parcel sizes, stating that higher minimum acreagE figures bore no relation to market realities. ~ - ~ ' "" -` On the other hand, advocates of higher minimum parcel size requirements argue that below some minimum acreage figures, PUDs cannot be adequately developed from a physical design standpoint. Unfottunately, there aze as many different minimum figures as there are advocates_of this position, -and it is- impossible to derive any real consensus. What they aze really saying is that their conception of the ideal PUD, including a mixturebf housing types, large open spaces, developed recreational facilities, and separate vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, cannot be squeeaed into a small pazcel, or in the words of one respondent, "the smaller the size, the more difficult to achieve the stated purposes of PUD° (as defined in their ordinance). A more valid criticism was that low minimum pazcel size requirements open the way for a flurry of development applications which may not really be PUDs. Also, review processes may be overloaded by numerous small applica- tions. Small parcel sizes may encourage situations in which PUD procedures are improperly substituted for the granting of a vaziance or exception. Some planners also report that allowing Smaller acreages resul[ed in-developers obtaining zoning for apartments under PUD procedures when it would be more difficult to obtain through conventional zoning. [t appears from all this evidence that the minimum parcel size decision should be decided in favor of low minimum parcel size requirements. Proponents of larger minimums have some valid arguments, but many of them seem to miss one important point. PUD is a process, not a product. It is a process designed to provide a variety of alternatives for beater development. Obviously, mixed housing, large open Spaces; and sepazate circulation systems cannot be obtained on a two-acre site. But there is a real danger in stereotyping PUDs in this manner. During field research for this project, we visited some excellent PUDs in the two- to three-acre category. This would lead us to conclude that ~ authors of PUD ordinances should. not attempt to control the character of the final product through a minimum parcel size requirement. There are other design standards to control that. The abuses feared by proponents of lazge parcels should be corrected through better administration and review. Those who feel they must 29 control pazcel size, especially in largely undeveloped subur- ban areas, should consider smaller minimums For more urban areas, either allowing deviation from the pazcel size requirement where location and site conditions so merit, or having a multiple set of pazcel size requirements to deal with various settings. - - Open Space Open space is an essential component of any well- designed PUD. It provides areas for active and passive recreation immediately adjacent to dwelling units. It increases project amenity by providing landscaped areas and important scenic vistas. Totally integrated throughout projects, open space is an important design element, breaking up monotonous patterns of housing and improving the visual attractiveness of the development. Open space increases desigti flexibility and permits the preservation of natural features fox even greater amenity. Well-designed open space is an important factor in obtaining- quality residential environmenu of lasting value and high apprecia- tion. Although its inclusion is not always mandatory, mosx PUD ordinances require it in some form or another. There are wide discrepancies in the use of the term open space. Many ordinances mold be improved by a more precise explanation of what is meant by their use of the term. In terms of ownership there are essentially three basic types of open space: private, common, and public. A pritzte.open space is generally a small parcel of land located immediately adjacent to an individual dwelling unit, owned and maintained by its residents, and reserved exclusively for their use. In conventional development, private open space is the traditional yard; however, newer housing styles in PUDs, such as patio homes, attached single-family struc- tures, and quadraplexes, have required a more flexible definition. _--- - Common open space is generally a larger parcel or parcels of ]and reserved primazily for the leisure and recreational use of all the PUD residents and owned and maintained in common by them, generally through a homcowners' association. Common open space should be integrated throughout the PUD project, easily accessible to all the residents. Public open space differs from common open space only in terms, of legal ownership. It is dedicated in fee to the local governing body or one of its agencies and operated- and maintained by them. Public open space in a PUD is designed primazily for the use of residenu of that particular development, but generally cannot be reserved for their exclusive use due to the nature of its ownership. No generally accepted guidelines exist to determine what quantity of open space is adequate for different PUDs. The amounu requued in ordinances vary considerably, ranging from five per cent of gross project area xo SO per cent of net project azea. There appears to be no general consensus on appropriate quantities, although amounu in the 25 to 40 per cent range appear to be the most common. Most PUD ordinances calculate open spaces as percent- ages or ratios of gross or net project area. The following are several typical examples of open space quantity require- ments: Required open space shall comprise at least 40 per cent of the total gross area. Not less than 50 per cent of the net area of the property shall be open space devoted to planting, -patios, walk- ways, and recreational areas, but excluding areas covered by dwelling units, garages, carpotts, parking areas, or driveways. Net area is defined as the site area less all land covered by buildings, streets, pazking lots or stalls, driveways, and all other paved vehicular ways and facilities. - At least 20 per cent of the total area shall be devoted to such properly planned permanent usable open space, Common open space shall comprise at least 25 per cent of the gross area of the planned unit development to be used for recreational, pazk, or environmental amenity for collective enjoyment by occupants of the develop- ment but. shall no[ include public or private streets, driveways, or utility easements, providetl, however, that up to 50 per cent of the required open space may be composed of open space on privately owned properties dedicated by easement to assure that the open space will be permanent. Specifying whether open space figures are applied to gross or net azea is essential; a surprising number of ordinances neglect to do so. Also, either at this point or in a section of general definitions, the components of net project area must be spelled out in detail, as in the second ordinance provision illustrated above. If ordinance defini- tions distinguish between private, common, or public open space, quantities requued for each must be specified in the ordinance, as illustrated in the last provision above. While most PUD ordinances calculate the quantity of open space by applying flat percentage figures to project area, as in the above examples, authors of ordinances should be warned about the dangers of this approach. In some situations, flat percentages may impose unrealistic open space requiremenu on a PUD project. For example, a 50 per cent open space requirement may be unreasonable in some four-acre PUDs. In dense urban areas where land costs are higher, downward variations from basic standards may be warranted. Several ordinances were reviewed which included sliding open space quantity scales related to densities. Most of them reduced open space requirements as densities increased, reflecting the market realities of land costs. On the other hand, some inner city PUDs may demand higher amounts of open space where ratios of children per family unit are expected to be higher. Therefore, where PUD ordinances coos[ be written to deal with a variety of urban and suburban environments, provisions for variations in open space requiremenu, either up or down, should be included to coordinate the quantity required with the needs relevam to specific locations. However, simply designating required quantities is not sufficient to insure that the intent of open space require- ments are fully met. Acceptable quality muse also be specified. Quality standards must acknowledge the multiple functions of open space: active recreation, passive recrea- xion, and preservation of natural site amenities. UsabIlity is - the prime consideration when requiring open space for active and passive recreation activities. Approximately 34 per cent of the planning agencies responding to -the ASPO survey defined the term "usable open space" in their PUD ordinances. The most common dimensions of usable open space include physical surface characteristics, dimension, location, slope, and physicalimprovements. - Pfiysical surface characteristics. Many ordinances make a distinction between land and water surfaces in usable open spaces. Most allow the inclusion of water surfaces in calculating open space amounu up to some undefined 30 proportion decided at the discretion of the review author- ity. Others limit water surfaces specifically in ordinance language. For example: The approving agency may determine that all or part of stream areas, bodies of water, and slopes in excess of 15 per cent may be included as usable open space. In making this determination, the approving agency shall be guided by the following factors. 1. The extent of these areas in relation to the area of the planned unit; and, 2. The degree to which these areas contribute to the quality, livability, and amenity of the planned unit. A minimum total area of ten (10) per cent of the gross residential area shall be set aside as Common Open Space. ~Of this ten (10) per cent, a maximum of one-half maybe areas covered by waxer. Rooftops are another physical surface characteristic which are somethnes included in open space calculations. lvhen allowed, they muse be appropriately designed io comply with the intent of open space requirements and be accessible to potential users. Again, many ordinances choose to limit the extent to which such areas may be counted as open space. Landscaped roof areas devoted to recreational or lei- sure-time activities, freely accessible to residents, may be counted as open space ax a value of 60 per cent of actual roof area devoted to these uses. Well designed decks on garages or accessory buildings may be credited up to one-half ('h) of the total required open space. To be well designed a deck must be functional and aesthetic in the judgment of the Planning Commission and must be structurally safe and ade- quately surfaced and protected and usable for the purpose for which it is designed. Disnension. In order to be functionally usable, open space must exist in quantities of some minimum dimen- sions. Siruatiohs have occurred in which quantity require- ments have been fully complied with, but due to geographic configuration of the open spaces, [hey were useless for active recreational pursuits. Dimensional standards in the PUD ordinances reviewed ranged from as low as 400-square feet to 6,OOOsquaze feet and above. An example of one such provision stases: "The azea of each parcel of open space to be used for active recreational use shall not be less than 6,000-square feet in area nor less than thirty (30) feet in its-smallest dimension." Some ordinances also include wording to the effect -that some portion of open spaces should be contiguous, rather than be scattered around the project in small bits and pieces. Location. £t is undesirable to standardize the location of usable open space within each PUD. However, ix is important that usable open spaces be distributed more or less equitably throughout projects in relation to the dwelling units of the people they are intended io serve, especially in large PUDs. They must not be isolated in one comer of a development, but highly accessible to all the residents. Large open spaces may be enhanced by walkway _ systems or greenways linking them to one another. Slope. Some communities have been deprived of usable open spaces by accepting dedication of land with excessive slope, which made it unusable for most recreational activities. As a result, some open space standazds include established slope limitations. One ordinance reviewed in- eluded the following provision: "At least one-half of the required open space shall have an overall finished grade not to exceed ten per cent." Other ordinances are more permissive, allowing slopes up to 20 and 30 per cent to be included in the usable open space. In all such cases, it will be necessary for the review authority to exercise some discretion. Averages can be misleading, as small areas of excessive slope may be offset by larger level spaces. It should be noted that some PUDs with serious physical site problems may cause headaches for the developer and the review authority. For example, a site may contain land that should be preserved for ecological reasons, but is not usable, such as extremely steep slopes. To set aside open space of both kinds in the same development may pose severe economic problems to the developer. The only way out of this dilemma-assuming the resuk conforms to acceptable site planning principles-is to measure permitted density on a gross project area and in effect atlow the density transfer to the buildable ]and. Of course, there may be some sites on which micro densities are already so high that this solution is not an option. Physical irnprovemenrs. The term open space means what it says-space devoid of buildings and other physical structures except where accessory to the provision of recreational opportunities. A surprising number of ordi- nances are vague about physical improvements in open spaces. Some even permit educational and religious struc- tures to be built in the open spaces, _ A good PUD ordinance should clearly spell out what is .~ and is nor a legitimate physical improvement for inclusion I~ in open space. Recreational facilities and accessory strue !~ tares are generally allowed, although some ordinances limit the proportion of the open space they may cover. For ~~ example, one ordinance reviewed included the following ~ requirement: - Recreation facilities or structures and their accessory uses located in common recreation areas shall be considered open space as long as total impervious surfaces (paving, roofs, etc.) constitute no more [han five (5) per cent of the total open space, Another example addresses this issue in more general terms: The buIldings, structures, and improvements which are permitted in the common open space must be appropri- ate to the uses which are authorized for the common open space and must conserve and enhance the amenities of the common open space having regard to its topog- raphyand unimproved condition. One ordinance further clarifies this point by listing exam- ples of what are and are not permissible improvements in open space. A. Open Space includes: 1. Land area of the site not covered by buildings, parking structures, or accessory structures except recreational structures. (Underground pazking and decks may be counted as specified further in these standards) 2. Land which is accessible and available to all occupants of dwelling units foi whose use the space u -intended. B. Open Space does not include: - 1. Proposed street rights of way. 2. Open parking areas and driveways for dwellings. 31. 3. School sites. 4. Commercial areas, and the buildings, accessory buildings, parking and loading facilities fox these. _ commercial areas. 5. Unsuitable land as determined by specific criteria adopted by the Planning Commission. Natural amenities. One of the most important points about open space is that it permits greater flexibility in preserving - a site's natural amenities. PUD sites which contain some unique natural assets like unusual rock outcroppings, groves of trees, ravines, ponds, and stream beds can be greatly enhanced by, retaining such natural features in an undisturbed state. Often, open space Stan- dards can assist in this function by allowing (or where significanx natural features exist requiring that) certain .portions of the open space be left in an "unimproved" natural state. Some ordinances require that only a certain portion of the total bpen space be usable, allowing or encouraging the developer to leave the remainder undis- turbed. Where significant natural amenities exist on the site, provisions-Should allow the review authority the right to enforee their preservation. Several developments treated in this m' annex were visited in our -field ~ research and were highly successful from the viewpoints of both the residents and xhe developers. One-example of ordinance language permitring such treatmrnx reads as follows: - -- The remaining one-half of the required open space-(i.e., that no[ required to be improved to specific standards for active recreaxional activities) may also be improved, or may be left in its natural state. Areas devoted xo natural or improved flood control channels and those areas encumbered by flowage, floodway, or drainage easements may be applied toward satisfying this portion of the total open space requirement. Stronger language requiring the preservation of significanx natural amenities might be more appropriately dealt with in a sepuaxe section of [he substantive design standards, raxher~than in the~open space standards. however, open space provisions should be flexible enough to permit. such features to remain. ' ~ The res~5'onsibihties for maintenance of open spaces in PUDs can become a major concern even early in a project's life andshould be closely considered by the authors of PUD ordinances. Private open spaces are maintained by their owners. In xentaf developments, they may be maintained by the developer or some professional maintenance-company. Public open spaces which are dedicaxed to governmental bodies become their responsibility, but most of the concerns about maidxenaitGe center around common facili- ties held in undivided ownership by thePUD residents. - Both planners and developers were surveyed for their preferences among alxernative arrangements for the owner ship and maintenance of commonly owned open spaces and recreational amenities. Table 4 illustrates their strong preference for ownership and main'eenance handled by a homeowners' association. Preferences in the ~"other" cate- gory included dedication 'of the common open space to a special service district, the retention of a professional management company by the homeowners' association, and various combinations of the previously listed alternatives. homeowners' associations. The most widely accepted (or) predominant technique for ~ managing commonly owned property in PUDs is the homeowners' association (HOA). Because-of the important role such organizations TABLE 9. Planners' and Developers' Preferences for xhe Mainxenance of Common Open Spaces and Recreational Facilixies N PUDs -- - Per Cent of Per Cent of Property Should Be planner Developer Maintained By Respondents Respondents homeowners' azsociation - 59.4 65.1 Developer - 20.8 12.6 !peal government 11.3 -14.3. Ocher 8.5 S.0 Total Responses - 100.0. 100.0 play in maintaining a high quality residential environment, and oux of a fear of having xo assume those functions should an liOA fail, local governments must play some part in their formation. The PUD review authority needs some basic assurance that xhe fiOA has a reasonable chance-of success and will be capable of performing its important functions. - Planning agencies and private developers were asked to what extent local governments controlled the formation and operation of HOAs in PUDs. They responded that the majority of local governments either retain review and comment or approval powers over an HOA's bylaws and articles of incorporation. In addition, a number of local governments retain the right to take over the functions of HOAs at the residents' expense should the organization collapse in the future. A few even obtain voting member- ships in HOAs as a means of retaining some control, although this approach is not common. PUD ordinances often include some provisions concern- ing ffie formation of AOAs, often w2th approval of the PUD conditional upon approval of the HOA. For example: Planned Unit Developments shall be approved subject to the submission -of a legal instrument or instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of such open spaces, recreational areas, and communally owned facilities: No such instrument shall be acceptable until approved by the City Attorney as to legal form and effect, and xhe Planning Commission as to suitability for the proposed use of the open areas. There are several important principles which should guide xhe formation of an f-IOA. Some ordinances include them as •, minimum requirements which the HOA must meet in order ~~, to receive approval. For example: . If the Common Open Space is deeded to a Homes Association, the developer shall file adeclaration -of covenants and restrictions that will govern the associa- tion, to be submitted -with the application for the preliminary approval. The provisions shall include, but not be limited to, the following: - A.The homeowners' association must be set up before 'the~homes are sold. B. Membership must be mandatory for each home buyer and any successive buyer. C. The open space restrictions must be permanent, not just for a period of years. ' b. The association must be responsible for liability insurance, Local taxes, and the maintenance of recrea- tionaland other facilities: - - E. Homeowners must pay their pm -rata share of the 32 - cost; the assessment levied by the association can become a lien on the property. F. The association must be able to adjust the assessment co meet changed needs. Whether these principles are included as ordinance provi- sions as in the above example is a matter of local preference, although we would encourage it. The FiOA is best organized as a nonprofit corporation with automatic membership in the association when prop= erty is purchased in the PUD. This should be specified in the covenants which run with the land, which bind all subsequent owners. Covenants for maintenance assessments should also run with the land. It is important thaE assessments be handled in covenam form rather than as articles of incorporation since the latter may be easily amended. Included in the maintenance covenants should be procedures for Changing them at stated intervals since maintenance costs may change over time. Deeds can also mention the rights and responsibilities of property owners to HOAs. Assessments of property owners for maintenance fees may be based on several schemes. A common approach is to charge a per lot fee with a statement made to the effect that the lou assessed are those which appear on the original plat filed vvith the local government so that assembling several lots does not change lot lines and proportionately reduce fees_ Some developers have chosen square footage as a basis of payment, while others have preferred fees as percentage of taxes, a system which is more sensitive to _ property values. In multifamily developments or condomin- iums, fees are usually assessed on a per dwelling basis. All assessments must constitute a Gen against a homeowner's property. Foreclosures may be instituted to crollect de- faulted payments. The developer is responsible for initiating formation of the HOA-setting it up and supplying the bylaws and articles of incorporation-and this should be done prior to the sale of the first lot or house. As lots and houses arc sold, control will gradually be vested in the homeowners, but it is- wise ~ [o include some provision insuring that control is transferred to the homeowners at some future point in time. Naturally, developers will wanx to retain conttol of common facilixies and open spaces during the early marketing stages of the project until a sufficient number of lots have been sold to assure a successful fiOA. Some even prefer to retain control until the last lot is sold, protecting their investment up to the last minute. (For further reading on HOAs, see the bibliography at the end of the report.) Insuring open space integrity. Developers are well aware of the market realities of open spaces. Not only are they needed to meet recreational demands created in PUDs, but they are becoming essential from a marketing point of view. For PUDs to retain their value and high amenity over the long run, these open spaces must maintain their integrity, remaining genuinely open. PUD ordinances should include provisions which insure that open spaces cannot be devel- oped in xhe years ahead. Sixty-five per cent of the PUD ordinances reviewed in the survey include provisions designed to guarantee that open spaces remain that way. Such provisions take a variety of forms. The most common is the restrictive covenant filed by xhe developer at the time of PUD final plan approval. Such covenants run with the land and are enforceable upon all future residents of the PUD. They restrict the use and development of common open spaces and form the basis for legal actions by homeowners to prevent infringements on the open spaces. Ordinance requirements for restrictive covenants are generally quite simple. Common open space shall be guaranteed by a restrictive covenant describing the open space and its maintenance and improvement running with the land for the benefit of residents of the Planned Unit Development or adjoining property owners or both. The developer must file in the office of the City Plan Comnussioq at xhe time the approved final subdivision plat is filed, legal documents which will produce the aforesaid guarantees and, in particular, will provide for restricting the use of common spaces for the designated purposes. - All lands so conveyed (to the municipality or the HOA) shall be subject [o the right of the grantee or grantees to enforce maintenance and improvement of the common space. In this kind of provision, the covenants may be enforced by all the parties to the agreement-the HOA, trustees, or private landowners. In a few states, this right of enforcement has been extended to local government bodies. As an alternative, some communities have adopted ordinances with clauses which reserve for local governments the right to.enforce private restrictive covenants in the event that the parties to agreements fail to do so. Where enforcement rights are reserved in this manner, the local government has the right to step in and perform the functions of the HOA, passing the cost on to the defaulting homeowners as assessments against thew property. A detailed provision to this effect reads as follows: In the event that the organization established to own and maintain common open space, or any successor organization, shall az any time after establishment of the planned unit development fail to maintain the common open space in reasonable order and condition in actor dance with the plan, the council may serve written notice upon such organization or upon the residents of the planned unit development setting forth the manner in which the organization has failed to maintain the common open space in reasonable condition, and said notice shall include a demand that such deficiencies of maintenance be remedied tvithin thirty days thereof, and shall state the date and place of a hearing thereon which .shall be held within fourteen days of the notice. At such hearing the council may modify the terms of the original notice as to the deficiencies and may give an extension of time within which they shall be remedied. If the deficiencies sex forth in the original notice or- in the modifications thereof shall not be remedied within said thirty days or any extension therof, xhe city, in order to preserve the taxable values of the properties within the planned unit development and to prevent xhe common open space from becoming a public nuisance, tray enter upon said common open space and maintain the same for a period of one. year. Said entry and maintenance shall not vest in the public any rights ro use the common open space excepx when the same is voluntarily dedi- cated to the public by the owners. Before the expiration of the organization theretofore responsible for the maintenance of the common open space, call a public 33 heating upon notice to such organization, or to xhe residents of the planned unit development, to be held by the council, at which hearing such organization or xhe residents of the planned unit development shall show cause why such maintenance by [he city shall not, at the election of the council, continue for a succeeding year. [f the council shall determine thax such organization is ready and able to maintain said common open space in reasonable condition, the council shall cease to maintain said common open space ax the end of said year. If the council shall determine that said organization is not ready or willing or able to maintain the common open space in a good, clean and safe condition xhe council may, in its discretion, continue to maintain said space, subject to a similar hearing and determination in the next succeeding year and in each year thereafter. . The cost of such maintenance by the city shall be assessed ratably against the properties within the planned unit development that have a right of enjoy- ment of the common open space and shall become a tax lien on said properties. The city at xhe time of entering upon said common open space for the purpose of maintenance, shall file a notice of such lien in the office of the county recorder upon the properties affected by such lien within xhe planned unit development. While restrictive covenants are commonly used, private enforcement of open space covenants may not be sufficient because covenants generally expire, either within a sex time or by court action upon the showing of substantial change in the conditions which originally inspired them. A safer method which is becoming increasingly popular is the conveyance of development rights xo local govern- ments. Using this method, the land remains in the undivi- ded ownership of xhe PUD residents or their HOA. The property is held for the exclusive use of xhe residents, and the HOA is fully responsible for its maintenance. However, the righu to develop the property are conveyed and therefore owned by the local government. This leaves the residents and the [i0A only xhe right to use the land as specified in the final development plan. Another advantage of this approach is the greater likelihood of a ~ more favorable tax assessmenx due [o the greater assurances that open spaces will remain open and undeveloped. Examples of two ordinance provisions conveying development rights follow: Approval of such open spaces by the Planning Commis- sion shall be expressly conditioned upon a conveyance by [he developer xo the City of the development rights, or the right to prohibit the construction of additional buildings or other rights necessary to achieve the purposes_set forth in this ordinance. - In all areas proposed as homeowner parks where the advantages of the Planned Unix Development approach are used, xhe developer must convey to the City the "development rights" (i.c., recreaxional and open space easement) and must meet the requirements of the Planning Commission as to shape, size, and locaxion. Rather than offering any one patticulaz scheme for guaranteeing open space, some ordinances permix a choice from several alternatives. - A, All land shown on the final development plan as common open space musx be conveyed under one of the following options: - -- - - - 1. It may be conveyed to a pubhc agency which will agree to maintain the common open space and any buildings, structures, or improvements which have been placed on it. 2. It may be conveyed to trustees provided in an indenture establishing an association or similar organi- zation far the maintenance of the planned develop- ment. The common open space must be conveyed to the trustees subject to covenants to be approved by the plan commission which resxrict the common open space to the uses specified on the final development plan, and which provide for the maintenance of the common open space in a manner which assures its continuing use for its intended purpose. - B. No common open space may be put to any use nor specified in the final development plan unless the final development plan has been amended to permit that use under Section _ of this ordinance. klowever, no change of use authorized under Section _ may be considered as a waiver of any of the covenants limiting the use of common open space areas, and all rights to enforce these covenants against any use permitted under Section are expressly reserved. C. [f the common open space is not conveyed to a public agency, either one of xhe following methods of enforce- ment must be provided: 1. The legal right to develop xhe common open space for the uses not specified in the final development plan must be conveyed to a public agency. 2. The restrictions governing the use, improvement, and maintenance of the common open-space must be stated as conditions to xhe conveyance of the common open space, the fee title to xhe common open space to vest iri a public agency in the event of a substantial default in the stared conditions. D. If xhe common open space is not conveyed to a public dgency, the covenanss governing the use, improve- ment, and maintenance of the common open space may authorize a public agency to enforce their provisions. Environmental Design The PUD concept presents a very real opportunity for incorporating environmental design considerations into the land development process. The increased flexibility avail- able through PUD both allows and encourages development which is more sensitive to the natural surroundings. As a result of changing public and professional attitudes toward the environment, natural features are being increasingly viewed as assets evhich enhance site design and prdject amenity, rather than as obstacles which must be bulldozed away. Both planning agencies and the general public have begun to demand increased sensitivity to environmental concerns. Over 60 per cent of the developers surveyed stated that environmental design questions had been major issues in the approval of their PUD projects. Developers stated that trees, topography, ground cover, and natural retrain are being given much higher priorities than ever before, and some even stated that these issues could only be dealt with effectively through the PUD process. Several developers said that good environmental design is a major selling point to the housing consumer, and it has become an important promotional tool. It is also a major selling poinx with PUD review authorities. Several developers com- mented that their track record in the PUD approval process 34 had improved as a resulx of greater attention to environ- mental design, and some have voluntarily included ecologi- cal reports and impact statements along with their PUD plans. As a result, developer-community relations have been substanxially improved. Most environmental design activit}' in PUD regulations has taken the form of preserving natural sire amenities or minimizing the disturbance to xhe natural environmenx. A few of the requirements have come from the traditional site preparation considerations such. as soil characteristics, topography, hydrology and drainage, etc. However, these items should be routinely addressed in conjunction with all types of development, and are usually contained in some other ordinance provision or regulatory device. Approximately half of the PUD ordinances reviewed contained provisions specifically addressing em'ironmental design issues, the most common of which were soil suitability and-the preservation of xopography, trees and ground cover, natural bodies of water, and other significant narural features. In other cases where ordinances did not contain such provisions, many planners responded thax enviroumenxal design considerations were raised during the review process anyway: While xhis is betxer xhan no consideration, PUD ordinances should include such provi- sions as a maxrer of routine. Techniques to incorpora[e environmental design consid- erations into xhe PUD process vazy. A derailed landscaping plan is the most common method used. One ordinance provision reads as follows: A general landscaping plan shall be required at the time of initial submission - xo be followed by a detailed landscaping plan, once the site plan has been approved, showing xhe spacing, sizes, and specific types of land- scaping material. Another ordinance went so far as to require that the removal of trees be approved by xhe planning commission. Another ordinance required a full inventory of the natural features of the site, including all trees above. a certain minimum size. Existing xrees shall be preserved wherever possible. The location of trees mtisx be considered when planning the common open space, location of buildings, underground services, walks, paved azea, playgrounds, parking areas, and finished grade levels. The Board shall inquire into the means whereby ttees and ocher natural features will be protected during construction. Excessive site clearing of top soil, trees, and natural features before the commencement of buIlding operations will be discouraged by the Board. Some agencies are requiring xhe submission of a modi- fied environmenxal impacx statement by the developer for each PUD project reviewed. Others have ordinance provi- sions dealing with bodies of water, flood plains, and grading. Some examples of environmental design criteria in PUD ordinances include the following: The preservation of trees,- groves, waterways, scenic points, hisxoric spots, and other community assets and landmarks. Require all flood plains as delineaxed in the county flood survey to be preserved as permanent common open space. Require a "grading plan" which will confine excavation, earth moving procedures,-and other changes to the landscape in order xo insure preservation and prevenx despoilation of the character of the area io be retained as common open space. hillside areas require special environmental design con- sideration. Erosion and grading must be held to a minimum. Drainage problems and slope stability must be dealt with, and views and visxas should also be protected. This may 35.. Almn<r half of the PUD ordinances surveyed had environmental design provisions; in other cases the rssue was rtearea aunng cnc revrcw prvaaa. mean significant alteraxion in design standards for areas of higher than normal slopes.-One ordinance adequately stated the problem: Hillside development requires special planning on the pazt of planning commissions and ]and developers. Special treatment for streets and building sites is needed to preserve natural terrain, trees, rock formations, and other features such as views. Inflexible imposition on hillside developments of subdivision regulations designed for flat land often makes land development so expensive that steep land is by-passed or developed improperly. Developers of these special tracts, usually in areas of low density, need leeway in the matter of lox size, lot shapes, frontages, rights-of-way, street widths, easements, and setbacks. In such developments the most informal development consistent with principles of good access, proper drainage, and moderate maintenance msts should be allowed. Steep topography frequently necessitates unusually deep or unusually shallow lots or narrow frontages. This ordinance goes on to classify land in a "hillside category" if "85 per cent of the land has a natural slope greater than 20 per cent." Areas classified in the hillside category are noted on the preliminary development plan and reviewed with special attention given to erosion control and the design of roadways. Erosion is a -major problem in hillside development. Topsoil loss and downstream silting often occur. Slope stability may be endangered by alterations to the natural subsurface drainage systems. Leaving as much of hillside areas in their natural state as possible is a common and sound approach to solving these problems. This means no cleazing, cutting, or filling, or other substantial changes in the natural conditions of the slopes. One ordinance used average slope figures to compute the amount of land area which must be left in iu natural state. Average slope will be determined by a formula: S = 0:0029 IL S -average slope, per cent A I -contour interval in feet L -contour length in feet A -parcel area in acres (excluding the land with slope greater than 35 per cent) The following table shows the minimum portions for various average-slopes: TABLE 10 Minimum Pottion of Iand Falling Within Each Slope Classifimtion Co Remain in Natural Srate or be Developed Solely For Slope Classdication Recreational Purposes (Average Percentage Slope) (Per CrnU 10.0 - 14.9 25 15.0 - 19.9 40 20.0 - 24.9 55 _ 25.0 - 29.9 - 70 30.0 -and above 85 Reducing the built-up area or increasing the impervious surface ratio of hillside areas may also be achieved by tightening density requirements in aeeas of excessive slopes. Some ordinances include slope mmpuxations in the calcula- tion of PUD densities, with the resultant effect being xhe greater the slope the lower the density allowed. Care should be taken with this approach to assure that the impervious surface ratio is, in fact, improved through tighter density requirements. As mentioned in the discussion on open space, density transfer schemes should be considered. Where manmade slopes occur as a result of road cuts or the grading of housing sites, special treatment should be required through erosion control provisions. All manufactured slopes, other than those consttucted in rock, shall be planted or otherwise proxected from the effects of storm runoff erosion and shall be of a chazacter so as to cause the slope to blend with the surrounding terrain and development. The developer shall provide for maintenance of the planting until growth is established. Some planning agencies require special site evaluations for hillside areas to report on the geological hazards of the proposed development and any potential drainage prob- lems. These evaluations must be conducxed by a qualified geologist or licensed engineer. One ordinance included a special hillside conservation districx for areas of excessive slope. Design standards for streeu in hillside areas may also be included in PUD ordinances, or contained in some other regulation and cross referenced in the PUD ordinance. These standazds should follow such principles as the parallel alignment of streets and drives to contours, preservation of the narural topography as much as possible (especially where traversing steep slopes), and grading by half-fill and half-cut methods as opposed to atl fill or all cut. Other street standards may have to be reduced for hillside development, such as horizontal and vertical cutves, angles or intersections, and widths of road and cul-de-sac righes- of-way. On the other hand, maximum tolerances for such items as road grades may merit increases. Environmental design standards in PUD ordinances are still in their infancy, but there is much encouraging evidence that their level of sophistication is rising. The treeless, barren subdivision of the past could be on its way out. Traffic Circulation Many PUD ordinances include several short provisions setting forth principles or standards for traffic circulation. Both external and internal circulation systems must be considered. Externally, adjacent street systems and interser bons muse be adequate to handle the new traffic generaxed by the PUD. If densities in a PUD aze higher than in surrounding development, review authorities must be caze- ful to avoid overloading existing facilities beyond their designed capacity. Some improvements may be necessary in external street nexworks, especially at major points of ingress and egress, and around PUD commercial facilixies. Points of ingress and egress should be designed xo discour age through traffic on minor streets in the PUD. Internal collector streets should be coordinated with existing exter- naI systems, providing for the efficient flow of traffic into and out of the PUD. Two examples of ordinance provisions addressing these types of issues follow: 36 Principal vehiculaz access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movements and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedes- trian craffic. -Minor streeu within PUDS shall not be connected to streets outside the development in such a way as to.encourage their use by through traffic. The proposed RPD District is so located with regard to major thoroughfares and uses outside the District that traffic congestion wdl not be created by the proposed development or will be obviated by presently projected improvements and chat uses adjacent to such thorough- fareswill not be adversely affected. The design of internal circulation systems must be sensitive to such points of safety, convenience, access to dwelling uniu and nonresidential facilities, separation of vehicular and pedestrian-bicycle traffic, and general attrar tiveness. Internal streets must be adequate to carry antici- pated traffic loads. They should discourage through traffic within the PUD as much as possible, and yet provide convenient and safe access to dwelling units. Access for emergency vehicles must also be considered. This is especially important in PUDS since innovative site designs may not allow each dwelling unit immediate access to the vehicular-traffic system. Some ordinances contain require- ments specifying the distance at which dwelling units may be located from access points and even requite walkways in between. Apart of every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (60) feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access from a public street, and not farther than five hundred (S00) feet, measured along the route of vehicular access from a public street. Sites without adequate access to collector and primazy streets will require a lower density than sites with good access. The number of dwelling units, number of streets to which access is available, number and spacing of access poinu, types of screen, and general site consider- ations must all be taken into consideration in determin- ingthe quality of access. Pedestrian and bicycle path systems are becoming more wmmon in PUDS and should be encouraged. They increase the total amenity and provide alternative modes of internal circulation. They are. also very adaptable to open space networks. The most important design consideration for pedestrian and bicycle paths is segregation from vehicular traffic, especially at intersections. Street crossings should be held to a: minimum and pedestrian over and under-passes should be encouraged, especially at poitits of highest conflict, neaz schools and playgrounds. For example: The pedestrian circulation system and iu related walk- ways shall be insulated completely and as reasonably as possible from the vehicular street system ht order to provide separation of pedestrian and vehicular move- ment. This shall include, when deemed to be necessary by the Plan Commission, pedestrian underpass or over- pass in the vicinity of schools, playgrounds, local shopping areas, and ocher neighborhood uses which generate a considerable amount of pedestrian traffic. Traffic. systems should be innovative and functional. They should not break up xhe development unnecessarily, but rather they should unify its various elements by tying them together through awell-integrated network of streets and paths. Some ordinances require pedestrian access to nonresi- dential facilities via pathway systems. One ordinance reviewed included the following requirement: At least 30 per cent of the dwelling units in the Planned Residential Development azea shall have access to commercial areas by pedestrian paths suitable for use in all weather. Such access shall nor involve the crossing of any street serving more than ten (10) dwelling units, nor any collector or primary street. All nonresidential land uses within a PUD should have direct access to a collector ox primary street, especially where large parking areas are included. Private Streets Developers occasionally propose private residential streets in their PUDS. The main incentive is the reduction in development costs possible where allowable standards for private streets are lower than those required of public streets, or where private street standards do not exist at alL Also, more design innovation may be possible when conventional street standazds do nor have to be met. In the past, some local governmenu have viewed private streets with favor in hopes of being relieved of the responsibilities for their maintenance and upkeep. however, more recent experiences seem to have changed this Horton. To many local governmenu, private streets have become an administrative headache, sometimes even a serious liability. Since private streets are being included in PUDS with increasing frequency, it is important that two basic issues 6e understood. The fust regards development standards. Screet standards are purely a question of physical design and should be based upon sound design criteria relating such factors as anticipated traffic loads-traffic volume, vehicle weight, speed, emergency vehicle size, turning radius-to the types of development the streeu serve- single-family residential, multifamily residential, commer- cial. Obviously, all streets must be designed to standards high enough to accommodate their anticipated uses, regazd- less of whether they aze public or private. The second issue regazds legal ownership of xhe streets and should be considered apart from the question of physical design standards. Legal ownership carries with it the responsibility of perpetual maintenance. Private streeu are owned and maintained by the abutting property ovmers and other persons to whom xhe streeu provide access. Generally a homeowners' association or some other type of maintenance entity (which may also be responsible for the management of ocher commonly owned property within the PUD) conducts the maimenance funcxion for private streets. Such an organization is financed by the assessment of fees to the members of the homeowneu' association. All future repair and maintenance costs of the private streets, including reconstruction when necessary, must be borne by the homeowners who are a party to the agreement. Sixty-eight per cent of the planning agencies responding to the survey had processed PUDS with private streeu. Respondents were also asked to comment on any problems which they had encountered with private stteeu in PUDS. Their most common complaint was thax private streets were built to lower standards than pubhc streets. As a resulx, the incidence of repair was higher, and the streeu were not always adequate to serve their intended functions. Nor- 4 37 molly, such problems would not affect local governments since the responsibility for private strceu rests with the homeowners. However, where there have been problems with private streets, homeowners have often called city hall, expecting [he city to provide routine maintenance services, not fully realizing chat. they had purchased a street along with their house. Some olanners cited misunderstandings regarding the right or responsibility of local governmenu to discharge normal public functions over private strceu, such as garbage pickup, police and fire protection, and snow removal. There seems to be some confusion over what routine public services governments are required to provide via private streets. In a few cases, substandard private streets restricted the normal ingress and egress of emer- gency vehicles in large PUDs. As a result of such problems, many local governments have been asked to take over private streeu, and many have done so. Planners expressed widespread fears about the_present and future ability of homeowners' associations to continue to pay xhe maintenance costs for private streeu. Whether future PUD residents will be willing and able to pay for private streets is a serious question. Such feazs have been sustained by the foreclosure of some homeowners' associa- tions in the face of rising maintenance costs, as well as associated administrative problems. When such foreclosures have occurred, local governments have often been faced with the acceptance of substandazd private streeu into their public street systems. This places disproportionate financial burdens on the total taxpaying population. lvhile they generally stand to gain more than they stand to lose, developers are faced with two major problems with private streets in their PUDs. First, they are responsible for the streets until they transfer legal ownership to a home- owners' association or some other maintenance entity. In the case-of large PUDs where sales may be staggered over relatively tong periods of time, this could mean mainte- nance responsibility for several months, even years. Se- condly, they aze faced with the problem of seeing thax a viable maintenance entity is established to take over the streets when the proper time comes. There is nothing inherently wrong with private streets as long as regulations are designed to protect the interests of ` all parties involved. Many of the problems previously cited stem from inadequate regulations and poor public adminis- tration. Where public street standards are more excessive than necessary to service new PUDs, there needs to be some system for making exceptions. Several alternatives are available to local governments. The simplest method is to flatly forbid private streets; another is to allow private streets in a PUD on the condition that they be built xo the'same standards applied to streets acceptable for public dedication. This approach assures the homeowner of street quality consistent with that of the municipality in general. There should be no questions about hinderances to the delivery of public services due to physical design. Also local governments are assured that the streets will be up to par should they have to assume ownership for them in the future. However, both of these provisions seem unnecessarily rigid. Innovations in site design may wazrant deviations from conventional street standazds, and developers should be afforded these options where justified. While the second approach mentioned above does allow for private streets in the legal sense, it makes ao allowance for design flexibility, Such an approach could only be warranted where public street standards are already in tune with new design concepts and mnrain some built-in flexibility. An approach more in keeping with the concept of PUD would allow the review authorities a measure of discretion by permitting private streets to vary from existing standards where substantial justification could be shown by the developer. This places a heavier burden of responsibility upon the review authority and requires that [hey possess the expertise necessary to make such judgments. Three ordinance examples with this flexibility follow: Private streets and drives need not meet the require- ments of this Code which would otherwise be applicable if the Planning Commission, after recommendation of the Fire Chief, Chief of Police, and Director of Public Works, finds that the design of [he proposed streets and common vehiculaz ways is adequate to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and will promote the purposes and intent of this Division. - Sercets in a Planned Development may be dedicated to public use ox may be retained under private ownership. They shall be constructed in accordance with standards required by the County Subdivision Regulations, as amended, for xypical lots in the UR-1 zone or as otherwise specified in the conditional use permit. The Board may therefore waive or modify the specifica- tions otherwise applicable for a particular public facility where the Board finds chat such specifications are not required in the interest of the residents of the planned residential development and [hat the modifications of such specifications are consistent with [he interests of the entire Township. Proposed specifications and stan- dards which are inconsistent with those required under the prevailing Township ordinances shall be termed acceptable upon approval by the Board. Of course,-if sound physical design criteria form the basis for exceptions to public street standards, there is no reason not to allow such deviations for public streets in PUDs as well. One ordinance took this approach: Srandazds of design and construction for roadways, both public and private, within planned residential develop- ment districts may be modified as is deemed appropriate by the City Council. Right-of-way width and street roadway widths may be reduced as deemed appropriate by the City Council, especially where it is found that the plan for the PUD provides for the sepazation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns and provides for adequate off-street parking facilities. _ -- - - The above citation allows for a high degree of flexibility and encourages a departure from traditional -subdivision design. It also recognizes the distinctioti between physical design standards and legal ownership. Under the above provision, PUD street systems may be designed to the limit of The developer's creative ability, regardless of whether they aze publicly or privately owned. The only -design limitation. is their adequacy to provide the anticipated service required. Confusion over the legal responsibilities of local govern- menu to provide public services via private streets as well as their right of access to do so should be relatively easy to cleaz up. An outline or list of the details regarding the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved within the ordinance should suffice. Such a list might spell out in 38 detail both the .homeowners' and the local government's rights and responsibilixies for maintaining certain facilities and providing basic public services. Public utility rights-of- way must be clarified when the private street system would be used for such things as sewer and water lines. One approach is to require chat the private streets be dedicated to local governments as utility easements. There is also an important point which is sometimes overlooked regarding net density calculationg. It is impor-- tanx that ordinances be clear and consistent on the relationship of net density calculations t0 private streets, as reduced private street widths may otherwise result in higher net densities than originally anxicipated. Also, as an added protection to local government in the future, some ordi- nances include provisions sxaxing the conditions under which local governments will accept private streets into the public street system. For example: If the owners in the future should requ esi that the private streets be changed to public streets, the owners do fully agree that, before acceptance of such streets by a local government body, the owners will bear full expense of reconstruction or any other action necessary to make the streets fully conform to the requirements applicable at thax time for public streets, prior to dedication -and acceptance. Finally, the owners also agree xhat these streets shall be dedicated to public use without compensation to the owners and without the owners' expenses in making such streets conform xo the requirements applicable at that time for public streets, if at some future date, a local governing body so requesxs. It is not xhe intent of this report to present a full discussion of the design standards for residential streets, However, several examples of the private street standards currently used.in PUD ordinances may be helpful. Like other design standards, they vary from place to place, but one set of streex standards reviewed contained several standazds which were dependent upon the type of street and the number of dwelling units it was inxended to serve: TABLE it Requ¢ed Footage Type of Street Uaea Served Row Pavement Residrntial dead end 1 - 6 dwellings 30 18 or local street 7 - 20 dwellings 40 24 21 - 50 dwellings SO 30 Residential collector 51 -200 dwellings 60 36 Neighborhood over 200 dwelling or BO collector any commerctial uu See Table 12 for some additional private street standards. The question of adequate, yet not clearly excessive and therefore wasteful, street standards in PUDs begs the question of appropriate street standards for all new residential areas, whether or not planned as PUDs, and whether or not streets are public or private. Mounting criticism in recent years leads us to believe that standards in many jurisdicxions are often excessive. Two examples are TABLE 12. Minimum Width Between Curbs Parking Parking No Parking One Side Both Sides (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) One-way street 14 20 28 Two-way street 24 30 36 frequently cited. First, excessive right-of-way widths that come from an era of urban development characterized by gridiron streex patterns. No city engineer knew what was to become a collector or a major street and therefore all streets should be wide just in case. Second, and perhaps based on the first point, pavement widths and thicknesses must accommodate heavy truck and commercial xraffic. From time to time articles published in ffouse and Horne or by the Urban Land Institute-see The Comrnunity Builders Handbook, Executive Edition-call for a new look at standards. At the time this study was going xo press the National Association of Homebuilders Research Founda- tion had published an interim draft of A ,M1lanual of Residential Street Development Standards, which argues that standards should be based on the concept of average daily traffic. Table 13 on page 40 is a summary of the study's recommendations. Re~lving the technical debates in specific terms is beyond the scope of this report. Clearly, however, local planning agencies should be careful yet have open minds iowazd the acceptance of new street standards in PUDs. - The speciFic standards quoted here show cleazly [hat efforts are underway to base. measurements on performance characteristics. We suspect in the very near future there will be enough ferment and reexamination going on that there will emerge widely accepted national standards for private and limited service streeu. Parking Standards Determining PUD parking standards requires no basic depaz[ure from traditional approaches. Many PUD ordi- nances simply require rnnformance with conventional requirements located in another part of the ordinance. Some ordinances, though, permit variations from these conventional requirements where justified by xhe developer. With mixed housing types, vazied demands for pazking space may occur. Ordinances should be flexible enough to permit an appropriate response by the review authority. Aside from xhe issue of quantity, parking standazds in PUD ordinances should deal with the location and design of facilities. For example, as a result of the vaziation in PUD site design, some ordinances specify the allowable distances that parking areas can be located from dwelling units. Oxher common requirements deal in general terms with the landscaping and screening of parking azeas. Some ordi- nances go a step further by attempting to legislate the specific xype of landscaping in open parking areas by specifying the ratio of planting area to total pazking area. Landscaping of parking areas could be handled at the discrexion of the review authority rather than being included in ordinance provisions. However, it is ati impor- xant part of project amenity and should not be overlooked. The following is a set of PUD parking standards which address both the quantity required and the design treat- ment of the spaces: 39 A. For each dwelling unit, there shall be off-street parking spaces consisting of not less than 200-squaze feet each. _ B. Parking aeeas shall be arranged so as to prevent xhrough traffic to other parking areas. C.-Parking areas shall be screened from adjacent strur xures, roads, and traffic arteries with hedges, dense planting, earth berms, changes in grade or walls. D. No more than 15 parking spaces shall be permitted in a continuous row without being interrupted by land- scaping. E. No more than 60 parking spaces shall be accommo- dated in aay single parking area. F. All streets and any off-street loading area shall be paved, and the design thereof approved by the Board. All areas shall be mazked so as xo provide for orderly and safe loading, parking, and storage, G. Parking for nonresidential purposes shall be provided appropriaxe to the type of nomesidental use, as deemed adequate to the Board. 1L All parking areas shall be adequately lighted. All such lighting shall be so arranged as xo direcx the light away from adjoining residences. I. All parking areas and off-street loading areas shall be graded and drained so as to dispose of all surface water withou[ erosion, flooding, and other inconveniences. PUD Perimeters An important design element in any PUD is the treatmenx of the perimeter or edge of the development. Tn theory, perimeter requirements are necessary to protect existing or anticipated Future development adjacent to a proposed PUD from potenxially adverse influences gene- rated by it and to protect the PUD from any potenxially adverse surrounding influences. In practice, perimeter requirements axe too often based on the assumption that there is somexhing inherently wrong with PUDs (or any new development), and such requirements are primazily used to screen off new development from established areas. _. The opposition to PiJDs (or any form of development fur that matter) from adjacent established neighborhoods, especially single-family neighborhoods, requires xhat perim- eters be adequately considered in the review process. When PUDs are proposed for redevelopment of vacant parcels in built-up areas, care must be taken to harmonize the scale, setback, and mass with existing adjacent development. The wide variety of naxural and manmade site chazacter- istia make perimeter requirements difficult to drafx. The individuality of various PUD sites demands some flexibility if regulations are to be relevanx. For example, large perimeter setback requirements may be inefficient or- wasxeful in small PUD sites and possibly even negate creative design alternatives. Although high-rise development is sometimes considered undersirable adjacent to a single- family development, the topographic features of.some sites may permit ahem without hurting either pazty. . Only 38.5 per cent of the PUD ordinances surveyed included perimeter requiremenu. Of these, most dealt primarily with relating PUD snuctvres to structures on adjacent properties, and relating PUD land uses to adjacent land uses. Of the developers surveyed, 42.9 per cent said that PUD perimexers caused specific design problems, primarily in coordinating densities and land uses. Setback requirements are a commonly used technique TABLE 13. Residential Saeet Design Standards Summary Proposed by NAHB Research Foundation Study (Interim) 1973 Place Service Traffic (ADT)t Pavement Width2 No parking Pazking ane side Pazking two sides R of W Wid[h3 Sidewalks4 Provision for widenings Streer Slopeb Sight Distance Maximum Specd V. Light 0-75 16 18 26 24' - 30' None No 0.5 per cent 22 per cent 75' 15 Street Description Lane Subcolleaor Collector Light 75 - 200 18 18 26 24' - 30' None No 0.5 per cen[ - 22 per cent 125' 20 L. Traffic 200 - 1,000 20 26 36 44' - 50' One or both No 0.5 per cent 10 per cent 250' 25 Local and Thru 1,000 - 3,000 2s 36 40 44'-60' One or both Yes 0.5 per cent - 8 per mnc 350' 35 Arrerial~ Thru 3,000+ • Arterial sheets aze usually designed and consVUtted by state highway departments and are designed to accommodau specific traffic, weather, and other factors. t ADT (Average Daily Traffic) is used as a measure of the number of vehicles using a road during ao average 24-hour period, but does not account for the peak load period. Design Hourly Volume (DH V) which considers peak loads, would be a better measure for that purpose. a Values shown are typical Local conditions may require vaziations in pavement widths. 3 Values shown are typical. Local dimare conditions may require some variation. 4 Lackof specific requiremenu may make sidewalks on one or both sides of subcollettors and collectors unnecessary. s Requirement of future widening should be assessed during the early design stages and based on total and potential development of the area. e Values shown aze typical. Topographic and climate conditions may require variaxions 40 for dealing with PUD boundaries. Ordinances using this approach generally require that all perimeter development meet the same setback regulations as [hose of the adjacent zoning district. This approach is best suited to cases where proposed PUD development is simIlar in character to existing adjacent development. However, such a require- ment is idscnsitive-to situations where contrasting develop- ment types and housing styles will exist side by side. Different -sxyle dwelling units may not be compatible with the setbacks prescribed for adjacent zones; further, even that setback may not always be sufficient. For example, large multifamily units tying near the perimeter of a PUD may require a greater amount of setback from the PUD boundary, or some different treatment, in order to protect adjacent developmenx from presumed adverse influences. One ordinance went so far as to require that the perimeter of the PUD "be.planned and developed for uses permitted in the adjoining residential district and in accordance with all other requirements for such districts." We might expect this kind of reasoning to produce a mixed development of patio homes and garden apartments sealed off by a tight wall of single-family ranch houses. This kind of provision is a good example of an overly protective ordinance favorable to PUDs as long as they don't stir up the local citizens. The authors seem to forget that PUD is a favorable alternative to conventional development, not something which should be hidden from public view. A more intelligent approach is to relate perimeter requirements to particulaz development characteristics which might be incompatible with adjacent development. The following ordinance provision does this for one particular chazacteristic, building height: For each foot of building height over thirty-five (35) feet in zones b, 7, 7a, 8, the distance between such buildings and the front, side, and/or rear property lines only on the perimeter of a Planned Unit Development project shall be increased one (1) foot in addition to the front, side, and/or rear yards required in the disexict, provided .that this additional setback shall not be considered part of the side or rear yards. An alternative to the standard setback approach is to require a buffer zone of a prescribed dimension, often with landscaping and/or screening: Two examples of such requirements follow: Where the Planned Residential District abuts another Residential District a permanent open space at least twenty-five (25) feet wide shall be provided along the property line, shall be maintained in landscaping, and no driveway or off-street parking shall be permitted in such area. That there is an appropriate relationship to the sur- rounding area and there must be a minimum 30-foot buffer zone - in-any planned unit of -multifamily or nonresidential buildings or structures that is adjacent to a low-density residential use district. The buffer zone must be kept free of buildings or structures and must be landscaped, screened, or protected by natural features, so that adverse effects on stiirounding areas are mini- mized. These two previsions are important because they protect the integrity of the buffer zone, requiring that it remain undeveloped. They also relate the buffer requirement to a particular type of adjacent development, "residential dis- tticts" or a "low-density residential use district." In using such a requirement, though, drafters of ordinances should decide whether or not the buffer zone will be included in any open space requirements for PUDs. Still other approaches have been used. Some ordinances require the use of screening-natural or manmade-to. protect the PUD and/or existing adjacent development from the adverse effects of light and noise and to. guard privacy and amenity. Occasionally such screening is re- quired to be of a permanent nature and even sight proof. Screening is also used to guazd against adverse views from "existing or potential first-floor residential windows," in the PUD or adjoining residential districts. it is important that regulations remain flexible so they can adjust to conditions where site characteristics such as terrain or topography may make such screening impractical or unnecessary. An example of such flexibility is contained in the following provision: If topographical or other barriers within _ feet of the perimeter of the development do not provide reasonable privacy for existing uses adjacent to the development, the planning commission shall impose either of the following requirements, or both: A. Structures located on the perimeter of the develop- ment must be setback in accordance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance controlling the area within which the development is situated; and, B. Structures located on the perimeter of the develop- ment must be well screened in a manner which is approved by the Commission. Perimeter land uses should also be considered in terms of potential adverse effects. For example, special attention should be given to the siting of recreational areas and commercial facilities within PUDs, so that they do not adversely affect adjacent land uses. One ordinance included the following provision: "No intensive recreational or commercial use shall be permitted within 150 feet of-the boundary of any adjacent residential district." The ordinance provisions discussed above reflect the fear many communities have of new development forms. Perim- eter .regulations have been largely aimed at protecting single-family neighborhoods adjacent to new PUDs. This is a valid concerq since some poor PUDs have been built in the past, and real problems have resulted. At xhe same time, however, communities should not adopt new development concepts and then water them down to match what already eX1sT5. Nonresidential Development Over 70 per cent of the planning agencies surveyed had ordinances which allowed mixed land uses or land uses accessory to residential uses in their PUDs. The guiding principle of most of these ordinances for nonresidential development is that it be for the express service and Convenience of the residents of the PUD and their guesxs, Actual need for the accessory uses must be generued by the new development itself. Many ordinances specify that -- such development be primarily for the PUD residents, although some ordinances further specify the exciusive use of the residents. If this is as far as local ordinance drafters go, we can prediM trouble. Determining wfiether or not nonresidential, and especially commercial, uses are accessory to a proposed at PUD can be determined by requiring a market study by xhe developer. If the commercial uses are accessory there should not be any regulatory problem. If proposed com- mercial facilities are to serve a larger market, then the jurisdiction ought to address three separate issues: (1) Does the community's plan for commercial areas call for such uses in this general area? (The residential portion of the proposed PUD is to some extent irrelevant to this ques- tion.) tf there is disagreement bexween plan and marker study, one or both may need reexamination: If it is determined that such a commercial area is appropriate, it could perhaps be processed as a separate commercial PUD, but in,conjunction with the residential one. (2) How well is the residential portion of the PUD planned? (3) How do the developments relate to each other? The opportunities to relate the two developments is far greater than if each were being built separately, by different dedelopers. We believe that if this procedure, or a vaziation of it, were followed, we would see a healthy decrease in phony posruring and arguing (e.g., "Does xhe developer really want to build the whole PUD, orjust xhe commercial part of it?" Or, "Let's see now; will they accept xhe commercial part if we throw in some apartments and xownhouses?") Even so, the phasing and timing of each type of development may be completely appropriate. (See the previous discussion on phasing.) The remainder of this discussion, then, deals wixh nonresidential uses which are usually accessory. As a site planning principle nonresidential development should b~ integrated into the total design of xhe project, whether located within it or at the edges. It should complement surrounding residential development and blend into the total scheme avoiding a harsh contrast to its surroundings, either in design or in ixs activity effecxs. Nomesidential uses common to PUDs include education, religious, and recreational facilities as well as commercial, office, and professional land uses. Some ordinances present a list of -specific accessory uses acceptable in any PUD. A more common approach is to allow only commercial and accessory uses permitted in the mosx restrictive commercial districts in the zoning ordinance presumably because these districts are normally for neighborhood or convenience shopping. Others permit accessory nonresidential uses specific to the pazticular PUD in question based solely on administrative discretion. For example: Nonresidential uses, limited to those specifically ap- proved by the Plan Commission, are permitted in a Planned Unit Development provided that such uses primarily are for xhe service and com~enience of the residents of the development. Controls are generally tighter over drive-in commercial establishments due xo their potential for traffic generation. Standards for nonresidential development in PUDs should address several major issues. One is xhe quantity of such developmenx permitted. Accessory uses such as reli- gious, educational, and recreational facilities aze generally allowed in quanxities necessary to serve the needs of [he residents of the new development. One ordinance provision states: Nonresidential uses of a religious, educational, or recrea- tional naxure shall be presumed to be designed or intended primarily for the use of the residents of the proposed development, and burden shall be on the Planning Commission or objecting parries appearing at the public hearing to show thaz such uses beyond a reasonable doubt will primarily serve persons residing outside the development. Typically, ordinance language dealing wish noncommercial, nonresidential development places the burden of need test upon the challengers rather than the developer. The reverse is true for commercial development, how- ever. iblany PUD ordinances place the burden upon the developer to demonstrate xhat nonresidential uses of a commercial character are intended to serve principally the residents of the proposed development. Some ordinances require that the developer establish specific economic need for commercial facilities: ".. ,that any proposed commer- cial development can be justified economically ax the locations proposed to provide for adequate commercial facilities of the types proposed." - In some cases, especially where medium to large PUDs are proposed for transitional areas, a formal market analysis can be required. One ordinance contained the following provisions: The amount of area and type of commercial facilities to be allowed in an RPD, if requested by the developer, shall be based on the market analysis required in Section _ of xhe Zoning Ordinance. The market analysis shall be prepared and signed by a market analyst and shall be critically reviewed by the Planning Department staff. The staff shall prepare a written report concerning the market analysis to the Architectural and Site Approval Committee co be transmitted to the Planning Commis- sion for the Public Hearing. The market analysis shall demonstrate thax the amount of land proposed is needed for, and can realistically be supported in, commercial use. For these purposes such market analysis shall contain the following determina- tions: A. Determination of the trade area of xhe proposed commercial facilities, B. Determination of the trade area population, present and prospective, C. Determination of the effective buying power in such trade area, D. Determination of net potential customer buying power for stores in the proposed commercial facilities and, on such basis, the recommended store types and store floor areas; E. Determination of the residual amount of buying power in the trade area and how it may be expected to be expanded in other business areas serving the trade area. These aze several techniques for regulating the quantity of commercial development. Establishing a ratio of com- mercial xo residential development is a common one, usually in terms of gross squaze feet of floor area or land azea, and some. specific amount of residential development, generally measured in terms of dwelling units. Examples of such ratios include 1,000-square feet of gross commercial floor area per 100 dwelling units; 40-square feet of gross commercial floor area per dwelling unix; or one gross acre of commercial developmenx per 100 dwelling units. Ratios can also be established in terms of a percentage of commercial land area allowable within [he gross PUD acreage. Examples of such land area ratios ranged in size from 1.4-to 5 per cent of the total PUD site. - 42 Developed reaeacional amenities were once a specialized tnarkct While these types of ratios are common, they are rather crude tools and have some inherent faults. They can be azbitrary- in xheir effect upon extreme sizes of PUDs, both large and small. Obviously, a 1.5 per cent ratio for commercial development could only allow for a meaningful amount of commercial property in a PUD of a substantial size. On the other hand m large developmenu of 500 to 1,000 acres or more, a five per cent commercial ratio would permit a rather lazge commercial development. One ordi- nance did set an upward limit of 10,00(Lsquare feex of gross commercial floor area, but few other ordinances contained such limixs. Another fault is that commercial ratios cannox be related to the occupanu, xheir income- level, their accessibilixy to commercial facilities, probable mobility, nor to the level of commercial services already in existence within the neighborhood. In short, such ratios are poor substirutes for determining the amount of commercial development xhrough a mazket analysis. If used at all, they should be in combinaxion with discretionary controls which require that justification of need be firmly established. Some ordinances have included provisions establishing minimum PUD size requiremenu for any commercial development (e.g., a minimum of 400 dwelling units or 100 acres before commercial development is allowed). However, these also run the risk of arbitrariness and should not receive more emphasis xhan market analysis as a sound criteria -for establishing xhe proportion of commercial development in a residential PUD. It is common practice to apply conventional develop- ment standazds found elsewhere in the zoning ordinance to religious, educanonal, and recreational facilities in PUDs: __- -_.. ool, but they are now almost a requirement for survival in a PIID. Churches, schools, and other nonresidential, noncom- mercial uses permitted in xhe PUD-2 Districx shall be subject to all requirements for lox area, width, height, yards, and setbacks prescribed in the district in which they are firsx permitted. Such standards may be sufficient in most cases, but deviations must also be wnsidered. Specific design plans must justify alterations in the traditional approach, espe- dally in a PUD. In addition, new designs may require that standards need to be tightened up in specific situations due to the unique characteristics of a particular PUD plan. For example, increased setbacks or buffer zones may be necessary xo proxect ocher elements of the PUD from nonresidential developmenx. Commercial development standards in PUD ordinances have been treated with considerably more detail. As a start, conventional standards for commercial development from other ordinance sections often apply as a minimum. For example: "Planned shopping centers, when permitted in a PUD District, shall be limited to uses permitted in C-1 Districxs and subject to C-1 requirements with the following modifications....." The.modificaxions mentioned mnsist of a further set of standards or requiremenu contained in the PUD ordinance which often deal with protecting residential sections of the PUD from any adverse effecu, coordinating traffic generation and flow, and regulating developmenx timing. Most ordinances with commercial PUD standards specify that such development must be planned "as an integral patt of the PUD." The design of internal circulation systems 43 must be coordinated with the commercial element of the development. Most commercial PUD standanls specify the category of street type for providing service to commercial developments. Such aeeas shall be so located and designed as to provide direct access to a Primary, Secondary, or Collector Street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on the other streets. Such centers shall have direct access to no less than a secondary street and shall be located and designed without creating congestion or traffic hazards on any street. Such centers shall be so located and so designed as to provide direct access to a collector or an arterial street without creating congestion or traffic hazards on any street In addition to general traffic provisions, some ordinances have specific standards regarding parking and loading space requiremenu which supersede conventional parking and loading requirements for commercial development. In some cases, anticipated walk-in trade in high-density PUDs, which may also include pedestrian pathway systems, may justify reductions in off-street commercial parking facilities. In other cases, parking facilities may serve multiple nonresi- denrial facilities whose hours of operation do not conflict, again permitting reductions in parking space requirements. Some ordinances leave this question to be resolved by the review authority. One such provision reads: OfEstreet parking and loading requirements shall be determined by the Planning Commission as appropriate to the particular case based upon the types of conve- nience establishments permitted and the anticipated proportion of walk-in trade. Multiple use of off-street parking and service areas and accessways for convenience establishments may be permitted, if such multiple use will not lead to congestion or the creation of hazards to pedestrian or vehicular traffic. b4any PUD ordinances also contain a general catch-all statement for the protection of the residents of the PUD and adjacent properties. Most of them are worded some- what as follows: Layout of parking areas, service areas, entrances, exits, yards, courts and landscaping, and control of signs, lighting, noise or other potentially adverse influences shall be such as io protect residential character within the PUD District and desirable character in any adjoining Residence District. Developmenx timing is especially important in the development of commercial facilities in a residential PUD. While this subject is dealt with more fully in another section of this report, it should also be mentioned here as it specifically applies to commercial development. The princi- ple behind controlling nonresidenrial development timing in a residential PUD is [o prevent one part-especially com- mercial uses-from being built first and risking xhe possibil- ity that the residential_ portion is abandoned. Timing is also impoftan£ td assiire~ the integrity--and stability of the adjacent zdiiirig districts and surrounding land values. If a mazket analysis of the residential sections of the PUD establishes the need for a commercial development, it could theoretically be in financial trouble by attempting to operate prior to the creation of at least a major proportion of the market which it is intended to serve. In actual practice, commercial development within a PUD, con- structed prior to the establishment of its intended mazket, may in fact survive off the existing market in the adjacent arez This possibility is even more real when a market analysis is not used. Sixuations have occurred in which the more profitable commercial development was constmcted 5rst, followed by a request for an alteration in the development of the residential portion of the PUD, or even a failure to construct the residential portion of the PUD altogether. To avoid the above pitfalls, PUD ordinances should include commercial development timing provisions. These provisions should require that some portion of the residen- tial elements of the PUD be complered prior to develop- ment of the nonresidential elements. The following are several examples of such timing provisions: If the Planned Unit Development contains from one (1) to fifty (SO) dwelling units, seventy-five (75) per cent of the said dwelling units mus[ be physically constructed prior to any nonresidential use construction. No building permit for any convenience establishment shall be issued nor may any building be used for a convenience establishment before building permits for at least one hundred dwelling units within a radius of 1,000 feet of the proposed establishment have been issued. No building permit for any shopping center shall be issued prior to construction of at least five hundred dwelling units in the Planned Development Housing District. No building permit for any retail business shall be issued before the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for at ]east 400 dwelling units within the Planned Unit Development, , The above examples differ on the point at which commercial development may begin. Some state that the required number of dwelling units must be constructed, others only that building permits be issued for the residential units first, and still others xhat occupancy permits must be issued before the Starr of nonresidential or commercial development construction. There are some additional considerations regarding nonresidential development. One is commercial sign con- trol. Sign regulations far commercial development in residential PUDs aze generally stricter than conventionally allowed. The emphasis on integrated architectural treat- ment and design of the PUD including accessory nonresi- denrial development justifies this position. Generally, signs aze limited to business identification signs placed upon the structures or individual businesses themselves and shopping center identification signs. Both types are restricted in size and exact location. Some more detailed ordinances require the submission of a sign plan which must be approved before the issuance of a building permit. Some ordinances also include speci£c landscaping and screening provisions for commercial development in resi- dential PUDs to minimize their undesirable activity effects and imgrove visual amenity. Buffer strips and open spaces may be required to be landscaped, and loading, outdoor storage, and refuse collection areas may need to be screened, fenced, or otherwise shielded from adjacent development. 44 Chapter 6. Legal Aspects of Drafting PUD Ordinances Legal issues azising from the concept of planned unit development have been the subjecx of a relatively large body of published materials.t The purpose of this portion of xhe report is not to reproduce those discussions. Rather, within the contexx of some of xhe broader issues raised in xhat literature, we intend to review subse quenx court decisions affecting PUD ordinances, covering roughly the period from 1965 to present. How Should PUD Be Fitted into the Structure of Local Land Development Regulations? This section is concerned wi[h three general categories of legal issues that may confront the drafter of a PUD ordinance. The first involves the validity of the concept of PUD in Gghx of the limixations courts have historically imposed on the powers of municipalities to regulate land development. The second is xhe background and track record xo date of model state enabhng legislation for PUD intended to overcome basic legal difficulties with the concepx. The third parr takes a look at how courts have viewed some of xhese issues in states tha[ lack specific enabling legislation for PUD. The separation of incompatible land uses is the xheoret- ical keystone of traditional "Euclidian" zoning. The regula- tory rationale is lodged in the prospective prevenxion of otherwise uncompensated hazm to one landowner by the more intensive use-of neighboring property. Superimposed on this regulatory concepx of the separation of incompax- ible uses is a structure of value judgments about the relative social wotth of certain land uses. This hierarchy of uses establishes the least. intensive use, the single-family resi- dence, as the most protected category. Zoning ordinances based on this hierarchy are called cumulative, because each more intensive category of land use contains all of the uses permitted in preceding categories. The trend in modem zoning practice has been towazd exclusive use districts, but the idea of "cumulativeness" lingers on. It was suggested that because the mixing of land uses was inxxlnsic to the concept of PUD, it was fundamentally at odds with these xraditionat nations of land-use regula- tion. Bu[ this inconsisxency is more apparent than real. Euclidian cumulative zoning theoretically permits "mixing" of land uses in all but the most restrictive single-family zone. [n practice, zoning must accommodate numerous nonconforming uses, even in the most resxrictive districts, and regulations commonly contain special or conditional use provisions which permit the location-of commercial and institutional uses in otherwise restrictive residential dis- tricts. Neixhex the xheory nor practice of traditional zoning is necessarily incompatible with the PUD concept. Legal commentators who discussed PUD in the eazly 1960s unanimously embraced xhe basic concept, but they had serious reservations about the technique's vahdixy. Many felt that xhe fabric of local zoning, generally cut from the same Standard Zoning Enabling Act (SZEA) bolt of cloxh, could not be stretched xo accommodate the flexibil- ixy inherent in the PUD concept. First, there was fear that courts might find an invalid delegation of power in the increased responsibilities for decisions about use and density changes xhat PUD gave to the plan commission. There was doubt that the constituxional docxrine of separation of powers even applied to local government, but some courts had talked as though it did. Moreover, the SZEA had not delineated much of a role for the planning commissions in matters of use and density control; it was the local legislative body's funcxion to enact and amend the zoning ordinance, with the board of adjustmenx ironing our individual hardship situations. Second, PUD was thought to pose a possible conflict with many state enabling acts which required uniformity of regulations within zoning districts. Although most felt xhax the argument that PUD conflicted with the uniformity rule could be overcome, it still cast a shadow of doubt on the technique. Finally, _PUD demanded legal mechanisms capable of dealing with the creation of private open space held in common and the assurance that developers would adhere to complex development plans over time. Existing property law concepts provided some direction, but whether they could be adopxed to municipal use was not clear. Many commentators of the early 1960s believed that the best antidote for PUD's known and suspected legal maladies would be state legislation, supplemenxing but not supplant- ing existing zoning and planning enabling acts. Such laws would give clear authority for PUD ordinances, describe techniques for ensuring continuing open space mainte- nance, and provide for conditional approval and public review of phased development. Most importanx, this special enabling legislation would recognize thax whatever the nature of xhe municipal body which reviewed and approved 45 PUD applications-legislative or administrative-the font lion of PUD approval amounts to the giving of special licenses to individual landowners. Thus the review and approval process should be subject to vigorous procedural safeguards designed to protect the community from arbi- trazy decisions and to provide an extensive record for judicial review. In 1965 the Urban Land Institute and the National Association of Iiomebuilders published a "Model State Enabling Act" (Model Act) fur planned unit residential development.z A thorough piece of drafting with extensive commentary, the organization of [he Model Act was as follows: (1) [he constitutional generalization of the preamble; (2) a delineation of the boundaries within which [the PUD] technique may be employed by the muncipality choos- ing to do so; (3) an enumeration of the basic criteria the state believes essential in Planned Residential DeveIop- men[; (4) definition of the respective interests of the residents and the municipality in xhe enforcement and modification of the Planned Residential Development; (5) a chronological account of the procedural steps required by both a prospective applicant and the local jurisdictioh; (6) a definition of terms considered neces- sary to the understanding and legal clazity of the statute.3 The first state to enact legislation based on the ULI model was New Jersey in 1967. That state's "Planned Unit Development Act"^ generally follows the structure and language of the model religiously, with some minor changes. The Model Act was limited in scope to planned unit residential development; its forwazd explains that the practical consideration of rime and funds prevented an extension to planned development of other land-use types. The model does, however, provide for "nonresidential uses ancilhuy to residential uses."s New Jersey's act makes the extension by including commercial and industrial uses in the definition of "planned unit developmenC" and by adding a new section with permissive language: "nothing contained herein shall preclude the creation of planned industrial development districts, planned commercial development districts, or the placing of various kinds of planned districts within one development.i6 An ambiguous phrase was also added to the nomesidential category of uses permitxed in a primarily residential PUD. The Model Act limited such uses to those "designed and intended to serve the residents of the Planned Unit Residential Development,i9 to which New Jersey added ".. ,and such other uses as exist or may reasonably be expected to exist in the future."s This additional language was the subject of litigation in ftudderow v. Township Committee of Township of Mt. Lazevel,9 where a developer had proposed a 162-acre PUD, the primary feature of which was a regional shopping center. The municipality's approval of the project was challenged on the ground that is permitted nonresidential uses beyond those necessary to serve the needs of residents of the _ proposed PUD. The trial court sustained this argument, interpreting the language of the enabling provi- sion nazrowly. -The supreme court, however, indicated its willingness to interpret the act more broadly: We construe the statute to authorize municipalities, where wazranxed, to permit commercial uses in a PUD project beyond that needed for the residents within the planned community. Municipalities, as part of their comprehensive zoning plans, may properly anticipate and provide for the present needs of the public now residing in the areas surrounding the planned commu- nity, as well as the reasonably foreseeable future needs of.the public they anticipate will move into the area and require servicing. Municipal boundazies should not be considered unscalable walls io prevent planned and reasonable growth of remaining available land areas.to The potential scale of PUD in New Jersey was also broadened by including "planned community" and "new town" as alternative terms in the PUD definition. Finally, the New Jersey drafters added language which would require the approving body xo fmd that a proposed PUD was in "general conformity" evith existing master plans and that it would not have a "substantially adverse" effect on the development of neighboring areas.[ t This expression about potential extra-project impacts of PUD expands and reinforces section 7(b)(5) of the Model Act which requires the approving authority to make findings about "the relationship, beneficial or adverse, of the proposed Planned Unit Residential Development to the neighborhood in which ix is proposed to be established...." Pennsylvania followed New Jersey one year later with PUD enabling legislation based on the Model Acx.tz Though the basic structure is the same, there aze additional sections, one conferring the power to enact PUD ordinances on counties as well as municipalities, and the other requiring that the PUD ordinances "be based on and interpreted in relation to" the community's comprehensive plan. The Model Act's definitions and judicial review sections are dropped in the Pennsylvania version, and the permissive "may" is generally substituted for the manda- tory "shall" in the act's directive language. A third urban eastern seaboazd state fell into the Model Act's column when Connecticut added PUD to its planning and zoning legislation in 1969.13 Pennsylvania's PUD act occasionally drifted from close adherence to the model, and Connecticut's PUD provisions continued that tendency. The purpose clause is eliminated, as is the list of specific findings the approving authority must make in the event it denies a PUD application. Under the Model Act, the local governing body was given the option of designating another local agency or itself as the entity to be given review and approval authority. In Connecticut that power must be delegated to the plan commission. PUDs are limited to residential uses (except for ancillary commercial uses -serving residents) and a PUD must have a minimum of 25 dwelling units. In that same year, Kansas enacted PUD legislation virtually identical to New Jersey's.14 One helpful addition was a provision authorizing application fees. Kansas avoided the New Jersey ambiguity regarding nonresidential uses in rnnjunction with residential development; PUDs by definition crould consist of office and commercial uses as well as dwelling units, and the list of permitted nonresiden- tial uses was broadened to include: Commercial uses having a major impact upon the municipality as a whole or major subelements thereof, such as shopping centers,. office complexes, major recreational and entertainment facilities, together with such other uses that axe designed or intended to serve such activities and uses. 46 Industrial parks, including ocher supporting uses neces- sary for and designed or intended to serve such activities or uses. t s The Model Acx was reinforced in 1969 when the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) published the New Jersey PUD act as pazx of its suggested state legislation far 1970.1 ~ In 1972 Colorado passed a PUD act,t ~ apparendy based on the ACIR model. The Colorado drafters followed an ACIR footnote which suggests that sections 5 through 10 of xhe Model Acx-those describing the procedural sxeps in applying for tentative and final PUD approval-could be omitted, leaving those mat- tersfor local ordinances. - - The most recenx addition to the list of Model Act- inspired enabling legislation is Nevada's Planned Unit Developmenx Law, which became effective July 1, 1973 ~ a Although the Nevada drafters stuck xo the Model Act, they seem to have missed one of its poinu about procedural safeguards: the Alodel Act requiremenx thaz the approval authority maintain -a record of public hearings is dropped. Added xo the provisions of the act is a long Gsx of suggested PUD design sxandards (e.g., "On private common drives, safety Lights are required and shall be placed no more than 40 feet apazx on center-with fixxures similar xo Kendall #3663 _ .. "etc.), apparently derived from Las Vegas' PUD .ordinance. In addition co the six scares chat have enacxed full-blown PUD enabling laws, based to some degree or another on the Model Act, about an equal number of other jurisdictions make specific menxion of PUD-like techniques in their planning and zoning enabling legislation. The approaches taken by these states, however, vary widely. New York19 and Indiana20 have cluster subdivision enabling provisions based on Secxion 12 of a model planning enabling law prepared by Edward Bassett and Frank Williams in 192511 Both provisions authorize the planning commission to approve density transfers where the average density does not exceed that permitted by the applicable zoning. The Indiana provision effectively applies only to Indianapolis. In 1969 Wisconsin eschewed models wixh a "you-can- do-it" provision noteworthy for its economy of languages 1 It permits municipalities to create "special" PUD districts and nonuniform regulations for such districts. Somewhat more descxipxive but still brief are pror~siohs for county and township PUD regulations adopted by Ohio in 1972. Like Wisconsin, they describe a PUD districx or zone, to which special, nonuniform regulations may apply. A defini- tion of a PUD is added which includes residential and "collaxeral" uses. Phased development is also covered since regulations may require developers to secure "conditional or final certification of compliance .. , at specified sxages of development. "~ 3 Wixhout specific enabling IeQislation, many municipali- ties implement PUD through an elaborate special use technique. For example, Illinois in 1967 amended ixs enabling act to include PUD as a permitted category of special uses.24 In other states the language describing special uses is so broad as to permit cluster subdivisions if not full-fledged PUDs. In sum, PUD enabling legislation has not exactly burned its way through the naxion's statehouses. in~the eight years since the Model Acx was published, only six states have passed laws based on it. An equal number of other states have some form of PUD or cIusxer subdivision enabling legislation, but they shaze few common features other than a policy of leaving municipalities pretty much on their own to devise PUD regulations. Have [he legal questions raised a decade ago or the lack of direction from the states deterred local governments from enacting PUD ordinances? In response to a question- naire sent to 300 local planning agency subscribers of ASPO's Planning Advisory Service, we received almost 100 PUD ordinances, coming from all but 18 states. Although our subscriber list is by no means a completely representa- tive sample of local governments with planning and zoning powers, we could discern no direct relationship between the number of ordinances received from a given state and the presence of PUD enabling legislation. Indeed, we received by far the lazgesx number of ordinances from California, a state fond of planning but with no specific PUD enabling provisions.ns Were PUD commentators of the early 1960s wrong? Were xhe issues they raised imaginary? A conclusion drawn by the authors of a 1959 article on PUD could be used to describe the currenx situation without much loss of relevancy: "The validity of planned development provisions and the action taken under them has rarely been litigated. In the reported cases, the consxitutional issues do nor seem xo have been raised or considered.i26 We believe that those issues, although well grounded in statutes aad case law precedenu, simply lacked willing plaintiffs. The usual plaintiff in a suit attacking some zoning action or inaction is either the landowner/developer or a neighboring iandowner. Yei in very few of the repotted cases. involving PUDs is xhe developer a plaintiff. One possible reason for the absence of developers from the ranks of plaintiffs is that the relationship between the developer and muncipality prior to a challengable zoning action is characterized by negoxiation and substantial agreement. Withoux that early agreement on the basic outline of the PUD proposal, there is little incentive for the developer to pay for costly preparations or for xhe city to make some zoning change. In the cases chat do have developer plaintiffs, the validixy of PUD ordinance itself is rarely challenged but more often it is an arbitrary sxandard or abuse of required procedure by [he approving body thax sparks the developer's suit. The bulk of PUD cases-is brought by the neighboring homeowner. but even this plamiiff rarely challenges xhe validity of the PUD ordinance itself. It's not the concept of PUD the neighbors object to, just the apartmenu that a particular proposal will locate next to their single-family subdivision. As a result, xhe focus of such lawsuiu is usually on the validixy of a specific zoning action-increasing the density of the underlying zone or approving aspecial-use permix for PUD-ivhich implements the PUD process, rather than on the provisions of xhe PUD ordinance. Looming over these arguments about PUD's validity without enabling Legislation are portents of change that could render the whole issue moot. Although it may be another year or two before a final drafx of the American Law Insxixute's A A4ode1 Land Development Code is approved, some of its proposals (particulaziy xhose describing a more active state role in local land-use decisions) have found their way into pending federal and stare legislation. Based on this early interest in an as yet - incomplete model, one can speculate thax the ALI's model - for sweeping change mighx faze betxer xhan the ~ less a7 ambitious PUD model enabling act. But whatever the ultimate effect of the ALI Model Code, its provisions would eliminate legal objections ~to PUD under existing enabling Briefly, the Model Code scraps the distinctions between zoning and subdivision regulations; both are to be combined in a single development ordinance adminisxered by a land development agency.2 ° The conventional zoning antsm is retained but emphasis is placed on controlling development through flexible techniques involving the exercise of considerable discretion by the administrative agency, and limited primarily by detailed procedural requirements and the availability of judicial review.2 $ Thus the delegation of power problems creaxed by the conventional legislative/administrative distinctions are avoided. The code simply drops the SZEA language requiring that all regulations be uniform within each zoning districtz9 and relies on constitutional standazds to provide relief from discriminatory application of regulations.so ~--'Pkt~^a.bility of a community to protect PUD open space from subsequent development pressures may be enhanced by another Model Code provision which allows municipalities io acquire less-than-fee interests in land.a t This would enable a community to acquire, either by purchase or dedication, the development rights to open ~~ As the preceding section pointed out, the majority of states do not have PUD enabling legislation. We look, then, to the case law of those states to determine how legal problems with PUD xhat oxherwise might have been overcome by legislation have been resolved xhrough Litigation. ~"" The Uniformity Question. Basic to the zoning powers delegated to most municipalities is the authority to divide the community into, districts, each subject to land use, density, lot area, and building bulk restrictions. Typical state enabling laws require that "All such regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings throughout each district, but the regulations in one district may differ from those in other districts."s 2 Because single-use districts are a fairly common feature of conventional zoning practice, many have inferred that the uniform regulation requirement when applied to use regulations means that only one kind of land use may be permitted within a given district Thus the argument goes that the mixture of uses contemplated in the typical PUD ordinance is beyond the power of the local legislature. This conclusion misses the fundamental objective.of the uniformity requirement: to insure that municipal restrir [ions and regulations have an equal and impaztial impact upon owners of land similarly situated. The point is that regulations can differ insofar as the owners atwhom they aze directed develop their propetty under differing circum- stances; uniformity is required only to insure that owners having similaz circumstances are not treated differently. This interpretation of the uniformity requirement is reinfoic8d by other language from the Standard Zoning Enabhng Act regarding the purpose o£ district regulations. Such regulations shall be made with reasonable consider- ation, among other things, to. the chazacter of the district and its peculiar. suitability for particular uses, and with a view [o conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most aappropriate use of land through- out such municipality.a Regulations for zoning districts aze to be drawn so as to avoid use combinations which reduce the value of the included uses. The words "particular uses" are noteworthy; by direct inference the combination of hazmonious, com- patibleuses (as within a PUD) is not prohibited. Court cases interpreting similar language in state en- abling legislation support this conclusion. In Orinda Home- owners Committee v. Bd. of Supewuisors,34 neighboring landowners challenged the rezoning of a 187-acre parcel from asingle-family residential classificarion to planned unit development with cluster residential areas on the grounds that the planned unit violated the uniformity requirement of the enabhng act. The California court dismissed the azgument: We hold that a residential planned unit development (a~ cluster development) does not conflict with Section 65852 merely by reason of the fact that the uniu are not uniform, that is, they are not all single-family dwellings and perhaps the multifamily units differ among themselves. Section 65852 provides that the regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building or use of land throughout the zone- It does not state that the units must be alike even as to their character, whether single family or multifamily. In conventional zoning, where apartment houses are per- mitted in a particular zone, single-family dwellings, being regarded (whether rightly or wrongly) as a "higher" use, are also allowed. This causes no conflict with Section. 65852.35 The same result was achieved with a slightly different rationale in a recent Maryland case.36 At issue was an ordinance which permitted cluster development in certain residential districts subject to approval by the planning boazd. The court held that the uniformity requirement had been met because any property owner in -the designated districts could apply for the cluster option. The ordinance escaped the vice of being compulsory. Neither rationale may be totally satisfactory, but the important point is that the uniformity requirement has not, to the best of our knowledge, been used by a court as a basis fox striking down a PUD ordinance. The ReIationshdp of PUD to the Comprehensive Plan. The SZEA and most state enabling legislation modeled on it contain language to the effect that zoning regulations and subsequent changes and amendments to the regulations "shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan."39 In general, courts have not interpreted this language to require [hat a community have adopted a specific document called the comprehensive plan prior, to enacting a zoning ordinance or subsequent amendments. Instead, the comprehensive plan has been perceived from the zoning ordinance itself, the zoning map, any studies or reports commissioned by the municipality which deal with its present and future land-use and developmenx needs, and even in the community's overall plan of development.a s While the courts may have had difficulty describing exactly what the comprehensive plan is and what consti- tutes regulations "in accordance with" the plan, they have zeroed in on what it is not in accordance: spot zoning. The principal evil of spot zoning is its lack of conformity with the comprehensive plan; it affects only a few parcels or one owner, and appears to have been enacted solely for his benefit. Typically the spot zoning designation is not in harmony with surrounding uses.39 48 Because the objective of PUD is to achieve more rational and efficient utilization of the community's land resources, zoning action to permit PUD azguably should have little difficulty conforming to this broad conception of ffie comprehensive plan. Nevertheless PUD does bear some of the attributes of the forbidden spot zoning: it affects oaIy- one owner or parcel of land, and the mixture and intensity of use permitted is often greater than permitted in surrounding districts. Perhaps the most conservative case relaxing the compre- hensive plan requirement to planned developmrnt is Eves v. Zonirag Board of Adjzestment.40 Actually, xhe zoning device at issue in F.ves was not PUD, but a floating lone which permitted light industrial uses in residential areas subject to site planning restrictions. Floating zones, however, are commonly employed as zoning vehicles for PUD, so the issues raised, are of interest. The Supreme Coutt of Pennsylvania declared the floating zone classification beyond the power of the municipality under the enabling act; further, the floating zone device was invalid because it failed to satisfy the requirement that it be in accordance with the comprehensive plan. The municipality did have a plan embodying a set of policy statements about future development, but the court rejected it, finding that the municipality had "confused comprehensive planning with a comprehensive plan." Apparently the "plan" the court had in mind was something more akin to a zoning map with predesignated uses. Subsequent Pennsylvania cases have softened this rigid view of the plan requiremrnt.4 t In Cheney v. Village 2 at New Elope, Inc., the court again considered xhe use of the floating zone technique, this time in the context of a PUD project. The. municipality had adopted a comprehensive plan two yeazs prior to the contested passage of the zoning amendments creating and simultaneously locating the floao- ing zone.The court disagreed with the argument that the amendments were invalid by being contrary to the cgmpre- hensive plan: The fallacy in the [lower] court's reasoning lies in its mistaken belief that a comprehensive plan, once estab- Iished, is forever binding on the municipality and can never be amended.... [T]hese phtns may be changed by xhe passage of new zoning ordinances, provided the local legislature passes a new ordinance with some demonstra- tion of sensitivity to the community as a whole, and the impact that the new ordinance will have on this community.42 Nor was spot zoning an issue because the zone had been "brought to earth" the very day it was created when the developer's application was approved, and the court was willing to view the two separate amendments as one action. Moreover, the amendments had been in accordance with a comprehensive plan. The court's willingness to expand the fiction of contemporaneous enactment was demonstrated in the recent hlarino° a decision, where four months elapsed between the passage of an ordinance creating a shopping center district and the subsequent rezoning of a pazcel to that classification.._ Courts in other states have expressed a much more liberal view of the comprehensive plan requirement and the spot zoning argument as applied to PUD. [n Jablon v. Town Planning and Zoning Commission of Town of Newto n,44 the Connecticut court held that a floating zone for industrial uses did not violate the comprehensive plan or consxixute spot zoning. The courx recognized a need for "reasonable flexibility" in zoning, and saw the floating zone technique as a legitimate step in that direction. A similar attitude has prevailed in New York as a~ This is not to say, however, that the courts will not require that a specific zoning action implementing PUD be related to the community's overall planning effort or that of neighboring jurisdictions. In Prankland v City of Lake. Oswego,46 an Oregon intermediate appellate court. held that the PUD plan for the azea subject to rezoning for PUD was not the equivalent of a comprehensive plan for the purposes of determining whether the rezoning had been "in accordance with the comprehensive plan." The land in- volved in the disputed rezoning was included as part of a large mixed-use PUD, but in reality was a long, narrow strip surrounded by existing low-density, single-family dwellings. Prior to annexation, the strip had been classified single- family by the county. The annexing municipality had never included the property in its comprehensive plan, if indeed ix had one, and claimed that the PUD plan it had approved was relevanx to its subsequent zoning actions with respect to the area included within the PUD. Accepting this argument, the trial court had ruled that the protesting neighbors had the burden of proving that the plan and zoning scheme for the entire PUD were invahd in order to reach the zoning of the scrip of land. The appellate court reversed this porxion of the lower court's decision, stressing evidence which showed that xhe parcel in question bore little physical relationship to the Lrrger PUD tract. The court apparently viewed the rezoning of the narrow pazcel as an instance of spot zoning, and accordingly shifted the burden of supporting the ordinance to xhe municipality. The court made it clear, however, that its decision did not necessarily cast a shadow on other rezonings for the PUD: Our decision here is intended to have no effect upon comprehensive zoning in aPlanned-Unit Development of an homogeneous azea of land, an example of which might well be the 600-acre tract involved in the case at bar ...without the strip in controversy, assuming the municipal body genuinely takes into consideration pre- existing zoning and neighborhood development along its borders.° ~ Grafting PUD to the Existing Ordnance. As we noted previously, two-thirds of the ordinances in xhe study used either the zoning amendment or a special exception/condi- tional use procedure to implement PUD. With respect to those commu nines which use the zoning amendment technique, we believe that PUDs are most often tteated as floating zones, rather than being fixed in advance on the zoning map. As noted above, the floating zone technique has been approved by the courts in several states, though not always in the context of PUD 4s Maryland is perhaps most prominent in terms of the vaziety of uses handled via floating zones and xhe number of cases upholding their use.49 This quick acceptance and broad use may be due in part to the difficulty of justifying rezonings to reguhu districts permitting more intensive uses under the rigor u Maryhtnd "change-mistake" rule.50 The Colorado courts have sustained a rezoning to PUD against a challenge that there had been no showing of changed condition sufficient to wazrant the change. The PUD ordinance had described a specific criterion-compatibility with underlying districts- and the city had not abused its discretion in approving its t 49 New York sanctioned the floating zone concept in Rodgers v. Tarrytown.51 In a series of cases involving apazxments and "clean" industrial parks, Connecticut courts have also approved floating zones.53 In these states, the objection that the location of a floating zone is tantamount to spot zoning has been overcome. The floating zone bas been favorably compared to a special permit procedure, because the power of the govern- mental body co approve the floating zone is not unfettered. Rather, approval is conditioned on the sarisfaction of certain criteria and standards enunciated in the ordinance creating the floating zone. This analogy to the special permit has not been picked up in other states. Floating zones have been condemned as spot zoning in Massachu- setts54 and Pennsylvania,ss though more recent cases in both slates indicate chat the difficulty can be overcomes s he lack of reported cases which litigate the validity of implementing PUD through the special exception or condi- tional uses technique may bear mute testimony to its success. _A 1971 Minnesota decision provides an extreme example of judicial acceptance of PUD by special permits ~ There the court approved what ix termed a "hybrid" of the variance and special-use permit techniques which permitted PUDs involving a substantial increase in density over the applicable zoning. Subsequent changes in the PUD plan could be approved by the planning commission as amend- ments to xhe special permit. The ordinance contained few procedural safeguards. Despite the Minnesota court's willingness to bend over backward to accommodate good intentions despite bad procedures, the special exception or conditional use tech- nique does have limitations as a means of implementing PUD. Courts tend xo view the granting of special permits as administrative acts, and require that the criteria governing xhe grant of permits be spelled out in the ordinance. Lund v. City of Tumwaters s provides an example of this judicial attitude in the context of PUD. The city's zoning ordinance authorized the issuance of special-use permits for specific land uses, but it also contained a provision, which, without listing any specific rises; authorized the city council to issue special permits subject to such conditions as is judged were "required to secure adequate protection co the zone or locality in which the use is to be permitted after consider- ation by the plantiing commission...." Over objections of the planning rommission, the city council had passed an ordinance which annexed two and one-half acres to the city, joining that parcel to seven and one-half acres already in the city, which together were the site of a proposed PUD. The newly annexed land was zoned R-1 to match the classification of the larger pazcel, and simultaneously both were granted aspecial-use. permit for the PUD. A Washington intermediate level appellate court invali- dated this use of the special permit procedure. The court noted that special use permits could only be granted for uses specifically authorized in the zoning ordinance. This limitation was made necessary by the face that the granting of a special use permit was an administrative act and therefore had to be controlled by adequate standards, regardless of whether the permit was _ issued by the legislative body or an administrative agency. In-answer to the city's contention that the council had acted in a legislative capacity, the court replied that "every act of a legislative body is not a legislative act." The problem in the Lund case was chat the city had failed to describe PUD in the zoning ordinance as one. of the uses available by special permit in certain districts. PUD Approval Power. We have suggested that xhe planning commission, with its analogous function of subdi- vision review and (in some communities) professional staff support, appears to be a logical local government body to carry out the functions of PUD review and approval. however, neither of the most common zoning approaches for PUD implementation usually confers decision-making authority on the planning commission. Zoning amendments require legislative body action, though often with recom- mendaxions by the planning commission. Fina! approval of special permits is sometimes delegated, like variances, to the board of adjustment, or the legislative body may retain control over that process. Zoning enabling searutes may limit the extent to which a PUD review process can deviate from these models 9 while those of a few states specifi- cally grant the planning commission authority to approve special exceptions and conditional uses.bo Two decisions from Connecticut, one of the states which does empower the plan commission co approve special permits, illustrate that xhe power fo approve is not discretionary. When disapproving an applicant's project, the commission muse be prepared to give substantive reasons for its action. The Connecticut court equated the functon of the commission in PUD review to that in subdivision review in R.K. Development Carp, v. City of Norwalk.bt Vague reasons were an insufficient basis for rejection. A similar result obtained in DeMaria v. Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission,b~ where the commission had rejected an apartment PUD because of the "aesthetic effect of the complex in relation to the existing neighborhood and the town in general." The court held that such vague and undefined aesthetic considerations alone were not enough to support an exercise of the police power. This denial of unfettered discretion to the approving agency has been cazried over co instances in which the body granting final approval is the local legislature, not the planning commission. In fall v. KortTi,b3 the Florida rourt overturned the county council's refusal to rezone the applicant's property from an agricultural classification co PUD, where the project had been approved by both the planning department and the zoning board of appeals. The court found that the denial was unsupported by the record. Nocwithsxanding this Florida -decision, the traditional notion has been that different ground rules apply to ac[s of local legislatures as contrasted with those of administrative agencies. The conventional judicial expression of this concept is derived from the constitutional separation of powers doctrine. In essence the courts have said that the business of an elected legislature is to enact rules and regulations of general application. Ie would injure the distinction between the sepazate branches of government were [he courts to substitute their judgment for that of the legislature in such matters. Therefore, the courts will only seep in where the aces of the legislature are cleazly unconstitutional. Administrative agencies, on the other hand, often ace not responsible eo the governed at the ballot box. More important, they make different kinds of decisions. They musx apply general rules and regulations eo specific individ- uals. Frequently this administration of regulations is in reality the allocation of special rights and privileges to certain individuals while withholding them from others. Such decision making is sometimes termed quasi-judicial, and the courts apply a stringent standard of review with respect to the rights of parties co a fair and open hearing before the administrative agency. 50- As applied [o zoning, this general principle of judicial review of local government decisions has resulted in the following kind of analysis: The passage of a zoning ordinance or the approval of a comprehensive plan are properly characterized as legislative acts, within the legisla- tive body's general rule-making authority. So, an amend- ment of the zoning ordinance is a legislative act. When some legislative action is appealed to the courcs, they will presume ihax the action is valid; the person challenging the action must bear. the burden of proving its unconstitution- ality. Because ordinance amendments are legislative acts, they are also afforded the presumption of validixy.sa The commenxators who wrote about PUD in the early 1960s .correctly pointed out that the PUD process (and, indeed, much of what passes as zoning administration) almost by definition does not conform to this judicial model of local governmenx decision making.65 The amend- ment of the zoning ordinance or the approval of a special permit which allows an individual landowner to proceed with a PUD is not an action which applies generally to the citizens- of a community or even the landowners in a pazticulaz district. Instead, it involves the allocation of valuable development rights [o one applicant-landowner, and the adjudication of his rights vis-a-vis the rights of neighboring landowners. This characterization of xhe gov- ernmerital action in question holds true whether the actor is the legislaxure or an administrative agency. For the courts to determine the level of judicial review employed solely on the basis of actor's identity, regardless of the nature of xhe action, is to engage in the use of highly artificial labels. The impact of labels affecxs not only the type of review but also how much of the decision-making process is available for the court to review. Administrative agencies are commonly subject to strict procedural requirements- noxice of hearings to interesxed parties, the maintenance of a record of hearings, the rights of parties to cross-examine witnesses-which gives the court on appeal an adequate picxure of how xhe decision was made. Such procedural requirements may not be required of the local legislative body. The drafters of the Model Ace surmounte~3 these difficulties by mandating extensive procedural safeguards to be followed by the local agency authorized to review and approve PUDs, whether the body accomplishing that task was the local legislature or an administrative agency. But in the majority of states that do not have enabling legislaxion based on the ULI Model Act, [he problem remains. Tomavd a New Standard of Judicial Review. There is some evidence that xhe courts are willing to step in where state and .local legislatures have heretofore declined to xread. Where the lawmakers have failed to balance the sanctioned discretion of PUD with procedural safeguards, the courts may accomplish nearly the same.resulx by changing the rules governing judicial review of legislative action. This can involve either one or both of the following measures: reversing the presumption of validity that shields legislative actions from strict judicial scrutiny and estab- lishing minimum procedural and evidentiary standards necessary to sustain municipal action on appeal. In a recent case, Fasano v. Board of County Commis- rioners,bb the defendant county commissioners had approved a zone change from single-family residential to planned residential to allow construction of a 32~a.cre mobile home PUD. Challenging the rezone was an attorney and resident of an adjoining single-family area. In earlier cases, the Oregon court had declared in adherence to the concept that local legislative acxs were entitled to presumptive validiry.69 In one of those same decisions; however, the court had carved out amini-excep- tion to the presumption rule where ix perceived that the municipality had engaged in spot zoning. In such cases, the municipality (really the landowner seeking xhe rezoning) was required to show either that the rezone was in conformance with the comprehensive plan or that there had been some change in xhe area or neighborhood in which the land subject to the rezone was located.68 [n Fasano, the court was confronted with a rezoning which did not fit easily into xhe classic spot zoning mold. To be sure, it affected only one landowner, but the pazcel size was considerably larger than one or two lots and the development technique proposed was authorized by a special district in the zoning ordinance. Some other basis was needed to overcome the presumption. The court struck out boldly, firsx tackling the county's argumenx thax its action was presumptively valid: [ W ] e feel we would be ignoring reality to rigidly view all zoning decisions by local governing bodies as legislative acts xo be aceorded a fu6 presumption of validity and shielded from less [han constitutional scrutiny by the theory of sepazation of powers. Local and small decision groups are simply nor the equivalent in all respects of state and national legislatures.... [A] determination whether the permissible use of a specific piece of property should be changed is usually an exercise of judicial authority and its propriety is subject to an altogether different tesx.bv In order to determine xhe nature of the action, the court borrowed xhe following distinction: ...Basically, this test involves the determination of whether action produces a general rule or policy which is applicable to an open class of individuals, interests, or situations, or whether it entails the applicaxion of a general rule or policy to specific individuals, incerests, or situations. If the former determination is satisfied, there is legislative action; if the -latter determination is satisfied, the action isjudicial.~0 Having described the test to be used in determining [he type of judicial review xo be given rnntested municipal actions, the courx went on to clarify the standards of review it would apply and, conversely, what the municipality would have to show in support of its actions. The basic statutory criterion for rezonings was conformity with the _ comprehensive plan. In order to prove conformity, a municipality would have to show at a minimum that there was a public need for a change of the kind in question, and xhat the need would be best served by changing xhe classification of the particular piece of property in question as compared with other available property. Change in the immediate vicinity of the propercy to be rezoned was rejected as the sole criterion for measuring conformity with the plan; it was but one of many factors ro be considered when enacting a zoning ordinance. In addition, the burden of proof- cart"red by the municipality would increase in proportion to the degree of vaziance between the new and old zoning designations. The court was not unaware that it would be accused of making the zoning process more rigid at a time when many argue for increased flexibility: 51 By treating the exercise of authority by the commission in this case as the exercise of judicial rather than of legislative authority and thus enlazging the scope of review on appeal, and by placing the burden of the above level of proof upon the one seeking the change, we may lay the court open to criticism by legal scholars who think it desirable that planning authorities be vested with the ability to adjust more freely to changed conditions. However, having -weighed the dangers of making desirable change more difficult against. the dangers of the almost irresistible pressures the[ can be asserted by private economic interests on local govern- ment, we believe that the latter dangers are more to be feared. t Legal Problems in Administration The preceding part of this chapter has been concerned primarily with some of the larger legal issues raised when the concept of PUD is superimposed on the existing law of land-use controls. This part focuses on the more specific legal problems that arise from the administration of PUD ordinances. We will review here court decisions in cases concerning density and open space provisions, due process questions involved in the PUD review and approval prose-. dares, and the problem of controlling large developments over time. - A key element of PUD is the idea of density transfer, the relaxation of lot area and setback requirements to permit the clustering of structures and the creation of common open space. While we mold find no cases which directly litigated the validity of the density transfer technique (which really goes to validity of PUD itself) or the more extreme case in which density bonuses over and above the underlying zoning are given the developer in exchange for project "amenities," one mart has recently examined the way in which a _ municipality administered its density transfer provision. In Peabody v. City of Pboenix~~ the city had approved the construction of a 44unit PUD on a 36acre site, where the zoning district required a lot area of 35,000 square feet per residence. The city's PUD ordinance required that the overall density permitted in the PUD be consistent with that in the district. [n calculating the density of the project, the city had included in the "net development area" the project's private streets, which would have been deleted from the calculation had they been dedicated to the public. By making the streets private, the developer had been able to count them as common open space, thus increasing the density of the project. In an action brought by neighbors, the court held that the city council had the authority to interpret the requirements in the ordinance. The court relied on the normal presumption of validity attaching to Iegislative acts. and found that the ordinance had vested discreton in the council to interpret the density provisions of the ordinance. An appellate court in New Jersey was less- willing to grant the local governing body latitude in defining the open space requirement of its cluster subdivision ordinance, The court in Mountcrest Estates v. Mayor and Township Cornmittee of Rockaway~3 declazed the open space provi- sions invalid because they contained ... no limitation as to the nature of the public use to be made of the donated property. Such property could be used to build a jail, a municipal garage or sewage disposal plant, a dog pound or other similar structure incompat- ible with residences and occupying all of the donated space.... [The ordinance] grants an unfettered right in the planning board to determine the location and shape of the lands donated. We believe these vital provisions of the ordinance to be invalid for lack of adequate standards.... Since they are basic to them, all of the open space provisions of the amendments fall with them. PUD has been described as legitimized deals between local government and developers. There can be no doubt that the concept vests considerably more discretion in [hose that administer the process than would be typical in conventional land development regulations. The drafters of the Model Act recognized [he potential for abuse inheren[ _ _ in the concept, and took pains in their model to hedge the discretionary review process with procedures designed to safeguard the interests of the applicant and the general public alike. But Few states have adopted the model legislation and, without the kinds of procedural safeguards embodied in the Model Act, the courts provide the only backstop for administrative abuse of discretion. A graphic example is provided by Dover Towns{tip Homeowners and Tenants Association v. Township of Dover Planning Board.~4 In that case, the township planning boazd approved a preliminary plan fora 400-acre PUD which was challenged by an association of town residents on the grounds that there had been numerous- irregulazities in board's approval. The court found that the _ _ board's decision was invalid because one of its members had an interest in the proceeding which so tainted the board's actions as to render them null regardless of any lack of fraud or bad faith. In addition, the notice of the hearing at which ffie application was approved was defective because - it failed to set forth the application ~n full and instead merely described the nature and location of the proposed development in general terms. Fatally, the boazd's initial attempt to approve the application was invalid because it had not satisfied the enabling act requirements relating to the making of transcripts, swearing of wimesses, and setting forth of factual findings. - _ In Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners~s the - Oregon court refused to let the local legislative body use sz xhe presumption of validity doctrine to shield the basically administrative act of PUD approval from judicial scrutiny. When the legislative body acted in an administrative or adjudicatory capacity it -was requued to follow certain minimum procedures xo proxeci the rights of interested parties. Thus, parties at hearings before such bodies were "entitled to an opportunity to be heard, an opportunity to present and rebut evidence, to a tribunal which is impattial in the matter-i.e., having no preheating or ex parse contacu concerni[tg the question at issue-and xo a record made and adequate findings executed."~6 Issues of this kind aze most often raised by those who own property in xhe vicinity of the proposed PUD. Their ability to bring a lawsuit may depend on whexher the tour[ dexermines that they have been sufficiently injured by the governmental action in question to warrant judicial ineer- ventio[i. -The court in the Dover case represents a fairly liberal view on the question of standing. The court there held that any taxpayer, without showing special damage, rnuld challenge a decision of the governing body which affected the overall integrixy of the zoning plan. The California. court in the recent case of Scott v. City of Indian Wells~~ held that a nonresident had standing to ontesx the city's, grant of a conditional use permit to c nstrucx a large planned developmen[ on land lying just i side the city's boundary. In addition, the city was r quired to provide adjoining landowners with reasonable once of ifs -intentions and an oppottunixy to appeaz at a hearing on xhe maxxer. The cit ider the PafPrr ~f the mm~osed oroiecx on neiehborinQ la owners, were UD concept encourages a evelopment of large parcels of land, and the mechanics of such development often dictate that construction be phased over a period of time. In any kind of projecx carried out over time, it is perhaps inevitable that original plans must bow to the reality of changed circumstances. But because xhe PUD regulatory process is~ structured around an initial approval of a plan for the site as a unit, ix muse protect against changes which injure the interests of the public, the developer, and potential residents of the PUD. We recognize that all three parties ought to be protected by the PUD ordinance: the public from the developer's failure to cazry through on [he project as app~ed; [he developer from public actions which have the effect of changing xhe rules; and the resident who purchases property in the PUD from changes that are contrary to the developer's representations and which hazm his interests. To protect these sometime conflicting interests requires skillful balancing. It is not surprising that many YUD ordinances aze most responsive to the public intere These drafting problems were the subject of extensive coverage in the UL1's Technical Bulletin No. 52 and ASPO's 1966 report on PUD ~s They address themselves to legal questions of pazxicular concern to the drafter of a PUD ordinance. First, can the developer be bound to.complete the plan as approved? Second, what assurances does the developer have thax the municipality will not subsequently change its requirements, even though such action is at variance with the approved plan? Finally, if it mak~ssevs~ that the PUD approval process should provide for minor changes which do not materially alter the plan or injure the interests of public, developer, and housing consumer, how should the seriousness of such change be measured? A common technique employed in PUD or ances to insure developer compliance with the overall plan through- out the project phases is to grant approval of a preliminary plan for the entire projec[ but to withhold final approval and zoning amendments (where necessary) for each phase until ix is substantially completed. This technique was approved by the Maryland court in {{'ier v. Whitney Land Co.~9 where the court found that the municipality had correctly denied rezoning for the final xwo of four phases in a very large development of mixed mulxifamil}~ and commercial uses co be constructed over a period of 10 to 15 yeazs. The municipality was justified in its action because otherwise it had no legal guazantee that the developer would not accelerate xhe timetable or sell the land. The court went on to suggest the use of a Hoaxing zone in such a situation which would permit modification bf the developmenx plan only with municipal approval. The use of coning amendments subject to numerous conditions to implement PUD and to insure that the developer adheres to the approved plan raises the possibility of conflict. with the general judicial disapproval of "con- tract zoning." For example, in another recent Maryland b ---....__. _.. [.,creased flexibility allows projec[ elements-housing, [ransporration systems, open spaces, nonresidenrial uses-to be in[errela[ed. case, xhe high court of that state upheld the denial of a rezoning where the developer had offered to record covenants binding him to submit site plans for approval if he got favorable rezoning from the municipality. Accep- tance of the covenants would have been an invalid "condixional zoning" under Maryland law.80 It should be noxed that Maryland applies a relatively strict rule against nxract z g and that rezoning subject to conditions may post enelsewhere. A recent article discussing legal issues present in PUDat reviewed the conxract zoning cases from several eastern sxates and reached xhe following conclusions: Given the importance of xhe conditioned approval to the phased development of mixed uses common xo the planned unix development, care must be taken by local governing- bodies in implementing a planned develop- ment. Certainly, rezoning can proceed where the owner has fulfilled conditional requirements beforehand. Alxer- natively, the municipality is probably safe in adopting the amendment effective immediately bux with auto- matic reversion to prior zoning in the event conditions are not fulfilled within a fixed time limit; less clear bux likewise probably permissible is xhe practice of adopting the ordinance but posxponing its effective date until conditions aze performed within a specified time limit:az Nevertheless, automatic reversion clauses may run afoul of the procedural requirements for rezoning amendments found in many state enabling provisions. In Scrzttton v. county of Sacramento83 an intermediate level appellate court in California found invalid a conditional rezoning which provided for automatic reversal to the original zoning classification should the landowner fail to meet the conditions. The notice, hearing, and planning commission inquiry eequirements of the enabling statute would be ignored were the parcel to revert automatically to ixs former classification on a breach of the proposed condi- tions: The court indicated xhat the provision probably exceeded the substantive limitations oh the county legisla- tive body's zoning powers because its operation caused a forfeiture of the landowner's rights, a result that could hardly be termed a legislative decision on land use. Binding the municipality io the plan it approves would be difficult in most jurisdictions withoux specific enabling legislation.84 Courts are generally reluctant to restrict a community's legislative power to change regulations in furtherance of the public healxh, safety, and welfare. Most of the case law in xhis area derives from the subdivision approval process, which is either a part of, or analogous to, the PUD process. Typical of judicial attitudes is a 1969 Maine decision,ss where the court held xhat preliminazy approval of the subdivision plan did not prevent the municipality from subsequently making different require-- menxs of xhe developer. Only if there is statutory language binding the community to its approval or if the developer has made a significant -investment in reliance on xhe prehminazy approval, will'the courts protect the developer's interest. The Model Act, ASPO's 1966 report, and xhis report concur that the PUD ordinance should contain quantified limits which indicate when elements of the PUD plan have been so changed that a complete reassessment and new preliminazy approval is required. Such standards help to delineate the responsibilities of the planning commission or planning agency with respect to the administration of changes in the preliminary plan, and to distinguish between minor changes and those which materially affect the interior relationships of project components and the impact of the project on neighboring uses. In the California case of Millbrae Association far Residential Survvival v. City of Millbraesb the city's PUD ordinance apparently did nor limit the planning commis- sion's power to approve changes in the preliminary plan. Neighbors objected to changes from medium-rise to high- rise structures and the relocation of structures within the sire. The court found that these changes altered the basis for xhe rezoning to PUD district: In our view, while the change in the number of apartments in each of [he high-rise buildings would properly be the subject of the precise plan under the ordinance so long as it did not increase the "general size" of the buildings as delineated in the genera( plan, the other changes amount to a substantial alteration of the general plan since they materially and fundamentally change the location of two of xhe high-rise buildings and xhe size of the parking areas and the open areas. These were specific elements of the general plan incidenx to the zoning of the PD district and xheir change and alteration amounted xo a rezoning of the district. We are persuaded to this conclusion by the very nature of the PD district. Alxhough the creatio^ of such a district allows for greater flexibility and diversification in xhe location of structures and other site qualities and [heir uses, once these elements are delineated in the general plan they constitute material and indispensible axtributes of the district itself. In other words, the zoning chazacteristics of xhe district consist not only in the classification of the district to PD but in the components of the general plan accompanying xhe application for the creation of the district and any subsequent amendments to xhe plan thax may properly be adopted. Accordingly, any substantial change or alteration in the actual physical chazacxeristics of the district and its configuration amount to a rezoning of the district and may only be accomplished pursuanx to the provisions of the stare statutes and the local ordinances consistent [herewith providing for zoning and rezoning.a ~ The Millbrae decision argues for xhe inclusion of permitted limits of change in the preliminary plan. As this summary shows, the amount of PUD litigation is relatively insignificant when compared to xhe rising flood- tide of zoning cases. This might augur well for~the drafter of a PUD ordinance, were it nor for the fact that PUD is a small proportion of xhe total housing production. It seems fairly evident xhax theoretical objections to PUD based on existing state zoning enabling acts have not been a major obstacle to xhe successful adoption of PUD ordinances, and that specific enabling acts, though helpful, aze not a sine qua non for the legal viability of local ordinances. The aspecu of PUD that have most often drawn the courts' condemnaxion have been provisions that vesx unfetxexed discretion in the approving government body, and actions of xhe approving body which violate either limitations on ixs discretion found in the ordinance or more general principles of due process. Recenx cases indicate a new willingness on the patt of the courts to discazd the traditional presumption of validity on legislative acts where they perceive the action of xhe legislative body to be 54 essentially administrative in chazacter. These courts have acknowledged that many zoning actions carried out by the local legislative body, and particulazly PUD permissions, do not prescribe roles of general application, but in reality adjudicate and allocate the property rights of a limited set of landowners. Describing this phenomenon in the early reports on PUD a decade ago, commentators dealt with the problem by emphasizing the process element of PUD approval and [he need for procedural requirements. This summary of PUD litigation underscores that concern. Notes 1..Goldston and Scheuer, "Zoning of Planned Residen- tial Developments," 73 Harvard Law Review 241 (1959); Lovelace, "Zoning for Largc-Scale Developments," 14 Zoning Digest 129 (May 1962); Bair, "flow To Regulate Planned Unit Deveiopment for Housing-Summazy of a Regulatory Approach," 17 Zoning Digest 185, 221 (June- July, 1965); "Symposium: Planned Unit Developmenx," 114 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 3-136 (1965) [contains six articles] ; Aloi, "Legal Problems in Planned Unit Development," 1 Real Estate Law Journal 5 (Summer, 1972); Mandelker, Controlling Planned Residential Developments (Chicago: ASPO, 1966). - 2.-Urban Land Institute [ULI], Legal Aspects o Planned Unit Residential Development, Tech. Bull. 52, Pt. II, Model State Enabling Act with Commentary, p. 65 (1965). 3. Id. at 68. 4. N.J. Stat. Ann. §40:5 -4 et se . (1967). S. ULI, Model Act, s ~ 2~ T ~5~, b. N.J. Stat. Ann. §4 ~ 5- /% 7. ULI. Model Act, § 3(a)(2), supra n. 2, at 70; and Commentary at 71. _ 8. N.J. Stat. Ann. §40:55-57 (a)(2). 9.- 121 H.J. Super. 409, 297 A.2d 583 (1972). 10. Id., 297 A.2d at 587. 11. N.J. Stat. Ann. §40:55-56(f). 12. Pardon's Pa. Stat. Ann. §53:10701 et seq. (1968). 13. Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §8-136 et seq. (Sapp. 1973). 14. Kans. Seat. Ann. § 12-725 et seq. (Sapp. 1972). 15. Kans. Stat. Ann. § 12-728(a)(2) and (3). 16. Advisory Comm'n on Intergovernmenxal Relations, New Proposals for 19,70: ACIR State Legislative Programs § 31-36-00 {1969). 17. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 106-6-1 et seq. (1972). 18. Nev. Senate Bill No. 126 (April 19, 1973), amend- ing Title 22, Nev. Rev. Stat. 19. N.Y. Town Law §281 (McKinney 1966); N.Y. Village Law §179-p (McKinney Cum. Sapp. 1972); N.Y. Gen. City Law § 37 (McKinney 1966). A Planned Unit Development Bill based on the Model Act was inttoduced in the New York State Senate in 1971 as Bill No. 5324A. 20. Burn's Ind. Stat. Ann. §53-756 (7) (1968). 21. E. Bassett, "Laws of Planning Unbuilt Areas," in "Neighborhood and Community Planning," Regional Survey Vol. VII, by the Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs, pp. 309-316 (1929). 22. Wisc. Stat. Ann. §62.23 (7)(b) (Cum. Sapp. 1973). 23. Ohio Rev. Code_ § § 303.022, 519.021 (Jan. 23,- 1972). 24. 11L Rev. Stat. ch. 24, § 11x13-1.1 (1971). - 25. PUD was presumed valid by a California court in Millbrae Assn for Residential Survival v, Millbrae, 69 Cal. Rptr. 251, 21 ~ZD 26 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968); uniformity requirement held not inconsistent with rezoning for PUD in Orinda Homeowners Committee v. Bd. of Supervasors, 11 Cal. App. 3d 768, 90 Cal. Rptr. 88, 23 ZD 49 (1970); PUD in California reviewed in Hagman, Larson and Martin, Cali- fornia Zoning Practice §§6.61-6.73 (1960). Citations to court decisions also indicate 'the location of abstracts of decisions in ASPO-Zoning Digest as above. 26. Goldston and Scheuer, "Zoning of Planned Residen- tial Developments," 73 Harv. L. Rev. 241, 256 (1959). 27. American Law Institute, A Model Land Develop- ment Code § § 2-101(1), 2-102 (Apr. 24, 1970). 28. Id. at § 2-303 et seq. 29. Id. at §2-101 (3). 30. Id., note following § 2-101 at p. 29. 31. Id. at §4205 (4). 32. A Standard State Zoning Enabling Act §2 (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1926). The note following this lan- guage in the SZEA is illuminating: "This [provision] is im- portant, not so much for _legaL reasons as because it gives notice to property owners that there will be no improper discrimination, but that all in the same class shall be treated alike." Id., n. 19. 33. Id., §3. 34. 11 Cal. App. 3d 768, 90 Cal Rptr. 88, 23 ZD 49 (1970). 35. Id. ax 772, 90 Cal. Rpcr. at 92. 36. Prince George's County v. M & B Construction Corp., 297 A.2d 683 (Md. 1972). 37. SZEA, supra n. 32, § 3. The note following this phrase indicates that its intention is to "...prevent hap- hazazd or piecemeal zoning. No zoning should be done without such a comprehensive study." Id. n. 22. 38. Anderson, American Law of Zoning Vol. 1, §5.02 (1968). 39. Id. at §5.04. 40. 401 Pa. 211, 164 A.2d 7, 12 ZD 359 (1960). 41. Donahue v, Zoning Board, 412 Pa. 332, 194 A.2d 610, 16 ZD 40 (1963); Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc„ 429 Pa. 626, 241 A.2d 81, 20 ZD 178 (1968). 42. Cheney v. Village 2 at New Hope, Inc., 241 A.2d 81, (1968); for comments on the decision see Zucker and Wolffe, "Supreme Court [Pa.] Legalizes PUD: New hope from New Hope," 2 Land-Use Controls No. 2 at 32 (1968). 43. Marino v. Ilarrison Tow nsbip, 1 Pa. Cmwlth. 116, 274 A.2d 221, 23 ZD 311 (1971). 44. 254.~.2d 914, 22 ZD 1 (Conn. 1969). 45. Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown, 302 N.Y. 115, 96 N.E. , 2d 731, 3 ZD 35 (1951); Daum v. Meade, 318 N.Y.S.2d 199, 23 ZD 307 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1971), aff'd 323 N.Y.S.2d 670, motion for leave to appeal denied N.Y.S,2d 463, 273 N.E.2d 315 (1971). _- 46. 493 P.2d 163, 24 ZD 196 (Ore. App. 1972). 47. Id, at 172. - 48. For a discussion of the floating zone technique as a means of implementing PUD, see Aloi, "Legal Problems in Planned Unit Development," 1 Real Estate L.J. S, 18 (Summer, 1972). 49. huff v. Bd. of Zoning App., 133 A.2d 83, 92 ZD 217 (Md. 1957) flight industrial zone] ;Costello v. Sleling, 55 161 A.2d 824, 13 ZD 351 (Md. 1960) [trailer park zone] ; Beall v. Montgomery County Council, 212 A.2d 751, 18 ZD 6 (Md. 1965) [high-rise residential zone] ; Bd, of Coeenty Commis v. Tipton, 222 A.2d 701, 19 ZD 136 (Md. 1966) [trailer park zone] ; Bujno v, Montgomery County Council, 220 A.2d 126, 19 ZD 139 (Md. 1966) [planned residential high-rise] ; Knudsen v. Montgomery County Co uncaZ, 217 A.2d 97, IS ZD 233 (Md. 1966) [townhouse zone] ; Eschinger v. Bus, 242 A.2d 502 (Ivtd. 1968) [mari- time zone] ; Bigenha v. Montgo rnery County Council, 237 A.2d 53, 20 ZD 365 (r\ld. 1968) [270-acre tract rezoned from residential co high-rise, commercial and industrial floating zones] . 50. See Linowes and Delaney, "The Maryland Change- Miscake Rule in Zoning: A Mistake Thax Should Be Changed," 1971 Land-Use Conzrods Annua[ 117. 51. A4oore v. Boulder, 29 Colo. App. 248, 484 P.2d 134, 23 ZD 377 (1971). 52. 302 H.Y. 115, 96 N.E. 2d 731, 3 ZD 35 (1951) [garden apartments] . 53. DeMeo v. Zoning Commission of Bridgeport, 167 A.2d 454, 13 ZD 238 (Conn. 1961) [garden apartmenx zone] ;Hawker v. Town Plan and Zoning Commission, 240 A.2d 914, 20 ZD 313 (Conn. 1968) [apaztmenx zone]; Sheridan v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 254 A.2d 914, 22 ZD 1 (Conn. 1969) [industrial zone] ; Stiles v. Town Counell of West Ilartfard, 268 A.2d 395, 23 ZD 57 (Conn. 1970) [regional shopping center] ; Lurse v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 278 A.2d 799, 23 ZD-326 (Conn. 1971) [corporate headquarters] . 54. Noonan v. Moulton, 204 N.E. 2d 897, 17 ZD 250 (Mass. 1965) [ordinance provided for apar[meni zone no[ located on zoning map] ; Senkarik v. Att y General, 257 N.E. 2d 470, 22 ZD 310 (Mass. 1970) [floating apartment zone by special permix authorized spot zoning] .See discus- si6n supra, p. 49. S5. Eves v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Lower Gwynedd Township, 164 A.2d 7, 12 ZD 359 (Pa. 1960). See discussion, supra notes 40-43. 56. Marino v. Zoning Flearing Bd. of Harrison Town- ship, 247 A.2d 221, 23 ZD 311 (Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 1971); Y.D. Dugout, Inc. v. Bd, of Appeals of Canton, 255 N.E.2d 732, 22 ZD 383 (Mass. 1970) [commercial uses permitted in certain residential districts by special permit subject to sire plan review and reasonable conditions] . 57. Chandler v. Kroiss, 190 N.W. 2d 472, 23 ZD 572 (Minn. 1971). 58. 472 P.2d 550, 23 ZD 2 (Wash. App. 1970). 59. See, e.g.,. city of Des Moines v. Lohner, 168 N.W. 2d 779, 21 ZD 284 (la. 1969) [city council not authorized to granx to reject special exceptions where enabling act designates board of adjustments exclusive body to acx on such permits]; and Shanbour v. Oklahoma City, 422 P.2d 444, 19 ZD 128 (Okla. 1967) [planning commission could not make recommendation on special use xo city council] ; modified in Appea[ of Moreland, 497 P.2d 1287 (Okla. 1972) [special exception not subject to same hazdship cri- teria as variance, but board of adjustment cannot function as a legislative body, and rezoning must precede action by board on PUD ] . 60.-See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Sxat §8(2) (Supp. 1973); N.Y. Town Law 281 (McKinney 1966). 61. 242 A.2d 781 (Conn. 1968). 62. 271_A.2d 105, 23 ZD 103 (Conn. 1970). 63. -244 So.2d 766, 23 ZD 385 (Fla. App. 1971). 64. Anderson, Amer[can Law of Zoning Vol. 1, §§2.14, 2.15 (1968). 65. ULI, supra n. 2, at 67-8. See also Babcock and Bosselman, "Suburban Zoning and "the Apartmenx Boom," 111 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1040, 1088 (1963); Mandelker, "Delega- tion of Power and Function in Zoning Administration," 1963 Wash. U.L.Q. 60; D. Mandelker, The Zoning Dilemma 70-77 (1971). 66. 507 P.2d 23 (Ore. 1973). 67. Smith v. County o f Washington, 406 P.2d 545, 547, 18 ZD 62 (Ore. 1965); Jehozuh's 1Yirnesses v. Mullen, 330 P.2d 5 (Ore. 1958). 68. Roseta v. County of Washington, 458 P.2d 405, 21 ZD 255 (Ore. 1969). Citing Roseta, an intermediaxe appel- late court in Oregon expanded xhis exception to reach the rezoning for one phase of a large PUD in Frankla nd v. Cety of Lake Oswego, 493 P.2d 163, 24 ZD 196- (Ore,-App. 1972). 69. Fasano, supra n. 48, at 26. A federal court in the District of Columbia reached essentially xhe same conclu- sion about a zoning amendment granting [ireliminary PUD approval. The action was adjudicaxory rather than legisla- xive and a "contested case" to which the provisions of the D.C. Administrative Procedures Act applied. Capitol Hill Restoration Society v. Zoning Commission, -287 A.2d 101, 24 ZD 221 (D.C. App. 1972). 70. Comment, "Zoning Amendments-The Product of Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Action," 33 Ohio St. L.J. 130, 137 (1972). 71. Fasano, supra n. 48, at 29, 30. 72. 485 P.2d 565, 23 ZD 370 (Ariz. App. 1971). 73. 232 A.2d 674, 19 ZD 42I (N.J. App. 1967). 74. 114 N.J. Super. 270, 276 A.2d 156, 23 ZD 347 (1971). 75. 507 P.2d 23 (Ore. 1973). 76. Id. ai 30. 77. 99 Cal. Rpxr. 745, 492 P.2d 1137, 24 ZD 155 (1972). The standing of nonresidents to challenge a munici- pality's zoning action on a PUD apparenxly was not an issue in Franklin v. City of Lake Oswego, 493 P.2d 163, 24 ZD 196 (Ore. App. 1972). 78. UL[, Legal Aspects of Planned Unit Development, Tech. BuII. 52 Pt. I, pp. SO-58 (1965); Mandelker, Con- trolling Planned Residential Deveiopsnents 26-33 (ASPO, 1966). 79. 263 A.2d 833, 22 ZD 305 (Md. 1970). 80, Montgomery County v. National Capitol Aealiy Corp., 297 A.2d 675 (Md. 1972). 81. Aloi, "Legal Problems in Planned Unit Develop- ment," 1 Read Estate L.J. 5 (Summer 1972). 82. Id. at 42. 83. 79 Cal. Rptr. 872, 21 ZD 2I2 (Ca(. App. 1969). 84. See Krasnowiecki, "Planned Unix Development: A Challenge to Established Theory and Practice of Land Use Control," 114 U. Pa. L. Rev. 47, 95 (1965). 85. Bo utet v. Planning Board of City of Scao, 253 A.2d 53 (Me. 1969). 86. 69 Cal. Rpxr. 251, 21 ZD 26 (Cal. App. 1968). 87. Id. at 25. Compare MlIlbrae with Alargulis v. Lind- say, 31 N.Y.2d 167, 286 N.E.2d 724, 24 ZD 395 (1972), where modifications to a proposed housing project which included a shift from seven midsise to three high-rise build- ings were not a change of the "essence" of the projeM requiring new hearings and did not require action by the legislative body. 56 Chapter 7. Conclusion • From a regulatory point of view PUD is a process and not a particular product. It is not possible or even desirable m have pazticulazly detailed development standards for PUDs. It is not possible to define "good" development through regulations. • PUD is not a panacea for all the problems of urban development. It will not cure urban sprawl, does not neces- sarily reduce the cost of housing, and obviously cannon solve problems beyond a particular project's boundaries. • While PUD may not solve all development problems, ,it is a better approach to land development at the project level. • Considerably more negotiation takes place between PUD developer and community than under traditional zoning and land subdivision regulation. If development standazds are made more specific to prevent abuses of the negotiation process, xhe result would unquestionably be conventional development. Carefully drafted procedural guidelines are only partially helpful in preventing abuses. • Developers who choose to develop PUDs engage in far more planning and hire many more experts than they do in conventional development. The PUD ordinance should ensure that all PUD projects receive this higher degree of planning. • The degree of design review in PUD ordinances makes it mandatory [hat public bodies have professional personnel reviewing development plans. PUDs should rtot be reviewed by laymen alone. _ • The PUD process points up the need for a single development ordinance. The concept of a separate zoning ordinance and land subdivision regulations is obsolete. • Some PUD ordinances are so specific that they effec Lively prevent the flexibilixy which ought to be inherent in the PUD process. • PUD ordinances can be a tot simpler by merely being more clearly written, logically organized, and better out- lined. • Processing time for PUDs is entirely excessive, and it adds to the costs of development, which in turn adds to the cost of housing. • Legal problems are not particularly troublesome in relation to PUD. • Finally, in many communities, the general public will be against new development of any kind no matter what the quality of the development may be. Observations Beyond This PUD Study No matter how carefully a research proposal is designed and conducted, quesxions and issues inevitably arise during the mnducx of the research which cannot be addressed because of time and budget limitations. This study is no exception to this generalization. Thus, in closing we would like to discuss some points which we could not deal with at any length. PUD and Planning. Far too many suburban jurisdictions axe simply reacting to PUD development plans without any clear idea of how those proposals relate to the community's comprehensive plan. In some communities -the plans are nonexistent; in others adopted plans are too old and obso- lete. This is pazticularly true in terms of the way in which plans are related to shifrs in the housing market in most metropolitan areas-that is, demands for a far larger propor- tion of multifamily housing. In addition, far too many com- munities do not have the remotest idea of how their month-to-month development decisions relate to the under- lying utility and public service systems. This is a sorry state of affairs for which there is little excuse in a technical sense..We did find jurisdictions who demonstrate the proposition that when planning works, it works. More specifically, a number of communities have a very good grasp of how PUD relates to planning. Thus, comprehensive plans aze further detailed into distric~- area plans. Within district or area plans measuremenxs of present land use and population density are made, the exist- ing and proposed public services-especially utility Gnes- are delineated, and plans are prepared which coordinate land use and services. In these communities plans mew something. The general and district plans are adopted. by planning commissions and legislative bodies with a sense of commitment, demonstrated by planning commissions and legislative bodies during the course of reviewing PUDs. Moreover, in such communities public works deparxments make the detailed plans for functional systems and carry out public works projects with a good sense of population and land use projections for particular planning areas. When these communities review PUDs, of whatever size or den- sity, they have a relatively good grasp of how land-use in-. tensities and population densities fir into existidg and planned systems. Clearly, this is good planning and good public administration. Moreover, it provides us with a greater sense of confidence in public officials who must engage in a considerable amounx of discretionary decision making in the PUD process. Afandatory PUD. The idea of making PUD a mandatory development in certain areas has been proposed. As men- tioned earlier, neither planners nor developers were paz- ticulazly enthusiastic about the idea. Nevertheless, some jurisdictions are adopting policy statements which indicate that PUD is a preferred method of development in some planning districts. A few jurisdictions are even actively con- sidering the possibility of mapping PUD zones on the zoning map in advance. At this point in time we simply do s~ not know enough about the potential results of such re- quirements, nor of the legal implications. It should be said, however, that the idea of making PUD mandatory, in con- junction with ocher trends in development administration (especially the requirement for site planning review for a large number of uses), begins to point us in the direction of the British system of total review of all development pro- posals. PUD and New Towns. When is a PUD so large that i[ is a new town? There is no exact answer. Theoretically, at some point in size, scale, and complexity, a PUD is no longer a "residential develgpment," but is in fact a new town. In this report we have tended to focus on PUD at the smaller scale because we believe that is the scale at which the vast majority of PUDs are being built in the vast majority of jurisdictions. Most of the literature on new towns is not at all focused on regulatory aspects of development. However, a recent book (Roberx W. Burchell and James W. Hughes, Planned Unit Development: New Cammunlties American Style, Rutgers University Center for Utban Policy Research, 1972) does have a PUD regulatory focus. Metropolitan-and State Review. At the present time legislation on land-use policy is being considered by the U.S. Congress. If enacted, such legislation will encourage (if not require) a far greater role for state government in xhe land planning and development process. What is of rele- vance to PUD about this emerging interest in land-use policy is that the concepts of "developments of state or regional benefit" and "areas of critical concern" may in- clude large PUDs. At the present time in the majority of states only new communities with federal assistance aze being reviewed at the metropolitan and state level through the A-95 process. IL is far too early to risk a prediction concerning the number of. states [hat might define large PUDs as aeeas of critical concern. What can be said at this point is the possibility that metropolitan and state review mighx increase the chance of more carefully relating PUDs io planning policies,-and the probability that involving more review authorities will increase processing time. Low- and Moderate-Income !lousing an PUDs. During the past couple of yeazs a number of planning agencies and governmental units have been considering and experi- menting with requirements that a certain number or pro- portion of`low- and moderate-income housing units be con- structed in PUDs. Clearly, [his is an important issue but it has not been addressed in this study because ocher research on the topic was being conduMed simultaneously within ASPO. The results of that research have been published by ASPO in Lower Income dousing: The Planners' Respan,se by Mary E. Brooks (Planning Advisory Service Repott No. 282. July-August 1972>. Public Access and PUDs. There is an element of the PUD which is disturbing as a public policy issue, yet an issue for which we do not have answers. That is, many PUDs contain commonly owned open spaces, facilities, and even streets, which aze for the exclusive use of the residents of the PUD. Moreover, as an emotional response to the "crime in the streets" issue, some PUDs have gates and guards at the entrances presumably to keep out burglazs and other "undesirables." While matters of the PUD residents' life styles may not be public policy, the provision of public facilities by pubhc authorities is. Local governments may be tempxed to avoid or shirk responsibility xo construct and operate public recreation facilities [hax are open xo the public as a whole. _ Future Strength of Homeowners' Associations. Ax the present time the homeowner association (HOA) is a thriving institution which is growing in popularity throughout the nation. We offered both planners and developers options to identify problems, yet discovered no significant ones. Pro- fessionalism in the management of HOAs seems [o be in- creasing and some development firms have set up either subsidiaries or departments which then are hired by HOAs to manage the day-to-day business affairs. In addition, a number of completely independent business firms have been springing up to specifically provide management ser- vices for HOAs. We admit the possibility that we are being overly pessi- mistic, but we wonder about the distant future. Most HOAs aze of relatively recent vintage and are now managing rela- tively new facilities. What, if anyching, might happen when the community facilities of the PUD begin to deteriorate simply because of age2 Will IIOAs and their members be able to pay the substantial development costs involved in major renovations? Will public bodies be asked to step in and maintain these facilities? We do not know the answers, but such concerns do rend to impel some local jurisdictions to have development standards (especially for streeu) which are "high" enough so that if the public is ever re- quired to rake over maintenance, it can be done with economic efficiency. Finally, some planners think out loud aboux the time when the "filter down" process begins to work in present PUDs. If lower-income groups begin to move into older PUDs in the future, will they be able to afford to pay for high levels of service? Educating the Public on PUD Our study suggests that the general public doesn't under- stand PUD. The result in suburbia is that what is not under- stood is therefore to be feared and opposed. The building industry is aware of this situation and has responded in a number of ways. For example, the Urban Land Institute has published afully-illustraxed report aimed at the general public (PUD: A Better Way for the Suburbs) and the National Association of Homebuilders, in cooperation with the ULI, has prepared a slide presentation with an ar companying recorded tape cassette. One of the home- budders' associations in -California has even produced a movie on PUD that is shown to local civic groups. (This same association also has produced a movie on apartments.) How much effecx these efforts have is problematic. The public's attitude toward PUD is difficult co sepazate from attitudes about growth and nongrowth issues, apartments and townhouses in the suburbs, [axes, and the degree of trust in planners and government officials. Public planners should educate the public about PUD but, as a practical matter, this must be done prior to a specific public hearing on a particular PUD. Dispassionate discussion of new concepts can't very well take place in emotion-charged hearings. The suburban planner needs to be out talking with the public on a continuous basis-and not just about PUD. The planner needs to be telling the public how urban and svbur ban development patterns are changing and the shifts in xhe structure of the housing mazket; how they affecx suburbs which originally contained only single-family dwellings; how the suburbanization of jobs affects housing needs; and how land-use regulation characterized by flexibility relates to comprehensive planning. sa Appendix: The Land-Use Intensity Rating System In revising its ]and planning standards for residential development in 1963, the Federal Housing Administration introduced a sophisticated and flexible set of regulations using the concept of "land-use inxensity ratings." These new regulations will have considerable influence on local land-use controls, particularly in planning for multifamily dwellings. Before analyzing the new Ff1A standards, however, it is useful to sunuuariu another FHA publication, Intensity of Development and Lizabiliey of Multifatnily Ilous"tng Projects, by Robert D. Katz." In.this excellent study, Katz studted selected high-rise and central city apartment projects. in Europe and the United States but his generaliza- tions.about site planning also apply to the lower-density development taking place in American suburbs. Much of the opposition to apartments in suburban areas is probably due to the deplorable quality of building and site design of far coo many projects constructed in the Ltst few years. The identification of 12 aspeMS of quality and livability by Katz ought to be considered by local officials developing land-use controls and in reviewing plans for apartment projects. The site planning elements are not so exact that a checklist cannot be constructed, and it can be used as a general guideline ro judge some of the qualitative aspects of apattment projecu: privacy; usable open space; individuality; diversity of housing types; location; prox- imity to community facilities; safety and health; circula- tion; automobile: storage; blending of new housing into its surroundings; site details; views from and to a site. 1. Privacy is often difficult to achieve in apartment developments, yet if it is present the quality of the environ- ment improves considerably. Site planning techniques for privacy include the use of screen walls or heavy landscaping to create private outdoor spaces. Buildings may be sited facing a court, or have wings jutting out to create private patios. 2. Related to the need for privacy is the provision of adequate usable open space for outdoor activities. Such spaces do not include parking areas or narrow sideyards. Areas for both active and passive recreation should be pro- vided to match xhe age characteristics of the apartment dwellers. 3. Individuality of the buildings in the project can be achieved by different external materials, colors, landscape elements, and other design details. For example, row houses or garden apartments, set off from each other structurally, may also vazy in color or materials. Providing small private yards for each dweiling unit creates another feature that • Robert D. Katz, Intensity of Development and Livability of Multifamily Housing P+'ojeets. Technical Study TS 7.14. (Washing ton: FHA, 19b3.) gives individuality. Mixtures of low and high buildings and the use of staggered setbacks and broken roof lines can also be used to provide variety. 4. Diversity of housing types is closely related to indi- viduality. While many suburbanites still believe that the in- trusion of apartments into asingle-family neighborhood will disrupt the area and depreciate property values, such mixtures have been deliberately planned by some de- velopers of large-scale projects. A pottion of the project might contain single-family dwellings, another part might be sex aside for garden apartments, and still another might include a medium- or high-rise building, vrith even a shopping center worked into the design. Such mixed-type developmenu, incidentally, have proved very successful, even more successful than most single-type projects. 5-7. Location, proximity to community facelites, and safety and health have already been discussed more fully in a previous section of this report. Too many municipalities still zone left-over parcels only for apartments. In effect, a greater number of people per acre are forced to live in the poorest locations for high-density housing. Not only is housing quality usually lower from the very staff in such circumstances, but an azea of incipient blight is being created. 8, 9. Ciretadation and automobile storage are related problems and in turn determine the type and usefulness of open space in a development. Ample parking should be provided, of course, but massive parking lots should not be allowed to dominate the site or to split yard space into unusable bits and pieces. If at all possible, parking areas should be physically or visually separated by fencing, walls, landscaping, or changes in level. Pedestrian access should be provided to front and rear building exits, and sidewalks should be separated from parking areas, access drives, and delivery entrances. 10. The blending of new apartment structures will not normally presenx problems in suburbs, except in older in- lying cities that are experiencing development on bypassed lots, lazge or deep lots, or in some rases where older houses are being replaced by single apartment buildings. 11. Site detaik will be as important in a suburban loca- tion as in a city. Imaginative use of lighting, paving, land- scaping, and building facades will add significandy to the quality of multifamily housing. Terraces, development around a swimming pool or ocher recreation area, and the provision of imaginative playground equipment and play sculpture also inctease atttactiveitess. 12: [n xhe suburban landscape views to and from the site of most apartment dwellers are hmited to the site itself unless they five in tall buildings. The tenants are more hkely to be looking at an industrial or highway strip commercial 59 development than will the single-family dweller in the same communixy. This is one resulx of a zoning policy that per- mits apartments only adjacent to commercial and industrial aeeas. As this reporx has previously emphasized, it is not proper xo situate apartments near the worst areas of the community. Perhaps more important to the suburbanite (and to the suburban official xrying to make xhe decision) is the view from the single-family home or the street to the new apart- ment area. The proper blending of apartment buildings into xhe hitherto single-family landscape of suburbia is impor- tant and needs cazefuL consideration, which probably means careful review of site and azchitecxutal plans, by local plan- ning authorities. Federal Housing Administration Land-Use Intensity Ratings The standards of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) for residential development are more complicated than mosx existing zoning ordinance provisions for multi- family dwellings, but they may be understood with a little study. Planners and public officials should examine the new standards closely in drafting and administering local land- use controls. Because many persons believe that the new system may revolutionize zoning, a full exposixion is given. The standards cover more environmental and site planning elements than will be found in zoning ordinances, and they allow far more flexibility in site layout and in mixing housing xypes. Thus, they provide a sophisticated planning tool in evaluating requirements for apartments in the r suburbs. The following presents a brief review of some of the basic elements of control for apartments, the specific objeo- rives of xhe new FHA standards, and how they differ from traditional zoning controls. Traditional Zoning. The xypical suburban zoning ordi- nance provides for residential districts differenx from each other in density and in type of residence permitted (single- family, xwo-family, multiple-family). Mixtures of structural types at the same density are rarely permitted (although advocated by many experts) except for the cumulative effect of allowing single-family uses in two-family and multiple-family districts. Density is expressed in minimum lot azea per family or dwelling unit, or by merely a state- ment of the number of dwelling units permitted per acre. Occasionally, density is based on a room or bedroom count. For example, minimum lot area for one bedroom is set at 1,000 square feet; for two bedrooms, 1,500 squaze feet; and for three or more bedrooms, 2,000 square feet. Thus, the actual density expressed in dwelling units will vary depending upon the size of apartment units consxrucxed on a pazxicular site. Some ordinances also regulate density and bulk through the use of floor area ratio standards. Height, building cover- age, and reaz, front, and side yards are customarily regu- lated, as is the space between buildings. Parking require- ments are also common. Less common are requirements for usable open space, even though open space (in addition to factors related xo density) is perhaps the mafor element in residential environment that makes ix pleasant, comfort- able, safe, healthful, and desirable. Basic Concept of FHA -Standards. In ahnosx all cases zoning requirements are related to land area but the FHA stapdards, however, .are based primarily upon floor area. In addition, most of the FHA standards are expressed in terms of floor area ratios, rather than absolute dimehsions. This concept is best Introduced by an example of the use of the Land Use Intensity Standards chart (Figure Al). A land-use intensity rating between 0.0 and 8.0, assigned by the FHA to a particular site, is based on character of the neighborhood and community. In Figure Al this rating appears on the horizontal axis and is read off at the bottom of the chazt. The ratios permitted on the site aze then deter- mined by checking along the vertical axis representing the assigned land-use intensity rating until rhos line intersects each of the curves, then reading off the ratio on xhe vertical scale, indicated along the left margin. For example, suppose that xhe rating of a pazttcular sire is 5.0. Reading the figures off in order, from the lowest to the highest, the applicable ratios will be: !•tinimum recreation space ratio 0.13 Maximum floor area ratio 0.4 Minimum occupant caz ratio 1.1 Minimum living space ratio I.1 Minimum total caz ratio 1.25 Minimum open space ratio 1.8 The land-use intensity rating correlates land area, floor' area, open space, livability open space, recreation space, parking requirements, types of structures, and a range of densities. De£mitions of some of the xerms used aze as follows: Floor Area (FA) is xhe sum of the areas for resi- dential use on the several floors of a building or buildings, measured from the faces of the exterior walls. Land Area (LA) is the site area for residential use within the property lines, plus half of the abutting street roar, plus half of any abutting permanent open space (with certain limitations). Open Space (OS) is the total horizontal area ~of all un- covered open spaces plus one-half of the total horizontal azea of covered open spaces (e.g., roofed porches, carports). LivabsZaty Open Space (LOS) is xhe open space, minus the car area within the uncovered open space, minus one-half of any covered car space that was previously eligible and credited in part io open space. These are simplified definitions, and the actual regula- tions, which are contained in Land PlannPng Bulletin No. 7 (published in 1964 by FHA), should be examined for all the exceptions, paztial credits, and definitions of what can be counted on roofs, porches, or balconies. The regulations also give definitions for the various ratios. Thus, there is a definition for open space and another for open space ratio. The floor area ratio is based on land area, the car ratios on number of dwelling units; all the other ratios are based on floor area. The most critial sxep in using the ]and-use intensity ratings is the actual assignment of a specific rating to the property where the project will be built. Once this is done, building and sire requirements fall into place. - - Application of Intensity Ratings. Because of the impor tance of the system, it is well to understand some of the basic ideas that make up the rating system and the process of determining the rating of a particular housing site. One purpose of xhe ratings is to ensure that new residential building developments will fit into the particular type of community as well as into the specific neighborhood within the community. Figure A2 is a theoretical illustration of a typical community building and land-use pattern. Inxen- sities (indicated by the density of shading) are greaxesx at the center, taper off in the transition and corridor areas, and fmally level off in the outlying area. In Figure A3 the bottom portion shows the range of intensities that FHA 60 6.0 7.0 6.0 5-C 4.C 3.( ~ 1A F- 0:, ~ o.l < o: y D. W 0. I z o: 0.05 3.0 4 units ~ per acre 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 ~ 8 units * 16 units ~ 32 unite * 64 units per atte per acre per acre per acre LAND~USE INTENSITY ~ Floor Area Ratio (tax) is maximum square (Dotage of total floor area permitted [or each square too o[ land arza. 25TDAY 6UILEINO bD%eDVEA cAR.• LD ID Srosr bmtDlnD ID%EOYCR -EA R• I.0 LAND AREA Total Car Ratio (Tr:a) is minimum number ~ of puking spatts required far each living UNIT ` Occnpaat Car Ra[IO (OCR) is minimum num- ber o[ parkin8 sPaoes without Parkingdime limns required tar each living unit. ~ Open 8patt Ratio (osx) is minimum square footage of open space required for pch squue foot o[ flYwr area. ~ Living 8patt Ratio lux) is minimum square footage of nonvehicWar outdoor spatt rz- quired for each squue foot o[ floor arcs. Recreation Space RaOo (xn) is misLimum RSt,+ square (Dotage o[ recreation space required for each squarc foot of floor area. 128 units * Y`Per gross acre for per acre 1089 sq. [t. Living Unit FIGURE Al. Land-Use Intensity Standards feels is suitable for vazious types of communities as well as general locations within them. Present and anticipated land-use patterns in the community presumably play a heavy role in the FHA's determinations, as do land market factors. The FHA is interested in preventing either too great or too low intensities in particular locations. A Low inten- sity rating can adversely affect the project through under- use of_the land, whereas a rating that is too high can lower livability and in turn lower the potential rental oc sale value of [he property. The land-use intensity rating applies to the total land area in a particular site. The rating scale appears in the first column of Table Al. For each rating, 0.0 through 8.0, a floor. area ratio is given as well as the floor area per gross acre- Density in living units per gross acre for two different size dwelling units, 1,089-square feet and 871.2-square feet, is also given. it should be noted that fox each full unit on the intensity scale the density, measured in living uniu per gross acre, is doubled. The 0.0 intensity rating at the 544.5- square-feet of floor area per acre may be visualized as a single-family dwelling of modest siu-1,089-square feet of floor space-on a two-acre parcel. The same sized house with an intensity rating of 1.0, would be on a one-acre lot. The three dimensions given in Figure A3-871.2-square feet, 1,089-square feet, and 1,452square feet-are not bated on standard building stzes. Rather, they are respectively one- fiftieth, one-fourtieth, and one-thirtieth of an aae (43,500- squaze feei). Because of this, they facilitate the preparation of the charts, and they are reasonably close to the floor area of none-bedroom apartment, atwo-bedroom house, and athree-bedroom house. Once the rating is determined, Figures Al and A3 are consulted to dexermine the permitted floor area and the number of dwelling units that can be built on the parcel. This is based on the floor area of the individual dwelling unit and the size of the tract of land. Thus, on an acre of land assigned eland-use intensity rating of 5.0, a builder can place between 12 dwelling units of 1,452-square feet of floor area and 20 dwelling units of 877.2-square feet of floor area (see Figure A3). This is a gross density: The range of permitted net densities may also be found by computing xhe area devoted to streets. Figure A3 shows the range in net dwelling unit density with 20 to 25 per cent of the land developed to streets. 61 T moM orrACxrp I STDM TOWN xDUSE RANGE OF OPTIMUM USE :.aT 2 bTOM DETACHED 12 aTOM 3 aiDM iDWn HOUSE ] STORY APARTMENT 6 ATOM 3 sioM A P . D sr A a r~ . Sp - ~c 0 a-- L F- ~ ' - ~ _ _ ~ i'. P o -r r- f P ~F I .y aye T ,F ~. ' -t .1 j,- I .~- ~~ ~fi T1. _ l ~_ _._ , _ _. ~ I i I T I ptall O ~ ~ ~^ ! i ~ . I ~ _. e. R a I ,- _ .--- . ~ r ~ ~, ~ i I Q oc tio __~ _..I._ _ _ T upaot L' 9r Ai - i iii I ~ ' ~'~ yI I I 1 - - - i -_ _ __ _ - -_ _-_ - _ - - ( _- t _ - - - - _' - - __ ~ _ _ _ - -- . -~ _ = _ - rCR + T ~ : - - - _ - __- - - - OAR - T _ ~ - O --- o'" +--` "- SR I I ~ I ~ 1 II I R I ~~ I I I I ~, eCreBt ~ ~~i~ I ipn -- I `Spa ce ~~ _ II R - eh o LI r- I I 19 10 17 )6 FIGURE A2. Typical Community Patxern ® General Area Corridor ® Transition Center Ix should be noted thax FfIA no longer uses nex densit}' in reviewing projects. In the past this procedure often proved confusing, since ax times public streets were counted and private streets were not, or a proportion of the area of abutting streets or open space might or might nox be counted. The new FEIA minimum property standards for multifamily dwellings now take gross land area as the base for land-use intensity ratings. In making any rnmparisons with zoning ordinance densities, the reader should remem- ber thax most frequently zoning provisions are based on net land area; streets and alleys are not included. FHA also uses benchmarks in determining the suitable intensity rating for a particular development. These bench- marks are actual projects that have been built and subse- quenfly compared and analyzed in terms of the racing scale. Thus, the local insuring office will use examples of some actual apartment developments that have a certain rating. A proposed development can then be rnmpared to see if the intensity and site planning standards are up to par with developments considered to be good ones. Detertnini zig Suitable Intensity Ratiazg. The step-by-step procedure to be followed by a local FHA office in deter- mining a suitable intensity rating for a particular site will provide local officials with useful information for project evaluation. The surroundings of the proposed development, its relationship to the community, and the urban type of the community are analyzed following the principles and using the measurement devices described in FHA's Land Planning Bulletin No. 7 and in the revised provisions of FAA's Min imurn Property Requirements for Three or Mare Living Units. The step-by-step procedure follows: 1. To relate the site to the urban type: (Figure A3) Determine the urban type in which the site is located and find the group of range bars for that type at the bottom of Figure A3. Example: "Metropolitan Suburb." 2. To relate the site to the space pattern of the com- munity: a) Determine the sector of the community space pattern TABLE Al. Land-Use Intensity Related to Floor Area and Density Land-Use In[ens¢y (LIR) Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Floor Area (square feet) per Gross Arre Density m Land Use per Gross Acre 1,089 square feet/ 871.2 square feet/ L.U. L.U. D.O.-__ - ,0125 544.5 .5 .625 1.0 .025 1,089 1.0 125 2.0 .OS 2,178 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.1 4,356 4.0 5.0 4.0 0,2 8,712 8.0 10.0 5.0 0.4 17,424 16.0 20.0 6.0 0.8 34,848 32A 40.0 7.0 1.6 69,696 64.0 80.0 8.0 3.2 139, 392 128.0 160.0 62 I-ST. DET ACNEC I•ST. TOWNNOVDE RANGE OF OPTIMUM USE Y•~TORY DETACHED Z 'S 2-$T TOWNt-IaVQ4 l2-$TO RY Z~ STDRY AvT. STORY •ST00.Y LIVIryG UNITS pGR ACRE. FO a7l.z°DWELLINGS STREET 20-25~~ 5 6 .0 .25 GR035 NET-80Z 10.0 12.5 20.0 25.0 40.0 50.0 80.0 100.0 160.0 200.0 b . C6 NET-75X 13.32 26.6{ 53.28 106.56 219.12 LIVING UfJITJ PE2 ACRE 'FOU 1089°~DWELLINGCSTREE.7 EO.259.11 4.0 GR055 8.0 5.0 NET-SOZ 10.0 16.D 20.0 32.0 40,0 64.0 12EA 80.0 16D.0 5.3 NET-75x 10.6 LI.3 42:6 85.3 170.6 LIVING UNIt~ PER ACRE FOR I`F52°IDWELLING CgTREET z0-25ffi) I 3 3 4 .9 .75 .p GROSS 6.0 120 N4T•$D,gs 7,5 15.0 NET-75~ $.O 16,0 t4.0 30.0 32.0 •0 60.0 6+.0 9 12 12 6.0 0.0 8.0 Site Location Related to Ur,h~an TYi~e~ Spacepat~e ENTER. R TQ -r',cils AL ITlO METROPOLtTGN CITY _ eNTEa AL N ITION METROPOLITAtV SUDURP~ CsENER CENTS GENL12AL N81 I N SON- I"IETROPOLlT4N CITY TRANSlT10N ne w,eow~_ ceurca nl~wl_{`~IFTD nDOLI TdN `JUI'~URb FIGURE A3. Typical Community Pattern in which the site is locaxed and find ixs range bar within xhe urban type found in Step I above. Example: "Cen- xer." b) Note the land-use intensity ratings for that range bar. Example: The 4.8 to 6.2 range. c) Consider thax intensity range in relation to the inten- ' siiy range appropriate fur thax particular community and xhat particular sector of chat community. Narrow xhe range under consideration, or adjust it, as appropriate. i. Example: Based on community and senor, the 4.8-6.2 j range is narrowed to 4.8-5.8 for further consideration. t 3. Ta relate the cite to camrnon building types: a) Using the range of intensity ratings found in Step 2c, note at the top of Figure A3 under "Range of Optimum Use" the building range bars which are in that inxensit}' range. Example: For the 4.8 xo 5.8 range, they are a two-story xownhouse or apartment in xhe lower end of the intensity range, xhree-story in the middle of the range, and six-story at the upper end. b) Consider this and, if possible, narrow the intensity range to be considered further. Example: The 4.8 to 5.8 range is narrowed to a 4.8-5.6 range. 63 Cand-Use Intensay Raring LIR 4 LIR 5 L[R 6 Dwelling units per acre Loc area per dwelling (rounded) Floor area ratio Maximum coverage Livability open spacr. RecreaTlOn space Pazking (including guest) 4. To relate the site to densitg~: 12.5 -55.0 50.0 3,485 square feet 1,740 square Feet 870 square feet o.a os os 20 per cent 28 per cent 30 per cent 52 per cent 44 percent 40 per cent -3.6 per cent 5.2 per cent 7.5 per cent 1.6/dwelling unit 1.2/dwelling unit 0.95/dwelling unit TABLE A2. Typical Zoning Standards a) Note the gross and the net density for living units of- typical sizes at the degrees of land-use intensity found in Step 36 above. b) Consider this and if possible narrow the intensity range to be considered further. Example: The 4.8 to 5.6 range is retained for consideration. S. To compare with typical benchmarks: a) Note the characteristics of known projects charted as benchmarks in the Minimum Property Standards Manual or by local analysis, particularly those in the intensity range found in Ste~4b above. Example: The 4.8 brnch- markfor the two-story townhouse project is noted. b) Consider xhis and, if possible, narrow the intensity range to be considered further. Example: An intensity slightly higher than the 4.8 benchmark design appears suitable to the site. The 4.8-5.6 range of Step 4b of the example is narrowed in the 4.8 xo 5.2 range. 6. To relate the site to the land-use standards: (Figure A1) a) Note the standards in Figure Al for the intensity range found in Step Sb; note the doubting of floor area for_each unit increase in Land-Use Intensity Ratio (LIR) and the accompanying halving of livability space and the reduction in car storage. b) Consider this and, if possible, narrow the intensity range for further consideration. Example: The 4.8 to 5.2 range of Step 56 is retained for further consideration. 7. To relate to timing: a) Note the time stage of the development paxtern of the particular community and the particular sector in which the site is located. Note the current market demand for additional housing supply at the intensixies under consideration. b) Considering these factors, narrow the intensity range found in Step 6b or adjust it downward if indicated by the needs of timing and marketing. for current use. Example: The 4.8 to 5.2 range of Step 6b is narrowed to a 4.9 to 5.1 range. 8. To determine uumericallaud-use rating: Considering all the above and working within the range of a land-use intensity found in 7b, determine that numerical degree of land-use intensity on the rating scale which is most appropriate for the subject site for FHA purposes; in other words, the intensity rating which represents the maximum intensity acceptable to FFIA fox the current use of the site for FIiA-insured housing. Example: The 4.9-5.1 range of Step 76 is resolved at LIR S.1 Because local officials will still have to work within the framework of zoning ordinances to control land-use and development standards, a translation of the land-use in- tensity ratings is useful. A direct comparison with typical zoning pmvisions, however, can only be approximate, since the land-use intensity ratings are based on floor area and zoning ordinance requirements on land area. Additional difficulty is encountered in translating densities. The FHA standards use a loose standard of gross measurement of dwelling units per acre, whereas zoning ordinances use exact and net densities. However, $ certain assumptions are made, it is possible to make rough conversions. As most of the problems with apartments in the suburbs occur in metropolitan areas, the land-use intensity ratings of 4, 5, and 6 are chosen for illustration. Two assumptions are made: Density is net density based on 20-per cent of the land area in streets with 871.2 square foot dwelling units; and the maximum floor area is used. Table A2.illus- trates these kinds of conversions. Except for the parking requirement, all requirements are stated in relationship xo land area. - The requirements. in this table do not differ materially .from some typical suburban zoning ordinance provisions. The three intensity ratings presented are similar to three separate residenxial zoning districts-low, medium, and high density. The high-density example would be relatively rare in a suburban community, but the other two represent typical densities for garderT apartments and two- and three- story walkup apartments now being built in many suburbs. Of course, these intensity ratings are only three of the dozens that can be assigned by FHA to a particular project. In choosing a particular rating FHA has a large amount of~ flexibility in that there are as many ratings as lines on the graph. It is doubtful, and probably not desirable, that local agencies administering land-use controls will ever have zoning tools as flexible as the land-use intensity ratings. But the FIIA approach is compatible with planned unit develop- ment provisions found in many zoning ordinances and should prove useful in administering such provisions. 64 Bibliography Books Anderson, Robert M. American Law of Zoniazg. Rochester, New York: Lawyer's Cooperative Publishing Co., 1968. See sections 5.16 (floating zone), 5.17 (unifor- mity requirement), 8.17 (cluster zoning), 8.20 (con- ditional zoning), 8.38_. (planned development dis- tricts). Reports Huntoon, Maxwell O., Jr. PUD-A Better Ii'ay for the Suburbs. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1971. Mandelker, Daniel R. Controlling Planned Residemial Developments. Chicago: American Society of Plan- ning Officia]s, 1966. Out of print Burchell, Roberx W. Planned Unit Development-New Com- murdtees American Styr. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University, 1972. Hagman, Donald G. Urban Planning and Land Development Control Law. St. Paul, Minnesota: Wesx Publishing Co., 1971. See sections 62 (floating zones), 96 (uni- formity), 228 -(definition-PUD), 229 (PUD-history), 237 (PUD-subdivision requiremenxs). _, Larson, John H., and Martin, Chazles R. California Zoning Pvactice. California Continuing Education of the Baz, Practice Book No. 43. Los Angeles: Univer- sity of California, 1969. See sections 6.61-6.73. Haar, Charles M. Land-Use Planning. 2nd ed. Boston: Litxte Brown and Co., 1971. See pp. 191-196. ICrasnowiecM, ]an. Z. Housing and Urban Development. St. Paul, Minnesota: Wesx Publishing Co., 1969. See pp. 119-197. Lansing, John B., et al. Planned Residential Environments. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1970. Mandelker, Daniel R. Managing Our Urban Environment. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1971. See pp. 1075-1106. Rathkopf, Arden H. The Law of Zoning and Planning. 3rd ed. New York: Clark Boardman Co., Ltd., 1972. See Chap. 71, p. 43. Roberts, E.F. Land-Use Planning. New York: Matthew Bender, 1971. See settion 20.U2, pp. 6-137-6-175. Whyte, William H. Cluster Development. New York: Ameri- can Conservation Association, 1964. "ln keeping with the focus of this report, this selected bibliog raphy emphasizes sources of duet[ use to, ordinance drafters. Count- less examples of specific PUD projecu have appeared with great frequency for the past decade in No use and Ifo me, Journal o f Ho me Build%ng, -and Urban Land, Norcross, Carl. Open Space Communities in the Market Place: A Survey of Public Acceptatace. ULI Technical Bulletin No. 57. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1966. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Planned Unit Devedoprnent With a Homes Associa- tion. Land Planning Bulletin No. 6. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. Land Use Intensity. Land Planning Bulletin No. 7- Interim edition. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966. Urban Land Institute. New Approaches to Residential Land Development: A Study of Concepts and Innovations. Technical Bulletin No. 40. Washington, D.C.. Urban _ Land Institute, 1961. _. Legal Aspects of Panned Unit Residential Develop- ment. Technical Bulletin No. 52. Washington, D:C.: Urban Land Institute, 1965. Wolffe, Lenard L. New Zoning Landmarks in Planned Unit Developments. ULI Technical Bulletin No. 62. Washington, D,C.: Urban Land Institute, 1968. Articles Ahrens, Clifford H. "Planned Unit Development." Missouri Law Review 35 (1970): 27. Aloi, Frank A. "Legal Problems in Planned Unit Develop- ment." Real Estate Law Journal 1 (1972): 5- Babcock, Richard F., and McBride, David N. "An Intro- duction to the Model Enabling Act for Planned Resi- dential Development." University of Pennsylvania Law Review 114 (1965): 136. Bair, Frederick H., jr. "Applying Land Use Intensity to Public Regulation:- Improved Controls for Residential and Other Developmenu." Urban Land, April 1967, PP~ 1-8. 65 "Flow To Regulate Planned Unit Developments for Housing-Summazy of a Regu]ato ry Approach." ZoniizgDigest I7 (1965): 185-195, 221-230. Craig, David W. "Planned Unit Development as Seen From City HaB." University of Pennsylvania Law Review 114 (1965): 127. Federal Housing Administration. "Land-Use Intensity Ra[ing: A New Approach to Residential Develop- ment." Urban Land, October 1963, pp. 1, 3-9. Goldston, Eli, and Scheuer, James Fl. "Zoning of Planned Residential Developments." Harvard Law Review 73 (1959): 241. Hanke, Byron R. "Land Use Intensity." Urban Land, November 1969, pp. 3-11. "Planned Unit Development and Land Use Inten- sity." University of Pennsylvania Law Review 114 (1965): I5. "Hosv Do You Like Living in a Planned Community2" Urban Land, January 1972. Jenkins, John N., and McCabe, Bernard J., Jr. "Rezoning and Planned Unit Development in Florida." Stetson Intramural Law Review 3 (1972). Krasnowtecki, Jan Z. "Planned Unit Development: A Challenge to the Established Theory and Practice of Land-Use Control." University of Pennsylvania Law Review 114 (1965): 47. Lloyd, Gerald D. "A Developer Looks at PUD." University of Pennsylvania Law Review 114 (1965): 3. Lovelace, Eldridge. "Zoning for Large-Scale Develop- ments." Zoning Digest 14 (1962): 129. Mandelker, Daniel R. "Reflections on the American System of Planning Controls: A Response to Professor Kras- nowiecki." University of Pennsylvania Law Review 114 (1965): 98- "Zoning: planned Unit Development-The Attorney and _ _ the City Planner." Oklahoma Law Review [discusses suggested steps for PUD in Oklahoma] . 22 (1969): 108. Zucker, Cazl K, and Wolffe, Lenard L. "Supreme Cour[ Legalizes PUD: New Fiope from New Hope." Land- Use Controls 2 (1968): 32, Model Provisions A. State Enabling Legislation Babcock, Richard F., and McBride, David N. "The Model State Statare." University of Pennsylvania Law Review 114 (1965): 140; also published in Urban Land Institute, Legal Aspects of Planned Residential Development, Technical Bulletin No. 52, p. 69 (1965) [GmitedioresidentialPUDs]. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. New Proposals far 7970: ACIR State Legislative Program Washington, D.C.: Advisory Commission on Inter- governmental Relations, 1969. See section 31-36-00 [based on ULI model above, but adds commercial and industrial PUDs] . B. Local PUD Ordinance Goldston, Eli, and Scheuer, James H. Model Draft of Planned Development Zoning Provision, Appendix A of "Zoning of Planned Residential Developmenu." Harvard Law Review 73 (1959): 24I, 256 [a provi- sion to be added to Art. VII on conditional uses in ordinances based on state enabling acu derived from the SZEA]. Urban Land Institute. Legal Aspects of Planned Unit Development. Technical Bulletin No. 52, Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1965. See pazt II-B, p. 84. Anderson, Robert M. American Law of Zaning Vol. 4. Rochester, New York: Lawyer's- Cooperative Pub- lishing Co., 1968. See sections 26.60,.26.61. Recent Planning Advisory Service Reports 256 Expenditures, Staff, and Salaries of Planning Agen- cies, 1970. April 1970. 86 pp. $5; PAS subscribers $3. 257 Bonus Provisions in Central Ciry Areas. May 1970. 52 pp. $5; PAS subscribers $3. 258 Day Caze Centers. June 1970. 34 pp. $5; PAS subscribers $3. 259 Zoning for the Elderly. July 1970. 24 pp. $5; PAS subscribers $3. 260 Information Systems in Urban Planning: A Review. August 1970. 60 pp. $S; PAS subscribers $3. 261 Social Planning and City Planning. September 1970. 61 pp. $S; PAS subscribers $3. 262 Metropolitan Planning Policy Implementation. Octo-. ber 1970. 44 pp. $5; PAS subscribers $3. 263 Environmental Planning: 1-Environmenml Informa- tion for Policy Formulation. November 1970. 50 pp. $5; PAS subscribers $3. 264 Environmental Planning: 2-A Selected Annotated Bibliography. December 1970. 80 pp. $5; PAS subscribers $3. *265 Modular Housing, Including Mobile Homes: A Survey of Regulatory Practice and Planners' Opinions. Janu- ary~1971. 52 pp. PAS subscribers $S. *266 Mandatory Dedication of Land or Fees-in-Lieu of Land for Pazks and Schools. Februazy 1971: 44 pp. PAS subscribers $5. *267 The 1970 Census: A Resource for Housing and City Planning Studies. March 1971. 95 pp. PAS sub- scribers $5. *268 Expenditures, Staff, and Salaries of Planning Agen- cies, 1971. April 1971. 73 pp. PAS subscribers $S. *269 Dissent and Independent Initiative in Planning Offices. May 1971.64 pp. PAS subscribers $S. *270 An Approach to Determining Parking Demand. June 1971. 37 pp. PAS subscribers $5. - 271 Regulation of Modular Housing, With Special Empha- sis on Mobile Homes. July-August 1971. 104 pp. $6; PAS subscribers $5. "272 Industrial Performance Standards. September 1971. 68 pp. PAS subscribers $5. *273 Women in Planning: A Report on Their Status in PubBc Planning Agencies. October 1971..28 pp. PAS subscribers $5. *274 The Planning Agency and the Black Community: A Workshop Report. November 1971. 70 pp. PAS subscribers $5. '275 Planning for Solid Waste Management. December 1971. 52 pp. PAS subscribers $5. *276 Criminal Justice Planning. Januazy 1972. 31 pp. PAS subscribers $5. *277 Regulations for Flood Plains. Februazy 1972. 68 pp. PAS subscribers $5. *278 Expenditures, Smff, and SaLuies of Planning Agen- cies, 1972. Mazch 1972. 52 pp. PAS subscribers $S. *279 Zoning for City Housing Markets. April 1972. 16 pp. PAS subscribers $5. *280 The Effect of Nonconforming Land-Use Amortiza- tion. May 1972. 22 pp. PAS subscribers $S. *281 Urban Indicators: Their Role in Planning. June 1972. 21 pp. PAS subscribers $5. - - - 282 Lower Income Housing: The Planners' Response. . July-August 1972.69 pp. $6; PAS subscribers $5. 283 Nongrowth as a Planning Alternative: A Preliminazy Examination of an Emerging Issue. September 1972. 65 pp. $6; PAS subscribers $5. *284 Canadian Land Banks. October 1972. 16 pp. PAS subscribers $5. *2S5 The Multiple Use of Cemeteries. November 1972. 22 pp. PAS subscribers $5. *2S6 Demand Responsive Transit Service: A New Tmns- portation Tool. December 1972. 16 pp. PAS sub- scribers $5. *287 Special Public Interest Districts: A Multipurpose Zoning Device. Januazy 1973. 16 pp. PAS subscribers $S. *288 Expenditures, Staff, and Salazies of Planning Agen- cies, 1973. February 1973. 48 pp. PAS subscribers $5. *289 Nongrowth: A Review of the Literature. Mazch 1973. 18 pp. PAS subscribers $5. 290 Continuous City Planning. April 1973. 26 pp. $6; PAS subscribers $5. 291 Planned Unit Development Ordinances. May 1973. 66 pp. $S; PAS subscribers $6. *Available only to subsasbers of Planning Advisory Service. American Society of finning Officials 7313 East Sixtieth Street Chicago Illinois 60637