Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance No. 1761, First Reading amending Title 18, UDO Report compiled on June 16, 2009 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Ordinance 1761, first reading adopting UDO text amendments, Z-08041 MEETING DATE: Monday, June 22, 2009 RECOMMENDATION: Approve amendments to Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance as recommended with edits by the City Commission as deemed appropriate. BACKGROUND: The City Commission conducted a public hearing on this item on May 18th. One public comment was received at the meeting and one written comment was received just prior to the meeting. Due to the number of edits and discussion on the edits the item was continued to May 26th. The packets for the May 18th public hearing contained the draft text, recommendations from advisory boards, received public comments, and staff memo summarizing outstanding issues. Due to the extensive length of other agendas the item was continued to June 22nd. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: A. There were several points of discussion during the May 18th meeting. Some of the motions to conclude those discussions tied with a 2-2 vote. It will be necessary to resolve those tie votes in order to continue with the review and final decision on this item. The motions made are shown below. Each item notes whether or not it was a tie vote. The motions were: · Main Motion It was moved by Cr. Becker, seconded by Cr. Krauss to provisionally adopt Ordinance No. 1761, Amendments to Title 18, Unified Development Ordinance No. Z-08041. No final vote was taken, the amendments below are to amend the main motion. · Amendment #1 It was moved by Cr. Becker, seconded by Cr. Krauss to revise Section 18.16.040 to add the word “minimum” to last sentence on page 16-4 A.:” Each lot must have a usable lot area of at least 50% of the total “minimum” lot area.” The amendment passed 4-0. · Amendment #2 It was moved by Cr. Becker, seconded by Cr. Krauss to allow the entire Section 18.42.180, RSU/RSLs to sunset and to direct staff to return to the Commission with the necessary UDO amendments to accommodate the 6 units per acre issue and the net buildable acre issue. (Mr. Saunders clarified that 18.42.180 would be removed in its entirety, but B. the subcomponent net density for 6 units per acre, would move somewhere else. Becker and Krauss agreed. A friendly amendment was also added to include dropping the related underlined sentence in Section 18.16.030.c. on page 16-4 (The building size the correlates with the lots). The Amendment passed 4-0. · Amendment #3 It was moved by Cr. Becker, seconded by Cr. Krauss to direct staff to present future revisions to the UDO component to address lot size variability and density 318 Report compiled on June 16, 2009 Commission Memorandum and plat transition issues which had been in the RSL section. The Amendment passed 4- 0. · Amendment #4 It was moved by Cr. Becker, seconded by Cr. Pro-Tem Jacobson to maintain the net density of 6 units per acre. The motion tied with Mayor Pro-Tem Krauss and Cr. Bryson opposed. · Amendment #5 It was moved by Cr. Bryson, seconded by Cr. Pro-Tem Jacobson that regarding Section 18.52.140, to strike the amended text provision, paragraph A, that allows for off premise signs in transit shelters and establishing standards. The motion tied with Cr. Becker and Mayor Pro-Tem Krauss opposed. · Amendment #6 It was moved by Cr. Bryson, seconded by Cr. Krauss regarding Section 18.46.040.c. to remove the option that provides for installation of shower facilities and lockers. The motion tied with Cr. Becker and Mayor Jacobson opposed. B. One of the edits in this package is the Commission directed change to the City’s casino regulations. It has been brought to Staff’s attention that some Commissioner’s may wish to further discuss this item and additional elements which have not previously been advertised for amendment. A work session could be scheduled on this item for July 2nd. If the Commission wishes to address this item as a whole then the pending edits to Sections 18.80.470, Casino, and 18.18.020 footnote 8 should be removed from this ordinance. They can be reconsidered in conjunction with other edits in the future. C. A point of clarification on Amendment #6, the edit to Section 18.46.040.C.3 (page 46-9) having to do with a reduction in required motor vehicle parking. The City previously adopted several opportunities to reduce the amount of parking required with development. These can be found on pages 46-7 and 46-8 of the draft text. The effect of these reductions is to lower the minimum number of parking stalls which must be provided with new development or redevelopment. These are optional for a land owner to use within defined areas of the community. An example of how these work is a hypothetical new 17,600 square foot retail building Downtown. Normally a building of that size and use would require 50 parking spaces plus ADA spaces. Retail may claim a 40% reduction in the Downtown. In addition, there is an option to take a 10% for access to transit services. The new bicycling possibility could add an additional 10% option for reduction. These are treated additively which means the new building would actually have to provide 20 spaces. See the table below. 319 Report compiled on June 16, 2009 Commission Memorandum Retail Building 17,600 gross sq. ft. 15% floor area reduction 15,000 net sq. ft. Standard parking rate 1 space per 300 sq ft. 50 parking spaces +2 ADA spaces Downtown reduction for retail 40% -20 Downtown reduction for transit 10% -5 Pending bicycle facility reduction 10% -5 Spaces actually required 20 parking spaces +1 ADA space These required spaces can be provided through any combination of means including on-site, off- site, shared, leased, or cash-in-lieu of parking. The proposed edit to section 18.46.040.C.3 (page 46-9) regarding bicycle parking would provide an additional reduction option. It is a trade off where the owner may reduce parking IF they do certain things. The three items listed are those which are recognized as having the most effect on encouraging bicycling to work. If the items are not provided then there is no exchange to justify the reduction in spaces. If it is the Commission’s wish to not approve the proposed required exchange then the edit should be dropped entirely. If the Commission wishes to retain the edit, Staff suggests moving the location to Section 18.46.040.B.3.c. After further consideration, we have concluded that this is a more logical location for this wording. FISCAL EFFECTS: No immediate or direct fiscal effects are expected from most edits. Revisions to the requirement to include maps in published notices will reduce costs for advertising. Those costs are primarily covered with application fees. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. CONTACT: Please feel free to call or email Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net, 582- 2260, if you have questions prior to the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager Attachments: none 320