Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-22 - Agendas - FinalTayelteyi;le 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, January 22, 2007, 5:30 p.m. Room 219, City Administration Building ORDER OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A. Introduction of agenda item — Chair B. Presentation of Staff Report C. Public Comment D. Presentation of request — Applicant E. Questions & Answer with Commission F. Action of Planning Commission (Discussion & Vote) NOTE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda item please queue behind the podium when the Chair asks for public comment. Public comment occurs after the Planning Staff has presented the application and will only be permitted during this part of the hearing for each item. Members of the public are permitted a maximum of 10 minutes to speak; representatives of a neighborhood group will be allowed 20 minutes. The applicant/representative of an application before the Planning Commission for consideration will be permitted a maximum of 20 minutes for presentation. Once the Chair recognizes you, go to the podium at the front of the room and give your name and address. Address your comments to the Chair, who is the presiding officer. He/She will direct them to the appropriate appointed official, staff member or others for response. Open dialogue will not be permitted: please ask any questions, and answers will be provided once public comment has been closed. Please keep your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak. Please, as a matter of courtesy, refrain from applauding or booing any speakers or actions of the Planning Commission. 2007 Planning Commissioners Jill Anthes Lois Bryant Candy Clark James Graves Hilary Harris Audy Lack Christine Myres Alan Ostner Sean Trumbo aye evi.le ARKANSAS TENTATIVE AGENDA 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 AGENDA FOR A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, January 22, 2007, 5:30 p.m. Room 219, City Administration Building The following items will be considered: Consent: 1. Approval of the October 09, 2006 Planning Commission meeting minutes. 2. LSP 06-2404: Lot Split (SCHWARTZ, 454): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at 700 FOX HUNTER RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 5.21 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into 3 tracts of 1.17, 3.04 and 1.00 acres. Planner: Suzanne Morgan Old Business: 3. ADM 06-2380: (URBAN RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS): Submitted by Planning Staff amending the Unified Development to add design standards as criteria for approval, applicable to town homes, single-family attached, two-family, three-family and multi- family dwelling units. The request is to forward the urban residential design standards to the City Council. Planner: Karen Minkel New Business: 4. ADM 07-2442: (BELLAFONT 1 LSD MODIFICATION): Submitted by H2 Engineering for property located north of Joyce Blvd, west of Vantage Drive. The applicant requests a modification to the approved condition of approval No. 4 for LSD 06-1885, removing the median extension. Planner: Andrew Garner 5. VAR 07-2441: VARIANCE (FIVE WEST MOUNTAIN): Submitted by James Foster for property located at 5 West Mountain, east of the Town Center Plaza. The property is zoned MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER. The request is for a variance from the building height requirements and for a variance from the step -back requirement above four stories in the Main Street Center Zoning District. Planner: Jesse Fulcher 6. CUP 07-2420: (LOVING CHOICES, 522): Submitted by KATIE ALLEN for property located at 275 S. DUNCAN AVENUE, NE CORNER OF DUNCAN AND STONE STREET. The property is zoned RMF -40, MULTI FAMILY - 40 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.20 acres. The request is for the establishment of a professional office (Use Unit 25), specifically for a welfare agency. Planner: Suzanne Morgan 7. RZN 07-2419: (KELLY, 681/720): Submitted by DAVE JORGENSEN for property located at 3184 S. CITY LAKE ROAD. The property is zoned R -A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL and contains approximately 44.74 acres. The request is to rezone the subject property to RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE. Planner: Jesse Fulcher 8. LSD 06-2300: Large Scale Development (CENTRAL UNITED METHODIST, 484): Submitted by JORGENSEN & ASSOCIATES for property located BETWEEN DICKSON & LAFAYETTE ALONG HIGHLAND AND ST. CHARLES. The property is zoned MSC, Main Street Center and contains approximately 6.02 acres. The request is for a 32,254 s.f, 2 -story Ministry building and a 5 -story parking deck with 275 spaces. Planner: Suzanne Morgan 9. LSD 07-2414: Large Scale Development (PEBBLE CREEK FLATS, 598): Submitted by N. ARTHUR SCOTT for property located at INTERSECTION OF 18TH ST.AND CUSTER LANE. The property is zoned C-1, Neighborhood Commercial and RMF -24, Residential Multi- family — 24 units per acre, and contains approximately 4.21 acres. The request is for a 2 -story mixed use building with 18 dwelling units and 11,126 s.f. of commercial/office space within the C-1 zoning and 2 apartment buildings with 46 dwelling units within the RMF -24 zoning. Planner: Suzanne Morgan 10. R-PZD 06-2299: Planned Zoning District (RUSKIN HEIGHTS, 370): Submitted by COMMUNITY BY DESIGN, LLC for property located at WEST OF HWY 265/CROSSOVER RD., AND SOUTH OF MISSION BLVD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 28.92 acres. The request is for rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and partial development approval for a Master Development Plan of a Residential Planned Zoning District with 295 attached and detached planned dwellings as well as 58,500 s.f. of non- residential space. The Preliminary Plat approval is for 67 lots. The development approval proposed at this time is for 57 residential units and 19,182 s.f. of non-residential space. Planner: Andrew Gamer All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. A copy of the proposed amendments and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the office of City Planning (575-8267), 125 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions. Interpreters or TDD for hearing impaired are available for all public hearings; 72 hour notice is required. For further information or to request an interpreter, please call 575-8330. THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Suzanne Morgan, Current Planner Glenn Newman, Staff Engineer THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning DATE: January 17, 2007 PC Meeting of January 22, 2007 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 LSP 06-2404: Lot Split (SCHWARTZ, 454): Submitted by BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at 700 FOX HUNTER RD. The property is in the Planning Area and contains approximately 5.21 acres. The request is to divide the subject property into 3 tracts of 1.17, 3.04 and 1.00 acres. Planner: Suzanne Morgan Findings: Background: This item was forwarded from the January 11, 2007 Subdivision Committee meeting to the Planning Commission. The approval of this lot split requires a waiver from lot width requirements; the applicant requests a 60' lot width where 75' is required due to .the location of existing dwelling units. The Subdivision Committee forwarded this item to the Planning Commission with conditions of approval, recommending in favor of staff's recommendations. Property.: The property is located east of Fox Hunter Road. The entire tract contains approximately 5.5 acres. Development on the property consists of two single family dwellings with accessory structures. Each house has an existing septic system. Proposal: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject property into three lots of 1.17, 3.04 and 1 acre. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Direction Land Use Zoning North Single family residential & agricultural Planning Area —1 unit/acre South Single family residential & agricultural Planning Area — 1 unit/acre East Single family residential & agricultural Planning Area —1 unit/acre West Single family residential & agricultural Planning Area — 1 unit/acre Adjacent Master Street Plan Streets: Fox Hunter Road, an unclassified street and an unnamed Minor Arterial street along the north property line. Right-of-way: The applicant shows that there is an existing 30' right-of-way from centerline of Fox Hunter Road as required by the County. The Master Street Plan identifies a future Minor Arterial Street along the north property line of the subject property. It is one link in a future K:IReports120071PC Reports101-22-071LSP 06-2404 (Schtvartz).doc January 22, 2007 Planning Commission LSP 06-2404 Schwartz Agenda Item 2 Page 1 of 10 street that will connect Molly Wagnon Road to Cliffs Boulevard and Hwy 265. Property to the north is owned by the City of Fayetteville. There are several circumstances which could potentially require the realignment of the Minor Arterial Street, including above ground sewer force mains at the northwest corner of the subject property and the terrain. Therefore, staff does not recommend the dedication of right-of-way at this time. Prior to recordation, the plat shall be updated to represent a 45' future right-of-way for a Minor Arterial Street per the Master Street Plan, unless otherwise modified by the City Council. Lot Width Requirements: The City of Fayetteville requires 75' of lot frontage on an improved public right-of-way in the Planning Area and 75' of lot width [Ch. 166.08 (F.1)]. The applicant's proposed lot split requires a waiver from the lot width requirement for Tract 2. Staff did look at the possibility of relocating lot frontage of Tract 2 to the north, but to maintain a 10' setback from the existing septic system would result in the same situation. Staff does not find that the proposed lot would negatively affect any surrounding properties, none of which are located in a platted subdivision and many vary in shape and size. Additionally, the location of the existing dwellings presents a hardship, one which was not created by the applicant, to the subdivision of property as required by ordinance. Water/Septic Systems: All tracts have access to public water. The dwellings on Tracts 1 and 3 utilize septic systems. The proposed lot split has been reviewed by the Washington County Public Heath Center, which has determined that there is adequate spacing for the primary and secondary field locations on the proposed lots, two of which are less than 1.5 acres. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval : of LSP 06-2404 withthe following conditions. Conditions of Approval: 1:Planning Commission determination of appropriate right-of-way dedication. There are several circumstances, including above ground sewer force mains at the northwest corner of the subject property and the terrain, which could require the realignment of the Minor Arterial Street once it is deemed necessary for construction. Therefore, staff does not recommend that the right-of-way be dedicated at this time. Prior to recordation, the plat shall be updated to represent a 45' future right-of-way for a Minor Arterial Street per the Master Street Plan, unless otherwise modified by the City Council. The Subdivision Committee recommended in favor of the above condition of approval. 2. Planning Commission determination of a waiver of the Unified Development Code, Chapter 166.08 (F)(1) Design Standards request for lot width requirements to create a lot with less than the required 75' lot width. All tracts meet the ordinance requirement for 75' lot frontage on a public street, but due to the location of the existing dwellings on Tracts 1 and 3, the lot width of Tract 2 is decreases from 75' to 60' in width. Staff recommends approval of the requested waiver, finding it appropriate to jog the property line to maintaining the building setbacks from the existing dwellings. The Subdivision Committee recommended in favor of the waiver from Ch. 166.08 (F.1). K: IReports120071PC Reports101-22-071LSP 06-2404 (Schwartz).doc January 22, 2007 Planning Commission LSP 06-2404 Schwartz Agenda Item 2 Page 2 of 10 3. The GIS Division shall approve the revised survey and State Plane Coordinates prior to recordation. 4. Prior to recordation, the vicinity map shall be updated to represent the Minor Arterial Street identified on the Master Street Plan to the north of the subject property. 5. A separate water meter shall be required for Tract 1 prior to recordation of the lot split. 6. Washington County Planning approval is required prior to recordation. All lots shall meet Washington County zoning regulations and the plat shall be revised should any tract be enlarged to meet these requirements. Standard Conditions of Approval: 7. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives - AR Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications). Additional Conditions: a. b. Planning Commission Action: Motion: Second: Vote: Meeting Date: January 22, 2007 O Approval O Denied O Tabled K: tReparts120071PC Reportsl0l-22-07ILSP 06-2404 (Schwartz).doc January 22, 2007 Planning Commission LSP 06-2404 Schwartz Agenda Item 2 Page 3 of 10 LSP 06-2904 Page 4 166.08 Design Standards (A)Intent. These standards are intended to help the developer achieve development that is safe, efficient, pleasant, economic to build and easy to maintain. (F) Residential lots. The use and design of lots shall conform to the provisions of zoning where zoning is in effect. When no zoning applies, the following standards shall govern unless in conflict with more stringent city or state regulations applicable to the use of individual disposal systems: (1) Bulk and area regulations: (2) Size. The size and shape of the lots shall not be required to conform to any stipulated pattern, but insofar as practicable, side lot lines should be at right angles to straight street lines or radial to curved street lines. When a tract of land is subdivided into larger than normal lots, such lots shall be so arranged as to permit the logical location and opening of future streets and appropriate resubdivision of the lots, with provisions for adequate utility connections for such resubdivision. (3) Developments outside city developed to all inside the city standards. If the City Council grants access to the City's sewer system pursuant to § 51.113 (C) and the owner/developer agrees to petition for annexation as soon as legally possible and develop the subdivision in accordance with all inside the city development requirements including payment of all impact fees, the bulk and area requirements for this subdivision shall conform to those within the city limits rather than those within the planning area. K:IReporls120071SC Reporls101-1 I-07ILSP 06-2404 (Schwartz).doc January 22, 2007 Planning Commission LSP 06-2404 Schwartz Agenda Item 2 Page 4 of 10 City Limits Planning Area Lot area minimum 8,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. Lot width minimum 70 ft. 75 ft. Side setback 10 ft. 10 ft. Rear setback 20 ft. 20 ft. Frontage on improved street 70 ft. 75 ft. Provided, a suburban lot may be developed as a tandem lot in accordance with zoning, Chapters 160 through 165. (2) Size. The size and shape of the lots shall not be required to conform to any stipulated pattern, but insofar as practicable, side lot lines should be at right angles to straight street lines or radial to curved street lines. When a tract of land is subdivided into larger than normal lots, such lots shall be so arranged as to permit the logical location and opening of future streets and appropriate resubdivision of the lots, with provisions for adequate utility connections for such resubdivision. (3) Developments outside city developed to all inside the city standards. If the City Council grants access to the City's sewer system pursuant to § 51.113 (C) and the owner/developer agrees to petition for annexation as soon as legally possible and develop the subdivision in accordance with all inside the city development requirements including payment of all impact fees, the bulk and area requirements for this subdivision shall conform to those within the city limits rather than those within the planning area. K:IReporls120071SC Reporls101-1 I-07ILSP 06-2404 (Schwartz).doc January 22, 2007 Planning Commission LSP 06-2404 Schwartz Agenda Item 2 Page 4 of 10 Bates Associates, inc. Civil Engineering k Surveying 3561 N. College / Fayetteville, AR 72703 PH: 479-442-9350 * FAX: 479-521-9350 To Whom It May Concem: Our client Ms. Annette Schwartz would like to split her 5.21 acres into three tracts of 1.00 acre, 1.17 acres, and 3.04 acres respectively. All three tracts will have road frontage along Fox Hunter Road. If there are any questions concerning this matter please feel free to call me here at the office. Thanks, Bryan T. Bunch Project Manager Bates & Associates January 22, 2007 Planning Commission LSP 06-2404 Schwartz Agenda Item 2 Page 5 of 10 Bates )s:ccj:tes:,Inc. Civil Engineering Surveying 3561 N. College / Fayetteville, AR 72703 PH: 479-442-9350 * FAX: 479-521-9350 REQUEST FOR WAIVER To Whom It May Concern: Our client, Mrs. Schwartz is applying for a tract split within the City of Fayetteville Planning Area. The purpose of this split is to create 3 tracts from the subject property to enable the two existing homes located on the property to be separated out from the remaining vacant acreage. We are asking for a waiver of the Ch. 166.08 (F) of the Unified Development Code, which indicates a lot must have 75' of adequate road frontage. The lot we are creating does have 75' of frontage, but has to decrease to 60' to allow the existing structures on the property of be in compliance with the building setbacks. Although there is adequate space for the 75' to be on the north side of tract 1, there is a pond at the northwest corner that would have to be filled in and also some steep grades on the north property line that would make it difficult to construct a drive on that portion of the property. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, PM* 44 Derrick Thomas r/// Bates & Associates January 22, 2007 Planning Commission LSP 06-2404 Schwartz Agenda Item 2 Page 6 of 10 Gey page oilealt a 3270 Wimberly Drive Fayetteville, AR 72703 479-521-8181 Memorandum To: City of Fayetteville From: Melissa Wonnacott, Environmental Health Specialist, II Re: Schwartz Lot Split 1/3/2007 I have reviewed the Schwartz lot split. The developer is Annette M. Schwartz at 700 Foxhunter Rd., Fayetteville, AR. The engineering firm is Blew, Bates and Associates. I feel that there is adequate spacing for the primary and secondary field locations on all three lots. Tract 1 and Tract 3 have existing septic systems located within the proposed lot locations. Lot three has an existing sewer line at the back of the property. If this line is not available for use there is adequate space for a septic system. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at 479-521-8181 ext 2111. January 22, 2007 Planning Commission LSP 06-2404 Schwartz Agenda Item 2 Page 7 of 10 LS PO6-2404 Close Up View SCHWARTZ Overview Legend ooco oao% OverlayDistrict — FLOODWAY 500 YR 0 — 100 YEAR LIMIT OF STUDY — — - Baseline Raffle O Fayetteville i-- :. { Outside city ago LSPOs-2404 vectorGDB.Foatpnnt2004 Hillside -Hilltop Overlay District 0 75 150 300 450 600 Feet January 22, 2007 Planning Commissio LSP 06-2404 Schwartz Agenda Item Pa ce 0 of 4C Overview Legend Subject Property LSP06-2404 Boundary "'N�. Planning Area o 0009, 000.000 o Overlay District Outside City 0 0.25 0.5 Legend Ell Hillside -Hilltop ON 1 M erlay District iles January 22, : 007 Planning Commi°sion LSP 06-2404 Schwartz Ayer da Item 2 Page 9 of 10 January 22, 2007 Planning Commission LSP 06-2404 Schwartz Agenda Item 2 Page 10 of 10 ia.)etteville ARKANSAS PC Meeting of January 22, 2007 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Karen Minkel, Senior Long Range Planner DATE: January 17, 2007 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 575-8267 ADM 06-2380: Administrative Item (Urban Residential Design Standards Update): Submitted by Planning Staff to forward an ordinance establishing urban residential design standards to the Ordinance Review Committee. Planner: KAREN MINKEL UPDATE TO ADM 06-2380 Planning staff presented the proposed urban residential design standards at a regular Planning Commission meeting on December 11, 2006. At that meeting, several requests and concerns were voiced by commissioners and the public, which staff has addressed in the outline below: Legality of the Proposed Ordinance Staff has had the ordinance reviewed by Diego Demaya, a Legal Specialist for the Disability Law Resource Project, and Kathy Gips, Director of Training for Adaptive Environments. The Disability Law Resource Project is a division of the Southwest Disability and Business Technical Assistance Center for Region VI, which was created by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Mr. Demaya found the proposed ordinance in compliance with relevant federal legislation. Adaptive Environments is a "29 -year-old educational non-profit organization committed to advancing the role of design in expanding opportunity and enhancing experience for people of all ages and abilities." Ms. Gips also found the proposed ordinance in compliance with relevant federal legislation and stated that the ordinance was similar to ordinances found in other cities. Cost Analysis Commissioners and members of the public expressed interest and concern about the effect of the proposed ordinance on the cost of development, which would ultimately result in increased rents. Staff completed a tentative analysis of how costs would change if a developer who constructs conventional subdivision development now had to comply with the proposed ordinance. This analysis has several caveats: 1) The analysis is specific to one site and one development; 2) The analysis assumes that a developer is being forced to change his/her pattern of development; and 3) The analysis only uses numbers that January 22, 2007 Planning Commission ADM 06-2380 Urban Residential Design Standards Agenda Item 3 Page 1 of 72 Planning staff can use with a high degree of certainty. For example, Planning staff was not able to take into account the cost offset associated with the addition of retail space. Conversely, Planning staff did not calculate costs associated with grading of the site or firewalls. Table 1: Cost Comparison $1,530,672 Redesign Total Southern View 1 Total $1,530,672 $775,640 Total Difference $755,032 $775,640 As shown in Table 1, the greatest increases in cost are related directly or indirectly to the construction of public streets. Comparison to Peer Cities Planning staff contacted cities utilized by Blair Public Library when making benchmark comparisons. All the cities are college towns in middle America, and staff determined whether the cities had design standards for multi -family housing. The results are displayed in Table 2. Staff then compared key requirements in the proposed ordinance to the requirements adopted by Cities City of Fayetteville Souther View I Case Study Yes Qty. Unit Cost Total Cost Qty. Unit Cost Total Cost Difference Change Sidewalks - 5' 4016 If $3 sf $12,048 10530 If $3 sf $31,590 ($19,542) -62% Sidewalks - 9' 5750 If $3 sf $17,250 - If $3 sf $0 $17,250 -- Public Street - 36' w/curb&gut 3555 If $266 If $945,630 900 If $266 If $239,400 $706,230 295% Alley - 20' w/curb&gut 1229 If $148 If $181,892 - If $148 If $0 $181,892 -- Parking Lot - 66' double loaded curb & gut 1924 If $173 If $332,852 2800 If $173 If $484,400 ($151,548) -31% Parking Lot Trees 44 $250 ea $11,000 41 $250 ea $10,250 $750 7% Street Lights - incl. materials and install 12 $2,500 ea $30,000 4 $2,500 ea $10,000 $20,000 200% Dwelling Units 333 300 10% Parking spaces 562 680 -17% Greenspace 113,110 sf - sf - 147,331 sf sf -23% Commercial Space 10,174 sf - - - -- $1,530,672 Redesign Total Southern View 1 Total $1,530,672 $775,640 Total Difference $755,032 $775,640 As shown in Table 1, the greatest increases in cost are related directly or indirectly to the construction of public streets. Comparison to Peer Cities Planning staff contacted cities utilized by Blair Public Library when making benchmark comparisons. All the cities are college towns in middle America, and staff determined whether the cities had design standards for multi -family housing. The results are displayed in Table 2. Staff then compared key requirements in the proposed ordinance to the requirements adopted by Cities Design Standards Ames, IA Yes Champaign, IL No Columbia, MO No Denton, TX Yes Iowa City, IA Yes Lawrence, KS No Urbana, IL Yes (only in Historic Districts January Z , 2007 Table aaithArtiti t$ ndards Agenda Item 3 Page 2 of 72 the comparison cities. Ames, IA has varying requirements for different overlay districts; Planning staff used the design standards that apply to two districts adjacent to the college campus where a majority of the multi -family dwelling units are built. Iowa City has additional regulations for the Central Planning District, which Planning staff incorporated into this comparison. Table 3 indicates the findings of the ordinance comparison: Table 3: Comparison to Peer Cities Peer Cities Ames, IA Iowa City, IA Denton, TX Fayetteville, AR Where Applies Historic and Overlay Districts Zoning Districts Entire City Entire City Buildings front onto a public street Parking located behind build -to zone Utility Screening X Height Limits ✓ ✓ X X Material Requirements ✓V V X Variation in Building Design X V ✓ ✓ V ✓ V Articulation of FacadesV VV Fencing Requirements X X is ✓ Table 3 shows that the proposed ordinance is similar to ordinances utilized in peer cities with two exceptions. One exception is the material requirements; the three comparison cities have material requirements. One ordinance example is Denton, TX, which states, "an amount equal to 40% of the total net exterior wall area of each building elevation, excluding gables, windows, doors and related trim, shall be brick or stone or masonry." The second exception is the fencing requirements. The peer cities apply their design standards to multi -family dwelling units, which are unlikely to have a fence in front of the principle facade. Fayetteville's ordinance also applies to duplexes and triplexes, which are more likely to have a fence that contributes or detracts from the public realm. Developer Feedback Planning staff invited developers, engineers and architects to two feedback sessions designed to gather their input on the ordinance. During both sessions, attendees brainstormed changes to the proposed ordinance. The proposed changes and rankings are attached to this report. January 22, 2007 Planning Commission ADM 06-2380 Urban Residential Design Standards Agenda Item 3 Page 3 of 72 The first session was held on January 11, 2007 and approximately 25 developers, architects and engineers attended. After a brief presentation from staff, the attendees brainstormed changes and used a voting method to assign rankings. The changes and rankings are attached. The three changes that garnered the most votes were: 1) Allow building to front onto private as well as public streets; 2) Reduce setback requirements for balconies; and 3) Change the build -to zone from 15 feet -25 feet to 10 feet -25 feet. The entire list of changes is attached to the report. The second session was held on January 17, 2007 and five attendees were present. In addition to the 15 changes proposed at the first meeting, the attendees added: 1) Allow administrative approval for urban residential development; 2) Where streets are required according the Master Street Plan, buildings must face the street; 3) Make the requirements based on the size of the development; and 4) Change the build -to zones to 0 feet -25 feet. Rankings were not assigned during this session due to the small size of the group. STAFF PROPOSAL Staff proposes the following changes based on the additional research and the feedback from developers, engineers, architects. Proposed ordinance changes are in bold in the attached ordinance and ctrikcthrough text are suggested deletions. 1) Change the build -to zone from 15 feet -25 feet to 10 feet -25 feet. This change amends section C2g. The change was suggested at the first feedback session and ranked highly as a proposed change. Reducing the setback for the addition of balconies also ranked highly, and this change would offer an additional five feet. The original draft assumed the development would need 15 feet of landscaping adjacent to the right-of-way, but the Landscape Regulations adopted September 5, 2006 allow for the option of a pedestrian sidewalk lines with street trees, which makes a 10 -foot setback feasible. Attendees at the second feedback session suggested a build -to zone of 0 feet to 25 feet. However, this ordinance applies to infill development as well as greenfield development, and Planning staff has concerns about the potential incompatibility between a multi -family development with a 0 -foot setback adjacent to a single-family dwelling with a 25 -foot setback. 2) Delete section C6e, which stipulates the maximum length of a continuous, unbroken, uninterrupted fence. Three of the proposed changes attempted to address this section. The proposed ordinance addresses fences in front of buildings in Section C6c, which will affect all fences that contribute to the public realm. Deleting this section will make the ordinance easier to administer and leave side and rear fencing to the discretion of the property owner. 3) Amend the wording in Section C2di to read, "Garage entries, carports, parking lots and parking structures shall be internalized in building groupings or located outside the front build -to zone street frontages and shall not protrude forward from the remainder of the principal facade." During January 22, 2007 Planning Commission ADM 06-2380 Urban Residential Design Standards Agenda Item 3 Page 4 of 72 the feedback sessions, attendees needed clarification about the requirements for parking, particularly for duplexes. Staff has added this wording to clarify that the intent of the ordinance is to prevent garages from protruding from the remainder of the principle facade, as this design detracts from the streetscape. 4) Allow administrative approval for urban residential development within zones that allow by -right multi -family, three-family or two-family dwelling units. City Plan 2025's first goal states that "appropriate infill and revitalization will be our highest priorities " Infill and revitalization contribute to a sustainable urban form and traditional neighborhood development, and also imply higher density development, which typically meets public opposition. The proposed ordinance is designed to help the community define "appropriate" higher -density development. Administrative approval would reduce time spent in the review process, which helps offset the additional costs of construction associated with stricter design standards. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the proposed Urban Residential Design Standards at the January 22, 2007 Planning Commission meeting be forwarded to the City Council Ordinance Review Committee. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES Approved Date: January 22, 2007 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES Approved Date: Denied Denied BACKGROUND The Planning Commission directed Planning staff to draft on ordinance establishing urban residential design standards after reviewing proposed guidelines at a Planning Commission meeting on October 23, 2006. Further, the City Council adopted City Plan 2025 on July 17, 2006 by Resolution No. 123-06, which states that urban residential guidelines is one of the objectives to be addressed during the next two years. Two goals outlined in City Plan 2025 will be addressed with these proposed urban residential guidelines: 1) Make appropriate infill and revitalization our highest priorities; and 2) We will create attainable housing. Increasing density in the core of the City through the development of multi -family, two-family and three-family dwelling units helps to increase the supply of attainable housing as well as provide opportunities for infill and mixed-use development. However, infill projects in general, and multi -family January 22, 2007 Planning Commission ADM 06-2380 Urban Residential Design Standards Agenda Item 3 Page 5 of 72 infill projects in particular, encounter public resistance during the approval process. This opposition can result in decreased density in the final approved project, increased cost to the developer, and significant time and energy expended by the public, elected and appointed officials and Staff as the proposed development moves through the approval process. The attached ordinance outlines what comprises an appropropriate urban residential project. The ordinance includes the following: 1) Applicability: The ordinance will apply to the following uses: a. two-family dwellings; b. three-family dwellings; and c. multi -family dwellings. 2) Site Development Standards: a. Building Siting: Buildings shall be oriented to the street with primary building facades and entrances fronting a public street. Build -to lines shall not exceed 25 feet from the front property line. (This section will require amendments to the setbacks for most zoning districts in Chapter 161 of the Unified Development Code.) b. Vehicular Access/Circulation Parking: Garages entries and parking lots shall be located outside the front build -to -zone and on -street parking shall be provided on at least one side of the street and count toward the total required spaces for the development. Public streets shall be extended and connected to adjoining properties. (This section will require amendments to parking ratios for multi -family dwelllings in Chapter 172 of the Unified Development Code.) c. Pedestrian Circulation: Projects shall incorporate pedestrian connections to adjacent properties. d. Screening for Services in Urban Residential Developments: Similar to commercial design standards, all utility equipment and trash areas shall be screened appropriately. e. Fencing: Razor, barbed wire and chain link fences are prohibited. The maximum length of a continuous, uninterrupted fence shall be 50 feet, and the maximum height of a solid fence within the build -to zone shall be 30 inches. 3). Architectural Design Standards a. Building, Mass, Form and Design: In developments containing six or more residential structures, a variety of colors and building materials shall be used to differentiate one building from another. b. Ancillary structures shall be similar architecturally to primary buildings. c. Primary entrances and facades shall not be oriented toward parking lots, garages or carports. d. All facades visible from a public right-of-way shall be articulated using two or more options. (e.g. balconies, porches, etc.) e. Massing should place strong visual emphasis on the street. f. Roof form and height should be altered to compliment the building's mass and articulation. g. Vertical elements may be used to accent horizontal massing. h. Architectural embellishments such as awnings, headers, sills, and molding January 22, 2007 Planning Commission ADM 06-2380 Urban Residential Design Standards Agenda Item 3 Page 6 of 72 are encouraged. Minor grade separations should be provided between the first floor and the sidewalk where residential uses occupy the ground floor. Attaining a greater consensus about what makes an appropriate urban residential project will help to decrease opposition to future projects and make higher density projects more viable and desirable. Urban residential design standards identify key elements that make development consistent with an attractive, pedestrian -friendly urban fabric. The outline of the guidelines attached come predominantly from the City of Pasadena, California. Pasadena's urban residential guidelines are identified as a model code in New Urbanism: Comprehensive Report and Best Practices Guide, but has been modified to accommodate Fayetteville's unique circumstances. The key elements of the guidelines are: 1) Respect Urban Development Patterns; 2) Create Appealing Street Scenes; 3) Minimize Service and Parking Impacts; and 4) Compose Attractive Residential Facades RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the proposed Urban Residential Design Standards at the December 11, 2006 Planning Commission meeting be forwarded to the City Council Ordinance Review Committee. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES Denied Date: December 11, 2006 CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Required YES Denied Date: Approved Approved January 22, 2007 Planning Commission ADM 06-2380 Urban Residential Design Standards Agenda Item 3 Page 7 of 72 DRAFT 166.21 Urban Residential Design Standards A. Purpose. (1) To protect and enhance Fayetteville's appearance, identity, and natural and economic vitality. (2) To respect urban development patterns, adding character and quality to the community by respecting the scale, proportion and character of the surrounding area. (3) To create appealing street scenes so that development enhances the image of the City and provides safe, pedestrian -friendly neighborhood environments. (4) To minimize service and parking impacts in order to preserve surrounding property values and scenic resources that contribute to the City's economic development. (5) To compose attractive residential facades, which enhance the economic viability of and provide compatibility with surrounding property. B. Applicability. All references to urban residential shall include the following uses as permitted by right or conditional use in all zoning districts: (1) 2-F, Two-family dwellings (2) 3-F, Three-family dwellings (3) MF, Multi -family dwellings C. Site Development Standards. The following site development standards shall apply for all new urban residential development. (1) Intent (a) The intent of these site development standards is to promote a traditional form of urban development, whereby buildings front onto public streets and form a pedestrian -friendly streetscape. (2) Building Siting. (3) (d) Buildings shall be oriented to streets where topography and natural features are not prohibitive. (e) Primary building facades and building entrances shall front onto a public street with a walkway connecting to the public sidewalk; reverse frontage buildings in which the rear of a building fronts onto a street are prohibited. (0 In corner locations where a primary entrance is not feasible on one side, the building facade is not required to have a primary entrance but shall repeat architectural elements found on the primary entrance facade. (g) The principal facade of a building shall be built within a build -to zone that is located between a line -14 10 feet and 25 feet from the front property line. Vehicular Access / Circulation / Parking. (d) Site access and internal circulation should promote safety, efficiency, and convenience and avoid conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. Continuous circulation shall be provided throughout the site to the greatest extent possible creating a complete, compact, and connected network both within the development and to the neighborhood. (i) Garage entries, carports, parking lots and parking structures shall be internalized in building groupings ei-located outside the front build -to zone street frontages and shall not protrude forward from the remainder of the principal facade. (ii) Parking areas shall be accessed off of mid -block alleys whenever possible. (iii) On -street parallel parking shall be provided on at least one side of the street in front of all multi -family January 22, 2007 Planning Commission ADM 06-2380 Urban Residential Design Standards Agenda Item 3 Page 8 of 72 J 3M➢'6 /MC55 Ft1 IIG 51;EEi , +VILE NG'JE9IXJI /� PULL; i EC RN mL cnouP; r tiEk yL EObsINLE iluP_' _ LLNLJ'✓ EbCLO911![ M 1 Y1CF 11; CEJ-STRLLT = LEC.:,au RE -] tl0 IJ -1O0 2O'J[ (4) buildings where feasible. Each on - street parking space provided shall count toward the total required spaces for the development. v) Public streets shall be extended to property lines and connected to adjoining properties where streets exist and can be extended in the future to provide for vehicular connectivity. Pedestrian Circulation. (d) Urban Residential projects shall incorporate pedestrian connections to adjacent residential and commercial properties. (e) Pedestrian walkways should be safe, visually attractive, and well-defined by landscaping and lighting. (5) Screening for Services in Urban Residential Developments. (d) Mechanical and utility equipment. All mechanical and utility equipment located on the wall and/or on the ground shall be screened. All roof mounted utilities and mechanical equipment shall be screened by incorporating screening into the structure utilizing materials compatible with the supporting building. Mechanical and utility equipment over 30 inches in height shall meet building setbacks. (e) Trash areas. Trash enclosures shall be screened with materials that are compatible with and complementary to the principal structure, with access not visible from the street. (f) Screening shall mean a view obscuring fence, berm, vegetation, architectural treatment consistent with the residential architecture, or a combination of the four of sufficient height to prevent the view of the screened items from vehicular and pedestrian traffic on adjoining street, sidewalks, or parking areas. Vegetation shall be planted at a density sufficient to become view obscuring within two years from the date of planting. (6) Fencing. The following types, height, and location of fences shall be prohibited: (a) Razor and/or barbed wire. Razor and/or barbed wire fences are prohibited if visible from the street right-of-way or a residence, unless and except barbed wire fences are used for agricultural purposes. (b) Chain link. Chain link fence is prohibited if closer to the street than the front of the building. (c) Height offences in front buildings. Fences or walls located in front of the primary structure may be solid up to 30 inches in height. Any part of a fence which exceeds 30 inches in height shall not obstruct the view of the primary structure from the right-of-way. (d) Fence Materials. The following materials are recommended for walls and fences: decorative block, brick, stone, treated wood, and wrought iron (e) Maximum length. The maximum length f continuous, unbroken, and uninterrupted fence shall be fifty feet (50'); br aks shall be provided through the use of columns, landscaping pockets, and/or a change in construction materials. (D) Architectural Design Standards. (1) Intent. (a) The intent of these building design standards is to ensure that urban residential buildings add to the character and quality of the community, January 22, 2007 Planning Commission ADM 06-2380 Urban Residential Design Standards Agenda Item 3 Page 9 of 72 offer a sense of security, and make a positive contribution to the life of the street. (b) To maximize the quality, value and longevity of urban residential neighborhoods. (c) To make housing appealing and comfortable for its inhabitants. (2) Construction and appearance design standards for urban residential development. (a) Building Mass, Form, and Design. (i) In urban residential developments containing six (6) or more residential structures a variety of colors and building materials shall be used to differentiate one building from another. (ii) Ancillary structures such as carports, garages, recreational buildings and storage structures shall be designed as an integral part of the project architecture. (iii) Primary entrances and facades shall not be oriented toward parking lots, garages or carports. ( v) The facades of all urban residential buildings adjacent to the public right-of-way shall be articulated through the incorporation of two or more of the following: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Balconies; Bay or box windows; Insets or other relief in the wall place; Porches; Dormers; Variations in materials; or Variations in roof forms Porches Balconies (v) Roof form and roof height should be varied to complement the building's mass and articulation. (vi) Vertical elements ofa proportionate scale should be used to accent horizontal massing and provide visual interest. (vii)Awnings, molding, pilasters and comparable architectural embellishments are encouraged. Awnings (viii) Minor grade separations should be provided between the first floor and the sidewalk where residential uses occupy the ground floor; this will promote privacy and also accommodate patios, entry porches, and stoops. Grade Separation 166.21-166.99 Reserved January 22, 2007 Planning Commission ADM 06-2380 Urban Residential Design Standards Agenda Item 3 Page 10 of 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 1 Proposed Changes: Developer and Architect Feedback January 11 Section Original Wording Developer Comments Vote C(2)e Primary building facades and building entrances shall front onto a public street with a walkway connecting to the public sidewalk; reverse frontage buildings in which the rear of a building fronts onto a street are prohibited. Primary building facades and building entrances shall front onto a public OR PRIVATE street with a walkway connecting to the public sidewalk: reverse frontage buildings in which the rear of a building fronts onto a street are prohibited. 10 C(2)e Reduce setback requirements for balconies. 9 C(2)g The principal facade of a building shall be built within a build -to zone that is located between a line 15 feet to 25 feet from the front property line. The principal facade of a building shall be built within a build -to zone that is located between a LINE 10 FEET to 25 feet from the front property line. 9 C(5)e Trash areas. Trash enclosures shall be screened with materials that am compatible with and complementary to the principal structure, Encourage individual carts in -lieu of dumpsters. 7 B(1) 2-F Two-family dwellings Eliminate duplexes from Design and Development Standards. 6 C(6)e Maximum length. The maximum length of continuous, unbroken, and uninterrupted fence shall be fifty feet (503; breaks shall be provided through the use of columns. landscaping pockets. and/or a change in construction materials. Maximum length. The maximum length of continuous, unbroken, and uninterupted fence shall be ONE HUNDRED FIFTY FEET (1501; breaks shall be provided through the use of columns, landscaping pockets, and/or a change in construction materials. 5 None None Courtyards should be encouraged. 5 D(2)a(viii) Minor grade separations should be provided between the fust floor and the sidewalk where residential uses occupy the ground floor; this will promote privacy and also accommodate patios, entry porches, and stoops. Delete this section from the Design and Development Standards. 4 C(3)i Garage entries, carports, parking lots and parking structures shall be internalized in building groupings or located outside the front build -to zone street frontages. Garage entries, carports, parking lots and parking structures shalt be internalized in building groupings or located 15 FEET (15) BEHIND the front build -to zone street frontages. 2 C(6)e Maximum length. The maximum length of continuous. unbroken, and uninterupted fence shall be fifty feet (50'): breaks shall be provided through the use of columns, landscaping pockets, and/or a change in construction materials. The maximum fence length should be determined by the material used. Ex. Wood fence - 50', Wrought iron - 100'. 2 C(5)d Mechanical and utility equipment. All mechanical and utility equipment located on the wall and/or on the ground shall be screened. All roof mounted utilities and mechanical equipment shall be screened by incorporating screening into the structure utilizing materials compatible with the supporting building. Mechanical and utility equipment over 30 inches in height shall meet building setbacks. Mechanical and utility equipment. All mechanical and utility equipment located on the wall and/or on the ground shall be screened. All roof mounted utilities and mechanical equipment SHALL BE LOCATED OUT OF SIGHT FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT - OF -WAY utilizing materials compatible with the supporting building. Mechanical and utility equipment over 30 inches in height shall meet building setbacks. 1 C(6)d Fence Materials. The following materials are recommended for walls and fences: decorative block, brick, stone, treated wood, and wrought iron. Fence Materials. The following materials are recommended for walls and fences: decorative block, brick, stone, treated wood, and wrought iron. FENCES SHOULD BE COMPLIMENTARY OF BUILDING MATERIALS AND STYLES. Nene None The driveway throat -width should be narrowed to a maximum 18 footwidth. 1 D(2)a(viii) Minor grade separations should be provided between the first floor and the sidewalk where residential uses occupy the ground floor; this will promote privacy and also accommodate patios, entry porches, and stoops. Minor grade separations ARE ENCOURAGED between the first floor and the sidewalk where residential uses occupy the ground floor; this will promote privacy and also accommodate patios, entry porches, and stoops. 0 C(6)e Maximum length. The maximum length of continuous, unbroken, and uninterupted fence shall be fifty feet (50'1; breaks shall be provided through the use of columns, landscaping pockets, and/or a change in construction materials. Fence length should be proportional to the site. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Proposed Chanes: Developer and Architect Feedback January 17 C(2)e Primary building facades and building entrances shall front onto a public street with a walkway connecting to the public sidewalk; reverse frontage buildings in which the rear of a building fronts onto a street are prohibited. Where a street is required by the Master Street Plan, buildings must front onto the street. None Allow for some flexibility where the development must meet the intent rather than all the requirements. None Requirements should apply only to developments above a certain acreage. None C(2)e Primary building facades and building entrances shall front onto a public street with a walkway connecting to the public sidewalk; reverse frontage buildings in which the rear of a building fronts onto a street are prohibited. At least one public street must transect the development, but flexibility Is allowed in regard to private streets. C(2)g The principal facade of a building shall be built within a build -to zone that is located between a line 15 feet to 25 feet from the front property line. The principal facade of a building shall be built within a build -to zone that is located between a LINE 0 FEET to 25 feet from the front property line. None Allow adminstrative approval for urban residential development. January 22, 2007 Planning Commission ADM 06-2380 Urban Residential Design Standards Agenda Item 3 Page 11 of 72 ARTICLE 11 OVERLAY ZONES Sec. 29.1100. OVERLAY ZONES. (1) Purpose. Each of these Overlay Zones is intended to supplement one or more established Base Zones, in order to conserve the single-family residential character of certain areas of the City; preserve the historical resources of the City; protect the environment; establish distinctive entries to the City; and reflect the unique development and parking needs of areas impacted by proximity to Iowa State University. (2) Establishment. The Overlay Zones established by this Ordinance are: (a) "O -SFC" Single Family Conservation Overlay (b) "O -H" Historic Preservation Overlay (c) "O -E" Environmentally Sensitive Area Overlay (d) "O -G" Gateway Overlay (e) "O-UIE" East University Impacted District (0 "O-UIW" West University Impacted District (g) "O-SLF" South Lincoln Fringe Overlay (h) "O-GNE" Northeast Gateway Overlay District (i) "O -GSE" Southeast Entryway Gateway Overlay District (j) "O -GSW' Southwest Gateway Overlay (Ord. No. 3718, 7-22-03; Ord. No. 3818, 2-8-05; Ord. No. 3872, 03-07-06; Ord. No. 3889, 09-12-06 ) (3) Applicability. These zones are intended to function as an 'overlay" to the underlying Base Zones, in addition to all of the use, yard, bulk and other requirements of the applicable Base Zone. In each case, the most restrictive provision of the Overlay or the underlying Base Zone shall apply. The location of Overlay Zones shall be shown on the Official Zoning Map. Sec. 29.1101. "O -SFC" SINGLE FAMILY CONSERVATION OVERLAY. (1) Purpose. The Single -Family Conservation Overlay (O -SFC) Zone is intended to conserve the existing single-family residential character of areas identified as O -SFC adjacent to the downtown. The O -SFC is intended to protect single-family neighborhoods while guiding the transition to higher density and compatibility with the surrounding uses where intensification is permitted. The O -SFC is meant to help maintain the general quality and appearance of the neighborhoods; promote a more cohesive look to the neighborhoods; recognize the neighborhood characteristics as a major part of the City's identity and positive image; promote local design qualities; stabilize and improve property values; reduce conflicts between new construction and existing hones; and allow a limited amount of increased housing densities. (2) Definitions. See Section 29.201 of this Ordinance. (3) Findings. The O -SFC is based in part on the findings that: (a) Conservation of older residential areas continues to provide a broad range of housing choices; (b) Conservation of architecturally significant structures adds to the distinctiveness of a neighborhood and encourages a sense of "place"; (c) The downtown is strengthened by the existence of healthy residential neighborhoods nearby; (d) The existing single-family residential character can be conserved while guiding the transition and compatibility where intensification is permitted; and (e) Standards that encourage in -fill development, retain the values ofsurrounding development and protect the City's unique character will promote stable neighborhoods. (4) Permitted Uses. (a) Subject to the Building/Zoning Permit requirements of Section 29.1501, land, buildings and structures may be used for the following purposes in an O -SFC Zone without City Council approval, in accordance with standards and regulations of the Base Zone: (i) Dwelling - Single -Family (ii) Dwelling — Two Family (b) All uses and structures conforming to the Base Regulations and all lawfully vested nonconforming uses and structures that exist in the O -SFC on the effective date of the amendment of the official zoning Sup #2006-4 Chapter 29, Article 11-1 January 22, 2007 Rev. I ®Idn fi9g Commission ADM 06-2380 Urban Residential Design Standards Agenda Item 3 Page 12 of 72 map to show the O -SFC are hereby deemed to be conforming with the terms of this Section. The O -SFC shall not be deemed to create a nonconforming use or structure within the scope of Section 29.307. (5) Site Development Plan Review. In the O -SFC, there shall be no construction of a new multifatnily building or any addition to an existing multifamily building or to a nonconforming building whether vested or not until after Plan approval is granted pursuant to the provisions contained in this Section and Section 29.1502(4), unless exempted by Section 29.1101(4)(a) above. Approval decisions under this Section 29.1101 for sites located in a Historic Preservation District shall be made by the Historic Preservation Commission. For sites in the O -SFC but not in a Historic Preservation District, Site Development Plan approval decisions shall be made by the City Council. (6) Intensification Limited. In the O -SFC the maximum ntunberofdwelling units, ofany kind defined in Section 29.201, shall not at any time be permitted to exceed 648. Additionally, in the O -SFC, apartment dwellings shall not be permitted unless the plans for the project meet the following standards: (a) The existing infrastructure must be sufficient to support the proposed project at the time of application, or sufficient infrastructure shall be provided as a part of the proposed project. "Sufficient infrastructure" includes water distribution, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, fire protection, streets and transportation, refuse collection, greenway connectors and/or sidewalks; (b) The development has convenient access to public services, public transportation, or major thoroughfares; (c) Housing developments shall be in character with the surrounding neighborhood(s) in terms of scale and character of the architectural elements; and (d) Any yard that abuts another residential Zone, dwelling unit type or density shall be not less than the corresponding front, side, or rear yard requirement of the adjacent district, dwelling unit type or density. (7) Bulk Regulations. Land, buildings and structures used in the O -SFC shall comply with the lot area, lot width, and yard requirements as provided in the Base Regulations. (8) Landscaping, Screening and Buffer Areas. Landscaping, screening and buffer areas shall be provided in accordance with Section 29.403. (9) Compatibility Standards. New construction of any building or other structure or any change in the use of land shall comply with the following compatibility standards: (a) Driveways. All new driveways that are located in the front yard shall be of a width no greater than 12 feet. This width limitation shall apply to only that area between the street and the primary facade of the structure. The front yard shall always be the narrowest portion of a lot that fronts a street. For lots accessible from an alley, any new driveway shall be constructed in the rear yard with access only from the alley. Existing front yard driveways may be maintained or replaced, but shall not be widened to more than 12 feet in width. Driveways leading from an alley that provide access to a parking lot may be constructed at a width of 16 feet. (b) Garages. The purpose of this subsection is to establish the setback requirementfor i) garage setback from an alley and ii) garage setback from the front of a principal building. Detached garages that open to an alley shall be located either 8 feet from the property line abutting the alley or a minimum of 20 feet from the property line abutting the alley. No setback distance that is more than 8 feet but less than twenty feet shall be allowed. All garages, attached or detached, shall be set back a minimum distance of 18 feet behind the primary facade of the principal building on the lot. (c) Parking. No parking lot shall be located in the front yard or side yard of any lot. Only rear yard parking lots are allowed. (d) Trees. Any tree that is removed from the street right-of-way shall be replaced in the street right-of-way as close to the original location as possible. (e) Solids and Voids. A solid to void ratio shall be required for the primary facade, including any recessed facades that face the front yard, and the secondary facade. The void requirements for the primary facade of new buildings shall be a minimum of 15% and a maximum of 80%. (0 Roofs. A minimum roof pitch of 6:12 rise to run shall be required. However, mansard and mansard -style roofs will be permitted. Building additions, with the exception of porches and stoops, shall be required to have similar roof pitches as the existing structure to which they are being added. The roof pitch requirement shall not apply to porches or stoops. (g) Dortners. Where the primary facade does not have a gable facing the street, a minimum of one dormer shall be required for every 15 feet of street -facing roof width, after the first 20 feet. (h) Windows. Windows shall have a width -to -height ratio of2:3. This requirement shall only Sup #2006-4 Chapter 29, Article 11-2 Rev. 1 [pj nuary 22, 2007 ng Commission ADM 06-2380 Urban Residential Design Standards Agenda Item 3 Page 13 of 72 apply to the primary facade, front facing recessed facades, and the secondary facade. In addition, an exception will be made for decorative windows, gable windows, or a single large window where the interior floor plan contains a space where such a window type would be expected. (i) Entrances. There shall be an entrance with a porch or stoop on the primary facade of any new structure. This entrance shall face the street and be accessible by means ofa paved walkway. No more than one entrance shall be placed on any primary or recessed facade. (1) Porches. Where a porch is constructed, the porch shall have a depth of not less than 6 feet, and shall extend a minimum of 50% of the width of the facade to which it is attached. Porches shall not be enclosed by walls, windows, or solid doors and shall not exceed 10 feet in height measured from the floor of the first story to the roof line. (k) Stoops. A stoop shall be of a width not greater than 30% of the width of the facade to which it is attached and shall be ofa depth not less than 4 feet. Stoops shall not be enclosed by walls, windows, or solid doors and shall not exceed 10 feet in height, measured from the floor of the first story to the roof line. The roof ofa stoop that is supported by brackets shall project from the building a minimum depth of 4 feet. (1) Foundations. Substantial foundation plantings shall be required to screen the base of the primary and secondary facade of any new building. The first floor elevation shall be constructed a minimum of one and one-half feet above grade. Grade shall be determined at the high point of the sidewalk that is located in the public right-of-way parallel to and abutting the front of the lot. In addition, ground -mounted mechanical units shall be screened with plantings. (m) Orientation. Structures shall be situated at right angles with the street. Primary facades shall be parallel with the street to which they front. Buildings shall be oriented perpendicular to the front facing facade. (n) Width - Building. No building shall be constructed or remodeled to have a width greater than 76 feet. (o) Width - Facade. The primary facade ofa building shall have a width between the range of 24 feet and 38 feet. Any portion of the building that is wider than the primary facade shall be recessed from the primary facade a distance of not less than 8 feet. A second primary facade will be permitted, provided that it is separated by a recessed facade that conforms to the minimum facade width of 24 feet. (p) Height. No structure shall be constructed or remodeled to a height greater than 3 stories or 40 feet, whichever is lower. (q) Lot Configurations. Lots in the O -SFC shall remain configured as they are on the date that the O -SFC regulations go into effect. In the O -SFC a Zoning Permit shall not be issued with respect to one or more dwelling units to be established on a lot formed by the combination of 2 or more lots or the combination of the parts of 2 or more lots or the combination ofa lot and a part or parts from one or more lots. (r) Compliance. New buildings shall be constructed in full compliance with subsections (a) through (q) above. In building additions or remodeling it is not required that the entire building be brought into full compliance with subsections (a) through (q). It is only required that the addition or remodeling comply. It is required that the addition or remodeling does not have the effect of increasing the level or degree of nonconformity of the building as a whole. (10) Parking Requirements. Off-street parking shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the Base Regulations. (1 1) Historic Preservation. In those parts of the O -SFC that have been designated as Historic Preservation District, the historic preservation regulations of Chapter 31 shall also apply in addition to the Base Regulations and the O -SFC regulations. In the event of conflict between the historic preservation regulations and the O -SFC regulations, the historic preservation regulations shall control. Any plan approval decision required by this Section shall be made by the Historic Preservation Commission when the site is in an Historic Preservation District. When the site is not in an Historic Preservation District, the Site Development Plan approval decision shall be made by the City Council. Sec. 29.1102. "O -H" HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY. (1) Purpose. The Historic Preservation Overlay (O -H) Zone is intended to recognize the establishment of the City's local Historic Districts (see Section 31.1 et seJc . of the Municipal Code) and to promote the public interest Sup #2006-4 Chapter 29, Article 11-3 January 22, 2007 Rev. IPlahfii6g Commission ADM 06-2380 Urban Residential Design Standards Agenda Item 3 Page 14 of 72 in having the frill and informed participation of the City's Historic Preservation Commission in the hearing of zoning applications potentially affecting the City's historic resources. To fully meet this objective, the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone may include properties that are proximate to, but not within, one of the Historic Districts established by the Municipal Code. The procedures established by this Section arc intended to ensure that the City's Historic Preservation Commission is specifically notified of all applications before the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Zoning Board of Adjustment respecting property within or proximate to the City's local Historic Districts. (2) Notice. With regard to zoning applications and proposed zoning ordinance amendments that affect proposed or designated landmarks and historic districts, the Historic Preservation Commission shall consider such applications and/or amendments prior to consideration by the Zoning Board of Adjustment, or by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (Ord. No. 3591, 10-10-00) (3) Certificate of Appropriateness. As provided by Section 31.10 of the Municipal Code, and notwithstanding any uses otherwise permitted under an applicable Base Zone classification, no building or structure within an Historic District established pursuant to Chapter 31 of the Municipal Code may be erected, altered, demolished or removed, and no area within Such Chapter 31 Historic District may be used for industrial, commercial, business, home industry or occupational parking until a certificate of appropriateness has been issued for such activity by the Historic Preservation Commission. This requirement applies only to properties within the City's Historic Districts. Sec. 29.1103. "O -E" ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA OVERLAY. (1) Purpose. The Environmentally Sensitive Overlay (O -E) Zone is intended to supplement the City's flood plain regulations and to protect designated natural resource areas by using the natural resources inventory to identify and preserve natural resources and by establishing parks and open space areas. Greenways are included in this district for stream corridors, linear parks and open spaces adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas to create a continuous system throughout the City. (2) Designation of Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Any area may be designated an O -E Zone by ordinance of City Council, after the advice and recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, if the results of a scientific study of the area support the conclusion that the area so designated is especially sensitive to adverse public impact from development due to unique environmental circumstances. Examples of such areas that may be designated as an O -E zone are: (a) Flood Plain Areas. Those areas defined in Chapter 9 of the Municipal Code; (b) Designated Natural Resource Areas. Those areas defined in "A Natural Areas Inventory of Ames" (July 18, 1994); (e) Park and Open Space Areas. Those areas defined in the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan of the Municipal Code; (d) Green -ways. Those areas as may be defined as Green -ways by the City Council; and (e) Aquifer Protection Areas. Those areas as may be defined as Aquifer Protection Areas as defined by the City Council. (3) Studies. The Department of Planning and Housing and the Planning and Zoning Commission are authorized to conduct studies in order to evaluate areas for environmental sensitivity as part of the continuing process of maintaining a current comprehensive land use plan for the City. Additionally, studies done by or for other governmental or private parties may be adopted for the purposes of this section. (4) Procedures. No Building/Zoning Permit shall be issued and no grading, excavation, construction or change in use shall occur in an area designated as an O -E Zone except in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 29.1503(4), "Major Site Development Plan Review". In addition, the applicant shall prepare and submit an Environmental Assessment Report which shall detail how the problems identified in the study on which the O -E Zone designation was based will be addressed, obviated or mitigated. City Council shall not approve the Major Site Development Plan unless it has reviewed and approved the Environmental Assessment Report. (5) Enforcement. Development or other activities in conflict with the Major Site Development Plan, or a failure to implement the Plan, including the measures set out in the Environmental Assessment Report shall constitute the violation of this section for which any and all enforcement means and remedies established by law or zoning regulations may be invoked and instituted. Sec. 29.1104. "O -G" GATEWAY OVERLAY Sup #2006-4 Chapter 29, Article 11-4 January 22, 2007 Rev. I (pia,616ing Commission ADM 06-2380 Urban Residential Design Standards Agenda Item 3 Page 15 of 72 (1) Purpose. The Gateway Overlay (0-0) Zone is intended to: (a) Protect the character and attractiveness of traditional corridors and major entryways to the City; and (b) Promote a character of development that is consistent with the traditional corridors and major entry ways to the City. (2) Applicability. The 0-0 Zone shall be designated on the Official Zoning Map by ordinance of the City. Some examples of such possible areas are: (a) Dayton Avenue and U. S. Highway 30; (b) Duff Avenue and U.S. Highway 30; (c) East 13'h Street and Interstate 35; (d) Elwood Drive U.S. Highway 30; (e) South Dakota Avenue and U.S. Highway 30; (0 Interstate 35 and U.S. Highway 30; (g) North Grand Avenue and Northern Corporate Limits. (Ord. No. 3591, 10-10-00) (3) Actions. This Section applies to any of the following actions that are visible from the intersections listed above: (a) The demolition of an existing principal building or a substantial part thereof, outside a Historic District established pursuant to Chapter 31 of the Municipal Code; (b) The construction of a new principal building or use; (e) The expansion of a nonresidential principal building by more than 3,000 square feet; or (d) The development of 5 or more parking spaces. (4) Design Standards. The "actions", listed in 29.1104(3) above, shall comply with adopted design standards for community entries. Design standards, which shall be written and graphic materials adopted as a part of this ordinance or as appendices to this ordinance shall address the following design characteristics: (a) Specialized signage, lighting and landscaping announcing the approach; (b) Guided placement of buildings and landscaping announcing the approach; (c) Limited ingress and egress by individual uses; (d) Limited parking in front of uses. Landscaping should be provided in front of parking areas as a buffer along primary access; and, (e) Any corridors associated with entries should be designed to reflect a continuation of the distinctive design characteristics of the associated interchange. Sec. 29.1105. RESERVED (Ord. No. 3872, 03-07-06) Sec. 29.1106. O-SLF SOUTH LINCOLN FRINGE OVERLAY. (I) Purpose. The South Lincoln Fringe Overlay is intended to establish an orderly transition between land uses and to reduce conflicts between different land uses by increasing compatibility between buildings and sites facing each other across Sherman Avenue. These regulations require that building facades on Sherman Avenue function and appear as the front of the building. (2) Applicability. The 0-SLF district shall be designated by ordinance amending the official zoning map. (3) Actions. This Section applies to construction of a new building or use or the expansion of an existing building. (4) Development Standards. a) Any property that abuts Sherman Avenue shall be considered to front on Sherman Avenue, in that Sherman Avenue will be used as the basis for establishing the permanent address for any building or structure and the yard on the Sherman Avenue side of that building will be the front yard. b) Any building abutting Sherman Avenue shall have its principal cominercial entrance on the Sherman Avenue side of the building. (Ord. No. 3718, 7-22-03) Sup #2006-4 Chapter 29, Article 11-5 January 22, 2007 Rev. MehrOh g Commission ADM 06-2380 Urban Residential Design Standards Agenda Item 3 Page 16 of 72