HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-16-17 City Commission Packet Materials - A1. UDC Update ContinuedCommission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Tom Rogers, Senior Planner Martin Matsen, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Unified Development Code (UDC) Update Public Hearing
MEETING DATE: November 15 and 16, 2017
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A.
RECOMMENDATION: Continue review of the draft revised Chapter 38 Unified Development Code.
On August 24, 2017 the City Commission began consideration of the Unified Development Code (UDC) update, dated July 28, 2017. A motion to approve was made and seconded. A motion to
table discussion was made and seconded. The Commission voted 2:2 on the motion to table. The excused Commissioner will consider and vote on the motion to table discussion on the revised development on Thursday, September 7, 2017. On September 7, 2017 the Commission voted not to table the discussion on the UDC, final vote 3:2.
On September 11, 2017 the Commission continued consideration of the UDC update. The
Commission completed review of Article 1 and began consideration of Article 2. The Commission continued the review to Monday, September 18, 2017.
On September 18, 2017 the Commission continued the public hearing to October 2, 207. No action was taken at the September 18, 2017 hearing.
On October 2, 2017 the Commission completed review of Article 2 and began consideration of
Article 3. Two motions were made to amend the development code. Staff is maintaining a summary of all motions to track what changes will be made. The Commission continued the public hearing to October 23, 2017 with intention to focus on Articles 3 and 4. Staff held a meeting on Wednesday, October 4, 2017 with a group of design community to discuss and improve the
minimum design standards in Article 5. The discussions with the design community are ongoing.
On October 16, 2017 the Commission continued their review of the draft development code. Staff presented numerous illustrations describing the current and proposed zone edge transitions requirements and illustrations covering floor area ratios (FAR). No motions were made at this hearing. Review will continue with Article 3.
1
On October 23, 2017 the Commission continued their review of the draft development code. Staff
completed presenting Article 3. The Commission continued their discussion and focused on zone edge transitions, zoning authority and communication, lot dimensions, accessory dwelling units and cottage housing standards. Public comment on ADU and affordable housing incentives. Allow ADU on ground floor, remove ADU restrictions on subdivision approved before 1997, and remove
restrictions for small sized lots only for affordable units.
No motions were made at this hearing.
On October 30, 2017 the Commission continued their review of the draft development code. The Commission continued their discussion and focused on regulatory communication, lot dimensions, accessory dwelling units, cottage housing standards, and other standards. Public comment was
heard on ADU and the B-3 District.
Fourteen motions were made to amend the draft development code. The subject of some the motions were not included with the official public notice for the UDC update. A copy of the notice contents are included with this memo. Staff will consider all the motions that are outside of the scope of the current notice as direction to the City manager to initiate a zone text amend that
include these items.
On November 6, 2017 the Commission continued their review of the draft development code. No action was taken. The meeting was continued to Monday, November, 13, 2017.
LINK TO ORIGINAL AUGUST 24, 2017 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
MATERIALS (STAFF REPORT)
LINK TO SEPTEMBER 7, 2017 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
LINK TO SEPTEMBER 11, 2017 CITY COMMISISON MEETING
LINK TO SEPTEMBER 18, 2017 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
LINK TO OCTOBER 2, 2017 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
LINK TO OCTOBER 16, 2017 CITY COMMISISON MEETING
LINK TO OCTOBER 23, 2017 CITY COMMISISON MEETING
LINK TO OCTOBER 30, 2017 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
Anticipating discussion on Article 5 – Project Design a link to the DRAFT block frontage map is
provided below. Default designations are described in section 38.510.020 (page 359).
Draft Block Frontage Map
The design community submitted proposed edits to building design elements in Article 5 of the draft code. Staff has considered these edits and are greatly appreciative the effort and
thoughtfulness of the comments and suggestions. We are supportive of many of the proposed
revisions. In response to assist the Commission with their consideration of the document staff provided a number of discussion points and policy issues raised by these comments which are detailed under Attachment A: Code Modifications, No. 32 dated November 9, 2017.
2
In addition, staff is in the process of identifying which suggested changes made by the design
community the Community Development Department supports. That task was not complete at the time of the production of this memo. We will be prepared to summarize these points of agreement at the next public hearing and will provide documentation showing points of agreement.
When the Commission completes their deliberations on the draft code, staff respectfully reminds
the Commission the motion to initiate the discussion on the revised UDC code needs a vote to complete the review. The motion on the table is as follows:
“Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment,
recommendation of the Zoning Commission, recommendation of the Planning
Board, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in
the staff report for application 15320 and move to approve the zone text amendments as shown in the July 28, 2017 Unified Development Code draft and direct the city manager to return to the commission with an ordinance codifying
these text amendments along with other text amendments previously approved by
the commission but not yet adopted by ordinance.”
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Described in the UDC Update staff report.
ALTERNATIVES: As determined by the City Commission
FISCAL EFFECTS: None identified.
Report compiled on: November 9, 2017
Attachments: Summary of Commission Action Code Modification, November 9, 2017 UDC Update Notice
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bozeman City Commission
FROM: Tom Rogers, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Bozeman City Commission amendments to the July 28, 2017 draft
UDC update DATE: November 13, 2017
During Board discussion the following amendments and issues related to the Unified
Development Code (UDC) update were moved, seconded, discussed and voted on with
the results listed below each amendment.
Motions highlighted in YELLOW relate to subjects not included in the UDC update notice and have not been considered by the Zoning Commission.
September 11, 2017
Article 1 – General Provisions Although no vote was taken, there appeared to be Commission support to insure that the approving [governing] body (Planning Director or City Commission) is limited to
applying arbitrary and capricious conditions of approval for development application.
Specifically, section 38.100.050.A, second sentence states, “In some instances the public interest will be best served when such minimums are exceeded.” Commission suggests that a higher standard is required.
Staff Comment: Conditions of approval above and beyond minimum standards require
specific findings showing reasonable nexus and proportionality. All approval or disapprovals are subject to appeal through the appropriate channels described in this chapter.
Article 2 – Permits, Legislative Actions and Procedures
September 18, 2017 No action taken.
October 2, 2017
4
Article 2 – Permits, Legislative Actions and Procedures 1. 08:07:51 PM (01:32:28) Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to add “recommendations do not constitute votes of approval or denial” to Section
38.200.010(G). The motion passed 5-0.
2. 08:18:16 PM (01:42:53) Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to add “Under this
section, when advisory boards review and make recommendations to the review authority that they act in a quasi-judicial capacity” to Section 38.200.010(G). The motion passed 5-0.
October 16, 2017 No motions made. Discussion on:
Article 3 – Zoning Districts and Land Uses
Commission requested more illustrations to describe zone edge transitions and
floor area ratio (FAR)
October 23, 2017 No motions made. Discussion on:
Section 38.300.020. Replace list of zoning districts. Solution – replace.
Table 38.300.100. Illustrative summary table seems to bring unwarranted
scrutiny. Solution – delete table.
Minimum lot width.
ADU. Ground floor, height limitation, location of accessory structures.
Cottage housing. 500 foot radius limitation.
Public comment on ADU and affordable housing incentives. Allow ADU on ground floor, remove ADU restrictions on subdivision approved before 1997, and remove restrictions for small sized lots only for affordable units.
October 30, 2017 Staff presented alternative standards for certain code sections as described in Attachment A – Code Modifications dated October 30, 2017. Staff completed summarizing proposed changes to Article 3. The Commission is deliberations and making changes to the July
28, 2017 UDC draft.
Public comment was heard. Comment focused on the following:
5
A representative from the design community stated they are working on proposed
changes to Article 5.
Accessory dwelling units and their effect on existing neighborhoods, traffic generation in alleys
Furthering the distinction of the downtown area. Insuring the proposed changes to the B-3 district achieve the desired outcome (38’ transitions),
Article 3 – Zoning District and Land Use 3. 08:15:11 PM (02:15:36) Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to amend the purpose
of Section 38.300.010 to include E., “Zoning districts and the zoning map
communicate the City’s expectation for land use in each particular district”. The
motion passed 5-0.
4. 08:17:48 PM (02:18:13) Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to restore the line in 38.300.020 “For the purpose of this chapter, the City is divided and classified into
the following use districts” and restore the table therein. The motion passed 5-0.
5. 08:25:05 PM (02:25:30) Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to amend Section
38.360. 170, A., 1., to change 1,000 feet to 400 feet in the last sentence so it reads “must not be located within 400 linear feet of the exterior property…”. The motion passed 4-1.
6. 08:29:42 PM (02:30:07) Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to amend Section
38.360.170, 1., a., and b. to add language “where students are regularly present”
after “facilities” in paragraph a., and after “private schools” in paragraph b. The motion passed 5-0.
7. 08:37:28 PM (02:37:53) Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to strike the table
“Summary of housing types permitted in the residential zoning districts” in Section
38.300.100. The motion passed 4-1.
8. 08:59:00 PM (02:59:25) Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to amend Section 38.300.100, A., to state that the intent and purpose of the RS residential district is to commemorate and preserve existing RS zoning only. This district is not available for future land use designation. The motion passed 3-2.
9. 09:09:07 PM (03:09:32) Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to amend Section
38.360.110 E., 1., to add subsection h. to state “When cottage housing units meet the definition of affordable housing under 38.380 maximum units under d. and e. do not apply. Every unit would have to be affordable, with the same proportion, in order to
exceed the maximum.” The motion passed 5-0.
10. 09:21:12 PM (03:21:37) Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to amend Section
38.340.070, A., to change the middle of the paragraph as follows: “In order to encourage restoration, rehabilitation, and appropriate new construction” and the
6
rest is the same. Section 38.340.070.A.1., is amended to read “Modifications must be
more historically appropriate for the building and/or site in question, the adjacent
properties, and the overall pattern of the neighborhood as determined by the standards in section 38.340.050” and the rest is the same. The motion passed 5-0.
11. 09:23:30 PM (03:23:55) Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to amend Section
38.300.110.D., to retitle it “Business district (downtown B-3) and to append
“downtown” in front of “B-3” throughout Section 38.300.110. The motion passed 5-
0.
12. 09:27:12 PM (03:27:37) Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to add a sentence in Section 38.300.110.D., as the second sentence to read “The downtown B-3 district
should be the area of greatest density of development and intensity of use.” The
motion passed 5-0.
13. 09:30:33 PM (03:30:58) Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to amend Section 38.300.110.D.4, to unstrike the line “Room should be provided in appropriate areas for logical and planned expansion of the present district.” The motion failed 2-3.
14. 09:43:42 PM (03:44:07) Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to amend Section
38.300.110.D.4.(a), to unstrike the sentence and leave it in the document, and remove
“a.” to make it the second paragraph of 4. Additionally, strike the beginning of the sentence “It is the intent…” and state “This district encourages...”. The motion passed 5-0.
November 6, 2017 No action taken.
7
1 | Page
Attachment A: Staff-Suggested Code Modifications
Version: November 9, 2017
Considering Commission discussion, public feedback, and the Community Development Department’s (Department) 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 or revision of the term “condominium” as a building type. For example see 38.220.030.A.4(e) on page 42.
Amendment: Replace “condominium” throughout the code with language that is consistent
with the Montana Unit Ownership Act.
Reasoning: A condominium is a form of property ownership in common, not a building type.
Article 3 Changes:
3. Change “Private garage” to “Individual garage.” See for example 38.360.240.B.2 (page 268)
Amendment: Delete “private” and replace with “individual.”
Reasoning: Language consistent with other garage references.
4. 38.320.060.B.2.a – Zone edge transitions (page 210) Increase height where angled plane begins from 28’ to 38’ and remove zone edge transition standards from Subchapter 4B of the
NCOD Design Guidelines to simplify application of multiple standards to single standard.
The 5 foot side yard setback applies.
Amendment: change height from 28 feet to 38 feet in 38.320.060.B.2.a.
Reasoning: Based on ongoing discussion with the public, Zoning Commission, Planning Board, and construction experts we believe allowing three (3) floors before the angled plane
begins in designated zoning districts adjacent to less dense residential districts is appropriate.
8
2 | Page
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”
Residential example #2 – 29’ 5 ½”
9
3 | Page
Mixed-use example #1 – 36’ 4”
Mixed-use example #2 – varies due to topography: 50’ 0”
10
4 | Page
Mixed-use example #3 – 33’ 1 9/16”
Mixed-use example #4 – 40’ 0”
Residential Garages. Rather than making numerous minor code amendments to various code sections, 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, rowhouse, townhousee, etc. and create a uniform standard that furthers the desires of the community as articulated in the Bozeman Community Plan.
11
5 | Page
A. General requirements in the proposed code:
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 change 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.
b. Allow front porches (covered and uncovered) to encroach five (5) feet into the front
setback.
c. Garage doors for detached single-household dwellings are allowed to face the street.
i. If garage 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. Garage door standards for townhouses / rowhouses of two to four attached units: same as detached single-household dwellings. Different standards apply to apartment buildings and townhouse / rowhouses of 5 or more attached units.
To implement this proposal 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)
12
6 | Page
Plan view of porch encroachment
Garage setback 4 or more feet behind front façade of home.
13
7 | Page
Permitted front porch encroachment of 4 feet
5. 38.360.240.B.2 (page 268) Add subsection (c) to prohibit individual residential garage facing the street in the B-3 District.
Amendment: Add 38.360.240,2(c) to state, “Individual garages facing the street are not allowed for townhouse or rowhouse dwellings in the B-3 District.”
Reasoning: The draft clarifies that rowhouse, 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 facing the street are not
compatible with the urban core.
6. 38.360.240.B.2 (page 268) revise application of townhouse/rowhouse standards 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.”
4’
14
8 | Page
Reasoning: Avoid using words like “encourage” in the code. A standard applies or it does
not. If the Commission supports requiring utilizing alleys please direct staff to revise this alternative.
9. 38.340.050 Standards for certificates of appropriateness.
Amendment: Amend the following sections as described.
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. Development in the NCOD must comply with all other applicable development
standards of this chapter. [Delete the language proposed in the July 28, 2017 draft: 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 38.340.050.
Reasoning: These revisions clarify that adopted zoning standards control over adopted guidelines.
Article 4 Changes:
10. 38.400.090 Access (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.
11. Table 38.400.090.C.3.a.(4). (page 303) This 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
15
9 | Page
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: None suggested at this time
Reasoning: Simplification and better implementation of Growth Policy goals and objectives.
Article 5 Changes:
12. 38.510.010.B Block Frontage Standards. Applicability to single, two, three, and four-household dwellings. Similar to No. 7 above, refining applicable standards for rowhouses and townhouses.
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 or fewer.
13. 38.530.030 Building character (page 399) Delete B.2 as the role of the design manual has changed.
Amendment: delete section 38.530.030.B.2.
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 Building massing and articulation (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
10 | Page
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 design community.
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. Façade Articulation/Maximum Façade Width. There are two related components; façade
articulation (38.530.040.B) and maximum façade width (38.530.040.E). These work in harmony to foster pedestrian scale and interesting streetscapes. The design community and Downtown Partnership and Business Improvement District expressed concern over these provisions. Both sections allow departures.
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, for example a gymnasium or auditorium, would be functionally restricted with substantial wall insets or that have a more organic internal module like a classroom.
Amendment: revise 38.530.040.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: Accommodate design flexibility for important community buildings such as library’s, governmental bu8uldings (see the Courthouse), schools, etc.
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.
19. 38.530.040.E Maximum façade width (page 403). Expand maximum façade 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.
17
11 | Page
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 design community and, in particular, the Downtown Business Partnership and Business Improvement District.
20. 38.530.050.C Window design standards (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 Quality building materials (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 design community. Specifically to allow more use of architectural concrete such as board formed concrete.
Acceptable material and visual interest Acceptable material and pattern
18
12 | Page
Not acceptable pattern
22. 38.530.060.C Special conditions and limitations for the use of certain cladding materials (page 414). 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.5:
4. Architectural concrete may be used above the first two feet or as a secondary cladding material if it complies with the following:
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
19
13 | Page
Reasoning: More flexibility as requested by design community.
23. 38.530.070 Blank wall treatments (page 417) Earlier design meetings 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 design community.
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, other?
Amendment: delete section or alter ratio.
Reasoning: More flexibility as requested by design community.
Article 7 Changes:
25. 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 rowhouses and townhomes
differently than apartment buildings and single detached houses. How rowhouses and
townhouses 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.
Suggested changes after October 30, 2017
26. Table 38.320.030. Add R-S min density. Missed this when we removed the PUD requirement. Required to differentiate the district from R-1 and maintain its purpose.
27. Change footnotes in Table 38.310.040.B to allow residential in the B-3 if five or more units;
if less than 5 units, residential must be on second and subsequent floors. Ensure minimum retail depth when residential use is allowed on ground floor. 28. Correction to footnote #6 under Table 38.310.040.B. Outdoor storage provisions were missed in format conversion. Is this necessary?
29. Delete footnote 7 under Table 38.310.040.B. Not relevant to purpose.
20
14 | Page
30. Table 38.320.030. Deleted FN #3 and 7. Redundant by row title and use definition.
31. If the Commission moves to limit the use of the R-S District from future use, based on the previous discussion, staff suggests the following language:
38.300.100
A. Residential suburban district (R-S)
1. The intent and purpose of the R-S residential suburban district is to allow open space, resource protection and primarily single-household development in circumstances where environmental constraints limit the desirable density. The R-S residential
suburban district is not available for newly created subdivisions, undeveloped land or
any land annexed into the city on or after January 1, 2018. All new sSubdivision and site plan developments in this district shall be subject to the provisions of division 38.430article 20 of this chapter, pertaining to planned unit development, and shall be developed in compliance with the adopted city growth policy.
32. Design Community edits. Staff greatly appreciates the effort and thoughtfulness of the comments and suggestions submitted by the design community. We are supportive of many of the suggested revisions. Staff has reviewed the comments and highlighted those edits we believe improve these code sections. Staff’s comments are separated into two sections. The
first section below includes general discussion points. the second section includes larger
policy issues staff needs direction on in order to proceed with specific code changes.
General discussion points:
Staff assessment of the current built environment suggest the high quality buildings in
our community are a result of the standards in the Design Objectives Plan.
The current standards allow “alternative design compliance” through the departures and criteria such as the criteria in section 38.530.050.B.1(g) on page 11 of the edits or 407 of the July 28, 2017 draft code.
Corporate identity definition.
In general building materials, articulation, and details are an important component of the
pedestrian experience, interest, and is a primary driver of the character of our community.
The site plan review criteria does not include the issues and standards found in section 38.530.
Staff is supportive of replacing the photos/images with descriptive illustrations. However,
creating unique line drawings is a costly and time consuming endeavor. The current UDC
update budget does not include sufficient funding to revise the photos as suggested by the design community. However, staff is more than open to consider any drawing provided by local architects/designers to illustrate concepts, assuming the City owns the right to the drawings for future reproduction and use of any kind for City purposes.
Alternative or supplemental review process. Staff has considered alternatives and
possible implications (see policy issues c and d below) and suggest the following items must be included with any alternative path:
21
15 | Page
Detail specific evaluation criteria
Review process and expected review time
Anticipated cost in addition to current application fees
Completion of Bozeman Design Manual to articulate expectations and alternatives
Augmented Design Review Board authority, frequency, meeting time,
Appeal or due process considerations
Exterior review agreement
Recall recent changes to Administrative Design Review and make up
Policy Issues needing Commission direction:
a. Is draft unduly restrictive? Emphasis added. As noted in the design community’s comment the Bozeman Growth Policy Chapter 4: Community Quality includes Goal C.4 that states,
“Create illustrated design guidelines to give clear direction in design and
review of residential and non-residential neighborhoods without unduly
constraining architectural style and innovation.”
The design guidelines support innovative design. However building design does affect our community. Staff supports creative solutions to meet our built environment needs.
The solutions/designs must fit the context in which the building is proposed while
respecting the needs of the developer, future users and the community. Removing too many standards limits predictability for neighbors and strips the ability for objective and consistent review of projects. Taken as a whole the proposed revisions reduce predictability for the community and any given adjacent neighbor.
b. Evaluation criteria. Insufficient review criteria to objectively determine compliance with
adopted plans. Staff is concerned the numeric standards culled from the Design Objectives Plan and the policies in the Growth Policy are insufficient for consistent objective review by staff, the Design Review Board, or outside review if needed to for the suggested alternative review process.
c. Cost. The addition of an alternative review process may insert additional costs for the
development community and the City. Preparing analysis, public notice, community outreach, and the associated effort to process an application is considerable. Adding what appears might be an additional path may lead to unacceptable delays and additional costs to both the developer and the City through additional FTE’s.
d. Time. The Department strives to review and process application expeditiously. Any
unpredictability in the review is generally met with concern by the Applicant and may have challenges to meet state and local due process standards. e. Bozeman Design Manual. f. Intent language. If the design standards are limited as proposed the intent sections need
augmentation. Relaying on intent statements may create arbitrary and capricious
decisions subject to challenge.
22
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE The City of Bozeman is replacing and amending its land use regulations, Unified Development Code, Chapter 38 BMC. The Unified Development Code establishes standards for development
and land use. These changes apply throughout the entire city. The new text applies to all
applications for land development. The update will also eliminate all entryway corridors and apply design standards throughout the City. The purpose of the public hearings are to consider the application as requested by the applicant,
City of Bozeman, PO Box 1230, Bozeman MT 59771. The Bozeman City Commission will conduct public hearings on the proposal Thursday, August 17, 2017 and Thursday, August 24, 2017 in the City Commission Room, City Hall, 121 N Rouse Avenue, Bozeman MT at 6:00 pm. Amendments include overall reorganization as follows:
1. General provisions (user guide, and purpose & authority)
2. Permits, legislative actions & procedures (consolidates project applications, review procedures, and approval criteria)
3. Zoning districts & land use (introduces zones, permitted uses, and density & dimensional
standards)
4. Community design (includes standards related to public and larger scale community design issues such as streets, block size & connectivity, subdivision design, and parks)
5. Project design (includes standards to apply to the design of individual developments,
including development frontages, site planning, building design, parking, landscaping,
signage, etc.)
6. Natural resource protection (mostly wetlands and floodplain regulations)
7. Definitions
The text amendments will include the creation and addition of:
Section 38.510 – Block Frontage Standards
Storefront
Landscape
Mixed
Gateway
Internal
Other
Industrial
Section 38.520 – Site Planning & Design Elements
Relationship to adjacent properties
23
Non-motorized circulation & design
Vehicular circulation & parking
Internal open space
Service areas and mechanical equipment
Section 38.530 – Building Design
Building character
Building massing & articulation
Building details
Building materials
Blank wall treatment
Specific amendments will amend multiple sections by (section references follow the revised organization):
Eliminating duplicative code references
Amend Section 38.270.070.C payment of cash in-lieu of capital facilities Amend Section 38.210.010 the duties of Administrative Design Review (ADR) Amend Section 38.220.130 submittal materials for regulated activities in wetlands. Amend Section 38.220 submittal materials and requirements for subdivision and site plan
applications
Amend Section 38.220 supplementary documents Amend Section 38.230.040 Design Review Board (DRB) authority Amend Section 38.230.100 plan review criteria Add Section 38.230.120 to create Special Use Permit (SUP) procedures and criteria
Add Section 38.230.130 to create the community design framework master plan
Add Section 38.250.060 to create departures for specific development standards Amend Section 38.270.090 refining development or authority for the maintenance of common areas and facilities developer or property owners’ association Amend and refine Section 38.300 purpose and intent of residential, commercial, industrial, and
mixed use zoning districts
Amend Section 38.300.050.C where district boundaries divide a lot or parcel into two or more districts Amend Table 38.300.100 to add a reference table showing permitted housing types within each zoning district
Amend Section 38.310.020 classification of uses by refining evaluation criteria and authority
Amend Tables 38.310.030, 38.310.040, 38.310.040.B, and 38.310.040.C, residential uses Amend Section 38.320.020 form and intensity standards in residential districts Amend Tables 38.320.030, 38.320.040, and 38.320.050 for residential, mixed-use, and non-residential districts
Amend Section 38.320.060 zone edge transitions
Amend Section 38.330.010 UMU district special standards Amend Section 38.330.020 REMU district special standards Amend Section 38.340.E conformance with other applicable development standards Delete Section 38.340.200-280 Entryway Corridor Overly District
Delete Section 340.400-470 Casino Overlay District
24
Amend Section 38.350.050 Setback and height encroachment, limitations, and exceptions
Amend Section 38.320.030 Cottage Housing provisions Amend Section 38.360.030 accessory buildings, uses and requirement standards and creating daylight plane provisions Amend Section 38.360.030.I to harmonize garage setbacks with previously approved text
amendments
Amend Section 38.360.040 accessory dwellings units reducing unit square footage in certain districts, allowing ADU’s on the ground floor when standards are met in certain districts and generally modifying standards Deleting Section 38.360.080 automobile washing establishments
Deleting Section 389.360.090 cemeteries
Amending Section 38.360.150 large-scale retail standards Deleting Section 38.360.180 manufactured home communities Amending Section 38.360.160 manufactured homes on individual lot standards Deleting Section 38.360.170 portable carry out food and beverage buildings
Amend Section 38.360.210 single, two, and three-household dwellings residential garage intent
and standards Amend Section 38.360.240 townhome and rowhouse dwelling to create building standards, garage standards, internal drive isle standards, and create usable open space requirements Amend Section 38.400.010 streets, general to include alleys
Amend Section 38.400.090.C drive access requirements and standards
Amend Table 38.400.090.C.3.a(4) maximum driveway widths for townhome or rowhouse dwellings Amend Section 38.400.100.A street vision triangles Amend Section 38.400.110 transportation pathways to modify and clarify standards and alternate
easements
Amend Section 38.410.020 to include neighborhood centers are subject to block frontage standards Amend Section 38.410.030 adding courtyard access lots Amend Section 38.410.040 clarifying block standards
Amend Section 38.420.020 parks and open space requirements
Amend Section 38.420.030 to allow and establish standards for cash donation in-lieu of land dedication Amend Section 38.430.090 clarifying planned unit development standards Deleting Section 38.430.100 North 19th Avenue/West Oak Street entryway corridor
Amend Section 38.500.020 building additions, remodels, and site improvement criteria
Amend Section 38. 510 block frontage standards creating storefront, landscape, mixed, gateway, internal, other, and industrial frontage standards Amend Section 38.520 to add site planning & design elements including the relationship to adjacent properties, non-motorized circulation & design, vehicular circulation & parking,
internal open space, and service areas and mechanical equipment standards
Amend Section 38.530 to add building design elements including building character, building massing & articulation, building details, building materials, and blank wall treatment Amend Table 38.560.060 non-residential sign standards to include a maximum square footage for pole signs
Amend Section 38.700.020 deleting animal hospital definition
25
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding definition of articulation
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding articulation interval Amend Section 38.700.020 deleting auto salvage yard definition Amend Section 38.700.020 deleting bar definition Amend Section 38.700.020 adding blank wall definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 deleting convenience food restaurant
Amend Section 38.700.020 refining definition of convenience use Amend Section 38.700.020 adding definition of cornice Amend Section 38.700.020 deleting date of submission definition Amend Section 38.700.020 adding departure definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding façade definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 deleting food processing facility Amend Section 38.700.020 deleting front line of building definition Amend Section 38.700.020 adding general service establishment definition Amend Section 38.700.020 adding heavy retail service establishment definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding high visibility street corner definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 deleting industry, heavy definition Amend Section 38.700.020 deleting industry, light definition Amend Section 38.700.020 defining level I, II, and II improvements Amend Section 38.700.020 defining live-work unit
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding manufacturing, heavy definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 manufacturing, light definition Amend Section 38.700.020 adding manufacturing, moderate definition Amend Section 38.700.020 adding pedestrian-orientated open space Amend Section 38.700.020 defining rowhouse
Amend Section 38.700.020 defining rowhouse cluster
Amend Section 38.700.020 refining definition of setback Amend Section 38.700.020 adding transom window definition Amend Section 38.700.020 adding trellis definition Amend Section 38.700.020 adding vertical building modulation
Amend Section 38.700.020 refining warehouse definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 refining yard definition And generally correct grammar, numbering corrections, active voice, etc. The complete text of all the proposed changes is available through the Department Community
Development, 20 E Olive Street, Bozeman MT 59715. The text may be revised as the public
review process proceeds. The City invites the public to comment in writing and to attend the public work sessions. Written comments may be directed to the City of Bozeman, Department of Community Development, P.O. Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-1230.
For those who require accommodations for disabilities, please contact Mike Gray, City of
Bozeman ADA Coordinator, 582-3232 (voice), 582-3203 (TDD). Please reference UDC
Update Bozeman Municipal Code, File 15-320 in all correspondence.
26
********
SUBMITTED FRIDAY, 07/21/17 FOR SUNDAY, 07/30/17 AND 8/6/17 LEGAL AD PUBLICATIONS. PLEASE PRINT BOLD WHERE INDICATED, AND SEND AFFIDAVIT TO BOZEMAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
27