Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/13/2017 - Planning And Zoning Board - Agenda - Work SessionPlanning and Zoning Board October 13, 2017 * Work session times are approximate and are subject to change without notice. Conference Room A Jeffrey Schneider, Chair 281 N. College Avenue Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair Fort Collins, Colorado Jennifer Carpenter Emily Heinz 80524 Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins William Whitley Planning and Zoning Hearing will be held on Thursday, October 19, 2017, in City Hall Chambers. Regular Work Session October 13, 2017 281 N. College Avenue – Conference Room A Noon - 4:00 pm Consent: 1. September 14, 2017, P&Z Hearing Draft Minutes 2. Fox Hills Second Annexation (Holland) 3. Highway I-25 Third Annexation (Kleer) Discussion: 4. Hansen Farm ODP (Wray) 5. St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Catholic Church ODP Amendment (Frickey) 6. Fort Collins Jeep PDP (Shepard) 7. Small Cell Land Use Code Changes (Frickey) 8. Reasonable Accommodation Land Use Code (Beals) Policy and Legislation: • Land Use Code Update (Shepard) Board Topics: • City Plan Update (Mounce/Overton) • Downtown and Old Town Neighborhoods Form- Based Code project (Gloss/Wray) Projected Time * 12:00 – 12:05pm 12:05 – 2:45pm 2:45 – 3:15pm 3:15 – 4:00pm Planning and Zoning Board Work Session Agenda MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Board THROUGH: Tom Leeson, C.D.N.S. Director Cameron Gloss, Planning Manager FROM: Ted Shepard, Chief Planner DATE: October 6, 2017 RE: Fall 2017 Land Use Code Revisions Attached please find the updated list of proposed Land Use Code revisions for the Fall 2017 adoption schedule. As staff works through these changes, some of these items may be altered or withdrawn and some new items may be added. Six of the proposed revisions are summarized and attached for the Board’s review. Staff looks forward to discussing these items and receiving feedback from the Board. Land Use Code – Fall 17 – Proposed Code Revisions 1. Amend 3.2.1(J) – Irrigation – to update the standards with regard to new technology and to further encourage water usage efficiency. (Eric Olson and Leisl Hans.) 2. Amend 3.2.4 – Site Lighting – to update and clarify standards with regard to new technology, such as energy efficient lighting, and to consider impacts on city- wide sky glow for the benefit of dark skies. (Rebecca E. and Ted S.) 3. Amend 3.8.13(C)(9) – Wireless Telecommunication Equipment – to delete “high pressure sodium” and replace with “energy efficient lighting.” (Ted S.) 4. Amend 3.8.13 – Wireless Telecommunication Equipment to move from a Type One review to B.D.R. (Ted S.) 5. Amend 3.2.5- Trash and Recycling Enclosures – to update and clarify standards with regard to student-oriented mid-rise apartment buildings and providing unobstructed access for haulers. (Jonathon N.) 6. Amend 3.5.3(E) – Mixed-Use, Institutional and Commercial Buildings – Character and Image – to add standards addressing faux, novelty or other architectural features solely intended as advertising devices. (Ted S.) 7. Amend 3.8.17 – Building Height – to further clarify methods of measurement and to add a definition of mezzanine. (Feet, Stories.) (Clark M. and Cameron G.) 8. Amend 4.5(E) – LMN Development Standards – to add design standards to address various issues associated with narrow single family attached dwelling units. (Ted S. and Pete W.) 9. Amend 4.7 – NCL and 4.8 – NCM and 5.1.2 – Definition of Habitable Floor Space – to address the floor area issues related to carports and add a definition for clarity that reflects a recent administrative interpretation. (Cameron G.) 10. Amend 5.1.2 – Definitions – to update the definition of Long Term Care Facility, and the four sub-definitions, to reflect changes in the industry such as the “Continuing Care” model. (Ted S.) 11. Amend 3.2.2(C)(4) – Minimum Required Bicycle Parking for Multi-Family – to add a qualitative standard that ensures convenient access to enclosed parking spaces. (Or, alternatively, amend the Definition of Bicycle Parking, Enclosed.) (Clay F.) 12. Consider amending 3.2.2(C)(5) – Walkways – in order to address internal private walkways that are not needed for A.D.A. compliance but could be upgraded with access ramps, or perhaps just verify if 3.2.2(C)(2) – Curb Cuts and Ramps – is sufficient to address the issue. (Marc V.) 13. Amend all references to delete “Director of Community Planning and Environmental Services” and replace with “Director of Community Development and Neighborhood Services.” (Brad Y.) 14. Amend the pertinent code sections to keep up with State law regarding marijuana warehouses. (Noah B.) 15. Amend the pertinent code sections to address doggie day care and outdoor play areas. (Noah B.) Item: Amend 3.2.4 – Site Lighting – to update and clarify standards with regard to new technology, such as energy efficient lighting, and to consider impacts on city-wide sky glow for the benefit of dark skies. Problem Statement: City Council recently adopted Resolution 2016-074 Expressing Council's Intent and General Policy Considerations Regarding Night Sky Objectives (Sept. 20, 2016). The Resolution states that, “the City will incorporate dark sky policies and standards into Building Codes, Land Use Codes, and Streetscape standards when applicable and appropriate.” The problem is the current lighting standards in Section 3.2.4 are somewhat dated and do not adequately address recent technological advances in outdoor lighting, particularly the advent of energy efficient lighting (such as light emitting diodes – LED). Additional measures are needed to address backlight, uplight and glare as measured by the standards of the U.S. Department of Energy (B-U-G Ratings). There are no standards that take advantage of dimming control technology. Standards are needed to address maximum color temperature ranges, as measured by degrees of Kelvin, in order to account for the impacts of nighttime lighting on human and wildlife health. Electronic signs with reader boards and visual display screens are becoming brighter and may need to be regulated. Finally, there is a concern that there are areas of existing lighting that were installed over the years in a manner that would not otherwise comply with the new standards and how the City should address these existing conditions. Proposed Solution Overview: A variety of proposed Code changes are being considered: • Place more emphasis on regulating maximum illumination versus required minimum levels as measured by lumen output and wattage in order to promote energy efficiency and reduce light pollution. • Consider creating lighting zones where a maximum level of illumination would be established but, at the same time, allowing for flexibility for mixed-use projects. • Place a maximum on color temperature as measured by degrees of Kelvin. • Place a maximum on B-U-G ratings. • Require after-hours dimming controls where necessary especially to achieve neighborhood compatibility. • Examine best methods for regulating the lumen output of electronic signs. • Clarify definitions and terms such as: o Fully-shielded o Full cut-off o Down-directional o Kelvin temperature o Backlight, uplight and glare per Department of Energy o Electronic signs and displays o Lumens o Watts Item: Amend 3.8.13(C)(9) – Wireless Telecommunication Equipment – to delete “high pressure sodium” and replace with “energy efficient lighting subject to the requirements of Section 3.2.4.” Problem Statement: This standard dates back to the City’s implementation of the requirements of the 1996 Federal Communications Act that pre-empted municipalities from prohibiting the installation of a wireless telephone system. The concern, at that time, was the lighting of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities would be too bright especially near neighborhoods. This was at a time when the choice of light sources was generally limited to either high pressure sodium or metal halide. Now, with the advent of other energy efficient lighting sources, and the proposed revisions to the Site Lighting section of the Land Use Code, the requirement for high pressure sodium lighting is obsolete. Proposed Solution: Lighting . The light source for security lighting shall be high pressure sodium and feature down-directional, sharp cut-off luminaries so that there is no spillage of illumination off-site. comply with the requirements of Section 3.2.4. Light fixtures, whether freestanding or tower-mounted, shall not exceed twenty-two (22) feet in height. Item: Amend 3.8.13 – Wireless Telecommunication Equipment – to move the review process from a Type One review to Basic Development Review (B.D.R.) Problem Statement: Wireless Telecommunication Equipment is, by definition, a co-location on an existing structure, tower, or other appurtenance. As a result of 1996 Federal Communications Act, W.T.E. was placed under a Type One review procedure in order to differentiate it from Wireless Telecommunications Facility which is a typically a free-standing tower. The concept was to create a process incentive that would encourage co-located equipment to be first considered versus a new tower. At that time, the impacts and effects of installing W.T.E. was an unknown. After years of working with the industry on numerous and various applications for both equipment and towers, Staff has found that the simple co-location of equipment is a relatively benign exercise. Placing equipment on existing buildings or towers does not generate a public impact that merits an Administrative Review with the Hearing Officer. Based on what we have learned over the years about W.T.E., staff contends such installations are equal to other permitted uses that are also subject to Basic Development Review. Proposed Solution: The proposed solution is to amend the Article Four permitted use lists to move Wireless Telecommunications Equipment from Type One Administrative Review to Basic Development Review so as to be processed and reviewed at the staff level without a public hearing. Item: Amend 3.2.5 – Trash and Recycling Enclosures – to update and clarify standards in order to properly size enclosures to accommodate various end-users and the expected number and type of containers. Also, to provide for improved maneuvering for users and haulers and new waste streams such as compost and cooking oil and other materials (returnable crates, pallets, etc.). Problem Statement: The current Code section is in need of updating and enhanced specificity. The City’s Neighborhood Enforcement Team, Code Compliance Officers and Zoning Inspectors have, over the last several years, discovered numerous problems with enclosures that are too small, difficult to access for both users and haulers and do not account for new regulations that prohibit cardboard from being tossed into the waste stream. Problems also occur when the size of the enclosures and size and number of containers are not matched up with the materials produced. This is especially the case with multi-tenant commercial buildings where the needs of the tenants change over time. In addition, with the recent adoption of the 2016 – 2017 Community Recycling Ordinance, compostable materials from supermarkets are required to be diverted from the landfill and it is expected that future businesses will be added to this category. Finally, with the relatively new trend of student-oriented, mid-rise apartment buildings, problems have been discovered that effectively discourage reduce recycling rates. Proposed Solution Overview: A variety of proposed Code changes are being considered: • Provide clarity that the standards apply to single family attached dwellings that use a communal waste collection system. • Introduce regulations that pertain to compostable materials and waste cooking oil. • Acknowledge the use of materials that rely returnable crates, containers, pallets, etc., where a material or service provider drops off the new items and picks up used or discarded items. This includes items such as linens, uniforms, towels, bulk dairy products, product display racks, rugs and the like. • Design enclosures that provide a door-less, hands-free entry for pedestrians for ease of entry while carrying materials. In addition, ensure that there is maneuverability within the enclosure so that the pedestrian can access the proper container. This minimizes the behavior where materials are simply thrown over the enclosure walls haphazardly. • Require that haulers have unobstructed access to the enclosure and the containers and that gates must not be hindered from fully opening. This may include references to turning radii, larger concrete service pads and other maneuvering specifications. • Provide signage that identifies individual types of waste streams to minimize cross-contamination. • Where multi-family structures utilized trash chutes, require that comparable facilities are provided for recyclable materials as well. • Consider requiring enclosure protection such as bollards, angle iron or other devices to protect the enclosure from damage. Amend Article Three – General Development Standards –to add design standards to address various issues associated with narrow single family attached dwelling units (also known as “townhomes”). Problem Statement: There are design issues related to Single Family Attached Dwellings (townhomes on individual lots) with regard to connecting walkways, visitor parking, number of units per structure, lot coverage, size of building footprint, size of front yard/porch, size of rear yard/patio, access to unit from alley in the form of person doors, landscaping along the alley (especially between driveways), and the amount of and quality of outdoor common area or outdoor gathering space. The problem is that development and building trends have evolved since the adoption of the Land Use Code resulting Single Family Attached Dwellings ceasing to become distinguishable from low-rise Multi-Family Dwellings. This lack of distinction diminishes the quality and characteristics of Single Family Attached housing as a unique housing type that is intended to enrich the diversity of housing within neighborhoods. For example, the mix of housing types in the L-M-N works in conjunction with the requirement for no less than three housing types on residential projects between 20 and 30 acres and no less than four housing types on greater than 30 acres. Since Single Family Attached Dwellings constitute a unique housing type, it becomes a problem when this housing type starts to replicate Multi-Family Dwellings but without the requisite open space / outdoor gather area / common amenities typically associated with Multi-Family development. In order to preserve the integrity of Single Family Attached Dwellings as a singularly distinctive housing type that effectively contributes to the overall mix of housing in LMN neighborhoods, new design standards have become necessary to ensure that such housing does not cross a line into becoming simply another form of Multi-Family Dwellings. Proposed Solution Overview: The proposed solution is to consider new standards that allow for Single Family Attached Dwellings to stand on their own as a unique and distinctive housing type. Proposed Code Revisions: • Establish a maximum number of dwelling units per building. (This is so buildings don’t become long, horizontal apartment-like structures.) • Establish a maximum building footprint per lot or a minimum required yard or outdoor space. (This would allow for a place for outdoor activities such as grilling, dining, siting, etc. Again, the purpose is to create a housing type that is not apartment-like.) • Establish a minimum required front porch. (This creates a relationship of the unit to the street or central common area and allows the porch to become functional versus a mere stoop.) • Require a person-access door from alley to each unit. (This is needed where the front faces a central common area, not a street, and the only emergency access is from the alley. Such a person door is for the convenience of emergency responders who then do not have to walk around the multi-unit building to gain access to the front.) • Minimum required landscaping along alley between driveways. (This would mitigate the long, uninterrupted row of two-car driveways and garages.) • Minimum required common area, outdoor gathering space. (If townhomes are arranged in an apartment-like fashion, then there should be an outdoor requirement similar to the requirements for multi-family.) • Require an addressing, way-finding and emergency access plan especially where front doors face a central common area and not a street. • Require connecting walkways at the ends of buildings that connect to public sidewalks, or major walkway spines, in cases where front doors face a central common area and not a public street. • Require a minimum number and proper distribution of visitor parking spaces. • Establish areas for snow storage for long, uninterrrupted alleys. • Update the Housing Model Variety standards to acknowledge the new townhome trend in order to avoid monotony and repetition within projects over a certain size. • Encourage end units to provide a front porch that wraps around the side or a separate side yard patio to compensate for lack of private outdoor space. • Consider increasing the side yard setback between buildings from five feet to seven feet to increase the separation between buildings from ten feet to 14 feet to mitigate the number and noise associated with outdoor condensing units. • Where multiple buildings are aligned in row, encourage staggering the setbacks to create offsets. (This helps establish some privacy, and thus usability of the front porches.) • These proposed standards would be applied to projects that contain 50 or more dwelling units. Item: Amend 5.1.2 – Definitions – to update the definition of Long Term Care Facility, and the four sub-definitions, to reflect changes in the industry such as the “Continuing Care” model and amend 4.5(D) – LMN Development Standards – to add that Long Term Care Facilities – Independent Living Facility – is capped such that a maximum of 50% of the gross floor area is devoted to independent dwelling units. Problem Statement: A. Definition: There are four sub-definitions under Long Term Care Facility. The sub-definition for Independent Living Facility is numerically capped at as having no more than 25% of the total gross floor area devoted to independent living units which we define as units with kitchens. The concern when this definition was written was that these Independent Living Facilities would become more multi-family-like than institutional care- like. The problem is that the 25% cap does not recognize a new trend in the industry to provide “Continuing Care” where active seniors move onto the campus and start out in the independent living unit. Then, as time goes on and a level of care is now needed, the active seniors then move into Assisted Living which is generally characterized by a smaller room without a kitchen. Under this model, the seniors stay on campus and are guaranteed a room. This relieves the family of worrying whether or not a care slot is available on the campus with which they are familiar and near their loved ones. The other problem is that with the 25% cap in the definition, we have a density metric that cannot be modified. In the last few months, we have been approached by two Continuing Care providers that have brought this issue to our attention. B. Zoning: The other problem is that since the independent living units have kitchens, they must be counted towards density metrics. Long Term Care Facilities are allowed in the L-M-N. But, in the L-M-N, density is capped and cannot exceed 9 d.u./a (or 12 d.u./a in a single phase but not to exceed 9.00 overall). Also, individual buildings are capped and cannot exceed 12 units per building and 14,000 square feet. The issue is that even though L.T.C. Independent Living Facility is a permitted use in the L-M-N, it is difficult to achieve compliance given the new trends in the industry. Proposed Solution Overview: The proposed solution is to revise the sub-definition Independent Living with an expanded definition that allows for the Continuing Care model. This would reflect the new trend in the industry and lift the 25% cap out of the definition. Other terms such as Rehabilitation Facility and Memory Care and Assisted Living would be added as well in order to be semantically consistent with the industry. Since the L-M-N zone is where the issue seems most acute, consider keeping the cap but raising it to 50% and then put this in Section 4.5 as a development standard and keep it out of the definition so it could be eligible for a Modification should the need arise. Long-term care facility shall mean any of the following: 1.Convalescent center shall mean a health institution that is planned, organized, operated and maintained to offer facilities and services to inpatients requiring restorative care and treatment and that is either an integral patient care unit of a general hospital or a facility physically separated from, but maintaining an affiliation with, all services in a general hospital. Proposed Code Revision: This is typically referred to in the industry as a “Rehabilitation Facility.” We should consider a revision that includes this term for clarity and add a clause that would refer to other similar services in case industry semantics change over the ensuring years. 2. Nursing care facility shall mean a health institution planned, organized, operated and maintained to provide facilities and health services with related social care to inpatients who require regular medical care and twenty-four- hour per day nursing services for illness, injury or disability. Each patient shall be under the care of a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Colorado. The nursing services shall be organized and maintained to provide twenty-four-hour per day nursing services under the direction of a registered professional nurse employed full time. Proposed Code Revision: The industry is now using the term “Memory Care” to describe a level of care. We should consider a revision that includes this term for clarity and add a clause that would refer to other similar services in case industry semantics change over the ensuring years. 3. Intermediate health care facility shall mean a health-related institution planned, organized, operated and maintained to provide facilities and services which are supportive, restorative or preventive in nature, with related social care, to individuals who because of a physical or mental condition, or both, require care in an institutional environment but who do not have an illness, injury or disability for which regular medical care and twenty-four-hour per day nursing services are required. Proposed Code Revision: This is typically referred to in the industry as “Assisted Living.” We should consider a revision that includes this term for clarity and add a clause that would refer to other similar services in case industry semantics change over the ensuring years. 4. Independent living facility shall mean a single-family, two-family and/or multi-family dwelling which is located within a development that contains one (1) or more of the facilities described in (1) through (3) above, wherein the residents of such dwellings have access to the common amenities and services available to residents of the facilities described in (1) through (3) above and wherein independent living facilities occupy no more than twenty-five (25) percent of the total gross floor area of a long-term care development. Section 4.5(D)(8) – Long Term Care Facilities – Independent Living Facility – Independent dwelling units shall not occupy more than fifty (50) percent of the total gross floor area of a long term care development. Item: Amend 3.2.2(C )(4)(b) – Bicycle Parking Space Requirements - Enclosed Bicycle Parking to further clarify locations that are convenient for the bicyclist. Problem Statement: The current definition of enclosed bicycle parking is open to interpretation. Some recently built projects have enclosed bicycle parking that requires carrying a bicycle up stairs and carrying the bike through a unit to get to the enclosed bicycle parking space. Recently, a community member appealed a multi-family housing project because balconies above the ground floor of the building are not convenient to walkways and entrances and should not count towards meeting the enclosed bicycle parking requirements. Council concurred with this assessment and requested a code change. Proposed Solutions: 1. Modify definition in Article 5 • Bicycle parking, enclosed shall mean bicycle storage in lockers, a room or other space within a parking structure or other building, including, without limitation, a shed or carport. All types of enclosed bicycle storage must be easily accessible to entrances and walkways, secure, lighted and protected from the weather. Each storage space shall provide a minimum of six (6) square feet in area. The storage space shall not impede fire exits or be located so that parked bicycles interfere with public access. Enclosed bicycle parking spaces may not be located above the ground floor of a development. 2. Add clarification to 3.2.2(C)(4)(b) • Bicycle Parking Space Requirements. The minimum bicycle parking requirements are set forth in the table below. For uses that are not specifically listed in the table, the number of bicycle parking spaces required shall be the number required for the most similar use listed. Enclosed bicycle parking spaces may not be located above the ground floor of a development.