The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-22-18 City Commission Packet Materials - A1. UDC Edits Discussion and Zone Text Amendment Initiation - SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS, PUBLIC COMMENT Chris Saunders From: Brian Krueger Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 2:55 PM To: Tom Rogers; Chris Saunders Cc: Martin Matsen Subject: FW: Building height limit question Attachments: Four Points Example.pdf, Four Points Example 2.pdf, Uniform Fascia Example.pdf More examples and explanation and proposed solutions. Brian Krueger I Development Review Manager,Community Development City of Bozeman 120 East Olive St.I P.O.Box 1230 1 Bozeman,MT 59771 406.582.2259 1 bkrueger@bozeman.net I www.bozeman.net From: Dean Burgess<dburgess@studiohdesigninc.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 17, 2018 2:47 PM To: Brian Krueger<BKrueger@BOZEMAN.NET> Subject: RE: Building height limit question Brian, Regarding specific changes to the height table,a height bonus would be best tied to design quality in some manner. Extra height is a good tool for breaking up forms and volumes, especially in modern designs, but it would need to avoid designers taking advantage of low-hanging fruit and just raising the whole eave line without much thought,that could lead to tall blank walls that are out of scale on a three story building. A few ideas would be: I. Tie a height bonus of 3'-5' to Sections 38.530.040.0 &38.530.040.F, making vertical articulation mandatory in order to trigger the bonus. The standard height limit could be left in place if a designer chose to not use vertical articulation as a design strategy for more traditional buildings. 2. Tie a height bonus to providing nominal 9' ceilings. This could be further broken down by floor, i.e. if(2)stories were 8' &(1)was 9',the bonus would be 1.5'. (1)story @ 8' +(2)stories @ 9' =3' bonus. (3) stories @ 9' = 4.5' bonus. The issue with this approach is that extra height is still useful with 8' plates,see attached examples. Ideally height limits would go up by 2'-3' overall for 8' plates and 4'-5' for 9' plates. 3. Tie it to design excellence?We prefer hard rules that can be relied on as a great amount of time goes into schematic design. By the time a project gets to DRC review making changes to roof lines and plate heights takes exponentially more time as we are into CD production,detailing fire walls, draftstopping, structural,etc. The new UDC is great with photos of examples,perhaps take a similar approach to illustrate when a height bonus would be allowed. There is an argument to be made for a review of design quality, but architectural review boards can be unpredictable and feedback varies widely from group to group. 4. Consider treating slopes from 1:12 to 3:12 differently than flat roofs. Perhaps just include that range of slopes in the<6:12 group. The example sent yesterday shows how the current code essentially bars the use of low slope shed roofs when using 9' plates. 1:12 sheds are a very useful and attractive modern design element. 5. The ability to use 10' plates on higher end projects would be great too. An entirely different approach might be to change the definition of Building Height to be determined for the entire building by the tallest allowable roof on the project instead of holding each individual roof to its own limitations. This would be Case#1 from the sketch sent yesterday. Holding secondary roofs below the control point of the tallest/steepest roof will lend itself well to proportioned and balanced design. It would also allow for 1:12 shed roofs,which work well as a horizontal anchoring elements when relating to taller gables. If this comes up for discussion we'd be happy to sit in,we could provide more concrete examples—we might even be able to pull off a live demonstration of the effects of different height limits in 31). We have a number of large multifamily i projects on the boards, if this were to be addressed it would lead to an increase in design quality that would roll out over the next few years. Appreciate you taking the time to consider this. Dean Burgess AIA I NCARB I CDT I LEED AP Studio H Design Inc. 81211 Gallatin Road, Suite E Bozeman, MT 59718 Office: 406-587-9968 Cell: 406-570-3235 SCua iO H DesIGN From: Brian Krueger [mailto:BKrueger@BOZEMAN.NET] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 8:57 AM To: 'Dean Burgess' Subject: RE: Building height limit question What would you propose in order to accommodate the design.What changes specifically to the table would assist this design? Brian Krueger I Development Review Manager,Community Development City of Bozeman 120 East Olive St.I P.O.Box 1230 1 Bozeman, MT 59771 406.582.22591 bkrueger@bozeman.net I www.bozeman.net From: Dean Burgess<dburgess@studiohdesigninc.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:35 PM To: Brian Krueger<BKrueger@BOZEMAN.NET> Subject: RE: Building height limit question Thanks Brian,the definition is pretty clear. Is there a section that refers to architectural features such as the dormers you mention? If you'll bear with me,check out the attached study of the building height limits.Note that using 9' studs essentially locks a flat roof right at the max height of 34'. It doesn't accommodate a standard parapet height,we can deal with that by reducing the parapet height,which creates waterproofing and drainage headaches,but those can be dealt with. The bigger issue is that any roof slopes between flat and<3:12 are not allowed,they immediately climb above the height limit. The restricted module width of the gables also pushes us towards having a uniform fascia height wrapping around the building rather than vertical articulation. Changing to a ceiling height of 8' opens up a little wiggle room but vertical breaks of less than 3' are fairly inconspicuous on buildings of this scale. We'd also like to avoid the hit to the quality of the units that comes with lower ceilings. We'd like to use 1:12 or 2:12 shed roofs and break our rooflines with vertical shifts. Is there ever room for an exception or variance based on design merit or the intent of Section 38.530.030? 2 Dean Burgess AIA I NCARB I CDT I LEED AP Studio H Design Inc. 81211 Gallatin Road, Suite E Bozeman, MT 59718 Office: 406-587-9968 Cell: 406-570-3235 SL� UCIIC H DesIGN From: Brian Krueger [mailto:BKruecier@BOZEMAN.NET] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 2:48 PM To: 'Dean Burgess' Subject: RE: Building height limit question Dean, This definition of building height provides your answer.Where it gets slightly less clear is on what constitutes a dormer or other architectural feature that includes a roof that is not a primary roof form. From your exhibit I would say that they are both primary roof forms and that the lower pitched roof would have to meet the height standard. https://Iibrary.municode.com/mt/bozeman/codes/`code of ordinances?nodeld=PTIICOOR CH38UNDECO ART7DE DIV 38.700TEIN S38.700.030BDE Brian Krueger I Development Review Manager,Community Development City of Bozeman 120 East Olive St.I P.O.Box 1230 1 Bozeman, MT 59771 406.582.22591 bkrueger@bozeman,net l www.bozeman.net From: Dean Burgess<dburgess@studiohdesigninc.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 16, 2018 2:17 PM To: Brian Krueger<BKrueger@BOZEMAN.NET> Subject: Building height limit question Hi Brian, We are working on schematic design for an apartment complex and have a question regarding building height limits per Table 38.320.030.C. Please refer to the attached sketch. If there is clarification regarding this in the UDC please point me to the appropriate section. We are finding that if the tallest roof sets the overall building height limit(Case#1 on attached sketch), it allows for much more vertical articulation of building forms to satisfy the intent of Sections 38.530.040.0 &38.530.040.F.We realize vertical articulation is not the only option available for residential fagade articulation, but it's one of our favorite moves to help define forms and create balanced proportions. I'd be happy to show some case studies. Would it be possible to get a formal ruling or clarification on this so we can rely on it for future designs?If you are not the best point of contact for this please forward to the appropriate person. 3 Thanks, Dean Burgess AIA I NCARB I CDT I LEED AP Studio H Design Inc. 81211 Gallatin Road, Suite E Bozeman,MT 59718 Office: 406-587-9968 Cell: 406-570-3235 SCua io H DesIGN City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana's Constitution (Art. II, Sect. 9) and may be considered a "public record" pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated.As such,this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City's record retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law. City of Bozeman emails are subject to the Right to Know provisions of Montana's Constitution (Art. II,Sect. 9) and may be considered a "public record" pursuant to Title 2, Chpt. 6, Montana Code Annotated. As such,this email, its sender and receiver, and the contents may be available for public disclosure and will be retained pursuant to the City's record retention policies. Emails that contain confidential information such as information related to individual privacy may be protected from disclosure under law. 4 o O p p U C N a N N 2.L-. N O L c U•.N- �L —__.- t0 N U Z d 16 N amEBE � wSop'� _ - --- "ao Ev E-,o ao N d c N IDl d L l0. NY'O o - 3. ... .. m N Vl E O 16 -•... .. ....... C -p O 90 e...m E o E a � E o oa mo o D N U N yo E'm Noa L p d d u E L v a o o N L 3�°v�� E3drn V N I dvE'wviaoL� SmEma�.g, . xi E«o C N l0 N D b~ (! N N V o C / O O•- 1 o v L- E rn N N oo N o N N U � N 'd L o L p)C O o i L O O O CL 01 O~'g C Ol N N �• mad � Ev3mvm3 !1 , .: I l , 24 o 3 o 0 o Y` N O 1 Oo 3 O m�. ai E la C a N O E N U .. 3= mm O t—uoi This form could have also used some extra height -`-_ to better articulate the gable from the Sal roof.A full S may not be needed here,but it could have �. used another 18"or so.Just to get this much articulation the parapet on the flat roof is reduced i ( to the bare minimum where detailing the tapered foam drainage system became difficult.In this specific case,we'd ideally add T to the parapet and 2'or 2.6 to the gable heel height. Would have also preferred a steeper slope on the gable. Al t I� r 1 _ Ali i i oil. t� t t =- a fill 1, i 4 f i i t R [ N m O N C N M.V N W O m J .E 2 o«a 0Niw«o 4[ a°m rJmE EJ O O D C WiE E>.c amt> U O N B.V C - L 3 0 N O a N0N fir- a�m Ol Ct .mac � m.cm EHo=Ew o m. «ra a� �E � `mL ENmm9> N m p'-C L j C.0 m U 10 N V C U N O N O p.-� p C U m E m L o nL p v tL- 0m3zm`Nwm .o' �. � FRoc ROCK D e s i g n, LLP RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE 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. 38.360.040.13.3.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 P.O. Box 6216, BOZEMAN, MT 59715 * Tel: (406) 586 0805 * minge@frogrockdesign.com P.O. Box 6216, BOZEMAN,MT 59715 * Tel: (406) 586 0805 minge@frogrockdesign.com