HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-22 Public Comment - M. Egge - Comment to Zoning Commission Re_ Ordinance 2111From:Mark Egge
To:Agenda; Henry Happel
Subject:Comment to Zoning Commission Re: Ordinance 2111
Date:Sunday, May 8, 2022 5:17:46 PM
Attachments:image.png
CleanShot 2022-05-08 at 16.47.02@2x.png
Egge Ordinance 2111.pdf
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.
Members of the Zoning Commission:
I’m encouraged by the direction of Ordinance 2111. With a few small
changes, Ordinance 2111 could result in a meaningful increase in the
number of parcels where infill and Missing Middle development may occur.I have two suggestions that will improve the likelihood that departures
may be used in the future resulting in the creation of new housing that
would not otherwise be built.
First, I strongly recommend that Criteria C.1 be modified as follows:
"2. The departure will result in at least one more dwelling unit home than
would otherwise be possible."
"Otherwise possible" is a nearly impossible standard to prove with respect
to maximum building height, lot coverage, parking, usable open space,
and ADU size. In many cases it may be technically possible but financiallyinfeasible or impractical to build without a departure. For example, the
International Building Code allows a 7' wide dwelling unit with ceilings
sloping down to 5' high—but it's unlikely that anyone would actually
choose to build a structure like this.
Second, the ADU Lot Size departure should provide a departure for both
lot sizes and lot widths. Provided that minimum setbacks are met and the
minimum lot size is provided, a parcel should be deemed to be adequatelydimensioned to meet the purpose of the standard.
For example, consider the Northeast Neighborhood, which has 780
residential parcels. Assuming a single-family residence on each parcel:
43 parcels (5.5%) are less than 4000 SF and are not entitled to an
ADU or any infill development (with or without Ordinance 2111)
64 parcels (8.2%) are between 4000 SF and 5000 SF and would
potentially become eligible for an ADU through Ordinance 2111. Onthe surface, this seems great—as a result of the ordinance, an
additional 8% of parcels in the Northeast Neighborhood would meet
lot size requirements to build an ADU. That’s great, right? Not so fast
—of these 64, more than half (35) are on lots less than the required
50’ (or narrower than 40’ with alley access). Due to the lot widthrequirement (not currently addressed by Ordinance 2111), in
actuality only 3.7% of parcels would become newly eligible for an
ADU through a departure.
There are an additional 44 parcels (5.6%) in the NortheastNeighborhood that are more than 5000 SF (meaning they would be
entitled to an ADU under their existing code) but do not meet lot
width requirements.
I recommend modifying the lot size departure to read:
"ADUs may be permitted on any lot in a district where ADUs are an
allowed use that meets the lot size and setback requirement for the
principal structure and all other standards in the zone district in which thelot is located (except for lots under 3,000 sq. ft. in area or lots containing
attached townhomes), without the requirement for 1,000 square feet of
additional lot area"
This change would result in a total increase in the portion of Northeast
Neighborhood parcels eligible for an ADU (through an Ordinance 2111
departure) by 87 parcels (11.2%).
Better still would be to provide a separate lot width departure for all
dwellings, allowing a 10’ reduction in required lot width, subject to the
departure criteria. Requiring a minimum lot width is rather redundant if
minimum setbacks and a minimum lot size are both provided.
In the image above, blue parcels are those which could add an ADU due to
Ordinance 2111 as currently written. Orange shows the additional parcels
that could add an ADU with the suggested language provided above. Deep
red shows the additional parcels that could add an ADU (or duplex unit)with a departure for a 10' reduction in required lot width for all types of
residential dwellings.
Recall from the Dimensional Standard Comparison chart (pp. 24 in theClarion report) that Bozeman’s regulatory layer cake for lot dimensions is
many layers deep:
Providing departures for Lot Area and Setbacks but not addressing lot
width requirements significantly limits the applicability of the departures.To be effective, given the depth of our regulatory layer cake, we need to
slice across all layers of regulation if we wish to alter the footprint of the
regulatory regime that inhibits the creation of Missing Middle and infill
housing development.
Finally, I encourage the Zoning Commission to request Community
Development to provide an impact analysis (like the one provided above)
with all future proposed changes in ordinance to better understand andcommunicate the scope and scale of proposed changes to Bozeman's
development regulations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mark Egge
542 N Black Ave
Bozeman, MT 59715
May 8, 2022
Re: Ordinance 2111 (Draft)
Members of the Zoning Commission:
I’m encouraged by the direction of Ordinance 2111. With a few small changes,
Ordinance 2111 could result in a meaningful increase in the number of parcels
where infill and Missing Middle development may occur. I have two suggestions that
will improve the likelihood that departures may be used in the future resulting in
the creation of new housing that would not otherwise not be built.
First, I strongly recommend that Criteria C.1 be modified as follows:
“the departure will result in at least one more dwelling unit home than would
otherwise be possible”.
“Otherwise possible” is a nearly impossible standard to prove with respect to
maximum building height, lot coverage, parking, usable open space, and ADU size.
In many cases it may be technically possible but financially infeasible or impractical
to build meeting existing code without a departure. For example, the International
Building Code allows a 7' wide dwelling unit with ceilings sloping down to 5' high—
but it's unlikely that anyone would actually choose to build a structure like this.
Second, the ADU Lot Size departure should provide a departure for both lot sizes
and lot widths. Provided that minimum setbacks are met and the minimum lot size
is provided, a parcel should be deemed to be adequately dimensioned to meet the
purpose of the standard.
For example, consider the Northeast Neighborhood, which has 780 residential
parcels. Assuming a single-family residence on each parcel:
• 43 parcels (5.5%) are less than 4000 SF and are not entitled to an ADU or
any infill development (with or without Ordinance 2111)
• 64 parcels (8.2%) are between 4000 SF and 5000 SF and would potentially
become eligible for an ADU through Ordinance 2111. On the surface, this
seems great—as a result of the ordinance, an additional 8% of parcels in the
Northeast Neighborhood would meet lot size requirements to build an ADU.
But not so fast—of these 64, more than half (35) are on lots less than the
required 50’ (or narrower than 40’ with alley access). Due to the lot width
requirements, in actuality only 3.7% of parcels would become newly eligible
for an ADU through a departure.
• There are an additional 44 parcels (5.6%) in the Northeast Neighborhood
that are more than 5000 SF (meaning they would be entitled to an ADU
under their existing code) but do not meet lot width requirements.
I recommend modifying the lot size departure to read,
“ADUs may be permitted on any lot in a district where ADUs are an
allowed use that meets the lot size and setback requirement for the
principal structure and all other standards in the zone district in which
the lot is located (except for lots under 3,000 sq. ft. in area or lots
containing attached townhomes), without the requirement for 1,000
square feet of additional lot area”
This would result in a total increase in the portion of Northeast Neighborhood
parcels eligible for an ADU (through an Ordinance 2111 departure) by 87 parcels
(11.2%).
Alternatively, better still would be to provide a separate lot width departure could
be provided for all dwellings, allowing a 10’ reduction in required lot width (though
to my mind, requiring a minimum lot width is redundant if minimum setbacks and a
minimum lot size are both provided).
In the image above, blue parcels are those which could add an ADU due to
Ordinance 2111 as currently written. Orange shows the additional parcels between
4000 SF and 5000 SF that could add an ADU with the suggested language provided
above. Deep red shows the additional parcels larger than 5000 SF that could add an
ADU (or duplex unit) with the suggested language provided above.
Recall from the Dimensional Standard Comparison chart (pp. 24 in the Clarion
report) that Bozeman’s regulatory layer cake for lot dimensions is many layers
deep:
Providing departures for Lot Area and Setbacks but not addressing lot width
requirements significantly limits the applicability of the departures. To be effective,
given the depth of our regulatory layer cake, we need to slice across all layers of
regulation if we wish to alter the footprint of the regulatory regime that currently
inhibits the creation of Missing Middle, infill, and other more-affordable types of
housing development.
Finally, I would encourage the Zoning Commission to request Community
Development to provide an impact analysis (like the one provided above)
with all future proposed changes in ordinance to better understand and
communicate the scope and scale of proposed changes to Bozeman's
development regulations.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mark Egge
542 N Black Ave
Bozeman, MT 59715