HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal UDC Public Comments - Aggregated1
Lacie Kloosterhof
From:Kate Bryan <katebryan2000@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 09, 2017 12:45 PM
To:Martin Matsen; Tom Rogers; Chris Saunders
Subject:Thursday Overview Meeting - Add'l ways to inform, engage & involve the public?
HI Marty, Chris & Tom
Enjoyed hearing about the new UDC at the CIty Commission Meeting Last night.
Thanks to all of you for the hard work (many many hours of thought and time) you've put in to improve the
code.
It is not an easy job. We respect your work and efforts. Thank you.
Regarding this Thursday's May 11th meeting re: Preview of UDC rewrite.
I believe there are many people that would like to be a part of the process.
We see that the first "Overview" meeting is this Thursday, May 11th
Unfortunately, my husband and I have 2 previous commitments that evening which make it impossible to
attend.
QUESTIONS:
Is there any chance that you could "video tape" this Thursday's Overview/preview meeting and make it
available for viewing online for those that can't attend?
...similar to what is done with the commission meetings.
Will your presentation (overview) be available online as a printable document?
IDEAS:
Have you ever considered producing this overview presentation as a webcast or webinar t that could be
"Recorded" and made available as a link online.
Even if you can't record it on Thursday (with a camera), there are easy ways using online webcast software (free
or for minimal fee) to
go through the presentation at another time in the comfort of your offices (with slides and recorded voices) that
would then be recorded
for people to watch at their convenience. Of course face to face is better, but there are those that just can't
participate at the stated times and places, but want to know
and stay involved.
I think such an approach would really increase people's...
1) Awareness
2) Engagement
... in the process
2
It would also be a great way to illustrate how much the Planning department is working to improve community
communications and engagement.
In this day and age, getting people to meetings is tougher and tougher (so many demands on people's time) and
day time meetings
are especially difficult. Much notice (in advance) is also required and multiple direct reminders are necessary,
in my experience. Sad but true.
So much info coming at everyone (you includeded!)
Like was said at the Commission Mtg last night regarding "Stamps/voting" we need to remove barriers to
people's participation whenever possible.
What do you think?
Have you considered this possibility?
Are there some additional ways that people could be engaged "digitally" as well as in -person to create
participation in the UDC rewrite?
the update of the UDC?
Just wondering.
Thank you for listening.
Kate Bryan
406-570-2839
1
Robin Crough
From:Jeanne Wilkinson <jmwilkinson4@msn.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:41 PM
To:Agenda
Cc:Jessica Johnson
Subject:UDC Final Adoption Schedule Public Input
Categories:Public Comment
Dear City of Bozeman Commissioners and Staff,
First, thank you for creating the neighborhood coordinator position and for hiring Jessica Johnson. Were it not
for Jessica, I would likely have ended up in an empty room Thursday night, May 18, anticipating the UDC
Neighborhood related deep dive discussion.
I took to heart suggestions from you that residents should weigh in on the UDC adoption process as an
opportunity to voice our prioirities. In good faith, I attended the entire presentation during the May 8 City
Commission meeting. At Commissioner Mehl's suggestion during that meeting, I l found the agenda item on-
line and printed the UDC Final Adoption Schedule. I then planned to attend the May 18th scheduled deep
dive event for neighborhoods only to learn late last night that it was rescheduled for May 23rd. I have a
commitment on May 23rd and cannot make that meeting.
My frustration over this is not due to the fact that schedules changed, I get that. What I am extremely
frustrated by is the City's apparent lack of organization and obligation to the residents. I thought I was on top
of it only to learn that no, I should have been checking the City website - even though the adoption schedule I
printed is called "UDC Final Adoption Schedule".
Jessica tells me the schedule was presented as draft and I believe her, however, that was not my experience,
and I'm sure I'm not the only one. As a lay citizen, I am overwhelmed enough as it is by the immensity of
the UDC re-write, the fact that I can't easily find it on the City website, trying to ascertain what the adoption
process is, much less having the public input schedule change so last minute.
I heard the public and Commission comments on May 8th that emphasized the importance of obtaining real
input and not rushing the process. It is in this spirit, I request you extend the public comment period by at
least a month and add one or two more neighborhood oriented sessions to the schedule.
Thank you,
Jeanne Wilkinson
415 South 3rd Ave
580-7484
2
From: Jessica Johnson <JJohnson@BOZEMAN.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 11:30 PM
To: Jeanne Wilkinson
Cc: Jane Klockman; Gilmore Lesley; Jacobs Pat; crystal; Canfield Dick & Deb; Brown Richard; Kate Bryan
Subject: Re: REMINDER---First Friday Series--June 2 and Beyond--May 17 Mtg.
Yes, that was a DRAFT schedule and the meeting will be on the 23rd. All the calendars online have reflected this since last week.
JESSICA JOHNSON | NEIGHBORHOOD COORDINATOR
City of Bozeman | 121 North Rouse Avenue<x-apple-data-detectors://0/1> | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771<x-apple-data-
detectors://1/0>
P: 406.582.2274<tel:406.582.2274> | E: jjohnson@bozeman.net<mailto:jjohnson@bozeman.net> | W:
www.bozeman.net<http://www.bozeman.net/>
On May 16, 2017, at 10:25 PM, Jeanne Wilkinson <jmwilkinson4@msn.com<mailto:jmwilkinson4@msn.com>> wrote:
Hi Jessica,
The UDC adoption schedule attached to last Monday's commission agenda said the neighborhood deep dive is May 18, 6-8pm at the
library. According to this schedule, nothing is scheduled for May 23rd. Could you please provide clarification or let me know who I
should contact?
Thank you,
Jeanne
Sent from my iPhone
On May 16, 2017, at 8:42 PM, Jessica Johnson <JJohnson@BOZEMAN.NET<mailto:JJohnson@BOZEMAN.NET>> wrote:
The Neighborhoods Deep Dive on the code update is on May 23 at 6 at City Hall in the Commission Room.
JESSICA JOHNSON | NEIGHBORHOOD COORDINATOR
City of Bozeman | 121 North Rouse Avenue<x-apple-data-detectors://0/1> | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771<x-apple-data-
detectors://1/0>
P: 406.582.2274<tel:406.582.2274> | E: jjohnson@bozeman.net<mailto:jjohnson@bozeman.net><mailto:jjohnson@bozeman.net>
| W: www.bozeman.net<http://www.bozeman.net><http://www.bozeman.net/>
1
Lacie Kloosterhof
From:Jessica Johnson
Sent:Tuesday, May 23, 2017 11:25 AM
To:Tom Rogers
Subject:UDC topics - neighborhoods
Questions focus mainly on low density R and B‐3.
1. Block character
2. Interaction of UDC with NCOD and historic districts
3. Changes to regulations on ADUs
4. Changes to setback requirements?
5. Will the review process for projects remain the same? i.e. Black Olive, applying for an ADU
6. Will the notice process remain the same? What will/does that look like?
7. Demolition of historic structures – changes?
8. Number of parking spaces required – changes?
9. Protections for neighborhood character – COA
10. Enforcement of changes without approval or violations
‐‐
JESSICA H. JOHNSON | NEIGHBORHOOD COORDINATOR
City of Bozeman | 121 North Rouse Avenue | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771
P: 406.582.2274 | E: jjohnson@bozeman.net | W: www.bozeman.net
ForestryContactUsID: 163
First Name: Alan
Last Name: Kesselheim
Phone: (406) 586-1649
Email: alandmp@aol.com
Message: I'm concerned about small, relatively unnoticed changes in the code that may have
significant ramifications down the road. For example, on pg. 89 in the Plan review criteria the
words "and height" were removed from the sentence listing other criteria to be considered
(building mass, neighborhood identity, etc). Why wouldn't height be a consideration, when that
is so clearly a concern for neighbors to a tall building? Why were those words dropped? Again
on pg 222 - 38.340.010 (F) (part I) the words "historically significant" were added. Why? Does
this have the effect of only applying standards to official historic properties, while ignoring the
character and value of other neighborhoods that might have strong merit but aren't included
under that umbrella? Again, there are many more examples of these sorts of minor wording
changes that could come back to have real impacts on decisions down the road, and that for
many of the public, requires too onerous a task to stay on top of.
Please enter what you see.: 747368
Form inserted: 5/24/2017 9:49:31 AM
Form updated: 5/24/2017 9:49:31 AM
1
Clerk Temp
From:The Canfields <dickanddeb@canfields.org>
Sent:Tuesday, May 30, 2017 10:07 AM
To:Agenda
Cc:Jennifer Rockne; Jeanne Wilkinson; Jodi Rasker; Dennis Raffensperger; Dick and Deb
Canfield
Subject:Public comment on UDC Update
Attachments:Have alleys in your neighborhood.docx
Categories:Public Comment
Dear Tom & Chris,
Attached please find my public comment on the May 8 draft of the UDC update, which I made in verbal form at the well‐
done Neighborhoods Deep Dive meeting last week.
As you know, I am very concerned about the consequences of infill in the form of ADUs in the historic districts. It is to
everybody’s benefit to inform the affected neighborhoods on all aspects of this issue during this working draft review
period. I see Chris’ well‐timed update on ADUs at tomorrow evening's SCAN meeting as an important step in this
process. I posted the attached comments on NextDoor yesterday to encourage participation in the meeting and
discussion of the consequences of infill among what I believe to be the most affected neighborhoods: South Central,
Bogert Park, & Cooper Park.
Richard C Canfield
(406) 579‐9095
Have alleys in your neighborhood?
I attended the May 23rd Neighborhoods presentation on the draft
Unified Development Code (UDC)*. I am impressed by how many of
the neighborhood issues that have come up during the last year have
been addressed in a manner that is responsive to input received from
the public, the Inter Neighborhood Council and other groups.
However, I feel that one change to the code, adding ground floor
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on lots with alley access in R-2, 3,
4, 5, O, and REMU zoning districts, raises many issues downstream.
In the draft UDC, the term “ground floor Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU)” is wonk talk for a small (600 sf) detached secondary house,
which includes a complete kitchen and one bedroom. They are
typically built for the purpose of short-term or long-term rental or for a
relative with special needs, although those needs are often better met
by an ADU that is interior to a principal dwelling, which is permitted in
all zoning districts.
I am worried that infill and affordability are not being considered in an
overarching framework that includes consideration of the
consequences of these suggested code changes for livability,
character, and property value:
1. Alleys will serve ground floor ADU residents as roads,
sidewalks, and bike paths. What about paving the
roadway? Streetlights for safety and crime prevention?
Owner maintained sidewalks, or ice and snow?
2. Many alleys in the historic districts are only 20' wide,
considerably narrowed by trash and trash cans, often
blocked by service vehicles, construction vehicles, trash
trucks, unpaved, and unplowed. This past winter in our
neighborhood, even a City trash truck got stuck in the
snow in an alley and had to be towed out!
3. Ground-floor ADUs are not located above garages, as is
presently permitted in much of Bozeman. Because
ground floor ADUs will typically add two residents and
eliminate a double garage, they are a double whammy
for parking.
4. Within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
the City has a checkered history of non-enforcement of
accessory building design guidelines, particularly in
2013-2016. Ask your favorite realtor whether your
property would increase or decrease in value if the alleys
in your neighborhood were lined with some of the
nonconforming buildings shown in http://bozeman-
history.net/adu/NCODNeighborhood4CC%20copy.pdf
I believe that infill of our historic districts through ground floor ADUs in
alleys risks creating unsafe and inferior housing in the name of
affordability and avoidance of urban sprawl, while degrading the
many historic districts and older traditional neighborhoods that are
part of the City's heritage.
I wonder who will pay for the required alley improvements. The same
people who will benefit? I think not. I worry that ADUs simply
become an income element and add to the sales price and appraised
value of a given property, which is hardly a path to affordability. I
seriously doubt that real estate prices in central Bozeman, where
small homes on 5000 s/f lots now go for $600 K, will ever be
affordable. Moreover, does affordability require reduced safety,
security, and livability for both residents and neighbors? I hope not.
The agenda for the annual meeting of the South Central Association
of Neighbors at 7:00 pm on Wednesday, May 31st at the Story
Mansion includes “ADUs and short term rentals update” — Chris
Saunders, Community Development Policy and Planning Manager,
as well as Neighborhood announcements, questions, and concerns.
(*)The May 23, 2017 Neighborhoods related deep dive presentation
is on line at
http://www.bozeman.net/Smarty/media/Administration_Media/docume
nts/Neighborhood-Deep-Dive-5-23-17.pdf.
.
1
Lacie Kloosterhof
From:Henry H Happel <henryhhappel@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, June 03, 2017 7:30 PM
To:Tom Rogers
Cc:Chris Saunders
Subject:UDC Random Small Comments
Tom‐
I am proposing to mostly keep my mouth shut at Tuesday's UDC review. Here are a few random comments probably not
worth bothering the assembled masses with:
1. "Drive aisles" appears to be a new term and the UDC. Shouldn't it be defined back in the Definitions section?
2. Subsection A. of 38.230.100 sets forth plan review criteria. The last of these simply says "Phasing of development."
Does this need to be spelled out a bit?
3. Sections 38.34.080 and .090 refer to "Article 10.02." There are only seven articles in the UDC.
4. Subsection 38.360.210.E refers to "alley‐loaded lots." Am I the only one who doesn't know what that means?
5. I think the reference at the end of Section 38.380.250 should be to Section 38.380.410.
Best,
Hap
Sent from my iPhone
1
Lacie Kloosterhof
From:Addi Jadin
Sent:Monday, June 05, 2017 9:16 AM
To:Tom Rogers
Subject:UDC pet peeves
Tom,
Here’s my wish list for UDC update. Number 1 we’ve already talked about.
My revisions cite the proposed new location:
1) Sec. 38.230.090.D. Step 3 Review of Applications. 1. The community development department must review the
application for acceptability within five working days to determine….The five working day review period will be
considered met if the letter is dated, signed and placed in the outgoing mail written explanation is provided as a
signed and dated letter placed in the outgoing mail or as electronic communication (such as an email) within the
five‐day review period.
2) Sec. 38.350.050.A. 1 and 2. balconies
Thanks,
Addi Jadin | Associate Planner
City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771
P: 406.582.2260 | E: ajadin@bozeman.net | W: www.bozeman.net
1
Lacie Kloosterhof
From:Danielle Garber
Sent:Wednesday, June 07, 2017 9:52 AM
To:Tom Rogers
Subject:UDC Update - Small Edit for Sign Code 38.560.060
Please add to the NonRresidential Sign Standards table a max area for pole signs of 32 square feet.
Thank you,
Danielle Garber | Planning Division
City of Bozeman | 20 East Olive St. | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771
P: 406.582.2272 | E: dmartin@bozeman.net | W: www.bozeman.net
1
Lacie Kloosterhof
From:webadmin@bozeman.net
Sent:Monday, June 12, 2017 1:46 PM
To:Tom Rogers
Subject:UDC Code Update Comment Form
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name: UDC Code Update Comment Form
Date & Time: 06/12/2017 1:45 PM
Response #: 1
Submitter ID: 166
IP address: 72.174.95.218
Time to complete: 6 min. , 33 sec.
Survey Details
Page 1
We want to hear from you!
First Name Henri
Last Name Foch
Phone (406) 582‐8988
Email hfoch@intrinsikarchitecture.com
Questions or Comments
I've noticed that with the recent city web site update many links are not working including the link to view the draft of the
Bozeman Design Manual. This timing is unfortunate because there are many community members that would like an
opportunity to review this document and it has been inaccessible for quite some time. Anything that can be done to remedy
this as soon as possible would be greatly appreciated. Also, moving the UDC update information to the "city projects"
location is proving to be more difficult for some people to find. The previous version of the web site had a clearly labelled
link on the main page to the UDC update information. If possible please provide a link to this information in a more
immediately visible location on the main web page.
It is also unclear as to when the time for public comment will end. Please provide clear information on timelines for public
comment.
I appreciate your attention to these items.
Henri Foch
Thank you,
City Of Bozeman
This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System™. Please do not reply directly to this email.
1
Lacie Kloosterhof
From:Rob Pertzborn <rpertzborn@intrinsikarchitecture.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 20, 2017 10:30 AM
To:Tom Rogers
Cc:Chris Saunders
Subject:UDC comment - Figure 38.320.060 Daylight plane
Attachments:2017 UDC Draft daylight plane diagram.pdf; Daylight plane rule for certain zone edge
development.pdf
Greetings –
One item for the mix and as mentioned in deep dives:
The scale of the diagram shows what I would argue is an out of scale example on the residential side of the line. To scale
– it represents a 20’ wide, 28’ tall house with a 3/12 roof, and 30’ side setback.
I have provided a matching diagram you can use which I would suggest represents a more likely scenario: 36’ wide, 32’
tall house with a 10/12 roof, and 7’ side setback. I deleted the sun as we also discussed.
We are working on other comments, but I thought I would send this along early since it was done.
Thanks for considering,
RJP
Robert J. Pertzborn, AIA
Principal I Architect
intrinsik architecture, inc.
111 north tracy avenue
bozeman, montana 59715
t. 406.582.8988 m. 406.580.0422
www.intrinsikarchitecture.com ______________________________________________________________________
This email is privileged and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If this email has been received in error, please notify the sender.
From:webadmin@bozeman.net
To:Tom Rogers
Subject:UDC Code Update Comment Form
Date:Wednesday, June 28, 2017 8:49:58 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name:UDC Code Update Comment Form
Date & Time:06/28/2017 8:49 PM
Response #:2
Submitter ID:1309
IP address:174.45.65.30
Time to complete:48 min. , 45 sec.
Survey Details
Page 1
We want to hear from you!
First Name Cole
Last Name Robertson
Phone (406) 671-4796
Email cole@plumdl.com
Questions or Comments
Proposed Design Regulations. Let us be designers please.
It is clear from the significant statements regarding minutia type restrictive language that the proposed
Design Regulation amendment misses the intent of the adopted intuitive to create "direction in design and
review of residential and non-residential neighborhoods without unduly constraining architectural style
innovation." The list of demanding detailed oriented description on article 5 are in clear juxtaposition to the
outward goal of the community. As an example, the lack of definition in the vague comments like banding,
and 2" window detailing, go against industry standard waterproofing and envelope requirements. It leaves
Design aesthetic interpretation to planning staff only, disregarding Architectural and construction
conventional practice and knowledge. This one statememt illustrates a simple flawed example of many
other similar issues article 5 contains, the language clearly illustrates the irresponsible nature of the
regulations. The city planning office should not be expected , nor are they equipped with the background
experience and knowledge in the art of detailed design and Architecture. More so, when it comes to
innovation and creativity. This is the Architects role in the community, and should be continued to be
supported by the staff at the city of Bozeman. The design language proposed will further drive a wedge
between designer and city staff as opposed to bringing them together to create a vibrant environment.
Further in the article, statements continue restrictive language speaking about base detailing of masonry
type materials. This demonstrative language demotes the creative development of vision in design.
Handcuffing Architects in this way is not an appropriate use of staff time. They are best at guiding the
process, and developing implementation of city wide goals. Let them see big picture visions of the future
community planning pocesses, and let Architects design the environment we all interact with daily.
Continued disregard to the professionals practicing design will result in monotonous boring growth.
Bozeman is loved by many because of it's vibrant nature, created with Artful theories and creativity.
Stepping in the way of Article 5 regulations will result in a very unwelcome outcome the city will suffer
from. This proposed article does, and will adversely affect abutting neighborhoods and property. I urge the
developers of the amendment to re-review the language, and remove all overly detailed requirements that
impose restrictive demands on the parameters of each designed building. Stay open-source Bozeman, it has
served this community well.
Thank you,
City Of Bozeman
This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System™. Please do not reply
directly to this email.
From:webadmin@bozeman.net
To:Tom Rogers
Subject:UDC Code Update Comment Form
Date:Friday, June 30, 2017 10:41:46 AM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name:UDC Code Update Comment Form
Date & Time:06/30/2017 10:41 AM
Response #:3
Submitter ID:1316
IP address:71.15.212.242
Time to complete:14 min. , 10 sec.
Survey Details
Page 1
We want to hear from you!
First Name Lindsey
Last Name Stewart
Phone (406) 868-3917
Email ls@lindsey-stewart.com
Questions or Comments
As an architect in the community I'm extremely concerned about the new UDC requirements, especially
Article 5 pertaining to project design. In an attempt to prevent 'bad' design, you end up promoting bland
architecture, devoid of any creativity, which will have negative effects on our community's built
environment. Please reconsider Article 5 and allow creativity in design based on design merit.
Thank you,
City Of Bozeman
This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System™. Please do not reply
directly to this email.
From: 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