Unified Development Code: Potential Changes (dimensional and design standards and encroachments)

(Found in Section 1 of Ordinance)

Proposed changes to Section 16.02.2 Summary tables of Dimensional Standards, Tables 2.8-2.15

The proposed change is to renumber the tables.

There are two Table 2.8s. This renumbers the second 2.8 to 2.9 and continues the renumbering sequentially. This is clean up.

(Found in Section 2 of Ordinance)

Proposed changes to Section 16.02.2 Summary tables of Dimensional Standards, Tables 2.5, 2.7 and 2.8, and renumbered Tables 2.9 and 2.10

Specify within a note about building on Old Town lots that lot consolidation must occur prior to a new building permit.

A building cannot span multiple lots (nonconforming structures are allowed). The Town began allowing construction of buildings on Old Town lots (which has not been possible until the early-mid 2010s). The UDC limits the number of Old Town lots that a building may use, however the language is unclear that these lots must be consolidated and leaves a hole in interpretation to both an applicant and new staff members. This proposed change is viewed as clarification.

(Found in Section 3 of Ordinance)

Proposed changes to Section 16.02.2 Summary tables of Dimensional Standards, Tables 2.2 and 2.3, and Tables for each specific zoning district listed

The zero foot side and rear setbacks in MU-1 and MU-2 zoning districts are changed to 3 feet and the zero foot side and rear setbacks in HC, I-1 and OSR zoning districts are changed to 5 feet.

These changes create adequate space to include proper drainage, allow for eaves overhang one’s own property, allow access for maintenance to siding, room for painting, and so forth. The zero-foot setbacks are creating quite a concern for Public Works, in particular. The severity of the issue as unknown when the UDC was created and we have been looking for an opportunity to correct the code to reduce the unintended consequences.

(Found in Section 4 of Ordinance)

Proposed changes to Section 16.02.2 Summary tables of Dimensional Standards, Table 2.3

The maximum building coverage is reduced in MU-1 and MU-2 zoning districts. MU-1 is proposed to be reduced from 80% to 70%, 65% if the unit is alley-accessed (accessed via alley). MU-2 is proposed to be reduced from 90% to 80%, 75% if the unit is alley-accessed.

Staff have found that projects are being designed for the maximum building coverage and leave the remainder of the property for parking, drainage, and landscaping. The math does not accommodate all of the demands of the property and creates much consternation as staff try to explain additional requirements to applicants. The uses of the property (buildings, landscaping, parking, drainage, etc.) can be greater than 100%. Reduced building coverage alleviates concerns expressed by the community in the comprehensive planning process, as noted above in the explanation of Section 1, above. The severity of the issue as unknown when the UDC was created and we have been looking for an opportunity to correct the code to reduce the unintended consequences.

(Found in Section 5 of Ordinance)

Proposed changes to Section 16.02.2 Tables of Dimensional Standards, Tables 2.2-2.8 and newly renumbered Tables 2.9-2.14

The code adds a footnote under Required Landscaping, min to clarify that parking is not considered ‘landscaping’.

This proposed clarification essentially reduces bargaining costs among staff and applicants. Nearly every project has pushback about what is or is not “landscaping”. Staff plan to propose additional changes in the future, but this will reduce immediate and unnecessary debate.

(Found in Section 6 of Ordinance)

Proposed changes to Section 16.02.2.8.2.C.1, Projections into Required Setbacks.

(Found in Sections 7-10 of Ordinance)

Proposed changes to Section 16.06.6 including a requirement for a neighborhood meeting for both the major site plans and sketch plan reviews

A new process is proposed to require the applicant to hold a neighborhood meeting for major site plan and sketch plan reviews. The proposed change requires a public meeting to inform neighbors about a potential development during which the applicant gathers concerns and submits a report as to how the concerns are (or are not) addressed. This report is included in subsequent review by staff and the decision-making authority. A deadline for this report is included to prompt fast response to how citizen concerns will be addressed in the future. Code changes are proposed in a few areas to adequately incorporate this process.

The proposed change requires a public hearing rather than just a public meeting for sketch plan review. Two tables must change. First, Table 6.1 needs to indicate that the hearing is required. Currently the icons indicate that only a public meeting is required. The second indicates what “public notice” is required: newspaper, posting and mailing at least 15 in advance of the hearing.

This provides the public with advance notice of a major subdivision being proposed in the town. No public notice is currently required for a sketch plan. This will not add any substantive time delay to any proposed project since the public meetings already take place and must be scheduled out well in advance anyway.

(Found in Section 13 of Ordinance)

Proposed changes to Section 16.02.2 Summary tables of Dimensional Standards, note 1 in Table 2.3 and Note 2 in Table 2.8

The proposed change is to clarify measurements: “The frontage buildout is the percentage of building frontage that must be at or between zero feet and the maximum setback distance renumber the tables.” This would add “at or”.

This provides clarity of measurement.

(Found in Section 14 of Ordinance)

Proposed changes to Section 16.02.2 Summary tables of Dimensional Standards, Tables 2.2 and 2.3.

The proposed change delineates setbacks for a garage when an alley is present, with a setback between 0-5’ or greater than 18’.

Many garages are built close enough to an alley to present a partial parking space between the garage and the alley. Cars have been using these areas for parking in spaces that are too short and hang their rear into the alley.

(Found in Sections 15 and 16 of Ordinance)

Proposed changes to Section 16.04.4 Bicycle parking

There are two sections in the code governing bicycle parking. One is Requirements for Off-Street Parking and one is Parking Alternatives. There is some language in one that applies to the other and some that is repetitive. Language is cleaned up. Also, the proposed changes require a cash-in-lieu for the parking relief allowed through bicycle spaces and clarify that, because bicycle spaces are not required for residential, there is no off-street parking relief for providing bicycle spaces in residential.

The first change clarifies that a single family home is not required to provide parking and, because there is no requirement to provide bicycle parking. The proposed change removes the option to eliminate off-street parking with a four-space bike rack. Two sections are cleaned up, placing ‘requirements’ and ‘alternatives’ in their appropriate sections. Lastly, language is added as a parking alternative to ensure that a fee is collected for the bicycle relief for vehicular parking to contribute to multi-modal improvements and to construct and maintain vehicular parking facilities. The proposed amount in the Fee Schedule is envisioned to be $2500, considerably less than the car parking cash-in-lieu option because of the tie to multi-modal transportation. The fee would be established in the Fee Schedule in a future update; the change being considered would now allow for a fee-in-lieu.

(Found in Section 17 of Ordinance)

Proposed changes to Section 16.04.4 Parking cash-in-lieu

The proposed changes delineate a process for review of the cash-in-lieu option for parking and clarifies the intent of the fourth evaluation criterion that has received pushback.

The process for reviewing cash-in-lieu would now use the established variance process (with a different application and different review criteria). Staff would need to create an application, which would require enough details of a project to make an informed decision but not require a great expenditure of architectural or engineering funds should a request be denied. The process to follow is clearly laid out for staff and the application can require appropriate level of detail, a site plan, and a fee for review time.

The change within the fourth criterion removes the clause about financial burden.

(Found in Section 18 of Ordinance)

Proposed changes to Section 16.04.4 Sidewalk signs

The proposed changes frame appropriate use of sidewalk signs (i.e. sandwich boards).

(Found in Section 19 of Ordinance)

Proposed changes to Section 16.04.7.D Sign Review and Approval Procedure--Violations

Introduces the ability for the Town to remove signs that are placed within the Town or CDOT rights of way without the proper authority and gives authority to Town to dispose of the signs If they are not retrieved.

Proposed changes help Town clean up prolific sign issues in Town-owned property without more exhaustive involvement of Code Enforcement.

(Found in Sections 20-24 of Ordinance)

Proposed changes to Section 16.07.7 Definitions