The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/26/2021 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Work Session * Work session times are approximate and are subject to change without notice. Michelle Haefele, Chair Virtual Meeting Ted Shepard, Vice Chair Zoom Webinar Jeff Hansen Per Hogestad David Katz Jeff Schneider William Whitley Planning and Zoning Hearing will be held virtually on Thursday, April 1, 2021, on Zoom and FCTV. Regular Work Session March 26, 2021 Virtual Meeting Noon – 3:45 p.m. Planning and Zoning Board Work Session Agenda Participation for this remote Planning and Zoning Board work session will be available online or by phone. No one will be allowed to attend in person. Public Attendance (Online): Individuals who wish to attend the Planning and Zoning work session via remote public participation can do so through Zoom at https://fcgov.zoom.us/j/91652553442. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site. The meeting will be available to join beginning at 11:45 a.m. on March 26, 2021. Attendees should try to sign in prior to 12:00 p.m. if possible. In order to attend: Use a laptop, computer, or internet-enabled smartphone. (Using earphones with a microphone will greatly improve your audio). You need to have access to the internet. Keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the work session, please email kclaypool@fcgov.com. Public Attendance (Phone): If you do not have access to the internet, you can call into the work session via phone. Please dial: 1-253-215-8782 or 1-346-248-7799, with Webinar ID: 916 5255 3442. (Continued on next page) Packet pg. 1 City of Fort Collins Page 2 TOPICS: PROJECTED TIMES: Consent: 1. March 2021 Hearing Draft Minutes 2. Gil Boyer Annexation (Kleer) 12:00 – 12:25 Discussion: 3. Apex-Haven Apartments PDP (Wray) 4. Public Hearing and Recommendation to City Council regarding the Residential Metro District Evaluation (Gloss) 12:25 – 1:25 Policy and Legislation: • Wireless Telecommunications Master Plan (Lindsey) 1:25 – 1:55 Board Topics: • Public Engagement Updates (Stephens) • Enclosed Mini Storage in the CG Zone District (Shepard) • Fueling Station Re-Branding and Landscape Inspections (Beals) • Meeting Timing Discussion (Haefele) • Upcoming Hearing Calendar (Sizemore) • Transportation Board Liaison Update (Gavaldon) 1:55 – 3:45 The meeting will be available beginning at 11:45 a.m. Please call in to the meeting prior to 12:00 p.m., if possible. Once you join the meeting: keep yourself on muted status. If you have any technical difficulties during the meeting, please email kclaypool@fcgov.com. The March 26 Planning and Zoning Board regular meeting will be held remotely and not in-person. Information on remotely participating in the March 26 Planning and Zoning regular meeting is contained in the agenda for the March 26 meeting available at https://www.fcgov.com/cityclerk/planning-zoning.php. Members of the public wishing to submit documents, visual presentations, or written comments for the Board to consider regarding any item on the agenda must be emailed to kclaypool@fcgov.com at least 24 hours prior to the March 26 meeting. As required by City Council Ordinance 079, 2020, a determination has been made by the chair after consultation with the City staff liaison that conducting the hearing using remote technology would be prudent. Packet pg. 2 1 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION MASTER PLAN UPDATE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORK SESSION MARCH 26, 2020 Complete a comprehensive analysis of wireless telecommunication opportunities, issues, service gaps, and constraints. Develop a new strategy and process for siting wireless telecommunication infrastructure. Revise the Land Use Code to reflect community priorities and best practices. 2 PROJECT PURPOSE & GOALS 1 2 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Packet pg. 3 2 3 WHAT WIRELESS MEANS 4 CONDITIONS & TRENDS Cell Facilities 100+ existing sites GROWTH 70,000 new residents at community buildout Small Cell 80% of all future deployment SMART PHONES 3.9 Gigabytes per subscriber per month 2018 Removed regulatory barriers Next Generation Will require greater density of antennas5G 3 4 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Packet pg. 4 3 COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 Created the FCC and established that wireline and wireless communications would be exclusively regulated by the Federal Government. TELECOMMUNICATION ACT OF 1996, Section 704 Preserves local governments zoning authority over certain aspects of the personal wireless services communications industry. FCC 2016 AND 2018 REPORT AND ORDERS AND DECLARATORY RULINGS Collocation by right on eligible facilities, shot clock timelines established and small wireless facilities in rights-of-way COLORADO HOUSE BILL 17-1193 “The siting, mounting, placement, construction, and operation of a small cell facility or a small cell network is a permitted use by right in any zone” 5 LEGAL FRAMEWORK 6 LOCAL BACKGROUND Property Values Design & Appearance Cell Service Coverage Radio Frequency Health Impacts Emergency Services 5 6 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Packet pg. 5 4 7 PHASES 12 EXISTING CONDITIONS Prepare inventory of facilities, identify community impacts DEVELOP & DESIGN ALTERNATIVES Confirm plan vision, develop policy framework and analyze strategies 4 UPDATE LAND USE CODE Revise Land Use Code to align with guidance of the adopted Plan 18-month process Adoption Anticipated Summer 2021 DRAFT PLAN Evaluate different community scenarios to achieve vision, present Plan to various Boards and City Council3 8 Phase 1 Findings - 123 Sites Majority of facilities are macro cell (96)Majority of facilities are concealed (69) Monopole Tower Non-concealed (22) Base Station Non-concealed (19) Unipole Tower Concealed (44) Base Station Concealed (25) 7 8 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Packet pg. 6 5 9 Phase 1 Findings Great Variety Of Concealed (45) and Semi-concealed (15) Towers and Base Stations Faux Silo Faux 2nd Story Painted AntennaFaux Clock • 75 sites 60’ or less in height • Ordinance requirements effectively advancing: • Use of existing structures • Variety of concealment techniques • Low antenna mounts • Conversely low antenna mountings: • Less collocation • Smaller service area 10 Phase 1 Findings Concealed Tower Concealed Base Station Small Wireless Service Facilities (23) 4 Constructed 9 10 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Packet pg. 7 6 11 • Theoretical coverage and capacity mapping from PWSF sites to identify gaps in network service areas • Comparison of US Census population density data, traffic counts and growth management area plans to evaluate existing and future network capacity 12 PHASE 2 WORK 11 12 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Packet pg. 8 7 Phase 2 Findings 13 Coverage Map For A Single Provider At Each Site • High frequency coverage map • The level of propagation signal strength is shown through the gradation of colors from yellow to blue. Color Signal Strength Signal Strength Description Yellow Superior Strong enough to operate within most buildings Green Average Strong enough to operate in vehicle but not inside most buildings Blue Acceptable Strong enough to operate outside but not in a vehicle or building 14 Gap Comparisons Service Provider Coverage Map Comparisons • High frequency coverage map • Service provider with greatest number of sites deployed • Service provider with fewer number of sites deployed • Some areas are same for both providers Provider 1 Provider 2 13 14 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Packet pg. 9 8 15 Network Capacity Capacity Variables • Population Per Square Mile • Traffic Counts • Year data collected varies by point (2014-2020) • Totals collected at each point are per day Phase 2 Findings 16 Heat Capacity Map For A Single Provider • High frequency coverage map • The level of propagation signal strength is shown through the gradation of colors from green to red. Color Potential Capacity Signal Strength Description Green Good Ratio of number of sites to subscriber base should support a robust network Orange Average Ratio of number of sites to subscriber base is problematic to support a robust network Red Poor Ratio of number of sites to subscriber base is poor likely cannot support a robust network 15 16 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Packet pg. 10 9 Phase 3 17 • Community Preference Survey •https://ourcity.fcgov.com/wirelessmasterplan/survey_tools/fort-collins- wireless-master-plan-survey • Zone district analysis • Public properties analysis • Gap analysis solutions Phase 3 18 • LUC Definitions •Wireless telecommunication equipment shall mean any equipment used to provide wireless telecommunication service, but which is not affixed to or contained within a wireless telecommunication service facility, but is instead affixed to or mounted on an existing building or structure that is used for some other purpose. •Wireless telecommunication facility shall mean any freestanding facility, building, pole, tower or structure used to provide only wireless telecommunication services, and which consists of, without limitation, antennae, equipment and storage and other accessory structures used to provide wireless telecommunication services. 17 18 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Packet pg. 11 10 19 Gap and Zoning Comparisons Zone District Area Calculations: ZONE Area Sq Mi CG 1.866 D 0.188 HMN 0.087 LMN 10.229 MMN 2.930 NCB 0.247 NCL 0.842 NCM 0.853 RF 0.695 RUL 0.450 UE 4.299 20 Gap and Zoning Comparisons Zone District Area Calculations: ZONE Area Sq Mi CG 1.866 D 0.188 HMN 0.087 LMN 10.229 MMN 2.930 NCB 0.247 NCL 0.842 NCM 0.853 RF 0.695 RUL 0.450 UE 4.299 19 20 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Packet pg. 12 11 • City-owned properties overlayed with propagation pattern • Could address coverage gaps in highly residential areas • Facilities could be subject to enhanced review if located on public properties 21 Gap and City-Owned Lands Comparison Key Questions 22 • Fewer but taller cell towers or continued deployment pattern of additional shorter facilities? • Support cell towers locating on public parks, golf courses, or cemeteries? • Allow cell towers in additional zone districts? • Aesthetic preferences for cell towers? 21 22 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Packet pg. 13 12 QUESTIONS? 23 Contact Info: Will Lindsey, Associate City Planner wlindsey@fcgov.com / (970) 224-6164 Project Webpage: ourcity.fcgov.com/wirelessmasterplan 24 23 24 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Packet pg. 14 13 25 25 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS UPDATE Packet pg. 15 1 1 Public Engagement Update Agenda 2 • Background and Context • Review of 2020 Engagement • Public Engagement Challenges and Solutions for 2021 (and beyond!) 1 2 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE Packet pg. 16 2 Neighborhood Development Liaison Position From a fall 2019 memo to Council: “The primary goal of the position is to provide resources and support to residents and neighbors throughout the development review process. The Liaison focuses on improving public participation early in the development review process, identifying resident issues and concerns about projects, communicating those to developers and Development Review Staff, and seeking solutions through joint applicant, staff, and community member dialogue.” 3 Public Engagement in the City “The City of Fort Collins places a high value on the involvement and engagement of our citizens. Local government has the advantage of being closest to the people it serves.” 4 Citywide Engagement Focus Equity, Inclusion, & Diversity Empowerment of Residents Strategic Community Partnerships City as a Catalyst 3 4 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE Packet pg. 17 3 Fort Collins Public Engagement Principles 1. Careful Planning and Preparation 2. Inclusion and Demographic Diversity 3. Collaboration and Shared Purpose 4. Openness and Learning 5. Transparency and Trust 6. Impact and Action 7. Sustained Engagement and Participatory Culture 5 Neighborhood Services Alignment • Home to many “connector” positions - CSU-Community Liaison - Neighborhood Development Liaison - Neighborhood Liaison - MHP Residents' Rights Lead - Special Events Coordinator • Liaisons act as your “friend in the City” • Emphasis on meeting people where they are 6 5 6 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE Packet pg. 18 4 Planning Process PermitsFinal Plan Project Development Plan Overall Development Plan ZoningSubarea PlanCity Plan 7 Long-Range Planning Development Review P&Z Role & Influence Community Engagement Community Engagement in Development Review 8 • 800-foot radius notification area for most projects (to homeowners); sign posted on property • Mailed notification for neighborhood meetings and public hearings • All review documents available online (CityDocs/Weblink) • Development Review Liaison facilitates all community meetings • Weekly development review newsletter • Additional engagement is request-driven 7 8 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE Packet pg. 19 5 2020 Engagement in Review • 23 virtual neighborhood development events from May to December • 19 code-required meetings • 4 non-required events • More than 500 community members participated virtually • Avg 28 participants per code-required meeting • Avg 36 participants per non-required meeting • Recorded meetings to increase access to development information. • Used translation and pre-recorded comments at some P&Z hearings and neighborhood meetings to increase accessibility 9 Peer City Analysis 10 Planner-Led Applicant-Led Liaison-Led Roles Mailed Door-to-Door Renters & Neighborhood Associations Notification Methods Based on project size Based on public interest Meeting Prompts 9 10 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE Packet pg. 20 6 Common Challenges • Driving equitable and representative community participation • “Right-sizing” engagement for projects • Driving meaningful engagement 11 Public Engagement Challenges •Equity. The development review process was not designed with equity in mind. •Education. Development review information and processes can be difficult to understand. •Access. It can be hard to access relevant events and information. •Process. The development review process is not always easy to track or influence. •Neighborhood Support and Engagement. Neighborhood concerns are not always related to a specific development project 12 11 12 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE Packet pg. 21 7 Challenge Area 2021 and beyond? * 13 Previous strategies New in 2020 * Denotes projects already in progress Question to Consider Which strategies would be most transformative for public participation in development review projects? 14 13 14 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE Packet pg. 22 8 Equity 15 Fundamental Question:How might we rethink public engagement in development review to consider diverse backgrounds, languages, and needs? Key Challenges: •Public engagement in development review was designed as a “one ‐fits‐ all” solution. •Current process privileges homeowners, which disadvantages BIPOC and low‐income households. Equity 2021 and beyond? Use census data to determine when translation is required* Use gentrification map to inform public engagement requirements Include equity analysis in any changes to public engagement processes 16 Previous strategies Piloted mailing to residents in addition to property owners New in 2020 Emphasizing equity during neighborhood meetings Providing translation at select meetings and hearings Accepting pre‐recorded comments at hearings 15 16 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE Packet pg. 23 9 Education Fundamental Question:How might we help community members better understand the Land Use Code and development review processes? Key Challenges: •The Land Use Code can be confusing and obscure. •Information on development plans can be difficult to find and understand. •Development review processes are unique for different types of projects. 17 Education 2021 and beyond? Create online educational videos and content based on Planning Academy and common development questions* (ex: Traffic Studies 101; Anatomy of a Comment Letter) Explore options for hybrid Planning Academy* Update web content* 18 Previous strategies Planning Academy Weekly development review newsletter Personal emails and phone calls New in 2020 Community Q&A Events Adding policy spotlights to newsletter 17 18 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE Packet pg. 24 10 Access Fundamental Question:How might we ensure that all community members have the opportunity and tools to engage with development review projects? Key Challenges: •Neighborhood meetings and hearings are not always accessible. •We don’t have reliable data on why people don’t get involved. 19 Access 2021 and beyond? Gather data on barriers to participation in neighborhood meetings Identify and overcome barriers to digital access and participation 20 Previous strategies Hosting meetings in public spaces Hosting meetings in the evenings New in 2020 Virtual meetings Meeting recordings Targeted use of NextDoor to promote neighborhood meetings and events Improving newsletter layout Piloting content and discussion boards on OurCity Video chat system at front desk of 281 to show plans 19 20 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE Packet pg. 25 11 Process Fundamental Questions:How might we change code and/or processes to make community engagement more meaningful? Key Challenges: •Neighbors would benefit from time and assistance to review and understand development plans. •There are not good “checkpoints” during the development review process to help neighbors stay up‐to‐date and provide ongoing feedback. 21 Process 2021 and beyond? Provide applicant presentations prior to mtgs Develop standard Q&A questions Use targeted email lists for ongoing notification on large projects * Create periodic email reports on new and ongoing projects by Council District Offer add’tl opportunities for coordinated community responses to projects Explore opportunities to improve signs and mailing procedures 22 Previous strategies Personal emails and phone calls New in 2020 Providing written project updates prior to hearing 21 22 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE Packet pg. 26 12 Neighborhood Support and Engagement Fundamental Questions:How might we empower neighbors to address issues outside of specific development projects (i.e. traffic, trail access, etc.)? Key Challenges: •Neighbors do not always agree on individual development projects. •The concerns brought forward by residents are not always related to a specific development. •Current processes assume neighborhoods are “static.” 23 Neighborhood Support and Engagement 2021 and beyond? Revive and expand Neighborhood Action Planning* Revive and expand Coming Attractions events* 24 Previous strategies Neighborhood Action Planning Coming Attractions events Providing connections to City staff, programs, and resources 23 24 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE Packet pg. 27 13 Question to Consider Which strategies would be most transformative for public participation in development review projects? 25 Strategies for 2021 and Beyond Access Gather data on barriers to participation in neighborhood meetings Identify and overcome barriers to digital access and participation 26 Education Create online educational videos and content based on Planning Academy and common development questions* (ex: Traffic Studies 101; Anatomy of a Comment Letter) Explore options for hybrid Planning Academy* Update web content* Equity Use census data to determine when translation is required* Use gentrification map to inform public engagement requirements Include equity analysis in any changes to public engagement processes 25 26 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE Packet pg. 28 14 Neighborhood Support and Engagement Revive and expand Neighborhood Action Planning* Revive and expand Coming Attractions events* 27 Process Provide applicant presentations prior to mtgs Develop standard Q&A questions Use targeted email lists for ongoing notification on large projects * Create periodic email reports on new and ongoing projects by Council District Offer add’tl opportunities for coordinated community responses to projects Explore opportunities to improve signs and mailing procedures 27 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT UPDATE Packet pg. 29 Community Development & Neighborhood Services 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.416.2740 970.224.6134- fax fcgov.com Planning, Development & Transportation Services MEMORANDUM Date: 3/23/21 To: Planning and Zoning Board From: Paul Sizemore, Interim Community Development and Neighborhood Services Director Re: Information from Vice Chair Shepard RE: Enclosed Mini Storage in CG At the request of Vice Chair Shepard, an item has been added to the March 26th Planning and Zoning Board Work Session to discuss enclosed mini storage in the CG zone district. The following information was provided by Vice Chair Shepard to provide background for the Board and to serve as a starting point for Board discussion. At the work session, he will lead the conversation and staff will be prepared to support discussion and questions from the Board. Vice Chair Shepard indicates that the intent of this discussion is to begin a conversation and acknowledges that the Board may not complete their discussion at this work session. Staff will take information from the work session and will work with the Board on potential next steps, should the Board determine a desire to communicate a recommendation to Council on this issue. Information from Vice Chair Shepard: Background: At the March 11, 2021 P & Z hearing, consideration of the Guardian Self-Storage PDP presented an inconsistency between the South College Corridor Plan (SCCP) and the Land Use Code Article Four – C-G, General Commercial zone district permitted use list. [Section 4.21(B)(2)]. Guardian Self-Storage PDP #190020: • Located within the area described by the South College Corridor Plan, an element of the City’s comprehensive plan adopted in 2009; • Zoned C-G, General Commercial, and per Article Four of the Land Use Code, Section 4.21(B)(2), Enclosed Mini-Storage is a permitted use; Packet pg. 30 • Located within the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District (TOD), governed by Article Three of the Land Use Code, Section 3.10. The South College Corridor Plan states: LU 1.4 - Minimize Low Activity Uses. Uses that detract from the overall vitality of the Corridor, including used car lots, outdoor storage, and storage unit uses, are to be located away from the South College frontage. (Page 38.) (Emphasis added.) And yet the C-G zone allows Enclosed Mini Storage as a permitted use. In addition, by being located within the TOD, Enclosed Mini-Storage is subject to the design standard, 3.10.2(A) that prohibits storage units on the first floor of a storage facility. Issue of Inconsistency: Guardian Self-Storage is located directly along South College Avenue, contains 119,300 square feet and is between three and four stories in height. At this mass, height and scale, the use cannot be considered to be minimized nor is the facility located away from South College Avenue. This inconsistency between the SCCP and the permitted use list in the C-G zone suggests that a policy discussion is needed to address reconciling how best to govern these uses in the future. Options: The following options are offered to help guide this discussion: 1. Amend the SCCP to delete the reference to storage unit uses in LU 1.4; or 2. Amend the C-G zone permitted use list to specifically delete the allowance of Enclosed Mini-Storage in the area described by the SCCP; or 3. Amend the C-G zone to allow Enclosed Mini-Storage in the SCCP but require that such use must be setback from College Avenue by a minimum of 150 feet. This would match the setback requirement in the C-S, Service Commercial zone, located immediately to the south, which is also governed by the SCCP; or 4. Amend the C-G zone permitted use list to delete the allowance of Enclosed Mini- Storage in the area described by the TOD. 5. Delete Enclosed Mini-Storage as a permitted use within the C-G zone on a city- wide basis. Other zone districts may be more suited for these facilities. Packet pg. 31 6. Move the prohibition on first floor mini-storage in the TOD out of Article Three which is a modifiable standard and into Article Four as part of a land use definition which is not eligible for a Modification. Any one of these would have the effect of addressing the inconsistency between the SCCP and the Land Use Code. Further Discussion: Option One: While this would quickly and simply resolve the inconsistency, there is no current policy basis for this approach. Option Two: The policy basis for this approach is found in the SCCP Goal LU 2 which states: “Goal LU 2: Encourage neighborhood serving retail and commercial uses in locations convenient to adjacent neighborhoods.” (Page 40.) “LU 2.2 - Neighborhood Commercial Uses. In addition to the Neighborhood Commercial District, encourage small scale neighborhood serving uses in other areas convenient to residential neighborhoods (See Figure 25).” (Page 40.) The subject site is demarcated in Figure 25 as commercial area eligible for neighborhood serving uses. Since Enclosed Self-Storage facilities are not considered to be “neighborhood serving,” allowing such uses in close proximity to a residential area represents an opportunity cost for other uses that are more amenable to providing goods and services typically used by neighborhoods. Option Three: The policy basis for this approach is the consistency with the setback requirement in the C-S, Service Commercial zone, located directly south of the C-G zone along both sides of South College Avenue. This area includes more undeveloped parcels than the C-G zone in the area of Fossil Creek Parkway, but both areas are generally similar and characterized by a wide variety of highway-oriented commercial uses. Option Four: The policy basis for this is found in the purpose statement for the TOD standards in Section 3.10.1(B) of the Land Use Code: Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to modify the underlying zone districts south of Prospect Road to encourage land uses, densities and design that enhance and support transit stations along the Mason Corridor. These provisions allow for a mix of goods and services within convenient walking distance of transit stations; encourage the creation of stable and attractive residential and commercial environments within the TOD Overlay Zone south of Prospect Road; and provide for a desirable transition to the surrounding existing neighborhoods. Packet pg. 32 A finding could be made that since Enclosed Mini-Storage is a passive, inactive use, it is not a land use that enhances and supports transit stations along the MAX, and ridership, such use is inappropriate in the TOD. Land Use Code Section 3.10.2(A) states: “Enclosed Mini-storage. Ground-floor enclosed mini-storage shall be prohibited. Enclosed mini-storage shall be allowed either below grade or on upper levels of a building.” This prohibition indicates that in the crafting of the TOD standards, there was an emphasis on mitigating effects of Enclosed Mini-Storage that could weaken the relationship between land use and transit along the MAX. This option would obviate the need for the standard that prohibits storage units on the first floor of a storage facility in the TOD. Option Five: As with Option One, deleting Enclosed Mini-Storage from the C-G zone entirely would resolve the conflict between the SCCP and the Land Use Code but there is no policy basis for this approach at this time. Option Six: This would be a quick and simple fix. This approach, however, does not address the larger issue of the inconsistency between the SCCP and the C-G zone permitted use list. A new land use definition may be required. Other Considerations: • At the time of the adoption of the SCCP (2009) and the TOD (2007), the mass, size, height and scale of today’s Enclosed Mini-Storage facilities was not envisioned. The scaling up of these facilities has outpaced the City’s comprehensive planning and zoning standards. • Similar to the advent of big box retail in the warehouse format, today’s Enclosed Mini- Storage facilities may require a new approach in order to mitigate land use and design impacts. Just as Land Use Code Section 3.5.4 was adopted in reaction to industrial-scaled retail (after a six-month moratorium), perhaps a comparable set of standards and guidelines for Enclosed Mini Storage would be an idea worth consideration. • It is of utmost importance that the South College Corridor develop (and redevelop) with a mix of land uses that support transit. Whether by the permitted use list in the C-G zone (Article Four), or by enhanced standards in the TOD (Article Three), or by leveraging public investment (i.e. urban renewal districts), it appears that additional effort may be needed to achieve the long- Packet pg. 33 term goal of having viable public transit along the City’s spine. If land uses along the MAX do not support transit, then we may fall short of our goals of providing increased mobility, relieving congestion and improving air quality. • The City has adopted two Plans that create a vision to guide development along South College Avenue and the MAX. Our challenge is to implement these policies or continue to extend the existing and prevailing development pattern along this vital commercial corridor. Packet pg. 34