Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-11-18 Public Comment - T. Minge - UDC RecommendationsP.O. Box 6216, BOZEMAN, MT 59715 * Tel: (406) 586 0805 * minge@frogrockdesign.com R E S I D E N T I A L A R C H I T E C T U R E October 11, 2018 UDC recommendations: • Table 38.320.030.B. For the ADU column, R-2, R-3 and possibly R-0 should match R-1 & R-3 @ 50/40(with alley) so that higher density zoning can have higher density. • Sec. 38.360.040.A. & 38.540.050. Requirement for “paved” on-site parking spaces for residential zoning. In established neighborhoods with gravel alleys without existing engineered drainage, adding non-pervious surfaces for parking causes water and ice issues for other properties on the alley. Some provision for gravel and other pervious surfaces should be in the code and not a special request. • Sec. 38.360.040.B.3. ADU Height. I am hearing from developers and designers that the 22’ height is too restrictive. It results in only one roof form and is difficult to get the 600 sq. ft. unit that is probably needed to have it pencil out as a project. I recommend increasing the height (maybe 24’?) • Sec. 38.360.040.C.2-ADU Location. This section does not say that an ADUs may be detached in R-1 & R-S. It implies only attached ADU’s for R-1, R-S and is confusing. • 38.540.020. Diagram A. Shows 3’ sidewalk with bumper or 3’ sidewalks with 2’ for overhangs. Section 38.520.040.D contradicts this and says: Pathway design: 1. All internal pathways must have a minimum five-foot wide unobstructed surface, except where wider pathways are prescribed in this division or where the applicable uses and context dictate wider pathways. 2. Where parking is adjacent to perpendicular or angled parking, an extra two feet of walkway width must be provided to mitigate for parked vehicles overhanging the walk way. This is confusing and may cause a 7’ wide sidewalk, basically a patio size area? On the Voss the planning dept. agreed it should be 5’, but it was confusing to myself and Sarah. Make it consistent. • 38.520.040.D Pathway design. The 5’ wide mandatory internal sidewalk is way out of scale for smaller residential/commercial projects like the Voss Inn. We are slated to put 6’ wide ramp (including the stone walls) and then a 5’ wide sidewalk through the center of the yard space. Most sidewalks in the older part of town are not 5’. So why 5’ for internal sidewalks where no city plowing will take place? Why can there be 3’ sidewalks along parking areas, but internal sidewalks are required to be 5’? Thank you for your consideration. Tammy Minge FROG ROCK D e s i g n, LLP P.O. Box 6216, BOZEMAN, MT 59715 * Tel: (406) 586 0805 * minge@frogrockdesign.com