|
PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT Regular Agenda -- Public Hearing Item |
|
PC Staff Report 2/27/08 ITEM NO. 14: TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20, ARTICLE 8 DEVELOPMENT CODE (JCR)
TA-07-14-07: Consider amendments to Section 20-601(b) of the Development Code to revise setbacks for the IG District when abutting residential districts. Initiated by the Planning Commission on July 25, 2007.
|
|
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a recommendation for approval of the proposed revisions [TA-07-14-07] to Section 20-601(b) of the Development Code, to the City Commission. |
|
Reason for Request: |
In applying the Development Code, a number of issues have been identified which require revisions to the text adopted. Adoption of the initiated revisions will improve the implementation of the Development Code.
|
|
|
RELEVANT GOLDEN FACTOR:
|
||
|
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED PRIOR TO PRINTING
|
|
|
|
OVERVIEW OF REVISIONS PROPOSED · The proposed revision would modify the minimum setbacks for the IG District when abutting residential zoning districts. The IG District is composed of all properties which had been zoned M-2, M-3 and M-4 under the previous zoning code. The M-3 and M-4 Districts had 50’ setbacks when adjacent to residential districts, which is consistent with the existing language in the Development Code. However, the M-2 District required a minimum 25’ setback when abutting street right-of-way across from a residential district and a minimum 20’ setback when abutting a residentially-zoned property. Due to this inconsistency, many developed properties which had been zoned M-2 are nonconforming in terms of setbacks when adjacent to or across the street from residentially-zoned properties.
|
|
|
|
CRITERIA FOR REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING Section 20-1302(f) provides review and decision-making criteria on proposed text amendments. It states that review bodies shall consider at least the following factors: 1) Whether the proposed text amendment corrects an error or inconsistency in the Development Code or meets the challenge of a changing condition; and The proposed amendment corrects an error in the Development Code. The language, as written, creates a number of nonconforming properties. The proposed text amendment resolves this issue. 2) Whether the proposed text amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the stated purpose of this Development Code (Sec. 20-104). [Section 20-104 of the Development Code states that the purpose of the Development Code is to implement the Lawrence/Douglas County Comprehensive Land Use Plan (Horizon 2020) and other applicable plans adopted by the City Commission, hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Comprehensive Plan” – in a manner that protects, enhances and promotes the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of Lawrence.] The proposed amendment is consistent with Horizon 2020 and the stated purpose of the Development Code. Horizon 2020 states that the reuse and redevelopment of industrial areas should be encouraged in policy and regulation.
· Consider appropriate financial and development incentives to encourage reuse of industrial properties. (Policy 1.3C, Page 7-7) · Encourage redevelopment and limited expansion of existing industrial areas. (Policy 1.4A, Page 7-7)
|
|
|
|
HISTORY This amendment was by the Planning Commission on July 25, 2007 and was scheduled on the Planning Commission Agenda for December 19, 2007 for discussion and feedback. Minutes from the meeting are attached.
SUMMARY The proposed amendments permit properties which were previously zoned as M-2 to develop with the setbacks of the M-2 district if the development does not constitute a Significant Development Project. Significant Development Projects are defined as:
(1) The construction of one or more new Buildings with a gross Floor Area of 1,500 square feet or more; (2) The construction of additions with a gross Floor Area of 1,500 square feet or more, or twenty percent (20%) or more, of the existing Building; (3) Separate incremental additions below the 1,500 square feet or 20% amount if the aggregate effect of such Development Activity over a period of 18 consecutive months would trigger the 1,500 square feet or 20% threshold; (4) The alteration or intensification of any use that increases off-Street Parking requirements pursuant to Article 9 or (5) The installation or addition of more than 1,500 square feet of impervious site cover. (Ord. 8098)
If the development constitutes a Significant Development Project, two options are available to the applicant to permit expansion of the nonconforming structure: 1) The structure may expand as permitted by the provisions for Nonconforming Structures in Section 20-1503. This provision allows the expansion of a nonconforming structure if the expansion does not result in a further encroachment of the nonconforming setback. In other words, if a structure is nonconforming with regard to its exterior side yard setback, it may expand into other yards (where it is not nonconforming) but not into the nonconforming exterior side yard; or 2) The applicant may seek a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals in order to expand the structure with the argument that such expansion is consistent with established patterns of development for former M-2 properties.
|
|
|
|
COMPATIBILITY AND TRANSITION Setbacks as provided by Section 20-601(b) are not the only tool available to ensure compatibility and transition between adjacent uses and zoning districts. Article 10 (Landscaping) requires landscape bufferyards between dissimilar zoning districts. The bufferyards range between 10 feet and 25 feet in width depending upon the type required and that chosen by the developer. The narrower the bufferyard provided, the denser the landscaping is required to be.
Additionally, Section 20-602(h) requires that any building constructed on a non-RS zoned property which adjoins or is separated by only an alley or public street from an RS-zoned property must be setback from the RS property line a distance equal to its height if the height of the proposed building is greater than that of the existing structure on the RS zoned property. For clarification, staff proposes amending the Maximum Height provision of Section 20-601(b) by adding a footnote for a cross-reference to Section 20-602(h).
|
|
|
|
OTHER ISSUES An owner of industrial property has expressed concern regarding the parking lot setback for industrial districts. Section 20-908(c) of the Development Code requires a minimum parking lot setback of 15 feet from property lines abutting street right-of-way and 10 feet from residential property lines. Prior to the adoption of the Development Code, past practice of the City has been to require a 15 green space setback for all nonresidential parking lots, including those on industrial properties. Staff supports the current requirement contained in Section 20-908(c) of the Development Code and recognizes that the property owner may seek relief from this requirement for particular sites where the established development pattern may support a reduction in the parking lot setback.
|
|
|
Deleted text is shown with strikethrough;
additional text is shown in bold and italics.
Unless otherwise expressly stated, all development in the Nonresidential Districts shall comply with the Dimensional Standards of the following table: (Ord. 8098)
|
Standard |
CN1 |
CO |
CN2 |
CD |
CC |
CR |
CS |
IBP [10] |
IL |
IG |
OS |
|||
|
Min. Site Area |
5,000 sq. ft |
5,000 sq.ft. |
2 Ac. |
2,500 |
5 Ac. |
40 Ac |
- |
5 Ac. |
20,000 sq.ft. |
5,000 sq.ft. |
– |
|||
|
Max. Site Area |
1 Ac. |
– |
15 Ac. |
– |
– |
– |
- |
– |
– |
– |
– |
|||
|
Min. Lot Area (sq. ft.) |
5,000 |
5,000 |
20,000 |
2,500 |
20,000 |
20,000 |
5,000 |
20,000 |
20,000 |
5,000 |
– |
|||
|
Min. Lot Width (ft.) [12] |
50 |
50 |
100 |
25 |
100 |
150 |
50/100 |
200 |
100 |
50 |
– |
|||
|
Min. Setbacks (ft.) |
||||||||||||||
|
Front [9] |
[6] |
20 |
20 |
0 |
25 |
25 |
25 |
[1] |
[1] |
[1] |
[3] |
|||
|
Side (Exterior) [2] [9] |
[3]/20 |
[3]/20 |
[3]/20 |
[3]/0 |
[3]/20 |
[3]20 |
[3]15 |
[1] |
[1] |
[1] |
35 |
|||
|
Side (Interior–adj. R) [9] |
10 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
25 |
45 |
12 |
[1] |
[1] |
[1] |
20 |
|||
|
Side (Interior–adj. Non-R) |
0 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
[1] |
[1] |
[1] |
15 |
|||
|
Rear [4] [9] |
20/25 |
15/25 |
20/25 |
0 |
12/25 |
30 |
12/25 |
[1] |
[1] |
[1] |
0 |
|||
|
Max. Front Setback |
[6] |
NA |
NA |
5[7] |
20 |
0 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
|||
|
Max. Lot Coverage (%) |
65 [5][11] |
65 [5][11] |
75 [5][11] |
100 |
85 [5][11] |
80 [5][11] |
80 [5][11] |
65 [5][11] |
85 [5][11] |
85 [5][11] |
NA |
|||
|
Max. Impervious Lot Cover (% ) |
75 [5][11] |
75 [5][11] |
80 [5][11] |
100 |
80[5] [8][11] |
75[5] [8][11] |
80 [5][11] |
75 [5][11] |
75 [5][11] |
75 [5][11] |
NA |
|||
|
Min. Outdoor Area (per unit) |
||||||||||||||
|
Area (sq. ft.) |
50 |
– |
50 |
– |
– |
– |
50 [5][11] |
– |
– |
– |
– |
|||
|
Dimensions (ft.) |
5 |
– |
5 |
– |
– |
– |
5 [5][11] |
– |
– |
– |
– |
|||
|
Max. Height (ft.) [13] |
25 |
50 |
45 |
90 [7] |
50 |
75 |
45 |
60 |
35 |
75 |
35 |
|||
[[1]] Minimum Setbacks are as follows:
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
District |
Abutting Street Right-of-Way |
Abutting Other Lot Lines |
||
|
Across From R Districts |
Across From Non-R Districts |
Across From R Districts |
Across From Non-R Districts |
|
|
IBP [10] |
40 |
25 |
40 |
15 |
|
IL |
50 |
25 |
20 |
15 |
|
IG |
50 [14] |
25 |
50 [15] |
15 |
[2] First number represents minimum Exterior Setback to an abutting Side Lot Line. Second number represents minimum Exterior
Setback to an abutting Rear Lot Line
[3] Same as Front Yard of abutting Lot
[4] First number represents minimum Rear Setback for Single Frontage Lot. Second number represents minimum Rear Setback
for double Frontage (or through) Lot
[5] Applies only to Lots platted after the Effective Date.
[6] Setback of Building constructed after the Effective Date shall be within 1 foot of the average Setback of existing Buildings on the same Block on the same side of the Street.
[7] Subject to location and Height limitations in Downtown Design Guidelines and Downtown Design Standards.
[8] Maximum Building coverage in CC and CR districts is 25%.
[9] Additional Setback restrictions apply to properties developed adjacent to RS zoned properties where expressly required elsewhere in the Development Code.
[10] Density and Dimensional Standards for the GPI and H Districts shall be the same as those established in the IBP District.
[11] Applies to any Significant Development Project.
[12] First number represents the minimum existing Lot Width. The second number represents the required Lot Width for a Lot platted
after the Effective Date.
[13] Maximum height may be subject to the standards of Section 20-602(h)(2) when located adjacent to RS properties.
[14] Setback shall be 25’ for all IG properties zoned M-2 under the previous zoning code. A 50’ setback shall be required for any redevelopment, expansion or modification which meets the criteria of a Significant Development Project or if the Lot is platted after the Effective Date.
[15] Setback shall be 20’ for all IG properties zoned M-2 under the previous zoning code. A 50’ setback shall be required for any redevelopment, expansion or modification which meets the criteria of a Significant Development Project or if the Lot is platted after the Effective Date.
(Ord. 8098)