PART 1. SUMMARY AND PROJECT OVERVIEW Background Project Overview Report Organization... 3 PART 2. MAJOR AREAS OF CHANGE...

Transcription

1

2

3 Contents PART 1. SUMMARY AND PROJECT OVERVIEW... 1 Background... 1 Project Overview... 2 Report Organization... 3 PART 2. MAJOR AREAS OF CHANGE... 5 Create a More User-friendly Ordinance... 5 Reorganize the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations... 5 Consolidate Similar Provisions... 5 Consider a Unified Development Code... 6 Enhance the Online Platform for the Development Regulations... 7 Reformat the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations... 8 Include More Visual Aids in the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations... 9 Clarify Language Mechanics and Definitions Integrate with Applicable City, State, and Federal Laws Update Zoning Districts and Land Uses Update the Lineup of Zoning Districts Consolidate Similar Zoning Districts Eliminate Obsolete Zoning Districts Establish New Zoning Districts Summary Table of Recommended Zone District Changes Update the Lists of Permitted Land Uses Develop a Consolidated Land Use Table Revisit the Permitted Uses within Aurora s Zoning Districts Consider Allowing Additional Uses in Long-Vacant Buildings Update and Consolidate the Use-Specific Standards Improve the Development Standards Focus on Infill and Redevelopment Avoid a One-Size-Fits-All Approach to Development Standards Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment DRAFT September 2014 i

4 Broadly Apply the Sustainable Infill Redevelopment (SIR) District Revise the Nonconformities Provisions to Make Them More Flexible Improve the Site Design Standards Parking Streetscape and Landscaping Consider Broader Application of Building Design Standards Revise the Development Review Procedures Revise the Use of Administrative Procedures Update the Site Plan Review Procedures Clarify the Waivers and Administrative Adjustment Procedures Establish a Set of Common Review Procedures Reduce the Dependence on Planned Developments Enhance the Development Review Experience Improve the Online Submittal and Review System Relax Initial Submittal Requirements PART 3. DETAILED REVIEW OF CURRENT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PART 4. ANNOTATED OUTLINE OF NEW UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE General Provisions Title Authority Purpose Applicability Relationship to Other Regulations Relationship to Private Covenants and Conditions Transition from Previous Ordinances Severability Zoning Districts Districts Established Summary Table Base Zoning Districts (A) Residential Districts (B) Mixed Use Districts (C) Special Purpose Districts Overlay Districts (A) Airport Overlay (B) Airport Boulevard Overlay (C) Commercial Mineral Deposit Overlay (D) Height and View Preservation Overlay (E) Havana Street Overlay Use Regulations Introduction Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment DRAFT August 2014 ii

5 Permitted Use Table Use-specific Standards Zoning and Subdivision Standards Three Character Areas of Aurora Applicability Summary Table Dimensional Standards (A) Dimensional Table (B) Special Dimensional Standards (C) Exceptions and Encroachments Neighborhood Protection Site Layout (A) In General (B) Site Access and Connectivity (C) For Subdivisions Parking, Loading, and Stacking (A) Required Off-street Parking (B) Required Off-street Loading Areas (C) Stacking Area Requirements for Drive-Ups and Drive-Throughs Landscaping, Buffering, and Storm Water Management (A) General landscaping standards (B) Minimum amounts of landscaping required (C) Site design to incorporate stormwater management (D) Fence, wall, and awning regulations Design Standards (A) General Design Standards (B) Activity Center Design Standards (C) Mixed Use and Commercial Design Standards (D) Multifamily Design Standards Outside Lighting Signs Subdivision Standards Historic Preservation Standards Operating and Maintenance Standards Zoning and Subdivision Procedures Review and Decision-Making Bodies Common Procedures A. Initiating an application B. Neighborhood meetings C. Application materials D. Fees E. Pre-application meetings... Error! Bookmark not defined. F. Application completeness G. Simultaneous review and approval H. Public notice I. Public hearings Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

6 J. General criteria K. Call-ups L. Conditions on approval M. Appeals N. Withdrawal and reapplication O. Lapsing of approvals P. Vested rights Q. Capital impact fees for residential development R. Development improvement guarantees S. Recording Specific Procedures A. Development permits and approvals B. Flexibility and relief procedures C. Subdivision approvals D. Plan, ordinance, and boundary changes Pre-existing Development and Nonconformities A. General B. Nonconforming Uses C. Nonconforming Structures D. Nonconforming Lots E. Nonconforming Site Features F. Nonconforming Signs Enforcement and Penalties A. Violations B. Enforcement C. Penalties Definitions and Rules of Construction Rules of Construction Rules of Measurement Definitions PART 5. PHASE 2 WORK PLAN Task 1: Public and Stakeholder Outreach Preparation of Summary Materials Consultations with Citizens and Stakeholders Task 2: Draft Chapters on Zoning districts and Permitted Uses Staff Draft Public Draft Public Outreach and Comment Task 3: Draft Chapters on Zoning and Subdivision Standards Staff Draft Public Draft Public Outreach and Comment Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment DRAFT August 2014 iv

7 Task 4: Draft Chapters on Zoning and Subdivision Procedures Staff Draft Public Draft Public Outreach and Comment Task 5: Prepared Integrated Draft Prepare Integrated Draft Conversion Map Support Public Outreach and Comment Task 6: Testing of Draft Code Selection of Testing Scenarios Testing Revisions to Integrated Draft Task 7: Public Hearings and Adoption Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing and Revision City Council Hearing and Revisions Schedule Budget Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

8

9 Part 1. SUMMARY AND PROJECT OVERVIEW Background The City of Aurora is the largest inner-ring suburb in the Denver metropolitan area with over 339,000 people covering nearly 155 square miles. The city (on the map at right, east of Denver in yellow) is the third largest municipality in the state of Colorado. Aurora has experienced rapid growth over the decades doubling in population from 1970 to 1980 and again from 1980 to The city s zoning code is more than 50 years old and has been updated on a patchwork basis, making it overly complex, internally inconsistent, and difficult to administer. It is also not designed to respond to several new challenges facing the city. First, the Regional Transportation District s (RTD s) FasTracks project is expanding light rail through Aurora with the I-225 corridor connecting to the East Line commuter rail in This provides the city with unique opportunities for catalytic growth along those corridors, but the outdated structure and standards in the current zoning code may not allow the city to take full advantage of those opportunities Second, the city has experienced a significant growth in ethnic and lower income populations, making Aurora one of the metro area s hubs of cultural diversity and related commercial investment However, the city s outdated zoning controls for older urban corridors tend to discourage the kinds of investment that would upgrade the quality of these neighborhoods and the image of Aurora as a whole. As recognized in the city s 2009 Comprehensive Plan, Aurora is a tale of two cities older Aurora where neighborhoods have developed in proximity to other developed areas and services, and newer neighborhoods developed on the fringe of the city s boundaries as part of major master-planned communities but often lacking services, shopping, and other private sector uses. Some would say there is actually a third city that includes the mostly undeveloped lands along the city s long eastern border a city whose character and quality will only be determined as these areas develop over the next decades. For too long, Aurora s zoning and development controls have focused primarily on the newer areas of the city, because that was where development was occurring; but a considerable amount of existing development along Aurora s commercial corridors is comprised of aging buildings and strip centers where zoning could and should encourage high quality infill and redevelopment. The city recently completed an update to the 2009 Comprehensive Plan that identified these targeted infill areas and adopted a new zoning district, the Sustainable Infill Redevelopment Zone, to reduce barriers to investment and promote change in these areas. Although the updated code is not expected Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment DRAFT August

10 Part 1: Summary and Project Overview to include substantive changes to original Aurora s residential neighborhoods, one of the top priorities for this project is to focus on areas for infill and redevelopment opportunities along Aurora s older commercial corridors and to accommodate future growth and development in and near major transit corridors and urban centers. To respond to the new opportunities and challenges facing the city, Aurora s zoning code needs to be dramatically simplified and rebalanced to encourage new kinds of quality infill and redevelopment. In addition, development review procedures need to be redesigned to be more understandable to citizens while strengthening the city s strong reputation for customer service and business-friendliness. Project Overview Aurora initiated this Needs Assessment as part of the first phase of a comprehensive update to the city s development regulations. The major recommendations discussed in this Needs Assessment are organized in the following themes or categories: 1. Create a more user-friendly code; 2. Update zoning districts and permitted land uses; 3. Improve the development standards; and 4. Modernize the development review procedures The City of Aurora retained Clarion Associates and Winter & Associates to assist with this Needs Assessment process, and to bring to the city its experience and perspectives from working with communities throughout Colorado and the nation. The Needs Assessment project began in March 2014 with a series of stakeholder interviews and an independent analysis of the existing development ordinances to determine: Ways in which the current regulations work well; Ways in which the current regulations are ineffective or difficult to use; Areas of consistency and inconsistency between existing city policies and practices, the adopted plans, and the existing ordinance language; Ways to make the revised documents more user-friendly; Modifications necessary to streamline the development review process; and Necessary changes related to new statutory and/or case law. Those interviewed included city staff from various departments and divisions such as Aurora Water, Development Services, Library and Cultural Resources, City Attorney s Office, Life Safety, and Planning. Other non-city stakeholders included developers, builders, neighborhood organizations, the Havana Business Improvement District, and designers and architects. The team also facilitated discussions with various organized groups and appointed bodies including the Neighbor-to-Neighbor 2 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

11 Part 1: Summary and Project Overview Roundtable, the Development Joint Task Force, and the Business Advisory Board, and provided a general project overview to the Aurora Planning and Zoning Commission. Aurora has appointed a Zoning Code Steering Committee who provided additional feedback for this first phase and will remain active and provide guidance throughout the course of the code update project. Following this Needs Assessment, the project team (city staff and consultants) will produce a Work Plan for 2015 that includes an annotated outline for the new code structure and identifies the resources needed and the steps that need to be taken to make that new code happen. Report Organization Following this Introduction (Part 1), the document is organized into three main parts: Part 2, the Major Areas of Change, identifies major themes that emerged from review of the city s planning and regulatory documents and procedures, interviews conducted during and since the project kick-off meetings, and the consultant s knowledge of best practices in development regulations used by communities in Colorado and across the nation. The discussion of each theme includes recommendations or suggestions on how a new code might modify current regulations to better address concerns pertinent to that issue. Part 3, Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations includes a section-by-section analysis of the zoning and subdivision regulations with recommendations for improvements. Part 4, Next Steps identifies considerations for moving forward following this Needs Assessment. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

12

13 Part 2. MAJOR AREAS OF CHANGE Several major themes for improving Aurora s current development regulations emerged from the Clarion team s interviews and our review of city regulations and plans. While the themes summarized in this section sometimes overlap, they represent an organized way to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the current regulations. Identified themes include: Create a more user-friendly ordinance; Update the zoning districts and permitted land uses; Improve the development standards; and Modernize the development review procedures. Each of these themes is discussed in further detail below. Create a More User-friendly Ordinance When codes are repeatedly amended over many decades they tend to become less user-friendly. Piecemeal updates to the zoning regulations have occurred in Aurora since the 1980s. Although this is common practice for local governments, it often results in scattered organization, inconsistent formatting, and varying terminology. A comprehensive update to the Aurora development regulations should integrate related provisions, improve the organization and format, and remove inconsistencies throughout the code. Below is a discussion of specific recommendations to do that. Reorganize the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations Clear organization of code materials is the heart of a user-friendly code. The current zoning code and subdivision regulations do not always follow a logical sequence, making it challenging to locate the answers to specific questions. The city should improve the overall organization of the code by consolidating similar provisions and following a logical flow and sequence throughout the code. Although the outline for the new Aurora development code will be presented in the Work Plan in the fall of 2014, the principles for that organization are outlined below. Consolidate Similar Provisions There are many instances in the development regulations where similar types of standards and provisions are distributed in multiple articles and/or sections. A good example is the number of articles dedicated to the many zoning districts in Aurora. Articles 5 through 10 each contain provisions for zoning districts by general category including purpose statements, permitted uses, and dimensional requirements. However, some of the articles also contain information related to use-specific standards, approval procedures, and development and design standards. For example, the City Center district includes provisions for design standards, parking requirements, and approval procedures. This is Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment DRAFT August

14 Part 2: Major Areas of Change confusing since there are separate articles addressing those requirements (e.g., Article 13 Building Design and Architectural Standards, and Article 15 Parking). It is unclear to the customer that parking standards for one district might be found in a different location than parking standards for other districts. We recommend consolidating provisions dealing with similar standards or issues into one article, making them easier to locate for staff and other code users. For example although the parking regulations for different zoning districts may well differ, all of them should be found in a single parking section of the code. Consider a Unified Development Code Taking the basic concept of reorganization to the next level, many communities in Colorado and around the country have consolidated multiple ordinances that address land development into a Unified Development Code (UDC). This typically involves merging subdivision regulations into the zoning code, but may also integrate ordinances relating to resource protection, specialized use controls (such as telecommunications), and other ordinances. A Unified Development Code offers several advantages over maintaining separate ordinances: Greater Consistency. A unified approach does not repeat information found in other ordinances, therefore reducing the possibility of inconsistent definitions and terminology. For example, the current Aurora regulations define some of the same terms in both the zoning code and subdivision ordinance; each time an update to one chapter is made, it must be carried forward to the other chapter, or inconsistencies arise. As a second example, many cities address setbacks and buffering around the edges of a new subdivision in that regulation, while addressing buffering of individual sites or uses in the zoning code, and those two sets of controls often become inconsistent over time. More User-friendly. A UDC allows the reader to quickly compare processes, standards, and procedures for various types of development activities. It also provides for a shorter document in most instances, since repetition is removed. In our experience, consolidating like information and incorporating zoning and subdivision into a unified code have a big impact on the usability of the document for both staff and the development community. Easier to Administer. Many communities that have adopted UDCs believe that they are easier to administer in terms of providing direction to applicants, finding information expeditiously, and enforcement. A typical high-level outline of a UDC is shown here. 1. General Provisions 2. Zoning Districts 3. Use Regulations 4. Zoning and Subdivision Standards 5. Nonconformities 6. Zoning and Subdivision Procedures 7. Definitions and Rules of Construction 6 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

15 Part 2: Major Areas of Change Enhance the Online Platform for the Development Regulations Part of making the code more user-friendly is making it more accessible, so the city should consider enhancements to the online version of the code. It is no longer a question of whether or not to provide access to development regulations online, but a question of how to do it. Currently, Aurora provides access to the zoning code (Chapter 146) and subdivision regulations (Chapter 147) via Municode from the city s website. The system, although it does provide instant access, is somewhat challenging to use in that it requires the user to know what they are looking for prior to clicking on a particular ordinance. There is a search feature and the experienced user can expand the table of contents on the navigation bar to view the outline of the code; however, that process is not intuitive. Some provisions are located toward the bottom of a lengthy scrolling page after several clicks on the website. The online system could be improved by incorporating more hyperlinked cross-references to other applicable sections and subsections of code. We also heard from staff that the city wants to integrate interactive GIS data with the zoning code with the potential to upload several layers of information on a by-parcel basis (e.g., approved Site Plans, owner attributes, etc.). The image shown above shows an approved Site Plan for a PUD property in Nashville, TN accessed from their GIS division s Metro Maps site at This type of technology allows staff and public to access approved documents associated with a property or owner. There are several providers of online code platform services such as American Legal Publishing, Municipal Code Publishing, Visual Interactive Code (Clarion Associates), and Colorado Code, to name a few. We recommend identifying an appropriate online platform early in the development regulations update process so that a document format will be consistent with the chosen online platform. Choosing Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

16 Part 2: Major Areas of Change the right online code platform involves considerations of initial and subscription costs, staff preferences, types of ordinances, and ease of continual maintenance. Aurora offers several specific sections of the zoning code in a printer-friendly handout format from the city s website. However, these versions are not up-to-date. For example, the permitted uses in zoning districts handout does not match the schedule of permitted uses contained in specific zoning districts. The handout shows fabricated metal products as not permitted in the M-1 and M-2 districts, whereas the current zoning code allows them as a conditional use in those districts. The handout is intended to provide a business-friendly tool; however, a quick glance from a perspective developer might send them shopping elsewhere if a use they want to operate is shown as not permitted. We encourage the city to continue to offer these provisions in this format but only with regular maintenance of the site or a disclaimer that the reader should contact the Planning Department to confirm that there have been no recent amendments to the code that have not yet been reflected in the handout. Reformat the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations The current layout of the zoning code and subdivision regulations is inconsistent. The online version (Municode) allows the user to save the code as a Microsoft Word file, which automatically creates a basic header and footer and hyperlinks to other sections within each ordinance. The PDF versions accessed from the city website are intended to provide quick access to information by topic; however, these versions do not include page numbers, let alone headers and footers. We recommend that a new updated development code include dynamic headers that indicate exactly where the reader is within the hierarchy and more prominent headings to distinguish the hierarchy. An example of a much clearer and more readable page layout from another community is shown in the image below. The image on the left shows the current Aurora zoning code layout (Division 2, Master Plans) when saved as a Microsoft Word file from the municode website. The image at right shows an example from Morrisville, NC that includes dynamic headers, nested text, and a clear hierarchy of provisions. 8 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

17 Part 2: Major Areas of Change In addition, the current numbering system is inconsistently applied and difficult to follow. For example, within the Fitzsimons Boundary Area District there are inconsistent applications of the numbering system and fonts. Section (B)8.a uses a lower case a for that provision, where section (C)1.A uses an upper case A. These provisions are at the same level of hierarchy yet the inconsistent use of the numbering system results in potential confusion. The numbering system is also applied differently between the zoning code and the subdivision regulations. We recommend developing a new numbering system to clearly establish a hierarchy of provisions. Include More Visual Aids in the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations A picture can truly be worth a thousand words in the case of a zoning code. The current Aurora zoning code and subdivision regulations make little use of graphics, photographs, flowcharts, and other diagrams to illustrate complex provisions. Where the city has implemented graphics and illustrations (e.g., design standards in the E-470 and NE Plains districts), the quality and style of the graphics varies. It is important that the updated code retain only high-quality graphics and text that prints legibly. This will require recreating several graphics from the current code, such as Figure 9.5, big box retail building design. We recommend including more visual aids in the updated code, especially related to design standards, complex provisions, dimensional standards, definitions, and procedures. Graphics can be developed using various software programs such as Trimble s SketchUp and Adobe Illustrator and can include diagrams developed in Microsoft Word, or in many cases handdrawn sketches. The city should consider its in-house software resources A simple hand-drawn illustration can go a long way in demonstrating compliance with complex code provisions. and capabilities prior to moving forward with the code update, since the city should be able to update code drawings and graphics as the code is amended in the future. We also recommend expanding the use of tables throughout the code and developing a consistent format or theme for those tables. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

18 Part 2: Major Areas of Change The sample graphic at left shows the Henderson, NV, code format for zoning district summaries. The graphic above from Morrisville, NC, shows sample images of appropriate signage in the Main Street District. Clarify Language Mechanics and Definitions The consistent use of clear and concise language is paramount to a user-friendly code. The development regulations should employ a consistent style and voice throughout, and should use parallel construction for provisions within a defined hierarchy. In the current regulations, the criteria for approval of conditional uses do not follow a logical construction, making the provisions somewhat confusing to the reader. Section (C) states that the following criteria shall be applied in reviewing each application. The first criterion listed is the compatibility of the proposed use with existing and planned uses on abutting properties. This should be revised to say the proposed use(s) shall be compatible with existing and planned uses on abutting properties. In addition, the elements to be considered in assessing compatibility should be defined (e.g., Does it include hours of operation? Volumes of car traffic? Delivery and loading operations?) Several other criteria from that same list are also vague and subjective. Definitions should be written clearly, should not include substantive regulations and should include supplemental graphics to illustrate especially complex terms, such as the measurement of building height. Examples of definitions that should be revised to remove regulatory language include hotels and home occupations, where the standards listed would be better located in a section regulating the size, scale, or operation of the use in different zoning districts. The definitions should also be consistent between the zoning code and the subdivision regulations (and with the building codes, if possible). For example, the terms street and setback have different definitions in the zoning code than those in the subdivision regulations. Missing definitions should be drafted based on best practices such as consultant repositories or American Planning Association publications where appropriate. 10 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

19 Part 2: Major Areas of Change Integrate with Applicable City, State, and Federal Laws As part of the zoning code update, the city should review existing and newly drafted provisions to ensure that they comport with state and federal regulations. Staff and/or the consultant should work closely with the city attorney s office to address any potential conflicts. Additionally, the updated zoning code should reflect other applicable city standards throughout the municipal code and provide cross-references to related provisions where appropriate. Update Zoning Districts and Land Uses Update the Lineup of Zoning Districts It is important that Aurora s menu of zoning districts accommodate the wide range of development likely to be required to implement the Comprehensive Plan. That includes encouraging future infill and redevelopment projects in older Aurora while protecting the city s stable older neighborhoods. But it also includes future management of redevelopment in the post-war neighborhoods largely between I- 225 and E-470 much of which is currently governed by tailored Planned Community Zone District (PCZD) or other Planned Development zoning districts. These types of zoning tools do not typically facilitate redevelopment because they are often more procedurally difficult, they do not provide a unified direction for the City of Aurora to move forward, and they represent a site-specific design for a certain development product at initial build out, rather than laying the groundwork for changing market demands. Further discussion on the use of these tools is provided later in this document. Finally, it includes the largely undeveloped lands currently in the E-470 and Northeast Plains zoning district which were designed to be very flexible but will generate demands for greater predictability as those lands gain more residents and businesses. During stakeholder interviews and in our evaluation of the zoning districts, we considered the following: Is the intent of each district clear and does the district name match the intent? Are any districts so similar in purpose and standards that they could be consolidated? Is the district widely used, or is it unnecessary or obsolete? Are new districts needed? The following subsections outline our findings and recommendations. A summary table of all district recommendations is provided at the end of this section following the discussion of obsolete zoning districts. Consolidate Similar Zoning Districts The current lineup of zoning districts in Aurora should be revised to consolidate districts with similar purpose and intent, dimensional requirements, and permitted uses. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

20 Part 2: Major Areas of Change Residential Zoning Districts Several of the current residential zoning districts should be consolidated based on their overall intent and requirements. These include: The R-O and R-1 districts should be consolidated into one district for low-density single-family uses. The R-1A and R-2 districts should be consolidated into one district for medium-density singlefamily residential uses. The R-2M and R-3 districts should be consolidated into one district for medium-density multifamily residential uses. Business and Office Zoning Districts 1 Several of the current business and office zoning districts should be consolidated based on their overall intent and requirements. The Business and Office zoning districts should be changed to mixed-use districts as follows: The B-1, B-3, and B-4 districts should be consolidated into a Mixed-Use Corridor district intended for more auto-oriented and higher-intensity commercial uses. This district should also allow multifamily development. This Mixed-Use Corridor designation should replace the use of the CAC in the E-470 and Northeast Plains districts. The design standards from the CAC would continue to apply to the E-470 and Northeast Plains lands but would not apply to other areas of the city. The B-2 district should be consolidated into the new proposed Mixed-Use Original Aurora district (MU-OA). See further discussion in the establish new districts subsection. Industrial Districts The M-1 and M-2 districts should be consolidated into a single district intended for medium-intensity industrial, manufacturing, and business park uses. Natural Resource Districts The Open and Natural Areas districts should be consolidated into a single district for open and natural areas. Many of the natural area requirements can be addressed through environmental site development standards. Overlay Districts Several of the current overlay districts should be consolidated to improve the user-friendliness of the code and to make the overlays more manageable. Overlay districts in particular can be challenging because each application adds an additional layer of regulation to base standards. The more overlays 1 During code drafting, the city should establish appropriate triggers for when the form standards that currently apply to the E-470 and Northeast Plains districts would apply to infill and redevelopment properties currently zoned B-1 through B-4. The current form standards should always apply to new development on raw land in the E-470 and Northeast Plains. 12 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

21 Part 2: Major Areas of Change that exist, the more likelihood that they will overlap each other, making it more difficult to understand which rules really apply. We recommend consolidating the following: Buckley Air Force Base District, General Aviation Airport Influence District: Centennial Airport, Front Range Airport, and Airport Influence District of Denver International Airport, may be able to be consolidated into a single overlay district with specific standards and maps that apply depending on the particular airport proximity. The Height Overlay and Mountain View districts should be consolidated into a single district with application of height limitations and view corridor regulations based on the existing building height overlay and view preservation map. Simplify Subareas and Sub-districts During the code update process, the city may also consider consolidation or elimination of subareas within the FBAD, TOD, E-470, and NE Plains districts. For example, five subareas might not be necessary to achieve the intent of the FBAD district when many of the permitted uses and development standards are similar in multiple subareas. Eliminate Obsolete Zoning Districts Some existing zoning districts are obsolete, either by adopted ordinance or due to the limited application of the districts to date. We recommend eliminating the following districts: R-E, low density single-family residential district. This is an obsolete district, based on a footnote in the current zoning code stating that from July 19, 1975, no lands shall be rezoned to R-E. R-3MH, high density multi-family residential district. This is an obsolete district, based on a footnote in the current zoning code stating that from October 18, 1985, no lands shall be rezoned to R-3MH or R-4H. R-4H, high density multi-family residential district. This is an obsolete district, based on a footnote in the current zoning code stating that from October 18, 1985, no lands shall be zoned or rezoned to R-3MH or R-4H. R-5, high density multi-family residential district. This is an obsolete district, based on a footnote in the current zoning code stating that from July 1975, no lands shall be zoned or rezoned to R-5. A-O, administrative office district. Although this district is intended for lower-intensity office uses, it also permits several other uses that generate significant traffic (e.g., cultural facilities, brew pubs, banks, churches, and public uses. Other standards (such as maximum height near neighborhoods) for uses in this district can be applied as use-specific standards for offices. P-1, parking district. There are only eight properties in the city with the P-1 zoning designation (14 acres total), and the standards for parking as a primary use can be addressed as use-specific standards rather than a separate zoning district. In each case, existing properties with those zoning designations can remain; however rezoning land into those districts would not be permitted in the future. In the two cases below, we recommend that the district be eliminated and that the land be rezoned into other districts. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

22 Part 2: Major Areas of Change B-R, Business Redevelopment (overlay) District. There is currently only one property (a 1.3- acre, 8-story multifamily residential building) with this zoning designation, and the standards within this overlay can be accomplished through one of the existing or proposed mixed-use districts. This single parcel should be rezoned to a high-density residential or mixed-use district. Colfax Mainstreet Overlay District. This district is intended to encourage economic development and investment along both sides of Colfax Avenue from Oswego Street to Yosemite Street. The new proposed MU-OA District will incorporate the standards currently located in this overlay district. One or more of the current Colfax Mainstreet Overlay District subareas can be included as subareas in the proposed MU-OA District. In addition, the new development code should strive to eliminate the PCZD district, but doing that creates unique challenges. Each Planned Community Zone District is different, since each is a form of planned district zoning that has been tailored to a specific developer and site. Like many other suburban communities, Aurora has found these types of districts very difficult to administer over time. While allowing uses and development standards to be negotiated to precisely map a joint city/developer vision when they are adopted, many use different terminology to describe the same use or type of development and many do not clearly explain whether any elements of Aurora s standard zoning regulations are or are not intended to apply within their boundaries. More seriously, the PCZD districts were designed to guide the buildout of (mostly residential, but also partly commercial) lands, and in many cases that buildout has occurred. They were not designed to guide redevelopment of those areas over time, which is likely to be needed in the commercial/mixed use areas as commercial trends change and original concepts of retailing and services become outdated. The new Aurora development code needs to include zoning districts that can reflect the stable, builtout character of the PCZD residential areas and (if possible) rezone those areas into standard zoning districts that protect the intended feel and character of the area. In addition, the new development code should include commercial/mixed use districts that could be applied to those portions of the PCZD districts that would protect the legality of their existing buildings and structures but would allow them more flexibility to upgrade and redevelop in the future. Rezonings to these areas would probably continue to depend on the consent of the current property owners, but the development code should provide attractive options for them to do so. It is also important that the code gives clear direction as to the uses and standards applied to these districts, including appropriate triggers for development standards and potentially a more standardized set of dimensional standards. Establish New Zoning Districts In addition to consolidating and eliminating several zoning districts, the city should consider adding a set of base zoning districts for mixed-use development and a district for existing planned community residential properties in Aurora. We recommend the following new districts: MU-OA, Mixed-Use Original Aurora. This district should mostly be applied in coordination with urban renewal efforts (such as Fletcher Plaza), the Original Aurora Arts District, and should integrate provisions currently contained in the Colfax Mainstreet Overlay District. It should provide maximum flexibility to promote other city programs dedicated to improving original 14 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

23 Part 2: Major Areas of Change Aurora and maintaining a strong focus on ethnic and cultural diversity and the arts. This district is a good candidate for expanding the use of form-based standards where appropriate. These new standards (and revised standards relocated from the Colfax Mainstreet Overlay District) could include provisions related to the relationship of the buildings to the street and other public rights-of-way; the massing and shape of buildings; roof shape and façade materials; the placement and amount of windows and doors; and others. Determining which form standards should apply, and where, needs further discussion with staff, elected and appointed officials, and other stakeholders. MU-N, Mixed-Use Neighborhood. This district is intended for urban and neighborhood commercial nodes. This district should also allow multifamily development. The Mixed-Use Neighborhood designation should replace the use of NACs in the E-470 and Northeast Plains districts. The design standards from the NAC would continue to apply in the E-470 and Northeast Plains lands but not in other areas of the city. MU-RAC, Mixed-Use Regional Activity Center. This district is intended to serve regional image-making areas with standards similar to the current E-470 Regional Activity Center (RAC) standards and the Northeast Plains Subregional Activity Center (SAC) and Sustainable Use Neighborhoods (SUN) standards. This district should allow for limited medium- and highdensity residential. This new designation should replace the use of the RAC, SAC, and SUN designations in the E-470 and Northeast Plains districts. R-P, Planned Community Residential District (R-P) to apply to properties currently zoned PCZD. Specific differences among development standards and triggers can be addressed through a neighborhood conservation overlay if necessary. Summary Table of Recommended Zone District Changes SUMMARY TABLE OF DISTRICT RECOMMENDATIONS Current Aurora Zoning Districts Residential Districts R-A, Residential Agricultural District R-E, Low Density Single-Family Residential District R-O, Low Density Single-Family Residential District R-1, Low Density Single-Family Residential District R-1A, Medium Density Single-Family Attached Residential District R-2, Medium Density Residential District R-2M, Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential District R-3, Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential District R-3MH, High Density Multiple-Family Residential District Proposed Aurora Zoning Districts Residential Districts R-A, Residential Agricultural District Eliminate this district, per footnote that from July 19, 1975, no lands shall be rezoned to R-E. R-1, Low-Density Single-Family Residential District R-2, Medium-Density Single-Family Residential District R-3, Medium-Density Multifamily Residential District Eliminate this district, per footnote that from October 18, 1985, no lands shall be rezoned to R- 3MH. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

24 Part 2: Major Areas of Change SUMMARY TABLE OF DISTRICT RECOMMENDATIONS Current Aurora Zoning Districts Proposed Aurora Zoning Districts R-4, High Density Multiple-Family Residential District R-4, High-Density Residential District 2 R-4H, High Density Multiple-Family Residential District R-5, High Density Multiple-Family Residential District M-H, Mobile Home District P-MH, Mobile Home Park District Eliminate this district, per footnote that from October 18, 1985, no lands shall be rezoned to R- 4H. Eliminate this district, per footnote that from July 1975, no lands shall be zoned or rezoned to R-5. R-MH, Mobile Home District Business and Office Zoning Districts B-1, Retail Business District B-3, Highway Service District B-4, Business And Commercial District B-2, Central Business District A-O, Administrative Office District C-O, Commercial Office District Mixed-Use and Special Districts Sustainable Infill and Redevelopment District (SIR) Fitzsimons Boundary Area District (FBAD) P-1, Parking District Transit-oriented Development District (TOD) City Center District Planned Development Districts R-P, Planned Community Residential District (New District) Mixed-Use Districts MU-C, Mixed-Use Corridor District 3 MU-OA, Mixed-Use Original Aurora (New District) Eliminate this district. MU-O, Mixed-Use Office District MU-R, Mixed-Use Regional Activity Center (New District) MU-N, Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (New District) MU-SIR, Mixed-Use Sustainable Infill and Redevelopment District 4 MU-FB, Mixed-Use Fitzsimons Boundary District carried forward with new name (the term mixeduse suggests that a mix of residential and nonresidential uses is permitted). Eliminate this district. MU-TOD, Mixed-Use Transit-oriented Development District carried forward with new name (the term mixed-use suggests that a mix of residential and non-residential uses is permitted). MU-CC, Mixed-Use City Center District carried forward with new name (the term mixed-use suggests that a mix of residential and nonresidential uses is permitted). 5 Special Purpose Districts 2 As an alternative approach, because there are few properties with the R-4 designation, they could be consolidated with the R-3, Medium-Density Multifamily Residential district. 3 As an alternative approach, the city could consider including the B-1 district in the new Mixed-Use Neighborhood District (MU-N). 4 As an alternative approach, the current B-1 district could be included with the SIR district. 5 As an alternative approach, the City Center district could be eliminated given the availability of a TOD district surrounded by other mixed-use districts such as MU-SIR or MU-C. 16 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

25 Part 2: Major Areas of Change SUMMARY TABLE OF DISTRICT RECOMMENDATIONS Current Aurora Zoning Districts Proposed Aurora Zoning Districts Planned Development District (PD) PD, Planned Development District 6 Eliminate this district, per Ordinance No Planned Community Zone District (PCZD) We recommend rezoning these properties to the new R-P zoning designation. E-470, E-470 Corridor District. Standards from the NACs, CACs, and RACs, will be established by E-470 Corridor District (E-470) rezoning those properties to MU-N, MU-C, and MU- R. NE Plains, Northeast Plains District. Standards Northeast Plains District (NE Plains) from the SACs, RACs, and SUNs, will be established by rezoning those properties to MU-N or MU-R. Industrial Districts -- I-1, Light Industrial District M-0, Industrial Office District The name is changed from M-0 to I-1 to be consistent with industrial. I-2, Medium Industrial District M-1, Light Industrial District Currently there are not many differences between the permitted uses and dimensional requirements M-2, Medium Industrial District in the M-1 and M-2 district. The name is changed from M-2 to I-2 to be consistent with industrial. I-3, Heavy Industrial District M-3, Heavy Industrial District The name is changed from M-3 to I-3 to be consistent with industrial. Natural Resource Districts -- A, Agricultural District. There do not appear to be any lands zoned A at this time; however, retaining A, Agricultural District this district allows for temporary zoning to this district for future annexations. O, Open District O, Open District. NA, Natural Area District Overlay or Other Zoning Districts Overlay or Other Zoning Districts Buckley Air Force Base District General Aviation Airport Influence District: Centennial Airport Overlay District Airport, Front Range Airport Airport Influence District of Denver International Airport Airport Boulevard Overlay District Airport Boulevard Overlay District Colfax Mainstreet Overlay District Eliminate this district. Eliminate this district. This property should be Business Redevelopment District rezoned to one of the existing or proposed mixeduse districts. This should not be a district, but rather site Industrial View Corridors development standards. Commercial Mineral Deposits Commercial Mineral Deposits 6 The topic of what happens to existing PDs, and the future use of the PD district requires further discussion. This is covered in further detail later in this report under Reduce the Dependence on Planned Developments. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

26 Part 2: Major Areas of Change SUMMARY TABLE OF DISTRICT RECOMMENDATIONS Current Aurora Zoning Districts Lowry Landfill Height Overlay District Mountain View District Havana Street Overlay District Update the Lists of Permitted Land Uses Proposed Aurora Zoning Districts This should not be a district, but rather site development standards. Height Overlay and View Preservation District Havana Street Overlay District The identification and control of specific land uses allowed within the community is an important element of any successful zoning code. Even newer form-based codes, which seek to minimize the regulation of uses in exchange for stronger controls on building form, still regulate permitted uses. Our review of the current Aurora zoning code confirms that many of the current land uses are described more narrowly than necessary, that some of the listed uses are obsolete, and that other marketdemanded uses are not listed at all. In addition, we received suggestions that Aurora revise its listed land uses to better address sustainable community development, mixed-use development, and infill and redevelopment. The following subsections explore several specific recommendations. Develop a Consolidated Land Use Table We recommend creating a consolidated land use table that covers all of the zoning districts. This will allow the city to evaluate whether or not the permitted uses are aligned with the intent of each district. The creation of this table will also serve as a tool for conducting a side-by-side district and use comparison. Often, this analysis results in decisions to add new uses to existing districts, which increases business-friendliness and flexibility. The city has already created schedules of permitted uses for each category of districts, which provide a good starting point for the consolidated table. The uses should be further categorized by use groups and should be divided among primary uses, accessory uses, and temporary uses. An excerpt of a well-organized consolidated land use table from another community is provided below. 18 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

27 Part 2: Major Areas of Change This excerpt from the Henderson, NV consolidated land use table indicates permitted uses for every zone district. Uses are categorized generally, and applicable use-specific standards are cross-referenced in the right-hand column. Revisit the Permitted Uses within Aurora s Zoning Districts Aurora s current schedules of permitted uses by district are fairly organized, but there is room for improving and refining the lists through the code update. Building consensus on permitted land uses can be a difficult process. We recommend that the city front-load this discussion early in the code update process. Add New Uses Not Previously Addressed Certain uses have not yet been addressed in Aurora that should be considered during the code update process. New uses should be established in districts to implement larger goals (such as encouraging sustainable community development) and respond to changing demographic trends. One example might be to include accessory dwelling units in additional districts. Currently, they are permitted under certain circumstances in the TOD and SIR districts, but many large cities are moving to allow them in a broader range of districts as an effective way to increase the supply of affordable housing and providing additional opportunities to age in place. Other uses that might be included through the update include uses for local food production (community gardens, produce stands, greenhouses, etc.), and wineries and distilleries. The list of additional uses for study may change anytime during the code update process and can be addressed at that time. Any contentious or particularly complex land uses might require proactive education and outreach to reach consensus prior to inclusion in the zoning code. Remove Overly-specific Uses and Consolidate Comparable Uses Many of the listed permitted uses in Aurora are either antiquated or are so specific that they could be included in a broader use category. For example, soap, cleaning compound, and toilet preparation manufacturing and ozonation treatment of biomedical waste are very specific uses that should be broadly categorized with other similar industrial processes that involve special or hazardous materials. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

28 Part 2: Major Areas of Change These overly-specific uses are likely the result of one-off decisions reacting to a proposal of a use that did not seem to fit with others. Over time, adding uses based on individual development proposals leads to an unwieldy list of land uses and makes the decision-making process tedious. Another significant issue is that certain uses are listed multiple times, sometimes with inconsistent approval procedures. For example, breweries are listed under Section in Table 6.2 number 20 as not permitted in the M-0, M-1, or M-2 districts; however, breweries are listed again in the same table at number 88 as conditional uses in all industrial zoning districts. These types of errors should be addressed immediately. Coordinate Uses with Urban Renewal Efforts Uses that are permitted by-right in a particular zoning district but are not identified as appropriate uses through an urban renewal plan can be particularly challenging. Additionally, uses that are preferred through an urban renewal plan framework but are not otherwise permitted by zoning are also problematic. Urban renewal plans are approved by resolution which is not adequate to permit desired uses in districts where the zoning code does not permit them. This issue can be addressed in at least two different ways: Amend the urban renewal district procedures to require adoption of an urban renewal plan by ordinance, thus allowing the plan to act as an amendment to the zoning code for the urban renewal area; or Draft a provision in the zoning code that when a use is not permitted in a base zoning district by-right, but is listed as an appropriate use in an approved urban renewal area and plan, that use automatically becomes a conditional use. We recommend that the zoning code update coordinate with urban renewal districts to allow for appropriate development in support of the plan. Consider Allowing Additional Uses in Long-Vacant Buildings One way to encourage infill and redevelopment is to acknowledge that long-vacant buildings create negative impacts on surrounding areas, and that allowing occupancy of those buildings by secondbest uses may be appropriate. For example, a conditional use that might be denied in a new development might be approved as a way to allow productive occupancy of a building that has been vacant for some time. To recognize this fact, some cities are beginning to draft their use tables so that, when an existing building has been vacant for 5 or 10 years, either (a) uses that are not available as conditional uses in new development become available as conditional uses in existing buildings, or (b) uses that are listed as conditional uses for new development become permitted uses in vacant buildings. We suggest that Aurora consider this approach, at least along older commercial corridors where reinvestment is sorely needed. 20 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

29 Part 2: Major Areas of Change Update and Consolidate the Use-Specific Standards The use-specific standards are currently located in Article 12, supplemental regulations for specific uses and activities. This reflects a very old code structure, where conditions on specific uses are separated from the uses to which they relate. The applicability of these standards could be made clearer by providing additional crossreferences in the permitted land use table and/or in the zoning district requirements. Currently, several usespecific standards are included within the schedules of permitted uses (e.g., motor vehicle repair, painting, and auto body uses adjacent to residential zones) and as footnotes to the schedules of permitted uses. Both are practices that reflect incremental piecemeal changes to the code over time. As previously recommended, the consolidated use table should include a column at the far-right hand side for crossreferences to any use-specific standards, and substantive standards currently embedded in the use names or definitions should be relocated to these use-specific standards. During the code update process, as individual permitted uses are being considered, the city should pay particular attention to the need to protect low-density residential neighborhoods from adjacent impacts. For example, outdoor storage, automobile-oriented uses, late-night uses, and marijuana establishments are all land uses that could pose specific threats to the stability of surrounding neighborhoods if not carefully managed. Many uses that impact neighborhoods are listed as conditional uses; but that still raises the risk to the neighborhood that the conditional use might be approved and uncertainty as to what the conditions attached to that use might be. With a solid foundation of use-specific standards that apply regardless of the zoning district, the need for a public hearing or conditional use approval is reduced. Improve the Development Standards Focus on Infill and Redevelopment A significant amount of development in Aurora (and throughout the metro Denver region) will come in the form of infill or redevelopment. Because many commercial areas in older Aurora are either builtout or have underutilized buildings and aging infrastructure, and because some of the post-war development between I-225 and E-470 will be ready for redevelopment in the coming decades, the city should be sure that the development standards in place are not acting as barriers to infill and redevelopment. Some provisions that can act as barriers to infill and redevelopment, and that should be addressed in the zoning code update are discussed in the sections below. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

30 Part 2: Major Areas of Change Avoid a One-Size-Fits-All Approach to Development Standards Because there are different parts of the city with very different characteristics it makes sense to vary development standards and requirements to those different areas. This tiered approach is increasingly used in cities (such as Indianapolis) that are simultaneously experiencing infill and redevelopment in older areas and new raw land development on the edges. Tier- and character-based systems typically include different development standards for a more suburban and urban context areas. In Aurora s case it might include a third tier for raw land development in order to carry over the popular flexibility of the current E-470 and Northeast Plains areas. The tiered approach requires clear definition of which tier applies where, adopted either on a map or by zone district. Standards that might be varied by character area include the following: Dimensional requirements. Suburban-level minimum setbacks, lot areas, and open space requirements can act as barriers to redevelopment or infill on smaller lots in older areas of the city. Development standards. For particularly challenging infill and redevelopment lots, every inch of the site matters. Once required landscaping, parking, and loading standards have been met, many infill sites have difficulty making the project fit on the remaining buildable area. Varying these standards by tier can encourage infill and redevelopment while still ensuring that the resulting project fits in with its neighbors. We recommend that the new Aurora development code include a three-tiered approach to Development Standards reflecting the significant differences between the urban, suburban, and raw land areas of the city. For the purposes of this assessment, raw land areas include large greenfield sites throughout the city that are surrounded by developed property not just the undeveloped fringe of the city. In Indianapolis, the recent draft Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance includes a two-tiered approach to development standards one for the compact urban context and one for the standard more suburban context. Broadly Apply the Sustainable Infill Redevelopment (SIR) District The City of Aurora made great strides in improving flexibility for development of targeted infill and redevelopment areas by adopting the Sustainable Infill Redevelopment (SIR) District. We learned during stakeholder interviews however that the application of this district has not yet been successful, with only one property rezoned to the SIR district to date. The district provides maximum flexibility in terms of permitted uses, development standards, and approval procedures yet still developers have not capitalized on the opportunity. The SIR design handbook that works in tandem with the district regulations is the city s attempt to applying design standards and guidelines, making the SIR district focus more heavily on form than on land use. We can speculate several reasons that might be contributing to the lack of interest in the SIR district: 22 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

31 Part 2: Major Areas of Change Developers are already able to negotiate waivers for many development standards and dimensional requirements through the Site Plan approval process without rezoning to SIR. Enhancements to approval procedures are discussed later in this report. The design standards noted in Section A state that development shall conform to the standards, but the SIR design handbook makes it unclear whether design materials are guidelines or mandates. Additionally, much of the targeted land in the SIR Study Area is located along the Havana and Colfax Corridors. Each of these has applicable overlay districts that also apply design and use controls, adding a potential layer of confusion that may be keeping developers from rezoning to the SIR district. The city could develop further incentives for rezoning to SIR, or consider broad remappings of targeted areas into the SIR district, rather than wait for applicants to opt-into the district. As an alternative, parts of the SIR districts flexible approach could be integrated into revisions of the business, industrial, and mixed-use districts in the targeted SIR areas, which would avoid the need for remappings altogether. The SIR design handbook and the zoning code should explicitly describe the intent of the handbook, indicating whether provisions are aspirational or mandated. Revise the Nonconformities Provisions to Make Them More Flexible The current Aurora nonconformities provisions (Section ) lack flexibility necessary for redevelopment and infill. The trend in most larger cities is to relax nonconformities provisions to increase opportunities for landowners to redevelop, reconstruct, restart, and/or rehabilitate existing structures and uses, provided they bring them closer to conformance with the development or environmental standards in those districts. More specifically, some more recent development codes: Allow conforming expansions of non-conforming structures (i.e. any expansion within the dimensional standards of the zone district that do not make the current nonconformity worse; and/or Allow limited horizontal or vertical expansion of walls that are located too close to a lot line; and/or Allow expansion of a nonconforming use to all of the area (or all of the ground floor area) within a conforming structure; and/or Allow reconstruction of a nonconforming structure particularly a residential structure following significant damage or destruction; and/or Extend the period during which a discontinued nonconforming use can be restarted (beyond the typical one-year period); and/or Allow replacement of one nonconforming use with another nonconforming use that has fewer adverse impacts on the surrounding area (in order to allow long-term building vacancies that can occur when the code permits only a conforming use into the building. A less rigid approach to dealing with nonconformities would help prevent further blight or deterioration of a site or building while still protecting surrounding uses and respecting the intent of the underlying Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

32 Part 2: Major Areas of Change zoning district. This approach should also help the city s urban renewal efforts take hold in areas with several nonconforming uses, structures, and lots. Aurora nonconformities provisions are also incomplete in that they only address uses, structures, and signs (which are addressed in a separate section, ). The nonconformities provisions should be clarified and re-categorized to address (a) nonconforming uses, (b) nonconforming structures, (c) nonconforming lots, and (d) nonconforming site development standards (screening, landscaping, parking, lighting, etc.), and a cross-reference to (e) nonconforming signs. The city recently explored changes to its nonconformities regulations to accommodate redevelopment of a fueling station in the Fitzsimons Boundary Area District (FBAD). It was ultimately determined that the best short-term approach was to amend Section (C)2 and 3 to allow for alterations and additions of nonconforming fueling stations in the FBAD. Because many of the city s nonconforming uses are in close proximity to established neighborhoods it made sense to suggest this short-term solution rather than make comprehensive changes to the overall nonconformities section of the code that could have citywide implications. However, as part of the longer-term Aurora development code rewrite, we recommend revising the city s nonconformity regulations to be more flexible through the types of changes listed above, which would avoid the need to create site- and situationspecific amendments such as the FBAD amendment described above. Improve the Site Design Standards Site design standards include development standards applicable to the site rather than buildings. These typically include parking, landscaping, streetscape, lighting, signage, and fencing and screening. We heard feedback that some of these standards should be improved. The following subsections outline our recommendations. 24 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

33 Part 2: Major Areas of Change Parking Number of Required Spaces Striking the right balance between too few parking spaces and too many parking spaces is a challenge that many zoning codes fail to achieve. Zoning administrators look at national and local standards to try to identify appropriate parking minimums and maximums, but the results vary tremendously between cities, and most cities still face numerous requests for parking variances. There is a growing trend in zoning codes to lighten up on parking regulations and allow the market to control some of these issues. Many of the required parking ratios in Aurora generally comport with national standards, but we have the following suggestions for improvements: Once the consolidated land use table is completed, the required parking table (currently Table 15.1) should be revised to match the use table. Each use listed in the permitted use table should be addressed, but the table should eliminate parking minimums for those smaller scale uses unlikely to create traffic congestion or negative impacts on surrounding areas. Eliminate commercial, industrial, and institutional parking requirements based on the number of employees (or the number of employees on the largest shift), which result in changing parking requirements each time the workforce expands or contracts, and which makes these types of standards difficult to enforce. The required parking ratios for retail shopping centers declines as the size of the shopping centers increases, which is appropriate, because the opportunities for shared use of parking spaces increases. However, the reduction is not very significant for larger shopping centers, which can result in unnecessarily large parking lots. These ratios should be recalibrated based on current national experience, and should be tailored to the context area in which the property is located. Importantly, these standards should be based solely on what is necessary to avoid traffic congestion or overflow parking in residential neighborhoods, not the amount of parking generally required for shopping centers to obtain financing, which changes over time. In order to promote reinvestment, smaller parcels (under 5,000 or 10,000 square feet) in older areas of the city should be exempted from minimum parking requirements, because the potential traffic congestion and impacts on neighboring properties from such small developments is low, and because forcing compliance with on-site parking minimums can result in demolition of neighboring buildings to obtain that parking. The city currently offers credits against minimum parking requirements to applicants that provide bicycle parking and shared parking, and the city can approve a waiver for applicants that demonstrate a reduced demand based on a mix of residential and non-residential uses with shared parking, or proximity to alternative modes of transportation. Credits against minimum parking requirements should also be available for applicants that provide carpool, vanpool, or shared car parking spaces, or provide electric vehicle charging facilities. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

34 Part 2: Major Areas of Change Tiered Parking Standards As with other development standards, Aurora should not apply a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating parking. Aurora has already recognized this fact through several attempts to relax parking provisions for mixed-uses and for the SIR and TOD districts. The city also applied parking maximums in the TOD district based on general use groups. These are important to ensure that the city s key station areas are not over-parked and provide maximum opportunity for pedestrian-scale development and amenities. But this tailored approach should be expanded to include a full menu of tailored parking minimums (or exemptions) for the urban, suburban, and raw land areas of the city. We suggest making a minor tweak to the restaurant category to provide an apples-to-apples comparison for minimums and maximums (e.g., 1 per 300 GFA minimum vs. 6 per 1,000 GFA maximum should be revised to use a common denominator). Parking Management Cities also find themselves getting into the business of parking management, rather than adjusting the requirements. For Aurora, this might mean implementing residential parking permit programs near high-traffic commercial areas or establishing a fee-in-lieu of parking system in some areas to offset the costs of future city-owned parking facilities in areas where site-by-site parking requirements would discourage reinvestment. This approach could be particularly useful near transit stations, since structured parking is not always feasible during the initial phases of station-area development. This level of involvement in parking management would be significantly greater than Aurora s prior experience and would likely require additional resources, some of which would be generated by the feein-lieu. The city could also explore other alternative approaches such as removing parking requirements for specified areas to let market demand determine an appropriate amount, or providing incentives for developers to build smaller parking lots than they are otherwise permitted. Streetscape and Landscaping The current landscaping standards in Aurora are apparently performing well. Most of our interviewees noted that the landscaping provisions offered unparalleled flexibility compared to neighboring jurisdictions, with one individual claiming that the standards were actually too flexible because they do not set the minimum bar high enough. As a result, we do not recommend significant changes to the current streetscape or landscaping standards. However, as part of a package of neighborhood protection standards which would apply whenever a property is adjacent to a residential neighborhood we may recommend enhanced buffering and landscaping in those situations. 26 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

35 Part 2: Major Areas of Change Buffer and Setback Exemptions The current exemption for buffers and setbacks in the B-2, City Center, Northeast Plains Subregional Activity Centers, Fitzsimons Boundary Area District, and E-470 Regional Activity Centers is provided for in Section (D). Although drafted with good intentions, these provisions have the potential to reduce necessary transitions between higher-intensity uses and established neighborhoods. As these districts continue to build out or redevelop, neighborhoods will demand protection standards to limit any potential impacts from development. We recommend that these exemptions not apply when new development or redevelopment occurs adjacent to single-family neighborhoods, but that a space-efficient option for strong buffering of impacts be included. The city could also consider broader application of the buffering standards transitioning from commercial to residential throughout the city. Sites with Existing Development Section states that the Article 14 landscaping requirements apply to sites whenever any changes or additions are made to landscaping or parking areas. This trigger is a potential barrier to infill and redevelopment within targeted areas throughout the city. The provision is written rigidly in that it does not provide specific parameters for when these special landscaping standards would apply. Additionally, the landscaping standards must be met (wherever feasible) with a net increase of building area 2,000 square feet or more. The city should consider revising this to a percentage increase rather than a square footage so that larger properties are not disproportionately penalized. The waiver process for provisions in Section is probably too broad, allowing for a carte blanche waiver of landscape standards if parking requirements restrict compliance, for example. As with other development standards, this waiver process could be applied differently for different contexts (urban, suburban, and raw lands). Organization and Graphics The landscaping provisions are scattered among several sections within the zoning code. For example, parking lot landscaping and screening is contained in Sections and 1440, and in Section Although it might make sense to retain the parking lot landscaping provisions within Article 15, there should not be similar provisions in both Articles. All of the graphics and tables associated with the landscaping provisions are located in Section , Penalty. Unless you have significant experience with the Aurora development code, you would have difficulty finding these tables and graphics, especially in the Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

36 Part 2: Major Areas of Change online version. We recommend that graphics be embedded directly into applicable sections wherever possible and that better cross-references be provided for graphics that must be moved to the end of a particular section. As previously discussed in this report, graphics should have a common design appearance and be legible in both the online and print versions. Parking Block Standards The parking block standards in Section (B)8 provide a perverse incentive for developing large blocks of parking with over 120 spaces in order to be exempt from internal landscaping requirements. We heard from those interviewed that they frequently take advantage of this system. We recommend removing this provision altogether to provide for more pedestrian- and environmentally-friendly parking lot design. Water-efficient Landscaping Water usage in the city is approximately 60% residential vs. 40% commercial use. These landscaping requirements allow for single-family and two-family homes to turf as much as 50% of the required yard. Although there is a xeriscape option, this 40-50% maximum turf option is high given the high volume of water needed to sustain turf. Additionally, the incentives could be revised in Table 13.2 to place a higher priority on indoor water conservation features. Consider Broader Application of Building Design Standards The 2009 Comprehensive Plan memorialized the city s desire to have a comprehensive set of urban design standards that apply citywide. Currently, the bulk of the city s design standards are located within only a few districts including the E-470, NE Plains, TOD, FBAD, and several overlay districts. With the anticipation of increasing infill and redevelopment in aging commercial corridors, Aurora has an opportunity to enhance the design standards already successfully applied in several developments and to expand their applicability. For example, the E-470 district includes non-residential design standards for building orientation and massing, articulation, roof design, transparency (windows), and pedestrian-scale details among others. For new development or redevelopment within some of the older areas of the city, these types of design controls are equally important, The city should continue extending design standards established for the E-470 corridor and Northeast Plains area to other parts of the city. Eventually, the city should have in place comprehensive urban design standards Comprehensive Plan but are not currently required. During our interviews, some recent developers noted that additional design standards could ensure that neighboring development will be of a similar quality t0 their own. Most of the stakeholders interviewed favored incorporating additional commercial design standards and applying them to non-residential districts throughout the city. That being said, many also wanted to ensure that the design standards are not so strict that they prevent redevelopment in those older areas. The city might also consider a limited use of multi-family residential design standards along Aurora s key corridors where and outdated retail areas could feasibly transition to multi-family residential development over time. Because finding the right level of design standard detail can take 28 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

37 Part 2: Major Areas of Change time, it is important that Aurora address the topic early in the code update process to begin answering questions such as the following: What is the overall goal of the design standards? What elements of site and building design should be addressed? Where should they apply? All districts? Certain uses? What types of exceptions and flexibility will be allowed? Building consensus early on the these key questions will give Aurora a sound basis for implementing the design standards called for in the Comprehensive Plan through the zoning code rewrite. One of the main challenges moving forward is striking a balance between offering enhanced flexibility through zoning and procedures while developing a durable, attractive, and efficient city. Revise the Development Review Procedures Many of those we interviewed expressed the desire for more streamlined development review procedures. Some procedures in particular, like the Site Plan review process, were described as unnecessarily lengthy. The current regulations present the development review procedures in a fairly organized fashion with largely consistent provisions for each defined procedure; however, the criteria for decision-making are often vague and subjective. The table below is an expanded version of the current Table 4.1, Level of Review, found at the end of section , which shows the current approval procedures and the applicable decision-making authorities. Rows shaded in light tan indicate procedures where the final decision lies with either the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

38 Part 2: Major Areas of Change SUMMARY TABLE OF AURORA REVIEW PROCEDURES R = Review and Recommendation D = Decision A = Appeal Decider < > = Public Hearing O = Optional M = Mandatory Application Review Procedure (Does not include all application types) Plan and Ordinance Development and Amendments Pre- Application Conference Staff Review Board of Adjustment and Appeals Planning & Zoning Commission City Council Comprehensive Plan amendment O R <R> <D> Initial zoning O R <R> <D> Rezoning (including PDs) O R <R> <D> Master Plan (associated with rezoning) O R <R> <D> Master Plan (associated with Site Plan) O R <D> <A> Amendment of E-470 Corridor and NE Plains subarea boundaries O R <R> <D> Administrative amendment of E-470 Corridor and NE Plains subarea boundaries O D Zoning Code text amendment O D Development Permits and Approvals General Development Plan (GDP) O R <R> <D> GDP minor amendment O D GDP major amendment O R <R> <D> Framework Development Plan (FDP) O D <A> <A> and Call-up FDP administrative amendment O D FDP amendment O D <A> <A> and Call-up Conditional use O R <D> <A> Conditional use in E-470 district O D A A Site Plan O R <D> Site Plan amendment (administrative) O D Site Plan amendment (non-administrative) O R <D> Site Plan in TOD districts O D <A> <A> and Call-up Redevelopment Plan O D At Staff Discretion E-470 and NE Plains Contextual Site Plan <A> and O D <A> (CSP) Call-up Subdivision Approvals Annexations and disconnections O R <D> Subdivision plat M D (SRC) A A Resubdivision O D (SRC) A A Amended plat O D (SRC) A A Plat vacation O D (SRC) A A Right-of-way vacation O R <D> Flexibility and Relief Procedures Site Plan waiver O R <D> Administrative waiver O D O Waiver of FDP development standards O D CSP waiver O D Variance from Buckley Air Force Base district O R <D> Variances all other O <D> This table dramatically demonstrates that Aurora uses a fairly large number of review and approval procedures. We recommend reducing that number by consolidating similar procedures. In addition, we recommend including a table such as this one in the development code and on the city s website to enhance the readers understanding of how Aurora reviews and approves development. 30 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

39 Part 2: Major Areas of Change Revise the Use of Administrative Procedures Administrative approvals can be an effective tool for streamlining a development code. In Aurora, there are several administrative procedures in place that allow for greater flexibility and expedited review times. Consistency is the key, however. While many benefits are enjoyed through the use of administrative procedures, there are often unintended consequences of having either too much or too little staff discretion. In Aurora s case, striking the balance between flexibility and predictability is important to continuing to improve its business-friendly environment and ability to protect stable neighborhoods. Two key areas for change are the Site Plan process and the current waiver process. Update the Site Plan Review Procedures Today, a Site Plan review is required for most new development and redevelopment in Aurora (aside from exceptions such as single-family additions and interior finishes). This means that a proposed commercial building with a permitted use, and that meets the basic dimensional standards of the zone district where it is located, is still required to obtain Site Plan approval. That is standard practice in most large cities. What is unusual is that in most districts (except E-470, North East Plains, and TOD) the required Site Plan approval must be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing, rather than by staff. In our experience, most communities in the Denver metropolitan area and across the nation would require only staff review of routine multi-family, commercial, and industrial Site Plans. We heard from several stakeholders that this process has been critical to maintaining the trust of established neighborhoods in Aurora. However, we also heard that the process places an unnecessary burden on businesses, developers, and staff, and that the Planning and Zoning Commission sometimes requires changes to Site Plans. We should note that a few interviewees expressed concern that the administrative review of Site Plans in the E-470 and NE Plains districts worked well prior to experiencing much development of those areas; but that as neighborhoods are established in those districts it may make sense to use a process similar to that used in the remainder of the city. One way to address this issue is to require a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission for the Framework Development Plan (FDP), but retain the administrative approval of Contextual Site Plans (CSP) that do not deviate from the FDP. We recommend revising the Site Plan review procedures to allow for administrative approval of all Site Plans under a specified threshold project size. Larger and more complex projects (for example, projects with multiple buildings or over 3 acres in land area) should still require a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. In order to have a reliable system of administrative review, however, the review criteria need to fairly objective and that will require several changes to the existing code language. If necessary, the city could retain a provision to allow for projects of any size to be called up to either the Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council. With the appropriate set of development standards and neighborhood protection standards in place, established stable neighborhoods should be able to rely on the city s highly-qualified staff to review and approve Site Plans that meet objective standards and criteria. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

40 Part 2: Major Areas of Change We also heard that many neighborhood concerns addressed during Site Plan public hearings are related to project and building design. As previously suggested, broader application of design standards should alleviate some of those concerns. The shift from public hearing to administrative approval would also free up time for the Planning and Zoning Commission to focus more on review and direction of longerrange planning efforts and larger projects such as Framework Development Plans, Master Plans, General Development Plans. The Planning and Zoning Commission would also still be involved with other approvals, including conditional uses and any plans called up from the Director. Instead of involving citizens at a public hearing on a Site Plan, we believe that Aurora should engage the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed development earlier in the process. Some cities are now requiring that applicants meet with a neighborhood group near the project site at least once before submitting an application, and we recommend that Aurora follow that approach. Earlier notice and meetings with developers allow for designs to be altered before engineers and architects have been retained or preliminary site engineering is completed. Once those steps have been taken, applicants are understandably reluctant to revise their designs in ways that would require them to pay for revisions to the already-prepared plans. The answer is to engage the public before those plans have been made. One final reason for change in this area is that the current city process for Site Plan reviews can consume significant staff time and resources necessary to conduct public hearings (including noticing requirements, staff reports, attending meetings, etc.). Because Aurora has a long history of engaging citizens and requiring public hearings for most development applications, the city may want to consider investing the staff time savings achieved by reducing public hearings into reducing application fees or int0 the hiring of additional Development Services staff to work closely with the neighborhoods. Clarify the Waivers and Administrative Adjustment Procedures The current development review process involves frequent use of waivers and administrative adjustments negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Staff expressed a desire to retain this type of system, since it allows for negotiations with developers in order to mitigate any potential impacts arising from the waiver prior to approval, and because it can enhance the Department s reputation for customer service. Staff also expressed a desire to stay away from too many numerical standards (e.g., maximum lot coverage percentages) that hamstring the city s ability to be flexible and businessfriendly. Many developers stated that although the waiver and negotiation system works fairly well it does create unpredictability as to the final outcome. This is a two-sided coin. What one applicant perceives as flexibility a neighboring property owner may view as unpredictability, particularly if the neighboring property owner did not request waivers and complied with the standard when they built their own project. Section (G) provides that Site Plan waivers can be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission for any development standard or requirement. This broadly applied provision appears business-friendly on its face. However, in our experience most developers would rather have more flexible requirements built directly into the development standards and procedures rather than having to ask for a waiver of the standards, which runs a risk that the waiver may not be granted. Section Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

41 Part 2: Major Areas of Change 405(G) also provides that the Planning Director is permitted to approve a waiver up to 10 percent of any height or setback requirements, provided that the waiver results in a plan that conforms to the criteria for review and approval. In the E-470, NE Plains, and TOD districts, the Director is given even broader discretion to grant waivers for Site Plans and Framework Development Plans. Widespread use of waivers is likely at the root of the neighborhoods desire to retain the public hearing process for Site Plans. We recommend revising these procedures to rename the Planning Director authority as administrative adjustments, which is more accurate, since the Director seldom waives the standard altogether. Administrative adjustments for specified development standards should be revised to allow changes of 10-15% depending on the specific development standard involved and the tier of Aurora where the property is located. Smaller waivers create more concern in older areas of the city than in the raw land districts. Criteria for administrative adjustments should require that the deviation not undermine the intent of the underlying regulation, and that the deviation will not impose greater impacts on adjacent properties than they would through strict compliance. In some cities, neighborhood protection standards cannot be adjusted, which gives neighborhoods more comfort that a public hearing process to review adjacent developments is not needed. Examples of standards that are frequently subject to administrative adjustments include: Minimum lot width and minimum lot coverage Minimum setbacks Maximum building, lighting, fence, or screening height Minimum required number of parking spaces Minimum planting ratios and locations Minimum perimeter landscaping area width Administrative adjustment procedures could be revised to specifically identify standards that are commonly adjusted in Aurora, and the appropriate ranges for those adjustments. Establish a Set of Common Review Procedures The development review procedures are currently scattered among the Aurora zoning and subdivision regulations. Some procedures (e.g., Site Plans and redevelopment plans in Article 4) are located toward the beginning of the zoning code, whereas other procedures (e.g., historic landmark designation Article 19) are located toward the end. Procedural requirements that are spread out among the zoning code and subdivision regulations create additional issues of inconsistency and lack of clarity. The updated development code should include a new consolidated procedures section with separate subsections for each type of application, all written in a uniform format and with a consistent level of detail. At the beginning of the new procedures section, we recommend including a new section of generally applicable, or common, procedures that should not have to be repeated for each specific Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

42 Part 2: Major Areas of Change review and approval procedure. Common procedures include provisions such as who can file applications, determination of application completeness, conduct of public hearings, and public notice. These general procedures will apply to all types of applications unless the code specifically provides otherwise. Consolidating general steps helps ordinance users better understand the city s basic review procedures. It also avoids unnecessary duplication, ensures consistent application of common procedures, and eliminates the need to amend multiple sections of the development regulations if a common procedural provision is revised. Sections devoted to various specific procedures (e.g., conditional uses, Framework Development Plans) will follow and refer back to the common review procedures, noting whether there are any deviations from the general rules for each type of application. We suggest the following common procedural elements: Applicability identify the type of permit, approval, or other procedure the section applies to. Initiation describe how an application is filed, and with which department. Neighborhood meetings identify what types of applications require an early meeting with neighborhood groups. Application materials provide a cross-reference to the manual or web-site listing materials required for each application (the lists themselves should not appear in the code). Fees indicate that each application shall pay a non-refundable application processing fee as listed in a schedule of fees established by resolution of City Council. Pre-application designate appropriate staff for each type of application or process. Completeness provide procedures and time limits for determining whether application includes sufficient information, along with legal authority to return insufficient applications. General criteria include general criteria that apply to routine staff decisions where no specific criteria are stated in the code. Withdrawal and reapplication indicate whether and when new applications can be filed if the application is withdrawn or denied. Lapsing of approvals indicate how long each approval decision remains valid. A flowchart for common review procedures like this can quickly identify the necessary steps for approval of any develoment application. Recording designate which types of approvals need to be recorded in the public real estate or subdivision plat records. 34 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

43 Part 2: Major Areas of Change If the development regulations are combined into a Unified Development Code as previously suggested, these common procedures will apply to subdivision applications as well as zoning applications. Some of these provisions already exist in the current ordinances (e.g., applicability and criteria) while others do not (e.g., pre-application and recording). Reduce the Dependence on Planned Developments The city has relied heavily on the use of the Planned Development (PD) process in the past. The PD district and the earlier Planned Community Zone District (PCZD) appear to have become the standard response when a base zone district or overlay district did not include the flexibility to accommodate a developer s proposed project. According to zoning data calculations, 21% of the land in Aurora city limits is zoned either PD or PCZD, more than the total of base residential and business zoning districts combined. However, the overuse of PDs can lead to several challenges. First, each PD establishes different allowable uses and development standards, and sometimes different procedures in effect, becoming its own mini-zoning code that must be maintained and enforced separate from the citywide zoning code. Staff spends much more time finding detailed answers to what is permitted in approved PDs than they do for standard zoning districts. Second, the PD approval procedures can become complex and time-consuming, with many PD approval processes spanning several months or sometimes years. Third, PD (and PCZD) developments were defined to produce a specific product at initial build-out, and were generally not designed to address redevelopment (which may occur decades in the future when tastes and market demands have changed). As a result, staff spends significant time amending or interpreting adopted PD and PCZD provisions (particularly for commercial and institutional uses) to allow reasonable redevelopment of those areas over time. For all these reasons, maintaining the adopted PDs, zoning maps, and associated standards for each PD presents an administration challenge for planning staff, code enforcement, and other stakeholders such as redevelopers and surrounding neighborhoods. In the future, the use of the PD process should be limited to large, complex, or multi-phased projects, those with particularly unique design challenges, or projects proposing new development concepts (not just new uses or dimensions) not addressed by other districts. There are different approaches to dealing with current PDs and the use of the tool in the future, including voluntary rezoning with incentives and comprehensive city-initiated rezoning with an opt-out provision. The city should begin thinking about potential solutions early in the update process. Enhance the Development Review Experience Improve the Online Submittal and Review System The online platform for accessing the zoning and subdivision regulations is an important aspect of providing excellent customer service, as discussed previously in this report. Aurora also employs an electronic development review process that allows applicants to submit materials online and allows Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

44 Part 2: Major Areas of Change staff to seamlessly shepherd the submittals through the review process. The Application Management and Data Automation (AMANDA) system is used for plan tracking and case management for local governments all over the world. In Aurora, many interviewed recognize the efficiencies of the AMANDA system but also felt that it has been overloaded and is not the most intuitive or user-friendly software. Many staff members touted the ability to view other city staff comments prior to returning the materials to an applicant for response as one of the prime features of AMANDA. Developers had split opinions about the electronic submittal process some like it and find it easy to use whereas others claim it is cumbersome to use. Most developers agreed, however, that the AMANDA system has been beneficial to them by holding staff accountable for review times. (The system begins tracking the AMANDA clock once an application is deemed complete.) We believe electronic plan review systems like AMANDA are a necessary part of modern city administration, as well as time and cost savers when they work well. One of the most typical complaints from developers across the country comes when they receive a comment on a second round of review that should have been caught during the initial review. Aurora has long been focused on shortening review timeframes, but may want to monitor and modify review schedules as necessary to allow for adequate staff review to catch all significant issues the first time around. Concurrent with the zoning code update, the city may want to explore other modern and efficient application management tools available to make an informed decision regarding replacement versus maintenance or expansion. Relax Initial Submittal Requirements Finally, we heard from stakeholders that the city requires too much detail up front in the development review process. This is a common complaint in all cities, and there is a natural tension between applicants desires to receive preliminary reviews or approvals without spending significant money on final designs and engineering data, on the one hand, and city planning and engineering staff desires to see a full and complete picture of the development before making a decision. Having said that, it does appear that some of the initial submission materials currently required for preliminary approvals could be delayed until the final approval stage. For example, requiring developers to provide planting details including the specific locations of landscaping can be costly given that comments received during the review process can typically change locations of buildings, parking areas, and other site features. The city should review all of the development submittal requirements and consider adjustments to require only the amount of information necessary to determine compliance with applicable provisions prior to making a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. During the final subdivision, 36 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

45 Part 2: Major Areas of Change Contextual Site Plan, or building permit review, planning staff can conduct a compliance check to ensure that final landscaping, lighting, parking, and site designs meet the code standards. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

46

47 Part 3. DETAILED REVIEW OF CURRENT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Comments included in the following table are derived from our independent review of Aurora s zoning code and subdivision ordinance and relevant background materials, as well as feedback provided during the project kick-off and subsequent meetings. All of these sections should be reorganized as described in Part 2 above, and the changes described in Part 2 above should be integrated into those reorganized provisions. When a comment has been made on a particular section, it applies to all similar sections, although it is not always repeated in each of those similar sections. A row that is left blank means that we did not have specific recommendations at this time, though additional edits may become apparent during the code rewrite. Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Comments and Suggested Revisions Chapter 146 Zoning ARTICLE 1. General Provisions Title A copy of the official zoning code should be available in the planning department Purpose The purpose statement should include additional provisions reflecting additional goals of the Comprehensive Plan Districts The title of this section should reflect the zoning map, rather than districts, and should provide that the official zoning map is the latest electronic version of the map maintained by the Planning Department Application of Provisions Nonconforming Uses and Structures These provisions should be revised to be more flexible, as described above. The nonconformities section should be broken down into nonconforming uses, nonconforming structures, nonconforming lots, and nonconforming site features. A cross-reference to nonconforming signs should be provided in this section. ARTICLE 2. Administration and Enforcement Administration and Use consistent terminology between Planning Department, Director of Interpretation Planning, Planning Director, etc Enforcement Penalties Provide a cross-reference to other nuisance provisions (Chapter 62, Article II) Denial of an (A)3 references representations made during public hearings. This provision Application Based on Past should be moved to a violations section, rather than denial of an application. It Applicant Performance is a violation to obtain approval through misinformation Development Application Procedures (A). Use common terminology of planning and zoning commission vs. planning commission. (B) Waivers should not be available for all development standards. This section should list which development standards are eligible for waivers. (D)3. Posted notice. The posting requirement should say planning and zoning commission AND city council, not OR city council. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment DRAFT August

48 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Comments and Suggested Revisions Vested Rights Requiring notice of Site Plan terminations is administratively difficult. Rather, this should be checked when applicants apply for building permits. Notice of termination should be eliminated. The building permit application could have an entry for date of Site Plan approval Comprehensive Plan Temporary Use The temporary use permit approval process should be listed here, but the Permits specific uses should be included in a use-specific standards section following primary and accessory uses. ARTICLE 3. Annexations and Disconnections Procedure Policy Filing Fee This should be covered by the general application fee provision tied to a resolution of Council, rather than listed separately Final Annexation Plat Reserved Reserved Development Fees (B). Specific fees should not be listed in the zoning code. They should be tied to a resolution of Council so that they may be updated over time without a code amendment. Portions of this section are in a much smaller font than the remainder of the code Disconnection Portions of this section are in a much smaller font than the remainder of the code Waiver of Fees Portions of this section are in a much smaller font than the remainder of the code. ARTICLE 4. Development Applications Division 1. in General, Initial Zonings and Rezonings, and Conditional Uses In General Initial Zonings and Rezonings (C). These criteria should contain the connector and rather than or. (C)1. The spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan is not clearly defined. (C)4. This is not a criterion like the others, but rather a basis for denial. It should not be part of the same list Conditional Uses (C). These criteria are not written in parallel construction. The introduction should refer to considerations rather than criteria based on the way 1-8 are written. (E). As with termination of Site Plans, how are the expirations of conditional uses tracked over time? Division 2. Master Plans General Development Plans (E)2.b. The provision should be simplified to state that a transfer of density is also considered a major amendment. The process is already spelled out in provision 2.a Clarify when a master plan is required Other Types of Development Plans Division 3. Site Plans Site Plans (A). The applicability section ends the opening paragraph with No Site Plan shall be required for the following: There are several double-negative statements in the list, including #2 which says accessory structures not 40 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

49 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Redevelopment Plans Comments and Suggested Revisions including CMRS and major utilities facilities that have no significant external effects. It is unclear which accessory structures are exempt from Site Plans. (E). City facilities are not defined and should probably include facilities that are not owned by the city but that provide city services. (F)1. This is different than previous Comprehensive Plan requirements that state consistency with the spirit and intent of the plan. (F)3. List examples such as landscaping buffers, building plane stepbacks, increased building setbacks, screening, etc. (F)4. Consider eliminating the where reasonable qualifier related to water quality and wildlife habitat of riparian corridors, wetlands, and floodplains affected by the proposed development. Consider using where practicable as an alternative standard throughout the code; practicable means that cost alone cannot be the determining factor. (H)1. The list is set up for several double-negatives making the application of the provision confusing. For example, letter e, the way it reads, a Site Plan can be amended if the proposed change does not produce a reduction in building height? This means that an applicant can increase the height administratively? Same issue occurs with g and i. (H) is one of the most important sections of the code. There should be objective criteria as to when an application goes through a planning process (neighborhood meeting, referrals to neighbors, decision, and appeal) and what is essentially a tenant finish. An applicant should be able to rebrand a building without going through a planning process. Subjective criteria, such as character of the development should be eliminated. (I)3. Maintenance of landscaping, this should be moved to landscaping article. (A). Use similar language for administratively approve instead of can approve without notice or hearings. Submittal requirements are not addressed for redevelopment plans, and all submittal requirements should be listed on the city web site or in administrative manuals and not in the code. (A)1. Missing the connector and following the semi-colon Impact of I-225 Rail Line Project Division 4. Development Applications in the E-470 Corridor and Northeast Plains Zoning Districts Amendment of E- (A)2. This is the first mention of NACs, CACs, SACs and RACs. These acronyms 470 Corridor and NE Plains should be fully spelled out and included in the definitions. Subarea Boundaries (A). Each of these must be met; therefore, the list should include a connector Framework Development Plan and following each statement. (D)1.b. This should also include natural hazard areas such as floodplains, wildfire risk, subsidence, etc. (if applicable) (E). It is unclear if a public hearing is required for the planning and zoning commission appeal review. This section emphasizes the need for one process. Provisions for notice, referral, and site plan approval criteria are different for Planning Commission cases and E-470 administrative cases. (E). The approval authority should be clarified in this provision to state that it is reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning. (F)1 and (F)3 are inconsistent. One says that council approves waivers, and the other says that the Director can approve them. (F)1. Are public hearings required for city council FDP waivers? (G)1.d. Avoid double negatives. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

50 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Comments and Suggested Revisions E-470 Corridor and NE Plains Contextual Site Plan (CSP) Approval These provisions should be integrated with and rather than Procedures for Development provided by separate section. Applications in the E-470 Table 4.1. This table should include brackets around the appeal processes, Corridor Or NE Plains Zoning since appeals require a public hearing. Districts Division 5. Development Applications in Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Approval Procedures for Development Applications in Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) Districts Division 6. Miscellaneous Requirements Public Art Plan (D) remove references to specific dollar amounts. They should be kept administratively so they can be amended by resolution of City Council over time without a code amendment. Title 32 arts dedications are expected to be adjusted in The AMANDA system should notify art in public spaces staff when a metro district is involved Capital Impact Fees This section should be consolidated with other fee provisions. for Residential Development ARTICLE 5. Residential Zoning Districts Types of Districts and Zones Residential Zoning Districts Schedule of Permitted Land Uses Residential Zoning districts Development Standards The purpose statements for each district should be refined to describe more clearly what types of development patterns are expected. Many of the zoning districts have the exact same purpose, with the only difference being the actual name of the district. Consolidate districts according to Part 2 of this report. Many of the uses listed should be categorized as accessory or temporary uses rather than included as primary uses by-right. For example, cellular phone antennae on multifamily structures is an accessory use. Some may need to be listed in both sections, since they can be either a primary or accessory use. Group homes should be listed as a P in every district but with a reference to the use-specific standards limiting them to small facilities in low-density residential districts (currently in ). Public uses and public utilities should be permitted in mobile home districts. The footnotes to the table should be removed and integrated into the code. For example, footnote 7 should be moved to use-specific standards for hospitals. Revise and reorganize permitted use table according to Part 2 of this report. Rear setbacks should be different for those abutting a street than those abutting an alley or another rear yard. They are the same for the R-A through R-2 districts. There is no logical progression for minimum site area requirements. Footnotes should be removed and integrated into the code. ARTICLE 6. Non-Residential Zoning Districts Types of Districts Consolidate and reorganize districts as described in Part 2 of this report. and Zones 42 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

51 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Business and Office Zoning Districts Schedule of Permitted Land Uses Industrial Uses Schedule of Permitted Land Uses Natural Resource Districts Schedule of Permitted Land Uses Business and Office District Development Standards Industrial District Development Standards Natural Resource Districts Development Standards ARTICLE 7. Mixed-Use and Special Districts Division 1. City Center District Purpose City Center Subareas Permitted Uses District Development Standards Design Requirements Parking Requirements Site Plan Requirements Waiver of Development Requirements Comments and Suggested Revisions Banks, savings, and financial offices should include with or without drivethrough in the name since they are not limited for that use. Most of the uses in the schedule of permitted uses should include a definition. For example, indoor shooting range and laboratory mush include a definition at the end of Chapter 146. Footnotes should be integrated into the code as either use-specific standards or other provisions as applicable. Some uses are listed more than once for example, breweries are listed on number 20 and 88; radioactive products is number 45 and included in number 67. Based on review of the use table, the M-1 and M-2 districts should be consolidated (per Part 2 of this report). This material needs to be integrated into use standards or cross-references in the consolidated use table. The height differentiation between B-1 and other B-districts is not substantiated by review of the current zoning map. Many B-2 and higher districts are just as close to R-1 and other sf neighborhoods as the B-1. The maximum floor area ratios seem low considering the purpose and intent of the district. The maximum density of 30 du/ac is a high density that is not easily achieved at a 1.4 FAR. These standards should be moved to an overall development standards section rather than listed by-district. This waiver of development requirements is too broad and should be limited as described in Part 2 above. Does this also apply to Site Plan requirements from ? Division 2. Fitzsimons Boundary Area District Purpose Subareas There may not be a need for five subareas in the FBAD. The city should capture some of these differences in use-specific standards and then see how many distinct subareas are needed Additional Procedures for Approval (B)1. Removal of blight a particular land use does not contribute to the removal of blight as much as redevelopment and improvement of property. This provision should be restated. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

52 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Comments and Suggested Revisions (C). Recent text amendment to allow for fueling station redevelopment should be replaced by a more flexible approach to nonconformities as described in Part 2 of this report Permitted Uses The footnotes should be integrated into to use-specific standards Development and Design Standards Table 7.6, row 6, column (C), Note (2) states that buildings may intrude into these areas to within 20 feet of the edge of the property line. This should be clarified to state up to but no closer to the property line than 20 feet (or similar). Table 7.7 should be organized by architectural features. Right now it is mixed between features, materials, and specific uses, making the table confusing. The figures should be embedded directly into the provisions rather than included at the end of the division. We heard that one section that does not work is the minimum percentage of building up against the street. The city has concentrated on having a build-to line along Colfax, but has waived this requirement along side streets and 14 th. Division 3. Parking (P-1) District General Comments This district should be eliminated and addressed by use-specific standards Purpose Uses Permitted Accessory Uses Development Standards Operation and Maintenance Division 4. Planned Development District (PD) General Comments This district should only be used on a limited basis for large projects with special parameters that cannot be addressed through any base zoning district Purpose Establishment of District Permitted Uses Development Standards Master Planned Industrial Parks Mineral Extraction The cross-reference to criteria in section does not exist (it is a reserved section). This section should be integrated with , commercial mineral deposits overlay. Division 5. Planned Community Zone (PCZD) District Applicability No longer applicable will be removed. Division 6. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) District Purpose Administration and Interpretation Sub-Districts Figure 7.4 should be improved for legibility Development (B)1. How should bicycle transportation be integrated into the development Standards and the street cross-sections? Does providing bike racks count? 44 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

53 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Comments and Suggested Revisions (C)2. Are minimum densities required at final build-out, or upon approval of any development project phase? Phasing of development to achieve required densities over time needs to be reviewed and addressed clearly. Figure 7.5 should be revised for legibility. The development standards mix the use of mandatory and aspirational language. For example, principle vs. desires vs. standards. The language is not consistent for each standard. For example, some say will be, others say shall, while others say is to be. (F)2. Desired public spaces, Main Streets shall be designed as attractive public areas is difficult to enforce and is too subjective Parking All parking ratios should use a common denominator Permitted Uses (B). Are station area plans typically adopted by ordinance in Aurora? It can be confusing if the schedule of permitted uses is inconsistent with the station area plans Special Definitions Definitions should be integrated into the larger definitions article at the end of the code. (A). This term does not show up in the TOD regulations. It is listed as dwellings, accessory. It should be consistent with the other definition at the end of the code. (C). This term does not appear as indicated in the TOD section. It is listed as dwellings, live/work. The standards within this definition should be moved to use-specific standards. Division 7. Sustainable Infill Redevelopment (SIR) District General Comments The purpose and applicability of this district should be reviewed as described in Part 2. Some of the provisions of this district encouraging infill development should be incorporated into other districts Purpose Applicability and Administration Permitted Uses in the SIR District Development Standards Design Standards (5). Drive-through is not really associated with architectural design. This should be a use-specific standard. Additionally, the standard that windows and aisles must be fully screened so that they are not visible from the arterial should be clarified. Some cities want these visible (though not located on building fronts) in order to reduce opportunities for crime Energy and Resource (B). Minor issue, but the waiver reference should be to subsection (A), not (a). Conservation Approval Process ARTICLE 8. Overlay Districts General Comments Division 1. Airport Districts, in General Airport Districts Division 2. Buckley Air Force Base District The airport overlay districts should be consolidated into one district. The figures should be revised to be legible throughout the overlay districts The fonts should be reconciled to use the larger of the two. For example, Section is large font, whereas is tiny font. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

54 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Comments and Suggested Revisions Regulations FAR Part 77 Surfaces Interpretation of District Boundaries Variances Subareas Clear Zone This language should be applied to the other airport overlays Accident Potential Zones I and II (APZ I, APZ II) LDN 65 Subarea Special Noise Impact District (SNID) Noise Impact District (NID) Airport Influence District Division 3. General Aviation Airport Influence District: Centennial Airport, Front Range Airport Application of Regulations Subareas LDN 65 Subarea LDN 60 Subarea LDN 55 Subarea Airport Influence District Division 4. Airport Influence District of Denver International Airport Application of Regulations Subareas Commercial Airport Noise Areas (CANA) Noise Impact Boundary Areas (NIBA) Airport Influence District Division 5. Airport Boulevard Overlay District General Comment Any design standards applicable to all commercial or mixed-use development can be deleted from this section Special Definitions These should be incorporated with the full definitions list Purpose Overlay District Landscaping Zones Development at 32 nd Avenue and Airport Boulevard Intersection Area Development at Other Intersection Areas Development Between Intersection Areas 46 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

55 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Development Standards Irrigation Application of District Waiver of Development Requirements Division 6. Colfax Mainstreet Overlay District Purpose District Boundaries and Division of the District into Sub-Districts Applicability of Regulations Administration and Enforcement Special Definitions Move to definitions article at the end of the code Urban Design and Landscaping Standards Comments and Suggested Revisions Table 8.2. The setbacks row should be further broken down since there are landscaping, parking and loading, and building setbacks all grouped together. (D). Not really justification for a waiver. (D). Vested property rights eliminate the applicant s need to file for a waiver. Table 8.3 Row 1. A building line shall be set at no more or less than 15 feet back from Colfax as measured from the curb. Is this something that is frequently subject to waivers? It seems very strict Architectural Design Standards Color Palette Requirements Public Art Prohibition on Security Bars Awnings Coordination of Graphics are illegible Street Tree Locations with Signs, Awnings, and Other Building Projections Division 7. Other Overlay Districts General Comments All overlay districts should be organized with the same hierarchy Business This district is recommended for elimination. Redevelopment District Industrial View Corridors Commercial Mineral Deposits Lowry Landfill These provisions may be able to be incorporated into use-specific standards, and if so this overlay district could be deleted Height Overlay Combine with the Mountain View district. District Mountain View Combine with the Height Overlay district. District Introduction to the The hierarchy and organization of this overlay district is confusing. Havana Street Overlay District Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

56 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Comments and Suggested Revisions Triggers for compliance with site design standards should be reviewed and clarified; this is an area where waivers and interpretation have been used to create flexibility but have raised objections from nearby neighborhoods Applicability of Regulations Definitions Consolidate with other definitions Havana Street Edge Treatment Requirement Tree Usage in Havana Street Property Frontage Areas Planting in Havana Street Frontage Areas Street Furnishings, Place Making Marker Program, and Havana Street Overlay District Plant List ARTICLE 9. E-470 Zone District Division 1. Zoning District Provisions General Purpose and Division of the District into Subareas Purpose and Intent of Each Subarea Permitted and Conditional Uses Permitted Uses in the E-470 Corridor District Residential Subareas Permitted and Conditional Uses in the E-470 Corridor Mixed-Use Subareas Accessory Uses Permitted Permitted Density and Intensity of Development Division 2. Design Standards Applicability of E- 470 Design Standards Protection of Natural Features, Resources, and Sensitive Areas Pedestrian Circulation Open Areas and Amenities The graphics should be embedded with applicable provisions rather than included at the end of the overlay district. The E-470 district may not require 10 unique subareas in addition to CACs, RACs, NACs, and SUNs. 48 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

57 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Entryway Design into Developments On-Site Surface Parking Building Height, Setbacks, and Lot Areas Residential Building Design Standards Non-Residential Building Design Standards Reserved Fences and Walls Lighting Division 3. Special Design Standards Special Design Standards for Residential Neighborhoods Special Design Standards for Neighborhood Activity Centers ( NACS ) Special Design Standards for Community Activity Centers ( CACS ) Special Design Standards for Regional Activity Centers ( RACS ) Special Design Standards for Sustainable Use Neighborhoods (SUN) Comments and Suggested Revisions The design concepts in the NAC, CAC, and RAC areas should be considered for inclusion as design standards for at least some other commercial/mixed use districts or arterials. These provisions should apply more broadly across the city. (J)1: Streetscape and connectivity objectives. The heading says objectives, yet all but one of the provisions read as mandates, using the word shall. (J)1.a. and f are the same standards. Remove provision f. ARTICLE 10. Northeast Plains District Division 1. General Purpose and Division of the District Into Subareas Purpose Permitted and Conditional Uses Permitted Uses in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) Subarea Permitted and Conditional Uses in the Employment Subareas Accessory Uses Permitted Permitted Density and Intensity of Development Division 2. General Development Standards Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

58 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Comments and Suggested Revisions Applicability of Northeast Plains Design Standards Protection of Natural Features, Resources, and Sensitive Areas Pedestrian Circulation Open Areas and Amenities Entryway Design into Developments On-Site Surface Parking Building Height and Setbacks Reserved Fences, Walls, and Landscaping Lighting Special Design Standards for Mining Activities Special Design Standards for Development in the I-70 Corridor Subarea, NE Plains General Subarea, Front Range Subarea, or Subregional Activity Centers Division 3. Building Design Standards Residential Building Design Standards Non-Residential Building Design Standards Division 4. Special Design and Organizational Standards Special Design Figures should be revised for legibility. Standards for Residential Neighborhoods Special Design The design concepts in the NAC, CAC, and RAC areas should be considered for Standards for Neighborhood inclusion as design standards for at least some other commercial/mixed use Activity Centers ( NACS ) districts or arterials Special Design Standards for Community Activity Centers ( CACS ) Special Design Standards for Subregional Activity Centers ( SACS ) 50 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

59 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Comments and Suggested Revisions Special Design Standards for Sustainable Use Neighborhoods (SUN) ARTICLE 11. General Development Regulations General Comments Several of these standards apply at the subdivision as well as the zoning stage of development, which is another reason to use a Unified Development Code structure Setback and Yard Revise the hierarchy. (C) and (D) should both be listed under (B), projections Requirements into setback areas Lot Requirements Many of these dimensional requirements are inconsistent with those provided in Table 5.2, residential development standards. It is unclear when these standards apply versus those outlined in base zoning district standards. Small lot standards are used extensively, and are often not clear. It should be clear that they apply to the entire city, and supersede previously approved GDP, PZCD, etc. Consider revisions that prevent monotonous development and ensure a mix of small, affordable, well-designed single-family homes. The percentage of small lots allowed is also confusing. In a master planned community, how many small lots are allowed? Building Heights General height waivers are unusual. (B)3 and 4 are the same standard Accessory Uses These should be moved to the uses and use-specific standards article Outdoor Storage These should be moved to the uses and use-specific standards article. and Display Abandoned or This section should be located with other enforcement provisions in a general Discontinued Construction administration article Exterior This section should be located with other enforcement provisions in a general Maintenance administration article Motor Vehicle, This section should be further broken down into pedestrian circulation, Pedestrian and Bicycle automobile circulation, and bicycle connections (or similar). Access Motor Courts and These should be located within the street design section of subdivision Loop Lanes regulations, or within the urban street standards in Chapter 126. ARTICLE 12. Supplemental Regulations for Specific Uses and Activities General Comments Use-specific standards found within the current code should be grouped in one section and linked to the consolidated use table, as described in Part 2. It should be broken down by primary uses, accessory uses, and temporary uses and in the same way as the final version of the consolidated land use table. Division 1. General Uses Commercial Mobile Radio Service Facilities Temporary Offices Small Recycling Collection Facilities Prohibition on Animals and Poultry This section should be revised based on recent city discussions about backyard poultry. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

60 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Comments and Suggested Revisions Burning Not currently used. Should be in code enforcement regulations. Restrictions Park Uses Define passive recreational use Christmas Tree This should be replaced by seasonal sales, because items other than Sales Christmas Trees are sold on a seasonal basis. Another option would be to remove the permit requirement and require only that they be located in a designated commercial area Oil and Gas Facilities Site Plans for Major Electrical Or Natural Gas Facilities Commercial Transit Facilities The city has been issuing several waivers for vapor units, fencing, and landscaping. Frequently issued waivers should be codified as part of the code update process. The direction from PED&R on June 5, 2014 was to wait for COGCC rulemaking changes to be implemented prior to addressing potential changes to Aurora s oil and gas regulations. Move definitions to end of code. These should be located with other procedures rather than with use-specific standards. Consider removing this standard Recreational Vehicle Parks Outdoor Smoking Patios Division 2. Residential Uses Group Homes During update, ensure that this section (and definitions) align with current state regulations and Fair Housing Act Amendments rules and regulations Home Occupations This section should include the standards that are currently located in the definitions related to this activity. This one sentence is actually a performance standard that should apply to all uses. The home occupation requirements are in the definition section of the code, and should be moved elsewhere Domestic Violence Shelter Conversion of Single-Family Structures Custodial Dwellings Daycare Homes, Daycare Centers, and Small and Large Care Centers Bed and Breakfast Residences Nursing and Rest Homes Manufactured Housing This is the first reference to a special use permit procedure? What is the approval process for that process? Should it be referring to the temporary use permit process in Section This paragraph should be broken into several provisions. Nomenclature for senior living should be standardized. Too many terms used for the same thing now exist in the code. 52 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

61 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Comments and Suggested Revisions Planned Manufactured Housing Parks Dwelling Restrictions Division 3. Business and Commercial Uses Motor Vehicle Fuel The approval procedures should not be outlined in use-specific standards. It is Dispensing Stations unclear according to (B)4 if a fueling station in the E-470 district would require a public hearing before the planning and zoning commission or if it would follow the administrative Site Plan approval process associated with that district. We understand that no hearings have been held for conditional uses in the E-470 zone district, and therefore the code should be amended to clarify that they are not required. The lighting section of the code should have an objective standard that would prevent lights from gas station from burning the paint off vehicles below Residential Uses in These should be moved to use-specific standards for sf detached, sf attached Business and Office Districts and multifamily uses, with provisions related to the B-2 and C-O districts Passenger Side Drive-Up Facilities Commercial Uses in Residential Structures Teen Clubs Pari-Mutuel Wagering Facilities Pawnbrokers Artspaces Automobile and Light Truck Sales, Rentals, Service, and Fuel Dispensing; Motor Vehicle Painting and Auto Body Shops; and Motor Vehicle Salvage Temporary Outdoor Food and/or Merchandise Establishment of Stand Regulations and Prohibitions The fuel dispensing provision should be covered in the motor vehicle fuel dispensing stations standards (Section ). This issue requires further discussion. Painting and Auto Body, heavy transmission and engine repair are restricted to industrial zones; sales, service, tires, etc. to commercial. This does not always work, since Firestone does some heavy repair. Consider other use-specific standards for auto service and repair, such as no outside, overnight storage of vehicles and discuss If the same would apply to industrial districts. The code appears to be using the terms special use permit and temporary use permit synonymously. The process in Section should make that clear. Many of these provisions do not belong in the zoning code but rather the business licensing section of the municipal code. Then the zoning code should simply require that all businesses and facilities have valid licenses in effect at all times, and that failure to have a valid license in effect is a violation of the zoning code. The penalty section should be relocated with other enforcement provisions in a general administration article. This is currently being revised in the food truck ordinance, to make food trucks more attractive in Aurora Liquor Stores This paragraph should be broken down into several provisions Temporary Employment Offices Rules for After- Move definitions to end of code. Hours Operation of Existing Uses Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

62 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Comments and Suggested Revisions Retail Marijuana Establishments and Marijuana Membership Clubs Division 4. Industrial Uses General Performance Standards for Industrial Uses Rail Service Divide this paragraph into two provisions Parking Or Storage of Motor Vehicles in the Industrial Districts Terminals, Motor Vehicle Storage, Contractor Yards, Outdoor Storage, and Transfer Stations in the Industrial Districts Sold Waste Transfer Stations M-0 District: Off- Street Loading Repair, Rental, and Servicing in the M-1 District Electrical Substations Division 5. Sustainable Energy Uses General Comments Table for Solar Collectors Uses, Accessory and Principal Solar Collector Design Standards Accessory Solar Collector Principal Solar Collector Design Standards Wind Systems, Large and Small Wind Systems Design Criteria Small Wind System, Accessory Uses This provision is internally inconsistent. The first sentence prohibits the use adjacent to residential zones, whereas the second sentence appears to apply screening requirements for those prohibited scenarios. If the intent was to require full screening from all adjacent properties, it should be split into a unique provision. Consider provisions that allow for geothermal energy facilities as an accessory use in most zoning districts (they re all but invisible). All of these standards should be reviewed to ensure they accurately reflect which are accessory and which are principal uses of land. 54 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

63 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Large Wind Systems, Setbacks and Design Standards Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Infrastructure Comments and Suggested Revisions (B)1. Electric vehicle charging is not listed as a primary permitted use in any zoning district. The use tables should be amended if this would be considered as a primary or accessory use. ARTICLE 13. Building Design and Architectural Standards Division 1. in General Screening of (B)2. Predominant public views change over time with future development of Rooftop Equipment surrounding properties. These standards should be revised to apply to visibility from any public street, park, or publicly accessible open space. Division 2. Residential Districts and Uses Purpose and Applicability Design Standards for Single-Family Detached, Two-Family, and Single- Family Attached Duplex Homes Single-Family Attached Townhomes and Multiple-Family Residential (B) is confusing. Does it apply to every residential design plan (e.g., custom homes on vacant single-lots in old Aurora), or only subdivisions? The actual standards for masonry are contained in this provision labeled applicability. Waivers from these requirements should be approved using similar procedures regardless of the zoning district. Consider allotting more points for water-sense program features for internal design and conservation mechanisms. Division 3. Non-Residential Districts and Uses Industrial Building The graphics for residential uses are located in the industrial building materials Materials section. They should be embedded with their applicable provisions. Additional basic design standards for light industrial and flex-space buildings should be considered. ARTICLE 14. Landscaping Division 1. in General Purpose Applicability The landscaping Site Plan should be referred to as a landscaping plan included with the Site Plan review. It is not a separate procedure or submittal. (D). The TOD and SIR districts should be included in this list of exemptions. Division 2. Administration and Enforcement Definitions These should be consolidated with other definitions Administration Administrative Modifications to Planting Requirements Declared Drought Emergency Division 3. General Standards Tree Preservation This provision should reference the landscape manual, which includes the policy on tree preservation. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

64 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Wetland Requirements Landscape Street Buffers Landscape Site Perimeter Buffers for Non- Street Frontages Special Landscape Buffers Private Common Open Space Plant Materials Requirements Comments and Suggested Revisions The tree preservation policy is written as a regulation (not guidance) and should therefore be integrated into this section. Tables should be embedded in these provisions rather than included at the end of the landscaping article. Tables should be embedded in these provisions rather than included at the end of the landscaping article. Tables should be embedded in these provisions rather than included at the end of the landscaping article. This information is provided in the Landscape Manual and therefore that document should be referenced here Turf Regulations Tables should be embedded in these provisions rather than included at the end of the landscaping article. Stains and odors should be addressed in these provisions Artificial Turf Standards Re-Establishment of Non-Irrigated Native, Dryland, and Restorative Grasses Irrigation Include graphic with sample tables populated Living Material Requirements Retaining Walls This section should be located with fence and screening provisions Service Areas and This section should be located with fence and screening provisions. Trash Enclosures Detention, Retention, and Water Quality Ponds Seeding of Disturbed Land for Future Construction Phases Prohibited Plant This list should be located with other plant material requirements (Section Species ) Xeriscape Design (C). Mulch depth required should include a range rather than just a minimum depth. Excessive depth (over ~4 in.) can lead to water-logged soil and plant disease Landscaping Maintenance Parking Lot Landscaping Parking Lot Screening Division 4. District Standards All parking lot landscaping provisions should either be included in this provision or within Article 15 parking, but not in both. We recommend they stay in this article to promoted more integrated landscape designs. All parking lot screening provisions should either be included in this provision or within Article 15 parking, but not in both. 56 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

65 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Additional Requirements for Residential Development Additional Requirements for Non- Residential Development Private Covenants Contrary to Public Policy Are Disallowed Division 5. Special Standards Requirements for Sites With Existing Development Comments and Suggested Revisions It is unclear whether these requirements apply to single-lot residential developments, or just new subdivisions and multifamily development. (C). Distinctive landscaping is required at intersections of public streets adjacent to the project. The term project is not defined. (D). Erosion control is generally better addressed in a separate section for grading, erosion, and sediment control. Referenced tables should be embedded directly into the provisions wherever possible. A one-per-one caliper replacement provision can result in the loss of mature heritage tree species replaced by several small trees that might not ever grow to that size for many reasons. Consider adding a provision to replace those trees with a similar species. Many new codes are requiring more than one-toone replacement to discourage removal of large trees. Embed the tables and figures referenced in this section. (C) The waiver process is too broad in that it does not consider the benefits of providing landscaping over things like parking requirements and additional required lane width for fire and/or circulation. Division 6. Black Forest Purpose Relationship To Existing Regulations Applicability and Exemptions Requirements Notice to Prospective Purchasers Appeals Penalty All of the tables and figures from the previous landscaping sections should be relocated and embedded within the applicable provisions. Table 14.2 is confusing. Does column (A) represent the uses on either side of a particular residential lot, or just a mix of uses surrounding the lot? The table should also be updated for legibility. Table 14.3A why are small lots required to provide a greater minimum percentage of turf than larger lots? The percentages should be similar regardless of lot size Urban Public The reference to Division 6 should be revised to say Article 7, Division 6. Spaces Urban Street Landscaping ARTICLE 15. Parking Division 1. in General The references to urban street landscaping should simply reference Section rather than provide the same provisions. This creates opportunity for inconsistencies should one of the code sections be updated. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

66 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Comments and Suggested Revisions Purpose and General Requirements Division 2. Administration and Enforcement Use and Place What about temporary use permits? Should have a reference to applicable Restrictions temporary use permits allowed in parking areas Parking Plan This requirement is generally integrated as one element of Site Plans, not a separate plan or submittal requirement Changes to Parking Plan Division 3. Parking and Loading Spaces Required Amount of On-Site Table 15.1 As mentioned in part 2 of this report, the calculation of required Parking Required spaces based on the number of employees is difficult to manage and enforce Parking Reduction Waivers Off-Street Loading Table Consider exemptions from loading requirements for smaller office Spaces in Business and and/or other commercial and retail establishments. The trend for deliveries is Industrial Districts increasingly using smaller trucks at more frequent intervals throughout the day, thus diminishing the need for loading berths Accessible Parking (B)1. Current Americans with Disabilities Act regulations require one space for every six accessible spaces must be designed as van accessible with an access aisle Bicycle Parking Multifamily residential projects should be required to provide bicycle parking and/or storage. The current requirements only apply to non-residential development. Division 4. Design, Construction, and Maintenance Parking Area Design Location of Off- Site Parking Access to Parking from Streets and Alleys Construction and Maintenance ARTICLE 16. Signs Division 1. Purpose and Intent Purpose and Intent Division 2. Administration and Enforcement Permits Enforcement Violations Existing Signs Table and 3 conflict. Table 15.6 these parking block design features do not seem to be connected to any added benefit to the city and can negatively impact water quality and stormwater runoff. Stacking spaces should be relocated to the other provisions related to required parking and loading spaces. Figure 15.6 is mistitled as parking block design. The lighting provisions should be provided in a separate section within the development standards, grouped with all other lighting standards. These standards do not provide for considerations for TOD and other mixeduse districts. Consider allowing further distances from required parking facilities to discourage surface parking in key pedestrian areas. (a)5. Remove which are nonconforming uses in these districts. This is not necessary to include. 58 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

67 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Comments and Suggested Revisions Nonconforming Signs Waivers Prohibited Signs Sign Definitions Consolidate with other definitions in a single section. Division 3. Permitted Signs Signs for Residential Uses Miscellaneous Signs Electronic Message Boards Signs in Special Commercial Sign Overlay District Sign Regulations in Should include the SIR district. Fitzsimons Boundary Area District (FBAD), City Center, Transit Oriented Development (TOD), Regional Activity Center (RAC), Sustainable Use Neighborhood (SUN), and Mixed Use Main Streets Signs in the Colfax Figures should be revised to be more legible. Mainstreet Overlay Creative Sign Program Temporary Signs Sign Programs for Multi-Tenant Developments or Master Plans Off-Premises Signs Division 4. Standards Identification and Marking Standards, Design Quality and Measurement Division 5. Creative Sign Design Review Board Created; Composition Authority and Purpose Division 6. Miscellaneous Severability ARTICLE 17. Fence, Wall, and Awning Regulations Division 1. Purpose, Applicability, and General Prohibitions Purpose Applicability Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

68 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Comments and Suggested Revisions General Prohibitions Division 2. Administration and Enforcement Definitions Consolidate with other definitions in a single section Permits (B) why not require fence permits for all fences? Enforcement Consolidate with other enforcement provisions Ownership and Maintenance Responsibility Installations on Public Rights-of-Way and Easements Waiver for Fences Built Pursuant to the City s Neighborhood Fence Replacement Program Detail at Final Plat Where No Site Plan Is Required Division 3. General Requirements General Construction Requirements General Location Requirements and Exceptions Division 4. Standards for New Fence Construction Requirement to Meet All Standards Location, Setback, and Height Restrictions Location and Height Requirements for Specific Uses Design and Material Requirements Division 5. Standards for Replacement Fences Replacement Fence Standards Replacement Fence Waivers for Individual Homeowners and Neighborhood and Homeowner Associations Division 6. Maintenance and Repair Requirement to Maintain Fences Fence Maintenance This should be combined with Section and Repairs Not Requiring a Permit ARTICLE 18. Noise 60 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

69 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Comments and Suggested Revisions General comments Purpose Specific Noises and Vibrations Prohibited Maximum Permissible Sound Levels by Neighboring Land Zones Measuring Instruments Exemptions Enforcement ARTICLE 19. Historic Preservation General Comments The code should reference the historic districts and landmarks map and a list of properties. Many newer codes treat historic preservation districts as overlay districts, and Aurora should consider that approach Purpose Designation by City Council Procedures for Landmark, Landmark Site, or Historic District Recommendation Development Applications Affecting Historic Landmarks or Historic Districts Guidelines for the Issuance of Permits Affecting Historic Landmarks or Historic Districts Zoning Applicability Maintenance of How is this currently being enforced? Historic preservation staff should be Landmarks and Landmark coordinating with neighborhood services to ensure compliance. Districts Loss of Landmark Designation ARTICLE 20. Definitions Generally Definitions There are several missing definitions, inconsistent definitions, and similar definitions that should be consolidated. Each non-intuitive permitted use should include a definition. All definitions contained in Chapters 146 and 147 should be located in this section. Definitions containing regulations should be revised to exclude regulatory language wherever possible. For example, home occupations should be defined, but the regulations should be relocated to use-specific standards. Consider an index of common acronyms in addition to the existing definitions. Could include FAR, UAC, CAC, NAC, SAC, SIR, RAC, etc. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

70 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Chapter 147, Subdivision Ordinance Comments and Suggested Revisions Additional graphics should be developed for definitions and embedded directly adjacent to the defined term. ARTICLE 1. Introductory Provisions General Comments We suggest combining the subdivision ordinance and zoning code into a Unified Development Code Title Authority Applicability and Jurisdiction Purposes Violations Continue Consolidate these into a single violations section Severability A separate severability provision is not needed if a Unified Development Code structure is adopted ARTICLE 2. Procedures and Administration General Comments These procedures would be consolidated with other procedures for development in the zoning code General Subdivision Plats Civil Engineering Construction Plans Subdivision Improvement Guarantees Resubdivisions Amended Plats Subdivision Plat/Street Right-of-Way Vacations Appeals Penalties and These provisions should be consolidated with other violations, penalties, and Enforcement enforcement provisions. ARTICLE 3. Subdivision Design and Improvements General Comments These design requirements can be integrated into a single article for zoning and subdivision standards in the Unified Development Ordinance Applicability Layout and Design Generally Specifications and Standards Generally All Lots Reserved Sidewalks, Trails, and Bicycle Paths Streets Water Supply/Fire Protection Wastewater Systems These provisions should be integrated into similar requirements applicable to development that does not require subdivision approvals (i.e. existing lots). 62 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

71 Part 3: Detailed Review of Current Development Regulations Detailed Review of Current Aurora Development Regulations Code Section and Title Comments and Suggested Revisions Stormwater Management Other Utilities Grading and Erosion Control Slope Conditions Water Quality and Wildlife Habitat Landscaping and Buffering Easements Monuments Dedications The dedications should be reevaluated prior to the code update. We recommend leaving exact fee-in-lieu of dedication amounts out of the code and reference a resolution of City Council Extension of Public Improvements; Improvement Reimbursement District ARTICLE 4. Definitions and Construction of Language Word Usage and The same rules should apply as those provided for in the zoning code. Construction of Language Terms Defined Combine with those in the zoning code. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

72

73 Part 4. ANNOTATED OUTLINE OF NEW UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE This Part 4 shows an annotated outline of the new Aurora Development Code. In addition to the changes listed below, those detailed changes noted in Part 3 of this document will be incorporated into each applicable section unless the text states otherwise. In a few instances, further review of the changes listed in Part 3 suggested a better way to resolve the weakness or inconsistency, and that better approach is reflected in this Part General Provisions This portion of the code will consolidate materials related to the legal authority, purposes, and applicability of various sections of the Aurora Unified Development Code. It will incorporate materials from current Chapters 146 (Zoning) and 147 (Subdivision) of the Aurora Code as listed below, and with those changes noted below Title This section will integrate materials from current sections (Title) and (Title) Authority This section will include materials from current section (Authority) as well as new material citing all sections of Colorado law granting the city authority to regulate the use, division, and development of land Purpose This section will integrate materials from current sections (Purpose) and (Purpose) with changes necessary to reflect the values in the recent update of the 2009 Comprehensive Plan Applicability This section will incorporate materials from current sections (Applicability of provisions) and (Applicability and jurisdiction) and will clarify that all development and redevelopment in the city must comply with the provisions of the Code unless specifically exempted by the Code or by Colorado or federal law. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment DRAFT August

74 Part 4: Annotated Outline of New Unified Development Code Relationship to Other Regulations This new section will clarify that in the case of any conflict between sections of the Code, or between provisions of this Code and other Aurora regulations, the strictest provision shall govern, with one exception. In the case of a conflict between the provisions of a base zoning district and an overlay zoning district, the overlay provision shall govern regardless of whether it is more or less strict than the base zoning district Relationship to Private Covenants and Conditions This new section will clarify that in the case of a conflict between the Code and the provisions of a private restrictive covenant, the provisions of the zoning code shall apply. In addition, it will clarify that the City has no obligation to enforce private restrictive covenants Transition from Previous Ordinances This section will explain how the City will transition from the provisions of the current zoning code and subdivision ordinance to this new Code. More specifically, it will state that any complete application filed before the date of the new Code shall be governed by the provisions of the previous ordinances. Incomplete applications pending on the effective date, and applications filed after the effective date, will be governed by the new Code. This section will also clarify (consistent with current section 147.5) that violations of the previous zoning code and subdivision ordinances will continue unless the structure or activity that gave rise to the violation is legal under the new Code Severability This section will incorporate the provisions of current section (Severability) that if any portion of the Code is declared invalid by the courts, the remainder shall remain valid and in effect. 200 Zoning Districts This portion of the Unified Development Code will list the Zoning Districts available in the City of Aurora, the purpose of each district, and any regulations (other than permitted uses and dimensions) that are unique to that district. Permitted and conditional uses for all uses will be listed in the section that follows, and dimensional standards (maximum heights, minimum setbacks, open space requirements, and the like) for all districts will be listed in the Zoning and Subdivision Standards section outlined below. This section will clearly distinguish between base and overlay zoning districts Districts Established This section will include content from current section (Districts) formally establishing the zoning districts listed in the Code, indicating that their boundaries are as shown on the Aurora Zoning Map, clarifying that the Aurora Zoning Map is part of the Code, and that the official Aurora Zoning Map 66 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014

75 Part 4: Annotated Outline of New Unified Development Code is the latest electronic version of that map containing all changes approved by City Council to date. It will also include information about interpreting zoning district boundaries from current section Summary Table This section will include a table similar to that shown on pages above identifying how the current zoning districts have been consolidated Base Zoning Districts Each of Aurora s base zoning districts will be illustrated on a single- or two-page layout similar that (from another community) shown below. Each shall include a purpose statement, a brief summary of key dimensional requirements, an axonometric drawing of those dimensional requirements, and photos of typical development in that zoning district, as shown in the sample from another community below. In addition to the changes noted in the subsection below, the purpose of each district will be stated more clearly, and will be revised to reflect the goals of the recent update to the Aurora Comprehensive Plan. Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan FINAL September

76 Part 4: Annotated Outline of New Unified Development Code 68 Aurora Zoning Code Needs Assessment and Work Plan DRAFT September 2014