HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/22/2005 - SPRING 2005 LAND USE CODE CHANGES DATE: March 22, 2005 STUDY SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Ted Shepard FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Spring 2005 Land Use Code Changes.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
The purpose of this study session item is to introduce to Council the proposed amendments,
revisions and clarifications to the Land Use Code for Spring of 2005. The Land Use Code team
encourages any questions or comments regarding any of these proposed changes.
Our experience is that discussion with Council is most efficient prior to First Reading of the
Ordinance so that any questions may be answered or any suggestions may be incorporated
without delay to the adoption schedule.
In the past, it has been our custom to highlight those proposed changes that may be considered
more substantive than others. Briefly, for this round of changes, two such changes are:
1. Item 685 — This proposed change would clear up an ambiguity about what to do with
multi-parcel enclave annexations that contain an illegal land use in the County, and
would continue to be illegal under the proposed zoning once annexed into the City. The
proposal also would allow for a two-year amortization period which would be a fair and
reasonable amount of time for the City to effectively and legally deal with such illegal
land uses.
2. Item 690 — This proposed change would amend the L-M-N permitted use list as it relates
to Multi family dwellings (limited to eight or less units per building). Presently, by
codifying the maximum of an eight-plex structure in the permitted use list, it is not
eligible for a Request for Modification. Therefore, there is no avenue to seek approval of,
for example, a 12-plex structure.
Staff has been approached by a local developer who seeks to move the limitation on
eight-plexes out of the Permitted Use List and into the Land Use Standards where a
request for more than eight units per structure would be eligible for a Modification.
The Land Use Code team is not in favor of this proposal but we bring it to Council's
attention since there may be public testimony during the Ordinance adoption process.
Allowing structures to contain more than eight dwelling units starts to blur the distinction
between the L-M-N, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood District and the M-M-N,
Mixed-Use Neighborhood District. Under the Land Use Code, the developer always
retains the option of submitting a separate Text Amendment independent of our biannual
update process for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council.
This process is outlined in Section 2.9 of the Code.
March 22, 2005 page 2
ATTACHMENTS
1. Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Zoning Map
2. Land Use Code Issues
3. Power Point Presentation Slides
ATTACHMENT
City of Fort Collins
d
N
Lw
_ _• ♦ L �e. . , oIN.ry Hsu a Id
EW\
mr.1 n
LAIN—
�xn
W Lw lW • �I'{ Lw
I 1 1 Lw i
I
I1 I
i
_
I
t w
1 L Lam. 1111T FLAf
R r
y
d�
! .kM . - r
�Lw 1LI
�.
14
Ir I !Gv
}
Lw
w
! i
Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood Zoning
—.d®rwea.,... L.e.,o....,...,....�rtimeue._....,..', L,nMro.roln..
ATTACHMENT
Land Use Code Issues
Friday,March 11,2005
Issue ID# Issue Name
608 Amend 3.8.3(11)-Home Occupations-to raise the license fee from ten to$25 dollars for a two year term,or
delete from Code entirely and just add it to the list of fees that can be set admininstratively by the City Manager.
678 Consider adding design guidelines for large commercial parking lots to improve circulation while still
maintaining pedestrian safety.
679 Amend 3.8.8(A)-Lots-Area and Width-to not allow the land area associated with private drives to count
towards meeting the minimum lot area requirements. To be applied on a city-wide basis.
680 Amend 2.8.2(G)Step 7(A)-Modifications-so that a Type One applicant has the option of submitting a
Request for Modification to the Planning and Zoning Board.
681 Amend 2.2.7[C](3-5)-Order of Proceedings at Public Hearings-so that public testimony is taken after Staff
Response.
682 Correct the definition of"Lot size" so that the reference is back to Sec.3.8.8,not 3.7.8 which does not exist.
683 Amend 4.1(E)(2)(d)-Site Design for U-E Residential Cluster Development-so standards are not tied to R-L
minimum standards for lot area,lot width,rear yard and side yard. Would allow greater creativity with no
change in allowable density.
684 Clarify 3.2.2(K)(5)(d)-Handicap Parking-so that at least one van-accessible space is required regardless of
the number of standard handicap spaces required.
685 Clarify 2.12.4 -Annexation of Uses Not Legally Permitted-as the last paragraph seems to cloud the
enforcement issue.To clarify, add a reasonable amortization period for phasing out illegal uses.
686 Consider amending the C-L zone to allow Outdoor Storage(i.e.towing impound lot)as a principal use.
Currently only allowed in Industrial zone.
690 Amend L-M-N 4.4(B)(2)(a)4. -Permitted Use List- "Multi-familly dwellings(limited to 8 or less units per
building)"by moving the limit on 8-plexes to(D)(8)-Land Use Standards-so that it becomes eligible for a
Modification.
691 Clarify 3.8.27(F)-Performance Standards for Small Scale Reception Centers in U-E-so that direct access is
further defined as not adding traffic to existing local neighborhood streets.
692 Clarify 3.5.2(B)- Housing Model Variety- by adding a cross-reference to 3.8.15 which allows the standard to
be met at the time of building permit by an affidavit.
Friday,March 11,2005 Page 1 of 1
#608 Amend the home occupation ordinance by increasing the
license fee.
Problem Statement
The home occupation regulations contain a provision that a home
occupation license fee of $10 must be paid at the time of license issuance.
Unlike most other land use fees, this fee has never been changed. The
$10 fee was appropriate 20 years ago, but the fee should be increased in
order to more accurately recover the costs associated with processing,
reviewing, and recording home occupation licenses and renewals.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that Section 3.8.3(11) of the LUC be amended as
follows in order to increase the home occupation license fee to $25:
3.8.3 Home Occupations.
(11) A home occupation shall be permitted only after the owner or
inhabitant of the dwelling in which such occupation is conducted has
obtained a home occupation license from the city. The fee for such a
license shall be ten dollars ($4915.), and the term of such
license shall be two (2) years. At the end of such term, the license may be
issued again upon the submission and review of a new application and the
payment of an additional ten®dollar fee. If the city is conducting
an investigation of a violation of this Code with respect to the particular
home occupation at the time such renewal application is made, the license
will not be reissued until the investigation is completed, and if necessary,
all violations have been corrected. The term of the previous license shall
continue during the period of investigation.
#678 Consider adding design guidelines for large commercial parking lots
to improve circulation while still maintaining pedestrian safety.
Problem Statement
The Planning and Zoning Board has heard concerns that large commercial
parking lots are overly circuitous leading to driver frustration. They have asked
Staff to consider drafting design guidelines to address this issue.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff has looked at several parking lots serving large retailers and there are
indeed some design attributes that are advantageous. By way of background,
the role of Staff in the design of private parking lots is minimal. Primarily, Staff
regulates the maximum number of parking stalls. In addition, Staff requires
developers to provide the minimum for the size of the stalls and the width of drive
aisles. The distance from the closest parking stall to the public street is a
required minimum. There is a required minimum number of handicap parking
stalls as well as their location and size. Current standards address
pedestrian/vehicle separation. Finally, large parking lots are required to provide
landscaping.
Private developers and the retail clients then make design decisions that involve
a series of trade-offs. For example, they must balance the objective of placing
the maximum allowable number of stalls near the main entrance versus providing
parking lot circulation convenience such as wider drive aisles, longer stalls for
S.U.Ws and loop roads. For each measure of circulation convenience, there is a
loss in the number of stalls. Each project weighs these trade-offs and designs
their private parking lot accordingly once minimum requirements have been
satisfied.
The proposed solution is to offer design guidelines to retail developers. Since all
sites have unique physical characteristics and the needs of retailers vary widely,
no Code changes are offered at this time. There is a concern that a "one-size-
fits-ail" approach may be overly simplistic and lacks flexibility. Instead, the
guidelines are intended to promote an active dialogue so the outcome is well-
designed parking lots that continue to promote pedestrian safety and still provide
improved convenient circulation for drivers. The following draft design guidelines
will be presented to the Board at their April worksession.
Draft Design Guidelines
1. Pedestrians entering and exiting the retail establishment should take
priority over the circulation needs for vehicles. Cross-walks should be
raised so that the pedestrian is elevated to the height of the sidewalk.
Drivers should be warned of pedestrian activity by use of these raised
cross-walks, speed tables, pavement striping, signage and other traffic
calming measures.
2. Vehicular circulation can be improved by use of a loop lane at the
perimeter of the parking lot. Forcing drivers to make 180-degree turns
should be minimized.
3. Private driveway entrances to parking lots should be widened to 28 feet
versus the required 24-foot minimum to accommodate the turning radii of
larger vehicles such as trucks and S.U.V.'s.
4. Drive aisles that are used more heavily should be widened to 26 or 28 feet
versus the current required minimum of 24 feet.
5. Parking stalls could be lengthened beyond the required minimum of 19
feet to accommodate large trucks and vehicles.
6. The 17-foot long stall is allowed where the vehicle overhangs a
landscaped area or a sidewalk that is a minimum of six feet wide. Due to
design of large trucks and vehicles, developers should consider increasing
this length to 19 feet.
7. Or, a section of the parking lot, perhaps to the side of the main entrance,
could be specifically designated for large trucks and vehicles where all
minimum specifications are voluntarily exceeded.
8. Sight lines should be preserved so that the circulation system is clearly
visible, obvious and intuitive. There should no surprises or unexpected
turning movements.
9. The use of diverter islands, or"pork-chops" should be used where there is
an unusual amount of congestion or a heightened need for pedestrian
safety.
10. Additional curb cuts onto the public street should be explored but only
where deemed appropriate by the City's Traffic Engineer. Such additional
access points may be limited to right-in/right-out only turning movements
to avoid additional congestions associated with left-turn movements.
11. If the site is large enough, secondary circulation local public streets should
be considered to relieve congestion on the surrounding collector and
arterial streets.
12. Retailers are encouraged to provide functional multiple entrances. Single-
use, one-entry stores attract congestion at one specific point.
#Item 679 Amend 3 8 8(A) — Lots —Area and Width —to not allow the land
area associated with private drive to count towards meeting the minimum
lot area requirements This change would be applied on a city-wide basis
not any one particular zone district.
Problem Statement
There is a concern that the Land Use Code is silent on whether or not the land
area devoted to private streets and drives can be counted towards meeting the
minimum lot area requirements as specified in Article Four zone district
development standards. If this area is counted as being contained within
individual lots, then the result is that the actual lots, outside the private streets
and drives, may be less than the minimum required square footage.
Proposed Solution Overview
Clarify the standard so it is clear that private streets and drives cannot be
counted towards meeting minimum lot area requirements. Further, clarify the
standard so there is a clear distinction between common area private drives that
serve multiple lots versus individual driveways serving garages on a per lot basis.
Code Change
3.8.8
(A)Area and Width. No part of an area or width required for a lot for the purpose
of complying with the provisions of this Land Use Code shall be included
as an area or width required for another lot. Where a minimum lot area
square footage is otherwise required by this Land Use Code, said
minimum lot area shall be required for each principal building located on
any one (1) lot.
#680 Amend 2.8.2(G) Step VA) — Modifications —so that a Type One
applicant has the option of submittina a Request for Modification to the
Plannina and Zonina Board.
Problem Statement
Presently, a Type One (Administrative) Request for Modification is required to be
considered by the Hearing Officer and a Type Two Request for Modification is
required to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Board. There is no
provision for a Type One Request for Modification to have the option of being
considered by the Planning and Zoning Board where seven members could
evaluate the proposal versus one Hearing Officer. There may be cases where
an applicant may find it advantageous for a Request for Modification to be heard
by a seven member board.
Proposed Solution Overview
Amend the Request for Modification procedure to allow the option of a Type One
Request for Modification to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Code Change
(G)Step 7(A) (Decision Maker): Applicable, and in explanation thereof and in
addition thereto, if an application for a modification of standards pertains
to a development plan which is subject to administrative review, the
Director shall be the designated decision maker,
and if an application for a modification of standards
pertains to a development plan which is subject to Planning and Zoning
Board review, the Planning and Zoning Board shall be the designated
decision maker. If the application is for a modification of standards
pertaining to a development plan previously approved under prior law or
not yet filed, the Director shall determine whether such development plan
would have been, or will be, subject to administrative review or Planning
and Zoning Board review and shall identify the decision maker
accordingly. In all cases, the decision maker shall review, consider and
approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for a
modification of standards based on its compliance with all of the standards
contained in Step 8.
Y
#Item 681 Amend 2 2 7(C)(3-5) — Order of Proceedings at Public Hearings —
so that public testimony is taken after both Applicant and Staff Response.
Problem Statement
The Planning and Zoning Board has observed that, in many instances, the issues
and concerns expressed by the general public are answered at a later point in
the hearing under Applicant and Staff Response. If public testimony is taken
after Staff Response, then it may be likely that the questions and concerns of the
citizens could be addressed prior to their public testimony. A re-ordering of the
proceedings could save time and contribute to more efficient hearings.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed change would re-order the proceedings.
Code Change
(C) Order of Proceedings at Public Hearing. The order of the proceedings at the
public hearing shall be as follows:
(1) Staff Report Presented. The Director shall present a narrative and/or graphic
description of the development application. The Director shall
present a Staff Report which includes a written recommendation.
This recommendation shall address each standard required to be
considered by this Land Use Code prior to approval of the
development application.
(2)Applicant Presentation. The applicant shall present any relevant information
the applicant deems appropriate. Copies of all writings or other
exhibits that the applicant wishes the decision maker to consider
must be submitted to the Director no less than five (5) working
days before the public hearing.
(3) D 1 ij T - Relevant..ublie tentim a .d. H-be 1.,.af
MEMO
• #682 Correct the definition of `lot size" so that the code reference in
the definition is 3.8.8 instead of 3.7.8.
Problem Statement
The definition of"lot size" in Article 5 of the Land Use Code references
Section 3.7.8. However,
there is no such section in the Code. The section that is intended to be
referenced is Section 3.8.8.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that the definition of"lot size" in Section 5.1.2 of the
Land Use Code be changed as follows:
5.1.2 Definitions
Lot size shall mean the amount of horizontal (plan view) land area within
lot lines. (See Section 3.71.8.)
#683 Amend 4.10(21(d) — Site Design for U-E Residential Cluster
Development — so standards are not tied to R-L minimum standards for lot
area, lot width, rear yard and side yard. This would allow greater creativity
with no change in allowable density.
Problem Statement:
The Urban Estate district provides the option of consolidating the overall
allowable gross residential density (two dwelling units per acre) into a cluster, as
long as 50% of the gross land area is preserved as open space. Within the
cluster, the design of the lots and building placement is required to conform to
the minimum standards of the R-L zone.
This concept of clustering is a carryover from the old Zoning Code which allowed
the cluster option in the R-F, Foothills Residential District.
A comparison of the R-L minimum standards, from Section 4.3(D), and the
General Development Standards — Residential Building Setbacks, Lot Width and
Size, from Section 3.5.2(D) is summarized in the following table:
EXISTING PROPOSED
RL 3.5.2 D
Lot Size 6,000 s.f. minimum No minimum
Lot Width 60 ft. single family 50 feet*
100 ft. duplex
Front Yard Setback 20 feet 15 feet
Rear Yard Setback 15 feet 8 feet
Side Yard Width 5 feet interior 5 feet interior
15 feet corner 15 feet corner
Maximum Height 28 feet 2.5 stories
* An Alternative Compliance provision is available subject to satisfaction of
certain criteria.
To date, we have not received a single application for an Urban Estate Cluster
Plan. We have heard from consultants and developers that R-L standards are
overly restrictive and stifle flexibility in lot layout and building and garage layout.
In order to make the U-E cluster option more attractive, and to allow for more
contemporary design, the proposed change would eliminate the reference to the
R-L standards. The result would be that an Urban Estate cluster development
plan could potentially demonstrate more new urbanism design characteristics
than a typical R-L neighborhood. Further, there could potentially be more
flexibility in lot sizes, lot frontages, building placement, recessed garage
placement or alley-loaded garages.
There would be no change in allowable density or any diminution in the required
amount of open space. There would simply be more flexibility in design of the
lots and building placement within the cluster.
Proposed Solution Overview:
The proposed solution would delete the reference to the R-L zone for minimum
area of lot, minimum width front yard, minimum rear yard and minimum side yard.
Instead, the reference would be to General Development Standard Section
3.5.2(D) — Residential Building Setbacks, Lot Width and Size which governs
these design attributes on a city-wide basis, unless preempted by a specific zone
district standard that takes precedence over General Development Standards.
The maximum allowable height would change from 28 feet to 2.5 stories to match
that allowed in the L-M-N zone.
Code Changes:
(d) Building envelopes shall be identified on the cluster
development, and the fninimiim area of to minimum width
• #684 Clarify Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(d) — Handicap Parking — so that at
least one van-accessible space is reguired regardless of the number
of standard handicap spaces reguired.
Problem Statement
The current wording of Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(d) of the LUC requires that
when only one handicap parking space is required in a parking lot, that
one space must be a van accessible space. However, the wording is such
that if a parking lot is required to provide more than one handicap space,
no van accessible space is required at all. The intent of the regulation is
to ensure that there is always a minimum of one van accessible space
provided in a parking lot.
Proposed Solution Overview
The wording of Section 3.2.2(K)(5)(d) should be revised as follows in order
to clarify that there always has to be at least one van accessible parking
space in a parking lot:
3.2.2(K)(5)(d) Handicap Parking.
(d) Each parking lot shall contain at least the minimum specified number
of handicaE spaces as provided in the table below.
When en!y one (1) such
space ' shall be designated as a van accessible
space, and must be a minimum of eight (8)feet wide and adjoin a
minimum eight-foot-wide access aisle.
• #685 Clarify Section 2 12 4—Annexation of Uses Not Legally
Permitted as the last paragraph clouds the manner in which illegal
uses are to be treated if they are on property that is part of an
enclave annexation And consider a reasonable amortization period
for phasing out illegal uses.
Problem Statement
Section 2.12.4 establishes the manner in which annexations are to be
processed if the property to be annexed contains a use that is illegal in the
county. Specifically, if such a situation exists, the illegal use must cease
and be discontinued before the property can be annexed into the city if the
proposed zoning will not permit the use. However, if the property is to be
placed in a zone district wherein the use is listed as a permitted use, a
development application must be submitted to the City within 60 days and
the plan must show that the property will be brought into compliance with
the applicable standards of Articles 3 and 4 of the LUC. If the plan is
approved, then the property must be brought into compliance within 60
days of the plan approval. If the plan is denied, then the use must cease
within 30 days of the denial, even though the use is permitted in the zone.
Of course, the property owner can resubmit an application and pursue a
plan approval.
This process only applies to a single property annexation. If there are
more than one separately owned parcels involved in the annexation, then
the last paragraph of this Section states that the above-described process
does not apply. This basically means that the Code is silent with regards
to the treatment of illegal county uses that are on properties in an enclave
annexation. Therefore, it is not clear whether the City should allow the
use to continue upon annexation, even if the property is placed in a zone
district that does not allow the use, or whether the City should begin
immediate enforcement action to shut the use down once it is annexed.
Proposed Solution Overview
Single property annexations are usually voluntary annexations. However,
the enclave properties that contain an illegal use are usually being
annexed involuntarily. In many cases, the County has knowingly allowed
the use to continue illegally for many years, thereby allowing the property
owner to establish a viable business with some "defacto" vesting. Once
the property is annexed, is the City supposed to be the "bad guy" and put
someone immediately out of business after they have been allowed to
continue in operation for a substantial period of time and didn't ask to be
annexed to begin with? Staff believes that a two-year amortization period
is the fairest and most appropriate method by which to deal with these
illegal county uses since the properties are usually the subject of an
involuntary annexation and the owner has been allowed to establish and
continue the use in the county. Therefore, it is recommended that Section
2.12.4 of the LUC be amended as follows:
2.12.4 Annexation of Uses Not Legally Permitted
Any use that exists on property outside the city and that is not
legally permitted by the county must cease and be discontinued before the
City Council adopts, on second reading, an annexation ordinance
annexing any such property except as provided herein. In the event that a
property containing a use that is not legal pursuant to county regulations is
proposed to be annexed into the city and placed into a zone district
wherein such use is a permitted use, said use must be reviewed and
processed as set forth in Article 4 (i.e., Type 1 review or Type 2 review) for
the zone district in which the land is proposed to be located, and shall
comply with the applicable standards contained in Articles 3 and 4. A
development application for such review must be filed with the city within
sixty (60) days following the effective date of the annexation. Such use
shall be temporarily permitted for a period not to exceed six (6) months
following the effective date of the annexation. In the event that the
development application is not approved within said six-month period,
then the use shall be discontinued within thirty (30) days following the date
of the decision of denial or expiration of said six-month period, whichever
first occurs, except that the Director may grant one (1) extension of the
foregoing six-month requirement, which extension may not exceed three
(3) months in length. In the event that the development application is
approved, then such use shall be brought into full compliance with this
Land Use Code and the decision made thereunder by the decision maker
within sixty (60) days following the date of the decision.
111111115 ":e see fie. shall not-a....'..*- annexation ewes
consistin of more than one 1 s aratel owned arcel:
• #686 Consider amending the C-L zone to allow Outdoor Storage (i.e.
towing impound lot) as a principal use Currently only allowed in the
Industrial zone.
Problem Statement
Outdoor Storage is defined in Article 5 as:
"...the keeping, in an unroofed area, of any equipment, goods, junk,
material, merchandise or vehicles in the same place for more than twenty-
four (24) hours."
Such a use is allowed as an accessory use in all zones, but as a principal
use it is allowed only in the I (industrial) zone. Staff has recently received
a request to allow an existing vehicle repair business in the C-L zone to
establish a towing business on the lot abutting their existing accessory use
outdoor storage area. The towing business and impound lot would not be
considered accessory to the repair business. Therefore, it is not allowed
unless the permitted use list is amended to include outdoor storage as a
principal use.
The I zone is the least restrictive zone in the city and the C-L zone is the
second least restrictive. These 2 zones allow many of the same uses, and
are the only two zones that allow "Farm implement & heavy equipment
sales' and "Mobile home,recreational vehicle, and truck sales and
storage". Additionally, both zones allow major vehicle repair uses (i.e.
body shops)that typically will have outdoor storage areas as a permitted
accessory use, wherein vehicles will be "stored" for a period of time while
they are in the process of being repaired. All of the above-described uses
are similar in appearance and impact to a principal use outdoor storage
facility.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff recommends that the list of permitted uses in the C-L zone be
amended by adding "outdoor storage facilities" as a principal use (Type 1).
Such a use is consistent with the other uses already allowed in the C-L
zone and is supported by the purpose statement of the C-L zone which
states that:
"The Limited Commercial District is intended for areas with commercial
uses, automobile-oriented businesses which usually contain outdoor
display or storage of vehicles, and service uses..."
Additionally, an outdoor storage facility is required to be screened from
view with such elements as fencing and landscaping. Therefore, the
visible impacts associated with an outdoor storage lot are mitigated.
Section 4.20(B)(2) of the Land Use Code should be amended by adding a
new subsection (e)(1) as follows:
4.20(B)(2) Permitted Uses.
#Item 690 Amend L-M-N 4 40(2)(a)4 — Permitted Use List— "Multi-family
dwellings (limited to 8 or less units per buildinal" by moving the limitation
on eight plexes to Section (D)8 — Land Use Standards — so that it becomes
eligible for a Modification.
Problem Statement
Staff has been approached by a developer that would like to construct buildings
in the L-M-N district that contain up to 12 dwelling units. The limitation on eight
units, however, is codified in the Permitted Use List, and, therefore, cannot be
modified. If this limitation were moved to Land Use Standards, then it would be
eligible for the Request for Modification procedure.
Proposed Solution Overview
Staff does not intend to bring forward this proposed code change. Since there is
likelihood for public testimony, however, this information is presented to City
Council as background.
The eight-plex structure is specifically intended to be the upper limit for a housing
type in the L-M-N. In fact, the eight-plex was added to the L-M-N several years
ago but only under the condition that it be accompanied by design standards that
would mitigate the mass, height, bulk, scale and promote the residential
character of the structure. These standards were placed in the L-M-N zone as
mitigation for allowing the eight-plex structures in the L-M-N.
The 12-plex structure is exactly what was intended for the M-M-N, Medium
Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood district. This zone is intended to provide
housing in multi-family structures where the minimum required density is 12
dwelling units per acre.
Allowing residential structures in the L-M-N zone to house more than eight
dwellings starts to blur the distinction with the M-M-N zone. The size of such
structures is considered to be out of character with the L-M-N zone and should
be directed towards the M-M-N zone.
#Item 691 Clarify 3.8.27(F) — Performance Standards for Small Scale
Reception Centers in the U-E —so that direct access to an arterial street is
further defined as not adding traffic to existing, local, neighborhood
streets.
Problem Statement
There is a concern that the standard as presently written is unintentionally vague
causing multiple interpretations. The Planning and Zoning Board requested Staff
clarify the standard.
Proposed Solution Overview
The proposed change would add clarifying language consistent with public
testimony from Staff to the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council.
Code Change
(F)Access. Vehicular access to the rec tion center shall be only directly from an
arterial street
#692 — Clarify 3 5 2(B) — Housing Model Variety— by adding a cross-
reference to 3.8.15 which allows the standard to be met at the time of
building Permit by an affidavit Makes the Code more user-friendly.
Problem Statement
The General Development Standard as described in Section 3.5.2 requires that
residential projects include a minimum of housing models on a sliding scale
depending on how large the project. Since many Project Development Plans are
submitted by developers, not builders, this standard is difficult to review during
the P.D.P. stage.
To rectify this, Supplemental Regulation 3.8.15 Housing Model Variety allows this
standard to be met at the time of Building Permit Application by an affidavit from
the home builder.
The problem is that Section 3.5.2 makes no reference to Supplemental
Regulation 3.8.15 causing consternation on the part of those who are not familiar
with the Land Use Code. In order to make the code more user-friendly for
developers, consultants, builders, etc, a cross-reference is recommended.
Proposed Solution Overview
Add a cross-reference to Section 3.5.2(B) directing the reader to Supplemental
Regulation 3.8.15 as to enforcement procedures.
Code Change
(B)Housing Model Variety.
(1) Any development of one hundred(100) or more single-family detached,
single-family attached in groups of two (2), or two-family detached
dwelling units shall have at least four (4) different types of housing
models. Any development of fewer than one hundred (100) single-
family or two-family dwelling units shall have at least three (3)
different types of housing models. The applicant shall include in
the application for approval of the project development plan
documentation showing how the development will comply with the
foregoing requirement.
(2) Each housing model shall have at least three (3) characteristics which clearly
and obviously distinguish it from the other housing models,
including different floor plans, exterior materials, roof lines,
garage placement, placement of the footprint on the lot, and/or
building face.
(3) The requirements provided in subparagraphs (1) and (2) above shall not apply
to developments containing ten(10) or fewer dwelling units.
ATTACHMENT 3
Item 685 - Clarify Section 2.12.4
Annexation of Uses
Not Legally Permitted
® annexation of enclaves consistin of more than one (1)
se aratel owned arcel
Item 685 - Section 2.12.4
• Clears up and enforcement ambiguity
created in Spring 2004
• Allows a fair and reasonable time to
legally process a cease and desist order
• Amortization is legally permissible and
used in the Sign Code
1
Item 690 — LMN 4.4(13)(2)(a)4
Amend L-M-N 4.4(6)(2)(a)4 — Permitted
Use List — "Multi-family dwellings (limited
to 8 or less units per building)" by moving
the limitation on eight-plexes to Section
(D)8 — Land Use Standards — so that it
becomes eligible for a Modification.
Item 690 — LMN 4.4(13)(2)(a)4
• Not recommended for Code Change
• Would allow "apartment complex'— too dense
for L-M-N
• Would blur the distinction between L-M-N and
M-M-N
• Apartment buildings should be reserved for
M-M-N which offers:
— Along arterials
— Served by transit
— Close to services such as N-C Neighborhood Centers
2
U-E Cluster Plan Example
Yak 1'af6„