The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-18-23 Public Comment - T. Minge - CDB meeting-UDC existing & proposed comparison chart & illustrationsFrom:Tammy Minge To:Agenda Subject:[EXTERNAL]CDB meeting-UDC existing & proposed comparison chart & illustrations Date:Monday, September 18, 2023 11:39:52 AM Attachments:Illustration of scale_massing for proposed new UDC-Zoning.pdf PROPOSED RA_CURRENT UDC COMPARISION.pdf UDC_Zoning update-Comparisions & Illustrations of the old vs. new.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please include the attached for the meeting tonight. I have spoken to Padden and Jennifer Madjic and they are expecting these documents. Thank you! Tammy -- Tammy Minge Licensed Architect/Master Certified Green Professional Frog Rock Design, LLP P.O. Box 6216 Bozeman, MT 59771 406.581.0527 ^`-S g-&?i ±` i. vi offch !¢! iLJg 39 + = ur. = IJ>ru0cO xx xx xx|=Bu-.== aJ>W00 xx x xxxxxHXXB ur. I: IJ>uJ0\01 COMPARISION BETWEEN CURRENT UDC/ZONING & PROPOSED FOR R1 - R3 P.O. Box 6216 , BOZEMAN, MT 59771 * Tel: (406) 581 0527 *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 September 18, 2023 To: City Commissioners, Mayor & CDB Members From: Tammy Minge 715 S. Grand Ave. RE: Proposed New UDC/Zoning-Potential scale-massing of proposed changes. See attached current & proposed UDC/Zo ning Comparison sheet & illustrations showing the allowed new massing/scale resulting from these proposed changes. Questions/Comments: 1.Is the change recommended having multi-unit buildings (apartments with up to 8 units & townhouses/rowhouses up to 5 units) in what is currently primarily single-family residences reasonable. Changing the zoning and UDC allowed density from current R-1 to R-3? 2.Is changing the way that maximum heights are calculated going to contribute to larger buildings that are allowed to be built per the UDC, but do not fit contextually and in mass/scale? 3.Is making this change without telling the public what the parking implications are going to be reasonable? I couldn’t find any information the new parking requirements. 4.In speaking with the planners at the city I was told that the COA process would be the gatekeeper in keeping projects reasonable in scale/mass and fitting in the neighborhood within the NCOD and especially historical districts. a.The NCOD are guidelines & not code and therefore not easy to enforce legally. b.The NCOD guidelines are subjective and open to interpretation per the current historical preservation planning officer and board. c.We do not know what the new NCOD guidelines will be as they have not been written yet. This has been a historically thorny area. d.Is this fair to the neighborhoods that are zoned R-1 but not in the NCOD? 5.Per 38.200.010 Purpose (Zoning Districts and Map) C. This provides predictability and reasonable expectation in use of land within a particular zoning designation and sites. a.Does all of the above create predictability and reasonable expectations for property owners that have previously living in R-1 & R-2 zoning? b.It seems understandable that based on the potential size, mass and density of projects that could be built next door based on the proposed changes to the zoning, that people would be concerned about potential noise, loss of privacy, loss of solar for gardens, passive solar & healthy living and unknown parking conflicts. Solution/Recommendation: FROG ROCK D e s i g n, PLLC P.O. Box 6216 , BOZEMAN, MT 59771 * Tel: (406) 581 0527 *minge@frogrockdesign.com 1.Combine R-1 & R-2 which will meet new state requirements. Keep R-3 as separate zoning. Possibly combine R-4 & R-5 (though someone should look at the potential impact on scale/massing similar to the chart/diagrams I have provided). This would provide for more predictable Residential Low Density, Residential Medium Density and Residential High Density. 2.For Building Height Standards in the residential zoning areas go back to using maximum heights per the previous UDC. This worked and was not part of the code that was broken. This will provide appropriate and predictable building massing. If using stories & “Wall Plate” for consistency with the other parts of the code, then have a maximum height for the residential zoning so that the scale is predictable. Otherwise, you will end up with building design submissions that look like the illustration I provided. 3.Do not rely on unwritten/unknown NCOD guidelines at the gatekeeper for intended mass/scale/proportions, put it in the UDC. This is important with the new state rules that changes public comment and noticing to being on the front end. = ur. = IJ>ru0cO xx xx xx|=Bu-.== aJ>W00 xx x xxxxxHXXB ur. I: IJ>uJ0\01 COMPARISION BETWEEN CURRENT UDC/ZONING & PROPOSED FOR R1 - R3 ^`-S g-&?i ±` i. vi offch !¢! iLJg 39 + From:City of Bozeman, MT To:Agenda Subject:[EXTERNAL]*NEW SUBMISSION* Public Comment Form Date:Monday, September 18, 2023 11:35:58 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Public Comment Form Submission #:2707055 IP Address:174.45.71.228 Submission Date:09/18/2023 11:35 Survey Time:3 minutes, 53 seconds You have a new online form submission. Note: all answers displaying "*****" are marked as sensitive and must be viewed after your login. Read-Only Content Full Name Tammy Minge Email minge@frogrockdesign.com Phone (406) 581-0527 Comments Attn: Community Development Board and City Commissioners for tonight's meeting. See attached Comments, UDC current & proposed compassion chart & illustration massing/scale from proposed changes to R1-R3 to RA. If you would like to submit additional documents (.pdf, .doc, .docx, .xls, .xlsx, .gif, .jpg, .png, .rtf, .txt) along with your comment, you may alternately address agenda@bozeman.net directly to ensure receipt of all information. UDC_Zoning update-Comparisions & Illustrations of the old vs. new.pdf Thank you, City Of Bozeman This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email. P.O. Box 6216 , BOZEMAN, MT 59771 * Tel: (406) 581 0527 *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 September 18, 2023 To: City Commissioners, Mayor & CDB Members From: Tammy Minge 715 S. Grand Ave. RE: Proposed New UDC/Zoning-Potential scale-massing of proposed changes. See attached current & proposed UDC/Zo ning Comparison sheet & illustrations showing the allowed new massing/scale resulting from these proposed changes. Questions/Comments: 1.Is the change recommended having multi-unit buildings (apartments with up to 8 units & townhouses/rowhouses up to 5 units) in what is currently primarily single-family residences reasonable. Changing the zoning and UDC allowed density from current R-1 to R-3? 2.Is changing the way that maximum heights are calculated going to contribute to larger buildings that are allowed to be built per the UDC, but do not fit contextually and in mass/scale? 3.Is making this change without telling the public what the parking implications are going to be reasonable? I couldn’t find any information the new parking requirements. 4.In speaking with the planners at the city I was told that the COA process would be the gatekeeper in keeping projects reasonable in scale/mass and fitting in the neighborhood within the NCOD and especially historical districts. a.The NCOD are guidelines & not code and therefore not easy to enforce legally. b.The NCOD guidelines are subjective and open to interpretation per the current historical preservation planning officer and board. c.We do not know what the new NCOD guidelines will be as they have not been written yet. This has been a historically thorny area. d.Is this fair to the neighborhoods that are zoned R-1 but not in the NCOD? 5.Per 38.200.010 Purpose (Zoning Districts and Map) C. This provides predictability and reasonable expectation in use of land within a particular zoning designation and sites. a.Does all of the above create predictability and reasonable expectations for property owners that have previously living in R-1 & R-2 zoning? b.It seems understandable that based on the potential size, mass and density of projects that could be built next door based on the proposed changes to the zoning, that people would be concerned about potential noise, loss of privacy, loss of solar for gardens, passive solar & healthy living and unknown parking conflicts. Solution/Recommendation: FROG ROCK D e s i g n, PLLC P.O. Box 6216 , BOZEMAN, MT 59771 * Tel: (406) 581 0527 *minge@frogrockdesign.com 1.Combine R-1 & R-2 which will meet new state requirements. Keep R-3 as separate zoning. Possibly combine R-4 & R-5 (though someone should look at the potential impact on scale/massing similar to the chart/diagrams I have provided). This would provide for more predictable Residential Low Density, Residential Medium Density and Residential High Density. 2.For Building Height Standards in the residential zoning areas go back to using maximum heights per the previous UDC. This worked and was not part of the code that was broken. This will provide appropriate and predictable building massing. If using stories & “Wall Plate” for consistency with the other parts of the code, then have a maximum height for the residential zoning so that the scale is predictable. Otherwise, you will end up with building design submissions that look like the illustration I provided. 3.Do not rely on unwritten/unknown NCOD guidelines at the gatekeeper for intended mass/scale/proportions, put it in the UDC. This is important with the new state rules that changes public comment and noticing to being on the front end. = ur. = IJ>ru0cO xx xx xx|=Bu-.== aJ>W00 xx x xxxxxHXXB ur. I: IJ>uJ0\01 COMPARISION BETWEEN CURRENT UDC/ZONING & PROPOSED FOR R1 - R3 ^`-S g-&?i ±` i. vi offch !¢! iLJg 39 +