Code Amendments & New Objective Design Standards for
Multi-Family & Residential Mixed-Use Development
in Multi-Family Residential & Commercial Zones
Zoning Code T ext Amendment Case Nos. PZC-0007-2023 & PZC-0009-2023 City Council
April 2, 2024
2 Two Zoning Update & ODS Projects
MU Project
Amendments to GMC 30.12
Commercial Districts:
• Multi-Family (MF) & Mixed-Use (MU)
development currently permitted based
on the R-1250 standards
➢ Eliminate use of R-1250 standards &
provide new MF/MU standards
• New objective design standards (ODS)
section for MF/MU residential projects in
commercial zones
MF Project
Amendments to GMC 30.11
Residential Districts:
• Updates to the Multi-Family (MF)
zoning development standards
• New objective design standards
(ODS) for MF buildings in MF zones
3 Commercial Zoning Districts
Brand
Colorado
Central
Broadway
Multi-Family Zoning Districts
N
Glendale City Boundary
4 Public & Stakeholders Meetings
MU Project
• 2/27/24 – MU Project zoning code
amendments & ODS presented to City
Council
MF Project
• 11/14/23 – MF Project massing & scale
concepts presented to City Council
• 12/4/23 – MF Project massing & scale
concepts presented to GHCC
• 2/8/24 – MF Project site planning, massing
& scale, architectural design ODS
presented to DRB
• 2/29/24 - MF Project site planning, massing
& scale, architectural design ODS
presented to local architects’ group
5 Previous Council Direction
MU Project
2/27/24
• Procced with MF/MU development standards,
eliminate the application of R-1250 regulations
• Proceed with site planning concepts (ensure
wider sidewalks and street trees in commercial
areas)
• Proceed with massing & scale concepts,
including horizontal and vertical modulation
standards and façade articulation options
• Proceed with the architectural element
concepts, including the roofline and fenestration
options
MF Project
11/14/23
• Proceed with refining massing & scale as
presented, including allowing two options for
interior setbacks, COSA requirements, placing
additional height at rear of building, horizontal
modulation (additional modulation for longer
building segments), and vertical modulation
• Return with architectural detail standards after
DRB and Planning Commission review,
including visual examples of proposed
standards, and photos of building design what-
not-to-do’s
6 DRB and Architects Feedback
Both Support Certain MF Development Standards
• Setbacks – Elimination of different minimums/averages (“wedding cake setbacks”) for each floor
• Height – Allowance of three stories, regardless of lot width (new massing standard)
• Lot Coverage – Increase from 50% to 70% in R-1650 and R-1250 zones Ok with Density – No change to # of du/ac
Ok with FAR – No change to current maximums
7 DRB and Architects Feedback
Had Major Concerns Over Certain MF Standards
• Site Planning
➢ COSA requirements (location, size, etc.)
• Objective Design Standards
➢ Roof Forms
➢ Materials & Colors
➢ Fenestration Options
8 MF Site Planning – New COSA
5’ minimum /
8’ average setback
with 10% min. COSA
6’ minimum
setback with
15% min. COSA
Setbacks & COSA for Lot Widths < 90’ – Central Courtyard 9 MF Site Planning – New COSA - Comments
Setbacks & COSA for Lot Widths < 90’ – Front Corner Courtyard 5’ minimum /
8’ average setback
with 10% min. COSA
6’ minimum
setback with
15% min. COSA
10 DRB & Architects’ Comments on
COSA Standards
COSA Location Requirement
• Allow COSA to be provided anywhere on site – rooftop decks, in interior setbacks, at rear of lot • Allow interior setbacks to be counted toward minimum COSA dimensions • Allow COSA to be split into two or more smaller open spaces rather than one large open space • If COSA is desired at grade, consider requiring a certain portion of COSA be at grade on larger lots, but not on smaller lots
Landscaping Within COSA
• Do not limit 50% of landscaping to be at -grade within COSA; allow raised planters throughout 11 Horizontal Modulation
• Variations across a façade based on defined segments, including offsets, protrusions, projections, recesses, or indentations to break up the horizontality of a building.
Vertical Modulation
• Variations in height, such as a height transition created by stepping back the upper floors of a building.
Façade Articulation Modulation
• Design options to articulate and modulate facades to reduce perceived building mass MF Massing & Scale – Modulation Standards
12 MF Horizontal Modulation Standard
Building façade greater than 40’ in length – required modulation New Definitions:
• Façade: exterior wall or
face of a building.
• Façade Segment:
horizontal sections of a
building façade bounded
vertically by corner edges.
13 Building façade greater than 100’ in length – required modulation MF Horizontal Modulation Standard
14 MF Vertical Modulation Standard
Transition to Single-Family Zones – Additional 10’ Step-back Required Single Family Zone
15 MF Vertical Modulation Standards
Density Bonus - Buildings Exceeding 3 Stories or 41’ in Height – Additional Stepback 16 Minimum of 1, Maximum of 2 - Required Per Façade Segment MF Façade Articulation Modulation Options
Same options for MU Project
17 DRB & Architects’ Comments on
MF Massing & Scale Standards
Horizontal Modulation
• No horizontal modulation recess/offsets requirement for projects utilizing the 5’ minimum, 8’ average interior setback option - already modulated (support) Vertical Modulation
• Not require 4th floor massing for density bonus projects to be limited to the rear half of the building; allow for massing to be spread across entire structure (support) • Allow a building envelope that addresses sloped topography for sloped lots (support) Façade Articulation Modulation
• Proposed options might not encompass other possibilities, or future trends or designs; allow for flexibility, such as articulated window awning designs, etc. (support additional options)
18 • Façade Materials – Primary and Accent Exterior Cladding • Façade Colors – Primary and Accent Exterior Colors
• Roof Design Options
• Fenestration Options
• Balconies – Location, Materials, Colors
• Awnings and Canopies – Materials and Details
• Building Entries and Lobbies
MF Architectural Elements - Standards
Similar architectural element standards for MU Project
19 MF Architectural Elements - Standards
Flat Roof Options
36 Foot Max
Height
Pitched Roof
Options
41 Foot Max Height
Stepped Back Roof
Option
Height based on
Density Bonus
Application
Same roof options for MU Project but with applicable Commercial Zone maximum height limits Materials
• Rather than list permitted materials, consider listing prohibited materials to allow for future materials that may develop (support) OR do not limit materials whatsoever (do not support)
• Do not limit synthetic stucco and EIFs to 50% of the facades (do not support) Colors
• Do not limit colors (neutral)
• DRB ok with prohibiting neon as primary façade color and allowing as accent color (support)
20 DRB & Architects’ Comments on
Architectural Elements
21 MF Architectural Elements - Fenestration Options
Minimum of 1, Maximum of 2 Per Façade Segment
Same fenestration options for MU Project
DRB
• Options good, but be sure to include all shapes of windows (arched, round, etc.), not just rectangles (fully support)
Architects
• Floor plan and Building Code requirements provide sufficient regulation • Fenestration elements should not be regulated at all (do not support) 22 DRB and Architects’ Comments on
Fenestration Options
23 ODS, as written, may be too restrictive/prescriptive: Standards may limit creativity. ODS should be flexible for innovation in building techniques, architectural trends, and future housing options.
Holistic Design: Individual project design should consider the neighborhood context and site - specific conditions, rather than be formulated from options, or constrained by prescriptive limits.
Staff’s Response: ODS aim to provide enough site planning, massing & scale, and architectural detail options for architects and designers to execute their own creative vision.
ODS sets the minimum bar for subpar designers. Elimination of certain regulations (i.e., fenestration requirements) could be exploited by some developers, resulting in unarticulated boxes or cheap construction.
All new standards must be objective under State law. ODS now the only basis for denying eligible by-right and mixed -use projects.
DRB & Architects’ Feedback on the ODS
Bottom Line: Balance is needed for successful projects! 24 COSA Requirements for MF Project
• Implement COSA standards as proposed to compel development of courtyard projects? OR
o Allow COSA on rooftops or otherwise above ground floor? o Allow COSA in rear of lot?
o Allow COSA width to include required interior setbacks? o Allow COSA to be split into more than one open space area? • Different COSA standards for large lots versus small lots? • Require any at-grade plantings in COSA areas or planters only ok? Council Direction Needed
25 Roof Forms for MF & MU Projects
• Allow for any roof design, but require a change in height / modulation for flat roofs over a certain length?
Materials & Colors for MF & MU Projects
• List only prohibited materials, rather than permitted materials? • Should colors be regulated at all?
Fenestration Requirements for MF & MU Projects
• Should fenestration / window design be regulated?
Council Direction Needed (Continued)
#MyGlendale
27 MF Site Planning – New COSA
Setbacks & COSA for Lot Widths > 90’ – Center Courtyard 6’ minimum
setback with
15% min.
COSA
5’ minimum /
8’ average
setback with
10% min.
COSA
28 MF Site Planning – New COSA
5’ minimum /
8’ average
setback with
10% min.
COSA
6’ minimum
setback with
15% min.
COSA
Setbacks & COSA for Lot Widths > 90’ – Center Courtyard