HomeMy WebLinkAboutAggregated Public CommentsJuly 3, 2017
Bozeman City Commission
c/o Tom Rogers, Senior Planner, AICP
Department of Community Development
City of Bozeman
20 East Olive Street
Bozeman, Montana 59715
RE: Bozeman UDC Updates
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for the chance to comment on the proposed edits to the Unified Development Code (UDC).
As you know, our community development goals are to build and sustain healthy communities through
the production of affordable housing, the construction of community facilities and the development of
social programs which educate and support families and individuals. Below, please find our questions,
comments and suggestions regarding how the proposed code changes can more positively affect
affordable housing.
1) Townhomes – Townhomes are a great way for many to enter into the Bozeman housing market.
Some of the proposed edits would negatively impact affordability of these key starter homes.
Pages 278-282 - As currently proposed, street accessed two car garages are not permitted for
townhomes (regardless of width) and street-accessed single car garages are not permitted for
any townhome lot less than 30 feet in width. While we understand the importance of a
streetscape that is not totally dominated by garages, this regulation seems to go too far.
Townhomes should be allowed to have both one and two car garages accessed from a street
regardless of width. Small and narrow lots are an excellent way to make housing more
affordable and while alleys are a great neighborhood design solution in some cases, they are not
always a viable option. In terms of the new design standards for townhomes and rowhomes, at
a minimum there should be the ability to request a departure. Of note is that these new
townhome/rowhome provisions limiting street accessed garages and requiring certain design
features do not apply to duplexes or triplexes on a shared lot. In this sense, an unintended result
of the regulations may be the promotion of rentals and condominiums over townhomes.
Applicability and timing – while we understand that a project is subject to the rules in effect at
the time it is deemed “sufficient,” it is unclear how the new regulations would impact existing
townhome subdivisions. For example, we are currently working on a affordable land trust
townhome subdivision that is designed to have narrow lots with street accessed garages. Would
building permits drawn after the date of adoption be subject to the new rules? We would image
that there are several existing lots in other neighborhoods that would have similar issues
especially if they were designed without alleys.
2) Transitional and Emergency Housing and Related Services – While we understand that one of
the major goals of the proposed edits is to promote form over use and thereby decrease the
overall list of permitted uses, we propose to add one missing land use category in Article 3 as a
conditional use in all zones – “Transitional and Emergency Housing and Related Services.”
As you know, we are currently working on a location for the “Housing First” village which will
provide strategic housing services including temporary shelter, transitional housing,
homelessness prevention and placement, and extensive case management. In terms of land use
categories, this type of coordinated facility includes a mix of uses - detached small homes,
related professional and medical services, a community center and other supporting uses that
will help meet occupants’ day to day needs. While Planning Staff has stated that this type of use
can fall under the “Group Home” definition, it would be difficult to co-locate the needed
services based on the primarily residential zones where Group Homes can currently be located.
Rather than open “Group Homes” to more zoning districts, we feel it is more appropriate and
beneficial to the community as a whole to establish a specific use for “Transitional and
Emergency Housing and Related Services” and allow it across all zones with a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP). This would give the Commission the ability to evaluate the suitability of a
particular site for this much needed and very specific type of project.
3) Manufactured Home Communities – While the section related to “Land Divisions Created by
Rent or Lease” and the section for “Residential Manufactured Home (RMH) district” are
proposed to remain, the section related to “Manufactured Home Communities” on page 266 is
proposed to be eliminated. Staff has indicated that the text was duplicative. We want to ensure
that existing manufactured home communities with failing water and septic systems will have
the ability to annex into the city without incurring undue burdens that may result in the loss of
this affordable housing resource. We also want to ensure the ability of owners to replace and
upgrade their units. Affordable housing preservation is one of our top strategic planning
priorities.
4) Apartment Design Regulations – The design requirements in Article 5, while well-intended,
could also negatively impact affordability. In terms of housing, this section would apply to
apartment buildings, mixed use projects and townhomes or condominiums greater than 4 units
(it is unclear if the design standards from both Article 3 and Article 5 would apply to townhomes
greater than 4 which could result in additional conflicts).
Page 424 - An example of a residential project that would be subject to Article 5 is the West
Edge Condominiums on Cottonwood Road. This project (Phases 2 and 3) could not be
constructed under the new regulations. We have included a few specific examples below:
a. Page 383 requires a raised porch of at least 1 feet however the first floor porches were
purposefully designed at grade for accessibility which is required to the first floor of all
multi family projects greater than two units. This requirement would result in excessive
ramping.
b. Page 411 requires very specific façade articulation related to individual units that would
likely require more building jogs and fenestration.
c. Page 415 – to qualify as roofline modulation, the roof must have a minimum slope of
5:12 however, the West Edge building roof is only 3:12
d. Page 419 – the windows are not inset 2 inches and this requirement would be in conflict
with the manufacturer’s installation instructions. There is trim; however, it is painted to
match the siding which may not meet the requirements.
e. Page 424- metal was chosen as primary material for the first floor due to its durability;
however, the new regulations would require a two foot band of brick, stone, or
architectural concrete. At the very least, metal should be added to the menu of options
and the option for a departure should be added to this overall section.
f. Page 427 – there are blank walls greater than 15’ wide by 10’ tall along entry areas
where it would not be desirable to have bedroom and bathroom windows.
5) Lost in the mix – Note that several existing affordable housing incentives are not easy to locate
in the existing and proposed document:
a. Page 83 - in Section 38.230.050.E, there is language that preference of scheduling will
be given to projects that provide the most affordability. When there is a high volume of
applications and an understaffed Community Development Department (as is the
current situation) this incentive is especially important. We recommend either moving
the existing language to or simply repeating it in the list of incentives in Section 38.380.
This is simply a cut/copy and paste edit and is not a substantive change.
b. Page 168 – Section 38.300.100 introduces a new chart that summarizes residential
housing types per zone but does not include the existing affordable options and
incentives. Adding townhouse/rowhouse > 2 “in limited circumstances” in the RS and R1
zones and as a permitted use in the R2 zone will not change any current regulations but
will help to bring affordability to the forefront.
6) Lot Area - Page 199 - Table 38.320.030 states the required minimum lot area per use. More
substantial reductions in required lot area for market rate residential units are needed for our
community whether or not they include alleys. The same argument applies to lot width.
7) Accessory Dwelling Units - Page 247 – ADUs – the proposed changes to Accessory Dwelling
Units appear to make it easier for owners to develop them. Adding rental units across all zones
and neighborhoods in market that has such a low vacancy rate is certainly an incidental benefit
to affordable housing. Decreasing the required lot area even more than currently proposed
would further this goal.
8) Cottage Housing - Beginning on Page 252 – while there are no substantive changes proposed to
the cottage housing ordinance at this time, we would like to add to the record that more
flexibility is needed for this type of housing. Also, additional efforts are needed to better align
the Cottage Housing Ordinance with the Affordable Housing Ordinance which we also know will
be reexamined in the near future.
Thank you very much for your time and please let us know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Heather Grenier
President/CEO
HRDC
CC: Bozeman Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board (CAHAB)
Susan Riggs, AICP, GroundPrint, LLC
From:Blake Maxwell
To:Agenda
Subject:7 ways the City"s new affordable housing mandate will make housing LESS affordable
Date:Wednesday, July 12, 2017 1:46:45 PM
Diving right in:
1. The program requirement that homes be single-family to qualify as
“affordable housing” drives us back toward the form of housing that uses the
most land and most materials per square foot.
Even as demographics from the eldest to the youngest buying groups in theBozeman marketplace—including retirees, empty-nesters, small families, lonehowlers, young professionals, and entry-level buyers—have demonstrated a strong
preference for medium-density housing within walking distance of amenities, the
Bozeman City Commission is stuck in yesteryear, mandating the one form of
housing that wastes more land and material than any other: Single-family homes. The highest cost per square foot is, of course, directly linked to the highest cost of
housing.
2. Infrastructure to reach new single-family housing is more expensive.
If there was any doubt, I recently verified with Bozeman’s widely respected
Director of Public Works, Dr. Craig Woolard, that the steep, recent rise in costs for
Bozeman streets and infrastructure is directly linked to the extended resourcedemand of new single-family neighborhoods.
Though already high enough to attract lawsuits, impact fees only offset so much of
that annual column on the City spreadsheet. In the long-term, Bozeman taxpayers
as a whole will bear a much greater burden in creating the infrastructure of roads,
water, and sewer to reach the long avenues of wasteful, late-20th-Century-stylehousing. As these systems age and maintenance costs are factored in, the total
expense to the community will be compounded.
3. Single-family housing pays lower taxes per acre than all other forms of
housing.
Consider the 10-year-old North Black Row townhouses against the three single-
family houses directly across the street. For the townhouses in the 300 block ofNorth Black Avenue, the collective value for all five units, according to Montana
Cadastral in FY 2017, is $2,642,813. Across the street, Cadastral’s numbers for the
three detached homes add up to $1,136,900. Also note that the total square feet of
land for the single-family homes is 21,390 (about half an acre). North Black Rowcovers 13,902 square-feet, or 35.9% less.
4. Bozeman’s “affordable housing” mandate disincentivizes development,hindering supply and increasing housing costs.
If developers are to be penalized for building more than 9 units, they will look to
mitigate the already significant financial risks of housing development.
Consequently, they are more likely to build 9 for fewer units, develop beyond citylimits, or forgo the development completely. Before considering the added woe ofoffsetting the loss of the “affordable” 10th unit, the project concept worksheet will
have less economy-of-scale advantage and a higher cost per square foot. With
fewer new homes in the marketplace—regardless of the price-point of the
development—any decrease in supply will also drive up prices across the market(assuming demand is constant).
5. Fewer new housing units in a growing community ignites Bozeman's
property tax crisis.
It is widely agreed among civic administrators today that when population growth is
above 2%, property tax assessments (and property taxes) can’t keep up with the
needs of the community, so taxes go up. In Bozeman, a history of wastefulspending practices, “high-amenity” hogwash, and supercharged pension programs
favored by city management and endorsed every June by (you guessed it) the City
Commission, caused the Bozeman property tax RATE to increase by 28% from
2007-2016. New special assessment taxes are up 259% over the same decade,while the property tax BASE went up 77% in just five years.
6. Higher taxes and fewer newer units in Bozeman prompts higher rents and
more unsafe rental properties.
Homeowners in Bozeman are already caught between a rock (a history of low
income) and a hard place (slow income growth), so they can’t keep pace with ever-
more-expensive housing nor the incendiary property taxes. Consequently, they alsocan’t absorb the increased tax burden of the homes they now live in. Besides
selling out and moving to ???, the only fallback they have is charging higher rents
for bedrooms, basements, and ADUs. In many cases, these rental properties are
dated or altogether unsafe, and the property owners lack the cash flow necessary forimprovements.
7. Any diminishment in the supply of homes produced in this area will hit
hardest the young adults of our community.
Less construction and lower profit margins for developers will translate into fewerjobs and lower wages in the building trades. Considering that construction and realestate comprise the second-largest business sector in Bozeman, any significant
impact on that labor force will prompt losses in building material sales in addition
to market loss for retail and food & beverage. The latter two categories are vital totourism, another key business sector in Bozeman.
8. BONUS!! High rents and low wages are already skewing MSU's graduation
rates for Montana kids, putting at risk long-range goals for the community andstate.
Factoring high rents, a proliferation of unsafe units, and less jobs available in fields
like retail, F&B, and construction, fewer students who depend on income (like thosewho are native to Montana) will be attracted to MSU. Already, these factors impactthe percentage of Montana high school grads attending the state's "flagship
university" here. If enrollment as a whole should drop vis-a-vis Missoula, so goes
the employment packages of university staff and faculty. In either event, a cultural
and economic cornerstone for both Bozeman and Montana is under threat.
-- Blake Maxwell
First Name Kevin
Last Name Thane
Email Address kpthane@gmail.com
Phone Number 587-7534
Comments
I am writing to request that CAHAB be included as a full participant in the Affordable Housing Work Session
scheduled for the July 17th City Commission Meeting.
CAHAB would like to see the following items addressed during this session:
1. Termination, review and redesign of Ordinance 1922 the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance.
a. Direction by the City Commission to have CAHAB and the Community Development Department form a joint
commission to recommend a replacement for Ordinance 1922 as well as changes to the City’s UDC, including the Cottage Housing Ordinance, that would lead to the creation of more affordable housing in Bozeman.
2. Use of City Land for Affordable Housing
a. Dedication of a portion of the City owned property at Oak and Laurel Parkway for development by Habitat for
Humanity
b. Dedication of Cemetery Land off Highland Boulevard as endorsed by the Cemetery Board for use for affordable
housing.
c. Dedication of excess land acquired by the City in January extending south from the intersection of Davis and
Oak.
d. Other land parcels (such as the parcel behind the Gallatin Rest Home currently owned by the County) that could
be purchased by the City to use for affordable housing
3. Approval of the Memorandum of Understanding with the MSU Architecture Department accepted by CAHAB at
their June 2017 meeting.
4. A presentation by MSU Architecture Student Kara Baldwin (if she is available) on the Graduate project dealing
with an affordable housing design in Bozeman.
5. Discussion of the ways Community Development Director Madsen can suggest for using infrastructure to incent
development of affordable housing
6. Discussion of other strategies
a. White House Housing Development Toolkit