The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-04-24 EV Agenda and Packet MaterialsA. Call to Order - 6:00 PM B. Disclosures C. Changes to the Agenda D. Approval of Minutes D.1 Approve the November 6, 2024 Economic Vitality Board Meeting Minutes (DiTommaso) E. Public Comments on Non-agenda Items Falling within the Purview and Jurisdiction of the Board THE ECONOMIC VITALITY BOARD OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA EVB AGENDA Wednesday, December 4, 2024 General information about the Economic Vitality Board is available in our Laserfiche repository. If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to comments@bozeman.net or by visiting the Public Comment Page prior to 12:00pm on the day of the meeting. At the direction of the City Commission, anonymous public comments are not distributed to the Board or staff. Public comments will also be accepted in-person and through Video Conference during the appropriate agenda items. As always, the meeting will be streamed through the Commission's video page and available in the City on cable channel 190. For more information please contact Brit Fontenot, bfontenot@bozeman.net This meeting will be held both in-person and also using an online videoconferencing system. You can join this meeting: Via Video Conference: Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit. Click Join Now to enter the meeting. Via Phone: This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream, channel 190, or attend in- person United States Toll +1 253 205 0468 Access code: 984 4147 6350 This is the time to comment on any non-agenda matter falling within the scope of the Economic Vitality Board. There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that item but you may only speak once per topic. Please note, the Board cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the Board shall speak in a civil and courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful of others. Please state your name, and state whether you are a resident of the city or a property owner 1 F. Action Items F.1 Review Revised Elements of the Affordable Housing Ordinance (David Fine) G. FYI/Discussion H. Adjournment within the city in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your comments to three minutes. General public comments to the Board can be found in their Laserfiche repository folder. Listen to the presentation, ask questions, and, through motion and vote, make a recommendation to the Bozeman City Commission based on the information provided. This board generally meets the first Wednesday of the month from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. City Board meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact the ADA Coordinator, David Arnado, at 406.582.3232. 2 Memorandum REPORT TO:Economic Vitality Board FROM:Jesse DiTommaso, Economic Development Specialist Brit Fontenot, Economic Development Director SUBJECT:Approve the November 6, 2024 Economic Vitality Board Meeting Minutes MEETING DATE:December 4, 2024 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Minutes RECOMMENDATION:Approve the November 6, 2024 Economic Vitality Board meeting minutes. STRATEGIC PLAN:1.2 Community Engagement: Broaden and deepen engagement of the community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from the community and stakeholders. BACKGROUND:In accordance with Commission Resolution 5323 and the City of Bozeman's Citizen Advisory Board Manual, all boards must have minutes taken and approved. Prepared minutes will be provided for approval by the board at the next regularly scheduled meeting. Staff will make any corrections identified to the minutes before submitting to the City Clerk's Office. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None. ALTERNATIVES:As recommended by the Board. FISCAL EFFECTS:None. Attachments: 110624 EVB Minutes.pdf Report compiled on: September 23, 2024 3 Bozeman Economic Vitality Board Meeting Minutes, November 6, 2024 Page 1 of 2 THE ECONOMIC VITALITY BOARD MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES November 6, 2024 General information about the Economic Vitality Board is available in our Laserfiche repository. A) 00:00:26 Call to Order - 6:00 PM B) 00:01:37 Disclosures • There were no disclosures. C) 00:01:44 Changes to the Agenda • There were no changes to the agenda. D) 00:01:50 Approval of Minutes D.1 00:01:56 Approve the September 4, 2024 Economic Vitality Board Meeting Minutes 090424 EVB Minutes.pdf 00:01:59 Motion to approve the September 4, 2024 Economic Vitality Board meeting minutes. Sara Savage: Motion Mona Schwartz: 2nd 00:02:08 Vote on the Motion to approve the September 4, 2024 Economic Vitality Board meeting minutes. The Motion carried 7 - 0. Approve: Sara Savage Craig Ogilvie Danielle Rogers John Carey Katharine Osterloth Malory Peterson Mona Schwartz 4 Bozeman Economic Vitality Board Meeting Minutes, November 6, 2024 Page 2 of 2 Disapprove: None E) 00:02:43 Public Comments on Non-agenda Items Falling within the Purview and Jurisdiction of the Board • There were no public comments. F) 00:03:28 FYI/Discussion F.1 00:03:30 2024 City Board Ethics Trainings • Economic Development Director and Board Liaison, Brit Fontenot, provided the board ethics training. • 00:47:55 The board discussed future agendas and board terms. G) 00:55:36 Adjournment This board generally meets the first Wednesday of the month from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. 5 Memorandum REPORT TO:Economic Vitality Board FROM:Brit Fontenot SUBJECT:Review Revised Elements of the Affordable Housing Ordinance MEETING DATE:December 4, 2024 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Policy Discussion RECOMMENDATION:Listen to the presentation, ask questions, and, through motion and vote, make a recommendation to the Bozeman City Commission based on the information provided. STRATEGIC PLAN:4.5 Housing and Transportation Choices: Vigorously encourage, through a wide variety of actions, the development of sustainable and lasting housing options for underserved individuals and families and improve mobility options that accommodate all travel modes. BACKGROUND:See attached memo. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None at this time. ALTERNATIVES:As suggested by the Economic Vitality Board. FISCAL EFFECTS:None identified at this time. Attachments: AHO EV Board memo 20241124.pdf Open Housing - Community Feedback.docx AHO Open House Height vs Parking Board Comments 11.25.24.docx Report compiled on: November 18, 2024 6 Memorandum Meeting Date: December 4, 2024 From: David Fine, Economic Development Manager To: Economic Vitality Board Subject: Update on the Progress of the Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) Overview Staff is currently drafting a replacement for the affordable housing ordinance based on public feedback. We held a public open house on the policies suggested in our draft changes. Staff wanted feedback on a key question which of the two principal incentives, height increases, or parking reductions was preferable. The overwhelming direction of the feedback was to allow more height and require somewhat more parking. Summaries of the written public feedback we received at the open house are attached. Staff are proposing adding parking requirements to the Class B (Deep Silver) and Class C (Deep Gold) options. Staff are seeking feedback from the board on these proposed changes. The proposed draft affordable housing ordinance will only apply to rentals. Staff is breaking revisions to the ordinance in two pieces. The first piece will focus on rental housing units. The second piece will apply to for sale housing units. The complexity associated with keeping for-sale units affordable for the long- term led staff to slow down and make sure that the for-sale portions of the ordinance are researched carefully and drafted thoughtfully. Staff will discuss some of the issues we are working through with for- sale housing in the presentation. The following section of the memo outlines the current policies being considered in the draft ordinance. This list is not representative, but not exhaustive. Selected Key Changes to the Affordable Housing Ordinance Long-term affordability requirement • 50 years for rental dwellings AMI Targets • Class A (Shallow) Incentives o 5% of dwellings at 60% AMI for rent (allow income averaging) o OR 8% of dwellings at 80% AMI for rent (allow income averaging) • Class B and Class C (Deep) Incentives o 50% of units at 60% AMI for rent (allow income averaging) 7 Definitions of Efficiency and Bedroom • Existing definition of an efficiency dwelling [*38.700.060] replaces all references to studio dwellings • The new ordinance will add a new definition of bedroom, which requires the dwelling to contain at least 450 square feet to qualify for two-person household rents. o “For purposes of this section, a one-bedroom dwelling must include a bedroom separated from other living areas of the dwelling by a solid door. A one-bedroom dwelling must be greater than or equal to 450 square feet of floor area.” ADUs and Group Living • Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and group living are not eligible to be counted as affordable dwellings for purposes of receiving the incentives. Zone Edge Transitions • Where any building of the AHO development which utilizes building height incentives abuts a lower intensity residential zoning district, the transition height setback provisions of 38.320.060.B.2.c shall apply. Class A (Shallow Incentives): Dwellings in attached townhome or rowhouse buildings • No minimum lot coverage or Floor Area Ratio (FAR) • No minimum lot width (or maximum lot coverage or maximum floor area ratio) requirement if the applicant demonstrates that all applicable city regulations related to lot development, access and utilities can be met. • Any townhouse or rowhouse with dwellings that are 1200 SF or smaller is exempt from a minimum parking requirement provided that the building in which the dwellings are located is 3 or fewer stories (maximum 15 feet floor-to-floor per story). • Any townhouse, rowhouse, or four-plex development with all dwellings 1,500 square feet or smaller in size is exempt from the following standards: o Minimum lot size; o Lot coverage; o Floor area ratio; o Lot area per dwelling unit; o Lot width; and o Minimum parking requirement. Class A (Shallow Incentives): Multi-household dwellings and dwellings in mixed-use buildings. • Residential parking requirements may be met by providing off-street parking located within 1,000 linear feet from the entrance to the residential building, provided the parking is contractually assured for the length of the residential use. • Residential open space requirements may be met via private balconies provided access to a ground floor common open space/gathering space is provided for all residents. • Shared roof deck support structures are exempt from maximum building height limits. • Concurrent construction of infrastructure and housing per 38.270.030 is allowed. 8 Class B Incentives (Deep) (Silver) • No minimum parking requirements for sites with 8 or fewer dwellings • Parking equal to or greater than 40% of the total number of dwellings is required for sites with more than 8 units. • Buildings cannot be more than 4 stories or greater than 100 units, or the maximum height allowed by the underlying zoning district, whichever is less. Class C Incentives (Deep) (Gold) • Parking equal to or greater than 60% of the total number of dwellings is required. • Height allowed by the existing deep incentives. Cash-in-lieu Allowed • A residential or mixed-use building seeking to use the building height incentives available in this section may pay cash-in-lieu to the affordable housing fund. The city may establish administrative procedures for the application and implementation of a cash-in-lieu program. The city must use all cash-in-lieu funds to support the creation or preservation of affordable dwellings. 9 Open Feedback What changes do you think we should make to the ordinance? Revise the rounding language in the ordinance so that even if the number of units required to be affordable ends up with like 2.1 units, they have to round up to 3, not down to 2. Don’t use the word “class” (Class A, B, C). Shallow incen?ves townhomes, rowhomes should go up to 5 not 4 stories. With neighbors being so hateful/an?-development, how can we promote an ethic of community care for folks assimila?ng into our community? Make the affordability permanent. Keep deep Incen?ves for more affordable units in our community! Greenfield development is not the only op?on! But if it is, make sure there are plans in place to connect new developments to public transporta?on and put basic ameni?es within walking or biking distance. Deep incen?ves can be used anywhere the affected residents approve. Why are we giving away all these incen?ves when it appears there is a massive amount of rentals coming online in the next year? How can we expect the people most in need of affordable housing to afford a car on top of their backbreaking rents? Massive parking lots should be used for more housing!!! Get more public transit!! Streamline. 10 2 stories for R-A. What do we use when the UDC or the Governor’s housing task force takes away our incen?ves? More busses and public transit. Limit use of the incen?ves to greenfield developments and parcels fron?ng major arterials. Demand affordable units in projects that ?e into City water. You want to pay cash-in-lieu then you build x% affordable units. Amend the ordinance to include NOAH preserva?on. If the incen?ves are s?ll limited to giving extra height and reduced parking, the limit where it can be used. Greenfield development and lots facing major arteries. Why not require affordability in perpetuity. Define 1 bedroom vs. a studio. We ask MSU and Bzn. Deaconess to build housing…why don’t we build housing!? Public developers will s?ll build when prices come down. For-profit developers stop adding units to a market that is leveled off. We’ll never build enough to actually make prices fall. Create an affordable housing overlay. Only let non-profit builders use the incen?ves so that they can include be?er ameni?es like a library, full kitchens, gyms, storage, etc. As currently defined, “affordable units” are not affordable. You would have to earn $33/hour to afford a 1-bedroom. Buildings should be ADA accessible, have push-bu?on doors at building entry, and elevators. Repeal AHO completely. o Or move to greenfield development only. o In the NCOD, add a neighborhood-friendly affordable housing overlay zone. o Deny cash-in-lieu of water rights unless developers provide 33% affordable units at 60% AMI rent and 100% AMI for-sale. We need more units in exchange for the incen?ves in the shallow category. Rhetoric about the new renters moving into these units seems pre?y xenophobic. The people of Bozeman are the lifeblood of our community. The type of housing we inhabit shouldn’t ma?er! Use a density bonus rather than a height bonus in exis?ng neighborhoods as described in a joint presenta?on by Bozeman, DSA, and BBC available on the BBC website because it incen?vizes preserva?on of NOAH too. 2 stories for R-A. Parking on site for R-A on historical overlay districts – safety reasons on narrow streets. Without tenants’ ability to barter about price increases, or other legal protec?ons, it leaves people in limbo and unable to put roots down in a community. Affordable housing creates be?er community for all neighbors. There is always a financial gap for projects that include permanent affordability. Thank you for trying to do some-thing to help. By-right regulatory incen?ves are extremely helpful to projects that include permanent income restric?ons. Include minimum square footage and clearly describe what cons?tutes a studio vs. 1-bedroom, so we don’t end up with postage stamp rooms for extor?onist prices. Can less parking add to greenspace? 11 Almost all of the affordable units in the pipeline are made possible by LIHTC, not by our AHO. Less height RA, R1, R2. Keep duplex and ADU at 2 stories. We need parking, it’s a safety issue, conges?on circling to a place to park like MSU was before we got RPPD parking garage. The streets, par?cularly in the older sec?ons of town, can’t handle a lot of offsite parking. Giving builders incen?ves to build without implemen?ng ways to fill buildings keeps them empty. Saying that low-income people should give up parking a vehicle without providing transporta?on is wild. An incen?ve of lower building standards not only indicates less importance for low-income families it is a health issue, leading to more ER visits; it is a cost issue, by having to rebuild; and a safety issue for children/elderly who will sta?s?cally spend seven ?mes more. Criminally charging people who cannot afford a fine perpetuates poverty and directly demonstrates a higher income favorability. A?er ge? ng a criminal charge, landlords are less likely to provide housing, perpetua?ng the issue. Tax write-offs for ADU’s. Strengthen the NCOD. Open space not only improves quality of life, but it also serves infrastructure purposes like storm water run-off and natural cooling. Balconies do neither and you can’t grow trees on balconies. Amend the ordinance to preserve NOAH which could include triggering a City Commission hearing if a project would result in loss of NOAH. More affordable units will benefit the community. Only 5% is small. Keep deed incen?ves for 50% op?on. We are relying so much on parking reduc?ons to be able to bargain for affordable units. But what happens when we reduce parking requirements across the board in the UDC update or implement the Governors HTF recommenda?on to remove mandates for parking en?rely? Building more affordable housing is great but only if the incen?ves put people in the housing. People may face barriers aside from cost (criminal history, etc.) Incen?ves for businesses (tax write-offs) for housing. MSU grants for building. Lower affordability requirements to be?er serve our workers and allow income-averaging so we can get units at 30% or 40% AMI. Strengthen NCOD. Concentrate more on the housing lack for missing middle. I priori?ze people over the built environment in this community any day! The status quo is not working… we can make steps in the right direc?on (keep deep incen?ves). What is connec?ng people to the “affordable” housing? What other barriers exist (e.g. security deposits, background checks, etc.)? Lack of parking in town, coupled with the lack of public transit, is likely to further disadvantage low socioeconomic status (SES) individuals. Less parking is a great idea but needs to be coupled with an increase in public transit. This misses the mark. What we need for affordable housing is small (less than 1000 sq. ?.) starter homes for-sale on small (less than 2500 sq. ?.) lots. This would allow workforce ci?zens to get a foot in the door and start building some equity. Builders/developers who provide these could be incen?vized by having impact fees and building permit costs covered from the affordable housing fund. 12 City staff conducted an Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) Open House on November 21, 2024, to get public feedback on various questions. One question was Height vs. Parking: What to Consider Staff laid out the advantages and disadvantages of increased building height or decreased parking as an incentive to construct affordable housing. The question is: Where do you land? (Place a sticker on the side you would prefer to live with if you had to choose between increased building height or decreased parking minimums. Total Responses: 23 Increased Building Height Both Decreased Parking 10 5 4 Comments on Sticky notes: Over 90% of BZN households have 1 car over 40% have 2 cars America will go to electric cars before abandoning cars The problem with a blanket ordinance is that it's not appropriate everywhere. Some places you can get away with extra height, and even though our public transit system isn’t adequate at all there may be places no parking makes more sense. The reason the Evergreen apartments fit in the Bon Ton is because there are enormous setbacks and below-grade, garden-level apartments. They are also classical design and made of brick. Do our city streets have the capacity to absorb more parking? Navigation (safely) through historic areas in winter snow conditions is difficult. Also, uncontrolled intersections. Neither [Increased Building Height nor Decreased Parking] in the NCOD. 13