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 • 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 4
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 Code Code Visi ision on Mar Market et 6
Arvada Comprehensive Plan Implementation Code Code Visi ision on Mar Market et We Dream And Deliver Big… 7
3. WHY NOW? 8
Why Now? Current Code (2008) Code Reform Objectives • • Zoning districts and standards are Implement City policies related to dated and no longer implement City land development • plans and strategic objectives Create appropriate zones and • Difficult to navigate and search – standards to deal with significant related provisions are dispersed change and anticipated growth • • Requires certain level of expertise to Enhance predictability and clarity in understand development review and approval • • Minimal graphics Be customer-friendly / well organized • • Incremental updates resulted in Present a simple, easy-to-use Code, inconsistencies and duplications with graphics to convey information 9
Trends 3 2 Transportation 1 Land Use TOD and Infill • • Expanding beyond • Shared bicycles/cars, Millennials and Baby the ½ mile radius for Boomers with small increased use of ride TOD due to biking to sharing (e.g., Uber and Lyft) households seek higher- stations quality units near • Autonomous cars • amenities and transit New mixed-use • Smart City (electric • Parking reductions due to development in vehicles, parking) transit and other modes traditionally retail • Modular and other factory- corridors built construction techniques 10
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 Source: Census Annual Population Estimates 13
TOD – Percent Complete or In Progress 29% 90% 88% 79% Sheridan TOD Olde Town TOD Arvada Ridge Ward TOD TOD Completed - 19% Completed - 68% Completed - 70% Completed - 0% Projects Underway - 18% Projects Underway - 79% Projects Underway - 10% Projects Underway - 22% Opportunity Sites - 71% Opportunity Sites - 10% Opportunity Sites - 12% Opportunity Sites - 21% 14
Evaluate Opportunities for Transit-Supportive Development Sheridan Development opportunities along corridors Ralston Approx. 26,000 Arvada residents (23% of our population) live within 1 mile of a light rail station Opportunities for land use coordination with Wheat Ridge and Jefferson County 15
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 Project Team Advisory Technical Focus Groups Committee Committee Seven focus Core staff team groups to provides Arvada Staff project provide early representatives residents management; input on involved in provide consultant specific topics development oversight and review team provides direction specialized knowledge and experience 22
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 PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY CITY COUNCIL/ COUNCIL PLANNING HEARINGS COMMISSION WORKSHOP Draft Code development and Project initiation Code completion public review Code Modules preparation and approval and public review Code Modules preparation and public review 25
6. ISSUES 26
LDC Assessment (2015) • 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 27
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
Recommend
More recommend
