Councilman Erik Cole has scheduled a "special meeting" for all Council members (who can attend) to further discuss questions and concerns regarding BL2011-901 after the Council Planning and Zoning Committee meeting on Monday, Jul 18, at 4:45 p.m. (in Council chambers). In addition, Councilman Cole states he is proposing to amend the original bill to only apply to R10, R8 and R6 districts within the USD and to eliminate allowance of on street parking in connection with the required number of parking spaces for this type of development.
BL2011-901 is up for third reading on Tuesday, so if you have concerns about this bill you better get on your horse and chase down your CM.
Here is the gist of Cole's original bill:
Buildings must be 1 or 1 ½ stories with a maximum height of 25 feet. The maximum building footprint would be 1,000 square feet. All units must either face the street or common open space. A minimum of four and a maximum of ten units would be allowed around a common open space. The development must designate at least 350 square feet of common open space per unit. Further, each unit must have at least 200 square feet of contiguous private open space next to the unit for use by the homeowner.
All parking must be screened from the common open space, from all public streets, and from the properties adjacent to the cottage development. A covered front porch at least 60 square feet in size is required for all units. The ordinance also modifies the required rear setbacks under the base zoning districts to accommodate cottage development units abutting an alley.
As an incentive to developers to utilize the cottage development approach, this ordinance provides a density bonus of up to 1 ½ times the units allowed under the base zoning district, with no minimum lot size. This would allow significantly greater density on infill lots in established neighborhoods. However, the density bonus would not be available if an historic structure has been demolished on the site within the two years prior to site plan approval.
Here is Cole's amendment:
I move to amend Ordinance No. BL2011-901 as follows:
1. By amending Section 3 by deleting subsections D.1. Location in its entirety and replacing it with the following:
“1. Location. Cottage developments shall be permitted within the R6, R8 and R10 two-family (R) districts along existing street(s) within the area of the urban services district (USD) in accordance with the development standards below.
2. By amending Section 3 by deleting the following subsection D.8.c in its entirety and re-placing it with the following:
“c. All required parking shall be located on the Single-family Cottage Development property.”
3. By amending Section 3 by adding the following subsection D.12 as follows and renumbering the remaining subsection accordingly:
“12. Stormwater. Water quantity facilities must be screened from view and may not be located in the front setback or the required open spaces, unless located underground.