HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-14-21 Public Comment - N. Lyon - Affordable Housing Development Code Input & IdeasFrom:webadmin@bozeman.net
To:Susan; Agenda
Subject:Code Audit Comment Submission
Date:Thursday, October 14, 2021 12:32:44 PM
A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.
Form Name:Affordable Housing: Development Code Input and Ideas
Date & Time:10/14/2021 12:32 PM
Response #:16
Submitter ID:44761
IP address:69.145.83.100
Time to complete:26 min. , 26 sec.
Survey Details
Page 1
Affordable Housing: Development Code Input and Ideas
1.Contact Info
First Name Nakeisha
Last Name Lyon
Email Address nlyon@bozeman.net
2.View Unified Development Code
Topic Overall Review of Audit
Code Section (If Known)Not answered
Describe Your Idea or Comment Here
• I think the density measurement for minimum requirements changed from “net” to “gross” would lead to
more units required at a minimum for a developer to create. I also think being more specific on the number
of units for the multifamily housing is a great idea to help provide more opportunities in lower to moderate
density residential districts for smaller apartments and garden style apartments which can fit in well
especially for infill sites or creating variety in newer areas in the City.
• I definitely agree with reducing the overall form and intensity standards to allow small lot sizes.
• I agree that R-S and R-1 should allow duplexes, and ADUs that do not have ownership regulations within
these districts would be great.
• I think raising occupancy limits for an ADU is not a digestible concept for this community and sounds like
packing sardines in a unit that should be catered towards a college student or young professional.
Increasing the permitted size of an ADU is a great idea, but I think more than one ADU should be allowed
on larger lots as long as the lot coverage maximums are met.
• I agree with the removal of the alley access for ground floor ADUs.
• As far as parking for ADUs, I think reductions or not having to meet the requirement if 4 or more spaces
are already provided OR if there is transit or a neighborhood center/node within a certain radius that the
occupant can utilize. Multimodal transit is not in abundance NOR available year round, and removing the
requirement for minimum parking standards cannot be accommodated without this.
• I do agree that the ADU section should be for ADUs and the accessory buildings should be for accessory
buildings/structures.
• One parking space per dwelling unit? When standard homes have a two car garage and a driveway that
accommodates two spaces or more… I think 1 space for one to two bedroom is doable. But 4 bedrooms can
easily have more cars. I think 2 spaces for three or more bedrooms minimum is great. Same for
townhomes. I think more reduction opportunities for residential parking should be included and site
specific, but I do not think 1 space per DU for a 4-household dwelling is doable without funding for mass
transit and other mobility options. Most people have cars and multiple cars. It’s hard to change a vehicular
orientated society by just getting rid of parking. Reductions with other opportunities makes more sense like
the recommendation for reductions for senior housing. Similar to the ADU comment above.
• I think the cottage housing overall needs to be reformed to be a more approachable and understandable
option for developers.
Have an image or
document that supports
your idea? Upload here
Thank you,
City Of Bozeman
This is an automated message generated by Granicus. Please do not reply directly to this email.