Review Draft Zoning Amendments Related to Implementation of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan

Staff has begun the process of completing the Zoning Code Updates necessary to implement the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as well as certain other previously discussed amendments. These updates and additions are based on past site plan reviews and comments and/or conditions placed on applications. We will review and discuss each proposed section with the Planning Commission in a work session style meeting prior to finalizing the drafts for public hearing. Text changes are identified as strikeouts for proposed deletions and underline for proposed revisions or additions.

Many of these proposed changes are simply a restructuring and consolidation of existing ordinances. Other changes result in the need for new districts to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Some of the structure used to create a new district has been expanded to the other use districts to maintain consistency. Upon completion, it is the intent of staff to develop a series of handouts for each zoning district to list applicable standards and include illustrations to visualize standards in order to further supplement the zoning code.

The following has been prepared as a baseline to frame the overall policy discussion.  Items contemplated within can be changed, modified, eliminated, or increased based on direction from the Planning Commission.  In addition, Staff would like to discuss the public process for implementing these amendments, if any variation from the City's required processes is desired from the Planning Commission.  Staff has attempted to include as many of the ideas suggested as part of the Comprehensive Plan, various subsequent discussions (including the EPB/PC Joint Work Session), and City Council's Strategic Goals for 2012 in developing these discussion points for further review.  Attached to this case is a copy of the Vision and Values Statement, Checklist for Reviewing Zoning Alternatives, and Goals and Strategies from the Comprehensive Plan for review.

Sec. 117.111 Residential Use Districts

Minor edits have been made to the residential use district to change the reference from 2020 to 2030 MUSA. In addition, the reference to Religious Institutions has been revised to Places of Assembly in order to be consistent with Federal law.

Sec. 117-122. Public/Quasi-Public District

The Comprehensive Plan separated parks from other Public/Quasi-Public designations. Previously (and still currently in City Code), parks were guided as Public/Quasi-Public. The text is intended to create a separate zoning district for Parks (Sec. 117-122a) to provide general guidance, yet still provide the necessary flexibility to complete park system improvements. Having this district in place gives the City the ability to rezone park land to this new Park district.

Discussion point: Under the accessory uses, a provision for signs has been added for consideration. This section allows for advertising signs to be installed at ball fields under a master lease agreement with the City. This provides an opportunity for advertising at larger ball field complexes with limits to overall size, appearance and time frames. Through the master lease agreement, the City can determine appropriate fees.

Sec. 117.116A. Special Requirements and Performance Standards in All Employment and Office Park Districts.

This new section is intended to be the first section of the Employment Districts and is designed to serve as a consolidated section for building and site design standards for all Employment and Office Park (discussed next) districts. Having one consolidated section that addresses building and site design requirements eliminates the need to repeat the same in each use district. The draft contains the current design and material requirements, but also expands on other materials that are permitted along with the requirements for architectural accenting. In addition, standards for screening of roof top and ground mechanical units and provisions for trash enclosure and site lighting have been added.  Many of the additional design considerations proposed began as discussions in developing design standards for the Office Park District based on Planning Commission and City Council discussion.  Staff would like policy direction from the Planning Commission as to whether these standards should also be updated for existing employment districts as well.

This consolidated section provides a one stop location for an applicant to understand what all the requirements are for building and site design for the Employment Districts. The added building design standards reinforce what the city is striving for based on past site plan and building plan reviews and comments. By making expectations clear, applicants can be more successful in preparing a quality submittal the first time. Clear and concise ordinances make it easier for an applicant to perform to the city’s expectations while providing the city codes that fortify these requirements.

Sec. 117.116B. E-3 Employment (Office Park) District

Staff prepared a draft E-3 Employment (Office Park) Zoning District classification as an implementation step to the Comprehensive Plan. This zoning district is necessary to implement the Pearson Office Park south of Highway 10 as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. Generally, this district is similar to the existing employment districts, but focuses on corporate campuses, warehousing/logistics, and light manufacturing. Heavy manufacturing and outside storage are prohibited based on previous City Council and Planning Commission discussion. In addition, unique to this district, is the provision for full-service restaurants as a conditional use to support the intent of the district and provide a mix of uses, particularly those that support a corporate campus style development.  This provision has been added as an economic development tool to attract potential corporate campus to provide a shared service for employees of the development. 

Sec. 117.116 and Sec. 117.117. E-2 Employment District and E-1 Employment District

Minor revisions have been made to the E-2 and E-1 districts to add Places of Assembly as an Interim Use in the E-1 and E-2 Employment Districts.

Sec. 117.144A. Special Requirements and Performance Standards for B-1, B-2 and B-3 Zoning Districts.

Like the consolidated building and site design section for Employment districts, this new section is intended to be the first section of the Business Districts. This section is designed to serve as a consolidated section for building and site design standards for all B-1, B-2 and B-3 districts. These requirements will not affect the COR, as this area is a separate zoning district. Again, having one consolidated section that addresses building and site design requirements eliminates the need to repeat the same in each use district. The draft contains the current design and material requirements but also expands on other materials that are permitted along with the requirements for architectural accenting. In addition, standards for screening of roof top and ground mechanical units and provisions for trash enclosure and site lighting have been added. Many of the additional design considerations proposed began as discussions in developing design standards for the Office Park District based on Planning Commission and City Council discussion. Staff would like policy direction from the Planning Commission as to whether these standards should also be updated for existing business districts as well.

This consolidated section provides a one stop location for an applicant to understand what all the requirements are for building and site design for the B-1, B-2 and B-3 districts. The added building design standards reinforce what the city is striving for based on past site plan and building plan reviews and comments. By making expectations clear, applicants can be more successful in preparing a quality submittal the first time. Clear and concise ordinances make it easier for an applicant to perform to the city’s expectations while providing the city codes that fortify these requirements.

Also, this section adds standards to conditional uses in Sec. 117.114 B-1, Neighborhood Business District and Sec.
117.115 B-2, Highway Business District. This exercise is two-fold. First, this provides general direction when reviewing CUP requests per previous City Council and Planning Commission discussion. Second, this provides an opportunity to review existing Conditional Uses and determine which can be moved to Permitted Uses, based on the developed standards. The overall intent is to try to better address CUP requests in a timely manner. Providing the standards by which a CUP will be reviewed and approved provides better up front direction to applicants, and provides guidance to staff, Planning Commission and City Council. These standards become the conditions for the CUP, however if additional standards are warranted they can be expanded.

Sec. 117.355 Residential Off-street Parking and Sec. 117.356 Commercial and Industrial Development Off-street Parking and Loading.

Sec. 117.355 Residential Off-Street Parking has been revised to include broader guidance and requirements for minimum parking requirements in residential districts. This includes parking requirements for different types of multi-family housing and senior housing. Parking needs vary between independent and assisted or nursing home facilities, thus the parking requirements should reflect these different needs. This became especially evident in two (2) recent site plan reviews for assisted living developments.

Discussion point. The current residential off-street parking section includes setback perimeters for motor vehicles parked on a parking pad. These requirements vary between parcels less than two acres, where vehicles are required to be stored closer to the principal structures than the lot lines.

For parcels two acres or greater:

• Motor vehicles stored or parked in a side or rear yard shall maintain a 15-foot setback from the edge of the parking area.
• Equipment stored in the side or rear year shall maintain a setback of 15 feet from the lot line.

This section does not clarify the difference between parking on a parking pad or driveway, thus staff has had some issues arise over the interpretation and enforcement. Issues have arisen for properties with driveways complying with the setback of five (5) feet from the side property line.  The definition of a driveway is a traffic lane leading directly from a public street to the primary garage on the subject parcel, the wide of which cannot exceed the primary garage wide by more than 15 feet. Driveway parking may not extend beyond the front of the primary garage without meeting the performance standards for side or rear yard parking.

Using this definition staff would like to discuss some possible options to clarify location of parking on a driveway in proximity to a side or rear yard and the location of parking on a parking pad in proximity to a side or rear yard.  Essentially, Staff would recommend that motor vehicles be permitted to be parked at least five (5) feet from the side property line in a side yard provided it is parked on an approved driveway and parked closer to the home than the lot line, consistent with other existing standards in the Off-Street Parking Ordinance.

Sec. 117.356 Commercial and Industrial Development Off-street Parking. This amendment expands the list of potential uses, consistent with prior site plan approvals in an attempt to expand upon uses and required parking.  Based on past review in many site plan applications, many times, especially in the employment district, the City receives requests for parking below the minimum standards.  The following provides flexibility and guidance to the City on ways to accomplish reduced parking allowances.

The amendment also provides illustrations of parking stalls and drive aisle standards to assist in interpretation. Different options for paving of parking and drive isles are clarified, including an option for the use of pervious pavers provided appropriate soils and site conditions exist. Alternative surface materials may also be considered in the rear yards with an interim use permit.

This amendment builds upon existing landscaping requirements based on parking lots and provides additional direction on acceptable means of accomplishing these requirements.  The amendment moves parking lot landscaping standards from individual districts into the Off-Street Parking Ordinance.  The intent of relocating this text is to provide all off-street parking information in one location and reduce duplication of standards.  The proposed text also expands language to provide direction on the intent and placement of parking lot landscaping based on feedback from previous site plan review.

Perimeter parking area landscape requirements have been added, which requires sites in business or employment districts abutting a street or similar district to provide landscape screening at a minimum of three (3) feet in height to screen headlights. Where a business or employment district abuts a residential district, a landscape screen of six (6) feet in height and eighty percent (80%) opaqueness is required.

Finally a new transportation demand management section has been added for review and input. This new section is intended to require new construction in Business, Employment and Mixed Use districts to consider the use alternatives to parking. Some methods are included as requirements such as accommodating bicycle parking, while others may be as a choice with off-sets to the number of parking spaces required, such as car pool parking. Using these alternatives further supports the overall reduction in the amount of parking provided.

Other Considerations for Off-Street Parking:

While preparing draft updates of the parking ordinance, staff explored alternatives that may help the city achieve objectives to reduce excess impervious surface and outside storage (including excess parking). Below are some of these alternatives we would like to review with the Planning Commission. These alternatives could be added to the ordinance as a requirement or through an incentive in an effort to balance economic development objectives while also reducing overall costs for new development. Again, discussion on this provision began as a discussion to reduce the amount of outside storage area for the Office Park District.  Staff would like policy direction as to whether to expand this, if approved, to other business and employment districts as well.

Alternative 1: In an attempt to encourage shared parking and maximize parking allotments for larger sites such as for office buildings and large-format retailers, Staff would like to discuss with the Commission the use of parking maximums for some larger parking lot users (big box retailers, office buildings, larger industrial users) to prevent underutilized parking. This option could be a requirement of the ordinance or if an applicant wants to add parking beyond the minimum, require mitigation features such as additional storm water management techniques within the parking and drive areas. This not only benefits sites for aesthetic reasons but also reduces the amount of storm water management required. Use of these mitigation techniques could also be used to provide credit to certain utility fees, to be discussed more in detail at a later date.

Alternative 2: In another attempt to discourage over parking of sites, staff would like to discuss with the Commission a requirement that any parking areas over the minimum be required to use a pervious paver system. That way, additional parking does not truly expand the amount of impervious surface and actually provides storm water benefits.  As it relates to balance of economic development, pervious parking areas could qualify for stormwater utility credit. 

Alternative 3: Staff would like to explore expanding upon current storm water management practices by encouraging the use of best management practices for storm water management within parking and drive areas. If this were added, storm water credits would apply. This could be used as a tool to address Council's goals of further studying development fees (in this instance, storm water management).

Development of the Zoning Code Amendments are being processed through the Planning Services Contract with Stantec.

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission provide feedback on the attached talking points and provide direction on the remaining process for implementation and Public Hearing. 

Provide feedback on the attached talking points and provide direction on the remaining process for implementation and Public Hearing.