Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-25-23 Public Comment - C. Yeley - Bozeman Development Code DraftFrom:Christopher Yeley To:Agenda; Chris Saunders Subject:[EXTERNAL]Bozeman Development Code Draft Date:Friday, September 22, 2023 3:56:00 PM 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. Good Afternoon, I have started reviewing the draft code and overall I am liking a fair amount however I have afew comments that I see as very restrictive if I understand it correctly and would like to voice serious concerns about its impact. I love the increased density and how it allows us to actuallybuild more units on infill projects. Will there be another input meeting soon? I was not able to attend the last one. 1. Section 38.210.030 and other sections with the frontage build-to requirement.I am specifically referencing R-B for this example as it applies to a project I am working on. The proposed code states that the build-to requirement is located within the maximum andminimum setback. Per the frontage requirement, we have to build out the primary facade for 60% of the lot width within this area. This is restrictive and does not allow for us to practicegood design that responds to the neighborhood conditions and create open space that works with the street. My project specifically located at 824 S. 8th is a prime example of how thiswill shut down a neat concept that is tailored for the specific demographic that borders the campus. The front corner of the lot facing the campus needs to be our amenity space. Thiswill create a connection with Campus, focus on pedestrian activities and community, increase eyes on the recreation space making it safer for all people to be there and soften the corneredge that interacts with campus. With the proposed code. . .we have to build a building there and put the open space somewhere less desirable. We need the freedom to be able to push andpull back building facades to create visual interest, pedestrian friendly and community driven neighborhoods. The proposed code supports developments like the Wilson 16 on Wilsonstreet. Regardless of facade materials it still creates a monotony along the street face that does not fit in our town, especially the NCOD. The truth is density and the economics of mostprojects will drive most projects to meet this requirement anyway so I propose it is not needed. 2. Section 38.210.020 Lot coverage, required density and plate height do not work. Here are the numbers for asingle family: 12 units per acre = 3500sf per lot3500sf x 40%=1416 sf building footprint 1416 - 625sf(2 car garage alley) = 791sf first floor allowable residential spaceYou can only fit 2.5 stories in a 25'-0" wall plate. We can assume a 9'-0" ceiling height and a foot of structure for most new residences so the 3rd floor is limited by overhead space in thetrusses. The lot coverage number doesn't work. My suggestion is to get rid of this requirement. Parking requirements control most project sizes anyway. This requirement justmakes it even tougher to work in the City and will push developers into the county continuing urban sprawl. 3. The density requirements are too high. The maximum lot size for a single family in R-A is3500sf. This is TINY. For R-B that is 2,361 sf of lot space per unit requiring everything to be multi family. It gets even tougher when you add in building coverages. I question the intent of this and it's not feasible. I will be candid. . .it seems like the intent is to push developers togo with a PUD so affordable housing is required. This is really out of my area of expertise. Regardless. . this makes infill prohibitive. 4. Density requirements are only for infill lots over 10,000sf. That's ok however how doesthat work for 10k+SF lots with a historic structure on it? 5. The front entry max spacing is monotonous. It will require us to space out entries per this code and not be dictated by neighborhood constraints and design.I love the character of thistown. Please dont restrict us to the point where we can't be unique. Every door, every house footprint, every garage . . . all the same. This requirement is not needed and promotes staleneighborhoods with no character. Thank You, Chris Yeley, NCARB Principal Architect LOCAL ELEMENT ARCHITECTS 23 APEX DR. STE #100 BOZEMAN, MT 59718 TEL 406.600.0408 https://www.localelementarchitects.com/ ü Please consider the environment before printing this email. Privileged and Confidential Information may be contained in this message or it's attachments. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message,you may not copy, foward or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message, and please notify us immediately. Pleaseadvise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to internet e-mail for messages of this kind.