The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-10-17 Public Comment - C. Naumann (on behalf of BDBID and DURD) - UDC Update July 10, 2017 Bozeman City Commission II c/o Tom Rogers, Senior Planner, AICP Department of Community Development �T City of Bozeman Dc)Wn�C)wN 20 East Olive Street B o Z E M A N Bozeman, Montana 59715 RE: Formal Public Comment--Bozeman UDC Update Dear Commissioners: Thank you for the chance to comment on the proposed edits to the Unified Development Code (UDC). Through cooperative efforts, the Downtown Partnership strengthens downtown as a critical element in the greater community fabric. Below we have outlined recommendations for how the UDC Edits can better support downtown and be more aligned with existing adopted plans. I am specifically submitting these comments on behalf of the Downtown Business Improvement District Board and the Downtown Urban Renewal District Board. 1) B3 Intent Page 172—The proposed edits include changing the intent of the B3 district. We would like to incorporate the following recommendation from the adopted Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan (2009): "... the very nomenclature should change. Rather than having merely a "B-3" designation, which might be anywhere, the word "Downtown" should be used in all titles. This indicates its importance, that downtown is different than any other part of the community, and that totally different methods and standards will be used." The intent should also note the importance of infill and residential uses as key supporting elements of downtown. We also feel that the "core area" distinction which significantly impacts use, height, and landscaping requirements, is significant and should not be relocated to a mere footnote. 2) Special Use Permits Page 184—The sale of alcohol in downtown, Bozeman's most vibrant restaurant district, is a great example of the intent of a Special Use Permit (SUP). We recommend changing the 'C' to 'S' for "Sale of Alcohol for On-Premise Consumption" for B3 in the allowable use chart. 3) Transitions Between Zones Page 213—Zone Edge Transitions—This new section conflicts with the existing language in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) Guidelines and it is unclear which document would take precedence. While "the more restrictive" typically applies in land use law, the UDC Update specifically states: "Where there is a conflict between the neighborhood conservation overlay district design guidelines and other development standards in this chapter,the neighborhood conservation overlay district design guidelines take precedent, as determined by the reviewing authority" (Page 225). We recommend keeping the base height at 44 feet as stated in the NCOD Guidelines rather than lowering it to 28 feet or 38 feet (depending on the adjacent zone) as suggested by the UDC Update. Also, we recommend that the residentially zoned properties adjacent to B3 District should be offered a small height bonus to allow three stories with a flat roof. This is a typical rowhouse pattern and would allow a wider transition to occur on both sides of the zoning boundary. 4) Townhomes and Rowhomes While not appropriate for the "core area," townhomes and rowhomes are a great way to add density downtown and to provide a transition from more intense commercial and mixed uses to smaller scale residential neighborhoods. Narrow lot width is a key component of urban density especially for townhomes. While there is no minimum lot width for B3, we are concerned with ongoing discussions about utility spacing and the requirement for 30-foot easements that results in a more suburban design. Stacked utilities are a reality in many urban areas and it is in the best interest of the City to plan for the most efficient use of space especially for properties in and around downtown. Page 212 -Another concern is Footnote 15 which requires garage entrances to be 20 feet from a property line. While there is additional language of"unless explicitly authorized...," we do not feel this footnote is necessary for the B3 district. Other parts of the code that define parking dimensions and requirements will cover any spaces located in a driveway in front of a garage but there will likely be more cases where garages are located right along an alley. Again, large setbacks like 20 feet have no place in the downtown regulations. Pages 278-282 -We are concerned with the very specific Design Guidelines for Town/ Rowhomes in Article 3. While the majority of downtown is served by alleys, more flexibility for town/rowhomes is needed. The standards also do not allow much room for creativity and diversity in terms of building design. At a minimum,there should be the ability to request a departure from these standards. Also, there is a question of applicability—if there are four or more attached townhomes, does Article 5 also apply? If the answer is yes then additional coordination is needed for things like building design and open space requirements. If you add the NCOD Guidelines and the new Design Manual,then there are potentially four different sets of design requirements for townhomes in B3. 5) Parkland Dedication for B3 While we are supportive of the procedural streamlining of cash-in-lieu of parkland for projects in the B3 District (Page 30), we would like to remind the Commission of the recommendation from the adopted Downtown Improvement Plan: "It is very unusual for development within any downtown to be charged a fee for parks... We recommend this fee be specifically dedicated to the downtown district and used as a funding source for the "green" strategies outlined in this plan; improving sidewalks, greening streets and alleys, creating small parks along Bozeman Creek, and creating or improving other public spaces and facilities within the downtown" (Page 39 of the DIP). This change should be reflected in Section 38.420 which begins on Page 337. 6) Special Privacy Setbacks Page 389 - Light, Air, Privacy—The notion of privacy in an urban setting should be accomplished through design measures instead of suburban setbacks. The wording in the section is confusing and not conducive to downtown development. 7) Building Design All of Article 5—We are concerned with the feedback we've received from local architects regarding the prescriptive nature of Article 5 especially as it relates to building design. While the historic charm of Main Street is indisputable; we do not want to see the areas around downtown and in the greater community as whole become monotonous in terms of building materials and styles. For example, Page 424 states: "At a minimum, stone, brick or tile masonry, or architectural concrete (first two feet only) must be used... for the first floor on non-residential or mixed-use buildings and the first two feet of residential buildings." As stated in the growth policy and the Downtown Improvement Plan, architectural innovation, diversity, and creativity should always be encouraged. Another specific section that caught our attention is the requirement for transparency. When we look at building corner patterns and the businesses that occupy these spaces, it becomes evident that there is a functional need for less transparency on secondary frontages (even with Storefront designations)to deal with the realities of many corner retail spaces. We see this as a potential problem for downtown businesses and we do not want to rely on requesting a departure for this issue. There is a very functional reason that many of the historic retail spaces on corners did not include extensive windows on the side streets. The transparency provisions also include very detailed and unrealistic language about regulating window coverings: "window area that is... covered in any manner that obscures visibility into the storefront space shall not count as transparent window area" (Page 373). Perhaps a smaller transparency percentage could apply to 'secondary' frontages. 8) Commercial Open Space Page 401 requires "Pedestrian-oriented open space design criteria." While the example photos show outdoor restaurant seating areas, it is unclear from the language if restaurant seating can count toward meeting this requirement or if these areas are intended to be more park-like and accessible to the general public. If the latter, we recommend a departure for B3. 9) Parking Page 441 states: "The first 3,000 gross square feet of a nonresidential building within the B-3 district or adjacent to designated Storefront block frontage per section 38.500.010 is not included in the calculation of required parking." This language should be clarified to include the nonresidential portion of mixed use buildings. Page 447—Currently, off-site parking spaces for residential development are required to be no more than 100 feet from "any commonly used entrance." This distance should be increased to at least 300 feet. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, ck- L, Chris Naumann Executive Director Downtown Bozeman Partnership CC: Bozeman Zoning Commission & Planning Board DOWNTOWN 80ZEMAN PARTNERSHIP 222 EAST MAIN STREET,SUITE 302 BOZEMAN,MONTANA 59715 p 406 506 4008 1.406 586 3802 www.downtown6azeman,org