HomeMy WebLinkAboutH1 - Delaney UDO
Report compiled on July 12, 2006
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Andrew Epple, Planning Director
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
SUBJECT: Delaney Mixed Use UDO Text Amendment, #Z-06049
MEETING DATE: Monday, July 17, 2006
BACKGROUND: An application has been received to amend the Unified Development
Ordinance to add a new zoning district. The zoning district is intended to enable an urban core
mixed use type of development. As described in the staff report many elements of mixed use
development are already included in Bozeman’s land use regulations.
A public meeting was held on May 10th to discuss the general topic of mixed use. The Planning
Board and Zoning Commission considered the application at a public hearing on May 16, 2006.
Staff provided it’s normal report as well as samples of information from other model ordinances
or community ordinances. After considering the matter the advisory boards continued the public
hearing until June 6th to allow further investigation of the application. At the June 6th meeting the
Planning Board and Zoning Commission both unanimously recommended that the application be
tabled and the ideas be considered as part of the update to the City’s growth policy.
A series of questions was identified during the first hearing of the Planning Board and Zoning
Commission. The Planning Board and Zoning Commission did not evaluate each question before
voting to recommend tabling the matter. A response to those questions from staff and applicant is
anticipated to be forwarded to the Commission for consideration. Agreement on most issues was
reached. The Commission will need to give direction on whether the ordinance draft, as amended
by the responses to the questions, is appropriate for Bozeman.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:
1) Should review of the application be completed at this time or combined with a growth
policy update.
2) Are the standards and character of the district as proposed suitable to Bozeman.
3) What is the appropriate planning designation to host the proposed zoning district.
RECOMMENDATION: Consider recommendations and give direction to staff to bring, or not
bring, back an implementing ordinance with changes deemed appropriate by the Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Fiscal impacts are undetermined at this time.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
CONTACT: Please feel free to email Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net if you have
an questions prior to the public hearing.
Report compiled on July 12, 2006
Commission Memorandum
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________________ _________________________________
Andrew Epple, Planning Director Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Attachments: Staff Report and attachments
Planning Board and Zoning Commission minutes and resolutions
Public Comment received to date
MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT PROPOSAL—POSSIBLE ADDITIONS, REVISIONS
S=staff, A=applicants
City planning staff and applicant Delaney and Co. are in agreement in principle on all but one
(#12, shown in bold) of the following suggested revisions to Delaney and Company’s
Neighborhood Mixed Use Zoning District. These issues were raised by staff, by Zoning
Commission or Planning Board members during the May 16 hearing, or by the applicant. Best
practices and mixed use concepts identified by MSU Professor Ralph Johnson in the community
information meeting on mixed use—as well as review of model ordinances from the American
Planning Association, information from the Urban Land Institute, and mixed use ordinances
from Bend, Oregon, and Colorado Springs, Colorado—influenced these suggested revisions. All
of the issues and questions raised by staff in the annotated version of the zoning district proposal
are addressed by these revisions. We understand the multiple-choice questionnaire used to
identify these answers has been included as part of your packet.
—Respectfully submitted, Delaney and Co.
1. Maximum height (the draft ordinance says 75 feet for the whole district, with extra height
possible as an incentive for structured parking)
Proposed revision: S suggests stepped back front setback for more than 3 stories on
perimeter streets for infill redevelopment to blend with surrounding area, supports proposed
height. A agrees with staff, would also support a reduced maximum height if the Commission
prefers (such as 55 feet for core, less height on perimeter, and up to 75 feet through a PUD
as incentive for mixed use and/or structured parking).
2A. Height flexibility:
S, A, greater height allowed in core area and/or perimeter through PUD/CUP only for mixed
use buildings including housing, as an incentive.
2B. Height flexibility: Do you think greater height than the defined maximums should be
allowed as an incentive for structured parking? (see staff notes #36–38)
S, A, yes, but not more than 2 stories or 30 feet
3. Height minimum at perimeter
S, A, 2 stories (or approximately 28 feet)
4. Height minimum at core
S, A, 3 stories (or approximately 38 feet)
5. Perimeter streets: Mixed-use district will be 100% bordered by perimeter streets except in the
case of preexisting conditions (such as infill redevelopment area) or topographic constraints.
S, A agree.
6. Should residential use be required as one minimum principal use type? (Col. Springs does.)
S,A agree, noting it should not be required in every building.
7. What should be the minimum number of principal use types? (Colorado Springs specifies 3
except for 2 in its neighborhood commercial mixed use district)
S, A, a minimum of 2 principal use types
2
8. Minimum/maximum percentages to mandate for the following types of uses:
Commercial: S, A: 15% min.;
Industrial: S, A: 0% min;
Office: S, A: 15% min;
Residential (planning literature recommends no maximum, just a minimum for housing; the
Col Springs minimum is 10%): S, A: 15% min/85% max, enable requirement to be met
through coordinated multiple buildings
9. What should the minimum floor area ratio (FAR) be (APA recommends 2.0 max for mixed
use buildings and 1.25 max for other buildings; see staff note #7)? S, A, see handout; min. .5
10. Preferred name for this zoning district:
S, A, choose after district regs are finished to be most descriptive
11. Recognizing Bozeman already allows substantial mixed uses within the B-1, B-2, and B-3
districts, should there be more than one additional MU zoning district emphasizing mixed use
(Colorado Springs has three)?
S, A say no
12. What should the allowed 2020 Plan land use classification(s) be for a mixed use zoning
district?
S, community commercial, or in identified commercial nodes; A prefers more choices
(anything from just community commercial and BP if along a major arterial with a
signalized intersection, up to all commercial (except neighborhood commercial) and
industrial).
13. Should there be language to ensure that the perimeter streets aren’t dominated by parking lots
(like Babcock and Mendenhall are on the perimeter of downtown)?
S, A say yes, A suggests a max 2 rows of parking next to street or buildings next to street,
parking behind
14. Structured parking—should it be mandated? (see staff notes 36–38)
S, A say no, only for excess of 100% min. parking
15. Should there be a maximum building footprint?
S, A, say yes (application says 45,000 sq. ft, might be better a little larger, such as 50,000)
16. What should the minimum size be for a mixed use zoning district, if any?
(Col. Springs has no min. for MU neighb. commercial, 10 acres for MU comm. commercial,
50 acres for MU regional. Bend has 10 acre min. for master dev. plan, exceptions allowed. )
S, A, 20 acres (for spot zoning avoidance)
17. Beyond addressing height, do you want additional provisions regarding buffering of
neighboring uses?
S, A, yes (many are already in ordinance, and these revisions would add more buffering)
18. Do you want any additional provisions regarding creation of a town square/park/gathering
place?
S, A, yes (at the appropriate time need standards developed for “urban” public spaces)
3
19. What about affordable housing?
S, A, leave it to be addressed in potential housing policy revision for all zoning
20. Should any more incentives to encourage mixed use buildings and verticality be added?
S, A, no
21. Should City standards for lighting be followed, or an alternative allowed as currently
specified in application (see note #23)?
S, A, City standards
22. Should applicant’s proposed “Natural Surveillance” item be included (see note #35)?
S suggests if natural surveillance will be addressed in this zoning district it should be
addressed in all zoning; A is in agreement with that.
23. Should there be minimum yards for buildings on the perimeter if adjacent to a residential
area? (APA suggests site coverage of up to 100% in the core, transitioning down at the edges
to blend with neighboring residential areas. Also see staff notes 10 and 11.)
S, A, yes, (follow current B-2 standards)
24. How can we ensure arterial frontage doesn’t look like strip commercial (Require certain % of
mixed use buildings? Heights? Design standards)?
S, A, buildings to front of lot, pedestrian emphasis on street frontage at ground floor, mix of
uses including housing visible on arterial street, variety of heights as well as uses, classic
architecture of town squares rather than strips, architectural detailing imperative