HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-18 City Commission Packet Materials - A1. UDC Edits Discussion and Zone Text Amendment InitiationREPORT TO: Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Chris Saunders, Community Development Manager Tom Rogers, Senior Planner Martin Matsen, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Discussion and direction on proposed UDC edits, clarifications, and corrections.
MEETING DATE: October 22, 2018
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to direct staff to begin the process for proposed text changes to improve Chapter 38 of the Unified Development as detailed below and initiate a zone text amendment.
BACKGROUND: On January 4, 2018 the revised Unified Development Code (UDC) was adopted and became effective on March 31, 2018. Staff stated that after the one-year anniversary of the adopted code we would revisit its function, effectiveness, issues, and identify suggested changes. Staff has tracked areas of concern and questions as new applications have been submitted. Beginning the text process now will bring any approved changes into effect at approximately the one year anniversary of the UDC
adoption. The following list is staff’s suggested priorities for revision. Most are clarifications of adopted standards or resolve points of conflict between code provisions. Additional items are being collected as they are identified and will be addressed in the future. Proposed changes in the following list are separated into larger policy discussions and specific code improvements. There are five items that are changes in policy.
If the City Commission directs staff to begin the amendment process draft text will be prepared, notices provided to the public, and public hearings held before any implementing ordinances come to the Commission for action. Direction to initiate an amendment at this time does not commit the Commission to finalize any of these items.
Policy amendments
1.SUP for on-site alcohol sales in B-2M. The draft of the UDC adopted by the Commissionthrough ordinance 1978 requires a conditional use permit for onsite consumption of alcohol in
the B-2M district. The review process for the same use was changed to a special use permit forsome other districts. This change would modify the review process in the B-2M district for on-premise consumption of alcohol to a special use permit.
Commission Memorandum
86
2. Cash-in-lieu of parkland density cap. Not divisible if less than one-acre parcel. The current code
includes a maximum amount of park to be dedicated with any residential project. This maximum is affected by the size of the parcel and the number of homes in the project. Higher density, usually smaller, lots reach the maximum and allow a greater number of homes to not have to provide park or its equivalent. This change will maintain a maximum cap. However it will
modify how lot size affects the dedication requirement so that lots under one acre have a
dedication requirement that more closely parallels less intensive development. This will require greater payment of money from some higher density developments.
Parkland area requirements, section 38.420.020.
Cash donation in-lieu of land dedication, section 38.420.030.
3. Detached household porch encroachment, enclosure, and meeting garage location. See strategic
code amendment #3 below. The revised code encourages greater utilization of land and decreases front yard setbacks for residential structures. To allow for additional parking in front of garages and to minimize impacts to adjacent properties garages are required to be setback a minimum of 20 feet and the front façade of the house must be at least four feet in front the garage. Current
code does not allow a front porch to encroach into the front setback or count as the “front
façade” of the house. This could allow porches closer to the street.
4. Revise the introductory paragraphs in section 38.300.100, 38.300.110, and 38.300.120 to make explicit the presumption that uses within districts and also within adjacent districts are compatible when the standards of the Unified Development Code have been met. Currently the text only addresses compatibility within districts.
5. Describe the nature, scope or meaning of development context in relation to development applications for site plan and commercial and residential certificate of appropriateness applications. Section 38.230.100.A,7, subsection a and b, site plan review criteria references “neighborhood identity” and is the development “compatible with, and sensitivity to, the
immediate environment of the site and the adjacent neighborhood and other approved
development…”
The intent of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) is described in section 38.340.010.C, D, and F.
Standards for granting a COA are found in section 38.340.050. Specifically, subsection D
requires the review authority to determine whether or not a “contemporary, non-period or
innovative for new structures or additions to existing structures, … whether the proposed is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures.” There are several long standing uncertainties in the adopted language. This edit will work to quantify and clarify the meaning of these terms. Several subsidiary questions which will need to be addressed.
i. Is there an extent to the surrounding area?
ii. Is the “influence area” dependent on the size and scale of the propose development or is there a quantifiable distance? How should the influence zone be measured? iii. How should the review authority determine when the context is not relevant to the development proposal? By zoning district boundary, distance, block face, street separation,
or other metric?
iv. Proposed development of new and existing subdivisions with vacant parcels tend to be larger in scale compared to redevelopment and infill inside the NCOD. Because a primary purpose of the NCOD is preserve the existing neighborhood should the context used to
87
show a proposed development is in “character” with the existing neighborhood be larger or
smaller than development in distal areas of the City? Focused code amendments
1. Table 38.320.030.B. Minimum lot width. The R-2 district allows an ADU on a lot of 50 feet
wide or 40 feet wide when the lot is adjacent to an alley and vehicle access is taken only from that alley. However, the R-2 and R-3 districts are more restrictive. Should this standard be increased to reflect the intent of the R-1 district and harmonized with the R-2 and R-3 lot width standard.
2. Table 38.320.050. Non-residential form and intensity standards. Footnote #1 should say 2,700
square feet, not 3,000 to be in harmony with the other zoning districts.
3. Section 38.350.050.A. Permitted encroachments. Clarify application of zero lot line provisions of 38.350.050.A to allow ADU and accessory buildings on shared property boundary and how the setback plane provision of 38.360.060.G. is applied.
4. No accessory buildings allowed between the front lot line and the primary building façade. By
definition of development standard. Historically, City code prohibited accessory structures to be located in front of the primary residential structure. Former Section 38.18.050.B stated, “Accessory buildings, uses, or equipment shall not be stored or constructed between the front lot line and required front building line.” The revised development code eliminated the term “front
yard”.
5. Section 38.350.050.A.4. Setback & height encroachments, limitations, and exceptions. Revise to allow covered porches to encroach five feet into the front setback for all residential districts. This will allow an effective 10 foot minimum separation from the property line to the front edge of the porch. This will likely be measured to the nearest point such as the eve line to prevent
conflicts with utility easements. Remove reference to six foot porch.
6. Section 38.360.040 clarify supplemental ADU provisions versus what is allowed between zones. Table 38.310.030.A details in which zoning districts attached and detached ADU’s are permitted. Section 38.360.040 list special development standards for attached and detached ADU’s. The relationship and function of these two section could be improved to be more transparent.
7. Section 38.360.210.B. Single, two, three, and four-household dwellings. The intent and purpose
suggests the buildings should face the street. Clarify that building and entrance face the street.
8. Table 510.030.C. Landscape block frontage. Clarify table 38.510.030.C for Landscape Block frontage building placement. References standard zone setbacks which are more restrictive. Block frontage allows 10 foot setback while base zoning standard requires 15 feet. Either
confirm the intent and clarify the table’s application or direct a more intensive amendment to
lessen front yard setbacks in residential districts. Staff suggests the Block Frontage setbacks apply to apartment buildings to better utilize available land.
9. Section 38.510.030.K. Block frontage classification on multiple street fronts. Add new section or revise block frontage section that clarifies order of preference to clearly state that that one or
more street frontages must be the front of every building in order to prevent buildings oriented to
a parking lot.
88
10. Section 38.520.060. On-site residential open space. Suggest adding “and commercial” to
heading. Section includes subsection C, usable commercial open space. Clarify application to mixed use buildings.
11. Section 38.540.020.L. Pedestrian facilities in parking lots. Sec. 38.540.020.L Pedestrian facilities in parking lots. The concrete sidewalks walk must be a minimum of 5’, not 3’ to meet
operational needs of pedestrians.
12. Section 38.540.030.A. Structured parking. States structure must conform to chapters 1 – 4 of the Design Objectives Plan. The Design Objectives Plan is no longer applicable and the reference should be removed. In addition, all buildings must conform to the applicable block frontage standards in the zoning district. This reference should be integrated with Article 5.
13. Section 38.540.030.B. Clarify language, “line the parking garage with an active use.” Subsection
1.b states, “Parking garages that front onto streets must provide a lining of retail, office, or residential use at the street level along the entire street frontage.” However, the code does not specify dimensions of such a space. Numerous development applications have liberally interpreted this section to mean benches, bike racks, incidental areas supporting residential uses
above street level, or non-active spaces meet the intent of this section.
14. Section 38.540.050.A.1.a. Required parking. The reference to table 38.540.050-6 is listed as the ADA parking requirement which is no longer included. Delete table reference to correct.
15. Section 38.540.050.A.5 (Add this section). Bicycle parking standards. The 2017 Transportation Plan removed the bicycle parking standards as requested. However, these standards were not
included in the revised UDC. The intent of the rack standards section is to ensure that required
bicycle racks are designed so that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience and will be reasonably safeguarded from accidental damage (see attached standards, Exhibit A). Consider other related amendments relating to placement of bicycle parking on a site.
16. Section 38.550.050.G. Tree diameter standards, acceptable landscape materials, subparagraph
3.a. Paragraph 38.550.060.B.3.d says caliper is measured one foot above grade. However, that section is addressing mature trees being preserved on-site. One image addressing both standards is needed.
17. Section 38.560.060.C.2. Interchange zones sign permitting. Sentence should reference
“comprehensive sign permit” and not “certificate of appropriateness” as the COA requirement no
longer applies to entryway corridors because the Entryway Overlay district was deleted in January 2018.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: None determined at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: As determined by the Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS: None identified.
Attachment: Exhibit A – Bicycle Parking standards
Report compiled on October 11, 2018
89
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
Exhibit A Section 38.540.050.A.5.
The intent of the rack standards section is to ensure that required bicycle racks are
designed so that bicycles may be securely locked to them without undue inconvenience and will be reasonably safeguarded from accidental damage. Bicycle racks must hold bicycles securely, and meet the following criteria:
1. Support the frame of the bicycle and not just one wheel
2. Allow the frame and one wheel to be locked to the rack when both wheels are left on the bike 3. Allow the frame and both wheels to be locked to the rack if the front wheel is removed
4. Allow the use of either a cable or U-shaped lock
5. Be securely anchored 6. Be usable by bikes with no kickstand 7. Be usable by bikes with water bottle cages 8. Be usable by a wide variety of sizes and types of bicycle
Preferred bike rack styles are inverted U, coat hanger, or post and loop racks.
Other styles which meet the standards above are acceptable, including enclosed bicycle lockers. Comb and wave style racks do not meet the required standard. Bicycle Parking Location
1. Bicycle parking must be located within 50 feet on an entrance to the building.
2. Bicycle parking should be permanently secured to a paved surface and be located such that it will not become buried by snow removal operations. 3. Covered bicycle parking is recommended wherever possible. 4. Bicycle parking may be provided within a building, but the location must be easily
accessible.
5. Bicycle racks and the area required for parking and maneuvering must meet the following standards. a. Bicycle parking spaces must be at least 6 feet long and 2 feet wide, and in b. Covered situations the overhead clearance must be at least 7 feet.
c. An aisle for bicycle maneuvering must be provided and maintained beside or
between each row of bicycle parking. This aisle must be at least 5 feet wide. d. Each required bicycle parking space must be accessible without moving another bicycle. e. Areas set aside for bicycle parking must be clearly marked and reserved for
bicycle parking only.
90