Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-25 Public Comment - J. Talarico - Response to Request for Action_ UDC ProjectFrom:Jimmy Talarico To:Bozeman Public Comment; Chris Saunders; David Fine Cc:Randy Rhoads Subject:[EXTERNAL]Response to Request for Action: UDC Project Date:Friday, August 1, 2025 1:27:38 PM Attachments:Logo_CushingTerrell_Sig_76911fc1-ef63-4059-a9af-ef128096190d.pngPhone_icon_teal_12dce9bc-51fb-40f6-a25e-04d8e9f65b54.pngWebsite_icon_teal_db91847e-49f2-461d-8333-9abf44fcba0b.pngct-emailsignature-awards2025_751309f2-d44d-4062-b0f9-81e3827de2d2.pngBozeman UDC CT review 250801.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. Hello Chris and David, Attached is a response to your request for feedback on the questions in the “Design Community Questions List 7-24-2025.pdf”. Please let us know if you have any further questions. Otherwise, glad we could provide our perspective. Thanks, and have a great weekend! Jimmy Jimmy Talarico Regional Director of Business Development | Associate 406.922.7125 cushingterrell.com #DesignMeetsYou cushingterrell.com August 1, 2025 RE: Response to Request for Action: Unified Development Code Project Mass and Scale Tools: Building Height – The Commission directed that the draft be revised to rely on height as measured in feet rather than stories. No direction was given to make specific changes in the heights of individual districts. Q. Based on your experience are the heights allowed in the zoning districts of the Current Code workable, or could better design and more functional outcomes be achieved with modest adjustments in some districts? If so, how and what? The minimum 15’ floor to floor heights in the commercial districts seem unnecessary. If you walk through the parking garages for some of the mixed-use residential downtown, the excessive volume in those spaces is unfortunate. It’s not quite tall enough to justify creating mezzanine space (and it doesn’t make sense to make that space taller just for that purpose) and the added height with no added value increases costs in structure and wall finishes that could be put to better use. In commercial/retail spaces, the Structural & MEP systems usually dictate the size of the floor/ceiling spaces, which dictates the overall floor to floor heights. When we do other project types like higher education or healthcare (or commercial and retail in other parts of the country), we create the appropriate scale buildings based on the integration of these systems and understanding of comfortable human scale. Why is there concern that it would be different in these commercial districts in Bozeman? It’s an unnecessary restriction that wastes resources. I believe the intention for this part of the code was to make adaptive reuse easier, though adaptive reuse has been a viable strategy in the construction industry for as long as there has been construction. When we assess buildings for adaptive reuse, our main concern is the quality of the structure and building envelope. Rarely is it the volume of the space. Typically, if the structure and building envelope are in good shape, the space can be modified to accommodate the new use. If the space is ideal, but the structure and envelope are in disrepair, we will most likely not move forward with adaptive reuse. For all zoning districts that include residential, a general rule of thumb would be to assume 12’ floor to floor heights. So whatever story limits you want to impose on a zoning district should be based on that. If you are using ‘wall plate’ heights, then you would have to subtract the top floor ceiling structure, so in that case I would use 12’ for all floors except for the top floor, and I would use 9’ for the top floor. I would also add 1’ for first floor framing. So here’s how height limits would relate to stories and ‘wall plate’ heights: •2 stories = 1’ + 12’ + 9’ = 22’ wall plate •3 stories = 1’ + 12’ + 12’ + 9’ = 34’ wall plate •4 stories = 1’ + 12’ +12’ + 12’ + 9’ = 46’ wall plate •5 stories = 1’ + 12’ + 12’ +12’ + 12’ + 9’ = 58’ wall plate 2 cushingterrell.com For commercial zoning districts, a general rule of thumb would be to assume 15’ floor to floor (but NOT require it as a minimum) and 10’-12’ for wall heights. Wall Plate – The Commission wishes additional information on the impact of the idea of wall plate height standard in limiting impact of taller buildings on adjacent properties. The RA and RB districts in the proposed draft both show 25 feet. There is interest in understanding how wall plate may be able to help distinguish between districts. Some comments have been that 25 feet is too short for RB where three story full floor buildings are expected. Some visuals showing impacts of the proposed standard on different building designs would be appreciated. No need to draw new ones, perhaps show existing building designs and how wall plate would affect those designs if applied. Q. Given typical building methods and the way wall plate is measured, will 25 feet be a readily achievable standard in RA? If 3 stories is the intention in RA, there is not a viable design or construction approach that makes 25 feet a realistic dimension for achieving that. Q. To readily achieve three full floor stories in RB, what adjustments to wall plate height may be appropriate? 34’ feels like the ideal wall plate height for achieving a viable 3 story option. Typical construction assumptions. At the foundation: • Slab on grade, or • Framed floor – assume 1’ depth for framing Wall system: • Ideal wall heights (floor to ceiling) = 9’ • Minimum wall height = 8’ Floor/ceiling system: • Low density residential = 1’ depth • Higher density res/commercial quality = up to 3’ depth depending on structure and MEP integration 3 cushingterrell.com How that translates to building section heights: A. Low: 3 story wall plate height = 0’ ground floor + 8’ wall + 1’ floor/ceiling + 8’ wall + 1’ floor/ceiling + 8’ wall = 26’. A.1. With ground floor framing = 27’ A. A.1. 4 cushingterrell.com B. Low/mid: 3 story wall plate height = 0’ ground floor + 9’ wall + 1’ floor/ceiling + 9’ wall + 1’ floor/ceiling + 9’ wall = 29’. B.1. With ground floor framing = 30’. B. B.1. 5 cushingterrell.com C. High/mid: 3 story wall plate height = 0’ ground floor + 9’ wall + 3’ floor/ceiling + 9’ wall + 3’ floor/ceiling + 9’ wall = 33’. C.1. With ground floor framing = 34’. (Ideal) Recommend stating BOTH max wall plate of 34’ and a max of 3 stories. C. C.1. D. High: What would be min for 4 stories, then be under that. 0’ ground floor + 8’ wall + 1’ floor/ceiling + 8’ wall + 1’ floor/ceiling + 8’ wall + 1’ floor/ceiling + 8’ wall = 35’. Zoning Districts and Uses Special standards for uses within districts (38.320 of the draft) – The Commission directed revisions to allow a greater number of non-residential uses from the RD district to move into the RC district. These are likely to be those in the Personal and General Service and General Retail categories as shown on page 3-5 and 3-6 of the proposed draft. The proposed draft is carrying forward some standards setting location and dimension requirements unique to these circumstances, see sections 38.320.080 and 090 on pages 3-30 through 3-35. Q. Please comment on the proposed location and size limitations and their probable impact for residential scale development of these kinds of local service uses and offer suggestions that 6 cushingterrell.com might help the standard limiting location and size not be a bar on the business success but also fit into a primarily residential area. Medical and dental limit of 2500 SF feels small. I'm not entirely sure on this, but there could be an argument that allowing more SF for these services could help justify costs for more services or equipment. Though I'm not sure what that right scale would be. Might be worth asking these industries as local access to these services would be critical to things like serving workforce/affordable housing communities of any scale. Office use limit of 2500 SF. No real opinion. It could work fine. There is a lot of flexibility in terms of what types of businesses could use smaller office space. Personal Service limit of 2500 SF within R-D only. I'd like to see some form of this in less dense residential zoning. And it would be great to see some form of retail allowed. This would get back to the older neighborhoods with barbershops, markets, soda shops/cafes, etc. and supports the creation of walkable communities that can be less dependent on vehicles. Fraternity/Sorority – The Commission directed that staff create a Fraternity/Sorority land use with associated standards to enable them to operate with limited impact on adjacent properties. Q. If you have experience with this type of land use, suggestions regarding standards unique to this use for site and building design are appreciated. I have no experience with this project type.