Land Development Code Update City Council / Planning Commission - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Land Development Code Update

City Council / Planning Commission Update #1

October 9, 2017

We Dream Big and Deliver

Agenda

• 1. Welcome and Introductions
• 2. Purpose and Objectives
• 3. Why Now?
• 4. Strategic Objectives
• 5. Work Plan
• 6. Issues
• 7. Next Steps

2

2. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

3

Zoning is Subject to the Laws of Nature

4

• One way to state the Second Law of Thermodynamics is:

– “Nature proceeds from the simple to the complex, from the orderly to the disorderly, from low entropy to high entropy.”

• The Second Law of Thermodynamics is remarkably

relevant to zoning codes

– Increasing entropy is natural – Reducing entropy requires work

• All codes ultimately reach a critical stage of complexity

Critical Stage Creates Opportunity for Reform Opportunity to UPDATE and ALIGN the LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE with the vision of the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN and other ADOPTED PLANS

5

Arvada Comprehensive Plan Implementation

6

Visi ision

• n

Code Code Mar Market et

Arvada Comprehensive Plan Implementation

7

Visi ision

• n

Code Code Mar Market et

We Dream Big… And Deliver

3. WHY NOW?

8

Why Now?

Current Code (2008)

• Zoning districts and standards are

dated and no longer implement City plans and strategic objectives

• Difficult to navigate and search –

related provisions are dispersed

• Requires certain level of expertise to

understand

• Minimal graphics
• Incremental updates resulted in

inconsistencies and duplications

9

Code Reform Objectives

• Implement City policies related to

land development

• Create appropriate zones and

standards to deal with significant change and anticipated growth

• Enhance predictability and clarity in

development review and approval

• Be customer-friendly / well organized
• Present a simple, easy-to-use Code,

with graphics to convey information

Trends

10

• Millennials and Baby

Boomers with small households seek higher- quality units near amenities and transit

• Parking reductions due to

transit and other modes

• Modular and other factory-

built construction techniques

• Shared bicycles/cars,

increased use of ride sharing (e.g., Uber and Lyft)

• Autonomous cars
• Smart City (electric

vehicles, parking)

Land Use Transportation TOD and Infill

• Expanding beyond

the ½ mile radius for TOD due to biking to stations

• New mixed-use

development in traditionally retail corridors

1 2 3

DRCOG and Mile High Compact

• Mile High Compact (2000)

– Regional planning and growth commitment by 46 communities representing 90% of the DRCOG region’s population – Each community committed, as a part of Metro Vision, to work in a coordinated manner to accommodate projected growth

11

Population Growth in the Region

• The Metro Denver Region is projected to grow:

– Approximately 1.1 million new residents by 2040 – Jefferson County’s growth will be slower than some other counties (e.g., Adams, Arapahoe) – Jefferson County will add approximately 110,000 residents by 2040

12

Arvada’s Growth

• Continued population growth –

almost 11,000 new residents between 2010 and 2016 (10% increase)

• High proportion of one- and two-

person households (approx. 63% combined)

• Projected 2035 pop’n: 141,000
• Projected “build-out” pop’n: 154,000

13

Source: Census Annual Population Estimates

TOD – Percent Complete or In Progress

14

Sheridan TOD

Completed - 19% Projects Underway - 10% Opportunity Sites - 71%

Olde Town TOD

Completed - 68% Projects Underway - 22% Opportunity Sites - 10%

Arvada Ridge TOD

Completed - 70% Projects Underway - 18% Opportunity Sites - 12%

Ward TOD

Completed - 0% Projects Underway - 79% Opportunity Sites - 21%

79% 90% 88% 29%

15

Evaluate Opportunities for

Transit-Supportive Development

• Approx. 26,000 Arvada

residents (23% of our population) live within 1 mile

• f a light rail station

Ralston Sheridan

Opportunities for land use coordination with Wheat Ridge and Jefferson County Development opportunities along corridors

4. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES

16

Key Objectives of Land Development Code (LDC) Update:

• 1. Implement the 2014 Comprehensive Plan

and other City Plans

• 2. Implement City Council Strategic Results
• 3. Streamline development review process
• 4. Update, simplify, and modernize the LDC
• 5. Update the zoning map

17

Objectives

• 1. Implement the 2014 Comprehensive Plan & other City

Plans

– 62 of 153 policies in the Comprehensive Plan relate to LDC update – Accommodate full build-out growth (approx. 154,000) – Address changing demographics – Coordinate land use, transportation (including pedestrian and bicycle), Olde Town, transit framework and TOD development, and sustainability objectives – Ensure compatibility among different land uses

18

Objectives

• 2. Implement City Council Strategic Results

– Promote compatible infill development in urban centers and corridors – Respond to changing housing preferences by providing for a diversity of housing types – Encourage attainable housing for seniors

19

Objectives

• 3. Streamline development review process

– Update processes and procedures – Simplify LDC language and create more predictability and clarity in development review and approval – Reduce the time from concept to completion / explore potential for additional delegation to administrative review

20

Objectives

• 4. Update, simplify and modernize the LDC

– Review type and number of zoning districts (e.g., PUD) – Promote mixed-use and infill development – Promote increased densities where appropriate – Address new and emerging housing and business types – Improve LDC’s overall organization, format and graphical presentation

• 5. Map the new/revised zoning districts

21

Committees and Groups

22

Project Team

Core staff team provides project management; consultant team provides specialized knowledge and experience

Focus Groups

Seven focus groups to provide early input on specific topics

Technical Committee

Staff representatives involved in development review

Advisory Committee

Arvada residents provide

• versight and

direction

Public Outreach

Outreach and public engagement strategies:

– Committees and focus groups – Community open houses – Website – advancearvada.org

• Meeting notices and minutes
• Issue papers and surveys
• Public review and comment on LDC modules
• Information on remapping

– Social media and newsletters

23

5. WORK PLAN

24

The Work Plan

25

         

CITY COUNCIL/ PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP

Project initiation Code Modules preparation and public review Draft Code development and public review Code Modules preparation and public review Code completion and approval

PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL HEARINGS

• 6. ISSUES

26

LDC Assessment (2015)

27

• Tailor code provisions for different contexts – new

development, redevelopment, infill, and expansions

• Focus on compatibility, practicality, economic viability
• Emphasize essential elements of community character
• Evaluate the number of zoning districts / consolidate zones
• Encourage housing diversity / market responsiveness
• Evaluate possibilities for parking flexibility
• Restructure and simplify procedure / more administrative
• Reorganize and refine code provisions

Issues

The following slides present a list of issues that the Project Team would like to explore during development of the new Code: 1. Zoning Districts and Land Use

– Are current zones “working”? – Why so many zones (are they different enough to matter)? Which zones should be dropped or consolidated? – Why so many P.U.D.s? Is there a better way for Arvada? – Can Clear Creek zones be simplified (IGA renegotiated)? – How should the new list of land uses be applied in new zones? Are any adjustments needed in existing zones? – How do we address the sharing economy and business use of the home?

28

Issues

2. Development Standards

– Infill compatibility

• What does “compatibility” mean in different places in the City?

Can it be defined so that compliance = compatibility?

• Are there areas of the City that could accommodate more than 35

feet in building height?

• Are there certain locations where a bulk plane is inappropriate?

– Form vs. function?

• In what areas, if any, is the form of development more important

than its use?

• In what areas, if any, is the form of residential development more

important than its density?

29

Issues

2. Development Standards

– Parking

• Are current parking ratios appropriate?
• Are there opportunities for reducing parking requirements (e.g.,

TDM, remote parking, parking studies, shared parking, on-street credits, transit orientation, etc.)? If so, where should they apply?

• How should Olde Town parking be addressed?

30

Issues

3. Housing

– Should it be easier to develop neighborhoods that include a variety

• f housing types?

– Should new types of housing be allowable in existing neighborhoods (and if so, where)? – To what extent does the City want to regulate aesthetics of housing? – How (and where) does the City best accommodate specialized or emerging housing types, such as group homes, co-housing, “tiny homes,” cottages, micro-apartments, and so forth? – How can opportunities for attainable housing be improved?

31

Issues

4. Sustainability and Quality of Life

– Are current standards for water quality and stormwater detention appropriate and consistent with Colorado water law?

• Could standards be improved to reduce flood risks in a

reasonable way?

• Are there opportunities to promote “low-impact development,”

and if so, should it be promoted (or required)? – Should parks and recreation / amenity standards be adjusted depending upon the context of the development (e.g., small urban parks, tot lots and play fields)?

32

Issues

4. Sustainability and Quality of Life

– Should the City investigate ways to promote / require investments in public art, identities for specific areas, or landmarks? – Should the City explore its approach to exterior lighting? – Are the City’s landscaping and buffering requirements working, and if not, how could they be improved? – Should the LDC address renewable energy (at a variety of scales)?

33

Issues

5. Fees

– Should fees and dedications be recalibrated / clarified? – Should exactions and impact fees be recalibrated / clarified?

6. Process

– What decisions should be delegated to the City’s professional staff? – What decisions should be delegated to Boards and Commissions? – Who should be the final appellate body for administrative appeals, how many “bites at the apple” should there be, and who should be entitled to appeal a decision on an application for development approval?

34

Issues

7. Interdepartmental Coordination

– How do development objectives relate to other department policies (e.g., tap fees, engineering preferences for utility placement in rights-of-way, etc.)? – What should be in the LDC, as opposed to other codes and standards (e.g., engineering standards, floodplain management ordinances, building codes, business license codes, liquor license codes, etc.)?

35

Issues

• Are there any other issues?

36

• 7. NEXT STEPS

37

Homework

• Identification of emerging issues

– Geography of “areas of stability” vs. “areas of change” – Defining compatibility – Identifying tolerance for building height in various areas of the City – Adapting to changing interests and demographics – Promoting alternative travel modes / multimodal travel

• Identification of “the good, the bad, and the ugly” in Arvada

and the region

38

Next Steps

• Next Technical and Advisory Committee meetings on

December 7, 2017

• Next City Council and Planning Commission workshop on

January 22, 2018

– Review changes to the revised assessment – Confirm Council supports approach and priorities

39

40

Questions?