File #: ID# 17-344    Name:
Type: Report Status: General Business
File created: 12/5/2017 In control: City Council
On agenda: 2/27/2018 Final action:
Title: Potential code amendments to the Planned Development Overlay, Chapter 9, Title 10, and Chapter 2 zone districts
Attachments: 1. Proposed code amendments RE: Planned Development Overlay
Date Ver.Action ByActionResultAction DetailsMeeting DetailsVideo
No records to display.

Agenda Date: 02/27/2018

 

Subject:

Title

Potential code amendments to the Planned Development Overlay, Chapter 9, Title 10, and Chapter 2 zone districts

Body

 

Presented By:

Jocelyn Mills, Community Development Director and Steve Kemp, City Attorney

 

POLICY QUESTION:

Does city council support staff bringing forward future code amendments to the Planned Development Overlay section of the city’s zoning code?  Proposed amendments to the PDO chapter impact other recommended changes to the city’s zone districts as outlined below.

 

PROPOSAL:

There are several items in the PDO chapter of the zoning code are in need of review.  Potential code updates for the Planned Development Overlay (PDO) section of the city’s zoning code include removing the option for a PDO in any of the city’s residential zone districts, and eliminating the option for a reduction in parking through a PDO process.  Staff found that as we started to evaluate potential changes to the PDO chapter, it continued to then require further review and potential modifications to the city’s zone districts.  

 

The potential changes also include clarifying and cleaning up the PDO provisions identified in the Central Area Multiple Use (CA) and Transitional (T) zone districts, as well as further clarifying minimum and maximum residential densities and floor area ratios (FAR) in all of the city’s zone districts.  Currently in the PDO chapter, it lists maximum residential densities and FAR for all of the city’s zone districts.  The majority of the city’s zoning districts also calculate maximum densities within each individual district.  The proposal includes removing the densities and FAR listed in the PDO chapter, and relocating the densities from the PDO into each individual corresponding zone district in Chapter 2.  There are no changes proposed to the densities or FARs except the following, which are all based on the need to further clarify within each zone district the intended density and/or floor area ratios:

 

                     There is inconsistency in the CA zone district and in the PDO regarding density allowed for CA (currently through a PDO there is an option to increase density in the CA zone district; such an increase in density should only be permitted through a rezoning or Planned Development process).  The proposal is to delete the density in the PDO for CA (allows for a maximum of 100 units per acre), and retain the density as listed calculated in the CA zone district (allows for a maximum of 75 units per acre for multi-family and 8 units per acre for single family).

                     The maximum density listed in the PDO chapter for the zone district Agricultural (A-1) does impact this individual zone district as in the A-1 district, it currently does not have a maximum density.  The proposal includes adding the maximum density from the PDO chapter for A-1 into the A-1 zone district (One dwelling unit per ten acres/0.10 dwelling unit per acre).

                     In Chapter 2 for the zone districts of Industrial Park (I-P) and the Heavy Industrial (I-2), it does not state a FAR.  There is an FAR for each of these listed currently in the PDO chapter.  The proposal is to relocate these FARs from the PDO chapter into the corresponding individual zone district (FAR of 2:1 for I-P and FAR of 3:1 for I-2).   

 

The other often confusing language in some of the zone districts is the minimum lot areas and in certain districts it also include minimum lot areas per residential unit, which is another way to calculate density but this is not as clear as listing density in “number of units per acre” (a typical reference in most zoning codes).  Other updates proposed include clarifying setbacks for multifamily uses in the Residential Multiple- Family District (R-5) and in the CA District, and setting a minimum lot size and unobstructed open space requirement for residential uses in CA. 

 

The attached code outlines the proposed amendments for review and discussion.  Strikethrough indicates items to be deleted, and capital letters/words indicates items to be added into the code.

Please note, staff will bring additional diagrams to help explain and review the proposed changes at the study session.