Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA-08-07CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOKEY Council Bill No. 07-2009 Ordinance No. 1433 Series of 2009 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-311 OF CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS (CASE NO. ZOA-08-07) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge is authorized by the Home Rule Charter and the Colorado Constitution and statutes to enact and enforce ordinances for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge finds that the proposed amendments provide a useful tool to encourage redevelopment in current and future planned developments. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1. Section 26-311 of the Code is amended to read: See. 26-311. Amendments to development plans. A. The procedures and requirements for amending an approved development plan (outline or final) shall be the same as prescribed for original approval, except as provided for under subsection (C) below. All applications, for amendment to an outline development plan must be approved in writing M 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. All a hcations for amendment to a final development plan must be approved in writing ~ffl°' .B ¢ 11 F real ,....,,.+.......1 «s of interest eentailled within ownefs If the amendment affects the provisions for access, drainage, utilities and/or circulation, affected property owners must consent to the application for amendment in writing. B. Outline development plan amendments. Amendments to the underlying outline development plan are required and will be processed the same as prescribed for original approval if any one (1) of the following is proposed: 1. Increase in the gross floor area of structures beyond the authorized maximum allowed on the approved outline development plan. 2. Proposed land uses are not permitted on the approved outline development plan. 3. Increase in density or intensity of use. 4. Decrease in perimeter setbacks. 5. Reduction in required buffer areas. 6. Increase in height of any structures. C. Final development plan changes. A final development plan may vary from the approved outline development plan so long as the thresholds for an outline development plan amendment are not met as set forth in subsection B above. Variations include, but are not limited to, re-orienting buildings and parking lots, changes in landscaping areas, changes in architectural details, changes to interior setbacks and similar changes that do not affect neighboring properties or the overall character of the development. At no time can approval of a final development plan result in any increase beyond a maximum development standard or any decrease below a minimum development standard listed on the outline development plan. If any of these conditions occurs, the outline development plan must be amended as described in subsection B. Once a final development plan is recorded, any amendment requested that complies with the limitations of this subsection B shall be processed in the manner prescribed for original approval. D. Any changes or revisions to an outline or final development plan which are approved, either administratively or by city council action, must be recorded with the Jefferson County Recorder as amendments to the original recorded development plan subject to the deadline provisions of subsection 26-308.D.4.d. E. Variances. Variances to the strict application of development standards established by an outline development plan may be requested only for properties within single- and two-family planned residential developments, following the applicable administrative or non-administrative variance process as prescribed in section 26-115. (Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01; Ord. No. 1319, § 1, 4-12-04; Ord. No. 1383, § 6, 5-14-07) Section 2: Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety and welfare of the public and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3: Severability; Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section, subsection or clause of the ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of the ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 4: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 8 to 0 on this 23rd day of February, 2009, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for Monday, March 9, 2009, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29`x' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of 7 to I , this 9th day of March 1 2009. SIGNED by the Mayor on this 9th day of ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk First Publication: February 26, 2009 Second Publication: March 12, 2009 Wheat Ridge Transcript: Effective Date: March 27, 2009 ch 2009. App To F Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: March 09, 2009 Page -2- D. Approval of Award RFP-05-14 Final Renewal Agreement Right-of-Way Maintenance Services to American Civil Constructors, Inc., in the amount of $59,698. E. Approval of Award RFP-09-10 Forestry Maintenance Services to various vendors in the total amount of $66,500.00. F. Motion to cancel March 16, 2009 City Council Study Session. Consent Agenda was introduced and read by Council Member Sang. Motion by Mrs. Sang for approval of Consent Agenda Items A through F; seconded by Mrs. Adams; carried 8-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING Item 2. Council Bill 07-2009 - An Ordinance amending Section 26-311 of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning amendments to Development Plans in Planned Zoning Districts. (Case No. ZOA-08-07) Mayor DiTullio opened the public hearing. Council Bill 07-2009 was introduced by Council Member Gokey. City Clerk Michael Snow read the Executive Summary and assigned Ordinance No. 1433. Jeff Hirt presented the staff report. No citizens were present to speak on this item. Mayor DiTullio closed the Public Hearing. Motion by Mr. Womble to approve Council Bill 07-2009 (Ordinance 1433) on second reading and that it take effect 15 days after final publication; seconded by Mrs. Sang; carried 7-1 with Mr. Gokey voting No. Item 3. Council Bill 08-2009 - An Ordinance amending Section 113 of Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws concerning City initiated Zone Changes. (Case No. ZOA-08-08) Mayor DiTullio opened the public hearing. Council Bill 08-2009 was introduced by Council Member Gokey. City Clerk Michael Snow read the Executive Summary and assigned Ordinance No. 1434. Jeff Hirt presented the staff report. °~W.IieatF i<ige. Case No. ZOA-08-06 including site plans, building footprints, etc. Citywide Planned Developments IITI L o 'r i ' E ~ hlj4i E r ' I I ll` ~~TV ~ ~ fl T~ly+ s ' Y~ Sy K r ' N •x yix ~M~'fnn inn . g s 3 r v Y nM i b bJ `~Q ~ _r i < 24TH xis e_nw £ H - o z.x Planned Development Example 44URAVNE INDUSTRIAL PARR W S1PiAL W4EICPYFNi ^°^'m S -"r Xx 6Fitl.LL MVElKUdA w MC tliv40iEM`[ei W W.E. C0.0va00 ~~.~m~~ yri °~~~-s"' P~MFL M LNlrr w ixE E~/2 Of YCIIW 19 uiD ra ""Xin. a SEtnrn x, iannsXiv Y sourX w''rm ~o1oR OPm., . r9 cam. ~q -i-=•- 5--`- Q crr _ E s rw Case No. ZOA-08-07 • Increases in building height - Final Development Plan (FDP) • Minor amendments that do not exceed ODP limits ~Whezel i<3~e~ Case No. ZOA-08-07 Case No. ZOA-08-07 apply difficult Case No. ZOA-08-07 wry,==tr ~~3~u Case No. ZOA-08-07 • Circulation Etc. Case No. ZOA-08-07 CRY OI E City of N]~IheatRJ~Ljge ITEM NO: OQ I T REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION -I/ ~ COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 9, 2009 TITLE: COUNCIL BILL NO. 07-2009 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-311 OF CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS (CASE NO. ZOA-08-07) ® PUBLIC HEARING ❑ ORDINANCES FOR 1sT READING (02/23/2009) ❑ BIDS/MOTIONS ® ORDINANCES FOR 2ND READING (03/9/2009) ❑ RESOLUTIONS Quasi-judicial: ❑ YES ® NO Ci~4~r:q City Mana r At the July 7, 2008 City Council study session, Council directed staff to move forward with the list of proposed short, mid, and long term zoning code amendments. The attached ordinance represents one amendment from that list. The attached ordinance proposes amendments to the procedures for amending planned developments as set forth in Section 26-311 of the Code of Laws. Specifically, the consent required from property owners in the planned development to submit an application for any type of amendment. The changes can be briefly summarized as follows: Eliminate the requirement that all affected property owners consent to an application to amend an outline development plan. Requiring written authorization of 25 percent of the property owners in a planned development to make application for any proposed outline development plan amendment. Requiring only written authorization from the affected property owner where the amendment is being proposed for any type of final development plan amendment. The Planning Commission reviewed this code amendment at a public hearing held on January 15, 2009 and gave a recommendation of approval. COMMISSION/BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The ordinance proposes amendments to Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. All changes to Chapter 26 require review and a recommendation from the Planning Commission. A public hearing on this amendment was held before the Planning Commission on Thursday, January 15, 2009. Planning Commission recommended approval of the attached ordinance. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Planned developments are essentially individual zone districts, each with their own unique set of characteristics including development standards, uses, and architectural standards. As stated in Section 26-301.A of the Code of Laws, the intent is to provide "greater flexibility and innovation in land development based on a comprehensive, integrated plan". Once a planned development is approved, including the required outline and final development plans, any variation from the approved plans typically requires an amendment to the development plan. Some planned developments provide some flexibility to vary from approved standards, but many that are already approved do not have this built in to adapt to changing conditions over time. There are two types of planned development amendments set forth in the code - outline development plan and final development plan amendments. Outline Development Plan (ODP) Amendments These amendments are processed the same as the original approval required - which is essentially the same process as a rezoning. Any proposed amendment that exceeds the limitations set forth in Section 26-311.13 requires this process - including any increase in authorized floor areas, changes in the allowable uses, decreases in setbacks, alterations to required buffering, and increases in height to any structures. Final Development Plan (FDP) Amendments FDP amendments may be approved administratively without a required public hearing(s). These types of proposed amendments are generally minor in nature and must stay under the limitations for an outline development plan amendment as described above. Examples of final development plan amendments include changes in landscaped areas and changes to architectural details that do not impact the overall character of the development. In order for any property owner in a planned development to apply for either type of amendment, consent from all property owners in the planned development is required. There are a significant number of approved planned developments throughout the city (see Attachment 1). Many of these have multiple properties with multiple property owners that have changed hands through time. For instance, the 44th Industrial Park planned development has over 20 different property owners, not including all of the condominiumized units. Rationale for Amendment Market conditions change and property owners change within approved planned developments over time. For instance, the site plan and uses that may have been approved in a planned development 20 years ago may not reflect current market conditions for a specific property. Typically, in order to make improvements to a property in a planned development that do not adhere to the strict guidelines in the planned development an amendment is required. With the required consent from all property owners, this becomes problematic for those planned developments that have fragmented ownership. 2 Staff is not proposing any changes to the outline or final development plan amendment procedures. For outline development plans, there would still be the required neighborhood meeting where property owners within 600 feet are notified and required public hearings as if the application was a new rezoning request - including all the necessary posting, publishing, and mailing requirements to property owners in the vicinity. Final development plan amendments would still be an administrative approval as long as the application stays within the limitations set forth in Section 26-311.C. The rationale behind the 25 percent approval for ODP amendments from property owners in the planned development is to require a general approval of the request before making application so some level of consensus is established prior to the public hearing stages. Reducing the consent required from 100 percent to 25 percent will present less of a burden on the applicant to proceed with the request. The rationale behind eliminating required consent from other property owners in the planned development to make application for a FDP amendment is that the application represents a request that is minor in nature, and having such consent required may be onerous for a property owner looking to make minor improvements in a planned development. It is important to note that staff has left the language in that addresses other circumstances where the amendment may have an impact on the planned development. Specifically, where the amendment affects "the provisions for access, drainage, utilities and/or circulation, affected property owners must consent to the application for amendment in writing" per Section 26-311.A. Additionally, note that staff has not suggested any changes to the provisions that allow variances to single and two family properties in planned developments without processing an amendment. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: Do not approve the proposed legislation. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Council Bill No. 07-2009, Case #ZOA-08-07, an ordinance amending Section 26-311 of Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws concerning amendments to development plans in planned zoning districts on second reading and that it takes effect 15 days after final publication." or, "I move to table indefinitely Council Bill No. 07-2009, Case #ZOA-08-07, an ordinance amending Section 26-311 of Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws concerning amendments to development plans in planned zoning districts, for the following reasons: Report Initiated by: Jeff Hirt Report Prepared by: Jeff Hirt Report Reviewed by: Meredith Reckert & Kenneth Johnstone ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planned Development Citywide Map 2. Council Bill No.07-2009 CL Q w 0 U z w 2 IL 0 J w w D w z z Q J IL z w 2 V a a ATTOCi4m;:mT 4 CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOKEY Council Bill No. 07-2009 Ordinance No. Series of 2009 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-311 OF CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS (CASE NO. ZOA-08-07) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge is authorized by the Home Rule Charter and the Colorado Constitution and statutes to enact and enforce ordinances for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge finds that the proposed amendments provide a useful tool to encourage redevelopment in current and future planned developments. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1: Section 26-311 of the Code is amended to read: Sec. 26-311. Amendments to development plans. A. The procedures and requirements for amending an approved development plan (outline or final) shall be the same as prescribed for original approval, except as provided for under subsection (C) below. All applications for amendment to an outline development plan must be approved in writing by at least "25percent of the 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. All applications for amendment to a final development plan must be approved in writing by the owriers.:of the real property. for which the amendment ;i being requested mall emxner-s of -eal - pel4y and of ifftefest a Withi B. Outline development plan amendments. Amendments to the underlying outline development plan are required and will be processed the same as prescribed for original approval if any one (1) of the following is proposed: 1. Increase in the gross floor area of structures beyond the authorized maximum allowed on the approved outline development plan. 2. Proposed land uses are not permitted on the approved outline development plan. 3. Increase in density or intensity of use. 4. Decrease in perimeter setbacks. 5. Reduction in required buffer areas. 6. Increase in height of any structures. provisions for access, drainage, utilities and/or circulation, affected property owners must consent to the application for amendment in writing. C. Final development plan changes. A final development plan may vary from the approved outline development plan so long as the thresholds for an outline development plan amendment are not met as set forth in subsection B above. Variations include, but are not limited to, re-orienting buildings and parking lots, changes in landscaping areas, changes in architectural details, changes to interior setbacks and similar changes that do not affect neighboring properties or the overall character of the development. At no time can approval of a final development plan result in any increase beyond a maximum development standard or any decrease below a minimum development standard listed on the outline development plan. If any of these conditions occurs, the outline development plan must be amended as described in subsection B. Once a final development plan is recorded, any amendment requested that complies with the limitations of this subsection B shall be processed in the manner prescribed for original approval. D. Any changes or revisions to an outline or final development plan which are approved, either administratively or by city council action, must be recorded with the Jefferson County Recorder as amendments to the original recorded development plan subject to the deadline provisions of subsection 26-308.D.4.d. E. Variances. Variances to the strict application of development standards established by an outline development plan may be requested only for properties within single- and two-family planned residential developments, following the applicable administrative or non-administrative variance process as prescribed in section 26-115. (Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01; Ord. No. 1319, § 1, 4-12-04; Ord. No. 1383, § 6, 5-14-07) Section 2: Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety and welfare of the public and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3: Severability: Conflicting Ordinances Revealed. If any section, subsection or clause of the ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of the ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 4: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter. INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of 8 to 0 on this 23rd day of February, 2009, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for Monday, March 9, 2009, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to this day of 2009. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 2009. Jerry DiTullio, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: February 26, 2009 Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript: Effective Date: 7 City of WheatRidge WVN b~. ITEM NO: REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 23, 2009 TITLE: COUNCIL BILL NO. 07-2009 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 26-311 OF CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS (CASE NO. ZOA-08-07) ❑ PUBLIC HEARING ❑ BIDS/MOTIONS ❑ RESOLUTIONS ® ORDINANCES FOR 1sT READING (02/23/2009) ❑ ORDINANCES FOR 2No READING (03/9/2009) ® NO City M ger At the July 7, 2008 City Council study session, Council directed staff to move forward with the list of proposed short, mid, and long term zoning code amendments. The attached ordinance represents one amendment from that list. The attached ordinance proposes amendments to the procedures for amending planned developments as set forth in Section 26-311 of the Code of Laws. Specifically, the consent required from property owners in the planned development to submit an application for any type of amendment. The changes can be briefly summarized as follows: Eliminating required consent from all property owners in the entire planned development for any property owner to make application for any type of amendment proposed. Requiring written authorization of 25 percent of the property owners in a planned development to make application for any type of outline development plan amendment proposed. Requiring only written authorization from the property owner where the amendment is being proposed for any type of final development plan amendment. The Planning Commission reviewed this code amendment at a public hearing held on January 15, 2009 and gave a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONBOARD RECOMMENDATION: The ordinance proposes amendments to Chapter 26 of the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws. All changes to Chapter 26 require review and a recommendation from the Planning Commission. A public hearing on this amendment was held before the Planning Commission on Thursday, January 15, 2009. Planning Commission recommended approval of the attached ordinance. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES: Planned developments are essentially individual zone districts, each with their own unique set of characteristics including development standards, uses, and architectural standards. As stated in Section 26-301.A of the Code of Laws, the intent is to provide "greater flexibility and innovation in land development based on a comprehensive, integrated plan". Once a planned development is approved, including the required outline and final development plans, any variation from the approved plans typically requires an amendment to the development plan. Some planned developments provide some flexibility to vary from approved standards, but many that are already approved do not have this built in to adapt to changing conditions over time. There are two types of planned development amendments set forth in the code - outline development plan and final development plan amendments. Outline Development Plan (ODP) Amendments These amendments are processed the same as the original approval required - which is essentially the same process as a rezoning. Any proposed amendment that exceeds the limitations set forth in Section 26-311.13 requires this process - including any increase in authorized floor areas, changes in the allowable uses, decreases in setbacks, alterations to required buffering, and increases in height to any structures. Final Development Plan (FDP) Amendments FDP amendments may be approved administratively without a required public hearing(s). These types of proposed amendments are generally minor in nature and must stay under the limitations for an outline development plan amendment as described above. Examples of final development plan amendments include changes in landscaped areas and changes to architectural details that do not impact the overall character of the development. In order for any property owner in a planned development to apply for either type of amendment, consent from all property owners in the planned development is required. There are a significant number of approved planned developments throughout the city (see Attachment 1). Many of these have multiple properties with multiple property owners that have changed hands through time. For instance, the 44th Industrial Park planned development has over 20 different property owners, not including all of the condominiumized units. Rationale for Amendment Market conditions change and property owners change within approved planned developments over time. For instance, the site plan and uses that may have been approved in a planned development 20 years ago may not reflect current market conditions for a specific property. Typically, in order to make improvements to a property in a planned development that do not adhere to the strict guidelines in the planned development an amendment is required. With the required consent from all property owners, this becomes problematic for those planned developments that have fragmented ownership. Staff is not proposing any changes to the outline or final development plan amendment procedures. For outline development plans, there would still be the required neighborhood meeting where property owners within 600 feet are notified and required public hearings as if the application was a new rezoning 2 request - including all the necessary posting, publishing, and mailing requirements to property owners in the vicinity. Final development plan amendments would still be an administrative approval as long as the application stays within the limitations set forth in Section 26-311.C. The rationale behind the 25 percent approval for ODP amendments from property owners in the planned development is to require a general approval of the request before making application so some level of consensus is established prior to the public hearing stages. Reducing the consent required from 100 percent to 25 percent will present less of a burden on the applicant to proceed with the request. The rationale behind eliminating required consent from other property owners in the planned development to make application for a FDP amendment is that the application represents a request that is minor in nature, and having such consent required may be onerous for a property owner looking to make minor improvements in a planned development. It is important to note that staff has left the language in that addresses other circumstances where the amendment may have an impact on the planned development. Specifically, where the amendment affects "the provisions for access, drainage, utilities and/or circulation, affected property owners must consent to the application for amendment in writing" per Section 26-311.A. Additionally, note that staff has not suggested any changes to the provisions that allow variances to single and two family properties in planned developments without processing an amendment. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: Do not approve the proposed legislation. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. "I move to adopt Council Bill No. 07-2009, Case #ZOA-08-07, an ordinance amending Section 26- 311 of Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws concerning amendments to development plans in planned zoning districts on first reading, order it published, public hearing set for March 9, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, and that it take effect 15 days after final publication." Or, "I move to table indefinitely Council Bill No. 07-2009, Case #ZOA-08-07, an ordinance amending Section 26-311 of Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws concerning amendments to development plans in planned zoning districts, for the following reason(s): Report Initiated by: Report Prepared by: Report Reviewed by ATTACtUYIENTS: Jeff Hirt Jeff Hirt Meredith Reckert & Kenneth Johnstone 1. Planned Development Citywide Map 2. Council Bill No. 07-2009 a Q w 0 C.) z w 2 CL O J w w D D w z z Q J IL r H z w U a a CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. 07-2009 Ordinance No. Series of 2009 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-311 OF CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS (CASE NO. ZOA-08-07) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge is authorized by the Home Rule Charter and the Colorado Constitution and statutes to enact and enforce ordinances for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge finds that the proposed amendments provide a useful tool to encourage redevelopment in current and future planned developments. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1: Section 26-311 of the Code is amended to read: Sec. 26-311. Amendments to development plans. A. The procedures and requirements for amending an approved development plan (outline or final) shall be the same as prescribed for original approval, except as provided for under subsection (C) below. All applications for amendment to an outline development plan must be approved in writing by at least 25 percent of the 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. All applications for amendment to a final development plan must be approved in writing by the owners of the real property for which the amendment is being. requested all evMers of real NYopelly and owners of interest ,.,,.,'ainea within the pareel er- phase of the plef"ned development here the ..adme..t being requeste Amendments may be initiated by;property , owners within an approved development plan as provided in this section, or by the city in accordance with Section 26-113. If the amendment affects the provisions for access, drainage, utilities and/or circulation, affected property owners must consent to the application for amendment in writing. B. Outline development plan amendments. Amendments to the underlying outline development plan are required and will be processed the same as prescribed for original approval if any one (1) of the following is proposed: 1. Increase in the gross floor area of structures beyond the authorized maximum allowed on the approved outline development plan. 2. Proposed land uses are not permitted on the approved outline development plan. 3. Increase in density or intensity of use. 4. Decrease in perimeter setbacks. 5. Reduction in required buffer areas. 6. Increase in height of any structures. C. Final development plan changes. A final development plan may vary from the approved outline development plan so long as the thresholds for an outline development plan amendment are not met as set forth in subsection B above. Variations include, but are not limited to, re-orienting buildings and parking lots, changes in landscaping areas, changes in architectural details, changes to interior setbacks and similar changes that do not affect neighboring properties or the overall character of the development. At no time can approval of a final development plan result in any increase beyond a maximum development standard or any decrease below a minimum development standard listed on the outline development plan. If any of these conditions occurs, the outline development plan must be amended as described in subsection B. Once a final development plan is recorded, any amendment requested that complies with the limitations of this subsection B shall be processed in the manner prescribed for original approval. D. Any changes or revisions to an outline or final development plan which are approved, either administratively or by city council action, must be recorded with the Jefferson County Recorder as amendments to the original recorded development plan subject to the deadline provisions of subsection 26-308.D.4.d. E. Variances. Variances to the strict application of development standards established by an outline development plan may be requested only for properties within single- and two-family planned residential developments, following the applicable administrative or non-administrative variance process as prescribed in section 26-115. (Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01; Ord. No. 1319, § 1, 4-12-04; Ord. No. 1383, § 6, 5-14-07) Section 2: Safety Clause. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Wheat Ridge, that it is promulgated for the health, safety and welfare of the public and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be attained. Section 3: Severability; Conflicting Ordinances Repealed. If any section, subsection or clause of the ordinance shall be deemed to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the validity of the remaining sections, subsections and clauses shall not be affected thereby. All other ordinances or parts of the ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 4: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after final publication, as provided by Section 5.11 of the Charter. 7 INTRODUCED, READ, AND ADOPTED on first reading by a vote of _ to on this 23rd day of February, 2009, ordered published in full in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Wheat Ridge and Public Hearing and consideration on final passage set for Monday, March 9, 2009, at 7:00 o'clock p.m., in the Council Chambers, 7500 West 291' Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. READ, ADOPTED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED on second and final reading by a vote of to this day of 2009. SIGNED by the Mayor on this day of 2009. Jerry DiTullio, Mayor ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk Approved As To Form Gerald E. Dahl, City Attorney First Publication: Second Publication: Wheat Ridge Transcript: Effective Date: There was no one to address the Commission at this time. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case No. ZOA-08-07 (continued from December 18.2008): An ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning amendments to development plans. The case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. The amendments would affect the consent required from property owners in planned developments to submit an application for any type of amendment. Commissioner DWYER questioned the language in Section 26-311, paragraph A (only the property owner for the property where the amendment is being requested...) and asked what would happen in the case of multiple owners of a property who did not agree. He expressed concern that one person could make the decision even though all owners are not in agreement. Mr. Hirt stated that he would follow-up on this matter and possibly seek the city attorney's opinion. It was moved by Commissioner REINHART and seconded by Commissioner CHILVERS to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning amendments to development plans. The motion carried 5-1 with Commissioner DWYER voting no and Commissioners BRINKMAN and SCEZNEY absent. B. Case No. ZOA-08-08: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning city-initiated rezonings. The case was presented by Jeff Hirt. He entered all pertinent documents into the record and advised the Commission there was jurisdiction to hear the case. He reviewed the staff report and digital presentation. The amendments relate to current minimum acreage limitations and restrictions on what type of zone change the process may be used for City-initiated rezonings. Currently, the subject property must be at least five separate parcels or five acres in area and the City- initiated rezoning process may only be used for a zone change to a less intensive zone district. In response to a question from Commissioner STEWART, Mr. Hirt explained that while the property owner wouldn't have to consent to making the application, the application would still have to go through the public process. This is the same as the current code. Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 15, 2009 1111, City of PLANNING COMMISSION Wheatp-jl-dge LEGISLATIVE ITEM STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEETING DATE: January 15, 2009 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS CASE NO. ZOA-08-07 ® PUBLIC HEARING ❑ RESOLUTION ® CODE CHANGE ORDINANCE ❑ STUDY SESSION ITEM Case Manager: Jeff Hirt Date of Preparation: January 8, 2009 SUMMARY: The attached ordinance proposes amendments to the procedures for amending planned developments as set forth in Section 26-311 of the Code of Laws. Specifically, the consent required from property owners in the planned development to submit an application for any type of amendment. The changes can be briefly summarized as follows: Eliminating required consent from all property owners in the entire planned development for any property owner to make application for any type of amendment proposed. Requiring written authorization of 25 percent of the property owners in a planned development to make application for any type of outline development plan amendment proposed. Outline development plan amendments are those that are more significant in nature and require the same process as the original approval. Requiring only written authorization from the property owner where the amendment is being proposed for any type of final development plan amendment. Final development plan amendments are less significant in nature and generally do not impact the character of the development plan, and are administrative approvals. Notice for this public hearing was provided as required by the Code of Laws. ZOA-08-07/ Planned Development Amendments BACKGROUND: Planned developments are essentially individual zone districts, each with their own unique set of characteristics including development standards, uses, and architectural standards. As stated in Section 26-301A of the Code of Laws, the intent is to provide "greater flexibility and innovation in land development based on a comprehensive, integrated plan". Once a planned development is approved, including the required outline and final development plans, any variation from the approved plans typically requires an amendment to the development plan. Some planned developments provide some flexibility to vary from approved standards, but many that are already approved do not have this built in to adapt to changing conditions over time. There are two types of planned development amendments set forth in the code - outline development plan and final development plan amendments. Outline Development Plan (ODP) Amendments These amendments are processed the same as the original approval required - which is essentially the same process as a rezoning. Any proposed amendment that exceeds the limitations set forth in Section 26-311B requires this process - including any increase in authorized floor areas, changes in the allowable uses, decreases in setbacks, alterations to required buffering, and increases in height to any structures. Final Development Plan (FDP) Amendments FDP amendments may be approved administratively without a required public hearing(s). These types of proposed amendments are generally minor in nature and must stay under the limitations for an outline development plan amendment as described above. Examples of final development plan amendments include changes in landscaped areas and changes to architectural details that do not impact the overall character of the development. In order for any property owner in a planned development to apply for either type of amendment, consent from all property owners in the planned development is required. There area significant number of approved planned developments throughout the city (see Exhibit 1). Many of these have multiple properties with multiple property owners that have changed hands through time. For instance, the 44`h Industrial Park planned development has over 20 different property owners, not including all of the condominiumized units. RATIONALE FOR AMENDMENT Market conditions change and property owners change within approved planned developments over time. For instance, the site plan and uses that may have been approved in a planned development 20 years ago may not reflect current market conditions for a specific property. Typically, in order to make improvements to a property in a planned development that do not adhere to the strict guidelines in the planned development an amendment is required. With the required consent from all property owners, this becomes problematic for those planned developments that have fragmented ownership. Staff is not proposing any changes to the outline or final development plan amendment procedures ZOA-08-07/Planned Development Amendments 2 For outline development plans, there would still be the required neighborhood meeting where property owners within 600 feet are notified and required public hearings as if the application was a new rezoning request - including all the necessary posting, publishing, and mailing requirements to property owners in the vicinity. Final development plans would still be an administrative approval as long as the application stays within the limitations set forth in Section 26-311C. The rationale behind the 25 percent approval for ODP amendments from property owners in the planned development is to require a general approval of the request before making application so some level of consensus is established prior to the public hearing stages. Reducing the consent required from 100 percent to 25 percent will present less of a burden on the applicant to proceed with the request. The rationale behind eliminating required consent from other property owners in the planned development to make application for a FDP amendment is that the application represents a request that is minor in nature, and having such consent required may be onerous for a property owner looking to make minor improvements in a planned development. It is important to note that staff has left the language in that addresses other circumstances where the amendment may have an impact on the planned development. Specifically, where the amendment affects "the provisions for access, drainage, utilities and/or circulation, affected property owners must consent to the application for amendment in writing" per Section 26-311A. Additionally, note that staff has not suggested any changes to the provisions that allow variances to single and two family properties in planned developments without processing an amendment. ZOA-08-07/Planned Development Amendments "I move to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning amendments to development plans." Exhibits: 1. Planned Development Citywide Map 2. Proposed Ordinance ZOA-08-07/Planned Development Amendments IL a W D V I- Z W 2 o. O J W W D D W Z Z a J CL T m x W EXHIBIT 2: PROPOSED ORDINANCE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER Council Bill No. -2008 Ordinance No. Series of 2008 TITLE: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF LAWS SECTION 26-311 OF CHAPTER 26 CONCERNING AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN PLANNED ZONING DISTRICTS(CASE NO. ZOA-08-07) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge is authorized by the Home Rule Charter and the Colorado Constitution and statutes to enact and enforce ordinances for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wheat Ridge finds that the proposed amendments provide a useful tool to encourage redevelopment in current and future planned developments; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO: Section 1: Section 26-311 of the Code is amended to read: Sec. 26-311. Amendments to development plans. A. The procedures and requirements for amending an approved development plan (outline or final) shall be the same as prescribed for original approval, except as provided for under subsection (C) below. All a lications for amendment to an outline development plan must be approved in writing b a ee'rer~`ot 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.' All applications for amendment to a final development Ian must be a roved in writing by b'' e t eoiAained within the ~ , Zi, l f 1 .w.., w. _ A wamers f ♦r the ie a e= es:, .._,.r. r._ c « 20 ' _ - If the amendment affects the provisions for access, drainage, utilities and/or circulation, affected property owners must consent to the application for amendment in writing? 1 NOTE: At the direction of the Planning Commission, we have revised this language as shown for outline development plans. Final development plan amendments are administrative and generally do not effect the character of the planned development, therefore we suggest eliminating consent from other property owners in the planned development for these types of amendments. 2 NOTE: We suggest keeping this statement in to cover any relevant easements or agreements (access, utilities, drainage, etc) that may affect adjacent property. ZOA-08-07/ Planned Development Amendments 6 B. Outline development plan amendments. Amendments to the underlying outline development plan are required and will be processed the same as prescribed for original approval if any one (1) of the following is proposed: 1. Increase in the gross floor area of structures beyond the authorized maximum allowed on the approved outline development plan. 2. Proposed land uses are not permitted on the approved outline development plan. 3. Increase in density or intensity of use. 4. Decrease in perimeter setbacks. 5. Reduction in required buffer areas. 6. Increase in height of any structures. C. Final development plan changes. A final development plan may vary from the approved outline development plan so long as the thresholds for an outline development plan amendment are not met as set forth in subsection B above. Variations include, but are not limited to, re-orienting buildings and parking lots, changes in landscaping areas, changes in architectural details, changes to interior setbacks and similar changes that do not affect neighboring properties or the overall character of the development. At no time can approval of a final development plan result in any increase beyond a maximum development standard or any decrease below a minimum development standard listed on the outline development plan. If any of these conditions occurs, the outline development plan must be amended as described in subsection B. Once a final development plan is recorded, any amendment requested that complies with the limitations of this subsection B shall be processed in the manner prescribed for original approval. D. Any changes or revisions to an outline or final development plan which are approved, either administratively or by city council action, must be recorded with the Jefferson County Recorder as amendments to the original recorded development plan subject to the deadline provisions of subsection 26-308.D.4.d. E. Variances. Variances to the strict application of development standards established by an outline development plan may be requested only for properties within single- and two-family planned residential developments, following the applicable administrative or non-administrative variance process as prescribed in section 26-115. (Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01; Ord. No. 1319, § 1, 4-12-04; Ord. No. 1383, § 6, 5-14-07) ZOA-08-07/Planned Development Amendments 7 There was discussion about the proposed provision for the Community Development Director to administratively amend the zoning map if the adjustment does not extend the zone district boundary more than 50 feet. Mr. Hirt stated that staff could take a closer look at some of the split zone lots in the city to see how the 50 foot limit would apply. There was also discussion about how staff arrived at the 50 foot maximum for an administrative zone district boundary adjustment. The Commission concluded that 50 feet was an appropriate number to stay within the limits of a minor administrative adjustment. Chair BRINKMAN asked if there were members of the public who wished to address this matter. Hearing no response, she closed the public hearing It was moved by Commissioner DWYER and seconded by Commissioner MATTHEWS to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Code of Laws concerning zoning district boundary discrepancies and interpretations. The motion passed 8-0. D. Case NO. ZOA-08-07 (to be continued to January 15, 2009): An ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning amendments to development plans. It was moved by Commissioner MATTHEWS and seconded by STEWART to continue Case No. ZOA-08-07, an ordinance amending Chapter 26 L concerning amendments to development plans to the January 15, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing. The motion passed 8-0. E. Case No. ZOA-08-08 (to be continued to January 15, 2009): An ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning City-initiated rezonings. It was moved by Commissioner DWYER and seconded by Commissioner REINHART to continue Case No. ZOA-08-08, an ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning City-initiated zone changes to the January 15, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing. The motion passed 8-0. 8. ADJOURNMENT OF REGULAR MEETING It was moved by Commissioner REINHART and seconded by Commissioner STEWART to adjourn the regular meeting to study session at 7:58 p.m. The motion passed 8-0. Because the next scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission falls on New Year's Day, the next meeting will be held on January 15, 2009. Planning Commission Minutes 4 December 18, 2008 City of ~`7Vheat~clge COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memorandum TO: Planning Commission THROUGH: Ken Johnstone, Community Development Director FROM: Jeff Hirt, Planner II DATE: December 12, 2008 (for December 18 meeting) SUBJECT: Case Number ZOA-08-07 Staff is recommending continuance of Case Number ZOA-08-07, and ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning amendments to development plans to the January 15, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing. The purpose of the continuance is to allow adequate time for input from the city attorney before bringing it forward in ordinance form. Staff suggests the following motion: "I move to continue Case No. ZOA-08-07, and ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning amendments to development plans to the January 15, 2009 Planning Commission public hearing". NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing is to be held before the City of Wheat Ridge PLANNING COMMISSION on December 18, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the Municipal Building at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Wheat Ridge, Colorado. All interested citizens are invited to speak at the Public Hearing or submit written comments. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Call Heather Geyer, Public Information Officer at 303-235-2826 at least one week in advance of a meeting if you are interested in participating and need inclusion assistance. The following cases shall be heard: Case No. WZ-08-08 (rescheduled from December 4, 2008 due to lack of a quorum): An application filed by Coors Brewing Company to establish zoning of Agricultural-One (A-1) for land recently annexed into the City of Wheat Ridge generally located west of Lot 9 of Cabela's/Coors Subdivision, north of Clear Creek and south of State Highway 58 at Indiana Street extended. Case No. ZOA-08-06: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning zoning district boundary discrepancies and interpretations. Case No. ZOA-08-07: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning amendments to development plans. Case No. ZOA-08-08: An ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning City-initiated rezonings. Case No. ZOA-08-09: An ordinance amending Chapter 26, Article VII concerning floodplain administrator decision-making authority & floodplain development standards. Kathy Field, Administrative Assistant ATTEST: Michael Snow, City Clerk To Be Published: Wheat Ridge Transcript Date: December 11, 2008 Case No.: OA0807 J App: Last Name: Citywide App: First Name: Owner: Last Name: Owner: First Name: J App Address: City, State Zip: J App: Phone: Owner Address: City/State/Zip: Owner Phone: Project Address: Street Name: City/State, Zip: Quarter Section Map No.: J Related Cases: Case History: Ordinance amending Chapter 26 concerning i mendments to development plans._.. Review Body: APN: 2nd Review Body: 2nd Review Date: Decision-making Body: Approval/Denial Date: Reso/Ordinance No.: Case Disposition: Project Planner: Hirt File Location: ctive___ Notes: Follow-Up:- PC: 12118108 CC __J Conditions of Approval: District: Date Received: 12/2/2Q08_ Pre-App Date: 1, -1 - lovlIlsvill~' do+7v~d}r~et~y City of (al4werd a~td{ lpPC(fi~ j ` F CWVev; /Wheat -j- dge Y uCEi 2 y uN6 4 !t[f COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Bent Lt CI ~W r^ efft Vint uNV~i e✓ ~NtEV- At-vado : d b,~, ti,) irc c47 Memorandum c t4k,+r_ TO: Planning Division ryt'~rc¢ pv Yev~ w• FROM: Jeff Hirt, Planner DATE: October 14, 2008 SUBJECT: Planned Development/Owner Consent Zoning Code Amendment One of the proposed short term amendments relates to the issue of planned development amendments and the consent required from property owners. The existing regulations can be summarized as follows: • There are two types of amendments to approved planned developments - outline and final development plan amendments. Criteria and thresholds for each are established. • Variances to standards within a planned development are also allowed for single-family and duplex lots. • ODP amendments require approval from all original property owners, or by alternative arrangement from city council (Sec. 26-31 LA). • FDP amendments require approval from all property owners in the parcel or phase of the PD where the amendment is being requested (Sec. 26-311.A). • This equates to required approval from all property owners for all types of amendments. Recommendations, questions, and explanations for suggested changes are provided in footnotes. _/-4 OAej a tcw Sec. 26-311. Amendments to development plans. p / Sfkti A. The procedures and requirements for amending an approved development plan (outline or i final) shall be the same as prescribed for original approval, except as provided for under subsection (C) below.' All applieations for amendment te an outline develepffient plan must b 1~~ appfeved in writing by all ewnefs of real prepei4y eentained within the afea originally appreved ty e eil as part of the u"ifie d eentrol agreement.' 11 applications for amendment tom I /kfinal development plan must be approved in writ'ng by all owners of real property and owners of interest contained within the parcel o Ltlic planned development where the amendment is being requested3 If the amendment ect e provisions for acces ,drainage, tvT 1, PWiV ~(1,k 0j9( M l~th'AO... p p 1 QUESTION: Should we specifically state that amendments may be ininagd by the property owner or city? 2 NOTE: This requirement creates a significant obstacle to amending an oudire development plan where ownership aS11k l r has changed hands through time and/or there is fragmented ownership within the planned development - as is often ",o(.a J W the case. It basically states that where it is not possible to have approval from all original property owners within a R, PD, city council must approve an alternative arrangement We suggest eliminating this statement in favor of the NJ statement applicable to both outline development and final development plans below. s NOTE: With the statement "must be approved in writing by all owners of real property contained within the parcel or phase..." this requirement creates a significant obstacle to amending a final development plan where ownership utilities and/or circulation, affected property owners must consent to the application for amendment in writing. 4 s ~,op4t'm^J. rw~,.st cw~~uF~ SJ•!- ~t~sf c~N>Qµ4~ a Moue awfl- r B. Outline development plan amendments. Amendments to the underlying outline development plan are required and will be processed the same as prescribed for original approval if any one (1) of the following is proposed: 1. Increase in the gross floor area of structures beyond the authorized maximum allowed on the approved outline development plan. 2. Proposed land uses are not permitted on the approved outline development plan. 3. hlcrease in density or intensity of use. 4. Decrease in perimeter setbacks. 5. Reduction in required buffer areas. 6. Increase in height of any structures. C. Final development plan changes. A final development plan may vary from the approved outline development plan so long as the thresholds for an outline development plan amendment are not met as set forth in subsection B above. Variations include, but are not limited to, re- orienting buildings and parking lots, changes in landscaping areas, changes in architectural details, changes to interior setbacks and similar changes that do not affect neighboring properties s or the overall character of the development. At no time can approval of a final development plan result in any increase beyond a maximum development standard or any decrease below a minimum development standard listed on the outline development plan. If any of these conditions occurs, the outline development plan must be amended as described in subsection B. Once a final development plan is recorded, any amendment requested that complies with the limitations of this subsection B shall be processed in the manner prescribed for original approval. D. Any changes or revisions to an outline or final development plan which are approved, either administratively or by city council action, must be recorded with the Jefferson County Recorder as amendments to the original recorded development plan subject to the deadline provisions of subsection 26-308.D.4.d. E. Variances. Variances to the strict application of development standards established by an outline development plan may be requested only for properties within single- and two-family planned residential developments, following the applicable administrative or non-administrative has changed through time and/or there is fragmented ownership within the planned development - as is often the case. We suggest eliminating the statement "or phase" so that only those property owners within the parcel of the requested amendment must consent. We have suggested making this requirement applicable to both outline and final development plan amendments. NOTE: We suggest keeping this statement in to cover any relevant easements or agreements (access, utilities, drainage, etc) that may affect adjacent property. 5 KEN/MEREDITH: The current code requires property owner consent by all property owners within the affected area, or "phase" of the planned development for final development plan amendments - which are administrative decisions. The way I understand this process is that there is no public notification process for FDP amendments. Since we would be removing the requirement for all property owners within the PD to consent to the FDP amendment, should we insert some type of public involvement, similar to an administrative variance for instance, for FDP amendments? More discussion is needed on this subsection. 2 variance process as prescribed in section 26-115.6 (Ord. No. 2001-1215, § 1, 2-26-01; Ord. No. 1319, § 1, 4-12-04; Ord. No. 1383, § 6, 5-14-07) / 6.svv'( Jl' ` IP"'~-,- ~W( /Lecow~~. h cc~ ar i vev"- 6 KEN/MEREDITH: I don't fully understand how a variance process would be utilized within a planned development, or why this provision is necessary. Of the other communities I looked at (Golden, Arvada, Lakewood, Louisville) none had a separate variance procedure from the amendment procedure. The way this reads, a request to vary from the approved outline development plan for single family/duplex takes on the form of a variance, rather than an amendment. But if someone wants to vary from standards for anything other than single family/duplex, its an amendment. Should we just suggest eliminating this language? Or does it serve a purpose for multi-lot planned developments for single family and duplex? If we provide more flexibility for variances for other types of development (e.g., multi-family, commercial, industrial) then it would become more confusing as to which request is a variance, and which is an amendment.