Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 04/24/2007 - SPRING 2007 LAND USE CODE CHANGES DATE: April 24, 2007 WORK SESSION ITEM STAFF: Ted Shepard Cameron Gloss FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL Anne Aspen SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Spring 2007 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 of 2007. The Land Use Code team encourages any questions or comments regarding any of these proposed changes. Staffs 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 prior to formal Council consideration. In the past, it has been staff s custom to highlight those proposed changes that may be considered more substantive than others. For the Spring of 2007,the Land Use Code team offers an explanation of the changes that relate to the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone and theAmended Noise and Vibration Levels in the Downtown Area. BACKGROUND 1. Item 763 — Create Uses, Density and Compatibility Standards for the Transit Oriented Development Overlay Zone. These proposed Land Use Code changes continue the work begun with the Fall 2006 Land Use Code changes,which established a Transit-Oriented Development(TOD)Overlay Zone and removed minimum parking requirements for multi-family dwellings. The TOD Overlay Zone facilitates the development of infill and redevelopment sites in areas with high multi-modal activity and transit opportunities and demonstrates to the Federal Transit Administration,the largest potential funding source for the Mason Corridor that the City is engaged in laying the land use foundation for economically vibrant transit-oriented development. The changes currently proposed include regulatory incentives to create transit-oriented developments (TODs), consistent minimum streetscape standards and building standards throughout the TOD Overlay Zone,and enhanced compatibility standards to protect existing neighboring developments. April 24, 2007 page 2 2. Item 772—Create New Noise Standards for the Downtown Cultural District. The City's noise ordinance is not well-suited to the development of downtown Fort Collins as a cultural center nor is it consistent with noise standards applied by the Federal government as well as some states and municipalities. There are many projects and programs envisioned for the downtown, in addition to the existing performance events, including the Beet Street concept,which could be jeopardized unless more realistic standards for noise impacts associated with downtown events and projects is created. Staff is working with acoustic engineers, property owners and residents to craft new regulations that will balance the need for slightly higher noise levels associated with certain public and/or non-profit activities with cultural, musical and educational value and residential livability within and surrounding the downtown area. ATTACHMENTS 1. Item 763 - Create uses, density and compatibility standards for the Transit-Oriented Development(TOD) Overlay Zone Summary. 2. Powerpoint presentation- Transit-Oriented Development(TOD) Overlay Zone. 3. Item 772 - Create New Noise Standards Pertaining to the Downtown Cultural District Summary. 4. Proposed Downtown Cultural District map. 5. Powerpoint presentation - Downtown Cultural District Noise Standards. 6. Land Use Code Issues Summaries. ATTACHMENT Item 763 — Create uses, density and compatibility standards for the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone Problem Statement In the Fall 2006 Land Use Code Change cycle, Council adopted a definition/map of Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone District to the Land Use Code. In addition to the map of the Overlay Zone, Council adopted one Land Use Code change to Section 3.2.2 (K)(1)(a), removing minimum parking requirements for multi-family housing in the TOD Overlay Zone. We promised additional standards in Spring 2007 to more comprehensively address land use planning in the TOD Overlay zone. This Land Use Code change cycle, we will present Council with additional changes to the standards directed at tilling the soil for the creation of transit- oriented development. These changes are aimed at getting the ingredients needed for successful transit-oriented development, including: • compact development, • high-quality, active and safe streetscapes, • a diversity of uses, especially mixed-use within one building, • a district orientation, and • civic spaces The Land Use Code was developed from New-Urbanism-based City Plan and contains numerous effective regulations that are supportive of Transit Oriented Development, most notably our connecting walkway standards and build-to line standards. The proposed changes include a section in the General Standards aimed at ensuring that the TOD standards apply equally across the 16 zone districts encompassed by the Overlay Zone. Most of these proposed standards come from an existing zone district standard. There are a few instances where a change makes sense for the city at large; these are proposed as Article 3— General standards. Redevelopment and infill sites along the corridor come with substantial physical and financial challenges, so the standards are drafted with regulatory incentives to assist in achieving community objectives such as compact residential and employment uses, affordable housing, and civic spaces. Standards to ensure compatibility between TODs and existing established neighborhoods and businesses are also proposed. Proposed Solution Overview • Add Section 3.10 roughly modeled after Section 3.9 Development Standards for the 1-25 Corridor, and • Add standards to general and district standards in cases where the proposed change makes sense for the entire district or City. Draft Language Ref DIVISION 3.10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR Originating # THE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) Code OVERLAY section or zone district 1 Sections: 3.10.1 Applicability and Purpose 3.10.2 Permitted Uses 3.10.3 Site Planning 3.10.4 Pedestrian Connections 3.10.5 Character and Image 2 3.10.1 Avj?Hcability and Purpose 3 (A) Applicability. These standards apply to 3.9 applications for development within the boundary of the TOD Overlay Zone. (B) Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to modify the underlying zone districts to encourage land uses, densities and design that enhances and supports transit stations such as the Mason Corridor and walking destinations such as CSU campuses and Downtown. These provisions allow for a mix of goods and services within a convenient walk of transit stations; encourage the creation of stable and attractive residential and commercial environments within the Overlay area; and provide for a desirable transition to the surrounding existing neighborhoods in addition to the standards contained elsewhere in this Land Use Code. 3.10.2 Permitted Uses Allow all uses currently allowed per zone district standards, with the possible exception of mini-storage in the C—Commercial Zone District and perhaps just on the ground level, like Denver has done. Mitigate any potential negative impacts with site and building design standards, as we have done with the College and Elizabeth McDonald's restaurants. 4 3.10.3 Site Planning 5 (b) Building Orientation. The configuration of shops CC in the TOD Overlay District shall orient primary ground-floor commercial building entrances to pedestrian-oriented streets, connecting walkways, plazas, parks or similar outdoor spaces, not to interior blocks or parking lots. Anchor tenant retail buildings may have their primary entrances from off-street parking lots; however, on-street entrances are strongly encouraged. The lot size and layout pattern for individual blocks within the TOD Overlay Zone District shall support this requirement. We need to address parcels such as Kmart and Chuck E. Cheese, which have frontage on the Corridor, College Ave. AND a major arterial. 6 (c) Minimum Building Frontage. Forty (40) )percent of CC each block side of fifty (50) percent of the total of all block sides shall consist of either building frontage, plazas or other functional open space. Consider how this would impact a future mall redevelo ment? 7 (d) Central Feature or Gathering Place. At least one CC (1) prominent or central location within each geographically distinct station area shall include a convenient outdoor open space or plaza with amenities such as benches, monuments, kiosks or public art. This feature and its amenities should be laced adjacent to a transit station where possible. 8 (e) Transition between the Station/Campus and RDR Development. Buildings or clusters of buildings shall be located and designed to form outdoor spaces (such as balconies, arcades, terraces, decks or courtyards) on the station side of the buildings and/or between buildings, as integral parts of a transition between development and the station/campus. A continuous connecting walkway (or walkway system) linking such spaces shall be developed, including coordinated linkages between separate development projects. 9 3.10.4 Streetsca a and Pedestrian Connections 10 (a) Streetscape Redevelopment activity within the RDR TOD Overlay Zone shall provide formal streetscape improvements including wide sidewalks with street trees in sidewalk cutouts with tree grates, seating and pedestrian light fixtures. Specific design details are subject to approval by the City Engineer in accordance with the design criteria for streets. 11 (b) On-street parking shall be defined by landscaped RDR curb extensions. Crosswalks will be required at intersections where there is pedestrian activity. 12 (c) Off-street parking. Where off-street parking RDR adjacent to the sidewalk is unavoidable, raised planters or low walls with foundation plantings shall be designed and constructed to screen the parking and appear as integral extensions of the building design. Materials used shall be consistent with those used in the construction of the principal building. 13 Off-street parking shall be located behind, above or below street-facing buildings. 14 (d) Pedestrian connections. In addition to a network 3.9 of streets and drives, blocks shall be connected by a system of parallel tree-lined sidewalks that adjoin the streets and drives combined with off-street connecting walkways so that there is a fully integrated and continuous pedestrian network. 15 (e) Parking Structure Design. To the extent NC/D reasonably feasible, all parking structures shall meet the following design criteria: (1) Where parking structures front streets, retail and other uses shall be required (too stringent? Certain amount of frontage? unresolved) along the ground level frontage to minimize interruptions in pedestrian interest and activity. The decision maker may grant an exception to this standard for all or part of the ground level frontage on streets with low pedestrian interest or activity. (2) Awnings, signage and architectural elements shall be incorporated to encourage pedestrian activity at the street-facing level. (3) Auto entrances shall be located and designed to minimize pedestrian/auto conflicts. (4)Parking Structure Lighting To Be Developed for under- and above- ground parking structures including standards for facade treatment, retail wrapping, back-up spaces, pedestrian safety, ventilation, car lifts stems, li tin 16 3.10.5 Character and Image. The intent of these standards is to promote transit and pedestrian supportive design while maintaining the character and image of the underlying zone district. Transit and pedestrian supportive characteristics include human- scaled building articulation and massing. visual interest and activity in the streetscape, safety-conscious design at the ground level of buildings. Corporate image may be modified. Sitespecific design. 17 (a) Articulation. Exterior building walls shall be RDR subdivided and proportioned to human scale, using offsets, projections, overhangs and recesses, in order to add architectural interest and variety and avoid the effect of a single, massive wall with no relation to human size. 18 (b) Outdoor spaces. Buildings and extensions of NC/D buildings shall be designed to form outdoor spaces such as balconies, arcades, terraces, decks and courtyards for residents' and workers' use and interaction, and to integrate development with the context to the extent reasonably feasible. 19 (c) Rooflines. Flat-roofed buildings shall feature RDR three-dimensional cornice treatment on all walls facing streets or connecting walkways or a rail at the top of wall for a useable rooftop deck above, unless the top floor is stepped back to form a usable roof terrace area(s). A single continuous horizontal roofline shall not be used on one-story buildings. Accent roof elements on towers may be used to provide articulation of the building mass. A minimum pitch of 6:12 shall be used for gable and hip roofs to the maximum extent feasible. Where hipped roofs are used alone, the minimum pitch shall be 4:12. 20 (d) Materials. All building facades must incorporate one of the following accent materials: stone, stone veneer, brick, brick veneer, stucco, wood in a manner that highlights the articulation of the massing or base and top of the building. An all brick building does not need to incorporate an accent material. 21 (e) Multiple store fronts. Buildings with multiple NC/D storefronts shall be unified though the use of architecturally compatible materials, colors, details, awnings, signage and lighting fixtures. 22 (f) Walls, fences and planters shall be designed to RDR match or be consistent with the quality of materials, the style and colors of nearby buildings. Brick, stone or other masonry may be required for walls or fence columns. 23 (g) Building Height. All buildings shall have a CC minimum height of twenty (20) feet, measured to the dominant roof line of a flat-roofed building, or the mean height between the eave and ridge on a sloped- roof building. In the case of a complex roof with different co-dominant portions, the measurement shall apply to the highest portion. All buildings shall be limited to four (4) stories unless: project is mixed-use and contains either residential or employment use: 5 stories mixed-use and qualified as affordable (10%) or residential and employment use: 6 stories mixed-use, qualified affordable and substantial outdoor amenity/ies: 7 stories. (Staff is working to establish an appropriate mechanism for this standard. This is a first attempt only) Additional stories above the fourth story of a building shall be set back at a thirty-five-degree angle measured at the intersection of the floor plane of the fourth story and the property line along the public street frontage. See Figure (which will be modified to show proper caption and 5 or 6 stories instead of 4). a a �\ No BUILD 4 AJ1IF 4"Story 33' Ap& ----- Floor Plane V Story 2'Story w 1"Story Fourth Story Setback in the Old City Center Subdistrict 24 (h) windows. Standard storefront window and door RDR, systems may be used as the predominant style of edited fenestration for buildings in the TOD Overlay Zone District as long as the building facade visually establishes and defines the building stories and establishes human scale and proportion. Minimum glazing on pedestrian oriented facades of buildings shall be 60% on ground floor, 40% on upper floors. Projects functionally unable to comply must mitigate with enhanced architectural features. 25 (i) Display windows. Ground floor retail, service and NC/D restaurant uses shall have large pane display windows. Such windows shall be framed by the surrounding wall and shall not exceed seventy-five (75) percent of the total ground level facade area. 26 PROPOSED GENERAL or MISCELLANEOUS TEXT AMENDMENTS 27 Add bold text to C Zone Purpose statement. C While some Commercial District areas may continue to meet the need for auto-related and other auto- oriented uses, it is the city's intent, especially in the Overlay Zone, that the Commercial District emphasize safe and convenient personal mobility in many forms, with planning and design that prioritizes edestrians and transit facilities. Add sections to all affected zone district standards that points to 3.10, like was done with I-25 standards. Add transit station to definition of transit facility Div 5 Change bicycle parking requirements so they are not tied to required parking since there will be no required parking in TOD Overlay zone. Change base and top standards to be more effective for typical C Zone buildings which are often wider than they are tall. Anne Aspen is working on draft language with Clark Mapes. Parking setbacks within parking structure—not resolved yet. Where service entries or parking structure entries are needed on Mason, mitigate with activity or well- articulated design standards: crown of ramp well behind sidewalk, separation of sidewalk from entry with planters or a low wall, no blank walls on either side, sidewalk continuous/break in drive surface. Signage. Implement more urban standards, like curb extensions/bulbouts, 15-foot curb radii for all intersections, required crosswalks at intersections, requiring planters or window boxes with flowering plants within two feet of building front and requiring screening of service/loading areas in back, parking structure lighting, CPTED standards for lighting and landscaping. Not resolved. Change base and top standards: Architectural detail may relate to but not necessarily mimic traditional building details, such as pilasters and belt courses to establish a human-scale vocabulary. Detail patterns may also relate to the inherent formal qualities of architectural structural systems. Create standards for street amenities such as newspaper corrals, kiosks, benches, trash receptacles, bike racks for visual guality and consistency Cityof Foxy �:, s Spring 2007 Land Use Code Changes Transit- Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay Zone What is Transit- Oriented Development (TOD ) ? ■ TOD is development that supports and is supported by a transit facility or area with a high degree of multi-modal travel, such as : ■ Mason Corridor (future BRT, auto, bike, pedestrian) ■ Downtown (Mason Corridor, auto, pedestrian, bike) ■ CSU Main Campus (auto, bike, pedestrian) Ingredients for successful TODs : ■ compact development, ■ district orientation, ■ diversity of uses , especially mixed-use within one building, ■ priority on pedestrians and ■ ample civic spaces . r ri Existing NE corner of Drake and McClelland P� - s . . r 4. ..� Photo- simulation of the same corner with TOD (hypothetical) Wawa, ��� If Future Penny Flats development (under construction at Maple and Mason Streets) i Vol Awl l Future Penny Flats project looking along mid-block pedestrian spine Benefits of Transit- Oriented Developments (TODs ) ■ Developments with diverse uses , convenience generate transit ridership ; ■ Transit ridership enhances the businesses and residential developments along the corridor. ■ This symbiotic relationship spells economic vitality and sustainability for the community. Transit- Oriented Development (TOD ) Overlay Zone BACKGROUND ■ Implement policies re: redevelopment and infill ■ Acknowledge areas of high multi-modal transportation in our regulations ■ Downtown, Campus, along future Mason Corridor Transit- Oriented Development (TOD ) Overlay Zone BACKGROUND ■ Continue efforts from Fall 2006 ■ Till the soil for Mason Corridor success Existing Land Use Code Standards ■ The Land Use Code : ■ was developed from New-Urbanism-based City Plan, ■ contains numerous effective regulations that are TOD supportive, most notably: ■ connecting walkway standard and ■ build-to line standard. Fall 2006 Land Use Code Changes ■ Established a TOD Overlay Zone map . ■ Eliminated minimum parking requirements for multi- family residences in the Overlay. Parking I n these areas does not go away, but is dictated by market demand, not greenfields development standards . . . Overlay all wt �uIIII �7 7 IYr . � Y I '�illlh:r' .�„■�■Y �iirl\1�1;IJ1 Proposed Spring 2007 Land Use Code Changes ■ What changes can we make in the Land Use Code to facilitate the creation of TODs ? ■ Identify and remove remaining greenfields-type standards in Overlay, ■ Encourage the creation of compact mixed-use developments with regulatory incentives, ■ Promote high-quality streetscape standards throughout the TOD Overlay, and ■ Ensure compatibility with existing neighborhoods . t _ .. • �°`' r it �_. _ t ; ►� _ Zrw m Wjjj it Oki ^. - _- CEmw! lLe Bement OrvuY- _ T - Abdhaf� ,\ a " • I SYM 5 I ' I\fit '• • •- I xiil _ '11Y3 ail r � • •gam � - _ 1� 1 � IA•111 Kim I�C711 ' J xa•_ 1111'l i lls5i I 11119 �1J — _11�1� �7 iic ==ar1�4� ' nl4 FFI— -- mow a IIIOFr=:I?i� �:✓/�.`T���ii1��':. Ipltt[.e /fir I PAW 6 odm� w �LC Wk Y �QII Commercial Zone District ■ Only true commercial corridor in City ■ Has the most allowable uses ■ Has the least stringent design standards ■ Tends to be the most auto-oriented How do we encourage TODs without altering the commercial nature of this area? How can we encourage a pedestrian-orientation without recreating downtown? Code Change Highlights ■ Enhance streetscape standards in C— Commercial Zone, Code Change Highlights ■ Enhance streetscape standards in C— Commercial Zone, ■ Allow height increases above 4- story limit if project is mixed-use and includes targeted uses such as residential, affordable housing, employment and/ or extra design elements such as plazas or pocket parks , and Code Change Highlights ■ Enhance streetscape standards in C— Commercial Zone, ■ Allow height increases above 4- story limit if project is mixed-use and includes targeted uses such as residential, affordable housing, employment and/ or extra design elements such as plazas or pocket parks , and ■ Promote compatibility with upper level setback standards and design quality standards . Outreach Efforts ■ Wide Public Outreach meetings on March 81h and March 14th at the Senior Center in collaboration with the Mason Corridor project, ■ Met with local auto dealers on March 20'1'5 ■ Focused meetings with impacted citizens including developers on April 11 , neighbors and business owners (TBA) . Considerations ■ Is the Overlay Zone boundary in the right place? ■ What changes would you like to see to the Land Use Code to encourage TODs ? ■ Do you approve of the idea of regulatory I ncentives ? ■ Any concerns with how we are proceeding? Next Steps ■ Continue focused outreach meetings (neighbors and business owners) . ■ Incorporate suggestions . ■ Finalize draft language . ■ Present to Planning and Zoning Board. ■ Bring final language and P&Z recommendation to Council for 2 readings in June . Item 772 Create New Noise Standards Pertaining to the Downtown Cultural District Problem Statement.- The City' s noise ordinance is not well -suited to the development of downtown Fort Collins as a cultural center nor is it consistent with noise standards applied by the Federal government as well as some states and municipalities . In many instances , existing noise levels do not comply with the present ordinance . Background noise associated with train horns , industrial operations , truck and vehicle traffic , and other street activities violate the standards on a regular basis . Many successful downtown events , such as New West Fest , Tour de Fat , Sustainability Fair, and open air performances at the Oak Street Plaza , Justice Center and Lincoln Center , which operate under a special event permit , are also non -compliant . Under the present standards , music—offered at all the outdoor events above—is further penalized by a five decibel reduction , going as low as 55 decibels at the boundary of non - residential properties and 50 decibels at the boundary of residential properties . For comparison purposes , the following normal , everyday activities all exceed the 50 decibel level : television noise , conversation , interior office noise and dogs barking . In addition , most Federal noise standards ( including those adopted by HUD for residential uses ) utilize a more reasonable day- night average in measuring noise . There are many projects and programs envisioned for the downtown , in addition to the existing events , which further the mission for downtown as a cultural center , including the Beet Street concept , which could be jeopardized unless more realistic standards for noise impacts associated with downtown events and projects is created . Proposed Solution Overview.- Create an opportunity for slightly higher noise levels associated with certain public and/or non - profit activities within the Downtown area with cultural , musical and educational value provided that mitigation efforts are employed . The proposed change departs from the standard " nuisance -type " regulations toward a more performance- based analysis of sound generating uses and activities . Code Change : 3 . 4 . 4 Noise and Vibration (A) General Standard. The proposed land uses and activities shall be conducted so that any noise generated on the property will not violate the noise regulations contained in the City' s Noise Control Ordinance ( Chapter 20 , Article II of the City Code ) , and so that any vibration created by the use of the property will be imperceptible without instruments at any point along the property line . Noise generated by emergency vehicles and airplanes are exempted from the requirements of this provision . ( B ) Downtown Cultural District Standards. In the Downtown Cultural District area shown in Figure I , the requirements of paragraph A shall be met to the maximum extent feasible , but under no circumstance shall noise levels exceed XX dBA at the property line or YY Ldn equivalent of the noise generating property within said area . This exception from the general standard is available only for publicly sponsored or supported events , or events sponsored or supported by bonafide non - profit organizations . Techniques shall be implemented to reach compliance with the general standard to the maximum extent feasible , utilizing , by way of example , and not limited to the following : 1 . Noise attenuating structures , including , but not limited to walls , berms , landscaping or some combination ; 2 . Facility placement and orientation ; 3 . Other acoustic design techniques aimed at reducing noise levels ; 4 . Limited hours of operation. ATTACHMENT L - • t ` ' LEEM Vartme Pa ar ' DR 1 ciRL ba:$roA - �x F SYCAMORE ST P �" * f`pLo FORT COLLIN.. YDITCH CHF_RRYST Scienc � _/ -- - _ e teT"iI our de Fat/ rn al Y` Susl'a bility- 0 Fair p O rW - O MAPLE ST O� _ ? WA.SHINGTON PARK Oxbow GG 3 w Facility z 2: C iv, H,:11 Z w D > JEFFERSON STREET PARK y 0f6ccs BUCKINGHAM PARK 1.9 6 ,...APORTE AVE WO z w 1 a . ......_ Ilev,14, 3 O j 1 eaghhur,:r+,It z w u Urtl(i / Of11,e� TRIMBL t IoNnT �Sp GO" Square W MOUNTAIN,AVE EMOUNTAIN AVE y N 1 f1 e�u�-r In;ilLlrra W W OAK ST P E OAK b I 3; Oak st"O �. �JO m !'Ivza LIBRARY PARK m rJ z v' W OLIVE sT h E OLIVE ST F m w Mason Infrll Area f W INAGN<?LIA ST w k E MAGNOLIA ST ¢ W Q W Q z W ti = o Eastside y o 31,"' I. J i Neighborhood w J J W MULBERRY ST 0 w E MULBERRY ST o r N Ir In Vi 5 W f C, In W MYRTLE ST E MYRTLE ST c d n i v� v� W LAUREL ST E LAUREL ST Proposed Downtown Cultural District Downtown Core Neighborhoods Major Activity Areas N Transition Area ; : Parks �•—•-+ Noise District 4/16/2007 �,•� i 800' Notice Area 1 inch: 800 feet mum Noise Standards What is Beet Street ? Modeled after Chautauqua , N . Y . , Beet S desig to create lectual , c ural , recreational and educational progra g " that fosters jobs and drives economic g rowth . What is Beet Street ? Beet Stree Iso builds on what' s already i , Collins , including the Museu ontemporary Arts , Bas u T , Po River Arts Center, Nonesu heatre and the Li J / l r 11 aiE ukp attl r -I, e rwll— 74 7 17111 __F' -� �' E1Y610M LM y cwLTEw ar -. _� ybF�rwcT srtFAsr MCFORY ST COMEERS- F OCAST o r PWOFST a lS Ca 4y 4q _.._...._.. w f)qy SSr T �, t WIF6T ' ,U JE NFL OR L'CFE0.FY 5 -JUCMNfJV�Y ST y ^ = V PTE3 t �' .AroRTc . z y44 ,,y� u. • �.� ` . . w MOUNT vE •<q +`� fv .� X xo:F sr » s v E "F OLN ; W � EOWE9i i ` \\ CV.OIgW 6i a F EMULBERRVST •. 1I • . ..•.••�MEIOFRO m _ 1 ERd1TA"M V.'VYRTL SI $ EMYItILE ST k 6 A.", _ /• LA"EL ST ELAURLL ST W✓ i j _S E PLUM ST • eµy LOCUSTS Enq _-vN qO E - P4BET4 ST Proposed Downtown Cultural District a .E _:.. ONoise Distrct Males Anv4y Areas 1 •ICh 1400feel ODA District • Sound The de Is measureJJ !Jll � � 1 � 1i � . -20 level . .20 60 80 Decibels ' - increase ® Broadband noise decreasing by 3 dR step.. exponentially The image above shows increases of only dBA per step. 3 Standards Resid N - Residential 5 dBA imum Ldn ) stands for Day- Ni ht Avera e o Lev d is uto de , � e the cwla ✓e noise exposure during an average day . JL-imMes an increase of 10 i added to night noise levels . This i one to account for people's increased sensitivity to noise at n - 1 " - " • ry " lam • rd .-jffiE) ill r • - - • • tl r J �1, r Unweighted db vs _ LON 70 so so so 50 ao 40 a 3D 30 LDN 20 , 0 0 yvsnsght - /Nb wajii , r ju ,yvsMulti Noise Violations 11 " Unreasonable DeckLevel Noise - Aeasura Su � � rrl �1 � rl� • ' c i El Enffo rcetdl by ighborhood Police Services D - R I �Jrrtr � tlr 5 CO e Ne Open House Direct Mail Notification for Impacted Properties ( 800 - 1 , 0 0 f et) from Do wn Cultur is oundary Door-to - Door Canvassi Heavily Impacted Neigh p nl � � / l r �i aid IF arl e rwl�l- 74 7 17111 __F' ri F) • • rrj r r : • • Elr Li - • • " rtl � ' • r I�Jprj P !1JI ) ',J • r r � • t � t � • - - ' � ;� � Jcl v 7 ATTACHMENT Land Use Code Issues Monday,April 16,2007 Issue ID# Issue Name 689 Amend L-M-N 4.5(B)(3)[c]4.to allow"artisan, photography studios and galleries" as permitted uses which are not part of an neighborhood center in addition to'offices,financial services,clinics." Add a definition. Works with Item 774. 761 Amend 1.4.9[C](2)in order to clearly define the meaning of"or"&"and/or"to avoid confusion. 762 Amend 2.2.11(13)(3)-Term of Vested Right-to decrease from 5 to 3 years the timeframe by which the Director estimates a developer may complete all engineering improvements in order to allow an extended term for large base industry. 763 Create uses,density,and compatibility standards for the Transit Overlay Zone. 764 Amend 3.8.7-Signs-to clarify"height above grade." 767 Amend 5.1.2-Definition of Restaurant-Drive-in-to clarify the distinction beween a drive-in and drive- through restaurant. 768 Amend 5.1.2-Definition of Signs-by adding"political subdivisions"to the list of which entities can display flags without being subject to the banner regulations. 769 Amend 4.16(D)(5)(e)-Downtown Development Standards-Building Design-to require the exterior materials used along the street be consistently applied for the full height of the building along street-facing facades in the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center. 770 Amend 4.16(E)(2)-Downtown Site Design-to require ground floor civic space for buildings that exceed four stories in the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center sub-districts. 771 Clarify NCL,NCM&NCB zones that Type I review is required for both new and existing detached accessory building(remodels)that have existing or proposed W&S service. 772 Create new noise standards pertaining to the downtown cultural district. 773 Allow the granting and vacations of easements to be authorized administratively by the Director versus P&Z Board as is current practice. 774 Delete 4.5(D)(4)-LMN Land Use Standards-Other Nonresidential Development-to allow'offices,financial services and clinics"to be located outside an established neighborhood center. Works with Item 689. 775 Amend 14 zones Permitted Use List-Mixed-Use Dwelling Units-to delete the word"units"to remove an unintended consequence that associates the term to a definition that makes it more difficult to gain approval. 776 Amend 2.9.4(F)(2)-Notice for Rezonings of Less Than 640 Acres-to change the notice requirement from 7 to 14 days. 777 Add to H-M-N-Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence-as this was inadvertently omitted in Fall of 2006. And move the use from Accessory to Residential in the permitted use list in 5 zones to correct an error. Monday,April 16,2007 Page 1 of I Item 689 Amend L -M - N 4 . 5 ( 113 ) ( 3 ) ( c )4 . to allow " artisan and photography studios and galleries " as permitted uses which are not part of a neighborhood center. This would be in addition to " offices , financial services and clinics . " And add a definition accordingly . Works with Item 774 , Problem Statement The L- M - N zone district allows for a limited amount of non - residential land uses to serve the neighborhood . Such uses are intended to be fully integrated into the neighborhood and provide services that are within walking or biking distance of the residents . A variety of permitted non - residential uses in the L- M - N are to be located , first , within designated " neighborhood centers , " and , second , outside a " neighborhood center , " but only if there is an established " neighborhood center. " An L- M - N neighborhood center is allowed to include , among other uses , " offices , financial services and clinics , " subject to Administrative Review (Type One ) . An L- M - N neighborhood center is also allowed to include , among other uses , " artisan and photography studios and galleries , " subject to Planning and Zoning Board Review (Type Two ) . But , the permitted uses allowed , which are not specifically contained within a neighborhood center, and only if a neighborhood center is established , are currently restricted to only "offices , financial services and clinics . " Staff has received inquiries and proposals for "artisan and photography studios and galleries " that desire to move into existing houses along arterial streets in areas where there is no clearly defined and established neighborhood center. Further , there is presently no definition for this proposed use even though it is allowed , but only in an established neighborhood center . Staff finds that these are valid land uses that could have a positive impact on the infill and redevelopment of these L- M - N neighborhoods . Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to add " artisan and photography studios and galleries " as an allowable use in the L- M - N zone district that may be located outside a neighborhood center. In addition , a definition for such a use is provided . Code Change Section 4 . 5 ( B ) (3 ) (c)4 . Offices , financial services , aPA clinics , photography studios and galleries which are not part of a neighborhood center . Section 5 . 1 . 2 Artisan and Photography Studios and Galleries shall mean the workshop or studio of an artist , craftsperson , sculptor, photographer , primarily used for onsite production of unique custom goods involving the use of hand tools , small -scale equipment , which may include accessory gallery and incidental sales on an infrequent basis . Item 761 Amend 1 . 4 . 9 ( C ) (2 ) in order to clearly define the meaning of " or" & " and/or" to avoid confusion . Problem Statement Section 1 . 4 . 9 ( C ) ( 2 ) defines the word " or" to mean that the connected words or provisions may apply singly or in any combination . Section 1 . 4 . 9 ( C ) ( 1 ) defines the word " and " to indicate that all connected words or provisions apply . Then , throughout the Land Use Code , we use the term " and /or" . Our intention in using the term " and /or" is to indicate that the connected words or provisions may apply singly or in any combination . Therefore , the word " or" is sufficient to convey that meaning and the words "and/or" create confusion in the mind of the reader . Proposed Solution Amend Section 1 . 4 . 9 ( C ) (2 ) to read as follows : "Or" or "and/or" indicates that the connected words or provisions may apply singly or in any combinations . Item 762 Amend 2 . 2 . 11 ( 113 ) ( 3 ) — Term of Vested Right — to decrease from 5 to 3 years the timeframe by which the Director estimates a developer may complete all engineering improvements in order to allow an extended term for large base industry . Problem Statement Section 2 . 2 . 11 ( D ) ( 3 ) provides for a three year term of vested right except that a longer term of vested right may be reached by agreement if, among other things , the director determines that it will likely take more than five years to complete all engineering improvements . The reference to five years is erroneous and should have been three years . Otherwise , there is a gap between the three year term of vested right and the commencement of a five year term . Changing the number from five to three closes that gap . Proposed Solution Amend Section 2 . 2 . 11 ( D ) ( 3 ) to read as follows : ( 3 ) Term of Vested Right . Within a maximum of three ( 3 ) years following the approval of a final plan or other site specific development plan , the applicant must undertake , install and complete all engineering improvements (water , sewer , streets , curb , gutter , street lights , fire hydrants and storm drainage ) in accordance with city codes , rules and regulations . The period of time shall constitute the "term of the vested property right . " The foregoing term of the vested property right shall not exceed three ( 3 ) years unless : (a ) an extension is granted pursuant to paragraph (4 ) of this subsection , or ( b ) the city and the developer enter into a development agreement which vests the property right for a period exceeding three ( 3 ) years . Such agreement may be entered into by the city only if the subject development constitutes a " large base industry" as defined in Article 5 , or if the Director determines that it will likely take more than five / F \+�(3) years to complete all engineering improvements for the development , and only if warranted in light of all relevant circumstances , including , but not limited to , the size and phasing of the development , economic cycles and market conditions . Any such development agreement shall be adopted as a legislative act subject to referendum . Failure to undertake and complete the development within the term of the vested property right shall cause a forfeiture of the vested property right and shall require resubmission of all materials and re -approval of the same to be processed as required by this Land Use Code . All dedications as contained on the final plat shall remain valid unless vacated in accordance with law . • #764 Amend the definition of " grade " in Section 5 . 1 . 2 in order to clarify how the height of a sign is determined . Problem Statement The sign code regulates the maximum height allowed for freestanding signs based on the height above grade . Grade is defined in Article 5 as the elevation of the centerline of the street at the center of the property for the purpose of measuring signs. Since freestanding signs are primarily designed to attract the attention of motorists using the adjacent street , the code designates the street as the basis for measuring the height of signs . Additionally , the street is used as the basis for height rather than the ground underneath the sign because the height of the street can ' t be artificially raised by the property owner . If the ground underneath the sign were to be used as the basis instead of the street , then a 12 ' tall sign placed on a 6 ' tall berm would still only be considered a 12 ' tall sign . Thus , the property owner would legally be able to have a 12 ' tall sign structure that ends up being 18 ' tall when considered in relation to the street . Additionally , using the elevation of the centerline of the street at the center of the property can be problematic . For instance , if a lot has 400 ' of street frontage , the code requires that the sign height is based on the elevation of the center of the street at the center of the property , even though the sign might actually be located 200 ' further down the street and at a point where the elevation of the street closest to the sign may be several feet lower than it is at the middle of the property . Thus , a sign that is 15 ' tall when measured at the street elevation nearest the sign is in actuality only a 12 ' tall sign when compared to the street elevation 200 ' away at the center of the property , and would be allowed even though it exceeds the maximum allowed height of 12 . Proposed Solution Overview Since the intent of the code is to regulate the height of a sign as it relates to the elevation of the travel lane of the street near the sign , staff recommends that the definition of " Grade " in Section 5 . 1 . 2 of the LUC be amended as follows : 5 . 1 . 2 Definitions . Grade shall mean the elevation of the e.tap � r'cr�rne Af the str . e+c-� Center of the nropert edge of the paved surface of the street at the closest point to the sign for the purpose of measuring the height of signs . • #767 Amend 5 . 1 . 2 — Definition of Restaurant, Drive - in — to clarify the distinction between a drive - in and drive -through restaurant . Problem Statement A drive - in restaurant is a restaurant in which food or beverages are served directly to the customer without the need for the customer to exit the motor vehicle . This can be accomplished in two ways . 1 ) A restaurant employee ( car hop ) may take the food or beverages to the customer' s parked car and then the customer usually consumes the items in the car while it remains parked on the premises ( aka drive- in ) , or 2 ) the restaurant employee delivers the food or beverages to the customer through a drive- up window and then the customer usually drives away and consumes the items elsewhere ( aka "drive -thru ) . Both of these methods of operation are defined in Article 5 by the term " restaurant , drive- in " . Users of the Land Use Code have contacted us on numerous occasions wondering why we allow drive - in restaurants but not drive -thru restaurants . They read the code and mistakenly think that there is a difference between a drive- in restaurant and a drive-thru restaurant . Proposed Solution Overview Our code intends that a drive- in restaurant is any establishment in which the manner of serving food to customers includes either of the above- described methods . In order to clarify that the term ` drive - in restaurant ' also applies to ` drive-thru restaurant' , staff recommends that the existing definition be amended to include an alternative name , and that a new definition for ` drive -thru restaurant' be added that refers to the existing definition . This is similar to how we have dealt with other terms in Article 5 that are known by two names . 5 . 1 . 2 Definitions . Restaurant, drive-in i ru) shall mean any establishment in which the principal business is the sale of foods and beverages to the customer in a ready-to-consume state and in which the design or principal method of operation of all or any portion of the business is to allow food or beverages to be served directly to the customer in a motor vehicle without the need for the customer to exit the motor vehicle . Restaurant, drive-thru. See Restaurant, drive-in. • #768 Amend 3 . 8 . 7 ( N ) of the sign code in order to add flexibility for the purpose of allowing the display of non -commercial banners during community events . Problem Statement The banner regulation in the sign code allows established businesses to display banners for up to 20 days per calendar year . New businesses , during the first year of operation , and non - profit organizations are allowed an additional 20 days per year . As currently written , a business must obtain a banner permit in order to display a non -commercial banner or pennant which promotes an event of community interest , and the number of days for which the banner is to be displayed counts towards the business ' s annual allotment . Since these types of banner displays count against the number of days allowed , many businesses choose not to use up their banner days to promote community events or celebrations . They would rather use their days for the purpose of promoting their own business . Therefore , many community events are not promoted or celebrated . Proposed Solution Overview Staff believes that building community spirit and involvement is an important policy that the City should help foster. Finding ways for businesses and organizations to promote and celebrate events such as back-to-school , high school and college graduations , and home football games is crucial to furthering that policy . Therefore , staff recommends that Section 3 . 8 . 7 ( N ) of the Land Use Code be amended as follows in order to allow businesses and organizations the ability to display non -commercial banners in a way which will not subtract from their ability to use their banner days to promote their own business . The proposed amendment requires that the City Manager determine which community events and times would qualify for the additional days . ( N ) Banners and Pennants. ( 1 ) Banners and pennants are allowed in any zone district , provided a permit is obtained from the Director . Apy-Except Wrovid ubsection ( below , permittees shall be entitled to redisplay banners or pennants for not more than twenty (20 ) days per calendar year except that an additional twenty (20 ) days per calendar year shall be allowed for non - profit organizations , and for new businesses during the first year of operation . The Director shall issue a permit for the use of banners and pennants only in locations where such banners and pennants will not cause unreasonable annoyance or inconvenience to adjoining property owners or other persons in the area and on such conditions as deemed necessary to protect adjoining premises and the public . The maximum size allowed for any one banners is forty (40 ) square feet . No more than one ( 1 ) banner may be displayed at any one time on each street that fronts the parcel of land on which the establishment requesting the permit is located ; provided , however, that multiple banners may be displayed on a single street if the aggregate square footage of such banners does not exceed forty (40 ) square feet . All banners and pennants shall be removed on or before the expiration date of the permit . If any person , business or organization erects any banners or pennants without receiving a permit , as herein provided , the person , business or organization shall be ineligible to receive a permit for a banner or pennant for the remainder of the calendar year . (2) Although , in accordance with subsection ( 1 ) above , banners or pennants may generally be displayed for a limited number of days per calendar year, non -commercial banners and pennants may also be displayed for additional periods of time established by the City Manager during community events that , in the judgment of the City Manager, advance a goal or policy of the City Council and contribute to the health , safety or welfare of the City . Item 769 Amend 4 . 16 ( D ) ( 5 ) (e ) — Downtown Development Standards — Building Design — to require the exterior materials used along the street be consistently applied for the full height of the building along street-facing facades . Problem Statement In the Fall of 2006 , Council passed new height restrictions , on a block- by- block basis in the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center sub -districts of the Downtown zone . The analysis of the issue revealed that the regulatory criteria that pertain to the quality of a building ' s exterior may not be as clear and direct as intended . Staff is particularly concerned that the regulations regarding street-facing facades of downtown buildings may be ambiguous and should be clarified . The purpose is to make sure that quality exterior materials are used for the full height of the building along the street-facing facades . Proposed Solution The proposed solution is add clarification language so that quality exterior materials are used for the full height , not partial height , along all street-facing facades . Code Change Section 4 . 16 ( D ) ( 5 ) ( e ) All street-facing facades shall be constructed with quality exterior materials for the full height of the building . Materials , with the exception of glazing , shall include stone , brick , clay units , terra cotta , architectural pre -cast concrete , cast stone , and pre -fabricated brick panels and architectural metals , or any combination thereof. Material modules , other than glazing systems , shall not exceed either five feet horizontally or three feet vertically without the clear expression of a joint . (Architectural metals shall mean metal panel systems , either coated or anodized , metal sheets with expressed seams , metal framing systems , or cut , stamped or cast ornamental metal panels . Not included in this definition are ribbed or corrugated metal panel systems . Item 770 Amend 4 . 16 ( E ) ( c) — Downtown Site Design Standards — to require ground floor civic space for buildings that exceed four stories in the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center sub -district . Problem Statement In the Fall of 2006 , Council passed new height restrictions , on a block- by- block basis in the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center sub -districts of the Downtown zone . There is a concern that taller buildings in these sub -districts may be allowed without the benefit of providing ground floor open space available to the public along the sidewalk . Such provision of either active or passive open space provides a human scale to tall buildings and promotes an attractive urban environment . As proposed , this criterion would not apply to buildings that are three stories or less . Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to add a criterion in the two affected sub-districts that require either active or passive open space but only for buildings that are four stories or taller . Code Change Section 4 . 16 ( E ) (2 ) For buildings located within the Canyon Avenue and Civic Center sub -districts that are four stories or taller , there shall be provision of ground floor open space organized and arranged to promote both active and passive activities for the general public . Such space must be highly visible and easily accessible to the public . In addition , such space must include a variety of features that provide a proportional relationship between and individual and the environment , whether natural or manmade , and is comfortable , intimate , and contributes to the individual ' s sense of accessibility . • #771 — Clarify NCL , NCM & NCB zones so that : 1 ) Type 1 review is required for both new and existing detached accessory buildings ( remodels ) that have existing or proposed water and sewer service and , 2 ) the entire floor area of the ground floor of an accessory building counts regardless of ceiling height . Problem Statement The NCL , NCM and NCB district regulations were amended in 2004 in order to more adequately address the issue of alley-oriented development in the old town neighborhoods . Staff has found that a couple of the new regulations should be amended to clarify the language and close loopholes . 1 ) Accessory Building Review . One of the adopted regulations requires new alley houses and new detached , accessory buildings with habitable space (water and/or sewer service ) to be subject to a Type 1 public hearing process . This process was put in place in order to address adjacent property owner' s frustration in their lack of meaningful input with respect to rear lot development . The wording of the new regulation with regards to detached , accessory buildings can be interpreted in such a way that only new accessory buildings with water and/or sewer service are considered to have habitable space and are subject to a Type 1 review . This interpretation would mean that existing detached , accessory buildings which already contain water and/or sewer service or for which the owner desires to add water and/or sewer service are currently not considered to be "accessory buildings with habitable space" . Therefore , proposals to remodel such buildings or to add water and /or sewer service are not subject to a Type 1 review , rather they are subject only to a non - public hearing building permit review . Staff believes that the intent of the 2004 amendment is that all accessory buildings with water and/or sewer service should be considered to be buildings that contain habitable space , regardless of whether or not the building is a new building or an existing building . Adding water and/or sewer to an existing accessory building basically results in changing the use of the building from an accessory building without habitable space to an accessory building with habitable space . The end product is the same whether the building is a new building or an older building and such a change of use of an existing accessory building should be subject to the same type of review as a proposal for a new one . Without clarifying the language , it' s currently possible for someone to obtain a permit to construct a new accessory building without water and/or sewer, complete the building , and then apply for a new permit to add water and / or sewer to this " existing " building — and thereby circumvent the Type 1 public hearing that is required for a new accessory building with water and /or sewer . 2 ) Floor area of the ground floor : The 2004 code revisions established a maximum size limit for detached , accessory buildings in the NCL , NCM and NCB zones of 600 square feet (total allowed for all floor levels combined ) . The adopted regulation contains a description of what is to be counted as floor area in such buildings . Specifically , the Code states that "Floor area shall include all floor space (including basement space) within the building having a ceiling height of at least 7 % feet". As currently written , any area in an accessory building with a ceiling height of less than 7 '/2 feet does not count towards the 600 square feet of allowed floor area . This has resulted in cases where an applicant proposes a 2 -story accessory building containing a 600 square foot garage with a ceiling height of 7 ' 5 '/2" on the ground level and an additional 600 square feet of space on the second level with a ceiling height of at least 7 '/2 ' . The area of the ground level garage doesn ' t count because of the imperceptible '/2 inch lower ceiling , and therefore this building is allowed even though the perceived floor area of the building is really 1200 square feet instead of 600 square feet . Rewording this regulation so that the wording is the same as is set forth in how to calculate the allowed floor area of an alley house would close this loophole by counting the entire floor area of the ground floor regardless of the ceiling height . Proposed Solution Overview Staff recommends that subsection ( 3 ) of Sections 4 . 7 ( D ) , 4 . 8 ( D ) , and 4 . 9 ( D ) of the NCL , NCM and NCB regulations be amended as shown in order to clarify that new and existing accessory building with water and /or sewer are treated the same and that the floor area of accessory buildings includes the entire ground floor regardless of ceiling height . (3 ) Accessory Buildings With Habitable Space (or Potential Future Habitable Space) . Any new or existing accessory building with water and /or sewer service shall be considered to have habitable space . An applicant may also declare an intent for an accessory building to contain habitable space . Any such structure containing habitable space that is proposed to be located behind a street-fronting principal building shall contain a maximum of six hundred (600 ) square feet of floor area . Floor area shall include all floor space ding basement space ) within the buildiRg basement and ground floor plus that pqrtion of the floor area of anvsecond stnry having a ceiling height of at least seven and one-half (7'/2) feet . Such accessory building may be located in any area of the rear portion of a lot , provided that it complies with the setback requirements of this District and there is at least a ten -foot separation between structures . Item 773 Amend 2 . 1 . 5 — Dedications and Vacations —Authorize the Director to approve the dedication and vacation of public easements instead of the Planning and Zoning Board . Problem Statement.- The Land Use Code and City Code require that the Planning and Zoning Board function as the decision maker authorized to consider stand -alone ( not included within a concurrent development plan ) requests to vacate or dedicate public easements . Bringing easement dedication and vacation requests to the Board for consideration takes substantial effort , but with no gain to the general public . Staff must prepare a report and associated documents in order for the Board to take action . The Planning and Zoning Board expends time at monthly worksessions and at hearings considering the staff- prepared documentation . The requests have been routine and non -controversial --over the past 10 years , the Planning and Zoning Board has approved all 293 easement dedication/vacation requests under consideration , each of which appeared on the Consent agenda . Proposed Solution Overview.- Authorize the Director to approve stand -alone requests to dedicate or vacate public easements instead of the Planning and Zoning Board . The Planning and Zoning Board would continue to be authorized to consider easement dedications and vacations if evaluating a concurrent development plan application . Requests to vacate public right-of- way ( as opposed to easements) would continue to be evaluated at the discretion of City Council . Code Change . 2 . 1 . 5 Dedications and Vacations Dedication of streets , easements and other rights-of-way as laid out on plats or as otherwise described in deeds of dedication , whether on or off the site of a specific planning item that is subject to Planning and Zoning Board review , shall be accepted by the Planning and Zoning Board in accordance with Section 2 - 353 (4 ) of the City Code , provided that such dedication is made necessary by the approval of such planning item . The Board shall also have the authority to vacate easements and other rights-of-way , but not to include streets and alleys , by resolution or by approval of plats ( or replats ) containing notation of such vacation . Dedication of streets , easements and other rights-of-way as laid out on plats or otherwise described in deeds of dedication , whether on or off the site of a specific planning item that is subject to administrative review ( including Basic Development Review ) , shall be accepted by the Director , provided that such dedication is made necessary by the approval of such planning item . With regard en* either to a specific planning item that is subject to administrative review , the Director shall also have the authority to vacate easements and other rights-of-way , but not to include streets and alleys , by resolution or by approval of plats (or replats ) containing notation of such vacation . Item 774 Delete L - M - N 4 . 5 ( D ) (4) — Land Use Standards - Other Nonresidential Development — to allow offices , financial services and clinics to be located outside a neighborhood center without the neighborhood center first having been established . Works with Item 689 . Problem Statement Currently , the standard requires that in the L- M - N district , certain non - residential land uses may be permitted but only if a neighborhood center is established . The original intent of the standard was to promote non - residential uses to locate within neighborhood centers and not allow a random dispersal of such uses that would have the effect of diminishing the opportunity for successful neighborhood centers . Staff has found that the issue of isolated non - residential land uses being proposed in a manner and pattern that would preclude a neighborhood center has not manifested itself since the adoption of the Land Use Code in 1997 . In researching this issue , Staff has found that there are two general types of L- M - N development . The first is found on the perimeter of the city in new projects such as Rigden Farm , Observatory Village , Harvest Park , Maple Hill and the like . The second is found along arterial streets within the existing built- up areas that are candidates for redevelopment . Perimeter L- M - N projects are under the control of a master developer where plan approval requires the platting and designation of neighborhood centers . Infill areas , however , are already developed , under multiple ownership and characterized by existing residential structures facing an arterial street . Further , these areas lack a clearly defined and established neighborhood center . Two of these areas , for example , are along East Prospect Road and West Mulberry Street . It is in these infill and established areas where Staff has seen sensible redevelopment proposals that included a variety of uses related to artistic endeavors but could not be allowed due to the existing prohibition . The standard also includes the ability of the decision maker to impose conditions regarding off-street parking , hours of operation and number of employees . The ability to impose these conditions is also found in Section 3 . 5 . 1 ( J ) ( 1 — 7 ) so deletion of this section does not preclude the ability to impose such conditions . Proposed Solution Overview The solution is to delete the section to allow offices , financial services , clinics and , as proposed under Item 689 , artisan and photography studios and galleries , to locate in areas where there is not an established L- M - N neighborhood center . Code Change ( 4 ) Other Nonresidential Development. Permitted RE) RresideRtial uses that nr�GtgAr} n� GV-694or ohnll RGt be appreyed OR aRy development nroient i mtil the rent iirements for a neighborhood neuter in ? HbSPJ Minn ( 3 ) abeve have. he } Gh use thTc e narking hni irs of nneratinn and. ni imher of emnleyees in nrrJnr to ensi ire that the use will he OMpa ' le with then hhorhood This Iimitation shall with the rs�irn-r � ��urr Ret apply te uses permitterl aca-A .' eng East Vine flriye. 1 ind. er si ihsentinn ( U below . Item 775 Amend Permitted Use — Mixed - Use Dwelling Units - in 14 zone districts to delete the word " units " to remove an unintended consequence that associates the term to a definition that makes it more difficult to pain approval . Problem Statement A Mixed- use dwelling is defined as a dwelling that is located on the same lot or in the same building as a non - residential use . Often referred to as a live-work unit , this type of arrangement is a fundamental component of the Land Use Code that promotes variety in housing types and efficient use of land . Since a mixed - use dwelling offers flexibility for both infill and new projects on the fringe , it is permitted in 16 out of 25 zone districts subject to Administrative Review (Type One ) versus Planning and Zoning Board review (Type Two ) . The problem is that the Land Use Code contains separate definitions for " Dwelling" and " Dwelling Unit. " A Dwelling refers to a building used for residential occupancy . A Dwelling Unit refers to one or more rooms and a single kitchen and at least one bathroom located within a building used for residential occupancy . As mentioned , there are 16 zones that contain this use . In 14 zones , the use is described as " Mixed-use dwelling units" which is the problem . But , in two zones , the use is described as " Mixed- use dwelling" which is the solution . By adding the word " units " to the end of " Mixed-use dwelling , " the unintended consequence is that a " Mixed- use dwelling unit" becomes a subset of a " Dwelling. " In other words , only the residential component of the building is allowed as a Type One . As a subset of a " Dwelling , " the non - residential component of the Mixed-use dwelling becomes a separate use and can only be allowed in locations where non - residential uses are permitted in the L- M - N District . It was never the intention to place such limitations on this type of housing . By deleting the word " unit , " the use will stand on its own and the non - residential component will not be considered as a separate use . Proposed Solution Overview The proposed solution is to delete the word " units " from the description of the land use so the meaning is clear and unambiguous . Code Change L- M - N Section 4 . 5 ( B ) (2 ) (a ) 6 . Mixed - use dwellings . M - M - N Section 4 . 6 ( B ) (2 ) ( a ) 5 . Mixed - use dwellings . URitS . D Section 4 . 16 ( B ) (2 ) Mixed - use dwellings . g R- D - R Section 4 . 17 ( B ) (2 ) ( a )6 . Mixed - use dwellings . URitS . C- C Section 4 . 18 ( B ) (2 ) ( a )6 . Mixed - use dwellings . C- C - N Section 4 . 19 ( B ) (2 ) ( a ) 7 . Mixed - use dwellings . URitS . C- C - R Section 4 . 20 ( B ) (2 ) ( a ) 5 . Mixed - use dwellings . C Section 4 . 21 ( B ) (2 ) ( a )6 . Mixed - use dwellings . URitS . C- N Section 4 . 22 ( B ) (2 ) ( a ) 7 . Mixed - use dwellings . N - C Section 4 . 23 ( B ) (2 ) ( a )4 . Mixed - use dwellings . URitS . C- L Section 4 . 24 ( B ) (2 ) ( a ) 1 . Mixed - use dwellings . H - C Section 4 . 26 ( B ) (2 ) ( a ) 1 . Mixed - use dwellings . ems . E Section 4 . 27 ( B ) ( 2 ) ( a ) 1 . Mixed - use dwellings . I Section 4 . 28 ( B ) ( 2 ) (a ) 1 . Mixed - use dwellings unAs constructed above nonresidential uses , provided that the aggregate floor area of all mixed - use dwellings unAs. does not exceed the aggregate floor area of all nonresidential uses in the building . Item 776 Amend 2 . 9 . 4( F ) ( 2 ) — Notice for Rezonings of Less Than 640 Acres — to change the notice requirement from 7 to 14 days . Problem Statement The typical notification requirement for mailed notice for most procedures in the Land Use Code is 14 days . The proposed change would bring consistency to the notification procedures . Proposed Solution The solution is to change the mailed notice requirement for rezonings to from 7 to 14 days . Code Change ( F ) Step 6 ( Notice ) : ( 2 ) Zonings or Rezonings of No More Than Six Hundred Forty (640) Acres (Quasi-judicial) . Section 2 . 2 . 6 (A) shall apply except that the notice provided for therein shall be mailed at least s2veR (7 ) fourteen ( 104 days prior to the public hearing / meeting date ( ' RSte2 d Gf f„ i lFteeR r1 n , days ) and shall identify the proposed new zone district ( s ) , as well as the uses permitted therein , shall indicate whether a neighborhood meeting will be held with regard to the proposed zoning or rezoning , and shall inform the recipient of the notice of the name , address and telephone number of the Director to whom questions may be referred with regard to such zoning change . Section 2 . 2 . 6 ( B ) , ( C ) and ( D ) shall apply , and the published notice given pursuant to Section 2 . 2 . 6 ( C ) shall provide the time , date and place of the hearing , the subject matter of the hearing and the nature of the proposed zoning change . Item 777 Add to H - M - N zone — Shelters For Victims of Domestic Violence — as this use was inadvertently omitted in the Fall of 2006 . And move the use from Accessory to Residential in the permitted use list for Basic Development Review in 5 zones to correct a formatting error. Problem Statement In the Fall of 2006 , " Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence" was defined and placed into 18 zone districts . This newly defined use , however , was inadvertently omitted from being placed into the H - M - N , High Density Mixed - Use Neighborhood zone district . Also in the Fall of 2006 , this new use was incorrectly listed under "Accessory Uses" in five zones instead of " Residential Uses " in the permitted use list for projects that can be processed under the Basic Development Review procedure . Proposed Solution Overview The solution is to add " Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence " to the H - M - N zone . And , move the use out of "Accessory Uses " to " Residential Uses " under the Basic Development Review procedure under Basic Development Review . Code Change R- U - L ^ . 1 ( B ) ( 1 ` ( b) . — 4 . 1 ( B ) ( 1 ) (e ) 1 . Residential Uses : Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence U - E ^ . ` ( I3 ) ( 1 ` ( " ` - . — 4 . 2 ( B ) ( 1 ) (e ) 1 . Residential Uses : Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence R- F 4 . 3 ( B ) ( 1 ` ( " ` - . — 4 . 3 ( B )( 1 )(e ) 1 . Residential Uses : Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence . H - M - N 4 . 10 ( B ) ( 1 ) (e )2 . Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence . C-C- N 4 . 1 9 ( B ) ( 1 ` ( a43 . — 4 . 19( B )( 1 ) (e )2 . Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence . H - C 4 . 26 ( B ) ( 1 ` ( " ` 3 . — 4 . 26 ( B )( 1 )(e ) 1 . Residential Uses : Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence .