Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/28/2006 - SPRING 2006 LAND USE CODE CHANGES DATE: March 28, 2006 WORK SESSION ITEM STAFF: Ted Shepard FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Spring 2006 Land Use Code Changes. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED The purpose of this work session item is to introduce to Council the proposed amendments,revisions and clarifications to the Land Use Code for Spring 2006. The Land Use Code team encourages any questions or comments regarding any of these proposed changes. Experience has proved 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, staff has highlighted proposed changes that may be considered more substantive than others. For Spring 2006,the Land Use Code team offers an explanation of a new special project and a progress report on two ongoing projects. I. Under Item 670 - Parking—Consider amending Section 3.2.2(I)(1)(2) to allow lower minimum onsite parking for multi-family dwellings but only in activity centers, such as Downtown,Campus Area,the H-M-N zone and in the future Mason Street Corridor. In addition, investigate the non-residential parking standards for effectiveness. This item was originally initiated by the Planning and Zoning Board with regard to multi-family residential parking only. Council has also recently indicated a concern that the non-residential parking standards may not be appropriate in all situations. The Parking Project has,therefore,been expanded. This effort has taken on the status of a special project and requires significant analysis. As such, prospective Code changes may not be ready for adoption in June. The direction and scope of the project is offered for Council's feedback. In review, there are two distinct aspects to be considered, each with their own unique attributes. Residential parking is governed from the standpoint of requiring a minimum number of spaces. Conversely, non-residential land uses are governed from the standpoint of requiring no more than a maximum number of spaces. Input from the Infill and Redevelopment Project,the Downtown Strategic Plan,and the Planning and Zoning Board indicates that, from a broad policy perspective,this dual system is generally working well. There are concerns,however,that the Land Use Code could be improved with a higher level of precision to accommodate the unique characteristics of individual projects. For example, the March 28, 2006 Page 2 Planning and Zoning Board is concerned that the residential parking standards treat suburban fringe projects on par with Downtown projects. This project will involve a review of the most current literature on parking issues. In addition, the parking standards for recently constructed new urbanism projects in Fort Collins and the Front Range will be evaluated. An interdepartmental team will be formed with representatives from Current Planning, Advance Planning and Transportation Planning. The goal of the project is as follows: • Provide standards that are up to date; • Provide standards that are more precisely calibrated based on location; • Provide standards that promote Infill and Redevelopment,Downtown Strategic Plan, City Plan and protect the character of existing neighborhoods. The question staff would like Council to consider is: Are there any other aspects ofparking related issues that should be brought into the scope of the project? 2. Under Item 690 Amend L-M-N 4.4(B)(2)(a)4 — Permitted Use List — "Multi-family 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 instead of being prohibited. Includes adopting architectural standards for neighborhood compatibility. This is a progress report on a proposed revision that has been initiated by City Council. The concept is to introduce a new housing type in the L-M-N zone. Work to date includes establishing a maximum of 12 units in any one building. This new use would generally add flexible approaches and increased housing choice that could result in larger yards for single family homes at no increase in L-M-N density. Draft design standards have been established that address the relationship of a three-story 12-plex structure to two-story single family detached homes. The use of building setbacks,buffer zones and building step-backs on the upper floors are offered as mitigation techniques. This project is tracking through the citizen outreach process. A conceptual project is in the initial stages of the development review process for age-restricted multi-family housing. A neighborhood meeting was recently held in Observatory Village and a second follow-up meeting is scheduled for March 29, 2006. These meetings are being used to refine the proposed standards. March 28, 2006 Page 3 3. Under Item 486 —Enacting a new zone district— R-U-L, Rural Open Land for large acreage lots. Also includes amending 3.9.2 to allow residential within one-quarter mile of I-25. This is a progress report on the proposed new zone district for the fringe areas within the City Growth Management Area.This item represents a follow-up action to implement the City Structure Plan"Rural Lands"designation and create the matching zoning for this category. The process was initiated in 2004 and brought forward to the Planning and Zoning Board in August 2004 with a recommendation to Council to support the new Zone District. Since that Hearing, staff has continued public outreach and held a recent public open house on March 1,2006. At the conclusion of the citizen participation phase,Advance Planning will begin the formal adoption process outside the context of the biannual revisions. This item is tentatively scheduled with City Council to be considered for adoption on May 2nd. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Code Issues Land Use Code Issues ATTACHMENT 1 Tuesday, March 21 , 2006 Issue ID# Issue Name 486 Consider enacting a new zone district - R-U-L - Rural Open Land - for fringe areas for large acreage lots . Also amend 3 . 9 .2 - to allow residential within 1 /4 mile of I-25 . 583 Amend 3 . 7 . 3(F) so that if the auto analysis is waived for a T.I. S . , an analysis is still required for bikes, peds, and transit. 670 Consider amending 3 .2 .2(K)( 1 )(2) - Parking - to allow lower minimum onsite parking for multi-family in activity centers, and investigate non-residential standards for effectiveness . 690 Amend L-M-N 4 .4(B)(3) [a] . - Permitted Use List - to allow "Multi-familly dwellings (greater than 8 units per building ) " as a Type 2 use. Place a cap of 12 d.u.'s in Developmetn Standards so eligible for Mod. Also adopt architectural standards. 700 Clarify the Basic Development Review process as it relates to site specific development plans that were approved in the County. 714 Amend 3 .3 . 2(A) and definition of "Development" to prevent sales and temporary trailers to be moved onto undeveloped sites. 715 Add a definition of "Raptor Center, " as a permitted use and place into the appropriate zone districts . 716 Amend 3 . 5 .4 - Big Box Standards - to strengthen the requirement for multiple entries, small liner shops . Works in conjunction with distributed parking. 717 Consider amending 3 .4 . 1 (A)((2)(j) - prairie dog colonies over 50 acres _ to possibly remove it from the list of Special Features to be protected. 718 Change the term "Boarding House" to "Large Rental House" to reflect a more modem and meaningful representation of what the land use entails. 719 Change the term "mentally retarded" to "developmentally disabled" in the definition of Child Care to be consistent with the terminology used in the professional fields. 722 Amend the definition of "Fast Food Restaurant" to remove ambiguity and to make it more distinctive in comparison to " Standard" and "Drive-in" restaurants . 723 Amend C-C-N 4. 15 (B)( 1 )(a) - General Use Category - in order to clarify that the uses in this sub-section are not principal residential uses. 724 Amend 3 . 5 . 1 [C] - Builidng Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale - by broadening the area upon which to consider similarity in massing and proportionality to now include "block face" (across the street and cater comer) and redo Figure 7 . 725 Amend 4 . 12(B)(2) - Downtown Zone - Permitted Use List - to change "Building Permit Review" to "Basic Development Review" in order to correct an oversight from a code change several years ago . 726 Clarify 3 .3 . 1 [C] ( 1 ) - Public Sites, Reservations and Dedications - so that all projects, not just those that are platting, are required to dedicate needed easements and/or rights-of-way. 727 Amend 3 . 6. 1 [C] - Compliance with Access Control Plans - to acknowledge that Access Control Plans are applicable to all roadways, and not just intersections with state highways . Such plans are still valid for former state highways such as Harmony Road. 729 Delete 3 . 6.2(L)2(b) - Design Requirements for Private Drives - and add new clarifying language to 3 . 6.2(L)(2) [c] stating that the maximum length for a private drive is 660 feet. Tuesday, March 21 , 2006 Page 1 of 2 Issue ID# Issue Name 730 Consider amending 4 . 12(D)(2) - Downtown Zone - Development Standards - to delete the Floor-To-Area Ratio and replace with a new set of context-based standards relating to mass, bulk, scale, proportionality on a per sub- district basis . 731 Amend 3 . 5 . 1 (J) - Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards - to add a new criterion addressing parking impacts . {€6 E#} pd Y Tuesday, March 21 , 2006 Page 2 of 2 Background Report 20 March 2006 Anne Aspen , Current Planning Department PARKING STANDARDS FOR ACTIVITY CENTERS SPRING 2006 / FALL 2006 LAND USE CODE CHANGES Intro Fort Collins ' emerging trend of infill and redevelopment , which is intensifying and urbanizing high activity areas such as downtown and the CSU campus area , is presenting parking issues that our current parking standards do not adequately address . Additional high activity areas are planned , including the Mason Street Corridor terminals and station areas . The Planning and Zoning Board recommended residential parking requirement changes to Council during the Fall 2004 Land Use Code change cycle regarding multifamily housing near campus but Council had their plates full with other issues at that time . Since then , many infill and redevelopment projects have come through development review , many of which have brought up additional issues regarding activity center parking standards . These issues have come up with increasing regularity , and will continue arising as development practices shift increasingly from green field development to infill and redevelopment . At the recent REFILL charrette , developers voiced frustration with the need to apply for parking standard modifications on a regular basis in these geographical areas . Some of the issues that arose were : • Activity center ( Downtown , campus area ) residential parking count requirements are too high . The standards are based on green field development practices . • There is no structured parking/fee- in - lieu program in place to coordinate the efforts of individual developers and provide centralized parking • There are no underground parking structure standards • Alternate transportation modes are not currently widely available • There are potential negative spillover impacts of urbanization/insufficient parking on adjacent areas . • Diagonal parking is desirable in some ways and not in others . Issues to be resolved—exploratory questions • Should we entertain reducing required minimums for residential parking in activity areas ? • Should we revisit existing commercial and residential parking lot , parking structure and street parking standards from a functional , safety, convenience and aesthetic perspective in light of the shift toward infill development? • Should we consider developing standards for underground parking , off-site and shared parking , parking lifts , loading zones , guest parking ? • Should we consider creating parking standards for private parking lots as an interim land use? • What is the best way to account for the varied parking circumstances inherent in infill sites and circumstances in our code standards ? Action Steps Research Anne Aspen of Current Planning will head up a preliminary research effort . Team members will include David Averill and Randy Hensley from Transportation Planning , and a representative from CSU . Any changes to activity centers parking requirements need to be coordinated with master plans for parking availability , zones and enforcement , and proposed transit and bike routes . Parking data for different populations also needs to be taken into account—for example , are people less likely to drive or have the standard number of cars near campus ? downtown ? near transit stops? Ted Shepard 's research for Atrium Suites will be leveraged and perhaps expanded . We may map and define parameters including existing and planned transit routes and stops , demographic info , land uses existing and planned . Charrette Depending on the results of the above research and Council ' s response , staff may conduct a community design charrette to further explore the issues with seasoned infill developers , and planning and traffic consultants . Questions for Council • Is the scale of the project appropriate as described above? • Are there additional issues that staff should focus on in the parking standards? • Are there any issues that Council would prefer that staff not focus on at this time ? • Are there additional issues that staff should focus on in the research phase ? CONTINUATION OF A LAND USE CODE CHANGE From Fall 2005 # Item 690 Amend L - M -N 4 . 4 ( B ) (3 ) ( c ) — Permitted Use List — to allow " Multi = family dwellings ( greater than 8 units per building ) " as a Type Two review , subject to design standards . Problem Statement Staff has been approached by representatives of three active developments in the L- M - N zone that would like to construct multi -family buildings that contain more than eight units as part of their larger projects . These are : • Maple Hill • Observatory Village • Provincetowne The limitation on eight units is presently codified in the Permitted Use List , and , therefore , cannot be modified under any circumstances . This is viewed by these representatives as being overly restrictive and contributes to a lack of housing mix in the L- M - N . At the June 7 , 2005 City Council meeting , during consideration of the Spring 2005 Land Use Code Update , Council considered public testimony and directed Staff to draft a change to allow multi -family housing that contain more than eight dwelling units in the L- M - N , but subject to a minimum level of design standards . The existing L- M - N code allows for multi -family dwellings of less than eight units with a maximum of 2- 1 /2 stories . Since the adoption of the Land Use Code in 1997 , there has not been any eight- plex multi-family buildings constructed in the L- M - N district . Scope of Work The Land Use Code team retained the services of a local architectural firm to draft standards and guidelines for multi-family buildings containing more than eight dwellings . In addition , the staff met with the three affected developers and other architects to establish what changes were required in the L- M - N district to assure financial feasibility , but maintain the character and quality of the surrounding single- and two-family dwelling neighborhoods . Following is a summary of the goals as a result of these meetings : i • Increase the maximum number of stories from 2 - 1 /2 to three . • Increase the maximum number of units from 8 to 12 . • Do not increase the allowable density . • The buildings should follow the general requirements of the Land Use Code for site development . • The Code should be descriptive rather than prescriptive to encourage creativity and variety in building and site solutions . • The wording shall not dictate a specified style of architecture or design features and elements . • The building should relate to the scale of the residential homes , streets and adjacent neighborhoods by the stepping of the building facade and roofline , and general building massing . • Modify the permitted use list so that the maximum number of dwelling units per building is moved to a general development standard so that it would become eligible for a Modification . • New standards would be triggered for any building containing more than six dwellings . Draft Proposed L- M - N Code Language — Section 4 . 4 ( E ) (3 ) Maximum Residential Building Height. The maximum height of single- or two-family dwellings shall be 2 - 1 /2 stories . (4 ) Design Standards for Multi-Family Dwellings Containing Twelve (12) Units or Less. Each multi -family dwelling unit shall feature a variety of massing proportions , wall plane proportions , roof proportions and other characteristics similar in scale to those of single-family detached dwelling units , so that such larger buildings can be aesthetically integrated into the low density neighborhood . The following specific standards shall also apply to such multi -family dwellings : 2 ( a) Orientation and Setbacks . Setbacks from the property line of adjacent property of single and two family dwellings shall be twenty-five (25 ) feet. (a) Roofs. KLuly Eae ffmit family building shall fen ufe n W eembination f primary and seeen ary roofs Primary r-ee h ll h rf la4e`l by at leant Are ( l ) of the hello\SnYlg 1Z. n(CIT�� K1KLVl1 V ,' KY 1VWVL V11V \ 1 , V1 Y11V folio elele�s � V 1 eh aNgen in plane and eleyatlep 7 donY efs gables AY eleYestAr100- 2 tfa-as dons to neeen arl / YAAfn ever- etltr_a.11ees-, gaYagen pole en hay windows . (b) Facades and Walls. Haeh lti family dwelling g shall mu weli .�uull be rf late l with v.rA. en4i ov n Yen eases nAi ereil ZIo IIIQIIV Klated YYi h fej eetions, 1VV1VVV VV� v1 . vavu l d box of May windows Yldows a1lA /AY Ater nim . laY - �TeO� /���/ Et'Or- Other- V 111111 W1 feattff n dive lil'. g l g are faeailen and walls rate li mar � i zuuu seafell p fepertioiis similar to the adjaeerrt_ single fnmib' �,�``-- ''^^'' '' + � K�L}LI}.KV VIIL single iwlilal dwellings, a all not have fepeCh2';J ire meflot0rAlin 7 f tmilifferev.tiateil wall planes . E h milti family building„-, g shall feature walls that are feature V walls YlaKY Wiv rti l t it by a4 leant two (2) of any of the fell ice_ i l twithin 1thi evefy thifty six foot length Af the faealle • �Y (� 1KV K\1V . l V anon proleetlons or nllTl' i ea t offsets i the � � LU 111 L11V wall 7 Tl ' t ' tindividualized 4 with f t ' l aV. V11L1 LYLIV VV ♦ . lYla aHaav Yavaaw.a er-ehes of patios . 1 material that pr-o . eetn from the wall glare /l Baleor.+ en c Covered hay AY hAV windows ( b ) Variation Among Repeated Buildings . For any development containing at least five ( 5 ) but not more than seven (7 ) buildings , there shall be at least two (2 ) distinctly different building designs . For any such development containing more than seven ( 7 ) buildings , there shall be at least three ( 3 ) distinctly different buildings designs . For all developments , there shall be no more than two ( 2 ) similar buildings placed next to each other along a street or major walkway spine . Distinctly different building designs shall provide significant variation in footprint size and shape , architectural elevations and entrance features , within a coordinated overall theme of roof forms , massing proportions and other characteristics . To meet this standard such variation shall not consist solely of different combinations of the same building features . ( c) Building Height. The maximum height of a multi - family building shall be three ( 3 ) stories . Buildings with a setback of less than fifty ( 50 ) feet facing a street(s ) or single- or two -family dwellings shall minimize the impact to the adjacent single or two family dwelling property by reducing the number of stories and terracing the roof lines . (d ) Entrances . Entrances shall be clearly identifiable and visible from the streets and public areas by incorporating use of architectural elements , and landscaping . ( e ) Roofs . Roof lines can be either sloped , flat or curved , or any combination of these elements . 1 . The primary roof line shall be articulated through a variation or terracing in height , detailing and /or change in massing . 2 . Secondary roofs shall transition over entrances , porches garages , dormers , towers or other architectural projections . 3 . Offsets in roof planes shall be a minimum of two (2 ) feet in the vertical plane . 4 . Termination at the top of flat roof parapets shall be articulated by design details and /or changes in materials and color. 5 Roof top equipment exposed to view , shall be visually hidden by incorporating equipment screens of compatible design , and materials . (f) Facades and Walls . Each multi -family dwelling shall be articulated with projections , recesses , covered doorways , balconies , covered box or bay windows and /or other similar features , dividing large facades and walls into human -scaled proportions similar to the adjacent single or two family dwellings , and shall not have repetitive , monotonous , undifferentiated wall planes . ri k multi family building shag feature malls that are vuii.� �LLuI. uLv .4 t d b , at leant two (2) of any of the felll �v iii rJ 1 4 within thii4y nix feet length of the facade ! 1 . eienenn or- nrrnnnn offsets i � t. . ifi t u n L the v wall 2 t t individualized entranees with f netLVLLu a. ennl porches or- patios . 3 Chimneys made of tnnnenrtr er other nentrnntmnr , 1 VLltvl vV11l1 uUlLLLS material that molests from the wall nlaii. 4 Bnlnenten c Covered bay or- box « nndews Building .; facades shall be articulated with horizontal and /or vertical elements that breakup long blank walls of forty (40 ) feet , or longer. This can be accomplished by offsetting the floor plan , recessing or projection of design elements , change in materials and/or change in contrasting colors . Projections shall fall within setback requirements .(e) Variation Among Repeated ' development l l /� / A Buildings .J • For- LLLL,' (leyelopme t nentnlning nt least foi4y I40) an not mllre � `TVJ lAl1LL LLVb L1LVLy than fifty six (56) dwelling . in . tn there shall be at leant twe //� 1 l /�(� building l, T v1..v . .. . . .� 1 1 \ d t • tl diffY rent Nl ild ng lYesignC� or _7ny sue.h iy .� uvLL development n4nininn mere than fifty nix ( c6.l /1v* /ellinn � u vv vLLLL,� 5 tffl to f there shall he at leant three (3 ) disti etly d ffererLt building llirg designs . 1'ier all developments, ere thsh_ xxV v all he no more than 2) similar-'l ttildingi7-l7'Tu'cvu nexti, to eu.vlii ether along a street or major walk-waizsv+inv . Distiredy dif-fer-& 4 building designs shall pfoyid.e ig ificar{t variation in foetpfi 4 size and shapear-e _ h ' t t 1 elevations .1 tfanee f tufes, within eearilirlateil eyerall theme of Yeof ferms mnnnir{ rr 7 p f-ehe ns and other- ehn rr-a terlsties, . To meet this stand r ii rl eh yarfatior� shall vio4 cer+ sint solely of llifferer{ t com i atvoris of the name building fe ufes /(1 \ Color. l=� ach multi family building shall featuf ve n , u palette of mvv4eil colern earth torte colors rLatur-al colors - � � x V1U f rl in niirreiin inn landse are or eolorn consistent ix i the adjaeer\t r\ eighheYheed For a_' mitkiple etu astf u uVLLuv development certniriing a4 least forth (/ln)_and not more 1VL 111V1V than, fifty nix (56) &Felling „ r, itn there shall be at leant tvve � L�VUJL LvvV (2) distinct color nehemes iise`l on stf etur-es throUghoAt the developmen4 . For- any sueh development eontaifl.iflg more than fifty n1V (56) &telling units, there shall he at least three (3 ) distinct noler schemes vvsell on stf e4iwes 1 T oLx uv Lul V.� th etighellt the Aet >elop ent For- all deyell�Yl'�'r� erltn there Kv r vavrluvu�. a.. Va Kaa developments ,v.vi..li�..i.w � ��.,.� .. shall be ne re than two (2) similarly eolorell stf etu 1 l4 Ulf KVFKI VU plaeelY next to each ether- aleng a street or- maleY [S �allnira � l JVl vv uu> ry uy (e) Gar-ages No street faeing faea�le shall eer�4nirr more , xxL.uul more than three (3 ) g Ynge bays (g ) Color and Materials . Colors of non -masonry materials shall be varied from structure to structure to differentiate between buildings and provide variety and individuality . Colors and materials shall be tied to visually reduce the scale of the buildings by contrasting trim , contrasting shades or distinguishing one ( 1 ) section or architectural element from another. Bright or intense colors , if used , shall be reserved for accent and trim . 6 SECONDARY ROOF PROJECTING ELEMENT SET BACK IN ROOF 3RD FLR PRIMARY ROOF .. k ...< 7 : 7777 PROJECTING DESIGN ELEMENT 2ND FLR. FUBL IC STREET & FACE 15T FLR, LESS THAN 50' BUT 15 ' MIN. 2 1 /2 STORY TERRACE BUILDING 3RD FLR. PROJECTING DESIGN ELEMENT 2ND FLR. x, - FUBLIC STREET SPACE 16T FLR, LESS THAN 50' BUT 15 ' MIN TERRACED ROOFS i@'iP..3ifPR' i �,ZYr, 1 ",.Tr✓ su;N"A'�}„r."' 2 STORY ADJACENT 3RD FLR TO PROPERTY LINE 2ND FLR. 2ND FLR. FUBL IC FUBL IC STREET SPACE 16T FLR. &FACE 15T FUR. LESS THAN 50' 2 STORT 3 STORY BUT 15 ' MIN BUILDING BUILDING STEPRED BUILDINGS tZ)cj c � PSI QZV a Nam ` t jY �• i' , t d J gip.:►%. . I POP sAPAI } 66 API � . . . :. ' ' ipm s y POP PP I PIP AL j r i _ ; i a "R '�� . 4 S4: �.,� ' viM:� � ��` .tom f6Y �� - ..St.`. .•>i 9a� .i. r • , ITF .•y�� , .y� /. w .SYNY e .. Pi TIT •. j. Ii. Poll A IT vp ID li 'fri � tiY t .. �,• . y t.. I -: 'S IT mi ' �jK:• . '. + � ? .v..e'n�'r... . M1-.}�-":!(�:1{ffi;:�•,;•y�^,;•�• � `- �>*i'eM1::� ," it _ ` rtor#7 �Q_ O Item 716 Amend 3 . 5 . 4 — Large Retail Establishments — to strengthen the requirement for multiple building entries and provisions for small liner shops . Works in conjunction with distributed parkinq . Problem Statement In evaluating the standards relating to large retail establishments ( retail buildings and supermarkets containing more than 25 , 000 square feet , a . k . a . " big boxes " ) , Staff would like to enhance the existing standard that requires multiple building entrances . The proposed changes are intended to place added emphasis on the relationship between multiple entrances and distributed parking . Experience with the standard has shown that the single-use big box retailer is very reluctant to provide a true second entrance that would ideally be placed conveniently along a side elevation that does not feature the main entrance but is expected to have parking or other pedestrian activity . The resistance to the standard is due to store layout ( " racetrack" ) shop-lifting control ( "shrinkage" ) and product display ( "fixturing " ) . Based on national formulaic standards , the typical result is single- use buildings with single entrances with all the congestion concentrated at one point . A true side entrance works in tandem with the requirement that no more than 50 % of the parking be placed between the front door and the street . Both multiple entrances and distributed parking are key standards that effectively mitigate the impacts related to large buildings and their associated parking , and enhance human scale aspects of urban development . Without these two standards , our award -winning big box standards would be significantly minimized . The purpose of this proposed revision offers the following clarifications : • Side entrances must now be operational . The standard clearly states that keeping an entrance closed or attaching a faux entrance would not be permitted . • Site planning is improved by offering a broader range of parking options . The "front" parking field would not be perceived as the only available parking . A side entrance served by a side parking lot mitigates the single large " sea of parking . " • The combination of multiple entrances and distributed parking brings the building closer to the street and public sidewalks and thereby reduces long walking distances . • The standard helps reduce vehicle and pedestrian congestion at one concentrated point . • Architecture is improved by creating more visual interest and articulation with an enhanced second entrance compared to a side wall with a faux or closed entrance . The mass , scale and bulk of the large building is further mitigated with a human scale element . The revised standard places added emphasis on providing operational entrances that are open during general hours of the operation ( not just seasonal garden shop entries ) , and encouraging the use of smaller retail liner shops as an approach towards compliance with the standard . Staff emphasizes that neither the existing standard nor the proposed revision attempt to regulate internal store operations . Rather, the intent is to acknowledge retail development tendencies and simply mitigate the impact on ! the urban design within our commercial centers . ` The south elevation of Harmony Village Shopping Center at College and Harmony is our best example of big box mitigation using small liner shops as satisfying the multiple entrance requirement . The Safeway downtown has liner shops along College Avenue . Circuit City is also pointed to as another example of how to meet the standard with two entrances divided between two different building elevations . The Super Wal -Mart , with a closed side entrance , is an example of a loophole in the existing standard . Proposed Solution Overview (new language in bold) Section 3 . 5 . 4(C) (3 ) (a) (a) Entrances . At least two (2) sides of a large retail establishment shall feature operational customer entrances . The two (2) required sides shall be those that are planned to have the highest level of public pedestrian activity, and one " ` of the sides one of which shall also be *'�n eh the side that most directly faces a street with pedestrian access . .The other of the two (2) sides having an operational customer entrance may face a second street with pedestrian access , and/or a main parking lot area. If the large retail establishment does not include a second side entrance that is fully operational and open to the public, then this standard shall be met by attaching smaller retail store(s) ("liner stores") to the side of the large retail establishment which is expected to generate the most pedestrian activity or which faces a public street. Such liner store(s) shall, to the extent reasonably feasible, occupy no less than thirty three (33) percent of the building elevation on which they are located and shall feature distinctive store fronts and entrances that are significantly differentiated from the large retail establishment in order to create strong identifiable entrance features. Entrances to the liner store(s) may, but need not, provide access into the large retail establishment and must be fully operational and open to customers at times that are generally equivalent to the store hours of the large retail establishment to which they are attached. All entrances, including those of the liner store(s) , shall be architecturally prominent and clearly visible from the abutting public street. (See Figure 14 .) Movie theaters are exempt from this requirement. 31 #718 Amend the definition of " Boarding and rooming house " in Section 5 . 1 . 2 by changing the term to " Large rental house " in order to more clearly illustrate the nature of this land use . Also , replace the term " boarding and rooming house " with the new term " Large rental house " in the list of permitted uses in the various zones wherein the use is allowed . Problem Statement Traditionally , the term " boarding house " or " rooming house " has been used to describe a house that is occupied by the owner of the home , who , in addition to using the home as their own personal residence , will rent out bedrooms to other individuals . Often times , the room rental will include meals prepared on the premises by the owner. The term in our code , however, is more often used to describe a home that is simply rented out to a number of individuals who are not related to each other. The owner usually doesn 't live on the premises , and the rent does not include meals . Proposed Solution Overview In order to more accurately describe the type of residential dwelling allowed in our code , staff recommends that the definition of " Rooming and boarding house " in Section 5 . 1 . 2 of the LUC be amended , and that the new term be used in place of " Rooming and boarding house " in all of the applicable permitted use lists in Article 4 of the LUC . table as follows : 5 . 1 .2 Definitions . Large, rren#al house shall mean a building or ,,. portion of which is used to accommodate , for compensation , four (4 ) or more tenants;, boarders or roomers , not including members of the occupant's immediate family who might be occupying such building . The word compensation shall include compensation in money , services or other things of value . #719 Amend the definition of child care center by replacing the words " mentally retarded " with the words " developmentally disabled " . Problem Statement In the Land Use Code , the term " mentally retarded " appears only in the definition of child care center. This term is an outdated term and should be replaced with the term "developmentally disabled " , which is a defined term , and one that is used in other sections of the Land Use Code . Proposed Solution Overview The definition of child care center should be amended as follows : 5 . 1 . 2 Definitions . Child care center shall mean a facility , by whatever name known , which is maintained for the whole or part of a day for the care of seven (7 ) or more children under the age of sixteen ( 16 ) years who are not related to the owner, operator or manager, whether such facility is operated with or without compensation for such care and with or without stated educational purposes , except that a child care center shall not include any of the following three ( 3 ) types of family care homes as defined by the State of Colorado : family child care home , infant/toddler home or experienced family child care provider home . The term includes , but is not limited to , facilities commonly known as day care centers , day nurseries , nursery schools , preschools , play groups , day camps , summer camps , large child care homes as defined by the State of Colorado , centers for mom fetarded developmentally disabled; children and those facilities which give twenty-four- hour-per-day care for dependent and neglected children . Child care centers are also those facilities for children under the age of six ( 6 ) years with stated educational purposes which are operated in conjunction with a public , private or parochial college or a private or parochial school , except that the term shall not apply to a kindergarten maintained in connection with a public , private or parochial elementary school system of at least six ( 6 ) grades . #722 Amend the definitions of " Fast Food Restaurant" and " Limited Mixed - Use Restaurant" to remove ambiguity. Problem Statement The definitions of " Restaurant , fast food11 and " Restaurant , limited mixed - use " contain descriptions and criteria of the method of operation that distinguish these two types of restaurants . One of the criteria that are found in both definitions is meaningless and should be deleted . Specifically , one of the listed characteristics for each type of restaurant allows for the consumption of food or beverages within the building , elsewhere on the premises , or for carryout . This means that it really doesn 't matter where the product is consumed . It can be consumed wherever the patron chooses . Since it doesn 't matter, then there is no point in including it as a requirement of how these types of restaurants are to operate . On occasion , customers have been confused as to the meaning of the phrase , assuming that since it' s in the two definitions , there must be a typographical error and that there must be some other meaning as to what is meant to be described Proposed Solution Overview Removing the unnecessary phrase from the two definitions in Article 5 will eliminate confusion . Therefore , the definitions of Restaurant, fast food and Restaurant, limited mixed-use should be amended as follows : 5 . 1 . 2 Definitions . Restaurant, fast food shall mean any establishment in which the principal business is the sale of food and beverages to the customer in a ready-to- consume state , and in which the design or principal method of operation includes all of the following characteristics : ( 1 ) food and beverages are usually served in edible containers or in paper, plastic or other disposable containers ; and; Festal Iran } b lilydinn elsewhere nn + he promises nr fr� r Garrvnl t ; oar! 1 VJIQ IAI QIIZ�JQTTZTI rTy��1W , 2 there is no drive- in facility as a art of the e � e {-3}- ( ) y p premises establiishment.. Restaurant, limited mixed-use shall mean any establishment in which the principal business is the sale of food and beverages to the customer in a ready- to-consume state , and in which the design or principal method of operation includes all of the following characteristics : ( 1 ) food and beverages are usually served in edible containers or in paper, plastic or other disposable containers ; testa front b � ildinn elsewhere pn the promises er fer GaFFYel it • i v .Jtu u r u r�ti-✓ u r�a�r-rc�j-c.. , (3-) (2 ' there is no drive- in or drive-through facility as a part of the establishment; the establishment is contained within or physically abuts a multi -family dwelling ; (�5) (4} the establishment is clearly subordinate and accessory to a multi -family dwelling ; ( } {5) the establishment shall not exceed one thousand five hundred ( 1 , 500 ) feet in gross leasable floor area ; q4 (6) the establishment shall not engage in serving alcohol ; and (-9) (7) the establishment shall not engage in the playing of amplified music . #723 Amend the general use category heading in Section 4 . 15 ( B ) ( 1 ) (a ) in order to clarify that the uses in this subsection are not principal residential uses . Problem Statement Section ( 13 ) ( 1 ) ( a ) of every permitted use list for each zone district is a section that lists the accessory and miscellaneous uses that are allowed in a particular zone without the need for a public hearing . Section 4 . 15 ( 13 ) ( 1 ) (a ) of the code (the CCN zone ) is no different . The uses listed in this section are indeed accessory uses . However, the heading of this particular section is mistakenly entitled " residential uses" instead of "accessory/miscellaneous uses " . The residential use heading is actually found in Section 4 . 15 ( B ) ( 1 ( e ) , and is therefore mistakenly duplicated in the CCN permitted use list . Proposed Solution Overview In order to correct this error staff recommends that Section 4 . 15 ( 13 ) ( 1 ) ( a ) of the LUC be amended as follows in order to be consistent with the use list categories of every other zone district : ( a ) Residential Uses AccessoryfMiscellaneous Use 1 . Accessory buildings . 2 . Accessory uses . Item 724 Amend 3 . 5 . 1 [C] — Building Size , Height, Bulk , Mass , Scale — by broadening the area upon which to consider similarity in massing and proportionality to now include " block face " (across the street) in addition to the block on which the building sits . Problem Statement Presently , the test for whether or not a new building is similar in size and height , or demonstrates proportional massing , to the mass and scale of other structures is restricted to other structures "on the same block . " During the consideration of recent appeal of a proposed a 21 /2 — 3 story building , however, it was revealed that while there were no similar structures on the same block , there were similar structures across the street . It seems logical that building compatibility can be found across the street in addition to on the same block . Further, the geographic area upon which to base compatibility can also be found diagonally across the street (opposing cater corner) as well as directly across the street . Blocks that are predominantly residential may still have commercial or multi- family uses along one side . For example , there are large blocks north of Prospect Road that are bounded on one side by an arterial street . Similarly , the block across the street may exhibit the same condition . Compatibility , therefore , could be achieved by buildings across the street from each other versus buildings contained in the other areas of the block . It is interesting to note that a companion piece to this proposed revision is the recent Council determination that parking issues may now be considered part of the compatibility evaluation , regardless of whether or not specific parking ratios meet the Code . Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to add " block face , opposing block face or cater corner block face " to the standard . (C) Building Size, Height, Bulk, Mass, Scale. Buildings shall either be similar in size and height, or, if larger, be articulated and subdivided into massing that is proportional to the mass and scale of other structures, if any, on the same black: face, opposing block face, or cater corner blacks face at a intersection . (See Figure 7 . ) #725 Amend Section 4 . 12 ( B ) (2 ) of the Land Use Code in order to change the term " building permit review " to " basic development review " to correct an oversight from a code change that occurred several years ago . Problem Statement The zone district regulations in Article 4 list 3 types of development review . One type is " basic development review" ( non - public hearing ), another is " administrative review" (Type 1 ) , and the third is Planning & Zoning Board review (Type 2 ) . " Basic development review" was initially called " building permit review" in the original version of the Land Use Code . Basic development review is a development process that is separate from and not associated with a building permit review . The original term of " building permit review" which was used to describe this non -public hearing process was confusing to contractors and developers . They often assumed that if a use was listed as a building permit review process , all one had to do was submit an application for a building permit to the Building Department solely for the purpose of making sure the proposed construction complied with the applicable building codes . In actuality, building permit review as set forth in the Land Use Code meant that the staff of various City departments would review the development proposal for compliance with the standards of the LUC as well as other applicable regulations . A few years ago the term " building permit review" in the zone district regulations in Article 4 was replaced with the term " basic development review" in order to alleviate this confusion . Staff recently discovered that the term had not been changed in Section 4 . 12 ( B ) (2 ) of the Downtown District . Proposed Solution Overview To correct this oversight , staff recommends that the first paragraph of Section 4 . 12 ( B ) (2 ) of the LUC be amended as follows in order to be consistent with the language contained in all of the other zone district regulations : ( B ) Permitted Uses. (2 ) The following uses are permitted in the subdistricts of the Downtown District , subject to BUildiRg DGrmi+ Basic Development { B-P--) Review , administrative (Type 1 ) Review or Planning and Zoning Board (Type 2 ) Review as specifically identified on the chart below : Item 726 Clarify Section 3 . 3 . 1 ( C ) ( 1 ) - Public Sites , Reservations and Dedications - so that all projects , not just those platting , are required to dedicate needed easements and/or rights -of-way. Problem Statement The language in the Land Use Code requiring that an applicant dedicate rights- of-way for public streets , and necessary easements appears to limit this requirement to only those projects being platted . This was brought to our attention by a development that is not platting which has challenged the City' s requirement for the development to dedicate the right-of-way for the adjacent street and the associated utility easement . If a site has already been platted , the Code does not require the project to replat . Many projects go through the development process without replatting , but still may need to dedicate rights -of- way or easements to accommodate the site or the City' s adopted plans . Clarification is also desired so that dedication maybe required as needed for streets adjacent to the development (a street the property has frontage on ) and not just roadways within the development . Proposed Solution Overview Staff recommends that Section 3 . 3 . 1 ( C ) ( 1 ) be amended to clarify that it applies to all developments and includes adjacent streets as follows : 3 . 3 . 1 ( C ) Public Sites , Reservations and Dedications . ( 1 ) An applicant shall be required to dedicate rights-of-way for public streets , drainage easements and utility easements as needed to serve the area being eve ope& and/or platted . In cases where any dart of an existing road is abutting or within the tract being developed andlor subdivided , the applicant shall dedicate such additional right-of-way as may be necessary to increase such roadway to the minimum width required under this Land Use Code for such street . Item 727 Amend Section 3 . 6 . 1 ( C ) — Compliance with Access Control Plans to acknowledge that Access Control Plans are applicable to all roadways , and not must intersections with State Highways . Such Plans remain valid for former state highways such as Harmony Road . Problem Statement The paragraph in the Land Use Code that identifies that projects need to comply with adopted access control plans does not reflect the requirements of the Harmony Road Access Control plan now that the roadway is no longer State Highway 68 . Proposed Solution Overview Staff recommends that the following changes be made to Section 3 . 6 . 1 ( C ) as follows in order to correct the oversight . ( C ) Compliance with Access Control Plans . The State Highway Access Control Code and/or any specific access control plan adepted @GGGrdiRg to that GGGIG shall determine the location of all intersections (whether of public streets or private drives or other access ways ) with state highways or Ciyty , streets; as applicable. All development plans that are adjacent to a state or federal highway shall provide the access design facilities , including supporting circulation facilities , identified within any applicable adopted access control plans , when such facilities are needed because of the development plan . In addition , all development plans that are adjacent to any street for which an access control plan has been adopted by the city shall provide the access design facilities , including supporting circulation facilities , identified within such access control plan , when such facilities are needed because of the development plan . Item 729 — Delete 3 . 6 . 2 ( L) (2 ) ( b) — Design Requirements for Private Drives — to remove an ambiguity between " private drive " and " drive aisle , " and add new clarifying language stating that the maximum length for a " private drive " is 660 feet. Problem Statement The Land Use Code utilizes defined terms which establish the context wherein a code requirement should apply . These defined terms are intended to remove confusion and ambiguity , thus promoting the universality of application for all who use the Land Use Code . There is a problem with Section 3 . 6 . 2 ( L ) ( 2 ) ( b ) as it is written because it equates a private drive with a drive aisle : A "private drive" is a defined term , see definition , Article 5 , pg . 32 . A " drive aisle" is a defined term , see definition , Article 5 , pg . 16 . There are key differences between the two . The private drive is a dedicated easement , whereas the drive aisle is not . The private drive can be named and addressed , not so with the drive aisle . A private drive is dedicated for road purposes , the drive aisle is not . This amendment provides a recognized upper limit to the length of a private drive . This upper limit is stipulated in other sections of the Code regarding length of Cul -de-sacs , connectivity standards , etc . Proposed Solution Overview Whereas a drive aisle is not equivalent to a private drive , and since these two items are defined to provide two distinct functions , these defined terms cannot be used synonymously . This section of the Code promotes confusion , and does not provide the clarity for which it is intended . Therefore , it is recommended that Section 3 . 6 . 2 ( L ) (2 ) ( b ) be deleted and replaced with the following insertion : (b) D + drives •• l, i ` h are aisles in lot l parking ,llL orLLIA . V paf1 stalls ll adjoining shall be with the parking jet /lesi d al. eor-danee JL (`yL VILE lLL K^V/V� V/�L �+.+� .�ry V lLV11 ✓ . u . .r and + the pity street standards . " Private drives which-must, comply with Section 3. 6 . 6 for emergency le access shall be limited to anoverall length of 660 feet (measured as the fire hose would lay) . , This measurement` shall begin at the intersection of the private drive with ' the public or private street: " Item 730 Amend 4 . 12 ( D ) and ( E ) , Downtown Zone — Development Standards for large buildings in the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center subdistricts , to implement the Downtown Strategic Plan by deleting the Floor-To-Area Ratio and replace with a new set of context- Based Standards relating to mass , bulk , scale and proportionality. Problem Statement Downtown zone district standards for large buildings are not effective in guiding the design and public review of large and tall buildings in the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center subdistricts . Currently, the table in 4 . 12 ( D )( 2 ) states some height and bulk standards , but those standards are poorly tailored to the area ; important issues are not covered ; and unimportant or obscure issues are emphasized ( e . g . floor area ratio and lot coverage numbers ) . Solution Overview As part of the Downtown Strategic Plan process in 2003-2004 , the issue of large and tall buildings was addressed in an extensive public process . Maximum buildings heights were determined on a block by block basis in response to differences in context , and staff drafted Land Use Code language to implement policies for shaping tall buildings , primarily regarding mass reduction with pedestrian - scale base elements , ground floor setbacks , and additional upper floor setbacks . The proposed code changes are a work in progress at this time . Item 731 Amend 3 . 5 . 1 (J ) — Operational and Physical Compatibility Standards — to add a new criterion addressing parking impacts . Problem Statement This section allows Staff and the P & Z Board to address a range of compatibility issues that may arise due to the unique attributes of any one particular project . Because all zones contain a mix of permitted uses , there are scenarios where dissimilar land uses may be in close proximity to each other . In a recent appeal of a Project Development Plan that contained a mix of residential and non - residential uses , Council expressed a concern about the impact of parking on the neighborhood . Even though the number of parking spaces complied with Section 3 . 2 . 2 ( K ) , there may be cases where issues related to parking spillover need to be addressed . Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to add a seventh compatibility criterion that addresses parking impacts . (J) Operational/Physical Compatibility Standards. The following conditions may be imposed upon the approval of development applications to ensure that new development will be compatible with existing neighborhoods and uses, including, but not limited to , restrictions on : ( 1 ) hours of operation and deliveries ; (2) location on a site of activities that generate potential adverse impacts on adjacent uses such as noise and glare ; (3 ) placement of trash receptacles ; (4) location of loading and delivery zones ; (5 ) light intensity and hours of full illumination; (6) placement and illumination of outdoor vending machines . {7 location and number of- off street parking spaces .