HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-17-23 Study Session Agenda PacketSTUDY SESSION AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO April 17, 2023
6:30 pm
This meeting will be conducted as a virtual meeting, and in person, at
7500 West 29th Avenue, Municipal Building. City Council members and City staff members will be physically present at the Municipal building for this meeting. The public may participate in these ways:
1. Attend the meeting in person at City Hall. Use the appropriate roster to sign up to speak upon arrival 2. Provide comment in advance at www.wheatridgespeaks.org (comment by noon on April 17, 2023)
3. Virtually attend and participate in the meeting through a device or phone:
• Click here to join and provide public comment
• Or call +1-669-900-6833 with Access Code: 813 7363 4644 Passcode: 597059 4. View the meeting live or later at www.wheatridgespeaks.org, Channel 8, or YouTube Live at https://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/view
Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by
the City of Wheat Ridge. Contact the Public Information Officer at 303-235-2877 or wrpio@ci.wheatridge.co.us with as much notice as possible if you are interested in
participating in a meeting and need inclusion assistance.
Public Comment on Agenda Items
1. Subdivision Review Requirements
2. Deed-Restricted Affordable Housing Parking Requirements
3. Updating Zoning Requirements for Childcare Facilities
4. Staff Report(s)
5. Elected Officials’ Report(s)
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Scott Cutler, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Lauren Mikulak, Community Development Director Patrick Goff, City Manager
DATE: April 7, 2023 (For April 17, 2023 Study Session)
SUBJECT: Subdivision Review Requirements
PRIOR ACTIONS: On February 6, 2023, City Council gave staff direction to return to a Study Session for more
discussion regarding recommended updates to the City’s requirements for reviewing subdivisions, including updating when public hearings are required.
PURPOSE: This memo provides a summary of the items that could constitute an ordinance updating the
subdivision review requirements in Article IV of the City Code, which have not been substantively reviewed or updated since 2014. The memo includes additional research on best practices for subdivision review requirements and public notification and an update on peer city requirements. It also provides information on what the City has changed to date to improve public processes and opportunities for input.
DISCUSSION: As discussed in the February 6 study session, the City’s subdivision review procedures are increasingly out of alignment with other cities in the metro area and even more so nationwide. Moreover, many of the requirements and thresholds are arbitrary and challenging to navigate.
Wheat Ridge is a rarity in that many subdivisions are required to go to public hearings at Planning Commission and/or City Council, with few exceptions. Currently, subdivisions containing 3 lots or fewer are administrative (staff) review only, 4-5 lots require a Planning Commission hearing, and 6 or more lots require Planning Commission and City Council approval.
At the February study session, Council generally agreed with staff’s conclusions that the current public hearing requirements for subdivisions are flawed, because we are asking for public engagement and feedback when such comment cannot impact a decision. Subdivisions are created for uses and developments which are already permitted on the property, so seeking
public input on a plat is confusing when the proposed use or development is already allowed by the zoning. Public hearings create the impression that the proposed use or site plan of a property
Item No. 1
2
is up for debate or discretionary review. Public input is necessary and welcome for discretionary decisions, guiding documents, and legislative approvals; these include rezonings and planned
developments, variances, special use permits, legislative code amendments, and long range
planning documents (such as a comprehensive plan). Subdivisions, however, are not changing proposed allowed uses or development standards; rather, they are designed to comply with the underlying zoning and standards. Subdivision approval is a ministerial action; there are no discretionary or subjective review criteria.
Best Practices of Public Engagement: Lessons learned from public engagement efforts and staff training include a more sophisticated understanding of how to engage or inform the public in a given situation. Council and staff have increasingly prioritized meaningful public engagement and clear public information, in keeping
with national trends and best practices. For example, public hearings are now available online,
letter notice for public hearings has been expanded to renters and the distance has increased, posting signs have been updated, and an online map is in development to help people learn about active developments and public projects.
At the strategic planning retreat on February 20, 2021, City Council identified new efforts of
community engagement and education as a priority for the next two years. As a result, City staff established the Community Involvement Task Force (CITF) in early 2021 and established a Community Involvement Strategy as the guiding document (see Attachment 1). Its framework is based on the principles of the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2), and it
distinguishes between three types of involvement:
• Inform/Educate/Celebrate
• Consult
• Involve
Because a public hearing includes a request for public comment and testimony, it is considered consulting the public. The promise made to the community when consulting is that the community’s comments and feedback will be considered in the decision-making process. Consulting is best deployed when input or feedback from the community would be helpful in
determining alternatives or there is a need to understand community desires. From the public’s standpoint, public hearings invite comment that will be considered as part of decision making; when comment is not considered (or able to be considered), the hearing process introduces division, confusion, frustration, and mistrust. From the developer standpoint, hearings
introduce uncertainty, are inconsistent with other communities, lengthen the overall development process, and add cost and risk into the approvals process. From staff’s standpoint, we undermine public trust, expend significant resources, introduce liability if approvable subdivisions are not approved by decision makers, and put the City at a competitive disadvantage.
Peer Communities and National Standards: As discussed in the first study session, Wheat Ridge’s subdivision review requirements put it out of alignment with other communities and best practice. Specifically, it is very rare for a City Council to review any subdivision application, generally with the exception of right-of-way vacations. Nearby peer communities have significantly reduced public hearing requirements for
plats, and many do not have any public hearings at all, including Aurora, Boulder, Fort Collins,
3
Thornton, Denver, and Commerce City. At a national level, public hearings are also used more sparingly than in Wheat Ridge, and not at all in many cases. Many cities and states are seeking to
streamline their subdivision review processes to reduce barriers to developing permitted uses, as
hearings introduce risk and lengthen the time from application to approval. Recent presentations made to staff by other municipalities and the American Planning Association (APA) highlight subdivision processes as being a barrier to housing development
and reinvestment. The APA Equity in Zoning Policy Guide recommendations include only
requiring public hearings “when there is a genuine need to use discretion in applying zoning criteria and standards to the facts of a specific development proposal.” In the case of subdivision applications, there is no discretion because an application either meets the underlying zoning requirements or it doesn’t, and the subdivision is being proposed for a use or development type
that is already allowed on the property.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends revising public hearing requirements for subdivisions. Instead of relying on hearings, staff also recommends introducing new ways to inform the public about subdivision
applications. A complete list of recommendations is below.
Recommendation 1: Remove public hearing requirements for subdivision plats, with the following exceptions:
• When a variance is required, in which case it should be reviewed by Planning
Commission instead of City Council. Wheat Ridge is unique in that City Council reviews subdivision variances, instead of Planning Commission which is best equipped to review minor discretionary approvals associated with development.
• When City right-of-way is being vacated, in which case staff recommends retaining City
Council’s review of right-of-way vacations which is currently the case and common elsewhere. If a subdivision is being processed concurrently with a rezoning or planned development application, the rezoning or planned development application would still go to public hearings,
but a separate hearing would no longer be required for the subdivision. Recommendation 2: In lieu of public hearings, require public notice of subdivision approval for subdivisions over a certain size (i.e., a “Notice of Administrative Action”).
• A 600-foot letter notice to owners and occupants is recommended. This is the same as for public hearings and generally covers a distance of one to two blocks.
• Consistent with the Community Involvement Strategy, the letter should provide the community with balanced, accurate and objective information meant to inform and
educate. This means it would use layman’s terms to describe a project, the underlying
zoning, the project’s compliance with underlying zoning, and information on next steps such as construction hours. A sample is attached (Attachment 2). The requirement to issue public notice should be based on subdivision size, not the number of
lots. Determining whether a subdivision meets the threshold of public notice based on the size is
more equitable than basing on the number of lots. Basing a threshold on the number of lots suggests that the use and proposed density is negotiable and can penalize those developing
4
denser housing or commercial buildings on small development sites. The purpose of the proposed notice is to inform neighbors of development of a size that would be impactful.
One option for the threshold of notice is 10 acres, which is the threshold the City uses for requiring Concept Plans. This threshold recognizes that development on large 10+ acre sites is very visible and can have potential impacts that neighbors should be informed of. Another threshold option is 2 acres, which is approximately the size of half a city block in Wheat Ridge
and more typical of infill development. A 2-acre threshold would impact more development
sites, as there are relatively few sites over 10 acres left in Wheat Ridge. Staff does not recommend applying the notice requirements to Lot Line Adjustments, where no new lots are being created (only existing lines shifting), or Consolidation Plats which will not result in the creation of additional new lots for development.
It should be noted that staff is continuing forward progress on creating an interactive development map with GIS integration. This project was stalled significantly by the August 2022 cybersecurity incident. GIS services were recently reinstated, and the mapping tool will be available later this year. Once launched, letter notice can point residents to this map for more
information.
Recommendation 3: Remove language regarding how the number of lots in a subdivision application are determined.
• Currently, plats are classified as administrative, minor or major based on the number of
lots “involved” and staff recommends this language be revised to focus on the resulting number of lots. For example, if a subdivision replats 6 lots to 4, it should be classified as minor (because it creates 4 lots) instead of major (because it started with 6 lots).
• This recommendation would be moot if Recommendation 1 proceeds.
NEXT STEPS: Staff is requesting direction from Council on Recommendations 1 and 2. If there is not consensus on those two recommendations, staff is seeking consensus on Recommendation 3.
Attachment:
1. City of Wheat Ridge Community Involvement Strategy 2. Sample notice letter
City of Wheat Ridge Community Involvement Strategy
City of Wheat Ridge City Council and staff are committed to a culture of meaningful public participation
and community involvement. Effective public participation provides decision makers with perspectives
and opinions shared by the community and seeks to ensure all voices are heard. The Community
Involvement Strategy provides a framework to ensure active, consistent and balanced participation and
public engagement in decision making processes.
Guiding Principles
•Residents affected by an issue or initiative will have the opportunity to participate and have
their say
•Residents can have their say in a manner that is convenient for them. This means barriers to
participation should be removed to the greatest degree possible by meeting residents where
they are; online, at existing gatherings and in places where they move as part of their daily lives,
in addition to designated public forums
•Residents have various needs in order to be able to have their say. This means needs such as
childcare, interpretation, nontraditional schedules and cultural norms must be considered as
factors in the community involvement process
•Residents want to have their say in various ways. Not all residents are comfortable speaking in
front of an audience and their opinions and perspectives are valid regardless of how they speak
up
Levels of Community Involvement
The Involve Wheat Ridge Community Involvement Strategy acknowledges three levels of participation:
1.Inform/Educate/Celebrate
Promise: We will provide the community with balanced, accurate and objective information. We
will answer questions and keep the community informed.
Inform/Educate when: Contemplating temporary changes in service or facilities, or when the
change is unlikely to affect the quality of life of Wheat Ridge residents, when change is occurring
as a result of a plan or strategy that has been adopted, to correct misperceptions or in the case
of normal day-to-day business assigned to staff.
Tools & Tactics: Communication tools including City’s website, social media, public notices,
posters, press releases, announcements, e-newsletters, signage, videos and white papers. Can
also include information tables, presentations to groups, engagement webpage for easy sharing
of information and public open houses.
Example A: The 2020 Census is coming and Wheat Ridge is committed to educating and
informing residents about the safety of taking the census, the significance of the census and the
importance of being counted. The City’s engagement practice could involve presentations in the
community, signage, the dissemination of promotional material, promotion on social media and
a page on the engagement site where residents can post questions and receive answers about
the census.
Example B: Wadsworth is being widened. Wheat Ridge is committed to educating and
informing residents about the lane shifts that will be in place, that businesses will be open and
ATTACHMENT 1
how to use the new Continuous Flow Intersections. In addition to the tactics listed above, the
City’s engagement practice could involve a question and answer forum on the engagement site.
2.Consult
Promise: The community’s comments and feedback will be considered in the decision making
process.
Consult when: Input or feedback from the community would be helpful in determining
alternatives, when the organization is considering a change in services or there is a need to
understand community desires.
Tools and Tactics: Online engagement activities including surveys, polls and virtual public
hearings, public meetings and open houses, interactive activities where the public can show a
preference (i.e. Chips in a bucket, sticker dots on a picture)
Example A: The City is recruiting a new police chief and will consult with the public on the
desirable qualities of the next chief. The City could conduct a survey, focus groups and develop
an engagement site, asking questions about the qualities of the perfect chief for Wheat Ridge.
Results will be considered throughout the interview process. The public may also be involved in
the final interview stages by attending a forum with final candidates. A survey could be
administered to seek the preference of attendees and feedback would be considered in the
selection of the final candidate.
Example B: The City is designing a streetscape and will consult the public on their visual
preferences. The City could conduct an open house and host similar activities online gather
feedback on a variety of design options.
3.Involve
Promise: To work directly with the community throughout a process to ensure that the public’s
concerns, aspirations and desires are understood and considered. Feedback contributes broadly
to the outcome.
Involve when: The issue affects or has the potential to affect a significant number of residents,
has a lasting impact on property, community ownership is necessary, during the development of
strategic or comprehensive plans, the initiative creates or significantly changes public amenities,
the issue has the potential to significantly alter service levels.
Tools and Tactics: Convene a steering committee or task force that includes residents and
community members, design charrettes, online engagement activities including forums, Q&A,
storytelling.
Example: The City is updating the 44th Avenue subarea plan. Residents and other stakeholders
will be invited to participate in a year long process involving multiple stages and milestones. The
public will be invited to participate in wide range of on-going activities, including small group
meetings, open houses, surveys, and scenario planning. In-person meetings will be
complimented with online activities for those that choose to participate virtually.
Polices and Guidelines for notification
Currently, the Wheat Ridge Charter and or Code of Laws specifies public notification and engagement in
specific circumstances and within a certain proximity of the location of issue. By way of example, a
neighborhood meeting is required prior to 1) a zone change, 2) a special use permit or 3) a concept plan
for land over 10 acres in size, the notification of which is mailed to land owners and tenants within 600
feet (Chapter 26). There are several other examples of specific cases in which notice is required to land
owners and/or tenants, such as related to public hearings or street width designation. Important to the
Community Involvement Strategy is the acknowledgement that engagement efforts will always satisfy
those required by the Charter and Code. In order to best serve the public, a goal of the Community
Involvement Strategy is to develop guidelines for notification and involvement that mirror best practices
for City-driven initiatives.
Diversity, Inclusion and Equity (DEI)
As referenced in the Guiding Principles, providing equitable access for residents to have their say is
important. Guidelines must be developed based on Wheat Ridge’s characteristics and attributes so that
decisions around translation, interpretation, facilitation techniques, meeting locations, child care
offerings, catering options etc. can be carefully considered per outreach initiative. This involves a deep
dive into Wheat Ridge’s demographics and training to understand typical behaviors, cultural norms and
barriers.
Staffing Structure
A recommendation of the 2019 Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy is the addition of two positions for
the purpose of conducting a neighborhood planning and engagement effort. As community involvement
transcends traditional departments and work groups, it is important that staff tasked with engaging on
the neighborhood level understand the totality of the issues and initiatives that interest the community.
Therefore, the neighborhood planning and engagement staff should lead a City-wide task force that
includes members of each department along with the City’s communications manager and digital
communications specialist.
Members of the task force will act as liaisons to each department and workgroup. They will bring issues
affecting the public to the task force for consideration of a public process. Each public process will be
vetted by the task force, and an engagement plan will be developed to be led either by the
neighborhood engagement staff or department representative. Communications staff will assist with
the development and implementation of a communications strategy.
In the case of each issue or initiative, the task force will:
•Define the issue/problem/initiative
•Define the stakeholders
•Define the decision makers
•Determine the appropriate level of community involvement based on the spectrum
(Inform/Educate, Consult, Involve) and how the involvement will affect the outcome
•Determine the engagement plan, assigning roles and responsibilities to members of the task
force
•Launch the plan
Training and Educational Resources
The International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) is a worldwide resource for training and
development in the public engagement space. The three levels of engagement for Wheat Ridge are
based on IAP2’s spectrum of public participation as is the online engagement tool, Engagement HQ.
Members of the task force and others in the organization will benefit from IAP2’s Foundations in Public
Participation training where tools, techniques and strategies for engagement are covered in depth. As
every employee in an IAP2 member organization has access to online resources, webinars and local
events, it is recommended that the City become a member and members of the Task Force become
actively engaged.
Online Community Engagement
The City has selected two online solutions for community engagement.
Wheat Ridge Speaks provides residents the opportunity to review presentations and provide virtual
comments on land use cases as if they were in attendance at a Planning Commission or City Council
public hearing. Comments are entered into the public hearing record and elected officials must review
all comments prior to voting on a land use case. Wheat Ridge Speaks is managed by Community
Development staff. It would be possible, at Council’s direction, to expand the use of Wheat Ridge Speaks
in the future to allow public comment on all public hearing agenda items.
What’s Up Wheat Ridge an online community engagement space owned by Bang the Table using the
Engagement HQ platform. On this site, residents can contribute to a public process, much as if they were
in attendance at a public meeting. Tools include the ability to ask and answer questions, provide input in
narrative form, complete a survey, take a poll, drop pins on maps, upload videos and photographs and
more. Involve Wheat Ridge will be managed by the Community Involvement task force, led by the
neighborhood engagement specialist. This platform can be utilized for a variety of planning efforts and
special projects.
City of Wheat Ridge Municipal Building 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge, CO 80033-8001 P: 303.235.2846
www.ci.wheatridge.co.us
NOTICE OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL (As required pursuant to Code Section ________)
DATE, 2023
Dear Property Owner / Current Resident:
This is to inform you that Case No. __________, an application filed by __________________ for
approval of a major subdivision at (address) has been approved by the City of Wheat Ridge Community Development Department. You are receiving this letter because the City of Wheat Ridge requires a notification to all property owners and residents within 600 feet of an approved major subdivision application to inform the public about the project and potential impacts.
The property is zoned _______, a zone district which allows for ______. The subdivision (description of
project). The purpose of a subdivision is to create or modify lots, tracts, and parcels for sale or development, for a use already permitted by the underlying zoning. A subdivision does not change the zoning or types of uses permitted on the property. The subdivision application has been found to be
compliant with all appropriate subdivision design and zoning requirements.
Construction activity on private property, including construction of buildings or paving, is limited by City Code to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., seven (7) days a week. Construction in the City Right-of-Way (i.e. public streets) is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
with limited exceptions subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. Building and/or Site
Work Permits are required prior to the start of any construction work on private property.
If you have questions, please contact the Planning Division at 303-235-2846 or zoning@ci.wheatridge.co.us.
Thank you,
City of Wheat Ridge Planning Division
ATTACHMENT 2
Vicinity Map
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Scott Cutler, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Lauren Mikulak, Community Development Director Patrick Goff, City Manager
DATE: April 7, 2023 (For April 17, 2023 Study Session)
SUBJECT: Deed-Restricted Affordable Housing Parking Requirements
PRIOR ACTIONS: On February 6, 2023, City Council gave staff direction to return to a Study Session with more
detail regarding recommended updates to the City’s parking requirements for deed-restricted affordable dwelling units, to align with recommendations in the adopted Affordable Housing Strategy. Since February, Planning Division staff have completed additional research to accompany the recommendations in this memo, at the direction of City Council.
PURPOSE: This memo provides a summary of the research completed by staff regarding parking requirements for deed-restricted affordable housing, including a deeper dive into parking utilization rates, peer city requirements, and model ordinances. The research and discussion are followed by recommendations from staff. The recommendations within follow the
recommendations in the adopted Affordable Housing Strategy to reduce minimum parking requirements for deed-restricted affordable housing, specifically in mixed use zones and transit-oriented developments (TOD). The recommendations also align with recommendations from the American Planning Association (APA) including the Equity in Zoning Policy Guide, adopted in December 2022.
RESEARCH: Provided below is a variety of research related to the topic of reducing parking requirements for deed-restricted affordable housing. As a reminder, this research and the recommendations within the memo would apply only to deed-restricted dwelling units in mixed use or TOD areas, not
market-rate housing (even if called “workforce housing”).
APA and Affordable Housing Strategy Recommendations: The APA Equity in Zoning Policy Guide states: “Minimum off-street parking regulations raise the cost of housing and other development and often make redevelopment of older infill sites
difficult or impossible, which likely has a disproportionately negative impact on historically
disadvantaged and vulnerable neighborhoods. Often these minimum requirements far exceed
Item No. 2
2
what is needed to achieve their original purposes… Reducing or eliminating parking minimums can also increase the amount of land available to build housing, parks and open space, or other
community-supporting uses.” The Policy Guide then recommends eliminating or reducing
minimum off-street parking requirements in areas where those requirements serve as barriers to investment; they note these reductions are particularly important in TOD areas and areas already well serviced by transit, services, and employment.
The adopted Affordable Housing Strategy specifically called for reduction of parking minimums
and was identified as an immediate priority for Council. The Strategy states that “provision of
parking represents a development cost, and in areas exempted from the Charter’s limits on density, parking can be an inefficient use of land that reduces a project’s capacity to lower land cost per unit. In cases where unit occupancies are expected to be low, and/or transit availability
is sufficient, reducing parking requirements can be a contributor to better affordability.” The
plan recommends reducing parking even further in areas where transit service is available. Parking utilization data: Foothills Regional Housing (FRH) is the City’s and Jefferson County’s primary provider of
deed-restricted affordable housing. As briefly mentioned in the previous study session, FRH
provided a parking demand study created by Fox Tuttle Transportation Group and Shopworks Architecture. This study consisted of an audit of parking usage in existing affordable housing along the Front Range in a variety of communities.
The study made the following conclusions:
• A site’s proximity to walking, biking, and transit service “deeply impacts” vehicle ownership, as does access to shopping and employment.
• Hundreds of parking spaces for affordable buildings go unused across the Front Range.
• Across all affordable housing properties, there is an average utilization of 0.29 vehicles per unit, which is less than 1 vehicle for every 6 units. The study also references an RTD TOD study that found that residents of income-restricted
properties only utilize 0.36 parking spaces per unit. This means that if 1 parking space was required per unit, more than 60% of parking spaces would go unused. These parking studies account for household size and do not assume that units are occupied by one person only. Peer cities and surrounding communities:
Many communities in Colorado have reduced parking requirements for deed-restricted affordable housing. Recent data provided to staff by the State of Colorado noted that 15 communities in Colorado had been identified as lessening minimum parking requirements for deed-restricted affordable housing, and 24 more were pursuing reductions within the next couple of years. This means that not just Denver and Boulder are pursuing these changes (they tend to
be on the leading edge of trends), and the list includes smaller suburban and rural communities, such as Leadville, Fort Collins, and Littleton. As discussed in the previous study session, Denver recently reduced their parking requirements for deed-restricted affordable housing across the board:
3
Housing Type Denver Parking Requirement
Any affordable housing in TOD (within ¼
mile of rail or BRT)
0 spaces per unit
60% AMI or below 0.1 spaces per unit (in all zone districts)
Other deed-restricted affordable housing (above 60% AMI) 0.75 spaces/unit in low density zones 0.5 spaces/unit in medium density 0.25 spaces/unit in high density
Denver took a tiered approach based on proximity to transit and income level, which is a complicated approach compared to some other communities. Because staff is not recommending
a full waiver of parking requirements, the most relevant portion of Denver’s approach is the third
row. Wheat Ridge’s mixed use and multi-unit zones are most comparable to Denver’s low and medium density zones where deed-restricted affordable units are required to have 0.5 and 0.75 spaces per unit.
Littleton recently reduced parking requirements for deed-restricted affordable dwelling units by
35% which can be combined with their existing parking reductions of 20% for sites within about ¼ mile of a transit station. For example, a deed-restricted affordable apartment building that would have been required to provide 1 space per unit normally would now be allowed to provide 0.65 space per unit, and this requirement drops to 0.45 space per unit for deed-restricted units
within ¼ mile of a transit station.
Fort Collins allows a 50% reduction in parking requirements for deed-restricted affordable housing, which results in a requirement of 0.375 to 0.5 spaces per unit depending on unit size.
On a national level, some states have adopted statewide reductions in parking requirements for
affordable housing, or cities have reduced or removed these types of parking requirements. Communities that have implemented parking reforms include some inner-ring suburbs similar to Wheat Ridge including West Allis, WI, Tigard, OR, some Bay Area suburbs, some Minneapolis suburbs, and more. Some cities have gone further and reduced or removed minimum parking
requirements for all uses, including some smaller cities like Lexington, KY, Ann Arbor, MI, and
Raleigh, NC. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the research and best practices, both of peer communities and national models, staff is
recommending a reduction in the parking requirements for deed-restricted affordable dwelling units as follows: Location Current Requirement Proposed Requirement
Within ¼ mile of a fixed
guideway transit station or bus rapid transit
1 space/unit minimum, 2.5
spaces/unit maximum
0.25 spaces/unit minimum, 1
space/unit maximum
Within mixed use zone
districts
1 space/unit minimum, 2.5
spaces/unit maximum
0.5 spaces/unit minimum, 1.5
spaces/unit maximum
Multi-unit projects within
Residential-Three (R-3)
1.5 to 2 spaces per unit
(depending on bedrooms)
0.75 to 1 space per unit
(depending on bedrooms)
4
The above recommendations will not affect units which are not deed-restricted. The change would also not affect existing requirements for accessible (ADA) parking, which is required by
Federal/State law, nor will it affect requirements for designated loading areas and/or guest
parking. Staff will retain the discretion to request loading zones and guest parking where applicable, particularly when designated on-street parking is not available. Staff also has the discretion to ask for parking studies to justify proposed parking supply.
Affordable housing providers including FRH are experts in building and developing deed-
restricted affordable housing projects. They best understand affordable housing demand and resident, staff and guest parking needs. Reducing parking requirements to a more reasonable number allows affordable housing providers to best respond to the needs of their residents, staff, and guests, without having to build unnecessary parking to comply with zoning codes which
assume everyone has a car. By allowing a more market-based approach and relying upon the
experts (including recommendations of the APA and the Affordable Housing Strategy), the City can reduce burdens on building affordable housing. NEXT STEPS:
Staff is seeking Council direction on the proposed requirements on page 3, namely the proposal
to require parking for deed-restricted affordable units at rates of 0.25 to 0.75 spaces per unit. Based on feedback at this study session, staff will finalize an ordinance to present at Planning Commission and City Council for approval.
Memorandum
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Scott Cutler, Senior Planner
THROUGH: Lauren Mikulak, Community Development Director Patrick Goff, City Manager
DATE: April 7, 2023 (For April 17, 2023 Study Session)
SUBJECT: Updating Requirements for Childcare Facilities
ISSUE: From time to time, staff recommends updating the zoning code (Chapter 26) as it relates to best
practices, lessons learned from peer cities or previous code changes, updated policies and processes, to correct errors, to clarify code language, and as a result of long-range plan adoption. In this case, staff has identified a major gap in the City’s allowance for childcare facilities in commercial zones and in some nonresidential contexts in residential zones. Further, some definitions in the zoning code do not align with state regulations, which introduces confusion
into the process.
Staff recognizes the major lack of childcare facilities in the state and region, and often receive requests from operators seeking to open childcare facilities (centers or home-based daycares) in zones where they are currently prohibited. The City’s current regulations and prohibitions on
childcare in many zone districts can be perceived as overly burdensome. House Bill 21-1222, signed into law in June 2021, recognized that zoning codes can present barriers to entering the childcare market, but the City did not make code updates at that time.
BACKGROUND:
City Code differentiates between a “day care home” where the operator lives on site and a “day care center” which is more commercial in nature. These terms are defined in Section 26-123 of the zoning code, and they appear in the permitted use charts for residential, commercial, and mixed use zones (Sections 26-204 and 26-1111) as follows:
Day care center, large.
•Definition: A facility licensed by the State of Colorado which provides care of childrenwith or without compensation, for more than twenty-four (24) children.
•Zones: Allowed in C-1, C-2, I-E, and all mixed use zones, and as a special use permit inagricultural zones. Though permitted in MU-N, these uses have not historically been
permitted in the NC and RC zone districts.
Item No. 3
2
Day care center, small.
• Definition: A facility licensed by the State of Colorado which is used exclusively for the
purpose of providing care, with or without compensation, for seven (7) to twenty-four
(24) children.
• Zones: Small day care centers are permitted in the same locations as large day care centers; they are allowed in C-1, C-2, I-E, and all Mixed Use zones, and as a special use permit in agricultural zones.
Day care home, large.
• Definition: A home which is licensed under the State of Colorado and which provides care, with or without compensation, for seven (7) to twelve (12) children, from twenty-four (24) months to sixteen (16) years of age, including the caretaker's children, not
attending full-day school, such as a day care, preschool, day nursery or child care service.
• Zones: Large home-based day cares are permitted in the R-3 and R-3A zone districts; in other residential and agricultural zones they are permitted only with approval of a special use permit.
Day care home, small.
• Definition: A home which is licensed under the State of Colorado and which provides care, with or without compensation, for not more than six (6) children under the age of sixteen (16), including the caretaker’s children, not attending full-day school, such as a
day care, preschool, day nursery or child care service.
• Zones: The use charts are silent to this use, but Section 26-613 (home occupations) indicates small home-based day cares are permitted as home-based businesses in all zones citywide.
DISCUSSION:
Daycare Centers in Commercial Zones The Restricted Commercial (RC) and Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zones were established with the original zoning code and map inherited from Jefferson County in 1972. These zones are primarily located on commercial corridors or collector roads (44th Ave, Kipling, Harlan, portions
of 32nd Ave, etc.) but not in areas of the highest intensity of development. They are intended to be lower-intensity zone districts than the standard Commercial-One (C-1) district but still allow for some commercial uses. The zone district descriptions include neighborhood-oriented services. Despite this, RC and NC both prohibit day care centers of any size.
RC and NC zoned properties in the City often have optimal location, size, and configuration to accommodate childcare facilities. They are often located near residential areas on collector and arterial roads and are not embedded in neighborhoods, and they often include converted houses, small commercial buildings, or vacant lots which are ideal conversions into daycare centers. Because of this, staff is recommending the zoning code be amended such that large and small
daycare centers are permitted uses in both RC and NC zones. Although rezoning to MU-N (which includes daycare centers as a permitted use) can be a viable option for some owners of RC and NC properties, it would not be appropriate in all cases. In fact, staff has reviewed whether a legislative zoning of all RC and NC properties could be
3
appropriate instead of a zone change, and that is not recommended. RC and NC are more restrictive than MU-N, but could afford to allow more neighborhood-serving uses such as
childcare. The RC and NC sites throughout the City are shown in Attachment 1; this data is from
2016 and a few properties on 44th Avenue, Harlan Street, and Wadsworth Blvd have since been rezoned to MU-N, but the map is otherwise accurate. The properties are located to not have significant impacts on local neighborhood streets, are often walkable from neighborhoods allowing daycare facilities to be closer to residential uses, and they can serve as a natural
transition between higher intensity uses along corridors and residential neighborhoods.
Staff is unsure why childcare facilities are prohibited from NC and RC zones. These zones allow similar (and arguably more intensive) uses such as public schools, government facilities, and convenience stores. While there may be an opportunity to review the permitted uses in NC and
RC more wholistically, staff recommends focusing on childcare for this proposed amendment
and coming back at a later date to explore more comprehensive changes to the commercial use charts. Question: Does Council agree with staff’s recommendation to allow day care centers in NC and
RC zones?
State and Local Definitions and Terms There is a discrepancy between state regulations and local regulations for what constitutes a small versus large childcare/daycare center. The State of Colorado recognizes small childcare
centers as having 5-15 children and large childcare centers as having 16+ children. Wheat Ridge
defines large childcare centers as starting at 24 children. In order to provide consistency with state law and regulations, staff recommends that the City’s definitions be modified to align with the State. It will not affect City processes or review but will reduce confusion for applicants when they are not sure which license to obtain. The mixed-use code (Article XI) already does not
differentiate between small and large centers and allows both under one category. State licenses
are always required for childcare centers. Question: Does Council agree with staff’s recommendation to align the definitions of childcare centers with state requirements?
Additional topics for cleanup: If Council provides direction to proceed with a code amendment, staff will also add reference to home-based day care in the use charts for residential, agricultural, and mixed use zones so it is clear they are permitted as accessory uses pursuant to Section 26-613. This allowance is
currently buried in the home-occupation regulations and is appropriate to be noted in the use
charts. This would not alter what is currently permitted. The above topics constitute staff’s minimum recommendations to update regulations and definitions related to daycare homes and centers. These items could proceed directly to an
ordinance as they impact limited portions of the code. The below topic is meant for further
discussion and could either be included in the proposed ordinance above or included in a
separate ordinance if more discussion is needed.
4
Day cares in places of worship and institutional uses in residential/agricultural zones: The City has several places of worship which are located in residential zone districts. A map of
all places of worship in the City is provided as Attachment 2, many of which are located in
residential zone districts. The zone district regulations currently allow day care centers to operate as an ancillary use within the site’s primary structure. This means that a day care could operate on a property with a place of worship but must be contained within the main building (not a separate building) and must be secondary in nature to the worship use. Staff has interpreted any
day care center wishing to be a primary use of a worship building (i.e. used more often as a day
care than a place of worship) must obtain a special use permit. If religious services are never held or the property is vacated, then a day care center on its own would not be permitted at all. As religious attendance has declined over the past few decades, places of worship have
increasingly reached out to City staff wanting to find potential uses for their property, only to
find that the allowed uses are very limited, particularly for those located in low-density residential zones. These buildings are often already set up for childcare or school facilities, but the code prohibits those uses as a primary use.
Staff recommends a change to the use charts allowing the following:
• A day care center can operate as a primary use on a property containing nonresidential uses in a residential zone (such as a religious or institutional property), with approval of a special use permit and without the need for an active congregation
• A day care center can operate as a permitted primary use on a property with an active
religious congregation as a secondary use (no special use permit required)
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends proceeding with an ordinance allowing daycare centers in NC and RC zones, and to amend the City’s definitions of daycare to align with state requirements. The additional
recommendation regarding religious and institutional buildings could either be added to the code
amendment or separated out if further discussion is required. Next steps will depend on Council’s direction and could include an ordinance or potential follow-up discussions on certain topics. For the ordinance that advances, it would go to Planning
Commission first and then to City Council for final approval.
Attachments: 1. Map of NC and RC zoned properties 2. Map of places of worship
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2