Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-25-23 Public Comment - T. Minge - UDC_Zoning-Updated massing illustration & commentsFrom:Tammy Minge To:Agenda Subject:[EXTERNAL]UDC_Zoning-Updated massing illustration & comments Date:Friday, September 22, 2023 4:19:27 PM Attachments:UDC_Zoning update-Updated Illustration and comments.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 find the attached updated massing illustration and comments. Thanks! Tammy -- Tammy Minge Licensed Architect/Master Certified Green ProfessionalFrog Rock Design, LLP P.O. Box 6216Bozeman, MT 59771 406.581.0527 A±S g-a?i`i vi c'= iTch &&&LotL-'N& Egg39 a0 6SU\ JS 6 17`45`I 6'2wrfu LA<¢.-u-g€8%,-tJ0- 1! '1, I [i!!,,jfdrgIll ?!i!7i;i0 1 u I,/,S' A,5, 1,5' I"*np`Y. M.y. r^aa4.I-11- EE EH. I,, _-aJJ , !i¥Ig8, E3± EE EBffi __ -- ,ztJ 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 19, 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 updated illustration showing the allowed new massing/scale resulting from combining R-1-R-3. Comments on Massing & Scale: 1. The result is the same as before, Huge. The allowed building volume with 10,000 sq. ft and 3 stories per the proposed new UDC is massive and out of scale with typical R-1, R-2 and even most R-3 neighborhood blocks. Think the Story Mansion but taller on the lot next to you. Story Mansion is 56’ wide by 35-38’ tall in its primary building massing. Even the current allowed 40’ height in R-1 & R-2 combined with 10,000 sq. foot apartments can produce buildings as large as the Story Mansion. 2. The consultant used isometric drawing viewed from the top rather than a streetscape. 3-d modeling can be deceptive in regards to human scale. What is currently being shown by the consultant diagrams is misleading to that actual potential impact of scale and mass in existing and future neighborhoods. I used to tell my student at MSU that are just learning to play around with 3-d computer modeling, “these models can be very deceptive in showing real human scale and street level building massing, don’t be fooled.” Architects historically use physically built models to tell the real and full story, ground level streetscape drawings like the attached do a better job than an isometric shown from above. Why isn’t anyone else providing these with real examples from actual Bozeman neighborhoods to show the actual impact in all the zoning districts? 3. The context buildings the consultants used to show the potential relationships of the infill are also larger scale buildings with the 25’ wall plate, which is also misleading. Most single-family residences in our community are closer to 25’ tall total including the roof. There are many exceptions that are 3-stories (and around 32’ tall) and many that are much lower, but there are not many examples in our R1 & R-2 zoning districts that are as massive/tall as the “comparative” examples being used by the consultants in their isometric drawings. Comment on Vertical Massing- “Wall Plate” and “Stories” for defining height and scale of buildings in the RA Zoning: 1. “Wall Plate & Stories” are confusing & do not help with a more user-friendly code: I had difficulty and some members of the Community Development Board at the most recent meeting FROG ROCK D e s i g n, PLLC P.O. Box 6216 , BOZEMAN, MT 59771 * Tel: (406) 581 0527 * minge@frogrockdesign.com had difficulty in understanding how the “Wall Plate” and “Stories” work together with the roof and overall allowed building height. Professionals working with larger scale projects are probably used to these, but it is not innately intuitive the way it is currently presented. This is not user friendly for the average citizen. 2. It is unclear to me how the “Stories” relate to real methods of construction for single family homes and smaller multi-unit buildings. The most economic and energy efficient way to build is with your stories below the roof with a decent energy heel and a truss rather than stick framing required to incorporate the third story into the roof area. It is unclear to me that if you take this approach if you can only have 2 stories then, with the roof being the third. If you are allowed three stories and then a truss roof system above, then it could get even taller than 50’ by code. 3. Why is a maximum wall plate with x number of stores better than providing maximum heights like the prior UDC at least for the residential zoning districts? I prefer to be given a maximum height and building massing restraints like lot coverage and maximum square footages of living space for specific kinds of uses and then let me figure out how many stories I can get in. Comment on Ground Story Minimum Height for RA: 1. Why require a minimum 9’ Ground Story height? It is common to have side walls that are lower than 8’ when associated with a shed roof. You see this all over the NCOD. It is common to have taller spaces that step down to shorter spaces and use shed roof elements and a variety of sizes of houses, duplex’s rowhouses & etc. 2. A uniform 9’ or greater Ground Story Height may lead to homogenous design (thinking tract houses). 3. Will lower walls than 8’ plate heights still be allowed on the main level if they are secondary features and if not, why? Solution/Recommendation: 1. For the requirement of the zoning code that it provide predictable and reasonable expectations Per 38.200.010 Purpose., I stand with my earlier statement that R-1 & R-2 should not be combined with R-3 at this time due to allowed building massing of multi-units currently allowed in R-3. In the future if/when we have clear enforceable neighborhood standards established to provide a gatekeeper for appropriate mass/scale then combining all three might be appropriate. 2. If it is the city’s goal to go beyond a duplex and ADU in R-1 & R-2 which is all the state requires, update the UDC to expand the usage types but also reduce the massing and scale requirements in RA zoning to better fit with the existing historical and create livability/solar equity for new neighborhoods. This can be done with a lower building heights overall and max. living area allowances for certain usage types like apartment buildings. a. Example 6-unit apartment used by CDB at 616 S Grand is approx. 6264 sq. ft. total area (living and shared use areas), it is 36’x58’ in footprint and 26’ tall. It uses the strategy of starting the first level of apartments 4’ below grade and a flat roof. 3. If sticking with stories & “Wall Plate” for consistency with the other parts of the code, then also have a maximum height requirement for the residential low density and possibly medium density zoning that is much lower than 50’ (5’ Ground Floor Max Elev +15’ Max for 3 stories = 50’). This will provide a more reasonable and predictable mass/scale for these zoning types. Even the currently allowed 40’ combined with the 10,000 building can produce buildings that can be taller in height and larger in scale than the Story Mansion on infill lots. 4. Figure out how to make the height/story rules clearer and more understandable for the average person. 5. Remove minimum Ground Story Height requirements for RA and similar zoning.