HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-10-17 Public Comment - HJ. Schmidt & T. Minge - ADUs in UDC UpdateFirst Name HJ
Last Name Schmidt
Email Address hj@hjschmidt.com
Phone Number Not answered
Comments
August 8, 2017
To: Mayor Carson Taylor
Deputy Mayor Cyndy Andrus
Commisioners Jeff Krauss, Chris Mehl, and I-Ho Pomeroy
City of Bozeman Planning Dept., Chris Saunders & Tom Rogers
We are writing in regards to potential zoning changes that affect accessory dwelling units, (ADUs.) We are in favor of encouraging ADUs because we believe it helps our community with the following:
1) ADUs increase available housing
2) ADUs create opportunity for middle class families who are being hit with tax increases and want to stay in their
homes and might otherwise be forced to sell
3) ADUs can create flexibility in lot improvement
The changes being considered that we support include:
1) changing the lot size for allowing an ADU from 6000 square feet to 5000 square feet
2) allowing single story ADUs
We also believe it is necessary to change the part of the ADU code (Sec. 38.22.030. A. 4.) that states “However,
accessory dwelling units shall be permitted to be placed above garages only in subdivisions receiving preliminary
plat approval after January 1, 1997.” We believe this language needs to be struck from the code.
We became aware of this part of the code when our next door neighbor to the south went through the process of
designing a detached garage/ADU structure for their backlot. They went through the entire design process,
meeting with the City Planning Department numerous times, and the project was on the City Commission agenda
for a conditional use permit when they were informed at the last minute that their project was not allowed, due to
this rule. (We still don’t understand how this project was allowed to proceed through this entire process, costing
my neighbor time and money, without anyone at the city pointing out this rule to them until it was put on the City
Commission agenda.) They were pursuing this project as a way to be able to afford to live in their house in an
environment of steeply increasing taxes.( We live in the BonTon Historic District in R1 zoning, and have owned our
house more than twenty years. In our neighborhood we were hit with approximately a 25% valuation increase in
the recent past and now a 50% valuation increase this year.) What this means is that none of us who are zoned R1 in the older parts of Bozeman has any legal option to create rental income without drastically altering our historic
homes through massive “renovation” of the primary structure as detached ADUs are not allowed. This will
eventually leave you with R1 areas that only the very wealthy can afford. It’s not just low income housing you need
to worry about, you’re starting to see middle income housing as a pipe-dream as well.
We are also concerned that although there are very specific rules for ADUs and secondary structures, there are no
rules governing renovating a home so that it covers the entire lot, front setback to rear setback without a break.
This sort of development blocks sight lines, blocks solar access for yards and is out of character of 100 years of
downtown neighborhood homes having some backyard areas devoid of structure. (We actually believe this helps
the social cohesion of neighborhoods, think gossiping over the back fence). We bring this up because this is the
type of redevelopment the current rules encourage.
All too often rules are made from a point of view of trying to prevent a particular outcome with no thought being
given to what the rule will inadvertently encourage. For instance, currently if you are in an R1 zoning district
platted before January 1, 1997 and you have a house with a detached garage on the alley, (a common usage in the
historic neighborhoods), you are not allowed to have an ADU above the garage in the detached structure.
However, you would be allowed to enlarge your house so it connects to the garage, in the front setback to rear
setback fashion, and then you would be allowed an ADU because now it is within a single dwelling. This method of
development is more impactful than the type of development the rule is attempting to address. As far as we can
tell there are no rules regarding view sheds, solar access, height restrictions, or style restrictions in this kind of
redevelopment, whereas all these items are addressed for detached structures. The reasonable solution is to
either not allow ADUs at all in R1 platted before 1997 or to allow ADUs in detached structures. As we’ve stated
before, the solution of not allowing ADUs in these neighborhoods prices out middle income earners and does
nothing to increase the housing stock for lower income earners.
In the same vein, if you currently have a single story house like many of the older craftsman style houses as well as
the 60’s and 70’s ranch style houses you can’t have a detached ADU (even in R2, etc. where it’s allowed ) because
if you put it above a garage it would be taller than the main house. In fact, the only way to have a garage with
living space above the garage, ADU or not, is to connect the entire piece to the main house. Now, if your argument
against a single story ADU is that it’s out of historical character to have what amounts to two houses on one lot, I
would say it’s even less in historical character to have your house go from the front setback to the rear setback. If
things stay the way they are, most of these houses are in danger of front setback to rear setback redevelopment as
most people who will have the resources to buy these houses will likely want more living space than they provide.
Allowing single story, detached ADUs has the potential to allow current owners and those of more modest means
a way to live in these houses while keeping their historic houses and yards intact . It is also more in character with
the historical president of a main house with a carriage house in the back.
The definition of 1 1/2 story using the 3 foot knee wall rule for above garage ADUs should also be reconsidered.
This rule, (probably inadvertently) imposes a single design solution to maximize usable space within an 800 square
foot footprint, namely a 10/12-12/12 pitch roof with full size dormers. (Ask any architect about this). It seems like
height and size restrictions adequately address this issue already. And, again, as soon as you connect the garage to
the main house via front setback to rear setback redevelopment this rule no longer applies. Wouldn’t it be more
appropriate to allow for a range of sidewall heights that would correspond with lower roof pitches which would
allow more flexibility to create roofs that match the primary home.
We strongly believe that much of what has made Bozeman so livable is the diversity of housing in our
neighborhoods, which, as a byproduct, gives you a diversity of people living in said neighborhoods. Creating an
environment where it is easier to have ADUs is a double win, it will allow current homeowners who need it an
additional income stream to help stay in their houses, and it will create housing stock for lower income individuals.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues,
HJ Schmidt Tammy Minge (Licensed Architect)
715 South Grand Ave.
Bozeman, MT 59715