Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ARVADA LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REWRITE PROJECT
STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
REPORT AND UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS
JANUARY 2018
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page i
Contents
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 1The 2014 Strategic Assessment .....................................................................................................1
The Objective ...................................................................................................................................... 1The Report ........................................................................................................................................... 1
2017 Progress Update ....................................................................................................................2Progress Towards Implementation of the 2014 Strategic Assessment ......................................... 2The Code Re-write Project ................................................................................................................ 3
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 4Introduction ...................................................................................................................................4Key Recommendations of this Update .........................................................................................4
Preserve Existing Neighborhood Character ................................................................................... 4Allow for Infill and Redevelopment ................................................................................................. 5Update the Zoning Districts .............................................................................................................. 5Mapping the New Organization of Zoning Districts ..................................................................... 5Revise the Land Use Regulations ...................................................................................................... 6Address Housing Affordability ......................................................................................................... 6Improve Development Standards ..................................................................................................... 6Improve the Development Review Process ................................................................................... 7Streamline and Make the Code More User-Friendly ..................................................................... 8
Issues ..............................................................................................................................................8Coding for All Types of Development ............................................................................................. 8Emphasizing Community Character ............................................................................................... 9Further Strengthening the Heart of the Code ................................................................................. 9Defining “Compatibility”—and Applying It ................................................................................. 12Encouraging Diversity in Housing Types and Protecting the Character of Established, Stable Neighborhoods ............................................... 13Improving Housing Affordability ................................................................................................... 14Recalibrating and Adding Flexibility to Parking Standards ........................................................ 17Promoting Resilience and Resource Stewardship ........................................................................ 18Addressing Business Use of the Home........................................................................................... 18Reasonable Accommodations ......................................................................................................... 19Sign Code ........................................................................................................................................... 19Restructuring—and Simplifying—Procedure .............................................................................. 19Reorganizing and Refining the Code ............................................................................................. 20
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 20
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 1
Background
The 2014 Strategic Assessment
The ObjectiveIn June 2014, the City of Arvada retained Fairfield and Woods, P.C. to provide analysis and recommendations with respect to land development regulation in the City, in anticipation of the adoption of the City’s updated Comprehensive Plan. Fairfield and Woods was tasked with reviewing the City’s Land Development Code (“Code”) from three perspectives:
The “Big Picture.” The first perspective was a comprehensive, “big picture” strategic review of the Code, resulting in recommendations as to: (i) how the Code could be reformed to more effectively implement the City’s adopted land use and transportation plans; (ii) how the procedures in the Code could be made more efficient, while still respecting the values and culture of the community; (iii) how to remove layers of procedure that do not add meaningful value to the resulting development or to the community; (iv) how to add precision to discretionary standards; (v) how to improve the organization and accessibility of the Code; and (vi) how to improve the Code provisions related to signage.
Article 5 and Other Issues. The second perspective was an in-depth review of Article 5 and several issues of pressing concern that were identified by City Staff in early 2014. Article 5 is the article of the Code that addresses the land uses that are allowed, allowed with conditions, or not allowed in each of the City’s zone districts, as well as the standards that are to be applied to certain individual land uses. The issues of immediate concern were the definition of the word “family” in the zoning context, and the City’s standards and procedures for granting “reasonable accommodations” under the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act.
Board of Adjustment. The third perspective was an evaluation and recommendations with respect to the current and future role of the Board of Adjustment in the development review process. The Board of Adjustment is currently tasked with hearing requests for variances (departures from the literal standards of the Code that cannot be accomplished with the City’s administrative minor modifications process). At issue was how the Board should apply the existing variance standards, what factors it may consider, and how those factors should be prioritized and weighted.
The ReportFairfield and Woods, P.C. delivered a three-volume Strategic Assessment Report in December 2014 that was based on a comprehensive review of the Code and zoning map; summaries of variance decisions; written staff interpretations of various Code provisions; the Comprehensive Plan; the Arvada Transit Station Framework Plan; the Jefferson Center Urban Renewal Plan (as amended); the Northwest Arvada Urban Renewal Plan; the Olde Town Station Urban Renewal Area Urban Renewal Plan (as amended); the Ralston Fields Urban Renewal Plan; the Village Commons Urban Renewal Area Urban Renewal Plan; the Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Plan for the Sheridan Boulevard, Olde Town Arvada, and Arvada Ridge Transit Oriented Development Sites; and Focus Arvada: City Strategic Plan 2014 to 2019. In addition to the document review, Fairfield and Woods
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 2
met with residents, business owners, developers, elected and appointed officials, and City Staff to gain strategic insight from a broadly representative cross-section of the community.
As to the “big picture,” the 2014 Strategic Assessment recommended that the City:
Comprehensively re-write the Code to implement the strategic recommendations of this Report (including a comprehensive long-term approach to signs and variances), with the assistance of a broadly representative steering committee to act as a sounding board to ensure that the new Code reflects the community’s shared values and preferences.
The 2014 Strategic Assessment further observed that:
This comprehensive re-write could be expected to take 18 to 30 months, depending upon the level of public outreach and the number and timing of workshops with the Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission, and City Council.
2018 Progress Update
Progress Towards Implementation of the 2014 Strategic AssessmentSince the 2014 Strategic Assessment was delivered, several projects were undertaken to advance its recommendations:
• The recommendations with respect to Article 5 were ultimately implemented through Ordinance 4515, adopted in September 2015. Ordinance 4515 overhauled the land use table in Article 5, replacing outmoded land use classifications with new (and in key instances, more flexible) classifications, harmonizing the use-specific standards in Article 5 with the new classifications, and providing definitions for every land use in the Code.
• In addition to the Article 5 changes, the City Council directed staff to work with Fairfield and Woods to develop a set of design standards for self-storage facilities in the Planned Unit Development-Business/Professional (“PUD-BP”) and Planned Unit Development-Industrial (“PUD-I”) zone districts, so that such facilities could be allowed in those zones in a manner that would be consistent with their desired character. The self-storage standards were adopted as Ordinance 4552 in July 2016.
• The recommendations with respect to sign regulation were implemented through Ordinance 4579, adopted in January 2017. Ordinance 4579 completely restructured and redrafted Section
Adoption of Ordinance 4515, September 2015
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 3
6.17 of the Code (pertaining to signs), and updated Section 3.24 (sign permits) and other portions of the Code (including definitions) that related to signage.
Copies of the referenced ordinances, along with the full text of the current Code (which integrates those ordinances), are published on the internet at http://www.municode.com.
The Code Re-write ProjectIn July 2017, the City retained Fairfield and Woods, P.C. and Logan Simpson (which prepared the City’s 2014 Comprehensive Plan) to work with the City to implement the recommendation regarding rewriting the Code. The code re-write project is guided by the following objectives:
• Implement the City’s plans with clear, pragmatic, and responsible regulations;
• Recalibrate, reposition, and reduce the number of zone districts in order to more accurately reflect existing and planned future conditions;
• Encourage a mix of housing types, price points, and lifestyle amenities;
• Protect the City’s diverse community character (by, in part, appropriately balancing building intensity, parking, and landscaping to address community character objectives);
• Promote reinvestment and compatible infill development where appropriate;
• Provide flexibility in developed, developing, and redeveloping areas without imposing unnecessary process; and
• Simplify language, accessibility, and “user-friendliness.”
To verify that the 2014 Strategic Assessment is still pertinent, and to ensure that any changes in direction (or any additional specificity with respect to direction) are identified early in the project, the project team met with a representative Advisory Committee in September and December 2017, held focus group meetings in October and November 2017, and held a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission in October 2017. Input from those meetings is incorporated into this Strategic Assessment Update.
Comments from the focus groups and potential solutions to address the comments are included in Appendix 1.
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 4
Findings and Recommendations
IntroductionThe 2014 Strategic Assessment noted that Arvada was feeling the type of stress that is expected in communities that are undergoing significant change. If anything, it appears that this condition has intensified over the past three years. On the one hand, there is uneasiness among many residents that the trajectory of change may be to transform Arvada from a place that is familiar, unique, and desirable into a place that is detached from its historical roots and therefore not easily distinguished from any other suburban community. On the other hand, there is also concern that an approach to new development that is too cautious or restrictive will discourage investment and reinvestment, price out current residents or their children, or result in land use patterns that tend to exacerbate fiscal and physical stress by disproportionately burdening City streets, infrastructure, and services. The iterative and interactive process for developing the new Land Development Code will seek to ensure that the new Land Development Code appropriately addresses both of these concerns.
The 2014 Strategic Assessment (Volume I), made a number of recommendations for long-term reforms of the Code. The sections of Volume I that address plan implementation, legal framework, and organization, style, and publication remain equally relevant today. This Strategic Assessment emphasizes and expands upon some of those points, but does not reiterate all of them. Both documents will be used to guide the Code rewrite.
Key Recommendations of this Update
Preserve Existing Neighborhood Character• Identify “areas of change” and “areas of stability,” and code to incentivize change in the first
category, and code to promote stability in the second. Areas of stability may include some areas of limited change and development.
• Protect the character of established, stable neighborhoods by requiring appropriate buffers and transitions at their edges, and by recalibrating the regulations that apply to the neighborhoods to prevent out-of-scale development that encourages land speculation instead of reinvestment in existing buildings.
• For rehabilitation and improvement of existing housing, a good choice for promoting improvements that are consistent with the fabric of the surrounding neighborhood is to create “neighborhood conservation” districts, in which:
• Bulk and mass are controlled for scrape-off and rebuild projects using building coverage ratios and height constraints, or more sophisticated measures like building height planes or floor area ratios.
• Setbacks are flexible for reasonable expansions of existing homes. As such, “minor modifications” and variances are not generally needed in order to make improvements to existing buildings.
• Existing conditions, unless created in violation of the then-existing zoning, are allowed to continue as “conforming.”
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 5
The neighborhood conservation strategy utilizes subdistricts based on typical lot sizes and typical development intensities. It is designed so that there is “room to grow” on individual lots, but not to an extent that is obviously out of scale with other homes on the street.
• Consider the role of historic and original Arvada neighborhoods and provide for zoning districts that either preserve or allow context-appropriate remodels, additions and new development.
Allow for Infill and Redevelopment• Define “compatibility” in terms of its constituent parts, and then use those parts in development
standards, in effect removing the word “compatibility” from the vocabulary of standards-based decision-making without losing its important influence.
• Allow increased building height in appropriate locations, particularly at key nodes and segments of currently underutilized commercial corridors, transit-oriented development (“TOD”) areas (including expanded TODs), and areas zoned for higher densities.
• For infill development, “compatibility” may be enhanced by applying bulk and mass controls that mitigate the impacts of intensification on surrounding properties. Height planes, which restrict the building envelope of the edges of the lot above a certain height, may be a useful tool for reducing the impacts of tall building walls close to property lines. Landscaping, buffering, and architectural design standards may also be useful in areas that are particularly sensitive to intensification (e.g., historic districts and neighborhoods with a mature urban forest).
Update the Zoning Districts• Reduce dependence upon Planned Unit Development. Simplify the Planned Unit Development
(“PUD”) districts. Reduce reliance on planned unit development procedures by creating zones that are flexible with respect to site development, but that reinforce desired community character traits by ensuring a contextually appropriate mix of buildings, landscaping, and pavement.
• Streamline the Clear Creek zoning district, if possible.
• Reduce the overall number of zone districts by consolidating similar districts and eliminating obsolete districts.
• Establish new mixed-use zones to allow flexibility for a range of uses, particularly along major transportation corridors, with a range of densities.
• Create standards that are based on mitigating the physical and functional impacts of proposed uses, and allow a broader range of uses in each non-residential or mixed-use zone district.
• All districts should be named to reflect the intent of the district.
Mapping the New Organization of Zoning Districts• The new organization of zones will require an updated zoning map. With the creation of new
zones, existing zones may need to be rezoned to the proposed new zones. It is recommended that the legislative rezoning (i.e., rezoning large areas of the City at one time) be undertaken directly after the adoption of the revised Land Development Code.
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 6
Revise the Land Use Regulations• Update the table of allowed and conditional uses by zone, as needed. Modifications will be
needed to address any new uses that may be included, as well as update the table with the new zones. Uses to be evaluated include short-term rentals, light-assembly/manufacturing uses for artisan manufacturing, etc.
• Update the sign code to integrate the new zones.
• Update use-specific standards for new and emerging uses (e.g., live work, artists spaces)
• Create more flexibility with respect to business use of the home (including artist and maker spaces), and address the issue of short-term rental housing (e.g., VRBO/Airbnb).
Address Housing Affordability• Promote housing diversity by making it easy to obtain approvals for a wide variety of housing
types in appropriate locations. The Land Development Code should promote a wide variety of housing types and living arrangements at a full range of price points—without the need to use a planned unit development process. Housing types should include, at a minimum: single-family detached, zero lot line, patio homes, cottages (which could include co-housing), duplex, townhomes, multiplex (3 to 5 unit buildings that look like large single-family homes (called “Urban Homes” in the City’s design Standards)), multifamily, manufactured homes, live-work units, and accessory dwelling units.
• For new (“greenfield”) development or large scale redevelopment, a good choice for promoting housing diversity is the use of a “housing palette.” This technique starts with applying density and open space requirements to achieve a specific unit count within a desired community character classification, and then allow the developer to choose from a variety of housing types to achieve the allowable unit count within the area available for development. This technique supplants most planned unit development approvals.
• Investigate methods such as density and height bonuses in tandem with affordable housing requirements.
• Investigate flexibility with development standards such as dimensional standards and materials requirements that impact housing affordability.
Improve Development Standards• Revise parking standards and parking reduction standards. Allow as many alternatives as
are practical to reduce the number of required parking spaces (particularly on “urban” sites), including such strategies as:
• Parking studies that justify the reduction in the number of off-street parking spaces;
• Transportation demand management (“TDM”) credits that are applied to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces;
• Shared parking “as-of-right” (that is, without the requirement of a discretionary approval);
• Remote parking;
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 7
• Credits for on-street parking; and
• Reductions in the required number of off-street parking spaces based on proximity to transit stops.
• Consider creating two “parking zones” —one for general use and one (which would require fewer parking spaces) for “urban” areas.
• The Code should set out all of the details for the fee-in-lieu of parking in Olde Town.
• Review design standards carefully to ensure that they are not standardizing an architecture for the City-or worse, for the region (e.g., by being too similar to other area jurisdictions). Design standards should require creativity, not prescribed architectural styles.
• Remove non-mandatory language from the design standards and insert it into non-binding guideline documents instead.
• Create a more flexible set of landscaping standards that ensures a certain density of planting but does not tend to standardize the planting program.
• Include standards for “priority pedestrian streets” and “secondary pedestrian streets,” which would also include standards for buildings, landscaping, and site access along the streets; and standards for multi-modal street cross-sections generally.
• Evaluate dimensional and lot coverage standards for each zone.
• Evaluating building and landscape design standards to ensure that they reflect and anticipate current and near-term development and design practices.
• Update provisions related to “reasonable accommodations” to address the types of requests that are frequently granted, such as allowing additional residents in a group home.
• Evaluate how public art can be included in development projects through such tools as public art requirements, density bonus, etc.
• Examine standards related to natural hazards to determine whether it would be practical to clarify performance standards with respect to common natural hazards.
• Refine standards relating to resource stewardship and community resilience.
• Encourage the integration of technological innovation in land development.
Improve the Development Review Process • Empower staff to make development review decisions as much as possible, and require
neighborhood meetings or public comment where certain thresholds or conditions are met that justify it.
• Simplify procedure and calibrate application requirements to ensure that investments in project design are commensurate with the level of specificity of the application being considered.
• Develop administrative procedures that capture the essential elements of the planned unit development and conditional use procedures, but do not involve the time, expense, and uncertainty of public hearings.
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 8
• The existing referral procedures should be continued and enhanced by listing referral agencies in an appendix to the Code. Applicants should be advised that referral agencies may charge fees for application review.
• The public notice provisions provide appropriate time lines for notice (not too long and not too short), and should be continued.
• Neighborhood meetings should not be categorically required for certain application types. They should be required when development at a certain threshold scale occurs in close proximity to residential neighborhoods.
• Appeals should be filed within a short period after a written decision is issued (in the range of seven to 10 days) and should be processed as soon as practicable (ideally less than 60 days after the filing date).
Streamline and Make the Code More User-Friendly• Focus on the costs, benefits, and practicality of regulation and new Code provisions are drafted
and existing Code provisions are redrafted, reformed, or removed.
• Reorganize the Code so that it is easier to use by both the casual user and the real estate or design professional by making information easier to find and understand. All related information should be consolidated (e.g., all definitions in one location, all procedures in one location, etc.).
• Utilize an attractive page layout and new numbering system to present a hierarchy of information that modernizes the Code and makes it more user-friendly.
• Include illustrations and other graphics to explain concepts and regulations.
• Utilize a simple, concise vocabulary and short paragraphs, and avoid unnecessary details in the writing style. Improve clarity by removing conflicting, ambiguous or subjective language.
• Use defined terms to avoid the repeated use of long phrases.
Issues
Coding for All Types of DevelopmentArvada is a place where infill development, redevelopment, expansion and improvement of existing buildings, and new development are equally important. As such, the new Code should include tools to ensure that the impacts of each of these types of development are appropriately addressed in a timely, efficient, and fair manner—ensuring that landowners are empowered to creatively meet market demands, solve problems, and make efficient and productive use of their land. The Code should be restructured to provide more focused standards to ensure that infill development, redevelopment, and expansions of existing buildings are both (i) economically realistic and (ii) physically and functionally integrated into their surroundings.
The 2014 Strategic Assessment focused on the “compatibility” of infill development and redevelopment. This Assessment recognizes that there are many areas of the community in which “compatible” infill development or redevelopment means development that, if different from its neighbors in terms of use, bulk, or form, is only incrementally different. That is, “compatible” means “much like what is already there.” However, there are other areas of the community where
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 9
what is already there is not the desired future condition. In these areas, infill development and redevelopment will establish a new context, and “compatibility” with the existing context is not a desired outcome. Discussions with the community suggest that “physical and functional integration” of new development into its surroundings is perhaps a better phrase to capture both ideas.
Emphasizing Community CharacterThe restructuring of the Code should focus on “community character,” that is, the relationship among buildings, landscaping, and pavement in a given area in terms of their respective visual dominance. For example, to achieve “urban character,” buildings must be the predominant visual element, and to achieve “rural character,” landscaping and natural open space must be the predominant visual element. The community character focus provides a flexible framework and appropriate regulatory “tools” for new development, infill development, redevelopment, and building expansions.
In the current Code, one set of open space requirements applies to the Clear Creek zoning district, and another set of open space requirements applies to all other zoning districts except Olde Town. Within that framework, different open space requirements apply to different types of uses. For example, a multifamily development that is outside of Olde Town or Clear Creek must include 25 percent open space, regardless of the desired character of its context. This assessment recommends that the City consider the desired character of the context first, and then establish open space requirements to implement that desired character.
Further Strengthening the Heart of the CodeRethinking the Zoning Districts. Article 5 is the “heart” of the Code. It sets out which land uses are allowed in which zoning districts. As is typical of zoning codes as they age, the Article grew increasingly complex over the years. The 2015 revision went a long way towards simplification, but in its present condition the Article still “micro-manages” land use. That is because even though the use list is simplified in the left-hand column of the Table of Allowed and Conditional Principal Uses by Zoning District, there are 43 zoning districts (including sub-districts) across the top row.
After the 2015 revision, there are 86 land uses in the land use table. These listed uses, many of which encompassed a number of formerly enumerated items, translate to additional opportunity and less unnecessary micro-management within each zone. However, the micro-management problem still exists City-wide, because the 86 land uses and allocated among 43 distinct zoning districts (resulting in 3,698 individual cells in the land use table!).
The 2014 Strategic Assessment recommendation that “The number of zone districts and subdistricts should be reduced, and the opportunities to use property within each district should, in general, be increased,” holds equally true today. Yet it is important to reiterate that the reduction in the number of zoning districts must be purposeful.
That is, while many zoning districts should be eliminated or consolidated, new zoning districts should also be created. Districts should be created (or consolidated) to recognize that the City has areas of stability and areas of change, which require different regulatory approaches. Areas of stability are more sensitive to changes in physical form or land use, while areas of change often need a disruptive, catalytic conversion of form or land use in order to establish a new and desired development trajectory. This Strategic Assessment anticipates the creation of one or more zones to
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 10
promote transit-oriented development (as “mixed-use” centers or primary employment centers); a zone, with sub-zones, to address existing, stable neighborhoods; and several mixed-use or flexible residential zones to address areas of change (including, for example, certain nodes on Wadsworth and certain segments of Ralston Road).
With the conceptual framework for creating and consolidating zones in mind, the work of rethinking the zoning districts should be focused by the need to simplify--in part, to end up with the smallest number of zoning districts that will appropriately implement the City’s plans and objectives.
Streamline Zoning in Clear Creek. The Clear Creek zoning district is part of an Intergovernmental Agreement (“IGA”) between the City of Arvada and Jefferson County. The district includes five subdistricts, but there does not appear to be a continuing rationale for the nuanced distinctions among them. The City and the project team should work with Jefferson County to amend or terminate the IGA, in order to allow for streamlining of zoning within the area currently zoned Clear Creek.
Reallocating Land Uses. With a new set of zoning districts, the project team will have to reallocate land uses among the zoning districts. That is, decisions about what will be allowed where will have to be made. Of course, a key objective will be ensuring that the existing condition is not disrupted. Another key objective will be to increase the economic opportunities within business and industrial zones to the extent that such an increase is consistent with the community’s shared values. Increasing the range of opportunities (e.g., allowing low-impact light manufacturing in highway commercial areas) is a strategy for dealing with the uncertain future of bricks-and-mortar retail and centralized office uses. Finally, land use table revisions may be used to allow for small-scale neighborhood retail, service, and restaurant nodes within or on the edges of neighborhoods should the market (and the neighborhood) support their establishment.
Reducing Dependence upon Planned Unit Development Zones by Creating Mixed-Use and Flexible Residential Zones. Approximately 39 percent of the land area in Arvada is zoned PUD. In addition, too much new development in the City is being processed as PUD. Although Arvada has a tradition of “standards-based” PUD approvals, the Code allows modifications to Code standards within a PUD. That means that each new PUD is, in effect, a new zoning district, creating long-term management problems.
Moreover, even with codified PUD development standards, the PUD process is lengthy and uncertain compared to other standards-based “straight-zoning” procedures. PUD approvals and modifications may be risky to the developer (due to uncertainty about how standards will be applied at the public hearing). There is also structural uncertainty about how to apply use-specific standards within a PUD (in which broad qualitative development standards also apply).
To address these issues this Strategic Assessment recommends: (i) a sharp reduction in the use of PUD process for development approvals in Arvada; and (ii) simplification of the PUD approval procedure for those PUDs that remain.
Creating Efficiency and Certainty by Empowering the City’s Professional Staff. In addition to the recommendation about reducing the number of zoning districts, the 2014 Strategic Assessment noted that “[t]oo many uses are subject to the conditional use approval procedure, which adds time, expense, and uncertainty to the development review process.” During the update process,
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 11
it was revealed that, practically speaking, it is relatively rare for the City to hear a conditional use application. However, it is not clear whether this circumstance is due to the lack of market interest in establishing these land uses in the zones in which they are allowed by conditional use, or whether it is due to the conditional use process itself operating as a deterrent.
Two more significant administrative issues for the City are:
• The proliferation of PUDs has created a circumstance in which unnecessary and redundant procedures are required for many applications that would otherwise be routine; and
• The preliminary plat procedure is lengthy and includes poorly defined discretionary standards (e.g., “consistency with the Comprehensive Plan” and “implements the intent” of the zoning district)
These existing development approval procedures highlight the need for alternative procedures that create more opportunities for administrative development approval.
Ensuring Public Participation in Critical Decisions. A call for more administrative development approvals should not be taken as an end-run around public process. Indeed, this Assessment recognizes that certain land uses, contexts, or intensity changes should trigger early public involvement, with the objective of optimizing how the new development, infill development, redevelopment, or building expansion will physically and functionally integrate into its surroundings and the overall fabric of the community. These details will be worked out during the
!"a$
!"b$
WXYZr
I}
WXYZ¹
WXYZÿ
I}
WXYZr
!"a$
WXYZÿ
WXYZÿ
WXYZÿ
WXYZÿ
WXYZp
WXYZp
WXYZp
WXYZ¹
WXYZ¹
HYATT LAKE
KELLYLAKE
BERKELEYLAKE
LAKERHODA
STANDLEY LAKE
SMARTRESER-
VOIR
WELTONRESERVOIR
UPPERLONG
LAKE HIDDEN LAKE
BROADLAKE
B
PONDLAKE
LAKE ARBOR
LEYDENLAKE
RALS
TON
RESE
RVOI
R
TUCKERLAKE
ARVADA/BLUNNRESERVOIR
WARDROAD POND
UPPEROBERON
LAKE
LOWER
HAYESLAKE
VERNLAKE
MEADOWLAKELAKE
FOUR ACRELAKE
POMONALAKE
LONGLAKE
WOMANCREEK
RESERVOIR
WILDFLOWERPOND
W. 58TH AVE.
URBAN
WAY
T
ZANG66TH
AVE.
73 LN
77
W.79TH AVE.
CT.
CR.
CR.
DENCE
OTIS CT.
ELLIS
ST.
W.
QUEEN ST.
ST.
DIENTE
62ND
PL.
RALSTON
PL.
CT.
PL.
PL.
CT.
CT.
ST.
CT.
AVE.
ST.
AVE.
QUEEN
PL.
LN.
CT.
AVE.
DR.
64
93RD
ALKIRE ST.
77
PL.
80TH
W.
HARLAN STREET
CR.
CODY
FENTON
ISABELL
74
74 PL.
COLE
ST.
PL.
67TH
W. 65TH
NILE
LEE
GARRISON
W.
ST.
CT.
FIG
84
FLATTOP
GARRISO
N DRIVE
W.
ST.
PL.
MARSHALL
CT.
DR.
83
PL.
AVE.
UTICA
WAY
W.67TH WY. PL.
W.
QUAY
60PL.
TENNYSON
61
ST.
ESTES
CT.
ISABELL 69
70
INGALLS
W. 74TH
75TH
61
W.
PL.
JAY
WY.
TERRY
W.
LN.
DR.
AVE.AVE.
63
AVE.
W.
94TH
W.
68TH
W. 73RD DR.
DR.
ST.
79 AVE.
DR.
64
DR.
W.
SALVIA
67TH
QUAY
MARSHALL
ALLENDALE
VAN GORDON ST.
AVE.
ST.
AVE.
QUAKER
LN.
AVE.
W.
71ST PL.
73
75TH
W.
JELLISON
DEVINNEY
WOLFF
CHASE
ST.
W.
OBERO
N
GARRISON ST
ST.
QUAIL
ST.
EVERETT
AVE.
PL.
W.
PIKEWAY
AVE.
CT.
CT.
W.FEN
TON
AVE.
DR.
OODS
WY.
W. 67TH AVE.
QU EEN
DOVER
W. 69TH AVE.
ESTES
FLOWER
ZEPHYR
VANCE
ARBUTUS
ZINNIA
ORLAN
DO WY.
GARRISON
FLOWER
ST.
BEECH
DUNRAVEN
VIVIAN
67TH
AVE.
71
69
ISON CT.
I-70
TENNYSON ST.
W.
SIMMS ST.
ST.
AVE.
OAK ST.
81 AVE
.
AVE.
ROGERS
PL.
W.65TH
ST.
W.70TH PL.
TAFT ST.
ROUTT
AVE.
PA
LN. PL.
HOLMAN
WY.
CT.
AVE.
LN.
CT.
CT.
CARR ST.
ST.
DR.
COORS
84TH
PL.
W.
TAFT
CT.
ST.
WAY
W. 54TH AVE.
W. 56TH
UNION
W.
KENDALL
ST.
ZENOBIA COURT
LN.
W.
84TH
ST.
W.
65 AVE.
ST.
W.64TH
AVE.
ST.
WY.
52ND AVE.
54TH
NOLAN
SHERIDAN F.R.
CT.
AMES
W.
ST.
ST.
W. 90TH PL
94TH
YARROW
ST.
W.
78
CLUB
HOL-
LAND
POPPY
CT.
XAVIER
ZENOBIA
LN.
CR.
AVE.
QUAY
CALVIN
JELLIS
ON
CT.
SECREST
W.
ST.
LAMAR
W.
76TH
CT.
ROBB
W.77TH PL.
W.86TH PL.
ST.
W.
W.
71 AVE.
W.
AVE.
W.
FIG
W.
ST.
BALSAM
66TH
FIVE PARKS
NILE WAY
CT.
CIR.
SAULS-
BURY
GRAY CT.
WY.
W. 85TH
ORION
CT.
W. 75TH AVE.
AVE.
WY.
73
POPPY
CT.
59TH
WY.
63 PL.
WAY
FLATTO
P
BENTON ST.
YOUNGFIE
LD
POMONA
81
CT.
W.
AVE.
PL.AVE.
IRIS CT.
XAVIER ST.
W. 73RD
AVE.
EVERETT
ST.
64
CHASE
CR. AVE.
76
ST.
PL.
JELLISON
CHASE
95TH
MILLER
INDEP.
70
ST.
CR.
DR.
MILLER ST.
W. 59TH DR.
COLE
ST.
GLADIOLA
62ND
80
DR.
ST.
84TH
W.
ST.
WEBSTER
W. 72ND D
R.
CT.
ST.
LEE
IRIS
ST.
ST.
W.
CT.
75TH
75TH
W.
ST.
CR.
DEFRAME
URBAN
AVE.
CULEBRA
WAY
RD.
VANCE
CR.
ST.
URBAN
INGALLS
81 AVE.
ST.
W. 63RD DR.
AVE.
PL.
PL.
VANCE
W. 51ST AVE.
EASLEY RD.
CODY ST.
BEECH ST.
PL.
ROGERS
WAY
96TH AVE.
NEW
-LAND
AVE.
ST.
HOWELL
ST.
MILLER
CT.
PKWY.
AVE.
PL.
DEPEW ST .
W. 76TH DR.
DEPEW
82 PL.
KIPLING PKWY.
GLEN-
ST.
AVE.
BALSAM
AVE.
83
VIVIAN
86TH AVE.
ANVIL
W. 95TH PL.
AVE.
HARLAN
HOLLAND CR.
HIGHWAY 93
CT.
68 AVE.
ST.
DOV ER ST.
DR.
TORREY ST. OR
ION
53RD
DR.
ST.
CT.
ANN
W.
85TH
W. 93RD PL.
W.
78TH PL.
RD.)
FIELD
W.
CR.
CR.
ISABELL
WAY
FLOWER
70TH
REED
53PL
BALSAM
ST.
ST.
W. W.64TH PL.
ST.
CT.
YARROW
ST.
W.
RD.
79 W.79TH
W.87T H
84
KENDALL
CT.
W.
CR.
PL. UPHAM CT.
KILMER ST.
PL.
W. ST.
ORCHARD
CT. DR.
BENTON STREET
WADSWORTH PKWY.
63RD
ST.
66TH
AVE.
SAULS-
84 AVE.
GARLAND
ST .
CT.
W. 59TH DR.
62
URBAN
78
GRAY
CR.
WILK
-
ERSON
69
W. 75T
H
BRAUN
XENOPHON
74TH
CR.
LEE
ALLISON
CR.
W.
PL.
ZINNIA
DR.
RD.
W. 60TH AVE.
W.
UNO
SAULSBURY CT.
W.87TH AVE.
86TH PL.
CT.
W.95TH
74
QUARTZ ST.
ORION WAY
CT.
JELLISON
CHASE
ALLISON
65TH
QUAIL
PL.69TH
DR.
YOUNGFIELD ST.
61
PL.
64 DR.
YANK
W.
ST.
W. 96TH AVE.
ST.
INDIAN
YUCCA PARFET
W.
W.
WY.
INGALLS
72
OTIS
W. 73RD AVE.
78
54 AVE.
53RD
TOWER
VIOLET
LOOP
LN.
78 AVE.
BEECH
URBAN ST.
W.
WINDY
ALKIRE
ST.
W.77TH LN.
YANK CT.
68THUNION
ROUTT
68
ST.
FALK CT.
PL.
OWENS
59
IRIS
WELCH
ST.
75TH CR.
CT.
86TH
ST.
92ND AVE.
QUAIL
NEWLAND
W. 64TH PKWY.65TH
CIR.
W.
AMMONS
ST.
ST.
SIMMS
WY.
ARBUTUS
CT.
WAY
93RD
GARRISON
HOYT
SECREST
CT.
81
ESTES
66
69
W. 70TH
69
DR.
72ND
INGALLS ST.
CR.
CT.
ST.
62
PARFET
84
69
LAMAR
W. 80TH AVE.
TURNPIKE DRIVE
84TH LN.
CT.
OBERON
DEVINNEY
ST.
67TH
W. 70TH AVE
CT.
AVE.
CR.
LN.
WINONA
AVE.
CT.
78
COORS ST.
ALKIRE ST.
CT.
WAY
W.
WINONA
AVE.
DR.
69
ST.
CT.
HOWELL ST.
CT.
WY. B
RAUN WY.
WAYW.62ND AVE.
W.78TH DR.
PL.
CT.
TAFT
CT.
SECREST
ST.
ST.
CT.
PKWY.
W.
63 PL.
AVE.
ST.
(W. 48TH
63RD
ZINNIA CT.
PL.
YUKON
AVE.
W.
JOH-
NSON
WY.
ST.
BLUE
ST.
PL.
CR.
WAY
TH AVE.
53 AVE.
W.
W
QUAIL
AVE.
BRENTW
OOD
W. 84TH
DR. CT.
PIERCE
95TH
ROBINSON
PL.
ORION CT.
AMES
CT.
DR.
54TH
REED
56TH
59TH
BALSAM
CT.
CT.
84TH
ZEPHYR
WAY
UTICA
SALVIA
CT.
RICK
LN.
69
73
PL.
54TH
GARRISON
ROAD
W.62ND PL.
CT.
CODY
86
YUKON ST .
W.
PIERSON ST.
W. 74TH DR
CT.
ROUTT
DR.
QUAY
CT.
SIMMS
ST.
65
MARSHALL ST.
CT.
ST.
HARLAN
DUNRAVEN
WRIGHT
61ST
PIKE
2.*
AVE.
WY.
93RD WAY
ORION WAY
KENDALL
JAY
W. 82ND AVE.
SIMMS
VIVIAN ST.
ST.
ST.
ST.
WY.
REED
PL.
CT.
WILMOT
UNION
DR.
PARFET
64
64
PL.
87TH
PL.
PL.
GARLAND
W.
ST.
AVE.
W.
DR.
ST.
ELDRIDGE
DEFRAME CT.
CR.
CT.
ST.
W. 55TH DR.
54TH
W. 55TH AVE.
LOOP
ROUTT
YULE WAY
W.
W. 92ND
W.
ST.
UNION
CT.
CT.
TABOR
ST.
ST.
JEAN DR.
ZANG
PL.
OTIS ST.
68
EVERETT
ST.
ST.
AVE.
BRENTW
OOD
CT.
66
CT.
W.
IN- DEP.
MARSHALL
NE
WCOMBE
ST.
ELLIS WAY
ST.
ST.
PL.
W.
ST.
CR.
ST.
YANK WY.
FLOWER
WEBSTER
61
PIKECR.
HOL
CR.
WRIGHT
YUCCA
W.
OTIS CT.
CT.
AV.
CLUB
80TH
AVE
62NDWADSWORTH
GRAY
PIERSON CT.
ST.
W.
PL.
CT.
PL.
AVE.
64
BLUE MTN. DR.
MOUNTAIN DR.
CR.
W.
ORION ST.
SIERRA
ING
DR.
66TH
65TH PL.
BRENTW
OOD CT.
CT.
DR.
AVE.
KIPLING ST.
DOVER
PL.
TORREY
SECREST
DR.
CLUB
W. 81ST
81
CR.
FLATTOP
WY.
GARLAND
AVE.
69
W.
UNION
ST.
64
ST.
63 AVE.
W.
66TH
LN.
FIELD ST.
WARD WAY
EATON
ST.
63 AVE.
ST.
W.
CT.
GARDENIA ST.
WY.
FLO-
WER
CT .
AVE.
CT.
AVE.
PL.
AVE.
69
75
YARROW
DR.
ZANG WY.
ST.
MOORE
QUARTZ
85 PL.
CT.
W. 88TH DR.
PL.
JELLISON
XAVIER
GRAY CT.
PL.
86TH
PL.
ST.
65
PL.
AVE. W.
ISABELL
W.
W.55TH DR.
ST.
58TH
W.
W.COORS
CT.
73RD
72ND
CT.
CT.
81ST
HARLAN
MARSHALL
ST.
NOBLE
ST.
ST.
69 TH
57TH AVE57TH
W.
NEWCOMBE
WY.
WY.
LOOP
CR.
NELS-
ON
PL.
INDIANA ST. (CSH 72)
CT.
DR.
W.
AMMONS
63
DEVINNEY
W.
CT.
PL.
CT.
DR.
ST.
56
ST.
61ST AV.
OAK
DOVER
HIGHWAY 72
94TH
WY.
CREST
82ND
OTIS
UNION
GORDON
SAULSBURY
CT.
CT.
W. 72ND PL.
PAR
73RD
MCINTYRE ST.
COLE
RIDGE
W.55TH PL.
60TH
UMBER CR.
PARFET
CT.
AVE.
84TH
PL.
BLUE
WY.
DR.
70
PL.
ST.
YANKEE
POPPY CT
ST.
67
WELCH
ST.
CT.
NELSON 53RD
CT.
MARSHALL
ST.
CR.
80TH CR.
83RD
W. 88TH D R.
ST.
W.75TH PL.
75TH P
L.
PL.
MARSHALL
CULEBRA ST.
CT.
67TH
65
68TH
65
PL.
W. 50TH AVE.
AVE.
PL.
ANVIL CT.
INN
BERLIN
POMONA DR.
WILKERSON
DR.
DR.
87
ANTERO
TAFT CT.
CR.
ST.
AVE.
PL.
EVERETT
AVE.
61ST
W. 62ND AVE.
CT.
W.
BEECH
ST.
CT.
WEB-
ST ER
CR.
ST.
OWENS
83RD
UPHAM
79
ST.
79 PL.
SHERIDAN
JOH-
NSON
ST. PL.
ULYSSES
71ST
JOHNSON
ALLISON
NORSE ST.
W.55TH
PL.
OWENS
CT.
77TH
CR.
W. 83RD PL.
REED
W. 90TH AVE.
94TH AVE.
95
QUAY
XENON CT.
NOLAN CT.
DR.
64 CT.
PL.
W.
82ND
84TH
ST.
RD.
63
ST.
ST.
WY.
ST.
78TH
VIVIAN
PL.
W. 59TH DR.
CT.
PIERSON
CT.
AVE.
ELDORA
VANCE DR.
FLORA
ST.
81
CR.
84TH
84TH
ST.
WOLFF STREET
ST.
CT.
W.79TH DR
.
NELSON
PL.
63
PL.63
CT.
DOVER
ST.
PL.
LEE ST.
FIELD
CT.
59TH
79
LAMAR
87TH DRIVE
ST.
CT.
PL.
W. 71S
T. PL.
ST.
ST.
ST.
ST.
CT. AVE.
DR.
QUAKER ST.
ST.
MARSHALL
ORION CR.
60
URBAN
W. 67TH
OWENS
CT.
79 WY.
WARD LN.
83RD
84TH
AVE.
ORCHARD
HOLMAN
70
W.
CT.
ROAD
AVE.
58TH F.R. ROUTT
60TH
64TH DR.
84TH
CT.
PARKW
AY
WAY
ST.
CT.
ST.
73
AVE.
COLE CT.
81ST PL.
63
PL.
BRAUN CT.
WY.
66 AVE.
68TH
W. 53RD PL.
TABOR
CT.
63
PL.
BRAUN
ST.
1ST AVE.
MILLER
81
84TH
ST.
FERN WAY
ST.
JOHNSON
WY.
74TH
PL.
W.
CT.
ZEPHYR
SALVIA
ZINNIA
58 DR.
GRAY
CR.
ST.
ST.
CARR
95TH
WAY
CT.
PL.
CT.
GARRISON
EVERETT
DR.
SEC-
REST
ST.
LUPINE
66
ST.
66
I-70
AVE.
GRAY
GRANDVIEW AVE.
6O
AVE.
TORREY
WAY
W. 74TH
BRAUN CT.
SAULSBURY
BALSAM WY.
POMONA
TH
NEWLAND
ST.
PER
LN.
CT.
SWADLEY
CT.
50TH AVE.
VIRGIL ST.
W.
CT.
CT.
PARK
DRIVE
BRENT-
W. 80TH
DR.
W.
WY.
DEVINNEY
CT.
ST.
ST.
DR.
68TH PL.
ST.
ST.
NEWLAND
DUNRAVEN WY.
W. 61ST
WY.
ST.
ST.
W.
87
CT.
W.76TH PL.
PL.
81 AVE.
81ST
ST.
AVE.
WY.
CT.
CR.
CT.
ST.
XENON
53RD PL.
ST.
CT.
ST.
DR.
83RD
W.
JUNI
PL.
AVE.
WAY
LAMAR
CT .
W.63RD
CR.
WRIGHT
W. 69TH CR.
DR.
RUSSELL
JOYCE ST.
AVE.
OTIS
WI NDY
WAY
ROBB ST.
CR.
CHASE
77
82ND DR.
GARD.CT
LN.
YOUNG
INDIANA
W.70TH PL.
SALVIA CT.
PL.
W.
PL.
WELCH
JOHNSON
62 AVE.
PL.
BEECH
LEWIS
FLOWER
INDEPENDENCE WY.
ST.
W.71ST
AVE.
DR.
GORE
GARL AND
W. 95TH PL.
ALKIRE
ST.
61ST
AVE.
ST.
CT.
W. 84TH
AVE.
AVE.
PIKE
ISABELL
W.
ST.
CR.
AMES
JELLISON
55
55TH
W.
W.
UTICA
W.
W. 85TH LN.
3.*
ST.
75TH DR.
W.77TH
SWADLEY
81 DR.
LN.
IRIS
VIOLET
67
UNION
ST.
W. 72ND F. R.
54
ST.
FENTON
AVE.
WARD
VIVIAN
CT.
ST.
LONE
ELDRIDGE ST.
LEWIS
CT.
AVE.
DR.
PL.
PL.
W. 69TH PL.
CT.
POPPY
AVE.)
AVE.
56TH
VOORHIS
QU
63
DEVINNEY
W.
W.
XENON
DR.
95TH
CR.
AVE.
HOLMAN
DUDLEY
CHASE
DR.
PL.
W.
63
VRAIN
COLE
TAFT
CT.
DR.
94TH
UTE DR.
AVE.
ST.
DEFRAME
70 PL.
FENTON
ST.
ST.
W.
W.
CT.
MARILYN
PL.
HOYT
CR.
85 LN.
W.
AVE.
W.
PL.
75 DR.
77
76TH
PL.
PL.
PL.
66 DR.
ST.
AVE.
51ST AVE.
NEWLAND
DUNRAVEN ST.
65TH
64
LN.
95TH
JAY CR.
84 DR.
W.
85TH
DR.
W89
D
R
67 CT.
AVE.
71
74TH
ST.
CT.
W.53RD
ALKIRE ST.
UNION
WY.
CT.
61ST
CT.
QUARTZ
BRAUN
ST.
ST.
75TH LN.
QUEEN
W. 78TH CIR.
OTIS
W.
66TH
65TH AVE. IRIS ST.
CHASE
LN.
62 LN.
63RD PL.
OAK
W.
ST.
NEWCOMBE ST.
ZEPHYR
WY.
61ST
SIMMS
ST.
80 PL.
85TH
ST.
W. 89TH LP.
71
KLINE
DOVER
SAULSBURY
NILE CR.
82 PL.
ZANG 66
W.
AVE.
CT.
CT.
W. 56TH AVE.
W.64 TH
67
WARD 65
ST.
HOLMAN
C
IR.
AVE.
DOVER
PL.
AVE.
ST.
PL.
DR.
68TH
CR.
W. 72ND AVE.
ST.
PL.
CT.
FIELD
DR.
W.
W.
60TH
PL.
GARNETT
WY.
AVE.
AVE.
FIEL D
W. 86T
H
W.87TH LN. 87
CT.
UPHAM
ST.
ST.
W.
PL.
CODY ST.
CR.WYNDHAM
ST.
63
CT.
W.
CR.
WESTRIDGE RD.
EL DIENTE
93
73RD
INGALLS
AVE.
77TH
AVE.
81
DR.
WY.
66
AVE.
CT.
ST.
AVE.
HOYT
PL. XENON
PL.
W.
MCINTYRE
SALVIA
CR.
IS
W.
ST.
ELDORA CT.
66 PL.
AMMONS
CT.
QUAY
NILE ST.
CT.
HOYT
ST.
PIKE
64TH
BENTON
68TH
ORCHARD CT.
PIKE ST.
PL.
JOHNSON CT.
CT.
MARSHALL F.R.
DR. W.
70TH
QUAY
70TH
JUNIPER
CT.
MARS-
HALL
CT.
PIKECT
W.
PL.
AVE.
SCHNEIDER
55PL
60 PL.
AVE.
CT.
AVE.
URBAN
DR.
TAFT
AVE.
EL DIENTE
ST.
64
PL.
ST.
GRAY
AVE.
I-76
CT.
NELSON
DUDLEY
W.
CR.
W.
84
95TH
AVE.
77
WY.
PL.
CR.
W.86TH L
N.
MCINTYRE ST.
MCINTYRE
GARD-
ENIA
LOVELAND
ESTES
ST.
DUDLEY
CT.
ST.
W. 58TH
PL.
OAK
65TH
YUKON
94TH
W.
CT.
VIVIAN
W.
W.
CIR.
ST.
ST.
PL.
NILE
UPHAM
FLOWER
OAK
PL.
XAVIER
URBAN
72
ST.
CARR
81
84 CR.
W.85TH
ST.
70TH
PL.
PL.
W.78TH
PL.
ST. D
R.
HOLLAND
ESTES
57TH AVE.
ST.
T ERRY
63
DOVER
CT.
ST.
77TH DR.
87TH
CT.
WAY
OAK
74
74
WAY ST.
W. 74TH AVE.
ZANG
ST.
CT.
CR.
TAFT
OAK
W. 54TH
ST.
ST.
ESTES
62
62
INDEPENDENCE DR.
CR.
CHASE
DR.
NOBLE WAY
91ST AVE.
92ND
REED
ST.
WY.
AVE.
(A.K.A
DR.
ST.
64
W. 63RD
MO-
ORE
NEWCOMBE
ZEPHYR
WAY
UNION
CR.
W.
VAN
ROBB
CR.
W.
ST.
DEPEW
68
DR.
VAN GORDON
ST.
JOHNSON
ST.
ST.
UMBER ST.
VIVIAN
CR.
ST.
WY.
LN.
CT.
ST.
DR.
DR.
ROGERS
84 CR.
W 62 DR.
68 PL.
IRIS
UPHAM
LN.
PL.
54
57DR
W.
DEV
W.
JELLISON
ELDRIDGE
PL.
INTYRE
ROBB
MILLER
74TH
W. 76TH
PL.
ST.
64 PL.
GRAY
67TH
INGALLS
ST.
F.R.
ESTES CT.
W. 51ST LN.
PL.
52
61
W.
CANDELAS PKWY.
WY.
SCOTT ST.
ARBUTUS ST.
CT.
PL.
88TH
SWADLEY
63 PL.
ZANG
PL.
MC
72ND
TERRY
ZANG
AVE.
CT.
DEVINNEY
DR.
94TH
HIGHWAY
CR.
CT.
TABOR CT.
PL.
PIERSON
86TH
UNION
W.
KLINE
PL.
NEWLAND
ST.
ST.
PL.
61ST
TAFT
TAFT
W. 69TH PL.
84TH
ST.
CT.
HACKBERRY
ORION ST.
KENDRICK
CR.
81ST
82ND
PER
CT .
CT.
PL.
VIVIAN
XENON
68TH
54
WY.
YANK
PL.
W.62ND AVE.
67
ST.
DEVIN
NEY
ST.
W. 88TH AVE.
CT.
AVE.
CT.
ST.
CR.
WOLFF ST.
ELDORA WAY
CT.
DR.
UMBER
QUEEN
REED
73EL DIENTE
58 PL.
NILE
65
VRAIN
COORS
ST.
W.93RD AVE.
78
OWENS
W.
CT.
MOORE CT.
82
SWADLEY
PL.
ST.
W.
W. 72ND FRONTAGE RD.
YANK CT.
PL.
58TH PL.
CT.
MCINTYRE
WYNDHAM
63
ESTES ST.
AVE.
W.
78TH
AVE.
DENVER BOULDER TURNPIKE
UMBER ST.
W.
RENSSELAER
68TH
W.
W. 68TH WAY. BENTON
W.71ST PL.
IRIS
SANDRA
CT.
WELCH
(RALSTON ROAD)
ST.
*2.RUSSELL ST.
70TH AVE.
TERRY
WEBSTER
82 PL.
CT.
WARD RD.
AVE.
66TH
EVERETT
66TH
68TH
71ST
PL.
AVE.
AVE.
CT.
64TH
ODS
ST.
NEWMAN
ST.
FIELD
W.
YANKEE WAY
CR.
LEE
71
CT.
OTIS
PL.
ST.
W.
ST.
INDEPEN-
ST.
ST.
IRIS ST.
52 PL.
CARR ST.
SECREST CT.
TAFT
56 AVE.
CT.
ST.
94TH
LAMAR
79TH DR.
RD.
XENOPHON
81 AVE.
ST.
CT.
FIG
ROUTT
W. 75TH PL.
73
ST.
62
CT.
66TH
65
DR.
65
SECREST
DR.
ST.
62ND
IRIS CT.
UPHAM
W. 54TH AVE.
RIDGE RD
.
WY.
REED
W. 61S
T AVE.
VIRGIL
CT.
ST.
82
W.
83
85
JAY
GARDENIA ST
73 PL
WAYPL.
W.
CT.
HOLLAND
W.
64
ST.
AMES
TABOR
TERRY
61
PL.
63
WAY
AVE.
67TH
W.55TH PL.
56TH PL.
OAK
PL.
59TH
INGALLS
83
CT.
93RD
PL.
PL.
PL.
INGALLS
W.
LN.
ALTA VISTA DR.
WEST WO
ODS CIR.
REED
W.
MOSS
KEND
CT.
PARFET
60TH
59TH
PL.
LN.
ST.
HOYT
NEWLAND
87TH AVE.
GRAY
AVE.
ST.
PL.
DR.
AVE.
W.
77 PL.
W. 53RD AVE.
VANCE
W.
58
PIERCE ST.
LN.
PL.
PL.
LEYDEN
W. 94TH
W. 95TH LN.
MILLER ST.
PL.
CT.75 PL.
CT.
WEBSTER
WES
PL. CR
ST.
ST.
69 PL.
W. 52ND PL.
54TH
ST.
61
PL.
WAY
YARROW
ZEPHYR
95TH PL.
74TH
FIELD
DR.
ST.
SALVIA CT.
CT.
65
CT.
CT.
PL.
CT.
WADSWORTH
W. 53RD AVE.
57TH PL
AVE.
VIRGIL WAY
ST.
CT.
VIRGIL
86TH LN.
TAFT
84
68TH
69
AVE.
W. 81ST AVE.
PKWY.
NEWMAN ST.
67
FLOWER
ST.
68
W. 72ND AVE.
MOSS
TELLER
ST
ST.
ST.
PL.
W.64TH AVE.
XAVIER
MOUNTAIN
SIMMS
ORION
AVE.
DOVER
CT.
ZINNIA
PL.
W. 67TH PL.
ST.
DR.
ST.
W. 71ST AVE.
TABOR
CT.
60TH AVE.
LN.
74TH
INDEPEND.
NOBLE ST.
TAFT PL.
CT.
85
ST.
LEWIS
CT.
ST.
PL.
CR.
CR.
AVE.
CR.
86TH
PL.
DR.
DEF RAME
JOHNSON
WY.
59 W.
59TH
CODY
VIOLET
ZEPHYR
DR.
AVE.
75TH PL.W.
W.73RD PL.
CHASE
WY.
NEWLAND
62ND
CR.
6969 WY.
AVE.
WY.
AVE.
AVE.
DR.
WY.
YOUNGFIELD
BALSAM
AMES
AVE. PL.
KENDRICK
78TH
DR.
81 PL.
CT.
WY.
YARROW PKWY.
ORION
ST.
CT.
ST.
LEWIS
62
RUSSELL
TE-
RRY 63 WY.
W.
WAY
PIERCE ST.
MARSHALL
CT.
77TH
CT.
CT.
DR.
DEFRAME
67
W. 70TH PL.
QUEEN
CT.
76TH
ELDRIDGE ST.
PL.
OWENS ST.
CT.
DR.
60TH
DR.
W.85TH D
R.
CT.
FIG ST
73RD
W. 75TH
77TH
AVE.
DR.
JAY
QUAIL
CT.
67
W.
BRAUN
PL.
W.
LEE
WOLFF
AVE.
ST.
AVE.
IRIS
JAY ST.
MCINTYRE
W.
ZANG
CR.
POPPY
NILE
CR.
AVE.
AVE.
W.
ST.
W.58TH WY.
63
ST.
65
ST.
ZEP-
HYR
MOORE
BRUMM
W. 76TH DR.
COORS
KLINE
W.
ALLIS
ON
83RD CR.
GYDA
54TH
MILLER
CT.
CT.
CR.
CT.
W. 90TH AVE.
LOVELAND
PL.
CR.
URBAN
ST.
83
CR.
ST.
DUNRAVEN
ST.
65 PL.
CT.
CIR.
JELL-
ISON
BALSAM
ST.
W. 59TH PL.
ST.
SHERIDAN F.R.
UMBER ST.
EATON
ST.
76TH DR.
NEWLAND ST.
CT.
JOH-
NSON
ST.
85TH
67
67TH PL.
AVE.
RUSSELL
ST.
75
KENDRICK CT.
W.
56TH
55
62PL.
NOBLE CT.
CT.
W.
94
ST.
ST.
70TH
WEBSTER
W.TABOR
65 AV.
63
JAY ST.
67
ST.
W.
KIPL ING CT.
REED
LN.
CT.
OTIS
63
URBAN
RD.
QUEEN
PL.
86TH DRIVE
75TH
HIGHWAY 93
TAFT ST.
VANCE
NEWLAND
URBAN
63RD
REED
VAN GORDON
67TH
PL.
PL.
AVE.
CLARAB
ELLE
GRANDVIEW
PIERSON
W.58TH AVE.
TORREY CT.
84 PL.
ST.
PL.
82ND
LN.
KLINE
CR.
ST.
NILE
CR.
MARSHALL
ST.
AVE.
52PL
CT.
AVE.
ST.
64
AVE.
ESTES
CT.
W. 69TH AVE.
74 W.
75TH AVE.
VANCE
PL.
BRENTW
OOD
ORION
67TH AVE.
ROBB
CT.
PL.
ST.
OAK ST.
W.W. 60TH
60TH
CT.
W.
ALKIRE ST.
W.
KENDALL
DRIVE
MCINTYRE ST.
ROGERS ST.
CR.
ORION WAY
CT.
BRENTW
OOD
BRAUN CT.
68
UNIONCT.
69TH
CT.
51ST AVE
UPHAM
LN. ROGERS
PL.
CR.
(CSH 121)
DR.
88
ST.
CT.
CT.
WEST 71ST PL.
CT.
CT.
ALLISON
CT.
COORS ST.
ST.
PL.
AVE.
ST.
PROMENADE
RD.
ST.
ALKIRE CT.
YANK YANK
W. 89TH WAY
IRON MOUNTAIN WAY
3RD AVE.
ST.
DEPEW
YULE ST.
ST.
W. 89TH
67 PL.
ST.
MARSHALL
ST.
CT.
ST.
WY.
RIDGE
61ST
LN.AR
AVE.
W. 82ND AVE.
YARROW
CT.
AVE.
BRENTW
OOD
W. 75TH AVE.
PL.
77
ST.
CT.
66 CT.
ZENOBIA ST.
CR.
PL.
W. 52ND DR.
CT.
OTIS
BALSAM
OTIS
VAN GORDON
W. 77TH DR.
YULE
78 DR.
DR.
CR.
W. 61ST AVE.
QUAKER ST.
CT.
69TH
69
70TH
ST.
QUEEN
W. 64TH AVE.
BRAUN PL.
64 PL.
W.
DEVINNEY ST.
WY.
90TH PL.
JELLISON
POPPY
ZENOBIA
CR.
ST.
W.
CT.
76TH WAY
I-70 SE
RVICE R
D.
DUNRAVEN
DR.
ST.
PL.
WY.
84TH
76
ST.
ST.
79TH WAY
PIERSON WY.
PL.
PL.
W. 66TH
66TH OTIS
RD.
HOLLAND
CT.
AVE.
54 TH
CODY ST.
PL.
64TH GRAY
DR.
ST.
ST.
ST.
ST.
CT.
ZINNIA ST.
ELLIS
CT.
66
CT.
70TH
ST.
W. 75TH PL.
AVE.
61ST
NOLAN ST.
AVE.
EATON
W. 68TH AVE.
DR.
EASTRIDGE RD.
ELLIS
W. 79TH PL.
RUSSELL
W.
WAY C
T.
84TH
ALLISON
ST.
ST.
CT.
W. 71ST PL.
FENTON
W. 49TH AVE.
AVENUE
W. 51ST PL.
AVE.
BRENTW
OOD
W. 65TH WY.
*3.SALVIA CT.
W.
GLENCOE
CT.
79
81 PL.
YUCCA ST.
62ND AVE
DEPEW
ST.
UTICA
W.
W.67TH
GLADIOLA ST.
PL.
VANCE ST.
W. 61ST
PL.
LN.
KIPLING
93RD
W.
WAY
DEVINNEY ST.
82
WY.
LN.
FLORA ST
WY. W. 76TH DR.
WY.
REED
W.78TH AVE.
CR.
JELLISON
WEST
67TH
CT.
CT.
ST.
ST.
W.
PL.AVE.
60
PL.
QUARTZ
CR.
POMONA
GRAY
DUNRAVEN
ST.
74TH DR.
PL.
QUAIL
PARFET ST.
ST.
W.
IRIS CT.
ST.
ST.
ST.
ROGERS
ST.
ST.
W.
DR.
ST.
64TH
W.
AVE.
VANCE ST.
JOHNSON
EATON
AVE.
AVE.
BEECH
66
COORS
TELLER
71ST
AVE.
CT. MARS-
HALL
CT. CT .
ST.
PL.
PL.
JAY
ORCHARD WAY
76 AVE. 75TH
ST.
JAY
ST.
CT.
WRIGHT
ST.
69TH
ST.
YANK
73
W.
55 PL.
ROBINSON
64
WRIGHT 62
OTIS DR.
FLAGSTAFF
WAY
W.
ST.
WY.
CT.
LEE
YANK CT.
84TH
NELSON
ST.
PL.
CT.
DR.
COORS
AVE.ROA
D
ALLENDALE
ST.
ST.
62
NEWMAN
CARR
BURY
WY.
88TH
AVE.
W.
COORS
AVE. KENDALL
VIRGIL
W.
CR.
UMBER
PL.
YNFLD.
ST.
ISABELL
OAK CT.
NOBLE
56
ST.
PL.
HOLLAND
ST.
ST.
PLAINVIEW ROAD
W. 83RD
W. 83RD PL.
ST.
W.
84
86TH CR
.
CT.
AVE.
DUDLEY
DEPEW
SIMMS
WY.
GARRISON CT.
ST.
EATON
AVE.
XAVIER
CREST
69TH PL.
URBAN
FENTON
CR.
YUKON
ROBB
NEW MAN
PL.
ST.
W. 68TH PL.
DEPEW
71
EVERETT
ST.
ST.
DUDLEY
WY.
MAN
CT.
PL.
ESTES
UNION
EL DIENTE
GORE
PARFET
OLDE
FIELD
CR.
WY.
AVE.
IRIS
60TH
TORREY
69TH
W. 66TH
NEWLAND ST.
73RD
76TH
TELLER
DR.
JELLISON
69TH
DR.AVE.
EATON
KIPLING
DR.
AVE.
52ND
W. 55TH
AVE.
ST.
ST.
NEWLAND
CR.
W. 77TH DR.
78TH AVE.
CT.
ZANG
84TH
DR.
ST.
70TH
REED
73RD ST.
74TH
CR.
W.W. 59TH PL.
ST.
PL.
84 PL.
LOOP
DUNRAVEN
W. 88TH DR.
W.
LEWIS
ST.
77
PL.
CT.
CR.
ESTES
PL.
CT.
W. 76TH AVE.
ST.
DEFRAME ST.
DOVER
COLU-
MBINE
HOLLAND
McINTYRE
62 PL.
91STPL
78
CR.
81
85 PL.
ST.
ST.
AVE.
62ND
PL.
67
ELDRIDGE CT.
PL.
W. 49TH PL.
ROBB
DR.
CT.
68TH
67
94TH
W.
SWADLEY
PARFET
WAY
ROGERS
PIERCE
QUAY
ORCHARD CT.
71ST
WADSWORTH BLVD.
75TH
W.74TH PL.
AVE.
56
LN.
61ST
GARDENIA
PL.
PKWY.
ALKIRE ST.
ST.
W.
TABOR
ST.
79TH AVE.
FIG ST.
W.
QUARTZ W
Y.
TAFT
HOLLA
ND
GARLAND
CT.
AVE.
DUDLEY
LANE
WEBSTERST.
JAY
63
TAFT
WARD
AMMONS
UMBER
W.73RD AVE.
W.
DR.
75TH
W.
OTIS
WY.
68TH
W.
70TH
FLORA
URBAN
EY
NEWCOMBE
PL.
ST.
NOBLE
CT.
WAY
WAY
ESTES
BLUFF
CR.
CT.
91ST PL.
QUEEN
67TH
PARFET
CR.
PL.
PL.
54TH
DR.
DR.
RUSSELL
NEWCOMBE CT.
MOSS
77TH
CREST
GARLAND
CR.
VANCE
POPPY
ST.
W.
W.
73RD
DR.
EVERETT
W. 61ST PL.
66
DR.
AVE.
ORCHARD CT.
ST.
ST.
PARFET ST.
DR.
DEPEW CT.
LN.
JOHNSON
EVERETT WY.
DR.
81
86TH
85TH
CT.
AVE.
71 DR.
W.
76TH
W.48TH AVE.
ESTES
CR.
63 LN.
CT.
LOVELAND
ST.
ELLISCT.
DEPEW
93RD AVE
W. 92ND AVENUE
WAY
ST.
EATON
CT.
CRESTONE
84TH
83
W. 53 AV.
W. 59TH
PL.
WY.
DEFRAME
62
CT.
ST.
UTICA STREET
ST.
WY.
CT.
CT.
W.
ORION
YARROW
62 AVE.
67TH
CT.
INGALLS
CR.
54TH
56TH AVE.
W.
62
AVE.
PL.
78TH
GLENCOE
AVE.
CHASE DR.
PL.
W.
INDEPENDENCE
WEBSTER
UPHAM SHERIDAN BLVD. (CSH 95)
LOVELAND CT.
ST.
PL.
W. 64TH AVE.
LN.
JOYCE
LEWIS
65
PL.
W.
ST.
SHERIDAN F. R.
CT.
W.61 ST
83RD
CHASE
BROSS
BRAUN
SAULSBURY
77TH
W. 79TH
ST.
81
DEVI
ZANG ST.
NEWCOMBE
66TH
ST.
71
W. 49TH PL.
AVE.
ST.
LOVELAND.ST
ST.
ST.
IND E PE
NDENCE
DR. CR.
W.74TH AVE.
W.
OWENS
78
PL.
HOWE LL
68TH PL.
TABOR
AVE.
AVE.
McINTYRE ST.
52ND
CT.
ST.
61 AVE.
AVE.
WY.
SAULSBURY
83RD AVE.
ZENOBIA
SWADLEY
SECREST
73
ESTES
LANE
VIOLET
CT.
PL.
BEECH
COLE CT.
COORS CT.
WARD
PL.
TAFT
WINONA
HOLMAN
CT.
ARBUTUS ST.
OAK
INGRAM
W. 93RD
W.
CT.
INDIAN
2ND
AVE.
AVE.
WINDY ST.
63
TELLER
CR.
W. 70T
H
ST.
CT.
PIERCE ST.
CR.
QUEEN CT .
59TH
ST.
AVE.
WY.
83 AVE.
MARSHALL
LEWIS
ST.
75
AVE.
JOHNSON
63RD
CR.
VRAIN
DR.
W.70TH PL.W.70TH DR.
I-70 F.R.
HOYTJE
LLISON
58TH F.R.
DOVER
LN.
CR.
POMONA
PL.
AVE.
YAT ES STREET
INDEPENDENCE
ST.
ST. PL.
77 DR.
CT.
50TH
53
ST.
COORS
ZEPHYR
WY.
ELLIS
FIELD ST.
SALVIA
BEECH
ROUTT
HOLLAND
W.
TELLER CT.
W. 84TH AVE.
ST.
72
W.68TH
W.
PL.
PL.
ST.
W.60TH LN.
FIG
CT.
ST.
YU-
KON
UNION
OAK
82
WRIGHT
TORREY
W.
PL.
83RD
LOOP
SHANNON
ST.
67
CT .
PIERCE
DR.
W. 58TH DR.
61ST
62ND
DR.
W. 62ND PL.
67 WY.
GARRISON
KENDALL
W.
UPHAM
CT.
WILKER SON CT.
ANTERO CT.
DR.85
AVE. PL.
ZEP
HYR
INGALLS
74TH
DR.
ST.
EL BRENTW
OOD
PL.
62ND
65TH
75TH A
VE.
77TH DRIVE
ALLISON
ST.
82 LN.
92ND DR.
JUNI
70
W. 75TH AVE.
BEECH
ST.
ST.
PL.
ST.
NORSE
ORCHARD
ST.
68
GARRISON ST.
67TH
PL.
URBAN
78
CT.
BENTON
59TH
JANICE
(CSH 72)
XENON ST.
72
68
CARR
87
PL.
ROBB ST.
75TH
CR.
MARSHALL
W. 83RD AVE.
JELLI SON
RENO
ST.
CT.
YUKON
WY.
65 AVE.
84
UTE DR.
W. 87TH AVE.
CT. D
R.
74TH
77TH
W.83RD
85TH
ST.
WINONA
AVE. UTICA
DEVINNEY CT.
CR.
W. 53RD
ST.
VRAIN
AVE.
PL.
64
POMONA
CT.
AVE.
EATON
CR.
W.
PL.
VIOLET W.78TH PL.
ST.
ST.
AVE.
WY.
CT.
SWADLEY
DOVER
57TH
ST.
65 AVE. 64
CR.
93RD CIR.
YUCCA
ST.
DR.
83RD
B EEC H
WY.
83RD
W.94
AVE.69TH
PL.
FLOWER
OAK
DUDLEY
ROBB ST.
53RD
LN.
CT.
URBAN
VAN
1.*
LN.
YUKON
W.
HARLAN
AVE.
AVE.
W. 80TH
87TH
REED
PL.
CT.
CT.
QUARTZ ST.
AVE.
W. 57TH
AVE
FIG CT.
LN.
XENOPHON
CT. AMMONS
W.
MILLER
76TH AVE.
PL.
ST.
INGALLS CR.
CHASE
62
W.
MILLER
66TH
ST.
CT.
W.54TH AVE.
DOVER
W.61ST AVE.
DOVER
DEFRAME ST.
ST.
CIR.
LOOP
ST.
75
QUAY
SON
77TH
WY.
OWENS
67TH
QUAY
W.72ND
ST.
71ST
W.
ST.
CR.
LEWIS
SAULSBURY
CT.
W. 87TH TERRA C
E
W.
DR.
W. 90TH AVE
93RD
95TH
XENON
CR.
AVE.
ST.
DR.
81ST
ST.
W. 60TH
DR.
QUAIL
WIER
ST.
PL.
UNION
CT.
MILLER ST.
W. 52ND AVE.
55TH
61 AVE.
82ND
W.
W.86TH PL.
85
TERRY
71ST
69
HOYT
QUEEN
XENON
ZINNIA
AVE.
TH
NELSON
ST.
AVE.
ST.
DR. LN.
ST.
60TH
W.
AMES
DR.
W.
DR.
71ST PL.
NOBLE
DR.
W. 76TH AVE.
ST.
LAMAR
64 PL.
ST.
W.
67th
ST.
DR.
TABOR ST
ROAD
63
PL.
QUAY
MARSHALL CT.
INGALLS
MOSS
WAY
77
W.
81
CT.
81
W. 83RD
CT.
CT.
LAMAR
73RD AVE.
PL.
78
CR.
51ST
DEPEW
NNEY
PIERSON
CT.
W. 89TH DR
W.94TH PL.
W.
RUSSELL
DR.
ESTES
CT.
CR.
ST.
62ND
ST.
67
CR.
DR.
CT.
CR.
MILLER
AVE.
63 DR.
FIELD
DOVER
CT.
ST.
ROBB
IRIS
JELL
GARR-
ISON
79TH
DR.
ST.
ST.
W.
AV.
JELLISON
OTIS ST.
54PL
QUAY
CT.
PL.
ELDRIDGE ST.
62ND
DR.
W.87TH AVE.
JUNIPER
W. 77TH PL.
CT.
80TH PL.
PL.
PL.
PL.
63
69TH WY.
ST.
CARR
ST.
ST.
I-70
W.
ST.
YARROW
SAULSBURY
CT.
W.
82ND
CT.
AVE.
ST.
PL.
WY.
ST.
WAY
PL.
W.
CR.
URBAN
PL.
CT.
65TH
62ND
SECREST
BRAUN ST.
ST.
ST.
62
KENDRICK DR.
RALSTON PL.
W.
WAY
DR.
CR.
72 PL.
PL.
PL.
WY.
LN.
INDEPENDENCE
CT. TE
LLER
POPPY WY.
71
WAY
CT.
PL.
65
CT.
LUPINE ST.
CT.
KILMER
OTIS ST.
ST.
OTIS
CT.
WIER
86TH PL.
ST.
72
CR.
SAULSBURY
ZANG
CT.
ST.
W. 52ND AVE.
ALLISON
OAK ST.
FLOWER
W. 57TH PL.
RENO DR
.
84
83 AVE.
71ST
SWADLEY
HARLAN WAY
AMES ST.
W. 80TH AVE.
W.
BARBARA
DR.
DR.
(CSH 95)
ORCHARD
ST.
PL.
ST.
W. 58TH AVE.
56TH DR.
FIELD
LEE
JOHNSON
77TH
ST.
LEYDEN
CT.
DR.
80TH
PARFET
65TH PL.
W.
W. 69TH
W.
NILE
CT.
W. 58TH DR.
PARKC
T.
ST.
PL.
LAMAR
CT.
EVERETT
CHURCHRANCH
BLVD.
ST.
ST.
PL.
DR.
W.
CT.
WY.
W.
ST.
REED
ST.
WELCH
QUAIL ST.
ST.
W. 63RD
62 LN.
ST.
PL.
77
W. 84T
H
W
87TH PKWY.
PL.
NOBLE WAY
AVE.
ORION
71 PL.
AVE.
ST.
W.75TH
REED
59TH
ROBB
CT.
WY.
CR.
ST.
PL.
ST.
81ST
84
ST.
CT.
PL.
73
MOORE
W.
54
NOLAN
AMMONS
REED
RD.
AVE.
ROCK
WAY
85TH
PL.
W. 92ND AVE.
WOODS
COLE
SAULSBURY ST.
UMBER
LEE
KLINE
INGALLS
GLENCOE
PL.
WY.
CR.
CT.
CT.
ST.
CT.
WY.
BRAUN
IRIS ST.
DR.
OWENS
WY.
CT.
DR.
DR.
AVE.
ST.
67TH
CT.
67TH
ST.
DEFRAME
ESTES ST.
AVE.
PL.
ST.
56
WATER
HEAD
W. 78TH DR.
PL.
CANDELAS
CT. WY.
JOHNSON ST.
W. 67TH
LAMAR
AVE.
PIKE ST.
CT.
64
CT.
ST.
AVE.
52
GRAY CT.
PL.
59TH
SALVIA
EASLEY RD.
W.
W.87TH
DR.
ST.
ROAD
ST.
PL.
WINDY
CT.
W.86TH AVE.
84TH
62
CT.
ST.
SALVIA
AVE.
W.
W.57TH
ELLIS CT.
ST.
60TH
AVE.
ST.
ST.
POPPY
PL.
AVE.
CT.
W.93RD
CT.
78TH
LEE ST.
DR.
QUAY
DR.
DR.
DR.
PL.
W.
BRAUN
URBAN
DR.
I-70
56TH
AVE.
TW
PIERSON ST.
CT.
INDEPENDENCE ST.
95TH
CR.
COORS CT.
DR. FLORA
MILLE
R
83RD
65TH
ST.
PL.W.
PL.
BRAUN
I-70 SERVICE RD.
ST.
ST.
SAL-VIA
ST.
CR.
71ST
W. 73RD PL.
83
81STPL.
TURNPIKE DRIVE
LUPINE
CR.
W. 66TH
KENDRICK
68TH
CT.
MCINTYRE CT.
ST .
62
W.
WY.
QUAY
W. 88TH AVE.
YATES
QUARTZ
DR.
81 PL.
YANK
LOOP
PL.
PL.
74
75 PL.
W. 75TH PL.
ST.
78TH DRIVE
QUAIL
ST.
ST.
AMMONS DR.
66TH
W.65 TH AVE.
ST.
ZENOBIA STREET
CT.
82 LN.
84TH
PL.
ESTES
PIERCE
W.
ST.
ST.
PL.
ST.
ST.
NEWLAND
TAFT
63RD
WO
CT.
AVE.
W.
77
FIELD
78 CR.
GRAY
GLADIOLA ST.
W. 70TH DR.
PL.
CT.
69
CT.
W. 73RD PL
ZANG
CT.
W.66TH AVE.
KENDALL
CT.
CT.
W. 51ST LN.
DR.
FIG
CT.
CT.
W. 60TH AVE.
PL.
CT.
83
CT.
WY.
CT.
74
JAY CT.
W.
DR.
W. 61ST
AVE.
FENTON
ST.
DR.
PL.
W. 50TH
AVE.
55 AVE.
TELLER ST.
W.
ST.
WAY
85TH W. 86TH AVE.
FENTON
W.
WY.
67TH
75TH
W. 78TH AVE.
78 AVE.
ST.
ALLS
60
CR.
BEECH CT.
64
64 BENTON
55TH
KLINE
FIELD
JAY ST.
ST.
64 PL.
ORCHARD
WARD ROAD
DUDL EY
FLATTOP
93RD PL.
DRIVE
74TH
ST.
PL.
80TH
QUAY
W.
DEFRAME
W.
CT.
71
W.69TH
VIRGIL
JOHNSON
DR.
PIERCE
BRAUN
61ST
ALKIRE
CR.
81ST
*1.QUAKER CT. ST.
ST.
W. 88TH AVE.
70
FET
EATON
CT.
79
INGALLS
WELCH
ST.
TERRY
INDIANA
GLADIOLA
URBAN
W. 54TH AVE.
PL.
CT.
CT.
PL.
W.
CT.
84TH
CT.
LN.
COLE
73
ST.
PL.
ST.
ST.
63
CT.
LAMAR
COORS
AVE.
ALLISON
ST.
ST.
VIVIAN
VIVIAN
NOBLE ST.
XAVIER
DR.
COORS
QUEEN
ST.
NEWLAND
DR.
CT.
BRENTW
OOD
ST. LEE CT.
NELSON ST.
69TH
DEPEW
YOUNGFIELD WY.
PARFET
ST.
ST.
UMBER CR.
W. 63RD PL.
W.
CT.
QU
EEN
DR.
94TH
REED
ST.
EVE-
RETT
STUART STREET
CR.
W.
ST.
63
W.
66
ST.
CT.
LYNN
I RI S ST.
WELLINGTON
63RD
ZINNIA
NEWCOMBE ST.
UPHAM
ROUTT ST.
CT.
W. 83RD LN.
94TH
PL.
CR.
W. 72ND AVE.
W. 72ND AVE.W.
DR.
CT.
CODY
ST.
W.60TH
PL.
QUEEN ST.
TERRY
GLADIOLA ST
PL.
CT.
W. 80TH PL.
YUKON
AVE.
84TH
85
63RD
64TH
BYPASS
XENON
ST.
W.
TAFT CT.
53
ST.
51ST
CARR ST.
ST.
W. 91ST AVE.
LUPINE
PL.
SWADLEY
UPHAM
AVE.
BLAN-
CA CT.
NILE
PIKE
CT.
DR.
CT.
DR.
DR.
50THAV
UNION
GARLAND
HOYT
CR.
63RD
W. 74TH AVE.
82
81
ST.
WY.
W. 89TH
LP.
CT.
GARLAND
W. 69TH68TH
DEVINNEYCT.
EATON
ELDRIDGE ST.
AVE.
PL.
YATES
PL.
WEBSTER
WY.
TABOR CT.
OWENS
W.85TH PL.
GARLAND
WAY
ZEPHYR
W.
ST.
76 AVE.
AVE.
DR.
COORS ST.
PARFET ST.
W.
W. 57TH AVE.
56TH PL
AVE.
FLATTOP ST.
70TH
74TH
ROBB
CT.
WARD
CT.
PL.
McINTYRE
TOR-
REY
62ND
ST.
AVE.
(48TH AVE)
ESTES
53 PL.
W.
ROGERSSA
LVIA
PL.
CULEBRA
TRAIL
WAY
72ND
W. 72ND AVE.
LEE DRIVE
AVE.
CR.
PL.
DUDLEY
DR.
65W. 65TH
WY.
W.
BRISTOL ST.
ST.
AVE.
SALVIA
W. 58TH AVE.
VIRGIL WY.
77TH
84TH
TORREY ST.
GARDENI
A CR.
WAY
VAN GORDON
POPPY WY. DR.
ELLIS ST.
ST.
77TH
W.
YUKON
CT.
QUAIL
PL.
72
ESTES
ST.
W. 58TH AVE.
ST.
62
PL.
UMBER
W.
IRIS
JELLISON
CT.
CT.
W.
MOORE
ST.
AVE. 74 PL.
ST.
CR.
SHARON
ST.
CR.
60 AVE.
DR.
63
GRAY
W.
PL.
DOVER
QUAY
AVE.
74
PIERCE
76TH
DUDLEY
EVERETT
IRIS
TZ
HOLMAN
WRIGHT
CT.
ST.
73
57TH PL.
ST.
W.
ST.
AVE.
INGALLS
TELLER
W.
MOORE
W.
80
84 PL.
W.62ND PL.
GARDENIA
66
ST.
SIMMS ST.
CT.
RD.
POPPY CT.
DR.C
T.
NEWCOMBE
RALSTON RD. F.R.
UPHAM ST.
CHASE
CT.
CR.
INDIANA ST.
VANCE ST.
SHERIDAN BLVD.
ORI ON CT.
KENDRICK
JOYCE
CT.
W.
PARFET ST.
53
FIELD
DOVER
PL.
ALKIRE
HIGHWAY 93
CT.
TABOR ST
HOYT
HOLLAND
CR.
86TH CIR.
CR.
ST.
LEE
WY.
W.69TH IR
IS
W. 58TH AVE.
DR.
COORS
CT.
PL.
SALVIA ST.
CR.
MARSHALL
JUNIPER
DEPEW ST.
AVE. FLOWER
W.79TH DR.
ALLISON
CIR.
AVE.
GARRISON
HARLAN
CR.
69TH DR.
60
CODY
VALLEY
61
(CSH 72)
64 PL.
DEFRAME
W. 90TH AVE.
75TH
WINONA COURT
RD.
80TH
W.
DR.
PL.
CR.
BRAUN
BENTON
CT.
UM
BER
AVE.
W.
ORION W. 63RD
CR.
AVE.
WAY
CT.
WY.
DR.
W. 87TH AVE.
PIERSON
XAVIER
TAFT
UNION
70TH
ARBUTUS
HOYT
ST .
ST.
PL.
TERRY CT.
RFET
CT.
WARD
UTE DR
IVE
CR.
WAY
PL.
70TH
KENDRICK
LUPINE
JAY ST.
LN.
NOBLE LN.
YANK
62ND
SWADLEY
51ST PL.
RD.
ANTERO
CT.
DEVINNEY
YANK WY.
AMMONS
ELDORA
ST.
W. W.
ELLIS
LAMAR
WINDER PL.
CT.
ST.
CT.
W.
W.
CR.
PL
W.
65
VAN GORDON
FENTON
W.
AVE.
OWENS
85
PL.
AVE.
75TH AVE.
W.
WOOD
PL.
ZIRCON ST.
W.65TH
PL.
CR.
ST.
BENTON
W.
W. 54TH AVE.
W.
ST.
CR.
DR.
COLE
AVE.
BRAUN
CT.
W.
W.
91ST PL.
LN.
FIG
W.
PL.
CT.
YOUNGFIELD
DEFRAME CT.
JELLISON
ST.
FLORA
COLE
ST.
LN.
W.
78
ST.
W.
LAMAR
PL.
ST.
AVE.
71
WELCH
CT.
ZINNIA
PIER
URBAN
W.63RD PL.
HOL-
LAND
WES
WY.
TABOR
W.
DR.
PL.
YARROW
PL.
SECREST
TEL
LER
ST.
CRES-
TONE
KENDALL
JELLISON
LP
86TH PL. LN
.
PL.
AVE.W.
LN.
ROBB
FLOWER ST.
GARLAND
INDEPENDE NCE
W. 51ST
W. 53RD
PIERSON
W.
59TH
N.
W.
DR.
BENTON
VALLEY
CR.
PL.
KENDALL
SIMMS ST.
WAY
ST.
INDEPEN. WY.
QUAY
MOSS
POPPY
ST.
SAULSBURY
W.
GRANT
BROOKS
AVE.
75TH
CT.
ALLISON
W.
W. 91ST LN
95TH
64
CR.
66TH
69
W.70TH AVE
W. 73RD AVE.
55PL.
(CSH 72) BROOKS
CT.
W. 72ND AVE.
W.
83RD
WAY
ST.
QUAIL
AV
WAY
CR.
KENDALL
CODY
CT.
ST.
ORION
CR.
ST.
PL.
WY.
ST.
AVE.
W. 94TH PL.
W.
74TH
URBAN
W.78TH PL.
81ST PL.
PL.
PL.
ALLEND.
YANK
URBAN
TAFT
63
LEWIS
PL.
74
HOLLAND
PINE
W.78TH PL.
76TH
W.
W.62ND AVE.
68TH
ST.
OTIS
W.
PL.
55TH
CODY
59TH
ROUTT
63
WY.
85
GARRISON ST.
AVE.
EVERETT
73RD
ST.
83RDFENTON
82ND
ZINNIA
PL.
PL.
65TH AVE.
FIELD
74TH
54TH
CT.
ST.
CR.
ROGERS
PL.
CR.
CT.
CT.
CT.
W.
86TH
OTIS
ST.
ST.
ST.
AVE.
ST.
GRAY
W.61ST PL.
58
CR.
63RD
CR.
W.
EVERETT
NOBLE
83RD DR.
CR.
WESTRIDGE
ST.
ST.
ST.
ST.
UPHAM
INGALLS
PARFET
53RD
REED ST.
GARLAND
OWENS
65
ST.
ST.
CT.
ZIRCON
WAY
BROSS
NEWLAND
ST.
ST.
DR.
ST.
69 PL.
W.
HOYT
NILE ST.
51ST PL.
OAK ST.
DR.
54
PL.
86TH
63
PL.
67
PL.
68
FLORA
BLVD.
CRESTONE ST.
DR.
63 AVE.
LN.
63
ST.
SHERIDAN
F.R.
PL.
EVERETT
ST.
ST.
83RD
AVE.
ST.
W.
ULYSSES
ST.
ST.
CT.
AVE.
PL.
69
AVE.
JAY CT.
CARR
66
ST.
ROAD
68TH
65
70 DR.
ARBUTUS ST.
GARLAND
W. 51ST AVE.
WY.
CR.
PL.
SWADLEY
W.
ST. CR.
ST.
STUART PL.
MOSS CR.
ST.
CT.
ST.
BALSAM
W. 68TH
WAY
54LN.
W. 55TH AVE.
XENON
66 AVE.
CT.
AVE.
W. 49TH AVE.
61ST
65TH
W.
W.
TH
ST.
ROBB
REED
QUAIL
WAY
BEECH
BRAUN
TORREY
72
ST.
CT.
69TH
ROUTT LN.
53RD
CR.
DUDLEY
FENTON
DR.
(RALSTON ROAD)
LOOP
ZINNIA
W.
85
NELS-
ON
PL.
LAMAR
PIERSON ST.
TYLER
GARLAND
W. 73RDPL.
78
ST.
HOLLAND
WAY
PL.
58TH
BROO KS
VANCE
GLADIOLA
LN.
68TH PL.
HOYT
WAY
PIERSON CT.
MOORE ST.
IR
62 AVE.
ST.
CT.
ST.
ST.
67 PL.
W. 58TH AVE.
62WY
61ST
60TH
ALLISON
QUAKER
RUSSELL
85TH CR.
AVE.
NILE
ST.
DUDLEY
MARS-HALL
PL.
ST.
W.
CT.
67 AVE.
W.
ZENOBIA STREET
59TH
CT.
NEWLAND
62
ST.
CT.
HALLETT ST.
75TH DR.
72ND DR.
CT.
W.
(A.K.A. LEYDEN
RD.)
ROBB
65 AVE.
70TH
ST.
72ND
ST.
VIVIAN
W.56TH PL.
BLANCA
61
CT.
ST.
80TH
ST.
GLADIOLA
YOUNGFIELD
84
W.
GRAY
FIG ST.
ST.
AVE. W. 74TH PL.
DEVINNEY
61
CT.
YOUNG-
FIELD
PL.
W. 66TH
W.
EVERETT
ST.
YUKON
RENO
YARROW
QUAY
62ND
BENTON
93RD PL
AVE
75TH
CT.
CT. PIERCE
DOVER ST.
63 AVE.
TERRY CT.
CT.
DR.
WY.
71
W. 50TH AVE.
ORCHARD ST.
PIERCE
EASLEY RD.
63
WAY
W. 77TH DR.
79TH
82
85TH PL.
JOYCE
W.
ALLENDALE
PL.
ST.
ZENOBIA
BEECH
74
(CSH 72)
RALSTON F.
R.
DR.
62
SECREST
65TH
WY.
ST.
88
NOBLE ST.
TRAIL
ST.
W.
LAMAR
VALLEY
FLORACT.
84TH PL.
ST.
W.
CT.
69
ST.
CT.
W.
ST.
QUAIL
ST.
DUDLEY
COORS
84TH
W.
W.
CT.
CR.
W.80TH PL.
84
CT.
TABOR
W.
ESTES
PL.
ST.
W. 77TH
DR.
ELLEN DR. RALSTON RD.
KIPLING
ST.
62
ST.
67
87
AVE.
CARR ST.
79
FENTON
PL. ST.
ST.
UNION
ST.
W. 69TH
70TH
PL.
HIGHLAND
W. 56TH PL.
WY.
61
VIVIAN
65TH
KENDRICK
92ND
W. 100TH AVE
PL.
EATON ST.
CT.
ALLISON
82 AVE.
86TH
W. 49TH AVE.
RIDGE
OLDE WADSWORTH
YANK ST.
ST.
ANTE-
RO CT.
CT .
AVE.
ST.
ST.
W.
PL.
W.
CT.
NELSON
TABOR
W.64TH
ROAD
ST.
TAFT BRENTW
OOD
WY.
W. 59TH AVE.
ST.
ST.
W. 92ND PL.
YUCCA WAY
84
ST.
WY.
W. 86TH AVE.
WEBSTE
R DR.
CULE BRA
DR.
YATES ST.
PL.
ST. DOVER
DR.
ST.
EVERETT
W. 58TH
59TH
W 63 PL.
ST.
JAY
PL.
72
KILMER
VIOLET
78TH
78TH
DR.
CT.
COLE
ST.
ST.
ST.
TORREY
AVE.
ST.
W. 53RD
WY.
LN.
KILMER
ELDRIDGE
DR.
W. 76TH
ST.
ST.
64 DR.
COLE
LOOP
71
CT.
70TH
VIOLET
58TH F.R.
DEFRAME
CT .
PL.
ROAD
TENNYSON STREET
PL.
84TH
HWY 36 -
PL.
W. 88TH AVE.
ST.
ST.
ST.
NILE
HEAD
81
LN.
61ST
W.
CT.
66
AVE.
W. 85TH BLUFF
IRIS
85
CR.
DEVINNEY
82ND
CT.
ST.
ST.
CR.
W.
LEWIS
CT.
CT.
73RD
ST
ALLI SON
W. 58TH
59TH AVE.
HARLAN
SECREST
W.
ST.
CT.
WY.
W.
BALSAM
83RD
W. 62ND AVE.
CT.
WAY
KILMER
CR.
W. 68TH PL.
W. 57TH PL.
NILE
RUSSELL
63 AVE.
LN.W.
BLUE MTN. DR.
88TH PL.
ST.
WAY
YANKEE
DR.
LEYDEN ROCK DR
COLE ST. UP
HAM CT.
71
AVE.
71
HILLRD.
W.71ST AVE.
74TH
ST.
AVE.
AMMONS
OTIS
ST.
71
UNION PACIFIC RR
UNIONPACIFIC
RR
BURLINGTON NORTHERN-SANTA FE RR
BURLINGTON NORTHERN-SANTA FE RR
UNION PACIFIC RR
BNSF RR
DATE: 12/4/2017PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTZONING CATEGORIES
The maps provided are graphical representations intended for general informational purposesonly, and may not reflect the most current information or conditions. THE CITY OF ARVADAMAKES NO WARRANTY OF MECHANTABILITY OR WARRANTY FOR FITNESS OF USEFOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THESEGRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS OR THE UNDERLYING DATA. Any users of thesegraphical representations or map products accepts same AS IS, WITH ALL FAULTS, andassumes all responsibility for the use thereof, and further covenants to hold the City harmlessfrom and against all damage, loss, or liability arising from the use of this map product, inconsideration of the City's having made this information available.
LEGEND
0 0.5 10.25Miles
1:26,000
6000
W. H
ARLA
N
4400
W. T
EN
NY
SO
N45
00 W
. UTI
CA
4600
W. V
RA
IN47
00 W
. WIN
ON
A48
00 W
. WO
LFF
4900
W. X
AVIE
R50
00 W
. YAT
ES
5100
W. Z
EN
OB
IA52
00 W
. SH
ER
IDA
N53
00 W
. AM
ES
5400
W. B
EN
TON
5500
W. C
HA
SE
5600
W. D
EPE
W57
00 W
. EAT
ON
5800
W. F
EN
TON
5900
W. G
RAY
6100
W. I
NG
ALL
S62
00 W
. JAY
6300
W. K
EN
DA
LL64
00 W
. LA
MA
R65
00 W
. MAR
SH
ALL
6600
W. N
EWLA
ND
6700
W. O
TIS
6800
W. P
IER
CE
6900
W. Q
UAY
7000
W. R
EED
7100
W. S
AU
LSB
UR
Y72
00 W
. TE
LLE
R73
00 W
. UPH
AM
7400
W. V
AN
CE
7500
W. W
EB
STE
R76
00 W
. WA
DS
WO
RTH
7700
W. Y
UK
ON
7800
W. Y
AR
RO
W79
00 W
. ZE
PH
YR
8000
W. A
LLIS
ON
8100
W. A
MM
ON
S82
00 W
. BA
LSA
M83
00 W
. BR
EN
TWO
OD
8400
W. C
ARR
8500
W. C
OD
Y86
00 W
. DO
VE
R87
00 W
. DU
DLE
Y88
00 W
. ES
TES
8900
W. E
VE
RE
TT90
00 W
. FIE
LD91
00 W
. FLO
WE
R92
00 W
. GA
RR
ISO
N93
00 W
. GA
RLA
ND
9400
W. H
OLL
AN
D95
00 W
. HO
YT
9600
W. I
ND
EP
EN
DE
NC
E97
00 W
. IR
IS98
00 W
. JE
LLIS
ON
9900
W. J
OH
NS
ON
1000
0 W
. KIP
LIN
G10
100
W. K
LIN
E10
200
W. L
EE
1030
0 W
. LE
WIS
1040
0 W
. MIL
LER
1050
0 W
. MO
OR
E10
600
W. N
ELS
ON
1070
0 W
. NE
WC
OM
BE
1080
0 W
. OA
K10
900
W. O
WE
NS
1100
0 W
. PAR
FET
1110
0 W
. PIE
RS
ON
1120
0 W
. QU
AIL
1130
0 W
. QU
EE
N11
400
W. R
OB
B11
500
W. R
OU
TT11
600
W. S
IMM
S11
700
W. S
WA
DLE
Y11
800
W. T
AB
OR
1190
0 W
. TA
FT12
000
W. U
NIO
N12
100
W. U
RB
AN
1220
0 W
. VAN
GO
RD
ON
1230
0 W
. VIV
IAN
1240
0 W
. WA
RD
1250
0 W
. WR
IGH
T12
600
W. X
EN
ON
1270
0 W
. XE
NO
PH
ON
1280
0 W
. YO
UN
GFI
ELD
1290
0 W
. YA
NK
1300
0 W
. ZA
NG
1310
0 W
. ZIN
NIA
1320
0 W
. ALK
IRE
1330
0 W
. AR
BU
TUS
1340
0 W
. BE
EC
H13
500
W. B
RA
UN
1360
0 W
. CO
LE13
700
W. C
OO
RS
1380
0 W
. DE
FRA
ME
1390
0 W
. DE
VIN
NE
Y14
000
W. E
LDR
IDG
E14
100
W. E
LLIS
1420
0 W
. FIG
1430
0 W
. FLO
RA
1440
0 W
. GA
RD
EN
IA14
500
W. G
LAD
IOLA
1460
0 W
. HO
LMA
N14
700
W. H
OW
ELL
1480
0 W
. IN
DIA
NA
1490
0 W
. ISA
BE
LL15
000
W. J
OY
CE
1510
0 W
. JU
NIP
ER
1520
0 W
. KE
ND
RIC
K
2330
0 W
. ZU
MW
ALT
S23
200
W. Z
IRK
LE23
100
W. Y
PS
ILO
N23
000
W. Y
ELL
OW
MTN
.22
900
W. W
IND
ON
2280
0 W
. WE
TTE
RH
OR
N22
700
W. V
ALLE
CIT
O22
600
W. V
AIL
2250
0 W
. UN
CO
MPA
HG
RE
2240
0 W
. ULA
2230
0 W
. TR
INC
HE
RA
2220
0 W
. TAR
RYA
LL22
100
W. S
NO
WM
AS
S22
000
W. S
NE
FFE
LS21
900
W. R
ED
STO
NE
2180
0 W
. RE
DC
LOU
D21
700
W. Q
UIC
KS
AN
D21
600
W. Q
UA
ND
AR
Y21
500
W. P
YR
AM
ID21
400
W. P
OW
DE
RH
OR
N21
300
W. O
PH
IR21
200
W. O
LYM
PU
S21
100
W. N
EVE
RS
UM
ME
R21
000
W. N
AD
ELH
OR
N20
900
W. M
ATTE
RH
OR
N20
800
W. M
AS
SIV
E20
700
W. L
IBE
RTY
CA
P20
600
W. L
A P
LATA
2050
0 W
. KE
NO
SH
A20
400
W. K
EB
LER
2030
0 W
. JAG
GE
D M
T.20
200
W. J
AGE
RH
OR
N20
100
W. I
RO
N M
T.20
000
W. I
NG
RA
M19
900
W. H
AN
DIE
S19
800
W. H
ALL
ETT
1970
0 W
. GA
RN
ETT
1960
0 W
. GO
RE
1950
0 W
. FLA
TTO
P19
400
W. F
LAG
STA
FF18
300
W. E
LDO
RA
1920
0 W
. EL
DIE
NTE
1910
0 W
. DU
NR
AVE
N19
000
W. D
EV
ILS
HE
AD
1890
0 W
. CU
LEB
RA
1880
0 W
. CR
ES
TON
E18
700
W. B
RO
SS
1860
0 W
. BLA
NC
A18
500
W. A
NV
IL18
400
W. A
NTE
RO
1830
0 W
. ZIR
CO
N18
200
W. Z
ETA
1810
0 W
. YU
CC
A18
000
W. Y
AN
KE
E17
900
W. Y
ULE
1780
0 W
. WIN
DY
1770
0 W
. WIL
KE
RS
ON
1760
0 W
. WIE
R17
500
W. V
IRG
IL17
400
W. V
IOLE
T17
300
W. U
MB
ER
1720
0 W
. ULY
SS
ES
1710
0 W
. TO
RR
EY
1700
0 W
. TE
RR
Y16
900
W. S
EC
RE
ST
1680
0 W
. SA
LVIA
1670
0 W
. RU
SS
ELL
1660
0 W
. RO
GE
RS
1650
0 W
. QU
AR
TZ16
400
W. Q
UA
KE
R16
300
W. P
OP
PY
1620
0 W
. PIK
E16
100
W. O
RIO
N16
000
W. O
RC
HA
RD
1590
0 W
. NO
BLE
1580
0 W
. NIL
E15
700
W. M
OS
S15
600
W. M
CIN
TYR
E15
500
W. L
UP
INE
1540
0 W
. LO
VE
LAN
D15
300
W. K
ILM
ER
4100
W. Q
UIT
MA
N
4200
W. R
ALE
IGH
4300
W. S
TUA
RT
G:\GIS_Data\MXD\Community_Development\Planning\LandDevelopmentCode\LDC_2017_PUD.mxd
GEO DATA SERVICES
PUD-BP, Planned Unit Development Business Professional District
PUD-R, Planned Unit Development Residential
PUD-BPR, Planned Unit Development Business Professional Residential District
PUD-I, Planned Unit Development Industrial District
City Limits
The extent of Planned Unit Development zoning in the City is indicative of the need for Code reform.
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 12
Code development process, and will likely involve the creation of one or two sets of new procedures that, in terms of rigor and public input, fall in between the current “allowed by right” (completely administrative) and “conditional use” (neighborhood meeting, referral agency review, Planning Commission hearing and recommendation, and City Council hearing and decision) processes. These new procedures will help reduce dependence upon PUD process to work out “compatibility” issues.
Implementing Lessons Learned. Finally, the work already done on Article 5 should be further refined to address any issues that have arisen with respect to land use definition since 2015, and to reallocate land uses among a new set of zoning districts. The revision of Article 5 should be guided by the original intent of the 2015 revision —to calibrate the Code to current markets and to clarify how use-specific standards are to be applied. The key is still to help open opportunities to reposition properties in appropriate areas of change, and to promote economic development and reinvestment over the long-term.
Defining “Compatibility”—and Applying ItThe existing Code uses the term “compatible” or “compatibility” in 31 sections. The Code defines the word as:
The characteristics of different uses or activities or design which allow them to be located near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Some elements affecting compatibility include height, scale, mass, and bulk of structures. Other characteristics include pedestrian or
COMPATIBILITY
PHYSICAL FACTORS
Historic context
Building scale
Architectural style
Building placement
Building massing
Rhythm of solids and voids
Building intensity
Auto trip generation
Noise
Lighting
Dust, smoke, odors, EMF
Traffic movements
External risks (projectiles; explosions; hazardous materials)
Hours of operation / peak hours
Stormwater runoff
Security / crime
Blighting influences
Parking overflow
Heavy truck trip generation
Outdoor storage
Structures / outdoor equipment
Access
FUNCTIONAL FACTORS
Frontage type
Use synergies / critical mass
Landscaping
Building orientation
Signage
Fenestration Vehicular / pedestrian conflict
Cladding materials and color
“Compatibility” may encompass a wide range of physical and functional factors that are not currently within the City’s definition of the term.
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 13
vehicular traffic, circulation, access and parking impacts. Other important characteristics that affect compatibility are landscaping, lighting, noise, odor, building materials, and building architecture. Compatibility does not mean “the same as.” Rather, compatibility refers to the sensitivity of development proposals in maintaining the character of existing development.
In practice, the application of the word “compatibility” leaves a lot to be desired. The determination of whether two projects are in “harmony” with each other is highly subjective. Consider the analogy of music. One person may enjoy Beethoven while another may enjoy Aretha Franklin, or the Grateful Dead, or the Ramones, or the atonal compositions of Alban Berg, or . . . . In short, what one person considers harmony may be cacophony to someone else.
The Denver block pictured above includes single-family bungalows, townhomes, multifamily, and commercial uses with different forms and architectural styles. Consider how one’s perspective on “compatibility” within this block may be different if the principal planning objective is: (1) preserving the character of an historic, single-family neighborhood; or (2) providing for intensification to accommodate more households; or (3) providing for a variety of housing types in close proximity to services and gathering places.
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 14
Compatibility is also problematic when the existing condition is different from the planned condition. The City should consider compatibility standards that advance the City’s planning objectives by addressing the context of the proposed development.
This Strategic Assessment recommends that, using the current definition of “compatible” as a starting point (and potentially building upon it), the elements of compatibility should be individually applied as standards, as appropriate to the context of any individual development application. In other words, instead of evaluating whether a new home is “compatible” with an existing home, the decision-maker might evaluate the new home in terms of specific standards for building coverage, height, building articulation, roof pitch, and setbacks.
Finally, this Strategic Assessment recommends that the City consider the use of height planes and other bulk controls to protect the integrity of stable neighborhoods at their edges.
Encouraging Diversity in Housing Types and Protecting the Character of Established, Stable NeighborhoodsWith respect to housing, the existing Code does not necessarily stand in the way of housing diversity, but it does relatively little to encourage it. A new, four-pronged approach to housing should be considered :
• First, the number of housing types addressed by the Code should be increased (to allow for a variety of formats, including very small homes and micro-apartments), and the procedure for approval of a development with mixed housing types should be simplified. Put simply, planned unit development should not be the principal mechanism for approval of residential developments with mixed housing types. The 2014 Strategic Assessment provides details about regulatory framework that addresses density, open space, and a palette of housing options. This Strategic Assessment encourages the use of those approaches.
• Second, lots that are proposed for redevelopment in existing, stable neighborhoods should be subject to standards that ensure that the new home is either consistent with (that is, not a jarring departure from) the existing character of the neighborhood, or is consistent with the anticipated (and planned) future character of the
Holiday in Boulder is an example of a neighborhood with a highly diverse collection of housing types, including single-family detached, accessory dwelling units, co-housing, multifamily, and townhomes. A key recommendation of this Strategic Assessment is to allow for this type of neighborhood to be approved without a PUD process.
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 15
neighborhood. This means that the standards that apply in residential zones with established, stable neighborhoods should be calibrated more closely to the existing condition (with room for reasonable expansion of existing homes). Diversification of the housing stock in established stable neighborhoods is not an objective of the Code rewrite.
• Third, lots in existing neighborhoods that have buildings that are proposed for expansion or modification should be subject to flexible standards that encourage the improvement, provided that it does not create a safety problem, overwhelm the street, or result in development that is otherwise a jarring departure from the character of the surrounding neighborhood.
• Fourth, existing stable neighborhoods should be “protected zones” with respect to adjacent development. That is, development that borders on existing neighborhoods should provide effective transitions to reduce impacts on the existing neighborhood. Bulk planes, buffer yard requirements, and setbacks are illustrative “tools” that can be used for this purpose.
Improving Housing AffordabilityCosts and Benefits of Regulation. Housing affordability is a more complicated problem than housing diversity. Affordability is affected by many macro-level trends that the City does not control. However, zoning regulations and subdivision requirements may increase the marginal cost of providing housing, and the potential cost impacts of regulations should be taken into account as they are developed. Several focus group participants echoed the sentiments of national industrial site selectors—telling the project team that employers are seeking locations where their employees can afford to live.
To illustrate the cost-benefit problem, take the City’s current single-family and duplex design standards. These standards require rear facades that face public streets (e.g., on double-frontage lots) to have:
brick, stone, or stucco cladding in a minimum amount equivalent to 50% of the façade, (excluding windows, doors, trim and vents) from the average grade to the highest eave or all brick up to 9’-6” above the average grade, whichever is lowest.
In terms of materials alone, brick tends to retail for more than six times the cost of high quality cement fiber siding on a per square foot basis. Installation of brick, stone, and stucco also require more time, preparation, additional materials (e.g., mortar), and more expensive labor than siding. As a result of this standard, the cost of constructing the home on the double-frontage lot increases by several thousand dollars.
This required investment in aesthetic treatments could be justified if it significantly improves the character of the adjacent arterial or collector street, catalyzing a “virtuous cycle” of reinvestment. But that is unlikely because under the current Code, the builder is also required to screen that rear-facing elevation from view from arterial and collector streets using a combination of landscaping and a fence or wall. Not only does the screen markedly reduce the visibility of the bricks, stone, or stucco, but it also costs a few thousand more dollars to install.
This example is not to say that aesthetic regulations should not have a place in the Code. It is to say, instead, that aesthetic regulations should be well thought-out, and should not require investments that are either not worth it, or cancel out the benefits of other required investments.
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 16
Practicality of Regulation. In addition to the cost of regulation, the practicality of regulation should also be taken into account during the drafting process. Again by way of example and not limitation, the Code currently contains provisions related to affordable housing. The stated purpose of these provisions is “to provide a greater supply of new single-family housing on Small Lots for individuals and families seeking relatively affordable housing in the City of Arvada.” Yet the Code provisions that follow actually limit the supply of small lots.
Specifically, the provisions require subdivisions with at least 10 single-family or duplex lots to include 10 to 20 percent “small lots,” depending upon the context. In no event are more than 20 percent of the lots allowed to be “small lots.” The Code defines a “small lot” as:
A lot that is less than 6,000 square feet in size and is equal to or larger than: (A) 4,000 square feet, or (B) the average size of all platted single family lots located within a ¼ mile radius of the subject property, whichever is less.
Of the allowed “small lots,” the maximum number that may be less than 5,000 square feet is 50 percent. To illustrate, in an effort to promote affordable housing in a 100 lot greenfield subdivision, the Code requires at least 15 (minimum number of “small lots” in a greenfield development is 15 percent) but not more than 20, “small lots.” Since not more than half of the small lots are allowed to be less than 5,000 square feet, the breakdown of lots in the subdivision will be:
• 80 lots that are at least 6,000 square feet in area;
• 10 lots that are more than 5,000 square feet, up to 6,000 square feet in area; and
• 10 lots that are between 4,000 square feet and 5,000 square feet.
With today’s land costs in Arvada, those 10 lots that are between 4,000 and 5,000 square feet, developed with a single-family home, will likely sell for more than $260,000. Lots that could provide for “affordable” single-family development would have to be smaller than the Code allows. This is not to say that the Code should not include provisions to encourage small lot development. Instead it is to say that if the Code states a purpose to increase the supply of affordable small lots, then it should include regulations that also actually promote that objective.
Building Height. Building on the previous example, if land costs can be reduced on a per unit basis by allowing increased height for affordable multifamily development in appropriate locations, the opportunity to build products that are affordable to lower income people begins to take shape. This Strategic Assessment recommends allowing increased building height for multifamily development at strategic nodes on major corridors (on the order of five stories, and in some cases, potentially more), and in particular, those corridors that may be better served by transit in the future.
Parking. The current parking requirements for multifamily residential uses are 2.2 spaces per dwelling unit if centralized parking is used, and 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit if centralized parking is not used. There are some variations —efficiency units require only one parking space per unit, and housing for the elderly requires one space per two dwelling units.
Parking is expensive to build and maintain, and parking regulations that are not well calibrated can not only add thousands (or tens of thousands) of dollars of additional cost on a per-unit basis, but they can also reduce the opportunity to build density because they occupy land that could be used
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 17
for buildings. Currently, the Code does not provide for reductions in parking requirements based on context (e.g., access to services and transit) or housing affordability (e.g., housing that is restricted to low income families) unless the project is approved using the Planned Unit Development process. This Strategic Assessment recommends that the City re-evaluate its parking standards and specifically allow for reduced parking requirements for low-income housing.
Accessory Dwelling Units. The Code currently allows accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) in all zones where single-family dwelling units are allowed. Generally, the standards are reasonable and promote the development of ADUs. The only provision of some concern to this Strategic Assessment is the owner-occupancy requirement (either the principal building or the ADU must be owner-occupied). The owner-occupancy requirement is difficult to enforce and does not take into account unexpected changes in residents’ lives that may require them to move, potentially resulting in a code violation if they do not choose to sell their property.
Group Homes. The state of Colorado allows local governments to require 750 feet of spacing between certain types of group homes, presumably in order to ensure that they do not form “critical masses” that affect neighborhood function. This Strategic Assessment points out that a circle with a radius of 750 feet occupies a land area of slightly more than 40 acres. Moreover, 750 feet may be a noticeable distance along a block face, but in many cases in Arvada, a 750 foot distance from a rear lot line restricts development of other group homes up to three parallel streets away. It is highly unlikely that residents of the next block over that do not share a rear lot line or corner with the group home will even know that the group home exists. Consequently, this Strategic Assessment recommends reevaluating the spacing requirements for group homes in order to increase options for special needs populations.
Recalibrating and Adding Flexibility to Parking StandardsRevise and Recalibrate the Parking Standards. It is fundamental that parking “drives” development. The City’s parking regulations (outside of Olde Town) are relatively rigid and do little to encourage alternative modes of transportation. Moreover, the land uses in the parking table do not correspond to the land uses in the land use tables. That is, the 49 land uses for which parking standards are specified in Article 6 of the Code do not line up with the 86 land uses that are set out in the land use table in Article 5.
This Strategic Assessment recommends creating a parking standard for every land use that is listed in the land use table, so that there is no confusion as to what parking standards apply to any particular use. All parking standards should be evaluated to ensure that the minimum standards do
In Arvada, the 750-foot group home spacing requirement, when measured from a rear lot line in a typical established neighborhood (shown as “X” in the above figure), can preclude another group home in parts of the neighborhood that are several streets away and not at all impacted by the group home.
750 FT. RADIUS
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 18
not require significantly more parking than is typically needed to serve the use. Minimum landscape standards are a more direct way of achieving environmental and aesthetic objectives—leaving the balance of building and parking up to the landowner.
Provide Additional Opportunities for Parking Reductions. A revised code should include opportunities to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces in all areas of the City based on: (i) a parking study; (ii) participation in transportation demand management (“TDM”) programs; (iii) as-of-right, easily calculated reductions in overall parking requirements for mixed-use development based on standardized shared parking tables; (iv) remote parking; or (v) credits for on-street parking.
Promoting Resilience and Resource StewardshipThe Code includes many provisions that address natural resources and environmental quality, including:
• Environmental performance standards for vibration, air pollution, odors, electromagnetic radiation, re and explosion, and materials and waste handling;
• Strong standards for tree protection and mitigation of the impacts of tree removal;
• High standards for the size and quality of new trees and shrubs;
• Standards for species diversity (which provide visual interest and mitigate impacts when a particular species of trees is affected by insects or disease);
• Recognition that significant landscape features should be preserved during site planning;
• Strong standards for water-wise landscaping;
• Required standards for floodplains and flood damage prevention;
• Typical standards for drainage and erosion control; and
• A mixed set of standards (some strong, some poorly defined) for addressing development in areas with natural hazards.
The Code does not include:
• Incentives or material flexibility with respect to solar energy systems (photovoltaics) or other on-site renewal energy generation (e.g., small wind, geothermal). The City should consider the question of whether installation of photovoltaic panels justifies tree removal or reduced tree planting, setback adjustments, height adjustments, etc.
• Provisions to address and facilitate the establishment of temporary uses after disasters, for example, temporary housing or debris storage and processing.
In terms of Code improvements:
• Comprehensive Plan policy R-5.1 (Water-Wise Landscaping) suggests that the City “Examine changes to the Land Development Code to further increase the use of water-wise landscaping and to ensure that plans were built and are operating per specifications.” This means that,
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 19
potentially, refinement of the water-wise standard and refinement of the enforcement procedure should be considered.
• The standards related to natural hazards should be examined in detail to determine whether it would be practical to clarify performance standards with respect to common natural hazards.
Addressing Business Use of the HomeThe is a growing demand for flexibility in terms of the use of residential property for business purposes, including such uses as home offices, artist studios, home-based day care, home-based businesses, vacation or short-term rental housing, and live-work units.
• Ordinance 4515 established “live-work unit” as a conditional use in nine zoning districts. The conditional use process and associated standards may be a disincentive for the development of this product. The allocation of where live-work units should be allowed, and the standards that should be applied to them, will be revisited to encourage their development.
• Home offices and home-based businesses are subject to the standards of Section 5.3.4, which are probably more restrictive than necessary to protect the character and function of residential neighborhoods. These standards should be revisited with the objective of providing additional opportunity for the business use of the home.
• There are no current provisions for short-term rentals. This is an emerging topic in land use, and should be considered during the code rewrite process.
Reasonable AccommodationsFederal law requires the City to provide “reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such [disabled] person [or person associated with a disabled person] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” Currently, the City offers reasonable accommodations in two ways: through the administrative “minor modifications” procedures, and through the application of standards related to group homes. This Strategic Assessment echoes the 2014 Strategic Assessment, and recommends increasing the level of flexibility of City Staff to provide “reasonable accommodations,” provided that the applicant submits acceptable documentation of the need for those accommodations.
A query on VRBO.COM for vacation rentals available during the second week of January, 2018 shows that there are a number of short-term / vacation rentals operating in Arvada. These short-term rentals are not necessarily a problem, but their impacts should be evaluated during the Code re-write.
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 20
Sign CodeThe Sign Code will require a minor update to address changes in the zoning districts.
Restructuring—and Simplifying—ProcedureProcedures should be simplified, articulated, and streamlined so that they are well understood by all who would participate, and further, so that value is added at each step in each process. The corollary is that the development review process should not include steps that do not materially enhance the quality of the result. As to procedures:• Application requirements should be keyed to the level of detail that is necessary to process the
particular application. That is, preliminary plans should not have to include large amounts of detail.• The existing referral procedures should be continued and enhanced by listing referral agencies
in an appendix to the Code. To the extent practicable, applicants should be notified that referral agencies may have their own requirements (e.g., review fees, administrative fees, application requirements, engineering standards, and application procedures).
• To the extent possible, review cycles should be managed to shorten the review process.• The public notice provisions provide appropriate time lines for notice (not too long and not too
short), and should be continued.• Neighborhood meetings should be required when development at a certain threshold
scale occurs in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, as opposed to being required categorically for certain types of development review.
• The minor subdivision process should be expanded to include larger subdivisions.• One or two new categories of administrative decision-making should be developed, which
would apply locational, design, or operational standards to applications, and which would potentially include a public notice and comment period or neighborhood meeting. Many current conditional uses would then be reclassified to these new administrative review categories.
• Appeals should be filed within a short period after a decision is issued (in the range of seven to 14 days) and should processed as soon as practicable. Ideally, an appellant should have “one bite” at an administrative appeal (i.e., if the first appeal is to the Planning Commission, there should not be a second appeal to City Council).
Reorganizing and Refining the CodeOrganizationally, the Code should be structured to ensure that access and navigation are intuitive. Substance, procedure, definitions, and enforcement provisions should be separated and well-organized under headings and subheadings. Illustrations and tables should be used to present complex ideas.
Arvada Land Development Code Rewrite: Strategic Assessment Update Page 21
ConclusionCodes have a relatively predictable “shelf-life.” Over time, they tend to become increasingly complex as amendments that respond to the immediate issues of the day bring different vocabularies, approaches, procedures, and perspectives into the mix. There is a point at which all codes should be re-examined and comprehensively re-written. The 2014 Strategic Assessment concluded that the Arvada Code has reached that point, and this Strategic Assessment echoes that conclusion.
This Strategic Assessment document should be used to frame the further discussions that will take place during the development of a proposed new Land Development Code for the City. During the Code development process, a series of issue outlines will be created to provide additional details about the recommendations of this Assessment, in order to focus the discussions of the project participants.
1
Appendix 1: Summary of Focus Groups Issues and Identification of Potential Strategies for the LDC
Issues Raised in Focus Groups Potential Land Development Code Solutions 1 Boards and Commissions Focus Group 1-1 Affordability of housing is an issue and the LDC
should address this. Options to make housing more affordable could include higher density, small homes, tiny homes, and a broader range of housing options.
Revise the zoning districts, uses and development standards to promote a variety of housing types.
Allow additional density and taller buildings at preferred/prime locations.
Evaluate the size of ADUs.
1-2 The LDC should consider infill and greenfield development differently.
Evaluate and refine the zoning districts and development standards to reflect the different character areas of the city.
1-3 Infill is controversial. Can tap fees be waived/reduced to make infill
more affordable? Need to build in flexibility for this type of
development. Needs to address TODs, parking, etc.
Define established neighborhoods where redevelopment should be in scale and harmonious with the existing buildings, and infill areas where a range of development types and uses could be appropriate.
Evaluate incentives opportunities for the LDC update that support affordable housing.
Evaluate parking requirements in TODs and for mixed-use zoning districts.
1-4 What would be the future role of the Boards and Commissions? Advantage of the Boards is that they provide a
public forum. Disadvantage is that they may be inconsistent
with their approvals.
Evaluate administrative approval options for site review and subdivision review.
Provide for continuous input from Boards and Commissions throughout the Code update.
Consider reducing the number of conditional uses (which require additional approval procedures).
1-5 Current issues include: shared housing, need for mix of uses, the changing real estate market, underserved communities, aging population, crime factors, flexibility for ADUs and tiny homes, energy revolution (e.g., micro-grids, electric vehicles, energy storage (need to ensure Arvada is forward-looking))
Evaluate all the issues stated and consider how they can be incorporated into the code. For example, shared housing opportunities can be evaluated, home occupation standards can be revised, include tiny homes and cottage homes, etc.
Important to recognize that not all topics can be addressed by the Code and that other city-wide initiatives may be appropriate to address these issues.
1-6 Reuse of retail will need to be addressed as the market changes.
Establish flexibility for a variety of uses in commercial zoning districts to allow for changing market conditions and consider how this would impact parking requirements, etc.
1-7 Parking requirements for new developments (e.g., multifamily, TOD vs. greenfield, etc.). LDC should also consider environmental impacts and future technology innovations in transportation.
Review current parking ratios for a range of projects in the metro region (e.g., suburban and infill residential and commercial development, TODs, mixed-use, industrial, etc.). Consider how parking requirements for commercial, multifamily and recreational uses can transition from one use to another.
Revise parking requirements, as warranted. Consider design standards for low impact development
(e.g., reduce impervious surfaces, etc.) Consider the near- and medium-term impact of
changing travel modes, electric cars, autonomous vehicles, bicycle usage, etc.
Consider parking structures to support higher-density developments.
1-8 Involve the public involvement, otherwise public is Consider how the public is to be involved in all types of
2
Issues Raised in Focus Groups Potential Land Development Code Solutions disillusioned. development approval.
1-9 Consider the environment and sustainability, such as increased impervious areas with new development.
Address environmental considerations and resiliency and review floodplain requirements.
Review landscape standards to ensure that water conservation is addressed.
1-10 Align the LDC update with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and the other approved City Plans.
Evaluate policies in the Comprehensive Plan and other City approved plans, and translate the relevant policies into development standards, changes in zoning, and other actions in the updated code.
If necessary, amend the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the LDC update.
Remap zoning districts to they reflect the future land uses in the Comprehensive Plan.
1-11 Ensure there are street connections and reduced barriers for biking.
Include street typologies, where appropriate, emphasize complete streets, pedestrian connections, and include bicycle parking requirements in new developments.
1-12 Current code is difficult to understand. Rewrite and reorganize the code so that is logically organized, simple to understand, and well-illustrated with graphics that present important information.
2 Development Process Focus Group 2-1 The approval process is too long for certain projects
and doesn’t allow for submittals within the four-week block. These timelines extend the length and cost of a project.
The review process introduced in the spring of 2016 will be reviewed on its one-year anniversary. The LDC update process will consider revisions to the development review process. The LDC update will also evaluate and consolidate the zoning districts and determine the applicable approval process requirements.
2-2 Requirements for the Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) are too detailed.
The requirements for the PDP will be reviewed.
2-3 City Council is making decisions on projects from the dais on the PDP, in particular. This creates unpredictability and questionable compliance with the code and Comprehensive Plan policies.
Review the approval process options for site plans, plats, preliminary and final development plans, rezoning, annexations, and other approvals and identify the preferred options.
Strengthen the code to provide predictability and continuity.
2-4 PDPs should be conceptual in nature. Currently, too much detail is required, the costs to prepare are high, and there is uncertainty at City Council.
Evaluate the requirements for PDPs and Final Development Plans (FDPs).
2-5 The process of preliminary plats is too long as well, and they are required to be too detailed.
Evaluate the requirements for preliminary and final plats.
2-6 Straight zones are much better than Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). PUDs should be used for the unique projects that don’t fit within a standard zone. There are issues with build-out of long term PUDs.
Evaluate and consolidate the zoning districts. Evaluate the options for converting PUDs to straight
zones. Evaluate types of projects to be considered for PUD
zoning.
2-7 The process should allow comments from Arvada residents. The public process should conclude at Planning Commission. However, it was also noted that referral groups have too much clout.
Evaluate and provide methods for public input according to the various types of plans and approval processes.
2-8 There is a need to coordinate better with the Arvada Fire Protection District (AFPD) and ditch companies.
Review and evaluate coordination and referral processes.
Consider treating input from referrals as comments.
3
Issues Raised in Focus Groups Potential Land Development Code Solutions 2-9 Staff should administer the code through
administrative review. If a project meets the code and the Comprehensive Plan, Council should not be able to deny or make design conditions.
Allow for administrative review and approval on a range of plans and plats.
Consider increased use of master (or sketch) plans that are reviewed by Planning Commission and Council, with individual site plans approved administratively.
2-10 Need an avenue if the developer disagrees with staff or Planning Commission.
Evaluate appeal and call-up procedures to Council.
2-11 The existing code leaves too many things open for interpretation. The better the code is written, the easier it is to get through the process.
Strengthen the requirements and standards, and remove inconsistencies in language and intent.
2-12 Major issue is the edge treatment, particularly for infill development. Current infill standards may not reflect community views, leading to backlash in public meetings.
Strengthen the design standards for edge and transition areas, for both new development and infill.
3 Diverse Housing, Affordable Housing Focus Group 3-1 Need more diverse housing that is affordable in
Arvada. Increase the type and density of housing allowed.
Provide for a wide range of housing types, including cottage cluster, micro units, co-housing, tiny homes, etc. with appropriate parking ratios.
3-2 Encourage incentives into the code to help reduce the cost and risk to developers (e.g., by reducing fees, etc.). Include an affordable housing component in all residential developments.
Evaluate density bonuses and other methods to encourage density and affordability.
Evaluate development fees (e.g., require a fee per square foot of new residential development).
3-3 Height restrictions in Arvada hinder the ability to construct most multifamily housing products that would be more affordable. Incentivize building affordable housing by offering height exceptions
Identify locations where height can be increased to allow taller, higher density housing.
Consider incentives that support the development of affordable housing.
3-4 Standards such as lot coverage and setbacks, open space and landscaping requirements, limit the number of units that can be built.
Revise required setbacks and other dimensional standards to make small sites buildable and allow higher densities.
Review and revise the open space requirements for multifamily.
Provide for options in building materials and landscaping requirements that can impact costs and affect housing affordability.
3-5 The city should map out priority areas/parcels that are available within the city to build affordable housing on.
Review the maps that have already been compiled by the Community Development Department and assess whether or how this could be reflected in the zoning.
3-6 Rezone big box commercial areas to mixed-use zone district. Mixed-used offers opportunities to increase the density near services.
Create a new mixed-use district for infill and redevelopment.
Determine appropriate design standards.
3-7 Treat the edges and encourage transitions between different building types and scales.
Evaluate and revise setbacks, heights, landscaping and uses in buffer and setback areas.
3-8 Prioritize TOD/transit areas for affordable housing as well as locations with bus routes.
Consider height and diversity of housing types within transit and transportation corridors.
3-9 Zoning should try to protect established neighborhoods from experiencing infill, redevelopment, or gentrification.
Designate stable neighborhoods with a limited range of redevelopment and infill opportunities.
Evaluate options for “urban” and “suburban” residential zoning districts.
Evaluate options for a neighborhood conservation zoning district.
3-10 Continue to encourage ADUs. Review option to increase size of ADUs.
3-11 Reduce the 750 ft. spacing between group homes. This will be evaluated.
4 New Neighborhoods Focus Group
4
Issues Raised in Focus Groups Potential Land Development Code Solutions 4-1 Factors that increase costs include high land costs
(allowing smaller lots helps), irrigation and fees. Review fees for housing types such as cottage housing
and pocket neighborhoods. Evaluate the preferred minimum size for lots, given
different housing types. Promote xeric landscaping approaches for both
residential and commercial uses.
4-2 More flexibility is needed with zone districts to allow a variety of housing types. Need to be able to adjust density and add product such as townhomes, which increases affordability. There is a demand for condos and smaller lots. Also, opportunity for tiny home villages and senior housing.
Evaluate expanding the range of uses within the zoning districts, and whether form-based is appropriate.
Assess the zoning districts and housing types such cottage housing, tiny homes, etc.
4-3 Walk-out design standards for units within public view are onerous and silly. The number of units allowed in a row.
This will be reviewed. Determine other options and design standards that are appropriate.
4-4 The parks and open space requirements should maintain native species and allow for drop systems.
This will be considered.
4-5 Fees are a major reason why we can’t build attainable housing.
Fees are one factor. Through the update, other factors such as parking requirements, requirements for façade materials, and other factors that may increase the cost of a project, will be reviewed.
4-6 Arvada offers no incentive to build affordable housing.
Evaluate the possibility of incentives such as density bonuses, and other incentive types.
4-7 Engagement and education to the public is a major piece to gain approval.
Identify points in the review process where public input can be obtained. Identify how the new and evolving registered neighborhood process can be included as referrals for new projects.
4-8 Public hearings allow for politics to come into play on details that should be addressed with the code. Public hearings in Arvada make it hard to develop here.
Develop regulations that are clear, concise and easy to interpret that reflect the Comprehensive Plan and other approved plans.
Draft a Code that provides regulations and standards that are predictable for staff to administer.
4-9 A clear and understandable code should make the community comfortable with staff approvals.
See 4-8.
4-10 Increase the number of lots allowed for a minor subdivision and don’t include tracts.
Assess increasing the maximum number of lots for a minor subdivision.
4-11 Planning Commission should have more power over land use approvals. Planning Commission and City Council hearings are redundant
Evaluate situations where Planning Commission provides the final approval for a project.
4-12 Neighborhood meetings help engage the neighbors and build trust and allow developers to know what is popular and unpopular with a project.
See 4-7. Evaluate when neighborhood meetings are held for
administrative approvals.
4-13 The Outline Development Plan (ODP) process should be flexible to adapt to a changing market over the years.
Consider revisions to the requirements for an ODP, recognizing that it is a master plan for an area.
4-14 Greenfield development problems include traffic congestion, limited connections between neighborhoods, and too much separation between residential and commercial (e.g., restaurants) areas.
Ensure all districts allow appropriate land uses. Encourage mixed-use developments and town centers.
4-15 Building commercial at the same time as residential is costly without having people living there yet.
Recognize the impact of market demand on development. Provide for flexibility in ODPs to reflect
5
Issues Raised in Focus Groups Potential Land Development Code Solutions changing build-out scenarios and market demands.
4-16 Help decrease driving by creating more neighborhood centers and locating services closer to higher density neighborhoods. Village of Five Parks is an example.
Ensure all districts allow appropriate land uses. Encourage mixed-use developments and town centers in suburban areas as well as in the original Arvada neighborhoods.
5 Non-residential Focus Group 5-1 Why do projects need to go to Council if the use is
allowed or the project meets code requirements? This puts developers at a competitive disadvantage, delays opening of businesses, is expensive, and creates uncertainty. This also limits opportunities for small companies and developers since the process is very expensive. This can limit opportunities for small, innovative projects.
Evaluate PUDs to determine whether it should be a straight zone since land-use allowed is a use-by-right with appropriate design standards.
Evaluate situations where Planning Commission provides the final approval for a project and also more opportunities for administrative approval.
5-2 PUDs need to be geared towards unique projects, not the typical commercial development. It takes over a year for the approval process, which is too long.
Fine-tune and consolidate the zoning districts, create mixed-use districts and evaluate how the PUD districts can be simplified.
5-3 For the subdivision process the current Minor Subdivision limits are too small. Changes to subdivisions should be handled by staff. Public improvements should be separated from subdivision.
See 4-10. Evaluate when public improvements requirements for a
subdivision should be reviewed.
5-4 Too much detail is required at the PDP stage. This requires amendments through public hearings for minor changes. The PDP looks like the Final Development Plan, and it really should be more conceptual. Need to find a balance of regulations, generalize the PDP process, and allow staff level amendments.
See 2-4.
5-5 Projects could have been reviewed and approved administratively under standard zoning rather than PUD. Need to have flexibility to respond to the market, through change of use, density, etc. Need opportunities of mix of uses or change of uses.
Consolidate the zoning districts and identify process for administrative review.
Evaluate how parking requirements can be developed that respond to change of uses over time.
5-6 Mixed-use zoning is the direction to go. Retail is changing, so flexibility to address aging centers is necessary. Look at allowing light industrial in commercial districts. The market is going to continue to change so flexibility in uses is needed.
Create one or more mixed-use districts that provide flexibility for uses, development standards, etc.
Evaluate the types of light industrial uses that could be compatible with office and retail uses in a commercial zoning district.
5-7 City Council should focus on policy and larger issues, such as rezoning. Council should not focus on design or small details and should relinquish control on site plans.
See 5-1.
5-8 There is a role for the public to comment. Recognize that better projects are the result when the public is included. Need to have a balance between public input and administrative review. Need to have standards that work and protect neighborhoods. Consider that the Planning Commission is the approval body, and with required neighborhood meetings for project. There has been a problem with a few vocal neighbors that don’t represent the vast majority of the public.
See 4-7 and 5-1.
6
Issues Raised in Focus Groups Potential Land Development Code Solutions 5-9 An increase to the 35 ft. height limit would be
appropriate, however the context is important. Identify and evaluate locations for redevelopment that
can be higher density, and with buildings taller than 35 ft. Consider the implications of density at these locations on traffic, adjacent neighborhoods, and the overall benefit to the city.
5-10 Would like to see commercial uses in neighborhoods to create more walkable areas.
Identify neighborhoods which could have local commercial uses, and assess whether this would be economically viable, an enhancement to the neighborhood, and locally supported.
Build on the idea of neighborhood centers that may be adjacent to established neighborhoods, and which are connected to the neighborhoods with sidewalks and trails.
5-11 Mixed-use or more intense development may be an issue in existing neighborhoods. Need to address food deserts.
Ensure commercial and mixed-use zoning provides for grocery retail. Investigate ways to reduce any barriers that small retail and convenience stores may face to carry food goods and produce. Evaluate parking requirements for such businesses.
5-12 View corridors should be considered by protecting significant public views, but not private views.
Consider establishing specific view corridors from important public spaces.
5-13 The code needs to be understandable to the general public – keep the code simple.
A goal of the LDC update is to rewrite the code in clear and understandable language.
Introduce graphics and visual aids (e.g., summary tables, illustrations, flowcharts, etc.) to explain the regulations.
Implement a new page layout and clear numbering system for the LDC that lays out a clear hierarchy of information.
5-14 Transportation corridors could have more intense development, such as mixed-use, commercial, light industrial. Need to ensure there are proper transitions into adjacent residential areas.
Include mixed-use zoning in high traffic volume corridors. Evaluate including a range of commercial and light industrial uses in these areas. Develop standards to address transition zones for density and height between high intensity uses and adjacent residential neighborhoods.
6 Olde Town/New Town/Historic Neighborhoods/Ralston Road Focus Group 6-1 Stocke-Walter and Columbine neighborhoods
should have a historic designation and be included within the design guidelines. If this cannot happen, then maybe specific zoning for these areas can help maintain some of the historic qualities.
Evaluate whether historic designation and/or design guidelines are appropriate.
Consider a conservation-type residential zoning.
6-2 Consider the use of Historic districts and Conservation areas to preserve the character of neighborhoods.
Consider various types of residential zoning that include conservation elements to protect the character of existing neighborhoods. These districts may allow residential in-filling and expansion of existing homes.
6-3
Would it be possible to rezone properties along Ralston Road to commercial or mixed-use? Ralston Road needs more attention to its design and character. Should the height limits along Ralston Road be adjusted? Need to be sensitive to the adjacent neighborhoods. There is the opportunity for redevelopment at the intersection of Ralston and Wadsworth.
Reconsider the role of Ralston Road as a connection between Olde Town and Ralston Creek North. Evaluate the redevelopment potential including increasing the height, including a mix of uses, and expanding zoning district to allow redevelopment.
6-4 Balance mobility and parking with the historic Evaluate parking requirements, in-lieu fees, etc. for
7
Issues Raised in Focus Groups Potential Land Development Code Solutions structures in the Olde Town zoning district. Olde Town. Also consider bike parking and connections
to bike routes. Allow for alternative parking types (i.e., bike and car share to count towards or reduction towards parking requirements).
6-5 Views are important from Grandview Avenue. Consider formalizing viewpoints and view corridors from important public places, specifically the transit plaza adjacent to the Olde Town Station.
6-6 Olde Wadsworth Blvd. could serve as a major pedestrian and bike connection between Olde Town and Memorial Park.
Evaluate the treatment of the sidewalks and setbacks in these areas.
Incorporate the Bicycle Master Plan route recommendations for pedestrian and bike connections.
6-7 Wayfinding systems should be incorporated into the design of a site in order to make the parking work.
Evaluate how to include wayfinding systems in the LDC.
6-8 Parking needs to be addressed for redevelopment, with ideas such as shared parking. Overflow parking into the adjacent neighborhoods is becoming an issue. Bikes and pedestrians should also be incorporated into the site planning for new developments.
Evaluate minimum parking requirements for land uses, adjust existing parking requirements for shared parking, valet parking, etc. where appropriate.
Evaluate bicycle parking (both inside and outside of buildings) and electrical vehicle charging station requirements.
6-9 Provide options for live/work units, offices, and townhomes in these areas.
The LDC allows live-work in “commercial” districts such as most PUD districts and all Olde Town districts. It is a conditional use in several of the straight zone districts. This can be reviewed to determine whether existing regulations should be improved.
Townhomes are currently allowed in a limited number of straight zones. This can be reviewed.
Consider home occupations utilizing accessory structures and garages (including artist and maker spaces).
6-10 Review the maximum lot coverage for single-family homes.
Review lot coverage requirements for all the zoning districts.
6-11 The bulk, scale and overall design of large buildings should be regulated.
Review the bulk plane requirements and determine where applicable.
6-12 Require bike parking and spaces, as well as bike-oriented public improvements.
Evaluate bicycle parking requirements accompanying bike-oriented public improvements.
6-13 Consider specific regulations for home additions that address bulk and scale.
Evaluate the existing development standards for residential additions and amend, as needed. This may be very important if there are conservation-designated neighborhoods and zoning districts.
7 Infill, Corridors, Allison Street & Established Neighborhoods Focus Group 7-1 Not all neighborhoods want diverse housing or
diversity in character. Identify neighborhoods for conservation-type zoning
and consider revisions to height and development standards to preserve the existing character. Determine if form-based is appropriate
7-2 In some places, the 35 ft. height limit is too tall. In other places, it is restrictive.
Review the 35 ft. height limit and its benefits and restrictions in all the zoning districts.
7-3 Improve the bulk plane requirements See 6-11.
7-4 The scale, housing style, roof pitch, etc. should match the existing character of the neighborhood. Need to balance diversity with existing character.
Review development standards in the residential zoning districts.
Consider a conservation-oriented residential zoning district for certain neighborhoods.
7-5 Additions and expansions to existing homes should See 6-13.
8
Issues Raised in Focus Groups Potential Land Development Code Solutions be allowed, but be contextually sensitive.
7-6 Include “Neighborhood Conservation” as a goal. Consider the difference between “stable” and “in-flux” neighborhoods.
Analyze the existing character of neighborhoods and consider a conservation-oriented zoning district and development standards.
7-7 Consider redevelopment opportunities in New Town on big box sites.
Review height and zoning in New Town.
7-8 Live/work should be allowed. See 6-9.
7-9 Increase the loading/unloading area standards for higher density areas. Evaluate parking requirements, shared parking and incentives.
See 6-8.
7-10 Include affordable housing incentives. Evaluate incentives and requirements to increase opportunities for housing attainability.
Include a range of housing types (e.g., cottage housing, townhomes, small lot housing, etc.) where appropriate to expand housing diversity.
7-11 Consider water resources as well as stormwater and drainage issues.
Consider including low impact stormwater and drainage standards.
7-12 Larger sites should offer both residential and commercial uses at a neighborhood scale. Encourage different/diverse development south of “the hill” from Olde Town
Evaluate developing new mixed-use zoning districts for large infill and greenfield sites.
For New Town, see 7-7.
8 Planning Staff 8-1 A-1 district needs to be reviewed (no need for 5 ac.
lots), and consider community gardens. Review standards for the A-1 district. Evaluate provisions for community gardens and related
uses, such as small scale retail, sales stands, etc.
8-2 Could be possible to include light manufacturing into commercial centers with redevelopment. This would address flexibility and long-term needs. Need to define the types of industrial.
Assess expanding range of uses in infill and redevelopment sites, within a new mixed-use zoning district.
8-3 Compatibility would include mass, scale, placement of some characteristics (e.g., porches), roof pitch.
Assess compatibility within neighborhoods as well as the transition between stable neighborhoods and higher-density infill redevelopment.
8-4 Define buffers for offensive noise and odors. Elements such as hours of operations, outdoor storage, drainage, landscaping, etc. are all important. Some industrial uses are unobtrusive, and can be included in or near residential areas.
Evaluate buffers, particularly if uses within or adjacent to residential neighborhoods have minimal impacts from their activities and determine appropriate standards.
8-5 Review the bulk plane requirements. See 6-11.
8-6 Identify the areas that should have protected compatibility standards.
Identify neighborhoods where a conservation residential district may be appropriate. Create appropriate development standards.
8-7 Review parking requirements, and consider the context. Consider the flexibility to consider future innovations, such as driverless cars.
Evaluate near- and medium-term technology changes for transportation and incorporate these technologies in parking areas or in public rights-of-way adjacent to the sites.
