Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA051 - Staff recommendations for issues in zoning changes t as ISSUE 1 Multiple Family Zoning Districts (RM, RH) Maximum Building/Site Coverage and Minimum Landscaping During the course of public input on the proposed zoning regulations concern was expressed regarding the proposed standards in the multiple family zoning districts. The proposed standards in question include: Maximum Site Coverage Minimum Landscaping The concerns expressed indicate that the proposed site coverage standard is too low, and the proposed minimum landscape standard is too high. In essence, there is a desire to develop multiple family property more intensely than what is envisioned by the proposed standards. In discussing these standards with Robinson and Cole, it has been indicated that the proposed standards are offered to provide clarity to the regulation with respect to the two areas indicated. Currently the existing ordinance does not specify the amount of area on the lot that can be developed other than those requirements that are accomplished by set backs. Landscaping requirements in the existing ordinance is limited to landscaping associated with parking lot areas. Staff has analyzed numerous multiple family sites in a variety of locations around the community. The results of this analysis, which are attached to this Staff Report, indicate the following findings: • A review of the sampling of sites reflected on the attached table indicates that the pattern of multiple family building in the existing R-3 zone, which is similar to the proposed RM zone, have created site coverages that are greater than the proposed site coverage standard of 60%. • A review of the sampling of sites reflected on the attached table indicates that the pattern of landscaping that has been installed in areas zoned R-3, which would be similar to the proposed RM zone, in many instances is less than the proposed landscape standard of 40%. • A review of the sampling of sites reflected on the attached table indicates that the pattern of multiple family building in the existing R-4 zone, which is similar to the proposed RH zone, has created site coverages that is similar to the proposed site coverage standard of 70%. • A review of the sampling of sites reflected on the attached table indicates that the pattern of landscaping that has been installed in areas zoned R-4, which is similar to the proposed RH zone, is similar to the proposed landscape standard of 30%. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Having completed this analysis, staff is prepared to recommend that: 1. The site coverage standard in the proposed Zoning Ordinance be eliminated; and 2. The standards for minimum landscaping be changed only in the Residential Medium (RM) density zone. This landscaping standard would change from 40% to 35%. If the City Council ultimately selects a different percentage it is important that the percentage designated for RM be higher than for the RH zone. h\bpo\caflzoningordinancestaffreport 2 Proposed Zoning Ordinance - Multi Family Study ZoningBuilding Impervious Total Site Site Building Type Landscaping Coverage Coverage r220 1 Delaware A" R-3 Multiple' 27.2% 36.4% 63.6% 36,4% 3 Delaware A R-3 Multiple 29.9°J° 36.6% 66.5% 33.4% 3 North Dako R-3 Multiple 21.2%° 27.7% 48.9% 51.2%` Jewel Drive R-3 Multiple 14.8% 40.7% 55.5% 44.6%' Raphael Ave R-3 Multiple 22.8% 27.1% 49.9% 50.1% 4410 Mortensen R-3 Multiple 22.1% 25.7% 47 8% 52.2% 825 Dikinson Av R-3 Multiple " 16.9% 48.4% 65.3% 34.7% 125 Campus Ave R-3 Single 24.3% 53.7%° 78.0% 22.0% 1305 Georgia Av R-3 Single 23.4% 40.9% 64.3% 35.8% 1407 Georgia Av R-3 Single 25.9% - 45.1% 71.0% 29.0%' 307 Sth Street R-3 Single 18.4%- 56.4% 74.8% 25.2% 4518 Steinbeck c R-3 Single 23.8% 44.1% 67.9% 32.1% 4524 Steinbeck c R-3 Single 25.6% 47.0% 72.6% 27.4%d 4608Toronto Str, R-3 Single " 18.4% ' 47.7% 66.1% 33.9 908 Douglas Ave R-3 Single 23.8% 52.0% 75.80,'. 24.2% --- 131 Hyland Aven R-4 Single 16.4% 48.0% 64.4%° 35.5% 134 Campus Ave R-4 Single 21.7% 52.7% 74.4% 25.7% 225 Hyland Aven R-4 Single 24.7% 50.9% 75.6% 24.4% 225 Washington R-4 Single 24.3% 39.5% 63.8% 36.2% 230 South Walnu R-4 Single 20.0% 48.9% 68.9% 31.1% 258 Hyland Aven R-4 Single 31.3% 34.4% 65.7% 34.2% 300 Stanton Ave R-4 Single 19.0% 51.0% 70.0% 30.0% 306 South 4th St R-4 Single 29.2% 40.8% 70.0% 30.0% 320 South 4th St R-4 Single 18.1% 46.7% 64.8% 35.2% 425 Welch Aven R-4 Single 29.9% 46.0% 75.9% 24.1% 428 4th Street R-4 Single 20.5% 39.5% 60.0% 40.0% 321 South Fifth S R-4 Single 27.7% 33.99/. 61.6% 38.4% 632 Squaw Cree R-4 ISingle 28.6% 37.7% 66.3% 33.7% Mean-Site Coverage 64.5% 35.5% Mean-Landscaping Mode-Site Coverage #N/A #N/A Mode-Landscaping Median-Site Coverage 66.1%° 33.9% Median-landscaping Minimum-Site Coverage 47.8% 22.0% Minimum-Landscaping Maximum-Site Coverage 78.0% ' 52.2% Maximum-Landscaping Mean-Site Coverage 67.8% 32.2% Mean-Landscaping Mode-Site Coverage 70.0% 30.0% Mode-Landscaping Median-Site Coverage 66.3% 33.7% Median-Landscaping Minimum-Site Coverage 60.0% 24.1% Minimum-Landscaping Maximum-Site Coverage 75.9% 40.0% Maximum-Landscaping Prepared by Planning and Housing 10/2/98 ab ISSUE 2 Village Residential vs. Suburban Residential The Land Use Policy Plan indicates that Village Residential development is the preferred option for new development (Page 54 of the LUPP). Where Village Residential option is not chosen by the property owner, the Suburban Residential development option will occur (Page 54 of the LUPP). This provision in the Plan indicates that the City has a preference for which of the two development options should occur in new development, but it also indicates that the property owner has a choice. Concern has been expressed through various elements of public input that Village Residential should not be the preferred zone. Doubts have been expressed as to the extent of acceptance by homebuyers of this relatively new concept. Therefore, there is a fear that there will be no market for homes in this type of development. It is believed a developer should have a choice to build the traditional Suburban Residential subdivision or the neo-traditional Village Residential subdivision. Recently staff has had the opportunity to discuss this issue with an ad hoc group of citizens representing the Neighborhood Coalition, as well as the Chamber of Commerce Planning Task Force. This discussion has revealed that there is considerable common ground upon which to re-structure the Zoning Ordinance to meet the objectives of both sides to this issue. This ad hoc group listed the elements of Village Residential and Suburban Residential development that were seen as being positive and negative. The positive and negative attributes are listed as follows: r Village Residential Suburban Residential Positive Negative Positive Negative • Higher Density • Takes more • Known • Lower density • Provides for planning time accepted • Class Commercial and cost development segregation land use • Unknown model • More • Promotes market • Speculative automobile public transit acceptance homes are dependence • Highly • More up front built faster • Non-integrated integrated land costs • Larger lots • High uses • More complex • Larger housing infrastructure • Promotes development choices cost per unit social • Not automobile • Easier • Less interaction friendly financing for neighborhood • Reduces • Limits housing developer activities infrastructure choices • More individual • Higher costs costs on a per • Difficult to space for City unit basis integrate • Safer services per • Wider range of commercial investment for unit housing into a Village resale by • More raw land choices • Apprehension owner consumption • Aesthetic value about mixed • Compliments • Age • Conserves raw use conventional segregation land • Not enough commercial • Street layout consumption privacy development (cul-de-sacs) • Rely on others • Allows for cul- to help with de-sacs, which snow removal assures lower • Limited traffilc housing types • Lack of support from development community Staff was surprised to find that representatives from the Neighborhood Coalition and the Chamber of Commerce Planning Task Force were able to agree on the following points: • There was general agreement that both Village Residential development and Suburban Residential had both positive and negative characteristics; • The option of either Village Residential or Suburban Residential for development in new lands areas should be the choice of the property owner; 2 • If the property owner were to choose the Suburban Residential option, the standards for Suburban Residential development should contain many of the positive features of Village Residential development that have been previously listed. These three points of agreement between the Neighborhood Coalition and the Chamber of Commerce Planning Task Force allowed staff to develop an alternate recommendation based on the following concept: Regardless of which of the two development options (Village or Suburban) a property owner chooses, the basic goals and objectives (Vision) of the Land Use Policy Plan should be accomplished by either option. In reviewing the positive and negative attributes that are listed in the previous table, it is staffs belief that a number of the attributes that would result from Village development could be included as standards for Suburban Residential development to make certain the overall vision of the Land Use Policy Plan is accomplished. These attributes include: 1 . Increased density 2. Improved pedestrian and vehicular connectivity 3. Increased open space and areas for social interaction 4. Improved landscaped buffers between different land uses 3 1. Densily. One of the several goals and objectives of the Land Use Policy Plan is to plan for and manage the future growth of the City and to provide for adequate developable land where development occurs efficiently and is compatible with existing patterns of development in the City. Staff has analyzed the density patterns of the City of Ames for a period of approximately 90 years for one and two family land use. This analysis has been illustrated in a series of Charts and Tables that follow. Table I Density Over Time (Progressive) �T°Unts � ��Ace es fl+Exns ty +� �i a�, •�. vet . `,���, , ,, '� �� �r- '0 370 86.32 4.29 880 197.84 4.45 9 1732 3*73.16 4.64 2177 468.76 4.64 2844 6:31.74 4.50 Qv 4269 1016.54 4.20 . ' 9 $ 6084 1481.14 4.11 " 9 7463 1843.56 4.05 . " 8036 2001.91 4.01 =' 9 9078 2316.65 3.92 Chart I Progressive Density 4.80 4.60 4.40 e' y 4.20 —Density 4.00 3.80 3.60 , » W" 3.40 1908 1918 1928 1938 1948 1958 1968 1978 1988 1997 Year Both Table I and Chart I illustrate the density throughout the entire City for One and Two Family Land Use compiled progressively for the time period from 1908 to 1997. This data indicates that densities have been progressively declining from a high density of 4.64 Dwelling units per acre in 1928 to a low of 3.92 dwelling units per acre in 1997. 4 Table II Density in a Given Year(Individual) ni�ss� acres flensty� 4Y 108 8 2.40 3.33 43 11.12 3.87 92$° 57 10.13 5.63 198 66 12.98 5.08 4$ 116 31.31 3.70 194 51.50 3.77 98 213 51.02 4.17 185 42.40 4.36 57 16.74 3.41 129 39.451 3.27 Chart II Density by Individual Year 6.00 5.00 Y f i; 4.00 3.00 ❑Density 0 2.00 1.00 ;« s 0.00 , lb Year Table II and Chart II illustrate density in selected years from 1908 to 1997. The highest density of one and two family development that occurred in any of the selected years occurred in 1928 with a density for that year at 5.63 units per acre. More recently, the densities have declined noticeably to a low in 1997 of 3.27 dwelling units per year. 5 Table III Density by 10 Year Periods m 518 113.92 4.55 w 895 186.44 4.80 502 105.73 4.75 773 175.96 4.39 1541 416.11 3.70 84 2009 516.1 3.89 9 1592 413.44 3.85 9 g 758 200.75 3.78 9 ..$ 1099 331.48 3.32 Chart III Density by 10 Year Period 6.00 5.00 ra 4.00 _ . 3.00 � � ❑Density 0 2.001.00 0.00 N"b N-' Ne ��6� Ne Year Range Table III and Chart III illustrate the trends in density over a 10 year period for the decades from 1908 to 1997. During this period of analysis the densities were at their highest during the decade from 1918 to 1928, and the lowest in the decade from 1988 to 1997. 6 Unlike previous Land Use Policy Plans of the City, the newly adopted plan emphasizes that density for future residential development should approximate or exceed existing residential density patterns. The concept of Village Residential was envisioned as a means to accomplish this very important goal. Staff believes that if Suburban Residential development is chosen by a property owner, then the goal of efficient development and approximating the density patterns of the existing City needs to be accomplished, as well. Therefore, staff is making the following recommendation: That the Suburban Residential regulation be revised to include an average minimum density requirement ok 4.0 dwellings per net acre for one and two family housing, 7.0 dwellings per net acre for manufactured housing, and 10.0 dwellings per net acre for multiple family housing (apartments). This recommendation will require a change to our LUPP to reflect these averages as standards and not merely goals. By using an average minimum density in single family developments, this will allow for larger lots within a subdivision as long as there are sufficient smaller lots to create an average density of 4.0 dwelling units per net acre. 2. Pedestrian and Vehicular Connectivity. Several of the goals and objectives of the Land Use Policy Plan indicate the need to link areas of the community together such as stream corridors, recreational areas, and areas of environmental importance. Additionally, the goals and objectives indicate a need to establish a greater sense of place by physically connecting existing and new development by relating land uses to each other and creating improved connections. One of the distinguishing features of Village Residential development is the emphasis on pedestrian mobility and the ability to move about within and without a subdivision in a variety of travel paths. As a means to accomplish these objectives, staff is recommending that the Suburban Residential regulation be modified to include the following features. Require that Suburban Residential developments contain sidewalks on both sides of streets that are developed within a Suburban Residential subdivision and that a system of mid block cross walks or a similar system of walkways be required for blocks that exceed 660 feet in length. Require that pedestrian walkways and cross-blocks be highly connected with the subdivision and connected to walkway improvements that are outside of the subdivision. 7 Require that the design of streets within Suburban Residential subdivisions provide for multiple travel paths and are highly connected within the subdivision and the existing street network adjacent to the subdivision. The use of cul-de-sacs will be limited to special circumstances where topography or the configuration of the property make the use of a cul-de-sac street design is the only reasonable alternative. 3. Increased Open Space and Areas for Social Interaction. Similar to the goals of increased connectivity, the same goals and objectives in the Land Use Policy Plan call for closer proximity of residential areas to community amenities such as parks and schools. One of the unifying elements of Village Residential development is the inclusion of small open space features, civic plazas, and other areas for people gathering into the overall design and layout of the Village. In order to accomplish this same objective, Suburban Residential development should also incorporate open space, landscaped areas, environmental significant areas, and similar features into the design and layout of a Suburban Residential subdivision. There are already a few examples of this open space approach in the City that have developed along the more conventional Suburban Residential model. The Northridge Subdivision has slightly less than 10% of the area devoted to the system of open spaces and walkways that meander through this subdivision. In the Stonebrooke PUD Subdivision considerable amounts of open space have been planned into this project. Approximately 36% of the entire area is devoted to some form of open space or walkway feature. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Suburban Residential regulations be modified to incorporate the following standards for open space: Require that the design of Suburban Residential subdivisions contain accessible and convenient private open spaces equal to 10% of the gross area of the subdivision that create opportunities for residents of the subdivision to interact. This percentage is the same amount prescribed in the Village Residential standards. The City Council might not agree with this percentage. However, it is important that some acceptable amount of land in the subdivision be devoted to open space. 8 4. Increased Landscaping Between Different Land Uses. Several of the goals of the Land Use Policy Plan call for development that is compatible with the existing built environment, is compatible as new development occurs, and is compatible with the overall environment. A strength of Village Development that everyone seems to agree with is the positive results that occur through the high degree of design integration that relates different land use with each other, with the street design, with the open space layout, and with the adjacent existing development. Frequently the City has experienced great difficulty in the development approval process where dissimilar land uses are being proposed where there is actually a degree of incompatibility or there is a perceived degree of incompatibility. This usually involves the relationship of multiple family development adjacent to lower density development of commercial development adjacent to lower density development. As a means to address the difficulties that have been faced in the past, the staff is recommending the following: That Suburban Residential subdivisions have a requirement that different land uses have a buffer requirement between dissimilar land uses. The buffer requirement would utilize the landscape requirements that are already provided for in the Zoning Ordinance in the form of the L.3 High Screen Landscape standard with varying width requirements depending upon the relationship of the dissimilar land uses. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is staffs belief that with the inclusion of these four requirements in Suburban Residential development, the overall vision of the adopted Land Use Policy Plan can be accomplished with either development option (Village Residential or Suburban Residential). As a result of these requirements being added to Article 12, "Suburban Residential", staff would also recommend the following change to the format of the proposed Zoning Ordinance: That the Village Residential District regulation be moved from Article 10 "Special Purpose Districts" and placed in Article 12 "Floating Zones" along with Suburban Residential so that either district regulation has the same preference status in the Zoning Ordinance. Since the adopted Land Use Policy Plan will still indicate that the Village Residential is the preferred development alternative, staff is recommending a modification to the Capital Investment Strategy in order encourage the voluntary use of this neo-traditional option. This modification is outlines in Issue 2A. 9 � c IR ISSUE 2A Capital Investment Strategy One of the fundamental components of the Land Use Policy Plan is to guide the location and character of the growth of the City and to establish a cost-effective and efficient growth pattern. This is to occur by establishing priority areas for growth. You will remember that the LUPP as originally written envisioned that all new developments would occur in targeted areas and be built as Villages. In order to lend assistance to developers who were required to meet these two obligations, Al Raby suggested that the City offer an incentive in the form of the Capital Investment Strategy. Because the mandate for Village development has been removed from the Plan, Staff believes that the Capital Investment incentive should only be offered when the following City objectives are met: • The new development is constructed in the priority growth areas • A Village development is constructed that incorporates: • Increased density governed by the Plan • Integrating commercial and residential development to lessen vehicular dependence (not currently required in the Plan) • Providing for a wider choice of housing in newly developing areas as required in the Ordinance • A size of, at least, sixty acres that is sufficient to sustain a population of 1,000 or more residents, as outlined in the Plan Sometime earlier the City Council directed that the staff develop a system of criteria that could be used to guide the utilization of this incentive. Staff is recommending that the policies of the Capital Investment Strategy in the Land Use Policy Plan be changed by adding the following criteria. 1. For new development that is to occur outside of the Priority Growth Areas as defined in the Land Use Policy Plan, all costs for all infrastructure, street improvements and community facilities (e.g. fire station) shall be the responsibility of the developer. These costs are to include but are not limited to the following circumstances: • costs associated with the installation of the infrastructure and street improvements that are designed to provide service to the areas being developed; • costs associated with oversizing the infrastructure and street improvements that is reasonably anticipated in future development beyond the timeframe of the Land Use Policy Plan; and • costs associated with an impact from development that exceeds the capacity of the infrastructure or street improvements that have already been constructed. 2. For new Suburban Residential development that occurs within the Priority Growth areas as defined in the Land Use Policy Plan, the incentive of the Capital Investment Strategy will pay the costs associated with oversizing infrastructure and street improvements as determined necessary by the City. This currently represents approximately 30% of the cost of major infrastructure. 3. For new development in the Priority Growth Areas as defined in the Land Use Policy Plan that utilizes the Village Development option outlined in the Plan, including Commercial Land Uses, the incentive of the Capital Investment Strategy will pay ( )% of the cost of the major infrastructure (trunk water & sewer mains and arterial streets) within the proposed project. The amount of the incentive has yet to be finalized. Clearly it is the recommendation of the staff that the incentive amount in this instance must exceed the amount that the city would otherwise provide in criteria #2, 30%. 2 a01 ISSUE 3 Campustown as a Community Commercial Node or Service Center Zone Now that the review of the Zoning Ordinance is complete it is again possible to compare the proposed regulations with the Land Use Policy Plan to confirm the applicability of the proposed regulations to an area of the City where the Plan suggests that the regulations should apply. During our public input sessions, it was been brought to the attention of the staff that the Community Commercial Node zoning regulations are greatly dissimilar to the pattern of development that exists in Campustown. The pattern of development in Campustown more closely resembles the pattern of development found in the Downtown area. The Land Use Policy Plan emphasizes the importance of the Downtown as a community focal point, yet the pattern of development in both the Downtown and Campustown is similar. Having become aware of these discrepancies, Staff agrees that the designation of Campustown as a Community Commercial Node does not accurately reflect the pattern of development. Therefore, staff is recommending that changes to both the Land Use Policy Plan and the proposed zoning regulations occur to more accurately reflect the development in Campustown. Staff is proposing the following recommendations: 1. The Land Use Policy Plan be changed to designate the Campustown area as a Service Center Zone providing commercial services to the Iowa State University student population, along with the University faculty and University employee population that utilize the retail and service opportunities of the area. This change will involve a change to the Future Land Use Map designation for the Campustown area along with a need to include a more explicit policy description of the Campustown area to be included in the University Impacted Policy Option section of the Plan. 2. The proposed zoning regulations for the Downtown Service Area be amended to apply to both the Downtown and Campustown. This amendment will result only in a change to the name of the district from Downtown Service Center Zone (DSC) to Downtown/Campustown Service Zone Center Zone (DCSC). 8.4 "DCSC" DOWNTOWN/CAMPUSTOWN SERVICE CENTER. A. Purpose. The Downtown and Campustown Service Center(DCSC)zones are intended to provide for high-density development within the City's urban core and University Impacted areas. A broad range of uses are allowed to reflect the City's role as a commercial,cultural and governmental center. Development is intended to be very dense with high building coverage,large buildings in scale with the predominant building pattern in the downtown area,and buildings placed close together. Development is intended to encourage pedestrian activity with a strong emphasis on safe,vital and attractive streets. B. Permitted Uses. The uses permitted in the DCSC Zone are set forth in Table 8.4(B)below: Table 8.4(B) Downtown/Campustown Service Center(DCSC)Zone Uses APPROVAL APPROVAL USE CATEGORY STATUS REQUIRED AUTHORITY RESIDENTIAL USES Group Living N -- -- Household Living N,except in SDP Minor Staff combination with a commercial building,in which case it shall be located above the first floor. Short-term Lodgings Y SDP Minor Staff OFFICE USES Y SDP Minor Staff TRADE USES Retail Sales and Services-General Y SDP Minor Staff Retail Trade-Automotive,etc. N -- -- Entertainment,Restaurant and Y SDP Minor Staff Recreation Trade Wholesale Trade N -- -- INDUSTRIAL USES Industrial Service-Low Impact N -- -- INSTITUTIONAL USES Colleges and Universities Y SP ZBA Community Facilities Y SDP Minor Staff Social Service Providers Y SP ZBA Medical Centers N -- -- Parks and Open Areas Y SDP Minor Staff APPROVAL APPROVAL USE CATEGORY STATUS REQUIRED AUTHORITY Religious Institutions Y SP ZBA Schools N — — TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND UTILITY USES Passenger Terminals Y SDP Minor Staff Basic Utilities Y SDP Major City Council Commercial Parking Y SDP Minor Staff Radio and TV Broadcast Facilities Y SP ZBA Rail Line and Utility Corridors Y SP ZBA Railroad Yards N -- -- MISCELLANEOUS USES Commercial Outdoor Recreation N -- -- Child Day Care Facilities Y SP ZBA Detention Facilities N -- -- Major Event Entertainment Y SP ZBA Vehicle Service Facilities N -- -- Y = Yes: permitted as indicated by required approval. N = No: prohibited SP = Special Use Permit required: See Section 15.4 SDP Minor = Site Development Plan Minor: See Section 15.3(C) ZBA = Zoning Board of Adjustment C. Zone Development Standards. The zone development standards for the DCSC Zone are set forth in Table 8.4(C)below: Table 8.4(C) Downtown/Campustown Service Center(DCSC)Zone Development Standards DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DCSC ZONE Minimum FAR 1.0 [1] Minimum Lot Area No minimum,except for mixed uses,which shall provide 250 sf of lot area for each dwelling unit Minimum Lot Frontage No minimum,except for mixed uses,which shall provide 25 ft. Minimum Building Setbacks: • Front Lot Line 0 • Side Lot Line 0 • Rear Lot Line 0 • Lot Line Abutting a Residentially Zoned Lot 10 ft. Landscaping in Setbacks Abutting an R Zoned Lot 5 ft. @ U. See Section 4.4 Maximum Building Coverage 100% Minimum Landscaped Area No minimum Maximum Height 7 stories Minimum Height 2 Stories Parking Allowed Between Buildings and Streets No Drive-Through Facilities Permitted Yes Outdoor Display Permitted Yes. See Section 4.6 Outdoor Storage Permitted No Trucks and Equipment Permitted Light and medium only C. Standards for the Granting of Exceptions to the Minimum Requirement for Two-Story Buildings in the DCSC(Downtown/Campustown Service Center)District. Before an exception to the requirement for two-story buildings in the DCSC(Downtown/Campustown Service Center)can be granted,the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall establish that the following standards have been,or shall be satisfied: 1. Standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall review each application for the purpose of determining that each proposed one-story building, in the DCSC zone, meets the following standards: a. Physical circumstances exist for the property which result in a lot with a size and shape that is not conducive to a multi-story structure,and b. It can be demonstrated that there is a direct benefit to the community to have a one-story structure,at the proposed location,as proposed to a multi-story structure. 2. Procedure. The procedure to follow for an"exception'is described in Section 15.4(C). a� ISSUE 4 Modification to Community Commercial Node Standards Recently the staff has had the opportunity to begin the work of potentially applying the Community Commercial Node regulations to the area of property that is located near the intersection of South Dakota and U.S. Highway 30. In performing this work it became apparent that there is an inconsistency in the regulations in the Community Commercial Node with respect to the maximum lot area standards in the regulations and the maximum building size policy in the Land Use Policy Plan. As a result the staff is recommending two amendments to the proposed regulations: 1. The Zone Development Standards Table in the Community Commercial Node regulations be amended by changing the maximum lot area standards to minimum lot area standards. 2. The Zone Development Standards Table in the Community Commercial Node regulations be amended by adding maximum building standards of 150,000 square feet in any single building and a maximum of 800,000 square feet of total building square footage in any single zoned area.