HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-15-17 Public Comment - H. Foch - UDC Update, Building Design Requirements wAftopsupA
-/S-(^7
Wednesday, November 15, 2017
UCD Update Comments
To the Mayor and City Commissioners:
My comments are regarding the proposed building design requirements of Article 5.30.
When I initially read the proposed building design regulations I was surprised at their breadth and
depth and how constraining they are. To be honest I felt like I was reading a set of restrictive
covenants for an exclusive neighborhood. It didn't feel like something that reflects the values of
our community. I know that many of my colleagues in the Design Community feel the same way.
I think it is important that we continually refer to our Community Plan for guidance as we move
through this process. Many of the goals stated in Community Plan are focused on improving the
quality of our city and creating a more pedestrian oriented built environment. The first portion of
Article 5 seems to capture the spirit of these goals- regulating placement of buildings, parking
lots, and other aspects of the urban environment.
The portion of Article 5 regulating building design seems a departure from the spirit of the
community plan in that it is unduly restrictive and does not allow for evaluation of buildings based
on the merit of their design-their individuality, intended use, and response to context. It feels
like it is intended more for regulation of strip mall development than something that would be
appropriate to apply to every building in a city.
You will hear staff talk a lot about the idea of predictability v.s.flexibility acknowledging that these
regulations would ensure predictability both for building designers and for those evaluating
proposed designs.
The problem is that the predictability inherent in these regulations ensures predictability but
cannot ensure that Bozeman will retain the feeling of'Bozeman". It attempts to create a method
to evaluate buildings based on a lengthy check list of features rather than on the merit of the
buildings design.
It does not follow the guidance of Community Plan Goal C-4 which requires building regulations to
'emphasize creativity,diversity, and individuality and to be based on the premise that truly
creative design is responsive to its context... "
Unfortunately this broad reaching net that is proposed to blanket the entire town will result in a
by-catch of potentially great buildings that will not be approvable. It does not contain a
mechanism for buildings to be evaluated based on the quality and merit of the design.
The design community has proposed substantial revisions to the proposed regulations- not simply
because we want design flexibility- but because we are sincerely concerned with the impacts on
our community.
-predictability can result in monotony
-requiring undue complexity and applied decorative treatments adds unnecessary cost and
can distract from a thoughtful design process
-there must be a process for approving buildings based on the merit of the design aside
from prescribed articulation, materials, and detailing.
I hope that your discussion will draw out the real implications of these regulations on our city, on
its uniquely creative character, and on the expense of building buildings.
It is critical that we not loose site of the true vision for the future of our city that is memorialized
in our community plan.
This is a pivotal moment in the history of our city. We appreciate your consideration of the
perspective presented.
Henri Foch Ar hitect
C_
I trinsik Architecture, Inc.