The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-07-21 Public Comment - K. Thane - UDC AssessmentFrom:Terry Cunningham To:Agenda Subject:Fw: Comments on UDC Affordable Housing Assessment Draft Date:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 12:51:15 PM Attachments:Comments on the Draft of the UDC Affordable Housing Assessment.pdf Can we attach Kevin Thane's comments on the UDC recommendations to that topic? Thanks. Terry Cunningham - City Commissioner City of Bozeman | 121 North Rouse Avenue | P.O. Box 1230 | Bozeman, MT 59771 P: 406.595-3295 | E: Tcunningham@bozeman.net | W: www.bozeman.net From: Kevin Thane <kpthane@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021 5:11 PM To: Greg Stratton <greg@kildaystratton.com>; Hannah Van Wetter <Hannah@buildfoothold.com>; J. David Magistrelli <jdavid@habitatbozeman.org>; Jacy Conradt <jconradt@reachinc.org>; Kevin & Pam Thane <kpthane@gmail.com>; Kyla Tengdin <kylatengdin@gmail.com>; Martin Matsen <MMatsen@BOZEMAN.NET>; Noel Seeburg <nseeburg@gmail.com>; Rita Ripley-Weamer <rripley- weamer@thehrdc.org>; Tanya Andreasen <TAndreasen@bozeman.net>; Terry Cunningham <TCunningham@BOZEMAN.NET>; David Fine <DFine@BOZEMAN.NET> Subject: Comments on UDC Affordable Housing Assessment Draft 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. I have attached my comments for your consideration prior to the CAHAB meeting on Wednesday September 8th. Please note that, per City policy, I am not soliciting any feedbackprior to the meeting and you should not reply to this email. Thanks, Kevin Thane Revised 9/6/2021 Page 1 of 2 C:\Users\kptha\Documents\CAHAB\AHO Rewrite\Comments on Draft of the Unified Development Code Affordable Housing Assessment 9-6-21.docx Comments on the Draft of the Unified Development Code Affordable Housing Assessment 1. The Draft embraces the following: a. “… the City needs to consider preserving its existing stock of affordable housing.” Page 1 b. [The City should use] “…a ‘maximum extent practicable’ standard for development approval.” Page 1 c. “ The availability of affordable housing, whether for rent or for purchase, is one of Bozeman’s most serious problems…” Page 6 d. “… preserving what we have through a target of no net loss of existing community housing stock below 80% AMI.” Page 7 e. “… changing the current standards on lot and building size to allow more housing the UDC could further promote both capital ‘A’ and small ‘a’ affordable housing…” Page 15. In fact, the second argument presented on page 53 for adjusting initial submission requirements, also applies to changing current standards on lot and building size, and I suggest that the argument supports doing away with any building or lot size requirements. f. Changes to regulations that, “encourage “gentle density” through the addition of an accessory dwelling unit, a second attached single-household unit, or well-designed townhomes.” Page 15 2. The Draft cites the following from the Bozeman Community Plan 2020 a. N-1.4 Promote Development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Page 7 b. N-3.4 Require development of affordable housing through coordination of funding for affordable housing and infrastructure. Page 8 c. N-3.5 Strongly discourage private covenants that restrict housing diversity or are contrary to City land development policies or climate action plan goals. Page 8 d. N-3.7 Support compact neighborhoods, small lot sizes, and small floor plans, especially through mechanisms such as density bonuses. Page 8 e. DCD-1.2 Remove regulatory barriers to infill. Page 8 f. M-1.12 Eliminate parking minimum requirements in commercial districts and affordable housing areas… Page 9 I generally support the Draft but feel in some instances it needs to make stronger recommendations, such as: 1. Removing design constraints for stand alone single family homes. Treat Single-household, Cottage Housing and Manufactured homes as one type – ie. Single-household dwelling units. 2. The Draft recommends going to a density of 6 dwelling units per net acre for R-1 zoning which results in net lot sizes of 4,500 to 5,000 square feet. (Page 18) I suggest going to 7 dwelling units per net acre resulting in net lot sizes from 3,850 to 4,300 square feet. The smaller lot sizes would result in more single-household dwelling units per acre. It would also provide a basis on which a new Affordable Housing Ordinance could be created. Such an ordinance could provide a density reduction (allowing larger lots) if Affordable Housing is provided by the subdivision. Examples of other ways an increase in lot size could be attained include: a. Making 50% or more of the lots in the subdivision less than 4,000 square feet in size Revised 9/6/2021 Page 2 of 2 C:\Users\kptha\Documents\CAHAB\AHO Rewrite\Comments on Draft of the Unified Development Code Affordable Housing Assessment 9-6-21.docx b. Placing 10% or more of the acreage of the subdivision into a land trust that ensures perpetual Affordability of the units built on the land trust land. c. Demonstrating efficient use of all the land in the subdivision by eliminating remainder parcels and small “latte parks” in the subdivision design and addressing stormwater through shared or communal open spaces designed for stormwater management. 3. Provide a density bonus on R-1 lots when affordable housing is provided on the lot. For example, allow an internal ADU and an external ADU when one of them is rented for an amount below a unit affordable to someone making less than 60% of AMI. 4. Allow 3 dwelling units on an R-1 lot when 2 of the 3 units are smaller than 600 square feet. 5. The City should review developments for possible problems and make non-binding recommendations rather than imposing requirements, except in the area of life-safety situations. This suggestion is supported by the second argument presented on page 53 for adjusting initial submission requirements, which puts the design and engineering in the hands of the developer or builder and makes that entity responsible for their design. 6. The City prescribes private open space, common areas, and park land requirements for developments. Making it one or the other for a development rather than all three would free up more area for development and simplify the review process. 7. The report suggests that limiting the number of occupants in an ADU may allow utilities to be extended from the primary unit to the ADU without requiring the construction of new utility mains. Rather than limiting the number of occupants in an ADU to control utility service demands, the developer should be tasked with providing a design that supports the appropriate utility service for the ADU. If upgrade of the utility service is mandated by the design of the ADU then the developer should be allowed to provide it rather than arbitrarily controlling the number of occupants. Page 30 8. The Draft recommends increasing the permitted size of an ADU from 600 square feet to 800 square feet. Why limit the size at all? Currently, the UDC allows a second primary dwelling on an R-1 lot when the size of the lot permits it, without limiting the size of the second primary dwelling unit. 9. Covenants and HOA regulations that encourage higher densities and more affordable housing in a subdivision should be rewarded with a density reduction or other incentive when the development for example: a. Encourages ADUs on lots over 5,000 square feet b. Sets very low HOA fees and/or restricts increases of HOA fees to no more than the inflation rate in any given year 10. The housing preservation overlay zoning district proposed on pages 43 and 58 should extend to all areas within the City limits. Should a developer desire to replace a smaller, more affordable dwelling unit with a newer or larger unit that is less affordable, or replace the dwelling unit with a commercial development, a Housing Replacement Surcharge, that goes into the Community Housing Fund, should be attached to the building permit. 11. Make one of the job responsibilities of the Community Housing Program Coordinator monitoring and enforcing agreements that have provided benefits to homeowners that have agreed to provide Affordable dwelling units.