Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-30-17 City Commission Packet Materials - A1. UDC Update Continued SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Tom Rogers, Senior Planner Martin Matsen, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Staff Recommended Modifications to the Draft Unified Development Code (UDC) Update Information MEETING DATE: October 30, 2017 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A. RECOMMENDATION: That the Commission moves to modify the July 28, 2017 draft unified development code to reflect the following changes. Based on ongoing discussions and public comment on the draft Unified Development Code staff respectfully suggests that the Commission adopt the modifications detailed in Attachment A: Code Modifications. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None identified. ALTERNATIVES: As determined by the City Commission FISCAL EFFECTS: None identified. Report compiled on: October 27, 2017 Attachments: A: Code Modifications 1 October 27, 2017 Attachment A: Code Modifications Considering Commission discussion, public feedback, and the Community Department’s ongoing review and refinement of the draft development code we identified a number of specific code requirements and general discussion points the Department is supporting and proposing. Also, not all references are in final code language and may need refining based on Commission discussion. The suggested modifications are organized by Article except the first list which are global changes. Global Change(s): 1. Global replace of the word “plex” such as “four-plex” to four-unit. Amendment: replace the word “plex” with “unit”. For example: Duplex Two-unit Triplex Three-unit Four-plex Four-unit Reasoning: The word “plex” is an undefined term in our code and the code references the term unit to describe a livable structure. For example see 38.400.090.D.1d on page 304. 2. Global delete of “condominium” as a building type. A condominium is an ownership structure. Amendment: Replace condominium with appropriate structure description throughout code. Reasoning: A condominium is an ownership structure, not a building type. For example see 38.220.030.A.4(e) on page 42. Article 3 Changes: 3. 38.360.240.B.2 (page 268) Change “Private garage” to “Individual garage” Amendment: Delete private and replace with individual. Reasoning: Language consistent with other garage references. 4. 38.360.240.B.2 (page 268) Add subsection (c) to prohibit individual residential garage facing the3 street in the B-3 District. Amendment: Add 38.360.240,2(c) to state, “Residential garages for individual dwellings facing the street are not permitted in the B-3 District. Reasoning: The draft clarifies that row-house, townhomes, and apartments are a permitted use in the B-3 District. However, the B-3 area is distinctly different than other areas and expects urban design and streets designs. Individual residential garages are not compatible with the urban core. 2 October 27, 2017 5. 38.700.020 (page 494). Definition of apartment building. Add, “Excluding townhouse and rowhouses” to definition. Amendment: Revised definition to say, “ A building other than a hotel or motel containing five or more dwelling units, excluding townhouses and rowhouses.” Reasoning: Proposed design standards consider attached row-houses and townhomes differently than apartment buildings and single detached houses. How row-houses and townhomes relate to the street and accommodate parking sets them apart from apartment buildings. Zoning districts still regulate where a building with five or more attached units may be constructed. 6. 38.320.060 (page 210) Increase height where angled plane begins from 28’ to 38’ and remove transitions from 4B to simplify application of multiple standards to single standard. The 5 foot side yard setback applies. Amendment: change 28 feet to 38 feet. Reasoning: Based on ongoing discussion with the public, Zoning Commission, Planning Board, and construction experts we believe allowing three (3) floors in designated zoning districts adjacent to less dense residential districts is appropriate. This assumes the proposed design standards are generally adopted as proposed to mitigate potential impacts larger buildings may have on the adjacent properties. Local building examples listing the height of the third story: Residential example #1 – 29’ 4 5/8” 3 October 27, 2017 Residential example #2 – 29’ 5 ½” Mixed-use example #1 – 36’ 4” 4 October 27, 2017 Mixed-use example #2 – varies due to topography: 50’ 0” Mixed-use example #3 – 33’ 1 9/16” 5 October 27, 2017 Mixed-use example #4 – 40’ 0” Residential Garages. Rather than making numerous minor code amendment to various code section staff is providing an intent statement and basic language to execute the intent. If the Commission supports the intent numerous code sections will be modified. The intent is to harmonize the garage standards for all housing types i.e. detached, two-household, row-house, townhome, and created a uniform standard that furthers the desires of the community as articulated in the Bozeman Community Plan. A. Basic facts: a. Garages are allowed, although not required, in all zoning districts. b. Ground floor individual garages facing the street are not permitted in the B-3 District. c. No changes to the dimensional parking standards. d. No change to the number of parking spaces required. e. Parking is permitted in side and rear setbacks and in the middle of your lot. f. Parking is not allowed in a front setback. However, if an internal garage space meets minimum size requirements, then surface parking is permitted in front of the garage door. g. Required parking may be met by providing on-street, alley, structured, off-site, internal garages, or surface parking. h. Driveway widths are limited in current code and the proposed code. B. Proposed residential garage standards: a. All garage entrances facing the street must be at least four (4) feet behind the front façade of the structure. Garage entrance may be tucked under building. 6 October 27, 2017 b. Allow front porches (covered and uncovered) to encroach five (5) feet into the front setback. c. Garage doors for single detached households are allowed to face the street. i. If door is more than 10 feet wide it must comprise less than 50 percent of the width of the ground-level façade facing the street. ii. There is no restriction to the number of garage doors allowed, only the proportion of front façade. d. Townhouse / row-house garage door standards of two to four attached units. Different standards apply to apartment buildings (5 or more attached units) i. Same as single-household To implement the aforementioned plan the following code provisions will be modified and/or deleted. 38.360.210.C (page 264) 38.360.240.B (page 268) 38.350.050.A (page 228) Plan view of porch encroachment 7 October 27, 2017 Garage setback 4 or more feet behind front façade of home. Permitted front porch encroachment of 4 feet 7. 38.360.240.B.2 (page 268) revise application of townhouse/row-house for more than 3 dwellings in a single group. If Commission supports garage standard changes and changing when block frontage standards apply to four (4) or more attached units then this section needs to be modified to remove parking standards. Amendment: revise 38. 360.240.B.2 to say, “see 38.360.210.C for garage standards.” Reasoning: Simplification and harmonization of garage standards. 8. 38.510.010.B Applicability for single, two, three, and four-household dwellings. Similar to No. 7 above, refining applicable standards for row-houses and townhome buildings. 4’ 8 October 27, 2017 Amendment: revise 38.510.010.B to say, “The provisions of this division apply to all development within Bozeman, except single, two-, three, and four-household dwellings in any configuration.” Reasoning: The variety of housing types encouraged in the City poses challenges to creating simple standards that uniformly apply to all developments. Furthering our desire to create easier to follow development code this amendment expands the “exemption” from block frontage standards to all residential structures with four or fewer units. The original proposal was limiting it to three of fewer. 9. Cottage Housing. 38.360.110.E.(1)(f) (page 244). Clarify the geographic density limitation. Amendment: delete section 38.360.110.(1)(f). Reasoning: Let the market find solution and simplify cottage housing standards. 10. 38.360.210.1. Alley loading garages. Amendment: Revise sentence to say, “Where lots abut an alley, it is encouraged that the garage or off-street parking area take access from the alley. It may be necessary to take access from alley to meet another standard in the municipal code.” Reasoning: Discourage the work “encourage”. A standard applies or it does not. If the Commission supports requiring utilizing alleys please direct staff to revise this alternative. Article 4 Changes: 11. 38.400.090 (page 302) Delete the driveway width table. It seems somewhat redundant to the other standards for garage width and location. Perhaps just say the driveway can’t exceed width of garage? I think as worded this would also apply to drives located off of alleys which is what we have discussed protecting. Refine what districts allow individual garage. 12. 38.400.090 (page 303) table isn’t clear. Is the measured width the size of the lot or the building? End buildings will have side setbacks and wider lots. Also I am not sure you could make the math work effectively for the separation between driveways on a 30 foot lot unless the sidewalk is counted as part of the landscaped separation. 30’-12’=18’-5’ sidewalk = 13 feet divided to either side of the walk. Does the driveway count as sidewalk? Amendment: Reasoning: Simplification and better implementation of Growth Policy goals and objectives. Article 5 Changes: 13. 38.530.030.B.2 (page 399) Delete B.2 as the role of the design manual has changed. Amendment: delete section 38.530.030.B.2. 9 October 27, 2017 Reasoning: Form and function of the design manual has evolved through the evolution of the code update. The manual will be hosted electronically and to some level integrated into the development code. 14. 38.530.040 (page 401) Consider departure option for C for where there is a different module than 30 feet that fits individual or paired units, perhaps up to a fixed amount of alteration of module. Amendment: Modify to say, “Proposals must meet the intent of the standards. The following criteria will be considered in determining whether the proposed articulation treatment and/or unit intervals meets the “intent”. Reasoning: Code seems to suggest the departure only applies to the treatment of the articulation feature and not the 30’ articulation. The amendment addresses this concern. 15. 38.530.040.D ( page 402) Suggest altering D.2 since all areas now have a default block frontage standard. Maybe flex on articulation along arterials not storefront due to greater speeds making perception of building details less effective? Amendment: Add, “Undesignated and industrial block frontages…” Reasoning: More permissive approach to allow flexibility for areas that demand more nuanced approach to building design. 16. 38.530.040.E.1 ( page 403) Consider opportunity to exchange up to 50% of E.1 dimensions so an articulation could be deeper but narrower; or wider but shallower. Ex. rather than one 20 deep x 30 wide you could have one 25x25. Example shows 30’ units with a 15’ vertical modulation Amendment: revise to say, “Provide vertical building modulation at least 20 feet deep and 30 feet wide or similar dimension up to 50% of standard. Width and depth are proportional, for example 45 feet wide and 10 feet deep is allowed. For multi-story buildings, the modulation must extend through more than one-half of the building floors.” Reasoning: More flexibility as requested by local designers. Alternative. No building wall shall extend for a distance equal to three times the wall's height without having an off-set equal to 25% of the wall's height, and that new plane shall extend for a distance equal to at least 25% of the maximum length of the first plane. 17. 38.530.040.B and D. Façade articulation. Consider additional departure criteria for articulation for institutional buildings where the nature of an interior space like a gymnasium or auditorium would be functionally restricted with substantial wall insets or that have a more organic internal module like a class room. 10 October 27, 2017 Amendment: revise 38.530.D.3 to say, “The size and width of the building and whether or not the proposed structure is for institutional use. Smaller buildings warrant greater flexibility than larger buildings.” Reasoning: More flexibility as requested by local designers to facilitate brutalist or modern architecture, for example see Buffalo City Court building. 18. Many of the larger institutional buildings with substantial wall planes like Willson School or the Courthouse are set monumentally with substantial landscaped setbacks that provide a public assembly area and that helps distinguish them from commercial or industrial uses. Possible departure option for placement without parking in front for these types of buildings as their scale tends to be larger. Amendment: No language proposed, for discussion. Façade Articulation. There are two related components; façade articulation (38.530.040B and maximum façade width (38.530.040.E. These wok in harmony to foster pedestrian scale interesting streetscapes. The design community and Downtown Partnership and Business Improvement District expressed concern over these provisions. Both sections allow departures. 19. 38.530.040.E (page 403) Façade articulation. Expand maximum face width to generally meet Bozeman’s block with/depth configuration of 150 feet and will address all the downtown side streets. The associated illustration will need to be modified to meet the text. Amendment: edit 38.530.040.E, second paragraph to say, “Building façades wider than 100 150 feet must include at least one of the following features…” Reasoning: More flexibility as requested by local designers and, in particular, the Downtown Business Partnership and Business Improvement District. 20. 38.530.050.C (page 410) Add images showing “other design treatments” as examples of how to meet the standard in place of the 2 inch recess. Action: requested additional illustrations to show intent. 21. 38.530.060.B (page 414). Building materials. Allow more variety to be used. Amendment: edit 38.530.060.B to say, “Applicants must use high quality durable materials. This is most important for the base of buildings, particularly for commercial and mixed-use buildings where the façade is sited close to sidewalks. At a minimum, stone, brick or tile masonry, or architectural concrete (first two feet only) must be used (excluding window and door areas) for the first floor of cladding on non-residential or mixed-use buildings and the first two feet of residential buildings. Departures will be considered provided the materials and design treatment resolve durability concerns and add visual interest at the pedestrian scale.” Reasoning: More flexibility as requested by local designers. Specifically to allow more use of architectural concrete such as board formed concrete. 11 October 27, 2017 Acceptable material and visual interest Acceptable material and pattern Unacceptable pattern 22. 38.530.060.B (page 414). Building materials. Consider architectural concrete above the first two feet if can reasonably describe a visually complex surface like the smaller unit size/pattern of stone/brick/tile/etc. The texture and pattern of a brick wall is a factor in why people seem to like it more than many other materials. Lots of different ways to approach the issue, the challenge is getting it down to paper clearly. Transparency and other standards will reduce likelihood of very large monotonous surfacing. Maybe give concrete its own section lie block or EIFS has? Amendment: add section 38.530.060.C.4. 4. Architectural concrete may be used above the first two feet or as a secondary cladding material if it complies with the following: 12 October 27, 2017 a. To prevent staining, drainage water must be restricted from running down the face of the architectural concrete by designing drip molds at soffit edges of all angular and horizontal offsets. The drip molds should be a minimum distance of 25 mm (1 in.) from the face of the concrete or a distance equal to the maximum size of the aggregate. To assist self-washing of air pollutants deposited on the architectural surfaces and openings, downward slopes should be provided on sills and top surfaces of projecting details. Upward slopes should be provided for the upper surfaces of recesses. Such slopes can be 1:12 for smooth surfaces to 1:1 for textures. Rainwater should be directed away from the architectural face on the upper surfaces of parapets. b. Texture c. Fenestration d. Seams or details e. Etc. Departures will be considered provided the material’s integration and overall façade composition meets the intent of the standards Reasoning: More flexibility as requested by local designers. Montana hosts 43 architects per 100,000 residents, the seventh most of all states behind New York, Washing D.C., Hawaii, Colorado, Vermont, and Washington. The lowest is West Virginia with 5 per 100,000. 23. 38.530.070 (page 417) Earlier design meeting suggested deleting the section. If the Commission is unwilling to delete it entirely what alternatives improve it? Rework with larger dimensions, percentage of wall area with minimum size so small buildings don’t get caught, construction with small unit size materials or other technique to reduce scale? Amendment: delete section or alter ratio. Reasoning: More flexibility as requested by local designers. 24. Worth comparing the Mendenhall façade of Ashley Furniture between 8th and 9th and the sides of Schnee’s and Meridian on Black between Main and Mendenhall. Ashley and Meridian are both large with little opening at pedestrian level but has different feel. Schnee’s with intermittent windows feels very different. Ways to consider context of more active site, different materials with brick detailing, Amendment: delete section or alter ratio. Reasoning: More flexibility as requested by local designers. 25. 38.700.020 (page 494) Definition of apartment building. Add “excluding row houses and townhouses. 26. 38.340.050. NCOD and zoning standards clarification. Zoning standards apply. The NCOD describes guidelines. Amendment: Amend the following sections as described. 13 October 27, 2017 Section 38.340.050.D. When applying the standards of subsections A through C of this section, the review authority must be guided by the design guidelines for the neighborhood conservation overlay district which are hereby incorporated by this reference. Application of the design guidelines may vary by property as explained in the introduction to the design guidelines. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period, or innovative design for new structures or additions to existing structures, the review authority must be guided by the design guidelines for the neighborhood conservation overlay district to determine whether the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures Section 38.340.050.E Conformance with other applicable development standards of this chapter. Where there is a conflict between the neighborhood conservation overlay district design guidelines and other development standards in this chapter, the neighborhood conservation overlay district design guidelines take precedence, as determined by the reviewing authority. Section 38.500.020.A.1 For sites within the city's established neighborhood conservation overlay district, the design provisions of division 38.340 supersede the provisions of this article. However, the review authority may apply the provisions of this article in the event of a conflict, where the review authority determines that the provisions herein help new development better meet the purpose and intent of neighborhood conservation overlay district per section 38.340.010. Section 38.530.030.B1 Developments within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) are subject to compliance with the guidelines for historic preservation & neighborhood conservation overlay district. Where there is a conflict between the NCOD guidelines and the standards of this division, the NCOD guidelines prevail. Reasoning: Adopted zoning standards take president over guidelines. These edits clarify the situation.