HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-14-17 Public Comment - C. Naumann - (on behalf of BDBID and DURD - 2nd Ltr. - UDC Update
August 14, 2017
Bozeman City Commission
c/o Tom Rogers, Senior Planner
Department of Community Development
City of Bozeman
20 East Olive Street
Bozeman, Montana 59715
RE: Bozeman UDC Update Public Comment – 2nd Letter
Dear Commissioners:
Please accept this as our second letter of public comment. We are disappointed that only one of the
many issues we brought up in our staff meeting and our first letter of public comment was addressed by
the revised draft of the Unified Development Code (UDC); therefore, we are resubmitting this letter with
updated comments and recommendations for how the UDC edits can better support downtown and be
more aligned with existing adopted plans.
1) B3 Intent
Problem 1: The revised language related to the intent of the B3 district on Page 170 does not
incorporate the recommendations of the already adopted Downtown Improvement Plan. It also
proposes to relocate the crucial reference to the “core area” which significantly impacts use,
height and landscaping requirements to a mere footnote.
Solution 1: 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
(as emphasized in the Downtown Improvement Plan) as well as the “core area” distinction
which significantly impacts use, height, and landscaping requirements.
2) Special Use Permits (Page 181) – 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 are pleased
to see that our recommendation to change the ‘C’ to ‘S’ for “Sale of Alcohol for On-Premise
Consumption” for B3 in the allowable use chart was made in the revised draft.
3) Zone Edge Transitions
Problem 3: Page 210 establishes zone edge transitions and conflicts with the existing language
in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) Guidelines. 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 221). If the guidelines rule over the zoning (which seems
atypical), then there is no need for a determination by the reviewing authority. Furthermore,
the new transition standards in the UDC draft are overly restrictive and essentially require
either: 1) the portion of a building next to an R2 zone to be only two stories (with building
height increases stepped back); or 2) suburban setbacks to allow for 3 or more stories.
Solution 3: 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
Problem 4A: 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 utility
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. Furthermore, rowhomes that are not on individual lots
have more options for utility placement which is not reflected in the language.
Solution 4A: Allow for more urban standards in addressing spacing of utilities and the size of
easements.
Problem 4B: Page 209 - Another concern for townhomes and rowhomes is Footnote 15 which
requires garage entrances to be 20 feet from a rear 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 or rear property line. Again, large setbacks like 20 feet
have no place in the downtown regulations and even if the current language covers this issue,
circular references are confusing to a user.
Solution 4B: Eliminate footnote 15 from B3 District on Page 207.
Problem 4C: Pages 267-272 - We are very concerned with the specific Design Guidelines for
townhomes and rowhomes in Article 3 (as well as Article 5). While the majority of downtown is
served by alleys, more flexibility for town/rowhomes is needed across the board. The standards
also do not allow much room for creativity and diversity in terms of building design. 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. This
could result in conflicting standards and confusion for the public.
Solution 4C: The treatment of townhomes and rowhomes needs to be looked at more
comprehensively. At a minimum, sections should be better coordinated to avoid overlap and
conflict, and there should be more flexibility in the design standards.
5) Parkland Dedication for B3
Problem 5: While we are supportive of the procedural streamlining of cash-in-lieu of parkland
for projects in the B3 District (Page 29), 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).
Solution 5: This language should be reflected in Section 38.420 which begins on Page 329.
6) Special Privacy Setbacks
Problem 6: Page 380 - 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. Again, departures are too
unpredictable and open to interpretation at the staff level.
Solution 6: Eliminate this section.
7) Building Design – Article 5
Problem 7A: We are concerned with the feedback we’ve received from local architects and
designers 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 414 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. Departures are not a solution for all the flaws of this section.
Those investing in Downtown want predictability. The current draft essentially set up the
Planning Staff to have to evaluate architectural merit and intent. This may dissuade many
property owners from wanting to risk the time and money to do something better through the
departure route.
Solution 7A: Article 5 should be carefully edited to allow for more diverse design minimizing the
need for departures.
Problem 7B: Another specific section that caught our attention is the requirement for building
transparency. When we look at building corner patterns downtown and the businesses that
occupy these spaces, it becomes evident that there is a functional need for less transparency on
secondary frontages (even for those buildings 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 needing to request 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 363).
Solution 7B: Allow a smaller transparency percentage (by right rather than by departure) for
‘secondary frontages.’
8) Commercial Open Space
Problem 8: Page 391 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 an
exemption for B3.
Solution 8: Clarify if restaurant outdoor seating can count toward the commercial open space
requirements. If no, allow an exemption for B3.
9) Parking Reductions
Problem 9A: Page 431 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 section is unclear in how
it impacts mixed use buildings.
Solution 9A: This language should be clarified to also include the nonresidential portion of
mixed use buildings.
10) Off-Site Parking
Problem 10: Page 436 – Currently, off-site parking spaces for residential development are
required to be no more than 100 feet from “any commonly used entrance.”
Solution 10: This distance should be increased to at least 300 feet.
While we have called out the most pressing problems for the downtown area, we want to reinforce that
there are other inconsistences and issues that should be addressed prior to the adoption of the final
draft.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Chris Naumann
Executive Director
Downtown Bozeman Partnership
CC: Susan Riggs, AICP, GroundPrint, LLC
Downtown Business Improvement District Board
Downtown Urban Renewal District Board