Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-09-24 Public Comment - M. Kaveney - AHO revision comments for Community Development 12_9_24 mtng.`From:Marcia Kaveney To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]AHO revision comments for Community Development 12/9/24 mtng.` Date:Monday, December 9, 2024 11:42:06 AM Attachments:2024.12.9. AHO comments for the CDB.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. Please include the attached comments in the CDB folder for tonight's meeting.Thank you , Marcia Kaveney AHO comments for the 12/9/24 Community Development Board mtng. Submitted by Marcia Kaveney I recently attended the 11/22/24 AFordable Housing Ordinance open house in November and reviewed the 12/4/24 Economic Vitality Board meeting and oFer these comments for the Community Development Board’s consideration. Neighborhood Character- definition. During my video review of the EVB meeting, I heard David Fine respond to an EVB members question, “What is “neighborhood character”?” with saying he has no idea what neighborhood character means, and he went on to say he thinks “it means a lot of diFerent things to a lot of diFerent people”. As he and the EVB board member pointed out, there is a lot of public comment regarding “neighborhood character”. If key economic staF don’t can’t explain or define “neighborhood character”, how can they address it in their revisions of the AHO? This is more than a “fun” project to pursue sometime in the future, it’s an essential piece of information needed for responsive planning. (Neighborhood Character discussion with D.Fine @ 23.00 min. 12/4/24 EVB mtng. https://bozeman.granicus.com/player/clip/2394?view_id=1&redirect=true). Action needed: Please recommend to City Commission that staF draft a definition of “neighborhood character” as soon as possible with public involvement and distribute to all planning, economic, and other relevant staF. AMI and a5ordability term. I support the increase of aFordability to last for 50 years in both the Shallow and Deep Incentives. And I support bringing the AMI down to 60% or lower. Deep and Shallow incentives: 1. Please add a required concept design – with no waiver allowed - so that planning staF can see what’s expected and be able to work with developer to retain significant mature vegetation as requested in Plan Review Criteria. (i.e. 7th and Aspen did not provide this and is removing many large mature trees along the perimeter that could have been worked around.) Type B incentive revisions: 1. I would prefer 3 stories if there is no parking on site. 2. I highly support the limit on units per building to induce smaller masses which both fit into existing neighborhoods better and allow for reasonable light and air movement. 3. Please consider the removal of lot to lot coverage in the NCOD areas and replace with a requirement of a small requirement of ground level open space (not balconies) with low maintenance permeable materials such as basic grass and trees. Type C incentive revisions: 1. I would like to see a parking requirement here of at least .5 spaces per unit. Parking is needed for ADA alone. If, as David Fine said, most of the developers are receiving large amounts of federal funding and can aFord parking, then there seems to be no reason to allow total exemption. 2. I would support reducing the 4 stories of height to 3. 3. I would like to see NEHMU removed from the 2 story group and put it in with the 1 story group to keep it closer to the current NEHMU regulations. 4. Include below grade parking as a requirement for the incentives. General comments. 1. At the 11/22/24 AHO open house, I was concerned that the presenting staF were unable to explain how AMI is arrived at, or whether or not it included “unearned income” for example. Please encourage the distribution of the definition of AMI and what it includes to staF and include it in an easy to find location on the City’s AHO engage page. 2. Is there a way to have one bedroom units only require one person’s income? I.e. Can we be supportive of single people who desire a bedroom with a door? 3. Per the EVB members question on heights vs. stories- please consider height requirements rather than stories or require maximum heights per story- to dissuade luxury units with 15 feet plus ceilings. I think the general concern from neighbors is less about the number of stories and more about the actual height.