Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline

Transcription

1 Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February 2015 STAFF DRAFT

2 Cover photo credits:

3 Update the Permitted Use Table... 3 Update the Use-Specific Standards... 5 Update the Use Definitions... 6 Reduce the Use of Planned Developments... 6 Consolidate Similar Zoning Districts... 7 Create a Suite of Mixed-Use Districts... 7 Retire Obsolete or Unused Districts... 8 Summary Table of Recommended Zoning District Changes... 9 Simplify Variances and Modifications Enhance the Criteria for Approval Establish Application Resubmittal Provisions Incorporate Graphics and Tables Revise Parking Standards Incorporate Sustainability and Livability Principles Review the Current Ordinance Structure Consider a Unified Development Ordinance Reformat the Ordinance Include More Visual Aids in the Ordinance Title Authority Purpose Applicability Relationship to Other Regulations Relationship to Private Covenants and Conditions Transition from Previous Ordinances Authority to Interpret the Ordinance Severability Zoning Districts Established Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February 2015 i

4 Summary Table Base Zoning Districts Planned Development Districts Overlay Districts District Dimensional Standards Introduction Permitted Use Table Use-Specific Standards Site Layout/Subdivision Standards Parking, Loading, and Stacking Regulations Landscaping and Buffering Outside Lighting Requirements Signs Historic Preservation Standards Operating and Maintenance Standards Review and Decision-Making Bodies Common Review Procedures Specific Procedures Enforcement, Violations, and Penalties Rules of Construction Rules of Measurement Definitions Currently Underway Targeted Substantive Updates ii Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February 2015

5 The City of Littleton is located about 10 miles south of downtown Denver. The city has few remaining vacant properties and is well-positioned for future infill and redevelopment as the region continues to grow. Littleton is ripe with opportunity, with a bustling downtown core, excellent schools, and a light rail transit corridor running along Santa Fe Boulevard. The city s long-range vision is expressed in Comprehensive Plan 2014, an update to the 1981 Comprehensive Plan. The vision expresses that Littleton embraces its small-town qualities while enjoying the advantages of a metropolitan area, and promotes a sustainable economy, environment, and society. The new plan focuses on the current needs of Littleton and future desires well into the future and states that Littleton will: Respect and build upon its history; Foster its small-town, family-friendly character; Be home to people of all ages and backgrounds; Value livability, diversity, and progress; Promote a vibrant economy for individuals, businesses, and the city as a whole; Value the importance of its citizens and its natural resources; Manage and direct change; Strive for sustainability in economic, environmental, and social decisions; and Raise the bar to increase the quality of community and economic development. The accompanying goals, policies, and transformative actions outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as neighborhood and corridor plans, are the foundation for making future land use decisions in Littleton. Littleton s current Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations are more than 20 and 40 years old, respectively. They have been updated repeatedly on an as-needed basis, which has created a document organization that can be cumbersome to administer. Updating the Littleton Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations will require a commitment of resources and effort on the part of staff, appointed and elected officials, and the remainder of the project team. Recognizing this, the city is taking a multi-step process. The City of Littleton retained Clarion Associates to assist with this Zoning Ordinance assessment and amendment process, and to bring its experience and perspective from similar projects for communities throughout Colorado and the nation. The project began in November 2014 with a kick-off meeting and an independent analysis of the existing ordinances to determine: Ways in which the current Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations are working well; Ways in which the current Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision 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 update the development review process; and Necessary changes related to new statutory and/or case law. Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February

6 Summary and Project Overview Report Organization This report represents the first phase of the process, and includes a comprehensive assessment of the current Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations and an annotated outline of a new Unified Development Ordinance. Immediately following this Assessment and Annotated Outline, Clarion will prepare targeted updates to the Zoning Ordinance related to use regulations and general reorganization. The city has organized a Steering Committee made up of city officials, community and neighborhood leaders, appointed officials, developers, and other key stakeholders that are familiar with issues associated with zoning and subdivision. The Steering Committee will review this assessment, and provide oversight on the targeted amendments to the Zoning Ordinance throughout Clarion s current scope of work includes the following tasks: Task 1 Project Kickoff (complete) Task 2 Prepare Assessment and Outline for the Zoning Ordinance (this document) Task 3 Prepare Staff Draft of Revised Permitted Use Regulations (March 2015) Task 4 Prepare Public Draft of Revised Permitted Use Regulations (May 2015) Task 5 Prepare Staff Draft of Reorganized Zoning Ordinance (August 2015) Task 6 Prepare Public Draft of Reorganized Zoning Ordinance (October 2015) The reorganized Zoning Ordinance that results from these six Tasks will incorporate the new permitted use regulations, but will carry over the remainder of the current Zoning Ordinance content. This Assessment and Annotated Outline is intended to build project support, identify key issues, and set forth a draft plan of action to create a new set of regulations through subsequent updates. Following this Introduction (Part 1), the document is organized into three main parts: Part 2, the Analysis of Current Regulations, identifies major themes that emerged from review of the city s planning and regulatory documents and procedures, information gathered during 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 Unified Development Ordinance might modify current regulations to better address concerns pertinent to that issue. Part 3 is an Annotated Outline for a new Unified Development Ordinance, based on recommendations provided in Part 2. Part 4, Next Steps identifies considerations for moving forward following this Assessment and Annotated Outline. Clarion is pleased to present this Assessment and Annotated Outline to community members, officials, and staff. In our experience, successful ordinance update efforts share a number of common features. These are benchmarks that local governments and citizens can use to test their current development regulations and to guide the drafting of revisions. These key features include: Citizens and key stakeholders should have opportunities for meaningful input before changes are finalized. Revisions should help to implement adopted plans and be based on input from elected officials, steering committee members, staff, developers, and citizens. Revisions should be based on a methodical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the current development regulations and how they relate to community goals. There are no one-size-fits-all answers. At a minimum, revisions should result in development regulations that include: A logical organization and user-friendly formatting; Substantive review and approval standards that are clear, consistent, and illustrated where appropriate; Legally-defensible standards and decision-making processes; and Enforcement and administrative provisions that are realistic based on available local resources. The recommendations in this Assessment and Annotated Outline are made with the above considerations in mind. 2 Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February 2015

7 The current land development regulations (Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations) in Littleton have some components that are working well, some that require minor edits and adjustments, and some that could benefit from a substantial overhaul. The intent of this section is to discuss the major, overarching areas where Littleton s regulations could be improved and to offer potential solutions to those issues. Additional specific targeted opportunities for improvement are discussed in Part 3, Annotated Outline for a New Unified Development Ordinance. Five major themes for improving Littleton s current development regulations emerged from the Clarion team s initial meetings and independent review. Identified themes include: Modernize the Use Regulations Update the Lineup of Zoning Districts Enhance the Review and Approval Procedures Improve the Development Standards Improve the Ordinance s Organization and User-Friendliness While the themes summarized in this section sometimes overlap, they represent an organized way to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the current regulations. Each of these themes is discussed in further detail below. As previously mentioned, Clarion is working with the City of Littleton to update its use regulations as part of this project. A key feature of any Zoning Ordinance is the set of uses permitted within each zoning district. The use regulations in Littleton are outdated and unnecessarily complex. As part of targeted updates in 2015, Clarion will prepare three key elements of the Zoning Ordinance that will update and simplify the city s permitted use controls. Those three elements are: An updated permitted use table, reflecting an updated list of broader and more flexible uses and use categories. The table will reflect recommended changes to the zoning districts (consolidations, eliminations, and additions) as suggested in this assessment and annotated outline. An updated set of use-specific standards identifying special limits on size, scale, parking, screening, or other features applicable to specific uses (but not to all development). Littleton s current use-specific standards are scattered throughout the Zoning Ordinance, including some of them embedded in use definitions. We will relocate them to follow the permitted use table. We will also cross-reference the use-specific standards in the far right hand column of the permitted use table. An updated set of use definitions that match the list in the permitted use table. Any substantive limits to size, scale, or operating standards in the current definitions will be relocated to the use-specific standards. In all of our work related to permitted uses, we will focus on legal compliance. For example, recent federal law changes related to telecommunications, pending rule changes related to fair housing, the requirements of the Religious Land Uses and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), and court decisions related to the processing of applications implicating first amendment rights, should all be reflected in the revised permitted use regulations. The city already has a working permitted use table to build on. We recommend making substantial improvements to the organization of the table, the layout and format, and the level of permission (e.g., Permitted, Conditional, Use by Special Permit) for some of the zoning districts. As part of the updates to the permitted use table, we recommend revising and simplifying individual use types and their larger categories and subcategories. For example, the existing category of residential could include a Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February

8 Analysis of Current Regulations Modernize the Use Regulations subcategory of group living rather than homes emphasizing special services, treatment or supervision. The individual uses within that category could still include group homes and skilled nursing facilities. We also recommend consolidating group homes into a single use in the table, and applying specific regulations to different sizes and types of facilities through use-specific standards. Right now, there are group homes for the elderly, for children, and for the handicapped. We also recommend eliminating unnecessary use categories and subcategories such as miscellaneous. Additionally, many of the current uses listed by zoning district are far too specific, such as teen club, pharmacies, monastery/convent, and circuses/carnivals, and many of these can be folded into new, broader use categories such as indoor entertainment, personal services, institutional uses, and outdoor entertainment. With the development regulations update, the city should also consider more contemporary land uses such as industrial flex space, live/work units, accessory dwelling units, micro-units, sustainable energy production, shared office spaces, and uses associated with urban agriculture (e.g., community gardens, produce stands, etc.). With the updates to the permitted use table, Clarion also suggests reformatting the table into a more intuitive structure. Due to the relatively few number of zoning districts, we recommend that a portrait orientation would be more user-friendly. As mentioned previously, a column will be added to the table to cross-reference use-specific standards. We also find it particularly helpful to provide a legend and headers for the table on every page reducing the amount of flipping back-and-forth for the user. The excerpt above from the allowable use table in Pagosa Springs, CO, illustrates a simple format organized by use category and use types, and includes cross-references to use-specific regulations. The image on the right shows another example using harvey ball symbols to indicate the level of approval required for different land uses in specific zoning districts. With the substantive targeted updates to the use regulations in 2015, Clarion will propose changes to the level of permission for use types in various districts. Such changes will be highlighted clearly, so that those reviewing the changes can easily identify where uses have been applied more broadly or narrowly throughout the city. For example, one recommendation is to allow for a broader allowance of residential units in non-residential structures throughout the city (vertical mixed use). They are currently limited to the B-1 and B-2 zoning districts subject to the standards in Section Another example is related to medical, dental, or other health related offices in buildings of not more than 10,000 square feet. That use, as well as individual offices, is currently permitted in the Transitional District, but not in the Business and Professional District. 4 Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February 2015

9 Analysis of Current Regulations Modernize the Use Regulations In addition, we recommend clarifying when, and under what conditions, religious institutions and similar secular places of assembly should be allowed in commercial shopping centers. Finally, the permitted use table should clarify whether and where the City will permit vacation rentals by owner (i.e. short term rentals of homes), and under what conditions. 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 second-best 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 Littleton consider this approach, in targeted areas for redevelopment. In the permitted use table, these could be labeled as V uses. We recommend introducing a broader range of use-specific standards in order to mitigate the impacts of certain uses regardless of the underlying zoning district. The current Littleton Zoning Ordinance already includes many of these standards, scattered throughout the Ordinance, addressing uses such as mini warehousing, breweries, and outdoor storage. Any new uses added to the permitted use table through the targeted updates in 2015 will include considerations for new use-specific standards. For example, for live-work units, many communities limit the number of employees and the location of the residential unit (above or behind the storefront or workspace). In addition, Littleton s current home occupation standards are outdated. They focus on what occupations can occur (dressmaking, millinery, laundering) and include standards based on vague standards (excessive traffic). Because the internet has opened up so many new home business opportunities, most newer ordinances focus on what cannot occur in a home occupation, and try to define those impacts much more clearly. Although the current regulations focus most of their attention on home child care standards, those standards do not appear to align with state licensing categories and may overlap state licensing standards. For all of these reasons, the home occupation standards should be updated. Another use of particular concern in Littleton is short-term rental properties (such as Airbnb, and VRBO). We recommend addressing the regulation of these uses primarily through the use of business licensing, and only secondarily (to the extent possible and enforceable), through the Zoning Ordinance update. Historically, it has proven difficult to enforce regulations based on who is occupying a residential unit without significant administrative expense and procedures that many property owners feel are intrusive. One advantage of relying primarily on business licensing approaches is that it allows the city to address the safety of short-term occupants and to collect business taxes to offset expenses of enforcement and administration. We also recommend redesignating several uses currently designated as conditional uses subject to individual approvals (Chapter 8) to be permitted uses subject to new use-specific standards that achieve the neighborhood protections currently imposed through conditional use approval. Potential candidates for redesignation include child care centers and indoor amusements. The benefit of this approach is that it allows the use to be permitted by right, subject to conformance with the standards, rather than requiring discretionary review. By making more uses permitted, but ensuring compatibility with surrounding areas and mitigating impacts through new objective standards, the development review process can be streamlined and made more predictable. Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February

10 Analysis of Current Regulations Update the Lineup of Zoning Districts Each use type and use category in the land use table should have a corresponding definition that can lead into specific examples of uses. For example, for indoor entertainment we could draft a definition similar to the following: Commercial recreation conducted entirely within an enclosed structure for amusement, fitness, or sport, and that is operated for financial gain; including but not limited to bowling alleys, skating rinks, pool halls, video and pinball parlors, and private gymnasiums and fitness centers. This definition would allow the city to remove separate uses for bowling alleys, ice skating and rollerskating as well as indoor amusements, not included in Creating definitions for use types and categories makes the regulations more predictable for the development community and citizens, and also provides guidance for the city to make determinations for unlisted land uses. When reviewing use definitions, we recommend removing any language that is a standard or requirement, or that references specific zoning districts, and relocating those standards to either the permitted use table or a use-specific standard. For example, the definitions for temporary accessory structures should be amended to remove the size limitations (120 sf and eight feet in height). Those standards would be more appropriate in the section of the Zoning Ordinance addressing temporary uses and structures (currently Section ). It is important that Littleton s menu of zoning districts can accommodate the wide range of development and redevelopment likely to occur in the city, while protecting the city s stable neighborhoods as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition to reviewing each zoning districts ability to implement the plan and accommodate infill and redevelopment, our review of the current zoning district lineup also considered the following: Is the intent of each district clear and does the district name match the intent? Is the district currently used, or is it unnecessary or obsolete? Are new districts needed (perhaps to allow more mixed-use development which can be challenging under the current districts)? Are any districts so similar in purpose and standards that they overlap and could be consolidated? Are the dimensional standards for each district (setbacks, density, and height) appropriately tailored to the purpose of the district? Are additional districts needed to address plan goals or reduce the city s past reliance on Planned Developments. Our findings and recommendations are discussed in the following subsections. The city has relied heavily on the use of the Planned Development (PD) process in the past. The PD district (and subdistricts) and the PDO district 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. 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 ordinance that must be maintained and enforced separate from the citywide Zoning Ordinance. Staff spends much more time tracking down answers to what is permitted in approved PDs (and subsequent amendments) 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 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). 6 Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February 2015

11 Analysis of Current Regulations Update the Lineup of Zoning Districts 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 citizens of the 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 and future PDs, including voluntary rezoning with incentives and comprehensive city-initiated rezoning with an opt-out provision. In these types of procedures, the City assigns to each PD (or portion of a PD) the new base zone district closest to the PD in intent, land uses, and dimensional standards, and brings forward a legislative map amendment to rezone most or all of them at one time. If an individual property owner disagrees with the City s judgment as to how the PD should be converted to base zone districts, that property owner can opt-out of the legislative rezoning and receive individual review and a site-specific rezoning following that review. The city should begin thinking about potential solutions early in the substantive update process. The map at left is an excerpt from the unofficial Littleton zoning map near Santa Fe Boulevard and Mineral Avenue. Most of the immediate surroundings at that key intersection have been developed using the Planned Development process. There are a few districts in Littleton that could be consolidated based on their purpose and intent, dimensional requirements, and their lists of permitted uses. The R-S and R-L districts should be consolidated into one large-lot residential district intended for minimal agricultural uses and as a transition into other single-family districts. The primary difference between the two districts today is minimum lot area requirements of five acres for R-S properties vs. two acres for R-L properties. The R-3X and R-4 districts should be consolidated into a single multifamily district that permits townhomes and apartments. Very few properties are zoned R-3X today, and additional neighborhood protection standards (such as height, setbacks, and landscaping) could be applied to townhomes and apartments abutting properties zoned for or being used as single-family residences. Several zoning districts in Littleton today allow for a mix of land uses, both horizontally (residential and non-residential uses in different buildings or lots next to one another) and vertically (residential and non-residential within one structure). Mixed-use districts are important especially near transit centers, downtown areas, and other areas such as employment centers. We recommend retaining the existing mixed-use districts in Littleton, and adding an additional district. Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February

12 Analysis of Current Regulations Update the Lineup of Zoning Districts Rename the R-5 district to MU-1 (Mixed-use one district). This makes it clear that the intent of this district is to allow for a mix of residential and non-residential uses. The 1 will indicate the relative intensity of mixeduse districts, with this one being focused primarily on high-density residential, with less commercial and office activity. Consolidate the T, BP, and B-1 districts and rename the consolidated district as MU-2 (Mixed-use two district). All three of these districts reflect an intent to allow low-intensity and office type commercial uses adjacent to residential area, and this new districts would simplify that intent into a single district and allow attached and multifamily residential districts to be mixed into the area. As with the MU-1, this new name makes the intent of the district clear. The 2 indicates that this district is intended to include a greater number and intensity of commercial and office uses to transition from residential districts to more intense and business oriented districts. Consolidate the B-2 and B-3 districts and rename the resulting district as the MU-3 (Mixed-use three district). These two current districts address more corridor- and center-oriented medium density commercial density at larger-than neighborhood scale. Increasingly, these types of zones allow attached and multi-family housing to be included, and this consolidation would follow that trend. The name makes the nature of the district and its relative intensity of development (higher than MU-3) clear. Rename the CA district to MU-CA (Mixed-use central area district). The new name illustrates the intent of the district, and the central area indicates that this district is mostly intended to serve downtown Littleton. The standards and permitted uses in this district reflect a greater intensity of development than the MU-1 or MU-2 districts. Create a new MU-TR district (Mixed-use transit district). This new district is intended to be applied to areas along prime transit corridors and station areas (generally within one-quarter mile of transit stations and stops), with a greater intensity than the MU-1, MU-2, and MU-CA districts. The district could be designed to consider residential densities greater than the current B-1 or B-2 districts allow (currently limited to 50 percent of the structure). This district should also incorporate more flexible parking standards, and should discourage automobile-oriented uses (such as drive-throughs, fueling stations, and car washes). Many districts could be eliminated as future zoning district options due to limited application, or because their purpose does not warrant a zoning district. We recommend eliminating the following zoning districts: CEM, Cemetery district. It is unusual to dedicate an entire district for one land use. Many communities permit cemeteries in certain residential, open space, or agricultural districts. Some communities permit them in industrial or business districts; however, we do not recommend that approach. Siting and other neighborhood protection standards can be applied using use-specific standards for cemeteries and accessory structures that accompany them. STP, Science and technological park district. This district is not currently being used in the city. We understand that it was previously applied to a single project; however, has since been rezoned. PD, Subdistricts R, C, and I. While it is necessary to retain a PD district, we do not see the need to divide it into subdistricts to a planned development. Planned developments are reviewed based on their merits and compatibility with surrounding development, as well as offering maximum flexibility. The subdistricts serve as an unnecessary layer of regulation, and we believe many of the protection standards within the current subdistricts could be addressed through use-specific standards. The subdistricts also convey the impression that only use-separated PDs are welcome, when in fact much new development is mixed use. PDO, Planned development overlay district. This district maintains the base zoning underneath, yet allows for flexibility and/or variance from the standards within that district. This district is operating more like an alternative compliance procedure, rather than an overlay. We recommend building some of these flexibilities into existing or new base zoning districts, and addressing greater flexibilities through administrative adjustments, modifications, or variances procedures. MH, Mobile home district. There is no land zoned into this district, and Littleton s two existing mobile home districts are actually non-conforming developments in other zone districts. In addition, the existing district standards are very dated. 8 Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February 2015

13 Analysis of Current Regulations Update the Lineup of Zoning Districts The table below summarizes our recommendations for consolidating, eliminating, or creating new districts. Summary Table of Zoning District Recommendations Current Littleton Zoning Districts Proposed Littleton Zoning Districts Residential Districts Residential Districts R-S, Residential-suburban agricultural district R-L, Residential-limited agricultural district R-S, Residential-suburban agricultural district R-E, Residential-estates district R-E, Residential-estates district R-1, Residential single-family district R-1, Residential single-family district R-2, Residential single-family district R-2, Residential single-family district R-3, Residential single-family district R-3, Residential single-family district R-3X, Residential multiple-family district R-4, Residential multiple-family district R-4, Residential multiple-family district MH, Mobile home district Consider eliminating this district Mixed-Use and Business/Office Districts Mixed-Use Districts R-5, Residential multiple-family district MU-1, Mixed-use one district. Primarily residential, but with small scale non-residential uses permitted T, Transitional district MU-2, Mixed-use two district. Consolidates three B-P, Business and professional district B-1, Neighborhood business district B-2, Community business district neighborhood scale commercial services districts, but also allows multifamily residential MU-3, Mixed-use three district. Consolidates two existing B-3, General business district commercial zones but also allows multifamily residential CA, Central area multiple use district MU-CA, Mixed-used central area district. Renamed for consistency with other mixed-use districts. -- MU-TR, Mixed-use transit district. NEW District Industrial Districts Industrial Districts I-P, Industrial park district I-P, Industrial park district I-1, Light industrial district I-1, Light industrial district I-2, Heavy industrial district I-2, Heavy industrial district Planned Development Districts Planned Development Districts PD, Planned development district PD-R, Planned development residential subdistrict PD-C, Planned development commercial subdistrict PD-I, Planned development industrial subdistrict PD-X, Planned development holding zone for newly annexed property Overlay Districts PDO, Planned development overlay district Flood Protection Overlay Natural Resource and Other Districts A-1, Agricultural district OS, Park/open space district CEM, Cemetery district STP, Scientific and technological park district Total Number of Current Districts PD, Planned development district Rezone lands to PD, but include a provision that PD s approved prior to the effective date of the new code are subject to the same conditions of approval, which includes both (1) the limitations included in their R, -C, or I designations and (2) the provisions of their individual approval ordinances and development plans, and that newly annexed lands are limited to XYZ uses until rezoned into another district or until a development plan with different provisions is adopted by Council. Overlay Districts Consider eliminating this district. Flood Protection Overlay Natural Resource Districts A-1, Agricultural district OS, Park/open space district Consider eliminating this district. Cemeteries can be addressed in the OS district or in one or more residential districts with use-specific standards. Consider eliminating this district. It is not currently applied to any land within the city. Total Number of Proposed Districts Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February

14 Analysis of Current Regulations Enhance the Review and Approval Procedures The current procedures for amending an approved Planned Development include two levels of approval administrative amendments by the Director of Community Development, or standard amendments requiring Council approval. We recommend increasing the amount of flexibility given to staff and/or the Planning Board for amending existing Planned Developments. The criteria for Director approval are extremely strict. For example, there can be no change in permitted uses, no increase in total building coverage, no increase in density or floor area, no increase in height, and no increase in traffic volume. Additionally, amendments must meet the minimum open space and parking or loading space requirements for the underlying PD subdistrict. Because of these strict standards, even the most minor adjustments to an approved PD are sent to the City Council for approval. Much like other administrative adjustments (or minor variances), we suggest determining appropriate thresholds for how much leeway is given to the Director. The city should consider a three-tiered system for amendments, where minor adjustments (e.g., less than 10 percent change) are made at the staff level, more substantial adjustments (e.g., between 10 and 20 percent change) are made by the Planning Board, and the most significant changes (e.g., greater than 20 percent change, plus the addition of new types of uses, new roads, etc.) require approval by City Council. In addition, we recommend that the Director be able to bump up administrative decisions on large or complex projects to the Planning Commission (based on objective criteria as to what constitutes a large or complex development application). The current Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations allow for variances, waivers, modifications to various applications and standards. The procedures and criteria for those modifications are currently scattered throughout the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. It appears that as new types of regulations were included in the Zoning Ordinance, each contained its own process for adjustments. The following sections relate specifically to variances, waivers, or modifications of the regulations: (E) Minor Variances. These allow for a 20 percent variance to certain lot requirements such as setbacks, open space, and lot width (C) Variance Fence requirements. Must follow Board of Adjustment procedures Variance Landscaping requirements. Must be approved through the SDP procedure (Chapter 7) Variance Flood plain regulations. Variances must be approved by an established Board. (It is not clear in the regulations whom that Board is BOA, Planning Board?) Variances Board of Adjustment. Establishes procedures for hardship variances Variances for qualified individuals with disabilities. Variances approved by the BOA for affording individuals equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling Modifications Lighting requirements. Reviewed and approved by Director of Community Development Waivers and Modifications Subdivision design standards. Requires approval by the City Council. We recommend consolidating most of these provisions into one location under Flexibility and Relief Procedures. This new section will incorporate all information about how applicants can obtain relief from the various provisions of the Littleton Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. The procedures will be organized into administrative, major, and hardship (based on state law) categories. As explained below, we recommend that adjustments required for compliance with the federal Fair Housing Act Amendments (FHAA) be made an administrative decision based on objective standards that align with FHAA requirements. 10 Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February 2015

15 Analysis of Current Regulations Enhance the Review and Approval Procedures 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 (after mitigation) than they would through strict compliance. In some cities, neighborhood protection standards (such as distance requirements, landscape buffers, or building stepdown provisions) 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; and Minimum perimeter landscaping area width. Administrative adjustment procedures could be revised to specifically identify standards that are commonly adjusted in Littleton, and to state the appropriate ranges for those adjustments. The current Zoning Ordinance allows for up to 20 percent adjustment (minor variances in Section (E)) for lot requirements, but could be expanded to other site development standards such as parking, loading, landscaping, and lighting. The 20 percent rule does not have to apply to all standards. For example, the city could allow for a 20 percent modification to lot coverage while only allowing up to 10 percent modification of building setbacks. The city should also consider listing automatic exceptions to the various site development and dimensional standards. These would not require Director approval, but would be pre-approved in the Unified Development Ordinance text. Since 2006, there were 18 front yard setback minor variances issued. Staff noted that the majority of these were approved to allow for front porches on homes that did not otherwise have more than a stoop. A standard exception provision would not only allow for front porches to be constructed, but would encourage it. Another essential dimensional exception is ADA ramps for person s living with disabilities. Allowing this exception by right prevents a costly additional step before the Board of Adjustment. This is especially important because so many individuals living with disabilities are also on a fixed income. In addition, federal law requires that the city respond to requests for reasonable accommodation of this type. Other exceptions to dimensional standards might include eaves, stoops, chimneys, solar panels, spires, radio antennae, flagpoles, or small wind turbines. The current procedures for a hardship variance are provided in Chapter 11, Board of Adjustment. The criteria and procedures for approval could be expanded and clarified. For example, the approval criteria could be expanded to include an exceptional shape, topography, building configuration, or other site condition provision. The criteria could also include demonstration that a practical hardship to the applicant would occur if the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance were literally enforced, and that hardship is not generally shared by others in the area. Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February

16 Analysis of Current Regulations Enhance the Review and Approval Procedures The procedures should state that a variance application, once denied, cannot be resubmitted unless the application is supported by new facts, evidence, or justifications. The new Unified Development Ordinance should also clarify which types of variances are required to meet the hardship criteria before the Board of Adjustment. Section (E)2 requires compliance with several hardship criteria, even though these minor variances are approved administratively. The current decision-making criteria are missing in some cases, and some of the criteria included for other types of decisions are overly subjective. For example, the general procedures laid out in Section apply to initial zoning, rezoning, general PD plans, PDOs, conditional uses, and uses by special permit. The approval criteria for the Planning Board to consider are included throughout the current Zoning Ordinance in various locations depending on the procedure (rezoning in , PDs in , PDOs in , and conditional uses in ). Many of the specific criteria could be enhanced to include consistency with the Comprehensive Plan (or with specific elements of the Plan), consistency with the proposed zoning district(s), and the ability to provide adequate facilities and services to the subject property while maintaining current levels of service to existing development. For Planned Developments, the criteria should include language related to the applicant providing specific types of desired benefits to the City of Littleton in exchange for the increased flexibility. For amendments to Planned Developments, there are no criteria for standard amendments that require council approval only criteria for administrative amendments at the staff level. For conditional uses, the criteria should include a statement related to the proposed use s compatibility with adjacent uses in terms of scale, site design, and operating characteristics (such as hours of operation, noise, odor, dust, and other external impacts). Each set of approval criteria should include a provision stating that the approval body may impose additional conditions as necessary to assure compliance with the other criteria or other requirements of the Unified Development Ordinance. One of the concerns we heard from staff is that if a major project is denied (e.g., a rezoning), there is no provision requiring the applicant to wait to resubmit the application. This means that the property owner can file a new application immediately and hope for different results. Many communities include a one-year minimum waiting period unless the application is significantly different from the initial submittal. In addition, they require that any submittal of essentially the same project after one year must be supported with new evidence, facts, or justifications. Another issue is the lack of a provision defining the timeframe for when applications under review must be resubmitted after being dormant. If an applicant receives comments from city staff, and does not resubmit the documents requested within a reasonable timeframe, then the city could have adopted new landscaping regulations or design guidelines, the Comprehensive Plan could have been amended to recommend a different character for the area. We recommend that if an applicant fails to respond to requests for additional information from the city, or for corrections to submitted materials, the application be deemed inactive and the application materials returned to the applicant. A defined number of time extensions could be granted with approval by the Director based on stated criteria. Littleton currently has several flowcharts for application procedures available online. We recommend including simplified flowcharts that relate to a set of common review procedures. Common review procedures are discussed in further detail in the Annotated Outline. Simple flowcharts can convey a lot of information related to the project initiation, pre-submittals, criteria, and review authorities, among others. 12 Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February 2015

17 Analysis of Current Regulations Enhance the Review and Approval Procedures This draft flowchart (not yet adopted) from another community demonstrates the steps required for the minor site plan review procedure. There are several approval procedures for applications in Littleton. We recommend summarizing the procedures in a table similar to the one below. This table provides a quick understanding of the approval process for any application making it more predictable for citizens, staff, decision-makers, and developers. Although process flowcharts are available online via the city s website, we recommend integrating a summary table directly into the Unified Development Ordinance. Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February

18 Analysis of Current Regulations Improve the Development Standards SUMMARY TABLE OF LITTLETON REVIEW PROCEDURES R = Review/Recommendation D = Decision A = Appeal Decider < > = Public Hearing M = Mandatory Application Review Procedure Historical Pre-Submittal Staff Board of (Does not include all Preservation Meeting Review Adjustment application types) Board Plan and Ordinance Amendments Rezoning (official map amendment) Rezoning with General Planned Development Plan General Planned Development Plan Planned Development Overlay M R Planning Board City Council M R <R> <D> M R <R> <D> Development Permits and Approvals M R <R> <D> <R> (if within historic district) Site Development Plan M D Conditional Use with Sketch Plan M R <D> Conditional Use with Site Development Plan M R <D> Temporary Uses M D Vested Property Rights R <D> Subdivision Approvals Preliminary Subdivision Plat M R Final Subdivision Plat M R Minor Subdivision Plat M R Subdivision Exemption M D Flexibility and Relief Procedures Variances and Appeals M R <D> Minor Variances D PDO Amendment M R/ (D - if criteria met) PD Amendment M R/ (D - if criteria met) Historic Preservation Procedures Certificate of Historic Appropriateness R Opt-in to Main Street D Designation of Historic Landmarks and Districts <D> <D> D (public meeting) <D> <R> A D (public meeting) D (public meeting) <D> R <R> <D> This table illustrates the large number of approval procedures in Littleton. It also demonstrates that the final approval bodies are divided appropriately, with many minor procedures requiring only staff level approval, and only the most complex procedures, or those mandated by statute, requiring City Council approval. The current parking regulations in Littleton are located in Section , Parking and Loading. Although the number of required parking spaces for some of the land uses is consistent with national standards, Littleton should also consider the following recommendations: 14 Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February 2015

19 Analysis of Current Regulations Improve the Development Standards The amount of required parking can often be relaxed as an economic development tool and a tool for encouraging redevelopment of otherwise difficult infill parcels. Much of Littleton s housing exists in close proximity to major transit corridors (either light rail, bus, or both), and the need for car ownership is somewhat diminished. Parking requirements are often a hurdle in achieving densities desired along major corridors and transit locations. Although 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit for multifamily unit is reasonable, it might be more than necessary near transit and downtown areas, or near targeted redevelopment areas. Denver uses a.8 space per dwelling unit along some of its major bus corridors and more urbanized areas (and does not require any downtown) That being said, the city should consider including minimum guest parking requirements for multifamily dwellings to prevent undesirable spillovers into surrounding neighborhoods. The city currently requires 2 spaces per dwelling unit for two and three-family dwellings. We recommend reducing these standards to 1.5 or lower per dwelling unit. Duplexes and triplexes are typically located with access to local residential streets. Parking for these types of housing beyond a smaller on-site requirement can usually be accommodated on street. A daycare is required to provide two spaces per teacher, plus off-street loading and unloading areas. Regulating required parking based on employees is difficult to enforce. Consider requiring 1 space per 1,000 square feet for day care centers. For bowling alleys and all other indoor entertainment, consider reducing the parking requirement to 2.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. A retail requirement of 5 per 1,000 square feet is high compared to many other communities. Consider reducing the minimum requirement to 3 or 4 per 1,000 square feet, depending on the context. Requirements for retail shopping centers should also be reduced. The restaurant requirements should be reduced. Drive-through establishments are especially high at 1 per 65 square feet. We also recommend revising the sit-down restaurants to 7-10 per 1,000 square feet, rather than 1 per 65 or 75 square feet. Some cities use 1 space per 150 or 200 square feet for both drive-through and sit-down restaurants. During the course of a Zoning Ordinance update, these requirements should be vetted through the stakeholders (citizens, staff, and the development community). Additional revisions may be advised at that time. One size does not fit all when it comes to many development standards. This is certainly true for parking. An appropriate suburban parking standard for office or general retail would not be feasible or advisable near transit or downtown areas. Consider adopting on-site parking standards where the requirements are relaxed (or even eliminated) for certain uses in specific zoning districts such as the CA or the proposed MU-TR districts. Many communities are introducing maximum parking limits to their parking standards. For some uses such as retail shopping centers, indoor entertainment, and multifamily residential, establishing a maximum parking limit allows for high-quality development to occur without developing a sea of parking. Some communities opt to establish both minimum and maximum parking requirements, whereas others establish only maximum parking standards and let the market decide what is appropriate. A few communities have taken a third approach in establishing a maximum percentage threshold above the minimum parking requirements that any development can provide. Administrative, minor, and major adjustments to maximum parking standards would be available just as they are for other development standards. We also recommend exempting uses and lots of a certain size and scale from minimum parking requirements. For example, consider exempting retail establishments less than 2,000 square feet, or commercial/mixed use lots less than 5,000 square feet. Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February

20 Analysis of Current Regulations Improve the Development Standards Shared parking is currently only expressly permitted in the CA zoning district. We recommend expanding the use of shared parking arrangements more broadly throughout the mixed use, commercial, and industrial districts. This tool allows for a reasonable accommodation of parking spaces for multiple uses with different peak hours of operation. Each of these shared parking agreements should be approved by the Director of Community Development. The city should also consider allowing tandem parking in the more urbanized areas throughout the city. Tandem parking allows for cars to be stacked behind one another. In residential areas, it is often self-regulating (households who occupy the units arrange to move vehicles as necessary, but may require some sort of management plan to guarantee access to individual vehicles in mixed use and commercial areas. One of the clear benefits is the reduced amount of total paving required that would otherwise be used for drive aisles. As with shared parking, the details of the operation agreements should be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development. The parking of commercial vehicles and recreational vehicles in residential neighborhoods is a concern in almost every community. For residents, commercial vehicles are considered to be an eyesore and can also produce an undesirable amount of noise and exhaust. For business owners or recreational enthusiasts, many believe they have an inherent right to park their vehicles on or near their property. Although this can be addressed through improved definitions of commercial and recreational vehicles in the Unified Development Ordinance, and to an extent in the parking and loading standards, the enforcement of the public right-of-way typically lies with police. With a growing number of home occupations, deliveries can also present neighborhood problems. We can draft use-specific standards to address operational standards that include limits on deliveries and employee parking for home occupations. For each of these issues, we recommend working with Littleton Police to develop a mutually workable solution. The current Zoning Ordinance allows a substitution of off-street vehicle parking spaces with bicycle parking facilities at a ratio of three bicycle parking spaces for one vehicle space (up to 10 percent of the required vehicle parking). We heard from staff that some developers are abusing the bicycle parking credits. One option for improving the system would be to establish a maximum number of spaces that could be substituted, rather than using the ten percent rule. Littleton could alternatively prescribe which types of land uses or zoning districts are eligible for the parking credits, and set different ratios depending on the use type. Communities are also increasingly including minimum bicycle parking standards, and we recommend that the City of Littleton do so. One of the emerging trends in planning is to integrate low-impact development principles (open space designs that also manage and reduce stormwater runoff) into Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. We recommend considering updates that allow for low-impact development techniques, innovative stormwater and detention facilities (to improve water quality), renewable energy equipment and facilities (such as wind, solar, and geothermal), and increased densities where appropriate for more water- and energy-efficient development. An increasing number of communities integrate connectivity standards into their zoning and subdivision regulations. Some have adopted complete streets ordinances requiring multi-modal considerations for any new roadways or retrofits through large developments or redevelopments. Activity centers and people-oriented places require a higher level of consideration for pedestrians and bicycles. Connectivity can be accomplished in many ways, including the following: Discourage (or prohibit) the use of cul-de-sacs for future development (or require pedestrian/bicycle through paths through the head of the cul-de-sac to adjacent streets); 16 Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February 2015

21 Analysis of Current Regulations Improve the Development Standards Require sidewalks for all new development, and for redevelopment of a certain percentage of the total building or site area; Require safe pedestrian walkways from parking areas to building entrances (cross walks or internal sidewalks); Require dedicated bicycle lanes and amenities; Providing clear connections from transit to other uses or destinations; and Establish maximum block lengths or perimeters to discourage superblock developments (or require pedestrian and bicycle through paths through the larger blocks) Some communities have included a connectivity index in their subdivision regulations that require a minimum score for new subdivisions. The index is based on street links, nodes, and intersections. The example above from the Duluth, MN, unified development code shows a connectivity index calculation for a proposed subdivision. Littleton prides itself on providing great opportunities to live, work, and play. Addressing adequate connectivity and circulation in the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations will result in development of more of those opportunities. Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February

22 Analysis of Current Regulations Improve the Ordinance s Organization and User-Friendliness Regulations that have been amended multiple times over decades without a comprehensive rewrite strategy often become difficult for both staff and the community to understand and administer. This is the case in Littleton, where piecemeal regulations have been added over the years to address various specific concerns, resulting in a complex set of regulations that lack a logical, intuitive organization. We heard several concerns related to the organization of the regulations, their format, and the use of inconsistent and often subjective language that further complicates the administration of the documents. This section discusses several solutions the city can pursue to improve the userfriendliness of the development regulations. One of the greatest opportunities for improving the Littleton land development regulations is to implement a reorganization of their elements. The current land development regulations include Zoning Regulations (Title 10), Subdivision Regulations (Title 11), the Sign Code (Title 4, Chapter 3), and the Historic Preservation Code (Title 4, Chapter 6). The zoning regulations in particular separate many sections that are interrelated and should be located within a single chapter. For example, we typically recommend that communities include land uses and use-specific standards in one chapter. The current Zoning Ordinance has use-specific standards in several chapters separate from the land uses chapter. The current Ordinance structure is outlined in the table below. Chapter Title 10 Zoning Regulations Chapter 1: Administration, Definitions, and Enforcement Chapter 2: Zone District Regulations Chapter 3: Land Uses Chapter 4: Supplementary Standards Chapter 5: Landscaping Chapter 6: Flood Plain Regulations Chapter 7: Site Development Plan Chapter 8: Conditional Uses Regulations Included (not a complete list) Definitions Administration (and some procedures) Application requirements Base zoning district purpose statements Minimum lot requirements PD district intent, standards, and procedures Table of permitted land uses, by district Standards related to site design Use-specific standards for several land uses (e.g., churches, home occupations, outdoor storage) Fence requirements Accessory uses and structures Temporary uses Performance standards (noise, glare, etc.) Parking and loading standards Minimum landscaping requirements Landscaping design criteria Plant selection Xeriscaping maintenance Floodplain regulations Floodway regulations Special exception uses Development standards Procedures Submittal requirements Approval criteria Appeals Requirements for a building permit Sketch plan Requirements for specific uses (use-specific standards) Requirements for all conditional uses Procedures 18 Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February 2015

23 Analysis of Current Regulations Improve the Ordinance s Organization and User-Friendliness Chapter Chapter 9: Planned Development Overlay Chapter 10: Nonconforming Uses and Structures Chapter 11: Board of Adjustment Chapter 12: Amendment Procedure Chapter 13: Vested Property Rights Chapter 14: Group Home for the Elderly Code Chapter 15: Lighting Requirements Title 11 Subdivision Regulations Chapter 1: General Provisions Chapter 2: General Application Procedures Chapter 3: Procedures; Major Subdivisions Chapter 4: Procedures; Minor Subdivisions Chapter 5: Plat Details Chapter 6: Design Standards Chapter 7: Capital Facility Impact Fee Chapter 8: Land Reservation Chapter 9: Subdivision Exemption Title 4 Building Regulations Chapter 3: Sign Code Chapter 6: Historic Preservation Code Regulations Included (not a complete list) Density requirements Development standards Application and review procedures Nonconforming uses Nonconforming structures Authority Variances for individuals with disabilities Application requirements Procedures Amendments to the zoning map Legislative purpose Conditions Eligibility Procedures Procedures Criteria for approval Applicability Lighting standards Submittal requirements and review procedures Exceptions/modifications Purpose of the chapter Territorial limits Violations/penalties Severability Definitions Application and procedures Preliminary plat procedures Final plat procedures Minor subdivisions definitions Preliminary and final platting procedures Plat requirements Accompanying material requirements Subdivision design standards Graphic presentation requirements Street standards Storm drainage and erosion and sediment control Utilities Waivers/modifications Purpose and intent General requirements (based on use) Impact fee credit Earmarks Purpose, time limitations, and compensation Use of land during reservation Eligibility for exemption Procedures Sign regulations, procedures, and administration Historic preservation declaration, policies, procedures, exemptions, and enforcement Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February

24 Analysis of Current Regulations Improve the Ordinance s Organization and User-Friendliness Many communities in Colorado and around the country have consolidated multiple ordinances that address land development into a Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). This consolidated approach typically involves merging Subdivision Regulations into the Zoning Ordinance, but may also integrate ordinances relating to resource protection, sign controls, use controls, and other issues. A Unified Development Ordinance 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 application of regulations. For example, the current Littleton regulations define some of the same terms in both the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations; each time an update is made, it must be carried forward to the other chapter, or inconsistencies arise. More User-friendly. A UDO 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 Development Ordinance often has the biggest positive impact on the usability of the document for both staff and the development community. Easier to Administer. Many communities that have adopted UDOs believe that they are easier to administer in terms of providing direction to applicants, finding information expeditiously, and enforcement. The Annotated Outline in Part 3 of this report provides additional detail and recommendations for how a new Unified Development Ordinance for Littleton could be organized. The current layout and numbering system of the Littleton zoning and subdivision regulations make them challenging documents to read. For example, each sub-paragraph is left-aligned, regardless of the level in the outline. This makes it easy to lose your place in the organizational structure and difficult to provide accurate cross-references. One particularly good example of this issue is Section (E)6.(b)(2). To understand where this provision belongs within the overall hierarchy requires flipping back several pages and walking through that section paragraph-byparagraph. A new numbering system and document layout should be used in the new Unified Development Ordinance to establish a clear hierarchy of provisions and to allow a user to understand more quickly where in the document a particular provision is located. The example in the graphic below compares the current Littleton layout to a sample improved layout from another ordinance. 20 Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February 2015

25 Analysis of Current Regulations Improve the Ordinance s Organization and User-Friendliness CURRENT LAYOUT MODERN LAYOUT The image on the left shows the current Littleton format and structure, with every paragraph left-aligned, no page numbers, and a lack of defined hierarchy. The version on the right from Morrisville, NC, demonstrates elements of user-friendly page layout, such as dynamic headers, nested text, and prominent headings. Photographs, tables, flowcharts, illustrations, and other graphics are helpful in conveying information concisely. The city s current zoning and subdivision regulations make limited use of such tools. We recommend expanding the use of visual aids to help explain how the development regulations work for example, by clearly showing how dimensional standards are measured and how development standards (parking, landscaping, building design, etc.) are applied. This will be particularly important if new or updated design standards are considered. The table on the left shows how select dimensional standards are summarized in a simple format. These summary tables are included at the beginning of each zoning district. The graphic above depicts lot standards for a residential district in the Arlington, TX, Unified Development Code. Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February

26

27 This Part 3 shows an annotated outline of the new Littleton Unified Development Ordinance. In addition to the changes listed below, those detailed changes noted in Part 2 of this document will be incorporated into each applicable chapter/section unless the text states otherwise. The following table summarizes the general proposed structure for a new Unified Development Ordinance for the City of Littleton. The remainder of this Part 3 provides details on the contents of each proposed chapter and/or section. Chapter Regulations Included (not a complete list) Title 10 Unified Development Ordinance Chapter 1: General Title Provisions Authority Applicability Relationship to other regulations Relationship to private covenants Transition from previous ordinances Authority to interpret the Unified Development Ordinance Severability Chapter 2: Zoning Districts Districts established Base zoning districts (purpose, some dimensional standards, district-specific standards) Planned development districts Overlay districts Chapter 3: Use Regulations Permitted use table Chapter 4: Development and Subdivision Standards Chapter 5: Zoning and Subdivision Procedures Chapter 6: Nonconformities Chapter 7: Definitions and Rules of Construction Use-specific standards Summary table(s) of dimensional standards across all districts Exceptions and encroachments to dimensional standards Site layout/subdivision standards (including connectivity) Parking, loading, and stacking Landscaping and buffering Outside lighting Signs Historic preservation standards Operating and maintenance standards Review and decision-making bodies Common review procedures Specific review and approval procedures Enforcement, violations, and penalties Nonconforming uses Nonconforming structures Nonconforming lots Nonconforming site features Nonconforming signs Rules of construction Rules of measurement Definitions Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February

28 Annotated Outline for a New Unified Development Ordinance This chapter will consolidate materials related to the legal authority, purposes, and applicability of various sections of the Littleton zoning and subdivision regulations. It will incorporate materials from current Title 10 (Zoning Regulations) and 11 (Subdivision Regulations) of the Littleton City Code as listed below, and with those changes noted below. This section will integrate materials from current sections (Short Title) and (Title). This section will include new material citing all sections of Colorado law granting the city authority to regulate the use, division, and development of land. This section will integrate materials from current sections (A) (Purpose) and (Purpose of Chapter), with changes necessary to reflect the values in the 2005 Comprehensive Plan and the 2014 Comprehensive Plan. This section will incorporate materials from current sections (B through E) (General Provisions) and (Territorial Limits; Existing Plats Approved) and will clarify that all development and redevelopment in the city must comply with the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance unless specifically exempted by the City Code or by Colorado or federal law. This section will incorporate materials from (G) (Effect of Other Regulations) and clarify that in the case of any conflict between sections of the City Code, or between provisions of this Unified Development Ordinance and other Littleton 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 (in the case of a PDO), the overlay provision shall govern regardless of whether it is more or less strict than the base zoning district. This new section will clarify that in the case of a conflict between the Unified Development Ordinance and the provisions of a private restrictive covenant, the provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance shall apply. In addition, it will clarify that the city has no obligation to enforce private restrictive covenants. This section will explain how the city will transition from the provisions of the current Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations to this new Unified Development Ordinance. More specifically, it will state that any complete application filed before the date of the new Unified Development Ordinance 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 Unified Development Ordinance. This section will also clarify, consistent with current section (C), that violations of the previous Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations will continue unless the structure or activity that gave rise to the violation is legal under the new Unified Development Ordinance. This section will clarify that the Director of Community Development has authority to interpret the Unified Development Ordinance, including whether a proposed use is included within a defined use or so similar that they should be treated the same, and including interpretations of zoning district boundaries. 24 Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February 2015

29 Annotated Outline for a New Unified Development Ordinance This section will incorporate materials from the current section (Severability), and will simplify the language. It will clarify that if any portion of the Unified Development Ordinance is declared invalid by the courts, the remainder shall remain valid and in effect. This chapter will list the Zoning Districts available in the City of Littleton, the purpose of each district, and any regulations (other than permitted uses and dimensions) that are unique to that district. Permitted uses, conditional uses, and uses by special permit for all uses will be listed in Chapter 3: Use Regulations and dimensional standards (maximum heights, minimum setbacks, unobstructed open space requirements, and the like) for all districts will be listed in Chapter 4: Development and Subdivision Standards. This chapter will clearly distinguish between base and overlay zoning districts. This section incorporates materials from the current sections (Zone Districts Created) and (Official Zoning Map). This section formally establishes the zoning districts listed in the Unified Development Ordinance, indicates that their boundaries are as shown on the Littleton Zoning Map, clarifies that the Littleton Zoning Map is part of the Unified Development Ordinance, and that the official Littleton Zoning Map is the latest electronic version of that map containing all changes approved by City Council to date. This new section will include a summary table similar to that shown on page 9 above identifying how the current zoning districts have been consolidated or expanded. Each of Littleton s base zoning districts will be illustrated on a single- or two-page layout similar to that (from another community) shown below. Each district shall include a purpose statement, a brief summary of key dimensional requirements, and illustrations of those dimensional requirements. 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 2014 Comprehensive Plan. Many of the current purpose statements are too vague to guide future planning or land use decisions. Conversely, the permitted densities in the multifamily zoning districts are far too specifically defined in the purpose statements. For example, the R-4 zoning district purpose statement mentions density up to 13.4 units per acre, but that level of detail belongs in the dimensional standards. We recommend providing a range of densities to simplify the purpose statements and avoid inconsistencies between different parts of the UDO. We also recommend each district be formatted into a two-page facing layout, with consistent components for each zoning district including a purpose statement, dimensional standards, illustration of dimensional standards, and other district-specific standards. Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February

30 Annotated Outline for a New Unified Development Ordinance The sample two-page district above illustrates one option for formatting the basic components of a zoning district. The R-S district will be consolidated with the R-L district. The R-3X and the R-4 districts will be consolidated. Splitting Duplexes. For each of the multi-family districts (currently R-3X, R-4, R-5, B-P, and CA), we will include two sets of dimensional standards, one of which has smaller lot sizes and allows a zero-foot side setback on one side if duplexes are split. We will include language that requires a common wall for splitting of duplexes, and that the lot-split occur at the common wall. The city could consider a similar system for splitting townhomes. This new category of zoning districts encourages a mix of land uses in key areas throughout the city. The R-5 district will be renamed to MU-1. The T, BP, and B-1 district will be consolidated and renamed to MU-2. The B-2 and B-3 districts will be consolidated and renamed to MU-3. The CA district will be renamed to MU-CA. Due to the unique nature of this zoning district, several changes are expected or are currently underway such as eliminating the minimum lot size requirements for residential uses, reducing the 20-foot garage setback on the rear property lines, and potentially eliminating the 10 percent minimum open space requirement an considering alternative open space compliance (rooftop gardens). A new district, MU-TR (mixed-use transit) will be established to allow for greater density and intensity of uses along key corridors and at transit centers in Littleton. 26 Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February 2015

31 Annotated Outline for a New Unified Development Ordinance Each of the existing industrial districts (I-P, I-1, and I-2) will remain. We recommend eliminating the CEM district. Cemeteries and accessory uses and structures can be addressed through use-specific standards. We recommend eliminating the STP district, since it does not currently apply to any lands in the city. Immediately following the base zoning districts, this section will include provisions for Planned Developments. This section will carry integrate material from current section (Planned Development District) and Chapter 9 (Planned Development Overlay). We recommend consolidating these provisions into one location and under a unified procedure for approval. Currently, the two procedures are approved by separate review bodies City Council for a Planned Development District and the Planning Board for a Planned Development Overlay. Since both scenarios apply zoning to a site, we recommend City Council adoption by ordinance for all Planned Developments, and that the PD-O be deleted. This section will carry over the provisions of Title 10, Chapter 6, Flood Plain Regulations. For the reasons discussed in Part 2, the current Planned Development Overlay district from Title 10, Chapter 9 should not be carried over. This section will consolidate all of the information in the current Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations concerning lot requirements, building requirements, and other site development requirements (setbacks, lot coverage, etc.). Dimensional standards will be organized into a table covering the base zoning districts in the city. Any specialized or unique dimensional requirements and/or exceptions that cannot be included in the table will be included in the following subsection. Among other information, the table will consolidate dimensional standards currently found in Chapter 2 (zone district regulations) and Chapter 4 (supplementary standards). A sample portion of a consolidated dimensional table from another community is shown below. Dimensional Standards for Districts D-A through D-5II Lot Standards District D-A D-S D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 D-5II Minimum lot area (sq. ft.) Single-family detached 3 acres 1 acre 24,000 15,000 10,000 7,200 5,000 2,400 Two-family dwelling N/A N/A N/A 20,000 15,000 10,000 7,200 5,000 Single-family attached N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,000 Minimum lot width (ft.) Single-family detached Two-family dwelling N/A N/A N/A Single-family attached N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 Minimum street frontage (ft.) Single-family detached Two-family dwelling N/A N/A N/A Single-family attached N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 We recommend the following changes to the current dimensional requirements: Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February

32 Annotated Outline for a New Unified Development Ordinance Provide greater setback differentiation between the residential zoning districts. Although the intent of each of the districts is different, the districts are currently very similar in terms of setback requirements. For multifamily districts and mixed-use districts, we encourage exploring minimal front and/or side setbacks to allow for building to be located closer to the street. For developments adjacent to single-family neighborhoods, protection standards can be incorporated that would otherwise trump the setbacks. The side setback requirements should be simplified. They are currently dependent on cardinal directions. We recommend revising this system to establish a unified side setback that could include a street setback condition. Similarly, the city should consider different rear setbacks along alleys than for districts without alleys. In the R-5 and Transitional districts, the maximum height of a structure may extend beyond the 30-foot maximum by one foot for each additional foot of setback. We suggest relaxing this bulk plane requirement in any urban commercial and mixed-use districts (including the Transitional District), since the lots may not be large enough to accommodate the step-downs needed to get the scale and density desired in these districts. The current regulations establish maximum densities, maximum height, maximum setbacks, and maximum FAR standards. We recommend choosing to either regulate the scale of development through FAR or through maximum densities, but not both. Complying with the other established dimensional standards should adequately result in the desired scale of development. FAR generally works better in suburban rather than urban contexts. The current requirements for unobstructed open space and building setbacks in the industrial districts should be revised. For industrial properties abutting residential uses or districts, a 25-foot buffer is required. The building setbacks are also 25-feet for nonindustrial zoning districts. The requirements are the same for both light industrial and heavy industrial districts. We recommend considering further distinction between the requirements of light industrial and heavy industrial properties, probably in the direction of reducing required light industrial setbacks, because those facilities often look and function like office buildings This section will introduce Littleton s consolidated use regulations for all zoning districts, including the abbreviations used in the Land Use Table, the operation of the Use-Specific Standards, and the fact that Use-Specific Standards apply regardless of whether the use is a Permitted or Conditional use. Abbreviations used in the table will include: P = Permitted use (by right); C = Conditional use requiring approval by the Planning Board; A = Accessory use; and T = Temporary use. As discussed earlier, depending on direction from the city, it could also include: V = Use available as a permitted or conditional use in a structure that has been vacant for 10 or more years. The current Land Uses (Section ) include several additional levels of permission that we recommend folding into other types of permission. For example, there is no need for a G symbol in the land use table since it only applies to one land use, group homes for the elderly. Any special conditions that apply to group homes for the elderly should be addressed in the use-specific standards, and not through the land use table. Similarly, the R land uses can be addressed by the use-specific standards for residential occupancy currently located in , without having a separate R level of permission in the use table. We recommend that the H, O, and PS uses are also recommended for removal from the use table and implemented through the use-specific standards. The current permitted use table will be amended using the abbreviations above. We recommend including a new column at the far right of the table that contains use-specific standards applicable to that use. A portion of a permitted use table from another community is shown below. The new table will be based on but will significantly revise the 28 Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February 2015

33 Annotated Outline for a New Unified Development Ordinance table found in the current Chapters 3, and all of the supplemental use standards in current Chapters 4 (Supplemental Standards) and 8 (Conditional Uses). As the uses are being organized into this table format, the list of uses in the left-hand column will be consolidated into fewer, more flexible zoning districts, as described in Part 2 of this document. In addition, the table will be reviewed with staff, the Steering Committee, and the Planning Board to ensure that each use is available (or not available) in those districts that will help achieve the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Where the impacts of a current conditional use on surrounding properties can be addressed or mitigated through use-specific standards or the zoning and subdivision standards in new Chapter 4, they may be recommended for relisting as a permitted use (by right) in that district. Among other things, this list will be reviewed to reflect the changes recommended in Part 2 of this document, those uses encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan, any uses required to be permitted by federal or state law, and a wider variety of housing types to meet the diverse housing needs of Littleton s population. This section will collect all of those regulations throughout the current Littleton Zoning Ordinance that apply to a particular use, and will organize them in the order they appear in the permitted use table. For example, many of the standards in Chapter 14 (Group Home for the Elderly Code), Chapter 8 (Conditional Uses), and Chapter 4 (Supplemental Standards) are use-specific standards; those regulations will now appear as use-specific standards in this new Chapter 3. In addition, we will suggest additional use-specific standards where the Littleton Comprehensive Planor neighborhood plans call for a change in how uses are regulated (such as off-site parking in the downtown neighborhood plan), where the use of additional standards will allow similar uses to be consolidated, and where additional development review and approval process to be streamlined. Each use-specific standard will be crossreferenced in the right-hand column of the permitted use table. This Chapter will consolidate all of those provisions in the current Littleton Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Regulations that address site design and development (rather than permitted uses or procedures for development review and approval). By consolidating these provisions in a single section of the Unified Development Ordinance, we can clarify which standards apply at the time of subdivision approval, and which apply at the time a specific development is proposed, and can avoid confusion and inconsistencies between the two. Additionally, to address any who was there first? issues, we recommend include a provision exempting existing uses from standards imposed by subsequent development of adjacent property. For example, an existing industrial facility should not have to comply with protection standards imposed because of subsequent residential development, unless they are expanding by a specified percentage or otherwise significantly modifying their site. This section will consolidate current zoning and subdivision regulation provisions addressing how buildings should be located to avoid sensitive lands, ensure efficient provision of utilities, and access by emergency services. It will incorporate the provisions of Title 11, Chapter 6 (Design Standards) for proposed subdivisions of land, and will incorporate new connectivity and circulation standards to apply to both land subdivision and large site layouts on platted lots. The provisions of Sections (Graphic Presentation), (Street Standards), (Storm Drainage; Erosion and Sediment Control), and (Utilities) will also be incorporated. The standards in this section will be reviewed for consistency with Littleton s Comprehensive Plan and may be revised to improve consistency. This Section will include those standards that apply only when a landowner is subdividing land for development, and that are not included in the site layout section or other sections above. The content will be drawn from the substantive (not procedural) standards in Title 11. This section will include materials from subdivision Chapter 7 (Capital Facility Impact Fee) and potentially Chapter 8 (Land Reservation). We recommend that technical/engineering Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February

34 Annotated Outline for a New Unified Development Ordinance standards in this section be removed from the code and placed in a technical manual where they can be easily changed as technology evolves. These standards will apply primarily to platted parcels that will be accommodating multiple buildings or facilities, and where the layout and organization of those buildings and facilities have not been determined at the subdivision approval stage. Where land has been subdivided for individual buildings on individual lots, these standards will not apply, since those considerations have already been addressed during the subdivision review process. This section will include the parking and loading regulations from the current Section This will include required off-street parking (10-4-9(A)), required off-street loading (10-4-9(B)), and stacking area requirements for drivethroughs (new provisions). The stacking area requirements might also include provisions for sensitive areas, such as lots adjacent to single- and two-family residential neighborhoods. This section will include information from the current Chapter 5, Landscaping, and will be closely coordinated with information in Title 7, Chapter 7 for storm drainage purposes. Currently, designs that receive the approval of the planning staff (sometimes after a public hearing), then move on for review by engineering staff based on expected storm water volumes and are sometimes found to be inadequate. That requires amendment of site plans to revise landscaping, open space, and buffering areas to accommodate additional capacity to retain and detain storm water for both quantity and quality reasons. Open space, landscaping, and conceptual storm water design should be integrated to the degree possible. In general, the City s current landscaping and buffering standards are very weak, and need substantial work in order to address the wide variety of situations where vegetative improvements are required. Additional work should be done to tailor these standards to distinguish between more suburban standards applicable to new development and more space-efficient standards applicable to smaller lot redevelopment in order areas of the City. This section will also incorporate templates for buffering of lands uses and development with significantly different characters or scales from each other. Standards will provide developers with both land extensive options (i.e. berms and wide vegetated areas) and land intensive options (i.e. narrower buffered areas including walls and opaque fences as well as dense vegetation. The following structure will be used. This section will consolidate all materials related to minimum size and quality of landscaping materials, installation practices, protection during construction, and delay of installation until planting season. Most of this information is currently located in Section , Plant Selection. Street trees (10-5-7(C)) Site boundary buffering (10-5-7(F) - screening) Parking lot landscaping ( (A)) This section will incorporate the coordinated efforts with planning and engineering staff. This section will carry over and enhance the provisions of current Section (Fences). 30 Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February 2015

35 Annotated Outline for a New Unified Development Ordinance This section will incorporate the provisions currently located in Chapter 15, Lighting Requirements. The standards will be reviewed for their adequacy in preventing light spillover onto adjacent properties especially into residential uses and zoning districts. This section will carry over the existing Littleton sign regulations in Title 4, Chapter 3, with a few changes, to make the current standards easier to understand for both citizens and the business community and to be consistent with current practice. We recommend organizing the list of appropriate sign types into a summary table that illustrates the type of sign, standards for each type of sign, zoning districts where that sign type is allowed, and whether or not a permit is required. This will improve the user-friendliness of the sign code. The current organizational structure for the sign code is different than the zoning and subdivision regulations and should be reconciled with the new Unified Development Ordinance, regardless of whether or not it is integrated directly into the new Unified Development Ordinance or kept separate. Although the current sign regulations are very dated, we recommend that more significant work (beyond that listed above) be done as a parallel effort by a working group devoted to that topic. The more significant changes to be discussed could include: Expanding the lists of types of sign that are regulated, and the locations and visual appeal of future signs; and Removing the provisions that regulate the content of signs. Regulating the size and type of signs is legal; however, content regulation can lead to scrutiny under the First Amendment. This section will carry forward the provisions of Title 4, Chapter 6 (Historic Preservation Code). Although the procedures for designation by City Council and issuance of certificates in historic districts are normally included with the substantive historic preservation controls, they can be separated and included in the new Title 10, Chapter 5 (Zoning and subdivision procedures) if the city prefers. This section will consolidate all existing standards related to the operation and maintenance of properties, and will include a cross-reference to the city s nuisance regulations. In addition, it will include requirements that site features (such as landscaping, trees, and buffering) that are required by the Unified Development Ordinance or as part of a development approval must be kept in good condition, and that living materials must be replaced if they die or become diseased (currently addressed in Section ), and that abandoned site features (such as awning frames) be removed. This section will also include or cross-reference the city s operating standards on noise, odor, vibrations, radiation, and the like, currently located in Title 7, Chapter 3, and Section of the current Zoning Ordinance. This short section of the new Unified Development Ordinance will introduce each of the bodies that have authority to review and make decisions on development applications such as the Planning Board, the Board of Adjustment, the Historical Preservation Board, Planning Division Staff, and City Council. It will briefly explain what types of decisions are made by each body, but specific procedures and criteria for decisions will appear in the sections that follow. It will also include a version of the table proposed on page 14, to identify which body reviews, approves, or hears appeals on different types of development applications. Materials from current Sections (Powers and Duties of the Planning Board), (Board of Adjustment Authority), (Powers and Duties of the Historical Preservation Board) will be included in this section and (Administration). Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February

36 Annotated Outline for a New Unified Development Ordinance Language will clarify responsible departments, divisions, and/or individuals. For example, the current section refers to the planning division and the office of the zoning official. These distinctions will be applied broadly throughout the entire new Ordinance based on staff preference or current practice. The updated Unified Development Ordinance 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. These should include provisions addressing: Who can file applications -- incorporating section (General application requirements and procedures for zoning applications)and Title 11, Chapter (General application procedures for subdivision applications; Pre-application requirements -- clarifying when these are required; Neighborhood meetings -- clarifying when these are required, and how the meeting will be conducted and documented; Fees -- requiring all applicants to pay applicable review fees show in a Council resolution, and clarifying that application fees are not refundable; Determination of application completeness -- authorizing the Community Development Director to determine what constitutes a complete application, and to deny review of incomplete applications;, Inactive applications -- clarifying that application materials inactive for more than 6 months will be returned to the applicant, and moving forward will require a new application and fee; Public notice clarifying what types of notice are required, and for how long; Adjustments from standards -- allowing the decision-maker to deviate from specific types of standards by limited amounts, without the need to apply for a variance, as discussed above; Conditions on approvals -- authorizing the decision-maker to impose conditions on the approval necessary to bring it into compliance with the UDO or prior approvals for the same site, and listing legal limits on conditions that can be applied; Withdrawal and Reapplication -- whether and when new applications can be filed if the application is withdrawn or denied; Appeals -- who can appeal a decision, and who decides the appeal; Amendments to earlier approvals -- including the administrative, minor, and major) distinctions discussed above. These general steps will apply to all types of applications unless the Unified Development Ordinance specifically provides otherwise. Consolidating general steps helps 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 Unified Development Ordinance if a common procedural provision is revised. Sections devoted to various specific procedures (e.g., conditional uses, variances) 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. Some of these provisions exist in the current Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations while others do not. Many of the existing specific types of application procedures will be carried forward from the current Littleton ordinances, but simplified for readability. As previously mentioned, flowcharts will be included to illustrate the development review procedures. The following existing Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations sections (or subsections of them) will be included in this new section, with amendments as described in Part 2 of this assessment , PD planned development district , Variances (landscaping) Chapter 7, Site development plan , Conditional use procedures (B), Variances (BOA) Chapter 12, Zoning amendment procedure Chapter 13, Vested property rights 32 Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February 2015

37 Annotated Outline for a New Unified Development Ordinance , Preliminary platting procedures , Final platting procedures , Minor subdivisions , Preliminary and final platting procedures , Waivers and modifications (of subdivision standards) Title 11, Chapter 9, Subdivision exemption , Procedures for designation of historic landmarks and historic districts , Certificate of historic appropriateness Rezoning Although the current regulations suggest that application for a vested right is a separate application procedure, we recommend that it be integrated with the procedures for those types of applications that Littleton has determined are site specific development applications for which Colorado law requires that a vested right be available. As discussed in Part 2, the different sections addressing variances by the Board of Adjustment, the Planning Board, or other bodies will be consolidated into a single subsection, while adjustments that can be approved by the Director without a separate process will be covered as a Common Procedure in the preceding section. The consolidated materials will be organized from those requested more commonly (permits and site plan reviews) at the beginning to those requested more rarely (Unified Development Ordinance text amendments) at the end.] A flowchart such as that shown above -- from another community -- will be included for each procedure. To promote user-friendliness and understandability, we recommend that the content of each Special Procedure listed in this section be organized into the following parallel structure. Applicability the type of permit, approval, or other procedure the section applies to. Approval procedures designate the body with jurisdiction to approve or deny, the type of hearing or process, and how a decision is reached. Criteria include criteria unique to that application, along with cross-references to applicable standards in the regulations. Scope (or lapse) of Approval indicate the type of activity authorized by approval, and how long the decision remains valid. Documentation designate how the approval is documented and whether it needs to be recorded. This section would consolidate all materials in the current Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations regarding violations, enforcement, and penalties. It will integrate the content of current Sections (Violations and Additional Remedies), and (Violations, Prohibitions, and Penalties), and (Permits, Inspections, and Maintenance) as restructured and expanded as shown below. This new section will identify in more detail what is a violation of the Littleton regulations. For example, most new development codes clarify that obtaining a permit or approval through the submission of inaccurate information is a violation, as well as failure to comply with the conditions or limitations attached to a waiver of development standards. Information from Section (G) will appear in this section, and will be expanded to include additional provisions related to suspension, revocation, and penalties. Any relevant information from Chapter 14, Group Homes for the Elderly Code, will be carried forward. Littleton Zoning Ordinance Assessment and Annotated Outline February