HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-17 City Commission Packet Materials - A3. Continued UDC Public Hearing
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Tom Rogers, Senior Planner Martin Matsen, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Unified Development Code (UDC) Update Public Hearing
MEETING DATE: September 11, 2017
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDED MOTION: N/A.
RECOMMENDATION: Begin review of Article 1 – 3 of the draft revised Chapter 38 Unified Development Code.
On August 24, 2017 the City Commission began consideration of the Unified Development Code (UDC) update, dated July 28, 2017. A motion to approve was made and seconded. A motion to table discussion was made and seconded. The Commission voted 2:2 on the motion to table. The excused Commissioner will consider and vote on the motion to table discussion on the revised
development on Thursday, August 7, 2017.
Due to the complexity and volume of material to review, only portions of the draft will be considered at each subsequent meeting. The development code is divided into seven (7) Articles of varying length. The majority of the proposed changes are in Article 3 and 5. Staff respectfully
suggest consideration of Articles 1 through 3 at the September 11, 2017 hearing.
LINK TO ORIGINAL AUGUST 24, 2017 CITY COMMISSION MEETING MATERIALS (STAFF REPORT)
Additional Information and Background On Thursday, August 17, 2017 the Planning Department hosted two public forums to discuss proposed “zone edge transitions” and building design requirements. Two Commissioners attended the zone edge transition forum and one Commissioner attended the design forum. Meeting summaries of both meetings and attendance sheets are attached to this memo. Please note
that not all in attendance signed in.
In addition, staff categorized public comment of all comments reviewed to date base on the full complete draft of the proposed development code published May 8, 2017. The comments are listed in order in which they were received.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Described in the UDC Update staff report.
415
ALTERNATIVES: As determined by the City Commission
FISCAL EFFECTS: None identified.
Report compiled on: August 31, 2017 Attachments: Zone edge transitions meeting summary and attendance sheet Building design meeting summary and attendance sheet
List of public comments and categorization table summary
416
Meeting Minutes
August 17, 2017
Zoning Transition Meeting
Community Engagement
City Commission Room
121 N Rouse Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715
9:00-10:00 am
Approximate attendance: 18 people
Engagement Exercise:
What is your definition of an Urban area?
Variety – mixed use (8), Density (5), Population/community gathering (5),
Walkable/accessible (3), Activity (2), Vibrant (2), Height, Strategically planned, Busy,
Efficient, Polluted, Transportation, Amenities
The place everyone is moving here to get away from
How do you define a neighborhood?
Community (6), Character (historic preservation, culture) (5), Safe (4),
Walkable/accessible (3), Mixed use/income (3), Amenities/parks (3), Open views (2),
Familiar, Clean, and Subsection of urban environment
How do you see buildings today as assets for the future?
Integrate new buildings (6), Maintain heritage/culture (site context) (3), Appropriate
density increase and gradients (2), Pedestrian-oriented design (2), Alternative parking
solutions (2), Architectural diversity, Mixed use, Height variety, Sustainability (quality
material, durability), and Citizen input
Concerns:
• Protect block character (5)
o Downtown treated as neighborhood
o Solution: More residential and Connect with adjoining districts with streetscape,
bike access and green space
• Parking (4)
• Congestion/overfill (2)
• Transition zones (Height, Separation, Density)
• Future safety
• Transportation
• Citizen input from all stakeholders
• Amenities/infrastructure
417
• Privacy/views
• Pollution
Questions:
1. What happened to block character? (2)
2. Public notices for general public? (layperson terms) (2)
3. Why not allow three stories (flat roof) on both side of transition edge? (shown
on handout or 10’ setback)
4. Parking and use separated in UDC?
5. Can block character trump zone edge transition rules?
6. Is downtown livable without amenities? (grocery/pharmacy?)
Proposed Solutions:
• Public outreach/education regarding comprehensive “why” care
• Comprehensive plan not just block
• Adopt zone “boundary”
• Objectively look at other cities as examples
418
Figure 1 Engagement exercise; feedback from initial three questions
419
Figure 2 Engagement exercise; feedback regarding concerns
420
421
Meeting Minutes
August 17, 2017
Design Professionals Review & Refine Meeting
Building Design and Materials Code Workshop
City Commission Room
121 N Rouse Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715
12:00-2:00 pm
Engagement Exercise:
Do you currently use the Design Standards as a tool to influence your clients towards
better design?
• No (11)
• Yes (4)
• Depends/sometimes (4)
How do you define an urban environment? What are urban characteristics?
- Density (population) (13)
- Diversity (6)
o Size, design (2)
o Individuality (2)
o Mixed use (2)
o Character
- Active (3)
o Human activity/people (3)
o Walkable
o Community center
- Street volume/circulation (2)
- Public transportation (and reduction of cars) (2)
- Connectivity
o Pedestrian access (to amenities) (2)
o Structures within proximity of services and recreation
- Hard to park
- Infrastructure systems
422
- Building frontage/street layout
o Grid design of streets
o Scale
- Vibrant
- Flexible (needs of people)
- Built components dominate a sense of place above the underlying nature
- See notes for one further comment (bottom, middle of picture)
How can the buildings we design today be assets for tomorrow? What are their
characteristics?
- Flexibility (5)
o Flexible development fabric
o Shapes
- Original/creative innovation (5)
o Don’t require copying the past
- Quality/durability of materials (5)
- Functionally adaptable (3)
- Reflect current time (3)
o Buildings are moments in time
o Buildings should speak to the time in which they were designed
o Place the “date” of design
- Timeless design (2)
o Longevity
- Code is not the tool to ensure we’re designing good buildings for tomorrow (2)
o Do not design them based on a prescriptive formula
- Buildability
- Building’s value is determined through the view of the user
- Allow for greatness
- Forward thinking
- Proportion
- Arrangement
- Accesses (universal or multiple)
- Permanence
- Lifecycle sustainability
423
- Contextually appropriate
- Multiple uses
- Support existing built environment
- In cluster with existing use
- Create design that will be sustainable for the immediate community as well as
the bigger picture
Concerns:
• Policy and Procedure
o Design Review Board (DRB) vs. Departure Determination Process
o Departures (Flexibility and project cost)
o “Leaning heavily on a process of “departures” creates too great a level of
uncertainty in terms of time frames of approval.”
o
• Citizen Architect
o Design Review Board (DRB) Involvement
o How to be better engaged as a Design Professional
o Address conflict of interests
• Material Limitations
o Specific requirements for building materials may conflict with changes in
technology in the marketplace in short order
• Design is being Restricted
o Character is lost
o Form is too prescribed
o Aesthetics and style should not be regulated
o Zoning (smaller lot sizes suggested)
o Unified Development Code (UDC) does not lead to good design
o With more restrictions applied, does that increase the liability?
o “Good Design cannot be legislated.”
o Why is the city involved in design guidelines? Can the city’s focus be life,
welfare, safety and not design?
o My concern are that there may be a pattern recipe that is dictated to define
the design direction the current City Staff and Commission think is great.
o Individual projects need to be based on its own merit, site context, character
and contribution to the built environment.
Questions:
1. Is it valid to dictate form and articulation for every new building?
2. How will departure flexibility change? What is the adoption process?
424
3. Why is there no more support for a diversity of character within design?
Proposed Solutions:
• Departure Option
• Allow the Design Review Board (DRB) more authority and flexibility in reviewing
certain projects.
• Allow more local Professional Input/Review authority
• Allow the design intent to guide the building design rather than prescriptive code.
• Require licensed Architects to plan and design in Bozeman
425
Figure 1: Engagement exercise; feedback from initial three questions
426
Figure 2: Engagement exercise; feedback regarding concerns
427
428
429
Date Name File Name SizeLocationOtherConfigurationWidthOtherArticulationMaterialsCreative FreedomBlank WallOtherHeightMassScaleOtherNeighborhoodStreetOtherProcessPlan Review CriteriaUseTransitionHistoric PropertyAffordable housingUncategorized5/9/2017 K. Bryan UDC update X X
5/17/2017 J. Wilkinson UDC update X
5/24/2017 A. Kesselheim UDC update X X
5/25/2017 R. Canfield Duplicate information X
5/30/2017 R. Canfield UDC update X
6/3/2017 H. Happel Random small comments X X
6/5/2017 A. Jadin UDC pet peeves X X
6/12/2017 H. Foch UDC update X
6/14/2017 S. Stewart UDC update X X X X X X X X X
6/20/2017 R. Pertzborn Daylight Plane X X
6/20/2017 BPAG UDC X X X X X X
6/30/2017 L. Stewart UDC update X
6/30/2017 Design Professionals UDC update X
7/3/2017 S. Hedglin UDC update X X X
7/7/2017 H. Foch UDC update X X X X X X X
7/10/2017 Downtown Partnership UDC update X X X X X X X
7/11/2017 B. Clem Brick requirement X
7/12/2017 K. Thane Affordable housing X
7/12/2017 B. Maxwell Affordable housing X
7/17/2017 HRDC Affordable housing X X X
7/17/2017 R. Canfield AUD X X X X
7/23/2017 BPAG UDC update X X X X
7/24/2017 Save Bozeman UDC update X X
8/8/2017 H. Schmidt ADU X X X X
8/10/2017 HPAB UDC update X X X X X
8/14/2017 Downtown Partnership UDC update X X X X X X X X
8/14/2017 HRDC UDC update X X
8/15/2017 G. Thompson Acustic considerations X X
Building Design OtherADULot Size Building Mass/scale Community
Character
430
Date Name File Name SizeLocationOtherConfigurationWidthOtherArticulationMaterialsCreative FreedomBlank WallOtherHeightMassScaleOtherNeighborhoodStreetOtherProcessPlan Review CriteriaUseTransitionHistoric PropertyAffordable housingUncategorizedBuilding Design OtherADULot Size Building Mass/scale Community
Character
8/16/2017 Mental Health America UDC update X X
8/16/2017 R. Canfield UDC update X X
8/16/2017 R. Canfield UDC update X X
8/19/2017 Montana AIA UDC design standards X X X X X X X X X
8/22/2017 R. Pertzborn Cottages X X
8/22/2017 R. Pertzborn Lot width X X
8/23/2017 A. Kociolek UDC update X X
8/24/2017 T. Wells ADU X X X
8/24/2017 D. Zinn ADU X X X
8/24/2017 B. Caldwell Chaper 5 X X X X X
6/28617 C. Robertson UDC update X
431
Planning list of UDC comment May 8, 2017 – August 28, 2017
432