HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-03-17 Public Comment - S. Hedglin - UDC UpdateFrom: Scott Hedglin [mailto:scotthedglin@live.com]
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2017 4:37 PM To: Tom Rogers Cc: Chris Mehl; Chris Saunders; Jeff Krauss; Carson Taylor; David Fine; Fraser, Susan Subject: UDC updates
Tom-
I finally had a chance to get through the UDC updates (specifically Art. 5 – Project Design). Thanks for all
the time and effort you’ve dedicated to this. After digesting the proposed language, I have a slight gut
ache!
I will wear both hats (Midtown Board Chair, and local architect) in this message:
As was the hope when the Midtown Board financially supported this effort, I think it captures and
outlines expectations for new development. I also think it is easier to navigate than the current code,
but still bounces around a bit with references (although most are contained within the sub-articles).
However; I think it is too much of a “prescriptive” code rather than the “form-based” code we
advocated for as the primary review tool used throughout the City. I have no major objections to the
images and materials being proposed, I just think it will limit creativity…the images and materials
proposed would look good in Billings, Fargo, & Portland too. We need to allow something other than
“Anywhere, USA” to be built. I know this makes the review process and predictability more difficult.
To use the proposed “Useable Residential Open Space” provision as an example: I’m sure the 36 square
feet per person is a reasonable, well-thought-out number, but it needs to be recognized it is still a semi-
arbitrary number…along with the minimum 6 ft dimension. Much like the nationally-recognized building
code (IBC) allows their semi-arbitrary numbers to be adjusted by the Local Building Official, the UDC
needs to be flexible enough to allow this number to be amended upon good reason and rationale. I
hope the Planning Department will also be flexible when needed. I personally have a 4ft x 10ft balcony
that works just fine for two people, two chairs, and a six-pack.
Other Examples:
• Attached images: I’ve included some local images that capture Bozeman’s agricultural heritage
(bozeman 1, 2, 3)…if I’m understanding the proposed UDC correctly, these expressions are going
to be prohibited (except for some zoning areas). I also included a couple of PDF’s which
illustrate my current understanding of what might be the end result.
• Bozeman’s Unique Architecture: I’ve had multiple visitors mention the “unique style of homes”
in Bozeman. As an architect, there are a couple of reasons for this...1) the current UDC and 2) as
designers we’re able to figure out the path of least resistance (lowest cost to our clients)
navigating a “prescriptive” code. Personally, I think a home designed by an architect (or other
trained professional) is better than most transplanted and contractor plans, but admit I’ve
drawn homes which have been dumbed-down because that’s what my client asked for. An
good example of this is Stoneridge Business Park…they figured out earth-toned, single story,
6:12 pitched roofs would get approved fairly easily and then got after it. The lack of diversity
over there is bothersome (bozeman 4).
Other notes I made:
• 38.530.030 – I agree we don’t need golden arches or the starbucks mermaid everywhere, but
by prohibiting corporate identity, we’re actually encouraging generic design…need to find the
right balance.
• 38.530.040 – 40 ft façade articulation is going to result in a lot of lipstick on a lot of pigs. I
understand why articulation is needed, but flexibility on this is also needed.
• 38.530.040.C.4 – would a plain-jane stainless steel railing (high quality material) qualify? How
about an intricately carved wood railing (low quality material, high quality craftsmanship)?
• 38.530.040.E – building articulation again…object to the “prescriptive” solution approach. I
remember a trip to Banff…their good intentions for downtown resulted in monotony…I couldn’t
differentiate which block I was on without using building tenant signage.
• 38.530.050.E – image 4…now we’re getting somewhere good…due to the subjective
nature…not because it was “prescribed”.
• 38.530.060 – need to be careful on prescribing allowable materials. As written, if I was a
masonry contractor I’d be seeing dollar signs! Those dollars don’t help keep things affordable.
• 38.530.060.C.3 – I’m not a huge fan of EIFS either, but considering the energy code, it’s a very
logical, appropriate, cost-effective material.
On a technical review note:
• 38.520.050.B and B.1 uses the term “Driveway” versus the elsewhere consistent “Drive aisle.”
• 38.520.060.B.1 calls for 37 square feet whereas B.3 calls for 36 SF.
• 38.520.060.D.3.b has a blank that needs to be filled in.
Sorry for the long email…let me know if you have any questions. I think the proposed UDC language
misses the mark.
Scott Hedglin