HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB Memo 1-25-17
MEMORANDUM
TO: Design Review Board
FROM: Tom Rogers, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Draft code review; Article 5 - Project Design & DRB Process
DATE: January 25, 2017
The City is continuing its effort to revise, reorganize, streamline, and address
challenges associated with our growing City. We have developed substantial
components of the revised development code and are in process of gathering input
from our advisory boards on the revised code. Article 5 is particularly relevant to
the Design Review Board’s (DRB) duties. This memo includes three general areas of
discussion:
A. General context and background of the Unified Development Code (UDC)
Update
B. Current Status and Direction of UDC update
C. Review and discussion of the Block Frontage plan with an illustrative
example to examine
D. Design Review Board process and involvement. Procedural discussion on
how the Design Review Board (DRB) should be involved in the development
review process.
A. General Context and Background
September 23, 2013 Infill policy and post platting issues bus tour of the
community with follow up discussion and direction regarding possible
municipal code amendments. Click HERE.
November 7, 2016 Unified Development Code update progress report and
infill policy framework memo. Click HERE.
December 5, 2016 Unified Development Code update infill policy framework
presentation, discussion and direction staff memo. Click HERE.
For more background and general information about the project and process
please visit the project web site at Bozemancodeupdate.com.
Bozeman's existing Unified Development Code (UDC) is currently organized into
44 Articles with overlay districts that trigger additional design requirements in
certain parts of the City (Entryway Corridors and Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District). We have re-organized our development code to be
hierarchical and comingle related code requirements in an effort to convey City
standards more clearly. The revised organization is as follows:
Article 1 - General provisions (user guide, purpose & authority, and definitions)
Article 2 - Permits, legislative actions & procedures (consolidates project
applications, review procedures, and approval criteria)
Article 3 - Zoning districts & land use (introduces zones, permitted uses, and
density & dimensional standards)
Article 4 - Community design (includes standards related to public and larger
scale community design issues such as streets, block size & connectivity,
subdivision design, and parks)
Article 5 - Project design (includes standards to apply to the design of individual
developments, including development frontages, site planning, building design,
parking, landscaping, signage, etc.)
Article 6 - Natural resource protection (mostly wetlands and floodplain
regulations)
Article 7 - Definitions
B. Current Status & Direction
On December 5, 2016 the City Commission directed staff to apply the Bozeman
Design Objectives standards to all commercial and large residential
developments. Attached to this memo are preliminary draft code revisions from
our consultant team integrating site design elements from the Design Objectives
Plan into our development code. The revisions and additions apply the Block
Frontage tool generally throughout the City and integrate standards from the
Design Objectives Plan. In addition, a proposed classification system is included
detailing at what point improvements, modification, and additions require full
conformance with City code. Currently, section 38.19.070 and 38.19.100
describe the points that require what degree of site improvements is associated
with site improvements. Other notable suggestions include:
1. Eliminates the Entryway Overlay District (does not change the NCOD),
2. Exempts certain developments from these provisions such as single-house
residences and two-household dwellings,
3. Proposes a hierarchy for improvements (see 38.500.020),
4. Includes standards for “Gateway” block frontage (new frontage category
discussed but not previously included),
5. Other sections labeled as “new” are code requirements that were culled
from the Design Objectives Plan and integrated into the zoning code,
6. Modifications to open space requirements (see 38.520.060, page 56-60).
7. Refinement to utility meters standards (see 38.520.070.D), and
8. Building design standards (see 38.530.030).
At the February 7 DRB meeting staff will use an example development proposal
to analyze the plans and site against the new code. We have not determined
which block frontage will be used as an example at the time of writing this
memo. The example may be a Storefront, Landscape, Mixed, or Gateway
frontage. Based on the review and analysis we will challenge the DRB to
comment on:
1. Comment on whether or not the draft code adequately and accurately
captures the intent and function for the Design Objectives Plan each of the
block frontage types which include:
a. Storefront block frontage described in Table 38.510.030.B
b. Landscape block frontage described in Table 38.510.030.C
c. Mixed block frontage described in Table 38.510.030.D
d. Gateway block frontage described in Table 38.510.030.D
e. Other block frontage described in Table 38.510.030.E
2. Comment and make suggestions on Section 38.520 addresses site planning
and design elements. Specific areas of inquiry include:
a. Adjacency provisions in section 38.520.030,
b. Non-motorized circulation & design described in section 38.520.040,
c. Usable residential open space details in section 38.520.060.B,
3. Do the building design standards for character, mass & scale, details,
materials, and blank wall treatment, in section 38.530 meet the standards of
the DOP?
4. How do you, as the DRB, think your board should interact with development
application? Staff has outlined one possible mechanism above.
Initial staff comments on the draft include the following:
1. One (1) foot building setback in ALL districts. Although you can construct
buildings on a property line most do not use those techniques so the building
footings, awnings, light fixtures (unless recessed), and even exterior finishes
encroach into adjacent ROW or property. Technically, theses require
encroachment easement of some sort.
2. Setbacks. The block frontage system may be perceived as more complicated
that we current use. We intend to simplify our nomenclature referring to
setbacks and yards. Article 5 employs numerous standards that act as or
imply setbacks. Each block frontages uses a different starting point such as
“back of curb”, “from the sidewalk”, from the “street”, etc. As always the devil
is in the details. There may be a perception that this system creates
complexity rather than simplifying our development code.
Historically we use the property line as the start point for a
setback. Property lines in Bozeman are generally one (1) foot beyond the
sidewalk edge. The proposals are using a combination of the sidewalk, curb
edge, and property line. Adding the additional setback starting points to our
definition of yards and setbacks the desired outcome may be difficult to
implement. Our discussion revealed a general concept we would like to
consider. Essentially, stating clear setbacks as listed below (deemphasizing
or eliminating the yard reference) and utilizes block frontage (BF) design
standards to describe allowable encroachments to promote and encourage
desired streetscape with elements including awnings, patios, seating areas,
building articulation, etc. Required side and rear yards will remain as they
are today.
The concept might mean using BF to highlight special areas rather than
general application throughout the City. A default BF applies to district
category (commercial, residential, industrial) with the agreed upon design
standards for each type and use the CDF Map to designate and/or highlight
special areas within the district.
Residential districts 15 feet from property line
Gateway frontage 25 feet from property line
Commercial 15 feet from property line
Industrial 15 feet from property line
Parking 20 feet from property line
In addition, this approach should eliminate dependency on “corner side yards”.
3. Mixed block frontage. Should we or do we need to, clarify what a “mixed”
block frontage means? Should the City define the mixed frontage to insure a
cohesive street view? It is possible to design a building that is 95%
Storefront and 5% mixed. Is this the intent of the code? Or should there be a
min/max of each frontage?
4. Site Plan review criteria 38.19.100.A(4). Article 5 must be harmonized and
more fully integrated to make work.
5. Community Design Framework (CDF) Maps. Bozeman staff will be
examining all the CDF maps and making tweaks and revisions based on our
knowledge.
a. Add BF designation to known future street connections. Staff will add
these connections.
b. Reduce BF labeling (see no. 3 above) and refine and/or vary BF
designation on a micro scale.
C. Design Review Board Process & Involvement
The proposed modifications will alter how and when the Design Review Board
(DRB) provides input and direction on proposed development. Staff has
developed a general outline of how to insure participation of the DRB on projects
important to the City.
Current DRB trigger criteria:
1. Twenty or more dwelling units in a multiple household structure or
structures;
2. Thirty thousand or more square feet of office space, retail commercial
space, service commercial space or industrial space;
3. Twenty thousand or more square feet of exterior storage of materials or
goods;
4. Parking for more than 90 vehicles; or
5. Large scale retail per 38.22.180.
Notes:
a) Pursuant to section 38.34.020.B, BMC the Planning Director may in
the administration of this chapter consult with other persons having
expertise in relevant subject areas as in the planning director's
opinion is necessary for the review of the proposed development or
administration of the chapter.
b) DRB review authority is limited to projects within the jurisdictional
boundaries of the Entryway Corridors, NCOD, and PUD’s.
Proposed DRB trigger criteria (for discussion only):
1. Twenty or more dwelling units in a multiple household structure or
structures;
2. Thirty thousand or more square feet of office space, retail commercial
space, service commercial space or industrial space;
3. Twenty thousand or more square feet of exterior storage of materials or
goods;
4. Buildings four (4) or more stories in height;
5. Parking for more than 90 vehicles; or
6. Large scale retail per 38.22.180.
Notes:
a) Pursuant to section 38.34.020.B, BMC the Planning Director may in
the administration of this chapter consult with other persons having
expertise in relevant subject areas as in the planning director's
opinion is necessary for the review of the proposed development or
administration of the chapter.
b) DRB review authority will include all development with the
municipal boundaries of the City meeting the trigger criteria.
There has been requests and discussion about the importance and effectiveness
of when during the review process the DRB should/could comment o a proposed
project. Currently the DRB reviews projects during the conceptual level when
required by an applicant, i.e. through an “informal” application. Formal
applications, when required, are later in the process and the proposed building
design is largely completed which make it more difficult to effect building design
changes is determined necessary.
The revised development code provides an opportunity to alter when and how
the DRB is involved in the development review process. However, any proposed
change may affect the amount of time and effort needed to administer the review
process for both the DRB and City staff. In addition, the frequency of DRB
meetings and the time of day may need to be augmented and changes to
accommodate project review schedules.
With the exception of Planned Unit Development (PUD) review, most projects
that the DRB considers are Master Site Plans (MSP) and Site Plans (SP). We have
evolved our plan review process and now require that all site plans undergo a
Conceptual “review prior to submitting a formal site plan application. The
Concept plan review is similar to the informal review but does not go before the
Development Review Committee (DRC) for a public review. Rather, the
application is commented on by each Department and those comments are
aggregated to provide to the applicant for consideration.
The DRB could be engaged earlier and more frequently in the plan review
process. These triggers could be the following:
I. Require the DRB to comment on all Concept Plans. This might require the
DRB to meet more frequently and potentially during the day to meet the
City’s review time line limitations. The DRB would have to consider
whether or not they are willing to alter their scheduled and assume more
time and effort to meet this requirement.
II. Lower the threshold that triggers DRB review for any project. Staff
analyzed the number of project that would have been required to go
before the DRB with the trigger outlined above. Only one (1) additional
project would have gone before the DRB*. A total of 37 site plans were
reviewed and only the West Winds SW Condominium project would be
triggers (#16147).
III. Other process not determined at the time of writing this memo.
* Certain assumptions were made. The Director has the authority to ask for
DRB comment on any given project.
Attachments: Draft Article 5 – Project Design