Loading...
7B - Amendment to Title 9, Land Use RegulationsCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 16, 2002 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: May 3, 2002) AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of an amendment to Title 9, Land Use Regulations to reduce the residential open space requirements in the RB-D (Regional Business Developing) zoning district. ~ REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Planning Department Peter Pollock, Planning Director Robert Cole, Director of Land Use Review Gary Kretschmer, Senior Planner OVERVIEW: An amendmant to the Land Use Regulations to reduce open space for residential developments in the RB-D zoning district. This amendment is in response to development patterns the Planning Board has conceptually reviewed for the Gunbarrel Town Center. The RB-D zoning district is currently limited to an area within Gunbarrel which is bordered by Lookout Road on the north, Spine Road on the west, Gunpazk Avenue to the south and east and includes the proposed town center, Gunbarrel Squaze Shopping Center and King Soopers Shopping Center. Planning Board is asked to consider the proposed change and recommend approval of the amendment to City Council. BACKGROUND As part of the Concept Plan Review for the Gunbarrel Town Center the Planning Board indicated its support of the mixed use development proposal (retail and residential). The block on which the s:\plan\pb-items~tttemos\GKS-16-021urPBmem.wpd AGENDA ITEM #7B, Page 1 Gunbarrel Town Center is located is the only area in the city zoned RB-D. While the RB-D zoning, district was largely intended to provide regional business and commercial services to the Gunbarrel area, residential development is permitted in the zoning district. DISCUSSION The existing King Soopers Center and Gunbarrel Square currently provide the only commercial services within tl~is regional shopping center area. The bulk of the Gunbarrel azea that is within the city is made up of a significant amount of employment-based uses which include an array of research, development, manufacturing, and office uses. Build-out of the remaining undeveloped portion of the RB-D zone as employment-based office uses could aggravate transportation related issues in the area. The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan has indicated a need for additional housing to help offset the jobs/population imbalance and reduce transportation impacts. Placing housing close to major employment areas is beneficial in addressing these issues. Residential density in the RB-D zoning district is currently based on open space. The open space requirement of 1200 square feet per unit is identica] to the HR-D (High Density Residential - Developing) zoning district. Experience has shown that the HR-D zoning districts typically have lower densities when compared to other high density residential zones which do not have open space requirements. Housing densities in HR-D / RB-D zoning districts generally range from 14 to 1$ units per acre. Other high density zones in the city permit densities as high as 27 units per acre (the HR-E zone at one unit per 1600 square feet of lot area results in a maximum of 27 units per acre). In a mixed use development, with the increased building and parking coverage that results from the non-residential uses, the resulting density will tend to be lower in "D" zoning districts. While the densities that result from current open space requirements may be appropriate for suburban residential development, they do not permit densities needed to encourage or make mixed use development viable in a town center concept. If densities in excess of 14 units per acre are desirable to encourage mixed use development in the RB-D zoning district, a reduction in the minimum open space requirement is necessary. ANALYSIS Staffhas considered several approaches to develop open space requirements in an RB-D mixed use development. The most straightforward approach is to reduce the required minimum open space per dwelling unit of 1200 square feet to some lower amount While on the surface this appears to be the simplest amendment, arriving at an appropriate reduced open space figure has proven difficult. Reducing the open space to 600 square feet per unit would increase the densities to a range of approximatelyl8 to 29 units per acre (note: residential densities s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\GKS-16-021urPBmem.wpd AGENDA ITEM #7B, Page 2 are dependent on the amount of building and parking coverage which can vary significantly from, project to project). The resulting density would be somewhat less in a mixed use development as previously mentioned. StafPs estimate is that a minimum of 400 square feet of open space per unit would provide for high densities comparable to other zoning districts when part of a mixed use development. Based on 400 square feet of gross open space per unit, and using the 265 units proposed in the town center concept plan, 106,000 square feet (approximately 25.2% of the site) of open space would be needed.( Please note that the Planning Board did comment that the number of units shown in the concept plan may be too high based primarily on the Board's opinion that there was a lack of quality open space.) If private open space of 60 square feet (see the following recommendation) per unit is subtracted from required open space, the amount of ground level open space would be 90,100 square faet of open space or 21.5 % ofthe site. The figure of 21.5°/a of a site as gross open space falls within a range of typically acceptable open space percentages for both high density residential and non- residential development. The calculations provided in the town center concept plan review indicated that approximately 65,000 square feet of open space was being provided. This equates to approximately 245 square feet per dwelling unit (based on 265 dwelling units). The 65,000 squaze feet represents approximately 15 percent of the site. This percentage is somewhat misleading in that not all of the proposed open space is at ground level. The percentage of ground level open space could be significantly less. Ground level open space of fifteen percent or less of the overall site is normally found only in very urban environments such as downtown Boulder. In most urban or downtown environments, other ublic spaces such as malls and civic parks help fulfill the open space needs. No such up blic spaces currently exist in the Gunbarrel area. Private Open Space While Planning Board has indicated support for higher residential densities in the town center, it has also indicated that a reasonable amount of quality private open space should also be provided for each dwelling unit. A difference betwaen the RB-D zoning district and other RB zones is that most other RB zones require a minimum amount of private open space that must be provided in addition to the overall minimum open space reyuirement. The majority of these zones require 60 square feet ofprivate open space for each dwelling unit. There is, however, no requirement for the provision of private open space in the RB-D zoning district. Staff would recommend that the 60 square feet private open space requirement be added to the RB-D bulk regulations found in Section 9-3.2-1. This will assure that every dwelling unit will be provided with outdoor open space in the form of a deck, balcony, patio, porch, etc. s:\plan\pb-items~tnemos\GKS-16-021urPBmem.wpd AGENDA ITEM #7B, Page 3 Staff would further recommend that the private open space requirement count 100% to meeting the required open space requirements. Current standards limit private areas from counting as more than 15% of the overall open space requirement. OPTIONS CONSIDERED Rather than using a minimum open space per unit requirement, staff considered requiring an overall minimum open space requirement (such as 20% for example) for the development lot area and imposing a maximum floor area ratio (such as one to one if within a mixed use development). The problem with this option is trying to determine the appropriate floor area ratios and whether maximum ratios should be established for either the non-residential and residential components of a development, or whether the floor area ratios for the residential component should be a bonus based such as in the downtown zoning districts. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Board recommend approval of the following amendments to City Council: Reduce the open space requirement in RB-D zoning district bulk regulations to 600 square feet per dwelling unit Allow a further reduction in the open space requirement to 400 square feet. per unit if the residential portion is within a mixed use development (residential and non-residential uses). Add a requirement of a minimum of 60 square feet of private open space per dwelling unit to the bulk regulations for RB-D zoning districts. 4. Allow 100% of the private open space to be counted toward meeting the minimum per unit open space requirement. Approved by: , ~l~'~j ~~~ Peter Pollock, Planning Director ATTACHMENTS Attachment A- Ordinance Amending Tifle 9 Land Use Regulations s:\plan\pb-items~nemos\GKS-16-021urPBmem.wpd AGENDA ITEM #7B, Page 4 ATTACHMENT "A" ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, "LAND USE REGULATIONS," B.R.C.1981 BY AMENDING THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RB-D ZONING DISTRICT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CTfY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, THAT: Section *. Lines l.a. and l.b of Subsection 9-3.2-1(b), B.R.C. 1981, aze amended to read: ZONING REQUIREMENTS LR-D MR-D HR-D MU-D MXR-D TB-D CB-D RB-D IS-D IG-D IM-D l. a. minimum 6,000 3,000 1,200 n/a n/a 1,200 1,200 ~298 1,600 1,600 1,600 useable open space b00 per dwelling unit s . ft. ~h~ b, minimum n/a n/a n/a 60 60 n/a n/a efa n/a n/a n/a private open space 60 er dwellin unit Section *. Subsection 9-3.2-6(a), B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read: 9-3.2-6 Useable Open Space for Residential Buildings. (a) Criteria for Usable Onen Sbace: Residential useable open space may be used to meet the yard setbacks or the open space requirements of Section 9-3.2-1, "Schedule of Bulk Requirements," B.R.C. 1981, and to meet the open space requirement for buildings over twenty-five feet as prescribed in Section 9-3.2-7, "Useable Open Space and Building Height for Business and Industrial Uses Over Twenty-Five Feet in Height," B.R.C. 1981. Useable open space includes: . (1) A landscaped area meeting the landscaping provisions of Sections 9-3.3-2, "General Landscaping and Screening Requirements," and 9-3.3-3, "Streetscape Landscape Design Standards," B.R.C. 1981; SdPLA1NB-ITBMSVv]emos\gk-2002-lenduse-RH-D oprn space.ord.wpd Agenda Item #~_ Page #_ ~' (2) Outdoor activity or recreational elements such as play fields, swimming pools or hot„ tubs, and hard surface azeas that are unenclosed by an overhead structure, including, without limitation, tennis, .volleyball, or basketball courts; (3) Individual balconies, decks, and patio azeas that are not intended or designed to be enclosed, if the minimum size of such individual balcony, deck or patio is not less than 36 square feet and not less than forty-eight inches in any dimension or porches that meet the requirements of Section 9-3.2-15, "Setback Encroachments for Front Porches,' B R.C 1981 Such areas shall count for no more than fifteen,percent of ~_.., ~ ~- ~~ x: . ,- - the required useable open space ekoep{ yV~eYt I~~sd 'in. the RB-D zonin~ c~s~ict; where such a~~imayCtititribute tow~rtis meeting the,eritire apen space requirement; (4) Pedestrianways, plazas, or atria within a building that are designed for the specific use and enjoyment of the residents or tenants of that structure, but only if these areas are visually or physically connected to the outside. Such areas shall constitute no more than twenty-five percent of the required useable open space; (5) An uncovered parking area and drive that serves only one detached dwelling unit; (6) If specifically approved as part of a site review, landscaped azeas of public or private rights-of-way that are not anticipated to be converted to public or private highways, streets, or alleys within the next ten years. Such areas shall constitute no more than ten percent of the required useable open space; and (7) Wetlands shall constitute no more than fifty percent of the required usable open space. Section *. Subsection 9-4-11(j), B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read: 9-4-11 Site Review. (j) Densitv Increases: The density of a project may be increased in the RB-E district through a reduction of the lot area requirement or in the RB1-E, RB2-E, RB3-E, RB1-X, RB2-X, RB3-X, RB-D;and MLT-X districts through a reduction in the open space requirements. The open space requirements in the RB1-E, RB2-E, RB3-E, RB1-X, RB2-X, and RB3-X districts may be reduced by up to one hundred percent. `The open space requiret~tents in the RB-D distriCt;may':$e rcduced by up to ttttrty three percent. Density may be increased up to twenty-five percent in the RB-E district through a reduction of the lot area requirement. S:~PLAN\PB-ITEMSU7emos\gk-2002-landuse-RB-D open spece.ord.wpd Agenda Item # 7~ Page #~_ The density increase will be permitted if the approving agency finds that the following~ criteria have been met: (1) Open Space Needs Met: The needs ofthe projecYs occupants for useable open space can be met adequately; (2) CharacterofProjectandArea: Theopenspacereductiondoesnotsignificantlyaffect the character of the development nor the character of the surrounding azea; and (3) Open Space and I,ot Area Reductions: The specific percentage reduction in open space or lot area requested by the applicant is justified by any one or combination of the following site design features not to exceed the maximum reduction set forth above: (A) Close proximity to a public mall or park for which the development is specially assessed or to which the project conMbutes funding of capital improvements beyond that required bx ` ' " $-R-C-~98~th~ parks and reote~tion comp4i%~nt of the development exc}se tax se~'~~rCh an`. ChaF~ter;3 8f~`,"De,v_e1R1?~Pt: Biccise Tax,,, B;It~Cs~,;~~~~: maatimum one hundred percent reductibn in the RBl-E; RB2-E, RB3-E, RB 1-X, It$2-X, and the RB3-X districts and ten percent in the RB-E district; (B) Architectural treatment that resutts in reducing the apparent bulk and mass of the structure or structures and site planning which increases the openness of the site: maa~imum five percent reduction; (C) A common pazk, recreation, or playground area functionally useable and accessible by the developmenYs occupants for active recreational purposes and sized for the number of inhabitants of the development, maatimutn five percent reduction; or developed facilities within the project designed to meet the active rgcreational needs of the occupants: maximum five percent reduction;;;ai~ (D) Permanent dedication of the development to use by a unique residential population whose needs for conventional open space are reduced:.maatimum five percent reduction:; and ,. (E) Tha reduettoa~ in`opari spaca is p~rt of a rriixed use development that iuGludes both residcmfial arid non-residential uses Vvithin am RB-D zoiung districf: maximum, thiriy-ttrree peicent reducrion, Section . This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern. Section . The council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for public inspection and acquisition. S:\PI.AMPH-ITEMSVvfemos\gk-2002-landuse-R&D oprn space.ord.wpd Agenda Item # 7,(3 Page #_'~_ INTRODUCED, READ ON FIItST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TTI'LE„ ONLY this day of , 20_ Mayor Attest: City Clerk on behalf of the Director of Finance and Record READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this day of 20_ Mayor Attest: City Clerk on behalf of the Director of Finance and Record S:~PLAMP&TTEMSN~femos\gk-2002-lenduse-RH-D open space.ord.wpd Agenda Item #~_ Page #~_