HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-23-17 Public Comment - J. Wilkinson (on behalf of Bozeman Preservation Advocacy Group) - UDC UpdateFrom:Jeanne Wilkinson
To:Agenda; Carson Taylor; Cyndy Andrus; Chris Mehl; Jeff Krauss; I-Ho Pomeroy; Martin Matsen; Chris Saunders;Tom Rogers
Cc:BPAG
Subject:Unified Development Code Proposed Revisions - Comments from BPAG
Date:Sunday, July 23, 2017 6:24:13 PM
To: The Bozeman City Commission and Community Development Director and Staff
From: Jeanne Wilkinson on Behalf of The Bozeman Preservation Advocacy Group – Jeanne
Wilkinson, Jane Klockman, Dick Canfield, Lesley Gilmore, Pat Jacobs, Crystal Alegria, Richard
Brown, Elizabeth Darrow and more
Date: July 23, 2017
Subject: Unified Development Code Update Comments
As an ad hoc group of community members who want to see preservation principles treated
as a priority in City Planning, we view Historic Preservation as so much more that saving
individual buildings. It’s about building community, prioritizing people’s well-being and
learning from the past to improve the future.
Planning for growth in Bozeman should include the cultural and social aspects of our
community that play a role and matter not only to the people that live here, but to the
economic and cultural vitality that attracts newcomers and visitors. These aspects include the
elements of setting, such as the relationship of buildings to each other, setbacks, fence
patterns, views, driveways and walkways, and street trees together create the character of a
district or neighborhood.
In this light, we reviewed the 500+ page Unified Development Code update, with a particular
eye on its impact on the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, and developed the
below specific comments and questions. This was a daunting task to say the least and is not
totally inclusive. Even though many of us attended public meetings and the Tom Rogers’ Deep
Dive presentations, the way the different sections of the UDC interact was difficult to decipher
and the sheer volume of technical language was overwhelming to read.
Overall, we offer the following questions for consideration regarding, especially the NCOD,
which are followed by four specific comments:
What is meant by this statement in Article 5: “…the reviewing authority may apply the
provisions of this article in the event of a conflict, where it is determined that the provisions
herein help new development better meet the purpose and intent of neighborhood
conservation overlay district per section 38.340.010.” ? How will the new Departures language
impact the NCOD. We need NCOD guidelines that are enforceable in their entirety, how do
we get there?
Specific Comments:
I. page 82 - 38.230.040 Review Authority
A. The review authorities are established in 38.200.010 and as may be specified elsewhere in
this chapter.
B. The development review committee, design review board, administrative design review
staff, and wetlands review board have the advisory authority established in division 38.200 of
this chapter.
C. Plan design review thresholds. When a development is subject to design review and meets
one or more of the following thresholds the design review board must have responsibility for
conducting the design review:
1. Twenty Forty five or more dwelling units in a multiple household structure or
structures;
2. Thirty thousand or more square feet of office space, retail commercial space, service
commercial space or industrial space;
3. Four (4) stories or more;
4. Twenty thousand or more square feet of exterior storage of materials or goods;
Comment: Do not change this section to reduce Design Review Board Authority. We need
more DRB review especially of large projects within the NCOD. Please add the following
criteria to the above:
All mixed-use, multifamily residential, industrial and commercial new developments
and substantial renovation projects located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District.
II. pg 89 - 38.230.100(A)(7)(a) - Plan review criteria: Conformance with the project design
provision of article 5, states:
1. Compatibility with, and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the site and the
adjacent neighborhoods and other approved development relative to architectural
design, building mass and height, neighborhood identity, landscaping, historical
character, orientation of buildings on the site and visual integration;
Comment: Do not remove “and height”. When the plan review authority is
considering compatibility with and sensitivity to, the immediate environment of the
site and adjacent neighborhoods, proposed building height is an important element
that needs to be considered.
III. pg 213 - 38.320.060- Zone edge transitions (New) States:
A. Intent: To provide measures that help to provide a compatible transition between
certain higher and lower intensity zoning districts.
B. Zone edge transition standards. The following standards are intended to supersede
other form and intensity standards in this division.
1. Setback adjustments:
a. Minimum side and rear setbacks for development within BP, M-1, and M-2 district
where adjacent to a residential district: 15 feet.
b. Minimum side and rear setbacks for development within B-3 and UMU districts
adjacent to a residential district: 5 feet. No setbacks are required adjacent to alleys.
2. Height/setback adjustments.
a. For development on sites in the B-3, B-2M, UMU, and R-5 districts that border the RS,
R-1, or R-2 district, the following standard applies: From a height of 28 feet at a 5-foot
setback from the applicable residential districts, buildings must step back at a 45 degree
angle (daylight plane rule) away from the applicable property line as shown in figure
38.320.060.
b. For development on sites in the B-3 district that border the R-3 and R-4 district, the
following standard applies: From a height of 38 feet at a 5-foot setback from the
applicable residential districts, buildings must step back at a 45 degree angle (daylight
plane rule) away from the applicable property line.
c. Permitted daylight plane encroachments: (1) Permitted horizontal encroachments
include those elements and standards set forth in section 38.350.050.A. (2) Permitted
vertical encroachments include those elements and standards set forth in section
38.350.050.D.
Question: Does this section take precedence over Subchapter 4B of NCOD guidelines
since more detailed?
Comment: Doesn't go far enough. Consider transition requirements that are more
stringent next to a historic district:
Example - Minimum side and rear setbacks for development within BP, M-1,
M-2, B-3 and UMU districts within 100 feet of a historic district will be a distance of
half (X/2) of the initial vertical wall height (X) from the property line. Initial vertical
wall height cannot exceed 150% of average neighboring wall height. Vertical wall
height may increase 25% every 25 feet.
IV. pg 222 - 38.340.010(F)(part I) . Protect, preserve, enhance and regulate historically
significant structures, archaeological or cultural sites, and areas that:
Comment: "Historically significant" was added. Remove this addition. This could
narrow the intent of the section. This is the NCOD chapter. The purpose of the NCOD
should be to preserve a neighborhood's character defining features, not just the
historically significant ones. Further, the overlay protection should be for older
neighborhoods that may not be able to qualify for historic designation.
Thank you,
Jeanne Wilkinson
415 South 3rd Ave