Loading...
6A - 2001-2002 proposal Land Use Regulation amendmentsCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: October 25, 2001 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: October 18, 2001) AGENDA TITLE: Study session regarding 2001 and 2002 proposed Land Use Regulation amendments. REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Planning Department Peter Pollock, Planning Director Robert Cole, Director of Land Use Review Gary Kretschmer, Senior Planner OVERVIEW: Attached is a list of proposed Land Use Regulations to be completed in 2001 and early 2002. Some of these amendments clarify existing code lauguage without altering the substance of the regulation and modernize code sections that have not been updated in many years, while others offer clean up of ambiguous language. There are also several significanY changes that result in new standards or requirements such as those related to Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Planning Board is asked to consider the list ofproposed changes and recommend additions or deletions to the list as it feels necessary, as well as, review tl~e list in terms of priority of the amendments proposed in the later phases. INTRODUCTION: The last amendments to the ]and use regulations where completed in 2000. The specific purpose of those code modifications were to adjust amendments implemented in the Comprehensive Rezoning of 1997. The current set of amendments is a continuation of a general "clean up" of S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\gkOllurSS.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A, Paee 1 the code that also began last year. The proposed amendments continue to refine the code and make corrections as needed. PROPOSED AMENDMENT PHASES: Staff has identified a broad list of amendments that it intends to submit to Planning Boazd and City Council over the coming months. The changes range from minor wording clarifications and corrections to substantive changes in the regulations of specific zones or sections of the existing code. Each individual amendment that follows includes a brief discussion of the issue or section of the code to be amended. If the item is relatively simple, a recommendation of the proposed modification is also provided. The list has been divided into three phases. Each phase includes major and minor work items. Major work items generally require coordination with other city departments in addition to the Planning Department to prepare the amendment. Additional time for research, project coordination and public process is generally required far major work items. Some major work items may require separate study sessions due to the complexity of the issue or the magnitude of impact the amendment may have on the community. The minor work items are considered annual amendments. Minor work items include corrections of errors, clarification of code intent, and other relatively straightforward amendments. Except for the phasing itself, no prioritization of the items in each phase has been done. Staff expects to complete all items in each phase together, barring any unforeseen circumstances. Phase I amendments will be brought to Planning Board in late November of this year. It is anticipated that Phase II amendments will be brought to the Board in January. A number of the Phase II amendments, such as the Illumination Ordinance, have already commenced but will require mare time to complete. Review and consideration of a majority of the Pl~ase III items (with the exception of the Jobs/Population study) have not been commenced by staff. Amendments expected as a result of the Jobs/Population study may come to the Board in the late spring or early summer of next year. While completion of the rest of the Phase III items is desirable, they are not critical to effective administration of the code. It is not anticipated that these items will be addressed until late summer or early fall of next yeaz'. Staff expects that additional amendments will be proposed or identified during this process. Such amendments will be added to Phase II or III based on the relative importance of each issue. REQUESTED PLANNING BOARD DIRECTION Staff requests the Board to consider the following issues: Is the phasing schedule proposed satisfactory? Are there any specific amendments the Board would like to add? Are there any amendments the Board would like to change the phasing or priority of? Are there any items the Board would choose to delete from the proposed list? S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\gkOllurSS.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A, Paee 2 PROPOSED LAND USE REGULATION AMENDMENTS Phase I -Major Work Items A. Demolition of Structures (Section 10-13-2 & 10-13-23, B.R.C.) - Historic Preservation Define "demolition" and revise the review procedures for the complete or partial demolition of structures 50 years in age and older. The existing demolition ordinance has been found to be inadequate as it allows too much of a striicture to be removed without review. Tn some cases architecturally significant facades or roof elements have been demolished while leaving an architecturally insignificant rear or side wall in order to comply with the existing ordinance. Revisions are proposed which focus on facades adjacent to streets and the amount of allowable roof removal without requiring a review. (Please see the attached staff inemorandum to the Landmarks Preservation Board regarding this issue) B. Transportation Related Issues - The purpose of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is to reduce single passenger vehicle trips by providing other options to the traveler. The code requires that TDM be addressed by developments to assure that these options are available to employees and other users of the developments. The current requirements are vague and sometimes difficult to enforce. The proposed changes would better define TDM requirements as they relate specifically to new developments. The new TDM standards will primarily focus on non-residential development. A baseline or minimum level of TDM measures (possibly a point system) will be required of all development (whether "by-righY' or through a discretionary review). One of the Uaselines anticipated is a revised parking standard which may result in fewer off-street parking spaces being required than current standards. Applicants will have the option ofincreasing or reducing the parking standard subject to specific conditions. These conditions may require financial contributions to one or more TDM programs or require specific on-site improvements in exchange for consideration of the modification. Increasing the parking above the new standards may require an even higher contribution or more improvements than the standard conditions. Funding that cannot be directly applied to on-site traffic reduction amenities will go to a city fund for transit improvements, transit pass programs, or other programs which address TDM goals. C. Restaurant / Tavern Size Limitations in BMS-X zones (Section 9-3.1-1(b)) As part of a market study conducted earlier this year for the University Hill commercial district, an economic consultant identi6ed the current 1,500 square foot by-right restriction on restaurants as discouraging an upscale restaurant from locating in the area. This conclusion was based upon input from Hill property owners and business owners. Several meetings have been conducted since that study between Hill constituents, including residents, property and business owners, the UHGID S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\g1cO11urSS.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A, Paee 3 director, and the Hill staff planner. The proposed change to the code would be to allow larger restaurants to locate in this zone through a conditional review, instead of a Use Review. Across the board changes to the BMS-X zoning may not be appropriate in all areas with this zoning classification. Such a change may have to be restricted to the "Hill" area only. If the change is limited to the "Hill" iYs likely that this amendment would become a minor work item. D. Inclusionary Zoning Revisions (Section 9-6.5-1) Revisions to inclusionary zoning to correct some minor text deficiencies and address the following substantive issues that have arisen during the first year of implementation: Require application of inclusionary zoning to assisted living, congregate care and other types of group housing; revise asset limitations for income qualified purchasers per City Council direction; revise current size and price categories for permanently affordable units that are smaller or larger than the current stated limits; add minimum required numbers of bedrooms and bathrooms to each size and price category to avoid high priced 1 bedroom, 1200 square foot units; and change the time at which the permanent affordability covenants are required to address timing problems with condominium developments. (See attached exhibit in Attachment B for a summary of the proposed amendments) E. Title 8- Parks, Open Space, Streets, and Public Ways Staffwill be bringing several Title 8 amendments to Planning Board for review and comment. A formal recommendation to City Councii is not reyuired. Title 8 primarily covers the rules and regulations for what can and cannot be done in the public right-of-way and within public easements. The amendments proposed do not change any current policy and are intended to clarify existing code language. An example of an item needing clarification is to address a property owner's maintenance responsibility for preventing the obstruction of public sidewalks by landscaping and plant materials. Phase I- Minor Work Items 1. 9-3.2-3 - Provide method of ineasurement for steeply sloping sites to determine applicable height restrictions. The Land Use Regulations are silent as to how grade will be calculated to determine which method ofheight measurement will be used. The regulations state that slopes in excess of 20 degrees (36.4%) shall not have buildings which exceed 25 feet in height measured parallel to the slope. The code does not indicate how or where the slope calculation is made. The steep slope ordinance includes a method of measurement which has proven to be inaccurate and as such, requires replacement. Staff recommends that the measurement be measured using the principal building envelope (the envelope created by the principal building setbacks of the underlying zoning district) The measurement that results in the steepest grade within the S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\gkOllurSS.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A. Paee 4 envelope (when measuring either the width or depth of the building envelope) will be utilized for slope related restrictions. 2. 9-3.3-3 (b) - Landscape Regulations - alley tree location and street traes for Single Family Detached Dwelling units. Currently street trees are permitted to be placed immediately adjacent to alleys. A reasonable setback is needed to prevent a tree from encroaching into or obstructing the use of an alley. Staff is recommending a four-foot minimum setback. The current landscape regulations require that when any remodeling which exceeds 25% of the valuation of the building occurs, compliance with the landscape regulations is required. For single family detached structures in low density residential zones these improvements are limited to street trees. In many cases there are trees in the front yard but do not meet the distance standards required. Adding street trees in a required location will, on occasion, conflict with the existing trees. This amendment would credit existing trees within a specified distance (which will be greater than the specified distance for new trees) as fulfilling the street tree requirements. Staff recommends that any existing tree over two inches in caliper and located within 20 feet of the front yard or side yard adjacent a street setback property line will fulfill the street tree requirements. 3. 9-1-3 - DeFinitions (new / revised) definitions - building envelope, open space. "Building Envelope" and "Open Space" are terms used in several locations in the Land Use Regulations. Both terms have specific meanings that warrant definitions. 4. 9-3.1-1 - Intro section to use charts - reference to definitions. The ]and use categories found in the use charts have detailed explanations of each use which are found in the definition section. Reference to the definitions may assist users of this section. 5. 9-3.2-13(d) - Setback Standards - change "use" to "zone" This section establishes setbacks for buildings over 35 feet in height which are adjacent to residential "uses." Rather than protect a use it seems more beneficial to protect a property or "zone." Uses can periodically change back and forth. For example, a residentially zoned parcel may have a non- residential use when the building was initially constructed on a lot. Because ofthe existence of the non-residential use, a new building can be built on an adjacent lot closer to the property line. The residentially zoned parcel could re-develop to include residential or mixed uses but is now impacted by the allowable setback reduction on the adj acent lot. Staff would recommend that S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\gkOllurSS.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A, Paee 5 all residential or mixed use "zoning districts" be protected by increased setbacks resulting from increased building height. 6. 9-13(a) definition of "Accessory buildings" - allow "breezeways" attachments The definition of accessory buildings states that accessory buildings are detached structures. Furthermore, the definition of "building" states that buildings connected by enclosed attachments that are usable by the building's occupants shall be treated as one building. "Enclosed" has been interpreted to be fully enclosed on all sides including a roo£ Numerous requests are received to attach garages by breezeways. The downside to this is that accessory buildings have setbacks significantly less than those of a principal building. A garage attached to a principal building could effectively reduce spacing between structures on adjacent lots and adversely impact the streetscape. Such an attachment may be acceptable if the resulting structure meets all the principal building setbacks, especially sideyard setbacks. Staff recommends that a covered breezeway connection between a principal and a detached garage be allowed. The breezeway separation should not be less than six feet in width between structures (should the breezeway attachment be eliminated, the resulting structures will meet the minimum separation requirements). The breezeway shall be open on all sides (except for the exterior walls of the accessory and principal building being connected by the breezeway) and shall not be considered part of the principal building. This prevents bedrooms, ADUs, or other uses that are required to be within the principal building from being constructed in or over the garage. 7. 9-3.2-I Bulk Regulations - Minimum separation between principal and accessory buildings. In the 2000 land use amendments a requirement to establish minimum separations between accessory and principal buildings was approved. The distance selected was six feet and was chosen as it meets building code requirements for the minimum separation between structures without fire protection improvements. This standard has worked well in all but a few instances. In one such instance the applicant proposed a gazebo type structure approximately three feet or less from the principal building. The applicant applied for and was denied a variance by the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Building Appeals. The Board found it was a self imposed hardship resulting from the architectural design. The applicant at a meeting with staff, strongly felt that this requirement impedes architectural creativity. Staff agreed to return this amendment to the Planning Board for possible reconsideration. Staff is requesting the Board's guidance to help determine if the requirement as written is unduly restrictive and warrants modification or is satisfactory. S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\gkOllurSS.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A, Paee 6 8. 9-1-3(a)Eliminate `Yecreation uses and buildings" use category from the residential zoning districts. This use category is found in the residential zoning district anci is an undefined term, It is found adjacent to another use category called "recreational or athletic facilities." The latter is defined as an indoor facility and includes exercise and health clubs, dance studios and martial arts studios. This use is allowed by right in residential zones if it is exclusively for the residents of the development in which the use is ]ocated. "Recreation uses and buildings" is a use permitted by Use Review in residential zones. Staff's assumption is that this use was intended to be for "recreational or athletic facilities" not meant to be exclusively for residents. This makes some sense since this use is by Use Review only. If this assumption is correct, a different definition would not be needed. It would be simpler to eliminate the "recreation uses and buildings" category and replace it with "recreational or athletic facilities " not intended for the excbesive use of the ~•eside~its. 9. 9-2.2-13(a) Provide appendix graphic for setback averaging. A graphic has been prepared which helps visualize the options that must be considered before setback averaging can be considered. 10. 9-33-26 Pools and spas The pool and spa section ofthe code requires all such facilities to be enclosed by a fence not less than 48 inches in height. The section does not differentiate between above-ground or below-ground pools or spas. Requests to waive this requirement have been made for above-ground pools and spas with lockable covers or removable ladders. Unfortunately, not all above-ground pool users remove the ladders nor do all users cover or lock the covers when the spas are not in use. Such unprotected pools and spas have proven to be a safety hazard for chiidren and, therefore, an important safety consideraCion. Staff is of the opinion that the fencing requirements need to be clarified such that the requirements are applicable to above-ground pools and spas regardless of whether they have lockable covers, removable ladders, or exceed 48 inches in height. This requirement is generally consistent with building code which requires the same fencing standards. The only caveat is that a spa with a safety cover (provided by the manufacturer of the spa) does not require the fencing. This section should also be amended to clarify that pumps and mechanical equipment must meet accessory building setbacks. 11. 9-3.4-13 Owner Accessory Units (OAU) In subsection (a)(4)(c) use Accessory Dwelling Unit language found in section 9-3.4-12 (a)(6)(b) for OAUs as it pertains to unit size limitations. Modify subsection (a)(4)(e)(viii) to indicaYe that OAUs in detached baildings will require separate utility connections. S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\gkOllurSS.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A, Paee 7 12. 9-3.4-12 & 9-3.4-13 - Accessory Dwelling Units and Owner Accessory Units The City Attorney's office has recommended allowing living trusts as a form of allowable ownership in addition to fee simple ownership. 13. Sign posting and public notification forvariances, solar exceptions, OAUs & ADUs, shelters and Concept Plan Reviews. The 2000 amendments modified the sign posting requirements for most development review applications. Variances, solar exceptions, OAUs and ADUs were overlooked because they are found in different sections of the code. The public notice requirements for Concept Plan Reviews, section 9-4-10 (g), have also been found to be inconsistent with the standard notification requirements for Site and Use Reviews. For example, this section requires a 14-day posting period wherein the standard posting period for Site and Use Reviews is 10 days. Staff recommends that all posting and public notification requirements be consistent for all land development reviews to eliminate such discrepancies. 14. 9-1-4, Financial guarantees This section indicates that a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) will be issued if an escrow (financial guarantee) is provided for any incomplete improvements. The Uniform Building Code indicates that only a Temparary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) will be issued when outstanding improvements exist. The latter has been the adopted practice by the city but should be reflected in the land use regulations to eliminate the conflicting standards. A CO is the last hold the city has on a project to assure its completion. A CO should only be issued to a completed project. A TCO aliows occupancy of a structure and identifies the deficiencies and a timeframe for the completion of the deficiencies. 15. 9-3.2-9, Congregate care In section 9-3.2-9(d) make reference to the additional standards for consideration of congregate care facilities found in Section 9-3.4-9 (conditional use section for congregate care facilities). 16. 9-1-3(a) Revise setback definition to state that setbacks are measured to outer perimeter of structure whether above or below grade. Staff is of the opinion that setbacks should be measured to the outer perimeter of a structure whether above or below grade. Buildings that encroach into setbacks below grade prevent landscaping of the required setbacks and can adversely impact adjacent lots and improvements. The definition needs to clarify that setbacks are applicable to below grade improvements. S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\gkOllurSS.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A, Pa2e 8 17. 9-4-8 - Three year expiration vs revoking approval - Compliance hearing criteria and standards for extensions. The CityAttorney's Office has identified several conflicts in this section. The section lacks standards for staff level consideration of an extension to a development approval per subsection (b) or for a compliance hearing per subsection (g). 18. 9-3.6-1 - Variances - revise required application materials. The Board ofZoning Adjustment and Building Appeals has found it difficult to. review variance applications without, what they feel are, some necessary plans. These include floor plans, demolition plans, and architectural elevations. Such plans need to be added to the Application Requirements of this section. 19. 9-3.3-6 - Fences and Walls Clarify that within the Fence, Hedge and Wall section that for the purposes of this section, there is no distinction between a fence or wall. Add a subsection which will pertain to "retaining walls": 1) a retaining wall is any wall/fence which is designed to resist the lateral displacement of soil or other materials; 2) retaining walls are subject to the height limitations of subsection (b); 3) any of the £ollowing retaining walls requires design by a licensed Colorado Professional Engineer: a) any retaining wall wherein the height of the wall is greater than its setback from a property line; b) the retaining wall exceeds four feet in height; c) the retaining wali, regardless of its height, is located on a steep slope as defined in ordinance No. 5476. Add a waiver provision to the section. The height and setbacks of a fence, hedge, or wall can be waived per Section 9-3.6-2 "Variances and Interpretations" including administration variances to height and setbacks not to exceed 20%. 20. 9-33-6 - Fence regulations No fence, hedge, or wall or retaining wall over 30 inches in height can be placed nearer to a public sidewalk than the greater of 18 inches from the edge of the walk or the property line. 21. 9-12-6(a) wetland permits applications- Remove sLibsection 9-12-6(a)(6). Clarify in subsection9-12-6(e) tl~at the applicant will post the property per Section 9-4-2(e)(1) "Posting." 22. 9-3.2-1 - LR-D, bulk charts revision for zero setback consideration A footnote is needed to indicate when zero side yard setback (one of the allowed side yard setback options) is permitted. Zero setback was only S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\gkOllurSS.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A. Pa2e 9 intended to be permitted for attached dwelling units that share a common property line. 23. 9-3.4-17 - Antenna for Wireless Communication - Rooftop antenna options. Allow omni directional antennae as an optional rooftop mounted antenna, in lieu of ineeting the wall mounted antenna requirement, if it can be demonstrated that this type of altemative technology will reduce visual impacts and the number of wall antenna which would otherwise, be needed on the building. Only one omni direction antenna is permitted on a building and it shall not exceed 18 inches in diameter, shall be the minimum height to achieve the same signal reception as the wall mounted antexuia but in no case shall exceed ten feet in height. The second modification is to allow telecommunication antenna on Excel transmission towers (definition needed?) that are not located in rights of way and only if required BTS (base station) equipment can be mounted on or immediately adjacent to the tower and completely screened from view. 24. 9-3.4-17 - Antenna for wireless communication Add user chart (summary of options) shown below to appendices. Require signal propagation study when a cell site is proposed in a residential zone. The propagation study is required to demonstrate compliance with subsection 9-3.4-17(a)(13). Antenna Locntians On building wall On existing On a roof On new DTS cquipment conforming medianical allowed on roof penthouse or screening or mechanical screen replacemen[ scrcening On buildings Under Yes Yes (a) Yes (b) Ycs (c) Yes (d) 55'in height On buildings Over Yes Yes(a) No . Yes(c) No 55'in height Anrennae may not project above existing penthouse or mechanical scrcen Mayhe locared on the roof subject [o Ihe criteria of Section 9-3.4-17(a)(5). The new or replacemen[ mechanical screening can be no higher [hnn [he existing mechanical equipmen[ i[ is in[ended to screen. M[ennae cannot project above Ihe mechanical screen. No portion ot the BTS equipment can project above the maximum allowable Uuilding height of ihe undedying zoning distric[. 25. 9-3.1 Administrative offices in industrial zones Administrative offices are ailowed as an individua] use of a property located in an industrial zoning districts if the offices are affiliated with an industrial use located in an industrial zone elsewhere in the city. In some cases the administrative (corporate offices) have significantly exceeded the manufacturing space. In some cases, incidental off-site manufacturing was S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\gkOllurSS.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A, Pa2e 10 established such that the administrative offices could locate in an industrial zone. A major component of the comprehensive rezoning effort (that occurred several years ago) was to discourage many office uses in industrial zones. Establishment of minimum size requirements for off-site affiliated industrial use appears necessary. Administrative offices should not be any larger than the off-site manufacturing, research and development uses, etc. located elsewhere in the city. This change will create some non-conformities for those uses that currently do not comply. Staff feels Chat the number of non-conformities created should be very low. 26. 9-3.6-2 (a) - Variances The requirements of Saction 9-3.2-2, "Mobile Home Park Bulk Requirements" are applicable to all mobile home parks regardless of the zoning district in which they are located. The Variance & Interpretation section of the code allows variances to the Bulk and Density Standards found in section 9-3.2-1. The MH-E (Mobile Home-Established ) zoning district requirements found in the Bulk Standards refers users to section 9-3.2-2 to find the applicable spacing requirements for mobile homes. Due to this reference, variances can been granfed to the spacing requirements. There are, however, several mobile homes parks not zoned MH-E and are subject to these spacing requirements. Since these spacing requirements are not found in the Bulk and Density Standards, the spacing requirements cannot be varied for these mobile home parks. Staff recommends that subsection 9-3.2-2(a) be added to the list of standards in section 9-3.6-2(a) which can be varied by the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Building Appeals and the city manager. 27. 9-33-19(b) Solar Access Subsection (b) refers to floar area ratios which are not applicable to solar access issues. This appears to be an error. Subsection (b) should be entirely removed. 28. 9-4-9(d) Use Review Criteria The Planning Boud has expressed concern about the conversion of existing residential units to non-residential uses via the Use Review process. The desire is to preserve all existing residential units especially those which are residentially zoned. The proposal is to add criteria that will require all existing residential units to be preserved or replaced "in kind" when considering a non-residential use in a residential zone. S:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\gk011urSS.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A. Paee 11 Phase II Major work Items A. Outdoor Illumination Comprehensive rewrite of the existing illumination section (9-3.3-17) of the Land Use Regulations to establish, among other things, maximum illumination levels, minimize light trespass and glare and require energy efficient fixtures. Please note that the outdoor illumination ordinance will not deal with street lights in the public right-of-way. The Transportation Department has, however, secured the services of the same illumination engineer that is working on the illumination ordinance. The consultant has indicated that both projects will be interfaced to the extent possible. B. 9-3.2-1 - Building Coverage Limitations for the combination of Single Family Detached Structures and Accessory structures. In the 2000 Land Use Regulation Amendments staff recommended that the combined building coverage of both accessory and principal buildings should not exceed the size of the principal building envelope. Planning Board recommended approval of this amendment to City Council. City Council tabled this item finding that it may not be restrictive enough and also wanted to afford the general public more time to become familiar with the proposal and time to comment on it. Council members asked for more options to be considered but also indicated some apprehension of considering floor area ratio restrictions. Also inciuded in this amendment is consideration of limiting the size and number of accessory buildings permitted in residential zones, as well as inareasing the accessory building setbacks when an accessory building exceeds a certain size threshold. Phase II Minor Work Items 9-3.2-6 & 9-3.2-7 -Open Space Create minimum dimensional requirements for open space. Example, the six inch and one foot spaces between a property line and a recessed window or the slight indentations of doorways do not qualify as open space. All open space must be usable and functional. Establish minimum sizes for landscape areas to qualify. Also, establish minimum hallway widths to qualify as a mall or pedestrian way. Differentiate between active and passive open space areas. Pedestrian ways and plazas must have special pavement treatments (brick, flagstone, textured/colored concrete, decorative scoring, etc.) and must incorporate street furniture (benches, pedestrian ]ighting, sculpture, planters, etc.) to qualify as open space. Open space areas adjacent to alleys must be physically separated from the alley by bollards or walls so they do not become parking and/or service areas. 2. Section 9-5, Subdivisions S:\plan\pb-itemstinemos\gk011urSS.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A, Paee 12 Lot line adjushnent flexibility in non-residential zones, more flexibility when dealing with non-standard lots (ability to adjust property lines between non- standard lots if adjustment does not rasult in larger building envelopes or reduce existing non-standard setbacks. Create a Minor or Simple Subdivision process for small subdivisions that do not require public improvements or any technical documents (engineering plans). 3. 9-3.4-15 - Home occupations Describe what a change in character may include, such as increased traffic generated beyond that of a normal single family residence, regular or scheduled appointments, increased parking or parking impacts. 4. Minimum amount of open space at ground level for business/commercial uses in all zoues. When commercial buildings exceed 25 feet in height 10% ofthe lot area must be provided as open space. Using a 7,000 square foot lot as an example, this would result in an open space requirement of 700 square feet. Fifty percent of the open space is allowed to be within the building in the form of a plaza, atrium, courtyard or pedestrian way. Unfortunately, due to the lack of standards, debates occur as to what actually qualifies as open space. The remaining fifty percent (350 square feet in this case) must be outdoors at ground level. In many instances this occurs along the alley. These open spaces often get turned into service areas. Staff believes more open space in front ofbuildings or in reasonable proximity to the building's entrance needs to be provided. 5. 9-33-1 and/or 9-4-11 Landscaping plans submitted as part of a Site Review application are considered to be conceptual in nature. They are not intended to be the equivalent of final landscape plan required in section 9-3.3-1. Some applicants have interpreted the approval of the Site Review to mean that the included landscape plan is equivalent to a final plan. In most cases the landscape plan submitted with a site review rarely meets all the detailed landscape plan requirements of sections 9-33-1 through 9-3.3-4. A standard condition of approval requires a final landscape plan at time of building permit application. Staff recommends that Yhe regulations be clarified that unless the applicant requests specific waivers of the landscape standards and if such waivers are not acknowledged in the Disposition ofApproval, no such waiver has been approved, regardless of what is shown on the landscape plan accompanying the Site Review. S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\gkOllurSS.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A, Paee 13 6. 9-3.1-2 (?) - Split Zoned Buildings The Land Use Regulations provide little in the way of direction on how to deal with zoned lots. There is virtually no direction on how to deal with existing splitzonedbuildings.Cansuchbuildingsbeexpandedormodified? If so, under what constraints, if any? Can the zoning line be hypotheticaily be moved such that the entire building is all in one zone without a formal rezoning of he impacted portion of the building? 7. 9-3.5-3 (b)(2) Non-standard buildings (height) on non-standard lots (size) The Non-standard Building and Lots section of the code limits the height of buiidings on existing lots sma3ler than the minimums required by the bulk regulations. These height limitations are intended to assure that a structure remains somewhat compatible in terms of mass and bulk with the size of the lot on which it is located. In some cases the existing structure exceeds those height limitations. To expand or modify such a structure the applicant must either design a modification to comply with the height limitations or go through a discretionary review. The current review procedure requires a Site Review to waive or modify the height ]imitations. This process is often an overwhelming, time consuming and expensive process for a residentiai property owner. A simpler review process is needed. 8. Section 9-3.2-6 - open space calculations for mixed use developments- where does residential open space have to be located? Mixed use projects reviewed by staff have raised issues of open space distribution and location. Staff believes that residential open space requirements should be meC in close proximity to the residential uuits. For example, the front yard landscape setback of a non-residential use should not be counted as residential open space unless it is immediately adjacent to and usable by the residential occupants. Clarify that the open space requirements for the residential and non-residential portions are separate requirements and cannot be double counted. Establish a minimum requirement for the provision of active open space such as a common play area that could accommodate, for example, a basketball hoop, badminton, volleyball, play structure, etc. 9. 9-3.2-1, Major Street Setbacks Section 9-3.2-1 of the Bulk Standards for Established ("E") zones (both residential and non-residentia]) provides standards for "minimum front and side yard setbacks from major road" The standard for Developing ("D") and Redeveloping ("X") zones" minimum landscaped Sront and side yard setbacks from major roads For principal buildings and uses (ft)". The standard for "E" zones was the standard for all zoning districts. It appears that S:\plan\pb-items~memos\g]c011urSS.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A. Paee 14 in 1986 the staudard was modified, as indicated above, for the "X" and "D" zones. It is unclear why the standard was not modified for the "E" zone so all zones were consistent. This is possibly a code amendment oversight or error. There may, however, have been a compelling urban design reason not to require major street landscaped setbacks in the "E" zoning districts. This would not appear to be reasonabie since landscape setbacks in the CB-E and RB-E zoning districts which predominate, Crossroads.and the 28"' and Pearl Street corridor are an integral part or the urban design of this area. Staff's initial position is that the standard for the "E" zones is an error and should be revised to be the same as the "D" and "X" zones. Some additional research is needed befare a firm recommendation can be made. Phase III Major Work Items A. Low Density Residential Off-street Parking Requirements Reduce single family off street parking requirements & allow parking in front yard landscape setback. Limitation and clarification on access points. Several requests have been received to eliminate off-street parking requirements for detached single family dwelling units. Dwelling units that do not provide the required off-street parking are considered non-conforming uses per the code. Such dwelling units must provide the required parking at time of remodeling or redevelopment of the property. If parking cannot be provided, a Use Review is required. The regulations do not permit the "required" off-street parking to be located in the front yard landscape setback. Amendments are also proposed to clarifywhen non-standard driveways have to be brought into compliance or eliminated. B. 9-3.5 - Non-conforming Regulations This section of the Land Use Regulations has been amended a number of times. Unfortunately, the amendments have, on occasion, contributed to the difficulty of interpreting this section. Staff's intent is to completely rewriYe this section. The goal is to be able to determine exactly want can or cannot be done to a non-conforming use, a non-standard building, a non-standard lot or any combination of these uses. C. Jobs / Population Related Amendments It is anticipated that the conclusions of the Jobs/Population research project that a number of existing land use regulations will require additions and revisions. Several of those that are known at this time include; Floor Area Ratio Modifications/ Increases - BMS-X and Downtown zoning districts (for residential uses). BMS-X/MU-X zoning district debrief, evaluation of current projects and possible recommendations for revisions. S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\gkOllurSS.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A, Paee 15 Parking Related Issues - Stall sizes (eliminate small car option or reduce allowable percentages), Administrative parking reduction increases (for mixed use developments), Establish maximum off-street parking requirements, Reduce minimum off-street requirements, Establish handicap parking requirements for multi-family residential uses, Allow one size fits all standazd for long term parking (employee parking). Transitional Business Zone FAR Limits - During the "Riverbend" rezoning, Planning Board suggested that staff evaluate the establishment of maximum floor area ratios for the TB-D zoning district (where no FARs currently exist). An additional suggestion included establishing size limitations for medical uses in transitionai business zones. Phase III Minor Work Items 9-3.3-6 - Fence regulations The third phase of 2000 amendments reviewed by Planning Board included revisions to the fence regulations. While the Planning Board recommended approval ofthe fence revisions, City Councii requested severa] modifications. Several council members asked that front yard fencing limitations be considered. The modifications are substantial enough that the revisions will require Planning Board review. 2. 9-3.1-1, Create an administrative "Use Approval" process Currently, the only time specific uses are reviewed for compliance with the Land Use Regulations is when sales tax and use licenses are refened to the Planning Department for review and approval.. This usualiy occurs after the use has established occupancy at a specific location. It is at this time that the city discovers the a use is not permitted in the underlying zoning district. This eventually leads to enforcemenY action. In many cases the fault was not of the occupant but of the property owner or leasing agent. The relocation of the tenant is disruptive to its business and is expensive. To minimize this occurrence staff has considered establishing a use approval process before anytenant can occupynon-residential space. In essence we propose doing the review for a sales tax license earlier in the process. The applicant (property owner, leasing agent, or tenant) would submit a Use Approval application which would indicate the location of the proposed use and a explanation of the intended use ofthe property. Staffwould sign oFfon the application ifthe use is found in compliance with the "permitted uses" in the underlying zoning district. The applicant could then take the Use Approval to the City Clerk when applying for a sales tax or use ]icense. Significant enfarcement complications could be greatly reduced with this procedure. S:\plan\pb-itemstinemos\gkOllurSS.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A, Pase 16 3. Add more sketches and diagrams to code Many sections of the code would benefit from graphics. 4. Establish consistent call-up/appeal standards for all land use reviews and subdivisions. Standards for consideration may include a re-formatting of the call- up/appeal process. For example, a call-up must be made in writing, it must include the reason for the call-up/appeal and list the specific criteria believed not to be complied with. The subsequent hearing would then focus on whether the specific criteria in question have or have not been addressed, rather than the re-evaluation of the entire project. Approved By: =~~~~~~?~ Peter Pollock, Planning Director Attachments: ATTACHMENT A: Agenda Item for Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, September 6, 2001 ATTACHMENT B: 2001 Suggested Amendments to Inclusionary Zoning S:\plan\pb-items~nemos\gkOllurSS.pbm.wpd AGENDA ITEM # 6A, Paee 17 ATTACHMENT A LANDMARK PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITENI September 6, 2001 TO: Landmark Preservation Advisory Board FRONI: Ruth McHeyser, Director Long Range Planning Deon Wolfenbarger, Preservation Planner Neil Holthouser, Preservation Planner SIIBJECT; Public Hearing and consideration of a recommendation to Planning Board and City Council regarding changing the definition of "demolition" pursuant to Section 10-13-2 and 10-t3-23 of the BoulderReti~ised Code, 1981. PURPOSE: The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board is being asked to consider and make recommendations to Planning Board and City Council regarding proposed changes to the definition of "demolition° as found in Section 10-13-2 and 10-13-23 of the Boulder Revised Code (B.R.C.), 1981. The purpose of the proposed changes is to clarify for the public and staff what constitutes demolition for the purposes of LPAB's review of demolition of non-landmarked buildings over fifty years of age. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 5627, as an amendment to Chapter ] 0-13, B.R.C. 19S 1, was adopted in 1994. It provides review of demolition and moving permits for non-landmarked buildings and buildings outside of designated historic districts to order to prevent the loss of potentially historically or architecturally significant resources. This review process gives the board time to review the significance of the building, as well as aAows the applicant time to seek alternatives to demolishing or moving the property in question. The ordinance was not developed to provide the Board a chance to review or affect the design of alterations to non-landmarked buildings. The ordinance was amended in 1994 to clarify the definition of demolition, to allow approvals to expire, and to strengthen the enforcement provisions for demolition in violation of the Historic Preservation Code. On February 2, 2000, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board recommended the removal of "Structures of MeriY' from the provisions of this section. Also included was a change which a(lows the LPAB to initiate designation of a historic district during the 180 day sYay period. These code changes were approved by City Council in 2000. On June 7, 2000, August 2, 2000, and September 6, 2000, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Ap~laMaml ~~ Pagei.l L_ Board held public hearings and discussions regazding proposed changes to the definition of "demolition" in response to staff and citizen concern over the interpretation of cuttent definition. The Board has also conducted three study sessions in 2001 to finalize their recommendations for change to the demolition code. As noted, the purpose of these changes is to clarify for the public and staff what constitutes a demolition when reviewing for 10-13-23 of the B.R.C. 1981. There have been examples where property owners in Boulder demolished 75% and retained a minimum 25% of a structure that they would prefer to completely demolish to avoid review by the Landmarks Board. In some instances, discontinuous pieces of a building were saved that added up to 25% of the surface area of a structure, but that in no way resembled the original building. Thus unintended and undesirable building forms resulted from the interpretation and implementation of this code. Furthermore, the code was not clear in its intent as to what constituted an exterior wall, resulting in structural elements being saved, but features such as siding, windows, doors, an other character-defining elements being removed. Additionally, the board realized that a roof was a key character-defining feature of a building, and once removed, a building often no longer retained any semblance of its original appearance. Changes to the code would help preverit some of the unintended buildin~ forms that have resulted from the public's interpretation of the code, as well as make easier for staff to enforce the intent of the code. Discussion at the Landmarks meetings went beyond the definition of demolition, and included recommendations for the measurement and definition of retained exterior walls. Additionally, staff and the Board were comfortable with the definition of demolition applying to both Section 10-13-14 (2)(b) for Landmark Alteration Certificate public hearings, as well as 10-13-23. STAFF RECONIMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends to the Landmarks Board that it recommend to the Planning Board and City Council that Sections 10-13-2 and 10-13-23 of the B.R.C. 1981 be revised according to the changes shown in Attachment A. ATTACHbIENTS: Attachment A: Proposed changes to Section IO-13 B.R.C, 1981 regarding demolition. S:`1'LAN,data\Comdev~HIST\GEN~DEMOS\Demo code changes\demo-codechanges.LPABmemo pge~e~m~ ~A pa~~ i9 Attachment A [Note: changes to the code are underlinedJ Section l. Section 10-13-2, B.R.C. 1981 is amended by the repeal of the definition of Odemolition,0 to read: "Demolition" means an act or process which removes one or more of the followine: a) seventy percent or more of the roof area as measured in k1an view• b) seventy_percent or more of the exterior walls of any buildine: or c anv exterior wall facins a~ublic street For the purposes of this defnition, a public street does not include a public allev. ~ ~ ~ t~~ B~ Section 2. Section 10-13-23, B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read: Street C~ 10-13-23 Review of Permits for Demolition, Nloving, and Remaval of Buildings (a) Purpose. The purpose of the review of permit applications for demolition, moving, and removal of buildings that are over fifty years old is to prevent the loss of buildings that may have historical or architectural significance. The purpose of this section is also to provide the time necessary to initiate designation as an individual :landmark or to consider altarnatives for the building. (b) Permit Re~uirement. No person sha11 demoIish, move, or remove any building which is over fifty years old without first applying to the city mana~er for a permit under this section, receivin, the permit, and conducting the demolition, moving, or removing of the building before the permit expires. The application and permit shall be in addition to any application or permit required under Chapter ] 0-5, ~Building Code,~ B.R.G. 1981, and shall be on a S'PLAN`DATA'COMDEV`,HIST GEN',DEMOS~-DEMO CODE CHANGES" DEMO-SEP'06I.DOC a~a~i~m ~ ~ ~ Pega~ ~v form provided by the city manager, although the manager may combine the application and permit with any other form or permit at the manager~s discretion. (cl Demolition Dctemiination: The citv m~naeer ~vill determine if demolition review under this section is required bv examininr* buildinu permit anplications for buildin¢s descrihcd in subsection (b) above. (11 Demolition Thresholds: A proposed action that exceeds anv of the standards described in 20-13-2 shall be considemd a demolition and slilil be subicct to the review process required bv this section. ~2) Retained Exterior Walls: In order to be considered a retained e~terior ~~~all, the exterior Gvall shall, at a minimum, retain shids, the e~terior shcathina, and the fullv frame~l and sheathcY3 roof above for that portion of the remainin,~ buildin~* The retained exterior walls shall be continuouslv connected. (3) [dendfication anci M'casurementof Estenor Vu'aRs: An ~e.~tet3or ti~~~ll~ shall, inchi~le anv ~~'all that defines the exterior oerimeter of a buildine or anv ~~~all that is interior that is located on a~~v line or othenvise intended to separate one buildine from another buildin~. ExYerior ~v111s shall be measured contigaouslv in plan vieev, around the "buildine covcra~,e." as th~t temi is defined in Section 9-1-3. ~Detinitions.~ B.R.C.1931. - ---- (ed) Initial Review. The city mana~er and two designated members of the landmarks board shall review all permit applications for demolition, moving, or removal of buildin~s that are over fifty years old. The initial review shall be completed within fourteen days after the city manager accepts a completed permit application to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that the building may be eligible for desi~nation as an individual landmark consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 10-13-1, OLe~islative Intent,~ and 10- 13-3, OCity Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts,~ B.R.C. 1931. If the city manager and two designated members of the ]andmarks board fail to review the application within thirty days after the city manager accepts a completed permit application, the city manager shall issue the permit if all other requirements of the permit process have been met. (~e) Scope of Permit Review and Stav of the Issuance of a Permit. If the city mana~er and two designated members of the landmarks board unanimously determine that there would be no significant impact or potential detriment to the historic resources of the city, the city manager shall issue the permit if all other requirements of the pennit process have been met. If the city manager or one of the two designated members of the landmarks board determines that there is probable cause to believe that the building may be elinible for desi~nation as an individual landmark, the issuance of the permit shall be stayed for up to sixty days from the S:`.PLAMDAT.4`COMDEV~HIST GEN~~DEMOS DEMO CODE CHANGES DEM1IO-SEP2001.DOC Agenda Item A ~'~ Page # ~/ date that a completed application is accepted by the city manager, and the permit shall be referred to the landmarks board for a public hearing. A copy of this determination, including the reasons why 4he building may be eligible for designation, shall be provided to the property owner within fourteen days of the determination. (e~ Notice of Public Hearine. The city manager shal] publish notice of the time, place, and subject matter of the public hearing before the landmarks board in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least ten days before the hearing. At least fifteen days before the hearing, the city manager shall also: (1) Post the property subject to the application to indicate that a permit review appeal has been requested; and (2) Mail written notice to the record owners of the property subject to the application. If the address of the property owner is not a matter of public record, any failure to send notice by mail does not invalidate any proceedings on the permit application. (€~) Landmarks Board Public Hearings on Permits. The landmarks board shall hold a public hearing on the permit application within sixty days after the city manager accepts a completed application, pursuant to the procedures prescribed by Chapter 1-3, OQuasi-Judicial Hearings,~ B.RC. 1981. If the landmarks board fails to hold a public hearing within sixty days after the city manager accepts a completed permit appiication, the city manager shall issue the permit if all other requirements of the permit process have been met. The landmarks board shall consider and base its decision based upon any of the following criteria: (1) The eligibility of the building for designation as an individua] landmark consistent with the purposes and standards in Sections 10-13-1, ~Legislative Intent,~ and 10-13-3, ~City Council May Designate Landmarks and Historic Districts,~ B.R.C. 1981; (2) The relationship of the building to the character of the neighborhood as an established and definable area; (3) The reasonable condition of the building; and (4) The reasonable projected cost of restoration or repair. In considering the condition of the building and the projected cost of restoration or repair as set forth in paragraphs (3) and (4) above, the board may not consider deterioration caused by unreasonable neglect. (gh) Decision of the Landmarks Board. If the landmarks board finds that the building to be moved, removed, or demolished does not have historical significance under the criteria set forth in subsection (€g) above, the city manager shall issue a permit if all other requirements oF the permit process are met. If the board finds that the building may have historical significance under the criteria set forth in subsection (€g) above, the application shall be S:`.PLAMDATq~.COMDEV' HIST GEN DEMOS' DEMO CODE CHANGES DE~IO-SEP2001.~OC Agenda Item S~~ Page # ~,~ suspended for a period not to exceed one hundred eighty days from the date the permit application was accepted by the city manager. (~'r_) One Hundred Eightv Day Stav Period. During the period of a stay of the issuance of a permit for demolition, moving, or removal, the landmarks board may take any action that it deems necessary and consistent with this chapter to preserve the structure, including, without limitaTion, consulting with civic groups, public agencies, and interested ci2izens; recommending acquisition of the property by private or public bodies or agencies; exploring the possibitity of moving buildings that would otherwise be demolished; and salvaging building materials. If individual landmazk designation has not been initiated during the one hundred eighty day period, the city manager shall issue a permit if all other requirements of the permit process have been met. (~i) Record of Demolished and Moved Properties. Prior to the issuance of a permit for demolition, moving, or removal, the city manager may require the applicant to provide information about the building, including, without limitation, the date of origina] construction, significant events and occupants, architectural features, and a description of the buildin~ through photographs, plans, and maps. The city manager will determine where the documentation is to be deposited. (}k) Expiration. Any approval pursuant to this section shall expire one hundred eighty days after such approval is made if the work authorized by such permit has not commenced. A decision or failure to take action by the city manager and two members of the landmarks board pursuant to subsection (~e) above, or by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board pursuant to subsection (~h) above, shall be considered an approval, S:~PLAMDATA':COMD[V',HIST.GEN`DHMOS~~DE!~10 CODE CHANGHS' DEbiO-SEP2001.DOC Agentla Item A G'A Page #~_3 ATTACHMENT B Exhibit 2001 Suggested Amendments to Inclusionary Zoning Item or Issue ' Options to Discuss i) Inclusionary Zoning does not apply •Require group quarters housing to contribute to group quarters such as assisted permanently affordable units. living, congregate care, group homes, etc. due to the definition of "dwelling uniY' in the code. 2) Inclusionary zoning requirements for homeownership vs rental projects are slightly different. It is financially advantageous underinclusionary zoning to claim one is building a rental project and then sell the units upon completion. . ~Require for-sale covenant(s) to be recorded against the property that come into effect if property sells within a certain period of time after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued; or ~Require difference in cash-in-lieu amounts for rental vs for-sale units to be deposited with the City for a certain period of time; or • Assess a financial penalty for claimed rental projects that become for-sale projects within a certain time period. 3) Chapter 9-7, "Moderate Income ~Add language that 9-6.5 "Inclusionary Zoning" replaces Housing" still appears in the code. 9-7. 4)Current size and pricing categories ~Proposed size categories, minimum number of bedrooms for permanently affordable units don't and bathrooms, and assumed household size for pricing work well for units smaller or larger purposes: than the glVen Slzes. Also, prices need less than 600 sq.ft; 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, .5 person some relationship to the number of 600 sq.ft. to 750 sq.ft.; 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, 1 person bedrooms and bathrooms For ~51 sq.ft. to 900 sq.ft.; 2 bedrooms, 1.5 bathrooms, 2 people . example, a 1200 square foot 1 bedroom 901 sq.ft. to1050 sq.ft.; 2 bedrooms, 1.75 bathrooms, 3 people unit cun'en$y would be priced too hlgh 1051 sq.ft. to 1200 sq.ft; 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 4 people larger than 1200 sq.ft.; 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 4.5 people for 1 and 2 person households to afford. • Permanently affordable units with less than the • Current size categories and assumed minimum number of bedrooms and bathrooms for the household size for pricing purposes: given size category will be priced using the next lowest 600 sq.ft. to 750 sq.ft.; 1 person category. 751 sq.ft. to 900 sq.ft.; 2 people 901 sq.ft. to1050 sq.ft.; 3Yz people 1051 sq.ft. to 1200 sq.ft. 4'/2 people 5) Some developers are selling • Add "equivalent uniY' language and define the areas of permanently affordable units without interest and require City approval of finished product in interior features considered to be arder to sell or sell at the given permanently affordable standard such as kitchen cabinets. nrice. Agenda item 8 ~ ~ Page # ~_ Item or Issue Options to Discuss 6) In mixed unit type developments, • Require permanently affordable unit type distribution to the permanently affordable units are reflect the market rate unit type distribution. often the least desirable units in terms • Require City approval of permanently affordable unit of type and location. location before building permit application. 7) Definition of "income eligible • Make maximum income for renters the HUD Low household" needs to make distinction Income Limit. (Maximum for buyers would remain 10% between homebuyers and renters since above the HUD Low Income Limit.) rental units are targeted for a slightly lower income group. 8) Covenants for permanently • Require a general agreement to provide the specific affordable units are currently required number and type of permanently afFordabie units prior to prior to application for building application for buiiding permits; and permits. Often through the permit •Change time at which individual unit covenants are process the units may change making it required to prior to receipt of building permit. Cash-in-lieu necessary to release and re-record new to remain due at the time of building permit application. covenants. C:~2001 IZ Amend table.wpd Agenda Item N~ A Page #,~S