Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee

Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Meeting January 12, 2017 Page 1 of 8 Members present: Dave Pankow, Rolly Ackerman, Joel Feist, and Jason Sanders Others present: Robert Davis, Planning Director; Lance Lang, Principal Planner; Reed Elmquist, Assistant Planner; Nancy Simpson; and Darrell Taylor Pankow called the meeting to order at 8:00 A.M. Davis started by recapping the previous meeting held December 19. CHAPTER 1: TITLE AND APPLICATION Previous Zoning District New Zoning District “R-2” and “R-2B” Two-Family Residence “R2” and “R2B” Two-Family Residential District District 1 “RM”, “R3”, and “R3B” Medium Density “R-3” and “R-3B” Multiple Residence District Residential District 1,2 1 R2B and R3B shall be considered legal and conforming but are only available for lots platted prior to July 1, 1980 and developed at the effective date of this ordinance. Vacant lots in these two zoning districts shall not be developed using R2B or R3B standards. Applications to develop vacant lots in said districts will be reviewed on a case by case basis with a preference of rezoning and developing the land to one of the current residential zoning districts. 2 R3 shall be considered legal and conforming but is only available for lots developed and platted prior to July 1, 2013. Vacant lots shall not be developed using R3 standards. Applications to develop vacant lots will be reviewed on a case by case basis with a preference of rezoning and developing the land to one of the current residential zoning districts. Ackerman reiterated his concerns expressed at the previous meeting that under the new ordinance, owners of vacant lots with obsolete zoning could not build to the same density and capacity that the lots were originally designed for and could therefore constitute a taking. Lang responded that the ultimate intent was to do away with the old districts and their respective standards. Davis added that such properties could be candidates for variance approvals. Ackerman then questioned whether property owners of the old districts should have to pay the normal fee to have their property rezoned to the new districts. Davis responded that in the case of vacant lots in the old districts, there may be a way to reduce the financial burden on owners that would need to rezone to a new district, and re-emphasized the intent of doing away with the old districts. Pankow commented that the public wanted the Comprehensive Plan to “clean up” the city. Pankow and Ackerman both stated they were in favor of the “case-by-case” wording. Ackerman added that the required notice of six weeks to appear on the Planning Commission agenda hindered developers more than the review fees and expressed the possibility of rezoning the old districts administratively. Pankow questioned how material the difference was with the new ordinance. Lang conceded that while some of the landscaping requirements may be burdensome for many developers, there would have to be a balance between keeping development costs low and beautifying the city. Pankow pointed out that the landscaping requirements were more stringent for commercial properties than residential properties, and would be reviewed at a later meeting. Davis commented that the City would not want to penalize property owners who have been saving up for many years to develop their properties. Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Meeting January 12, 2017 Page 2 of 8 Feist made a motion to direct Planning staff to propose language to waive or reduce rezoning fees from old to new districts at the discretion of the Planning staff. Lang responded that the Planning staff had also discussed a blanket rezone for all the old districts but ultimately agreed that there was no legal mechanism to do so. State statutes would still require a public hearing to rezone any property. Ackerman then seconded the motion. Motion carried. Lang questioned whether rezones could go directly to the Council, bypassing the Planning Commission. Ackerman expressed the belief that while the City could not change the zoning district of a property without the owner’s consent, transitioning away from the old districts toward the new districts would be accomplished most efficiently by allowing administrative approval. Pankow made a motion to direct Planning staff to propose language allowing them to administratively approve any zone change from an obsolete district to its respective replacement district, seconded by Feist. Motion carried. CHAPTER 5 – “R1” SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Section 5-7. Lot, Height, Area, and Yard Requirements: d) Minimum lot dimensions shall be as follows: 3) Area – two (2) acres for properties in the extraterritorial jurisdiction with approved septic systems by First District Health Unit. Lang asked the Committee whether the First District Health Unit requires two acres for a septic system. Ackerman answered that First District generally requires only one acre, and does not permit septic systems within one thousand feet of an existing sewer line. He then proposed replacing “septic systems” with “wastewater disposal systems” as it would be a broader definition. g) Legal non-conforming dwellings, due to setback requirements, can be replaced at the existing setback provided any replacement structure is within the same footprint as original structure or within current setback requirements. The replacement structure shall be of the same design character, height and roof design as the original structure. Ackerman expressed skepticism that the Council would be willing to remove this language, and that it had been adopted in response to a 3-story dwelling that had been built after the flood. Feist asked why the Planning staff was proposing to remove the language. Davis answered that this was part of the move towards the new zoning regulations, and that it was particularly necessary to remove the last sentence, “The replacement structure shall be of the same design character, height and roof design as the original structure” as it conflicts with design requirements in Chapters 7, 8, and 9. If the first sentence were to be kept intact, it would be necessary to add language to Chapter 25 (Nonconforming Uses) providing for legal nonconforming dwellings in residential districts damaged over 60% of reproduction value to be reconstructed at their existing setbacks. CHAPTER 5 – “R1” SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Section 5-7. Lot, Height, Area, and Yard Requirements: Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Meeting January 12, 2017 Page 3 of 8 d) Minimum lot dimensions shall be as follows: 3) Area – two (2) acres for properties in the extraterritorial jurisdiction with approved wastewater disposal systems by First District Health Unit. Motion to approve changes by Pankow, second by Ackerman. Motion carried. Ackerman then questioned whether nonconforming setbacks were an issue in the commercial districts. Davis responded that it was not nearly as much of an issue, as commercial lots are larger and do not have as stringent setback requirements. CHAPTER 6- “R2” & “R2B” TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Section 6-7. Lot, Height, Area, and Yard Requirements: c) Minimum yards are as follows: 1) Front – twenty-five (25) feet at the street of each platted lot. Front yards in R2 district facing a platted or proposed collector or arterial street – forty (40) feet. An exception will be made for a side – loaded garage to be twenty (20) feet provided the lot is an interior lot and a window is included on the street facing garage elevation. 2) Side – six (6) feet, (R2B) – five (5) feet; or zero (0) feet wherever two (2) units are joined by common wall. 3) Side (street) – twenty-five (25) feet at the street of each platted lot. Corner side yards in R2 district facing a platted or proposed collector or arterial – forty (40) feet. e) For a two-family townhouse in the R2 district, the following shall be required per townhouse as minimums: 1) Lot area (R2) – three thousand and five hundred (3,500) square feet, (R2B) – two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet. 2) Lot width (R2) – thirty (30) feet, (R2B) – twenty-five (25) feet. Motion to approve changes by Ackerman, second by Feist. Motion carried. CHAPTER 7 – “RM”, “R3”, & “R3B” MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Section 7-3. Uses Permitted: a) Duplex/Two-plex, three-plex and multi-plexfour-plex. Pankow and Feist both suggested that the definition of multi-plex be added to this section. At this time Lang suggested the possibility of striking the entirety of Chapter 5.1, “R1S” Single-Family Residential District with Small Lot Size Flexibility, as no one had ever requested a rezone to that district. Pankow asked whether a planned-unit development would allow the same thing. Davis answered that it Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Meeting January 12, 2017 Page 4 of 8 would, and the R1S District does not adequately allow for amenities. Ackerman believed that the district was created to lower infrastructure costs and that he would go back through his notes to find a better answer. Section 7-7. Lot, Height, Area, and Yard Setback Requirements: d) Minimum lot area shall be as follows: 1) Front – twenty-five (25) feet. Front yards in RM district facing a platted or proposed collector or arterial street – forty (40) feet. Ackerman expressed concerns about imposing a 40-foot setback. Elmquist responded that he had inserted the phrase “in RM district” to leave existing structures in the R3 and R3B districts in conformance. 3) Area for a three-family dwelling in RM and R3 districts shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet and in R3B district six thousand (6,000) square feet. For each additional dwelling unit in the RM and R3 districts in excess of a three-family dwelling, the lot shall have an additional area of three thousand (3,000) square feet. For each additional dwelling unit in the R3B district in excess of a three-family dwelling, the lot shall have an additional area of two thousand (2,000) square feet. 4) Minimum net density of eight (8) units per acre and maximum net density of sixteen (16) units per acre. Ackerman pointed out that under this wording, the minimum area lot area required for a 15-family dwelling in an RM or R3 district would be 10,000 square feet for the first 3 units, plus 36,000 square feet for the additional 12 units, for a total minimum of 46,000 square feet, which is greater than one acre. Therefore, the maximum density is effectively limited to 14 units as opposed to 16 per acre and should be worded as such. Section 7-8. Design Requirements for Buildings Containing Three Units or Greater of Attached Units: Multi-story, multiple-family buildings in the RM, R3, and R3B districts shall follow the RH Special Minimum Requirements for Multi-Family Residential Developments in Section 9-8. Lang asked why this language was being added. Elmquist answered that it was to provide better clarity and direction as to the location of the design requirements in the ordinance. CHAPTER 7 – “RM”, “R3”, & “R3B” MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Section 7-1. Regulations: The regulations set forth in this chapter or set forth elsewhere in this ordinance, when referred to in this chapter, are the regulations in the "RM", “R3”, or "R3B" Multiple Residential Medium Density Residential Districts. Section 7-2. General Description: Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Meeting January 12, 2017 Page 5 of 8 The purpose of the RM (Medium Density Residential) District is to allow a variety of housing types including single-family attached and detached dwellings and multi-family, multi-story dwellings (stacked) with a minimum net density of six (6) units per acre and maximum net density of sixteen (16) units per acre. Section 7-3. Uses Permitted: a) Duplex/Two-plex, three-plex and multi-plexfour-plex, up to four units under common ownership on one lot, which may either be built side-to-side or on more than one level. Section 7-5. Conditional Uses: Within any RM, R3, or R3B district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by a conditional use permit: Section 7-6. Interim Uses: Not applicable in RM, R3, or R3B District. Section 7-7. Lot, Height, Area, and Yard Setback Requirements: c) Minimum yards are as follows: 1) Front – twenty-five (25) feet. Front yards in RM district facing a platted or proposed collector or arterial street – forty (40) feet. 2) Side (RM) – ten (10) feet, (R3) – six (6) feet, (R3B) – five (5) feet, or zero (0) feet wherever two (2) units are joined by common wall. 3) Side (street) in RM district – twenty-five (25) feet. Corner side yards facing a platted or proposed collector or arterial street – forty (40) feet. 6) Principal buildings of Mmulti-story, multi-family dwellings including apartment or condominium buildings provided any principal structures are not located withinshall have a minimum setback of one hundred (100) feet from any existing single-family dwelling and any the property line abutting an R1 or R1S zoning district or existing single-family residential structure. d) Minimum lot area shall be as follows: 1) Area for single- family dwellings in RM, R3, and R3B districts shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet. Corner lots shall be a minimum of seven thousand (7,000) square feet. 2) Area for a two-family dwelling in RM and R3 districts shall be seven thousand (7,000) square feet with thirty-five hundred (3,500) square feet per unit). In R3B district the area shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet with twenty-five hundred (2,500) square feet per unit. Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Meeting January 12, 2017 Page 6 of 8 3) Area for a three-family dwelling in RM and R3 districts shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet and in R3B district six thousand (6,000) square feet. For each additional dwelling unit in the RM and R3 districts in excess of a three-family dwelling, the lot shall have an additional area of three thousand (3,000) square feet. For each additional dwelling unit in the R3B district in excess of a three-family dwelling, the lot shall have an additional area of two thousand (2,000) square feet. 4) Minimum net density of eight (8) units per acre and maximum net density of sixteen (16)fourteen (14) units per acre. e) Minimum lot dimensions shall be as follows: 1) Lot width (RM and R3) – sixty (60) feet (interior), (R3B) – fifty (50) feet Section 7-8. Design Requirements for Buildings Containing Three Units or Greater of Attached Units: Multi-story, multiple-family buildings in the RM, R3, and R3B districts shall follow the RH Special Minimum Requirements for Multi-Family Residential Developments in Section 9-8. Section 7-9. Miscellaneous Provisions: Not applicable in RM, R3, or R3B Districts. Motion to approve changes by Pankow, second by Ackerman. Motion carried. CHAPTER 8 – “R3C” TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Section 8-2: General Description: The R3C (Townhouse Residential) District is established as a district in which the principal use of the land shall be townhouse dwellings. The R3C district will be limited to areas guided Medium Density on the Future Land Use Plan and those Medium Density guided parcels that are immediately abutting or are across the street from existing single family residential where townhome versus stacked multi-story, multiple family is more compatible. Density range shall be six (6) and twelve (12) units per acre. Motion to approve changes by Feist, second by Sanders. Motion carried. CHAPTER 9 - "RH" HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Section 9-7. Lot, Height, Area, and Yard Requirements: e) Minimum lot area shall be as follows: 2) Area for a stackedmulti-story, multiple family building shall be one (1) acre with a one hundred (100) feet lot width. Ackerman stated that the wording required a lot width of 100 feet, no more, no less. Lang suggested rewording to “minimum lot width of one hundred (100) feet”. Section 9-8. Special Minimum Requirements for Multi-Family Residential Developments. Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Meeting January 12, 2017 Page 7 of 8 a) Building Design and Materials – Multi-family (stackedmulti-story): Each façade of a townhouse, twin home or stackedmulti-story multi-family buildings shall be finished with a minimum of two (2) different colors and two (2) different finishes (exterior finishes exclude exposed foundation walls constructed of poured concrete or smooth-face concrete block, whether painted or not painted). Feist and Pankow suggested rewording to “exterior finishes exclude unfinished exposed foundation walls”. CHAPTER 9 - "RH" HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Section 9-7. Lot, Height, Area, and Yard Requirements: e) Minimum lot area shall be as follows: 2) Area for a stackedmulti-story, multiple family building shall be one (1) acre with a minimum lot width of one hundred (100) feet lot width. Section 9-8. Special Minimum Requirements for Multi-Family Residential Developments. e) Building Design and Materials – Multi-family (stackedmulti-story): Each façade of a townhouse, twin home or stackedmulti-story multi-family buildings shall be finished with a minimum of two (2) different colors and two (2) different finishes (exterior finishes exclude unfinished exposed foundation walls constructed of poured concrete or smooth-face concrete block, whether painted or not painted). Motion to approve changes by Pankow, second by Feist. Motion carried. CHAPTER 11 –“C2” GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT d) Minimum lot area – ten thousand (10,000) square feet, two (2) acres for properties in the extraterritorial jurisdiction with approved wastewater disposal systems by First District Health Unit. CHAPTER 14 - "M1" LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Section 14-3. Uses Permitted: a) A building or premises may be used for the manufacturing, fabricating, assembling, or processing of products or materials including, among others, factories, assembling plants, food processing plants, and industrial laboratories. In addition to those uses, which are also permitted in the C2 and C3 districts (except residential uses)., Tthe following are typical permitted uses: Section 14-4. Conditional Uses: 4) Outdoor storage areas using gravel or other crushed and/or recycled asphalt, concrete or gravel shall comply with requirements in Section 23.-6 (e) & (f) of this code. Section 14-7. Lot, Height, Area and Yard Requirements: Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee Meeting January 12, 2017 Page 8 of 8 d) Minimum lot area – ten thousand (10,000) square feet, two (2) acres for properties in the extraterritorial jurisdiction with approved wastewater disposal systems by First District Health Unit. CHAPTER 15 – “M2” HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Section 15-8. Lot, Height, Area and Yard Requirements: d) Minimum lot area – ten thousand (10,000) square feet, two (2) acres for properties in the extraterritorial jurisdiction with approved wastewater disposal systems by First District Health Unit. Motion to approve changes by Ackerman, seconded by Feist. Motion carried. CHAPTER 12 - “C3” CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT Section 12-13. Signage Permitted within the C3 District: a) Standards: All signs erected on any building or land within the C3 district must comply with the standards of this section and sections Section 22-91-15. Motion to approve changes by Ackerman, seconded by Feist. Motion carried. Ackerman brought up the recent ballot measure which legalized medical cannabis statewide. There was discussion that the state legislature was in the process of developing regulations. Pankow then brought up the temporary sign regulations. Davis responded that the recent Supreme Court decision Reed v. Town of Gilbert had a major impact in ruling content-based restrictions on signage unconstitutional, and that Code Enforcement Officer Dwight Thompson was working on revisions in light of the ruling. The floor was then opened to public comment. Darrell Taylor commented that the design and material standards for the C2 District made the cost to build in the City prohibitive for locating his business. Lang responded that the code made no exceptions for the design standards, but the matter could be revisited at one of the future meetings. Pankow responded that continuity in design regulations was necessary to preserve property values. Meeting adjourned at 10:15 A.M. Minutes completed by Reed Elmquist, Assistant Planner