HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-21 Public Comment - C. Dayton - UDC Affordable Housing AssessmentChandler Dayton, 716 E Peach St Bozeman
RE:Bozeman UDC code audit comments
Bozeman has a current housing and affordability crisis. The purpose of the Bozeman Affordable
Housing Assessment is to identify changes that the City could make to the Unified Development
Code (UDC), zoning map, and development review processes to remove regulatory barriers to
the creation of affordable housing.
Changes implemented can be monitored for unintended negative effects and adjusted or
eliminated if the costs are exceeding the benefits.
●I am in favor of significant changes that would allow more opportunities to create
affordable housing while protecting the character of my neighborhood north of
downtown, the NENA core neighborhood with a majority of modest single family homes
that are situated on streets and alleys. The zoning ranges from R2-R4.
●I am in favor of retaining already-existing affordable housing through incentives for
limiting the demolition and replacement (or significant expansion) of existing structures
with large single-household residences (that take advantage of height and lot coverage
maximums to create massive single family ‘mc mansions’).
●If there is going to be some incrementalism to changes, it should be in the form of a
sunset provision or mandatory review/reauthorization period as opposed to choosing
only a few ideas to implement from this audit.
RE Code Audit:
1. I support (1) revising how residential density is measured, and (2) reclassifying multi-unit
dwellings as explained on p 17-20.
2. P.21 I support the recommendation for NEHMU that the City should consider adding
additional types of multi-household gentle density housing uses to this district and
remove heavy commercial and industrial uses from the lists of available uses, or any use
that is trucking intensive. The current beer distributorship will be gone by fall of 2022 and
no similar use should be permitted. When the coach transportation business leaves the
area, no new transportation intensive businesses should be allowed. Care should be
taken to include open space within any PUD project in this district which can include
designs that are permeable to foot traffic and public gathering spots within the area.
Permeability and foot traffic flow should be encouraged when adding residential density.
3. I support eliminating minimum lot width and depth requirements for new development on
vacant land, and reducing those minimums for redevelopment in existing neighborhoods to
allow for “gentle density” and market development of more housing that is generally in character
with the existing neighborhood fabric.
4. I support eliminating Floor area ratio (FAR) requirements.
5. In order to encourage development on smaller ‘non conforming’ lots, I support concurrently
eliminating minimum lot widths and increasing maximum lot coverage requirements.
6. RE building heights in R2 older neighborhoods, if I cannot build an ADU taller than my
principal building which is 26’ but my neighbor can tear down a modest house and replace it
with a 36’ roof line, that defeats the purpose of regulating height. There needs to be a
mechanism for limiting building height by adjacent heights, or do away with the regulation that
limits ADU height to principal bldg height so that the default height limit becomes the standard. I
do support adjusting allowable heights so as not to block the use of sun for solar energy by the
adjacent lot.
7. I support reducing barriers to innovative housing types discussed on p 30-32.
8. Since the NCOD appears to be going away, I do support the Code Audit suggestion of
p42-43. ..recommend the separation of the historic preservation function for individually listed
structures and districts (and the continued application of the Certificate of Appropriateness
system to modifications of those buildings) from simpler neighborhood conservation (but not
historic) redevelopment standards. We also support a recommendation that NCOD areas
not designated as historic structures or districts be placed in one or more new base or
overlay districts (perhaps one for each for the north of Downtown and south of
Downtown areas) with simpler neighborhood conservation standards
AND I support ...The City should consider a provision that existing single-household dwellings in
these the areas north and south of Downtown only be allowed to expand by a certain
percentage of their existing size during any five-year period, unless the single-family use or
structure is replaced by another form of housing (such as a two- household, three-household, or
four- household use) that increases the housing supply. As an alternative to a percentage size
control, the City could revise the current standards to establish maximum home width, depth, or
volume standards that would prevent the replacement of existing homes with much larger
homes.
9. I support the assessment of changes to development standards on p 45. ...the City should
consolidate and simplify many of the current standards and criteria in order to improve
the efficiency and predictability of the development review process.
10. I support the range of suggestions on pages 52-56 for the section RETHINK THE HOUSING
REVIEW PROCESS