In the 3rd draft, there are several Building Form Types on pages 23-25 that include "shops", particularly in Compounds, Clusters and, at the end of the page, there is an entire Building Form Type for "Shops". Will these shop building form types be required to follow any environmental emissions regulations? Any particular noise standards? How about hours of operation? It really seems inappropriate to include an industrial/commercial shop in a residential area, for the same reasons that these building types are generally found in industrial/commercial areas - not residential. Share with me your thoughts regarding these issues. Thank you!

800 characters is much too short for a thoughtful comment.

On page 3 of the Draft 3... LANDSCAPING, it says:
 a) Plant material shall be selected from the species
approved by the Colorado State University (CSU)
Extension Guides.
There are numerous CSU extension service plant guides. Could you identify which one? Xeric, Native etc?

The Zoning Code Rewrite is touted as "affordable." It is: for Developers. Reduced parking standards may be applicable for areas where the environment is dense, highly developed, multi-use, and alternative transportation to the car is widely available and in use. Uh, that's not Golden. Let's get real.

Unless you, members of City Staff, Planning Commission and City Council, all have households where you are using mass transit, car pools, biking, walking, or using Uber on a daily basis, instead of your car; please don't force an anti-car/anti-parking theology on the rest of us.

The Coors Tek neighborhood meeting was very well attended. I think that can be attributed in part to the letters they mailed to the near by neighbors, the signs posted on highway 58 and at 9th and Washington, and the presentations they made to various boards. Please consider mailings, digital signs, the informer, a water bill insert and social media to advertise the neighborhood open houses.

Thank you for providing the simulation examples. In preparation for the neighborhood meetings, I think it would be very helpful to provide "real life photographs" of the building form types allowed in each neighborhood at the open house meetings. While I appreciate the simulation drawings, I think I would grasp it better if I could see a video simulation of each of the types allowed using an actual property in the zone.

There is a provision in the code for two city councilors to flag a project for review. The timeframe (2 weeks) and requirements (cite the specific part of code not followed) in addition to the fact that a city councilor is the only one who can do it (why not planning commission?) is a very high bar. This sounds like a process put in place so we can say it's there but to discourage the process from happening. Can we extend the timeframe, allow planning commission to flag a project, and not require the specific part of the code to be identified initially? It would obviously need to be identified at some point, but the code is complicated, and a full review takes time.

I want to support camerdb's comments about intention statements. They are often used to make decisions on whether an application meets the code requirements. Camerdb's proposed revisions to the intention statements are well thought out, and would improve the code language. Please consider including them.

I understand that many changes were made in response to community input, such as removing Beverly Heights from this zoning code and removing the option for dividing lots. It feels like a lost opportunity. Hopefully we can move forward, acknowledging that development will continue, and incorporate additional "smart growth" principles in the future so that as growth continues, we do it in a way that makes sense for us as a community.

Frustrated to see the general removal of detached multi-family dwellings sharing a current lot. This seemed like a nice innovation that provided flexibility and density without the giant--typically high end--apartment/condo buildings currently going up.

A key missing aspect is more explicit support affordable housing. We need teachers, police, and others to be able to live IN our community.

In the landscape standards there are callouts for the Director of Community and Economic Development to make decisions on sidewalks. I would again propose that the title and role be changed to Director of Planning and Neighborhood Preservation so as to drive decisions toward protecting the town's character which was a goal of this rewrite. Also, it is lazy, IMHO to show a picture of an urban type landscape from another town, "The character of the sidewalk and tree lawn varies by context. The image above of Wenatchee, WA shows a main street character." on page two of the document. An example can readily be found in town that can be a real life example.

I see that my property at 818 9th St has been included in the "Transition" remapping. I am not sure why this was done, and using the provided definition of Transition, it doesn't make sense at all. The half block (as defined in Rev. 2) east of Arapahoe to Washington contains properties in the 8th/9th st Historic District that don't fit the Transition model at all. Can you provide reasoning for this?

The code simulation is a good start on showing how the new code could result in better, more compatible buildings. The core area also allows a village duplex which is pretty big, bulky, and doesn't do as nice a job of fitting in as the other examples chosen for the simulation. I assume the simulation shows maximum projections allowed for the village duplex? If not, it should. What this whole simulation shows, and what I think is clear after diving in a little, is that there are still some large bulky forms allowed in some parts of the city and there are no carrots to drive people to smaller footprint buildings. We could create a path that no one takes. We need to discourage large structures in favor of for sale smaller structures.

Intention Statements are a way to address issues that have nuance. Here is a link to a proposed update to intention statements that will allow us to protect our character better and link to the comprehensive plan and neighborhood plans.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xRJQ0juats7lGthMs81tjen5qE2p-Uj9/view?usp=sharing

The Mainstreet B and Mainstreet A changes in central neighborhood are also slipping in a height change from existing. MSB is 55feet versus CC2 at 50 feet. MSA is 38 feet versus CC1 of 30 feet. Both of these may be too intense for the area, but of the two, the MSB bothers me more, especially south of 19th street. I maintained when it was CMU, and still maintain today that 20th should be treated as NC or T or something less intense than MSB or CC2. Regardless of willingness to make that change, the height change, particularly in MSA is significant, over 20%. The setbacks also are much different than what was agreed to more recently, 20 feet or so in this area. The change to MSA/MSB will create more of an urban feel and that was not the plan, more of a mixed/integrated into existing.