The purpose of this work session is to conclude the discussion on possible amendments to the Zoning Map amendment process (commonly called a “zone change” or “rezoning”) with the City Council providing direction on the path forward for making revisions to the Zoning Code.

On April 8, 2013 the City Council held a special work session with selected members of the public sitting at the table with them to initiate a discussion on the City’s current zone change process as defined in the Zoning Code, Division 10-20.50 (Amendments to the Zoning Code Text and the Zoning Map). This public meeting enabled the participants to work with staff to identify issues, acknowledge many perspectives on this topic, and establish a starting point for future discussion. It concluded with the agreement that staff would bring back suggestions for a possible path forward at the next meeting.
 
On May 20, 2013, the City Council held a second special work session following the same format as the April 8^th meeting. Staff presented ideas on how to a find a solution to the issues identified by the group, including for example:

• An introduction to the principle of a concept zoning plan;
• Clarification and redefinition of submittal requirements for zone change applications;
• A review of process diagrams for the small, medium, and large scale zoning applications;
• Introduction of a fourth category, previously named “master plans,” and which staff proposes to call “multi-phase projects”;
• An explanation of conditional zoning;
• An explanation of a new process idea that gives a developer a choice for the process to be followed for a zone change application based on the nature of the request; and
• A brief discussion of a new idea (called “correctional zoning”).

Staff also presented six options for a path forward. After some discussion a majority of the Council agreed that the appropriate path forward was based “on Option 4 with Option 6, as well as a variant of Option 5”. The latter would provide an opportunity for additional public participation prior to site plan review. A full description of the City Council’s direction follows in the next section (Summary of City Council Direction). It was also agreed that staff would do additional research on the “correctional zoning” idea, and would report back to the Council at a follow-up meeting. A copy of the minutes from the May 20, 2013 meeting is attached.




 
SUMMARY OF CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
The May 20^th special work session concluded with a majority of the Council agreeing that the appropriate path forward was based “on Option 4 with Option 6, as well as a variant of Option 5”, i.e. establish minimum submittal requirements to decouple details associated with site plan review from concept zoning plan; maintain the small, medium, and large scales and add a new “multi-phase project” scale; add a new process to give a developer choice; enable an additional public meeting hosted by the developer after final Council action and before site plan review; and consider a correctional rezoning process. For reference, a copy of the May 20^th staff summary is attached as it provides a complete discussion and overview of the key terms mentioned here.
 
The proposed path forward to amend Division 10-20.50 of the Zoning Code will include the following key steps based on Option 4, a variant of Option 5, and Option 6:

1. Inclusion of a new term – the “concept zoning plan” – based on the City of Boulder Transit Village example previously submitted to the City Council, as well as new reduced submission requirements to decouple details associated with a site plan from a concept zoning plan. 
    
2. The existing categories of small, medium, and large scales will be maintained. However, a new scale previously called Master Plans will be added using the term “Multi-phase Projects”. This additional category would only apply to the very large projects seeking a zone change that are, for example, extremely complex, involve future subdivision of land and multiple land owners, multiple land use types, challenging utility infrastructure issues, and the design and layout of an internal street network that will connect to existing streets.
    
3. Development of a new two-prong approach to give a developer choice, using what has preliminarily been called either “Direct Ordinance” (a One-Step Process) or “Authorization to Rezone” (a Two-Step Process).  
   
   The Direct Ordinance or One-Step Process provides an applicant with an expedited approval process if they have determined that there is minimal controversy associated with their request, minimal to no neighborhood opposition is likely, and perhaps most importantly, the end user is known and is committed to the property in question. In other words, there is a high level of predictability of a successful approval of the zone change request. It assumes that an applicant would submit fully developed site plans with all supporting information required for IDS site plan review concurrently with the zone change application. The advantage of this approach is that once the City Council approves the zone change by ordinance, then the applicant may proceed directly to construction plan and building permit review, and no additional IDS site plan review is required.
   
   The Authorization to Rezone or Two-Step Process may be selected by an applicant when the end use or user is unknown, the proposed zone change may be controversial, or he/she is unwilling to invest in the preparation of a detailed site plan submittal without the guarantee of approval of the zone change. In this case, a concept zoning plan would be developed and submitted in support of the zone change request, and assuming approval of the zone change by ordinance, then a fully developed site plan application to IDS would be submitted at a later time. This process is essentially the same as that in place today for medium scale projects in which the zone change application and the site plan review are decoupled.
    
4. Inclusion of new language in the Zoning Code that would clarify the conditions that the City Council may apply to a zone change request, especially with regard to a suggestion that the City Council could choose to add a condition requiring an applicant/developer to hold an additional public meeting so that interested or concerned residents could see how the developer's plans reflect and respond to conditions and changes required by the City Council. 
    

The City Council also directed staff to further review Option 6 regarding the proposal for a “correctional rezoning process” as suggested by Councilor Celia Barotz and Mr. Nat White. As a result of staff’s analysis of this proposal, staff suggests that it should not be included as a new process with supporting amendments in the Zoning Code. An explanation of this suggestion follows.
  
CORRECTIONAL REZONING; IS A SEPARATE PROCESS NEEDED?
A slightly modified description of the correctional rezoning idea and its genesis is copied from the May 20^th staff summary to the City Council and included below. This is the issue that the city manager framed in the May 20^th meeting as “is there a micro- or a macro-problem to address and solve?”
 
“On Friday, May 10^th, Councilor Celia Barotz and Mr. Nat White presented a new idea to staff that they suggested might be called “correctional zoning”. This approach is offered given that the current zone change process based on three scales of development has not been sufficiently tested since the Zoning Code’s adoption, and there is no real record to determine if this model works or not. Correctional zoning is a narrower approach to most of the ideas previously presented in this report, and is offered as a way to correct inconsistencies between the Regional Plan and the Zoning Map because of natural incremental growth and development of the City in years past. This idea may be framed within the context of there not being many properties that are inconsistent with the Regional Plan land use map, and thus, at this time it is suggested that rather than seeking a comprehensive rewrite of Division 10-20.50 of the Zoning Code, a more focused approach to only provide for correctional zoning would be more appropriate. Comprehensive changes, if needed, could be considered at a later time.
 
An issue that has yet to be resolved is that of how to define which parcels in the City would be allowed the correctional zoning approach. A two part test is suggested. First, and the easiest to document, is that the requested zoning of the parcel must be consistent with the Regional Plan land use map, e.g. general commercial uses. The second test, and the harder one to define, is the parameters for when this approach should apply. For example, must the property be bordered on a minimum of one or two sides with a parcel(s) that have zoning consistent with that intended for the subject property, e.g. Highway Commercial (HC) zoning? Staff acknowledges that further work is necessary to define how it may be applied within the City, and whether residential parcels should also be included in the scope of correctional zoning. This will be completed if there is City Council support for exploring this idea in more detail.
 
One issue that also needs to be thought through is how to address impacts to public infrastructure. As noted previously, at a minimum a concept zoning plan is a necessary requirement of a zone change proposal so that an understanding of minimum developer contributions to mitigate off-site impacts as a result of his/her project may be realized. This would presumably still be a requirement of a zone change application.”
 
Staff has carefully reviewed, discussed, and considered the correctional rezoning concept, and has concluded that the originally stated problem can be easily addressed by the proposed two prong approach articulated in #3 above.
 
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this work session is to conclude the discussion on possible amendments to the Zoning Map amendment process (commonly called a “zone change” or “rezoning”) the City Council providing direction on the path forward for making revisions to the Zoning Code.