HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-22 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - to Community Development Board for 5_16_22 meeting and city commissionersFrom:Marcia Kaveney
To:Agenda; Jennifer Madgic
Subject:to Community Development Board for 5/16/22 meeting and city commissioners
Date:Monday, May 16, 2022 11:13:07 AM
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.
Dear CD Board Members-
Thank you for your hard work. I realize it's coming in at the 11th hour, but I hope you willtake a minute to review my letter regarding two of your action items tonight.
Action Item #F1. Annexation of 8 acres, project #21443, on Davis Lane.Please vote to deny this request do to the following reasons: a. ) With an initial zoning request of B2-M, it contributes to sprawl which goes against the
community's desires. While the community was in support of incremental increases in densityin EXISTING developed areas it is not in favor of sprawl- i.e. annexation of farmland for
commercial or commercial/mixed growth. (see BCP 2020, Appendix A-3 Key Takeaways)b.) If the initial zoning request was for R2 or R3 then it would be somewhat more acceptable
because we need more of the " missing middle housing" and not commercial. Commercialzoning adds considerably to sprawl by it's very nature of not providing housing for the
workers that will fill the commercial spaces and drawing people to it via cars. Also, thecommunity requested the density to be added to the N. 7th area, University district, and the
west but not to the north. (BCP Appendix A-5: Downtown and Complementary Districts)
Action Item #F3. The UDC Departures. Ordinance #2111.
These need to be carefully looked at and I encourage you, as a Board, to take all the time youneed to go over these even if you have to extend the action item to your next meeting.
In short, I ask that you view these departures through the lense of the BCP 2020 which while it
does support inevitable growth, it does not do so at the expense of livability,diversity, openspace, and parks.
Specifically, consider the following:Section 2. Departures for Housing Creation.HEIGHT
Except in the University, Midtown, and Downtown areas, the community prefers lowerbuildings of 3 stories or less - not taller. ( BCP 2020 Appendix A-7). Height increases,
setback and lot size departures do not help affordability. Buildings larger than 3 stories areconsidered mid-rise and do not conform to the missing middle housing need as defined in the
BCP 2020 Glossary, page145. https://www.bozeman.net/home/showpublisheddocument/1074/637552816180100000
For this reason I urge you to oppose these departures in Table 38.320.070. Consider instead a
building height restriction of 3 stories for a certain portion of each new development.
PARKINGI also urge you to oppose any departures that do not require/provide for at least one parking
spot per dwelling including all ADUs. Bozeman's public transportation is simply not adequate
enough to replace the need of personal transportation and Bozeman has become sprawlingenough to require personal transportation to meet basic needs. (This would fall under
maintaining livability in the BCP 2020).
PARKS/OPEN SPACEThe BCP 2020 also "showed an equal level of interest in natural environment protection
regulations, open space acquisition, and climate change impact considerations." For thisreason alone, I strongly urge you to oppose the reduction in open space requirements for
townhouse and multi-household residential developments.Park-lets, open spaces, and pathways all keep the city more livable and follow the
communities desires according to the BCP 2020 (Appendix A-7). These spaces also allow thecity to increase its urban forest which promotes temperature balance for climate change
resilience. They do not need to be watered, grassy areas, but even open space with permeablexeriscaped areas provides for mental wellness and access to nature.
ADUs
I believe there should be no ADU minimum size.
MISSING ITEM:
What seems to be missing from the departures table is a requirement of smaller units in eachnew development. This would result in more units being built and therefore meet your criteria
(page 4 in the ordinance draft.)For example: Each new development should have a percentage of units that are of a
MAXIMUM size rather than minimum size. Smaller units reduce overall costs to build, torent, to buy. As we have seen over the past few years, more of the same type of units does not
help the affordability option.
Section 4. Missing Middle Definition.
I believe this definition to be woefully incomplete. One needs only to look at the definition ofmissing middle in the BCP 2020 to see there are many other options than those listed.
Please oppose it as written and request that all of the following be included in the definition:ADUs, tiny houses, duplex side by side or stacked, four-plex stacked, courtyard buildings,
cottage court, townhouses (up to 8 units, ie "apartments limited" ),multi-plex medium, tri-plexstacked, live-work.
Also, include the limit of 3 stories in the definition.
Most of these are illustrated in the following BCP 2020 Glossary:
https://www.bozeman.net/home/showpublisheddocument/1074/637552816180100000
Thank you for your consideration of my comments. I write these with the preservation ofBozeman's character, the goals of the BCP 2020, diversity, and affordability in mind.
Sincerely,
Marcia Kaveney1496 Boylan Rd.
Bozeman