HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-07-25 Public Comment - A. Sweeney - The draft AHO and the NCODFrom:Alison Sweeney
To:David Fine; Bozeman Public Comment; Henry H Happel; Chuck Winn
Subject:[EXTERNAL]The draft AHO and the NCOD
Date:Monday, January 6, 2025 12:21:16 PM
Attachments:Draft AHO public comment-Sweeney.docx
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.
Hello Mr. Fine and Mr. Happle,
I'm writing to express my concern about how the draft AHO and the NCOD will interact. Thedraft I am viewing is up for review at the Community Development Board Monday January
13th, and so I'd appreciate it if you could have this conversation as a board at that meeting.
Thank you for your communication the other day David, to address my concerns about theAHO that I detailed in the first 2 pages of my public comment (also attached). You suggested
that I read through Chapter 38.380 to see if my concerns were addressed in a section of thatchapter that is not being amended. If they are, I have nothing to worry about.
I can find NO language in Codified Chapter 38.380 that says obtaining a COA is still
necessary for proposed alterations in the NCOD if those alterations apply to use of the AHOincentives. There should be.
I think this is really imperative to address. And I think a conversation with the Community
Development Board, AND the HPAB are necessary in the lead up to the City Commissionpublic hearing on January 28th. Advisory boards need to advise! There is an HPAB meeting
just 2 days after the Community Development Board meeting. I don't know what their agendawill be, but this should be a presentation and discussion, and they should make
recommendations on the draft AHO.
Right now, ordinance 2105 has language describing the COA process for projects within theNCOD. If this new ordinance passes, will 2105 be off the books? If so, we have no language
to refer to, that says a COA is still necessary for projects in the NCOD, because it wasn'tcodified the first time around. One has to refer to the actual ordinance to find it.
I do not think we can afford to be ambiguous about this going forward. We need clear
language so that planners in Community Development who are evaluating proposals withinthe NCOD (that want to use AHO incentives) know that a COA is still mandatory.
We need to make things less ambiguous for staff to be able to do their jobs confidently and
efficiently.
Thank you for considering this important impact of this draft ordinance.
Alison B. SweeneyBernadette's Handmade Jewelry
Bozeman MT406-404-5740
alison-bernadettes.com
Public Comments on Draft AHO Alison Sweeney, December 28, 2024 There are many positive changes in this ordinance and I commend staff for those. I still assert that the approach to affordable housing creation that this ordinance takes is flawed. No provision will be acceptable applied as a blanket over the whole city. After thoroughly reviewing this proposed draft ordinance, I still maintain that this it should be limited to greenfield development, and major arterials, while another approach should be taken to incentivize affordable housing in existing neighborhoods. My other concerns follow. Several key provisions from the original ordinance 2105 MUST be
incorporated to this draft before it is adopted! Ordinance 2105, Section 2, Item I, on page 4 As detailed in division 38.200 of this chapter, the city commission authorizes the applicable advisory bodies to review and to make recommendations to the review authority regarding development proposals. Under this section, when advisory boards review and make recommendations to the review authority they act in a quasi-judicial capacity. Recommendations do not constitute votes of approval or denial.
This text MUST be added back into the new ordinance! Item J on page 4 of 2105 The city commission or its designated representatives may require the applicant to design the proposed development to reasonably minimize potentially significant adverse impacts identified through the review required by these regulations. The city commission or its designated representatives may not unreasonably restrict a landowner's ability to develop land, but it is recognized that in some instances the unmitigated impacts of a proposed development may be unacceptable and will preclude approval of the development as submitted. Recognizing that the standards of this chapter are minimum requirements and the public health, safety, and general welfare may be best served by exceeding those minimums, the city commission or community development director may require as a condition of approval mitigation exceeding the minimums of this chapter. This is crucial leeway for the review authority to subjectively evaluate development and MUST be added back into the new ordinance! Not every development is appropriate everywhere! Item K on page 4 Subject to appeals? 38.250
Why is there no appeals provision? This should be added back in.
Entire Section 7 of 2105 about COA is missing!
If unwilling to limit use of this ordinance to suitable locations, (greenfield development, major arterials) then it must include a clause for NCOD compliance! Wording to mandate compliance with any future historic preservation code or standards that may be adopted should also be
included! Section 7 That 38.340.040. Certificate of appropriateness, be amended as follows:
Sec. 38.340.040. Certificate of appropriateness. A. A certificate of appropriateness is required before any and all alteration(s) other than those specifically exempted in subsection 1 of this section, or repair(s) as defined in section 38.700.160, are undertaken upon any structure in the conservation district. The review authority for certificates of appropriateness is established in division 38.200.010 of this chapter. Compliance with the terms of the final decision is required. The Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory Form must be reviewed and, if necessary, updated to reflect current conditions on the site, prior to the review of the proposal. Application procedures are as follows: 1. No building, demolition, conditional use, sign or moving permit may be issued within the conservation district until a certificate of appropriateness has been issued by the appropriate review authority, and until final action on the proposal has been taken. a. Limited exceptions. The following construction located within the neighborhood conservation overlay district, within an established historic district, or at a site which is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Preservation, does not require a certificate of appropriateness if the project satisfies the following standards: 1. (1) Fences meeting all other provisions of this chapter (e.g. height limitations, street vision triangle, finished side out, etc. per section 38.350.060) which are built of wood, wrought-iron, or any other non-synthetic material and whose construction allows "transparency" as set forth in Chapter 3, Section F of the design guidelines referenced in section 38.340.050.D. Chain link fencing is not included in this exception. 2. (2) Basement egress windows whose window material and configuration is present elsewhere in the structure, and whose window wells are not on the front or corner-side setback elevation of the structure, and which do not establish or provide egress from an illegal dwelling unit. 3. (3) Accessory structures under 120 square feet as measured from the outer edge of the exterior walls, which meet the setback requirements, are not more than 14 feet to their highest point and which do not require a building permit. 4. (4) Alterations in roofing material, if installing wood shingle, slate, tile, or asphalt shingle material, and no changes are made to the roof shape, pitch or slope. 5. (5) Photovoltaic panels which are flush mounted to a roof. 2. Application, review and public notice procedures for proposals located within the conservation district are set forth in division 38.230, Plan Review, and division 38.220, Applications and Noticing, of this chapter. If demolition or movement of structures or sites subject to the conservation district requirements is proposed, the procedures in section 38.340.080 apply.
How can you possibly believe it is appropriate to leave this out? Maybe it was innocent oversight?
I think it’s safe to say that an enormous amount of friction in this community is the result of
unsympathetic development within the NCOD. We are currently rewriting out Historic
Preservation Program, but until we have something in place to protect neighborhoods and
historic downtown from inappropriate development, we MUST have this provision in any AHO adopted. I’m sorry but you’re absolutely crazy not to include this. This ordinance should also specify a timeframe within which the affordable units must be produced and incentives used. A developer should not be granted approval and then sit on the project until market conditions improve. Only by continuing to produce housing when prices stop rising will we actually see housing prices fall, which is what we need, but the free market will never actually do.
Draft Specific Issues Section 1 Legislative Findings I take issue with a number of the legislative findings cited in this ordinance. Below are the numbered ordinance findings followed by my response in bold. 3. The Bozeman Community Plan 2020 acknowledges that zoning and land use regulations are processes that influence the cost of housing. The Community Plan supports housing regulations that allow for a range of housing types intermixed in a given neighborhood, denser development, and efficiencies of various types that can help reduce housing costs.
My issue with including this as a legislative finding is that Bozeman’s zoning has been examined
and found not to be restrictive. (Better Bozeman Coalition 2-part Blog post titled Cracking the
Code) We’ve built more housing per capita than Austin Texas in the last 5 years and still have not
seen attainability improve for our working resident population even while wages have slightly
increased. We’ve added mostly multi-family residential buildings. Zoning is not affecting our
affordability. 4. The Bozeman Community Plan 2020 establishes goals, objectives and policies to increase the supply of affordable housing in the city including: Goal N-3, Policy N-3.3, which encourages the “ distribution of affordable housing units throughout the city with priority given to locations near commercial, recreational and transit assets;” Policy N-3.8, which encourages the City to promote the development of “ Missing Middle” ( side by side or stacked diplex, triplex, live- work, cottage housing, group living, rowhouses/ townhouses, etc.) as one of the most critical components of affordable housing;” Policy M-1.12, which seeks to “ eliminate parking minimum requirements in commercial districts and affordable housing areas and reduce parking minimums elsewhere, acknowledging that demand for parking will still result in new supply being built;” and Policy EE-1.4, which seeks to “ support employee retention and attraction efforts by encouraging continued development of affordable housing in close proximity to large employers.”
If the goal is to create affordable housing “near commercial, recreational, and transit assets” I would suggest limiting the use of this ordinance to major arterials where access to transit and commercial is better. Most other cities in the country using these types of incentives are doing this. I would like to draw attention to the fact that most jobs are no longer located downtown, while a disproportionate use of the affordable housing ordinance has been in close proximity to downtown so that developers can charge luxury rates for the other units. The largest employees
are actually MSU and Bozeman Health. Therefore provision should be made to protect vulnerable historic neighborhoods that do not have protective covenants from enormous apartment buildings that overwhelm existing neighborhoods.
If the goal of this ordinance is to create missing middle housing height should not be included in
the incentives. Height incentives lead to massive apartment buildings. Bozeman already allows 3
stories in every zone, and missing middle is not larger than 3 stories. One could argue a lot of it is
actually 2 stories.
It is a ludicrous assumption that parking will still be provided if no minimums are required. This completely depends on the developer. There are those in our community who will abuse this at the expense of other homes and businesses in the area. All market rate units should be made to include parking. 7. The 2024- 2028 Community Development Block Grant ( CDBG) Consolidated Housing Plan reinforced the issues identified in the 2019 Community Housing Needs Assessment, including increasing and preserving affordable rental opportunities as a top need in the community.
This ordinance needs an escape clause if it is determined the use of it in a specific case will result
in a net loss of affordable housing. The proposed Block B development on East Mendenhall is an
example. Our city needs a comprehensive strategy to preserve affordable rental housing, but at a
minimum we should not allow developers greater incentive to destroy it. We cannot bring
housing out of the ground for the cost it would take to preserve those 20 units on East
Mendenhall. 9. The City of Bozeman 2024-2028 Fair Housing Plan found that land development regulations that increase development costs make residential development overly expensive and can limit the supply of affordable housing. In some communities, this has a direct impact on racial and ethnic minorities, larger households and families with children, and persons living with disabilities because these groups are disproportionately represented among those residing in lower cost housing. Limits or prohibitions on multifamily housing or restrictions on household occupancy are examples of how land development codes can negatively affect the groups protected under the Fair Housing Act.
City regulations are not a large influence on the cost of housing, and they are not a barrier to the
creation of multifamily development. Land cost, labor costs, and materials inflation, coupled with
the desirability of our area, and the ease of remote work in today’s economy are almost entirely
responsible for the unaffordability seen in Bozeman right now. 11. The City has, through multiple iterations of its land use regulations spanning decades, made revisions to its development standards to support production of housing including: reducing land area per dwelling requirements, authorizing accessory dwellings in all residential zoning districts, authorizing mixed-use buildings and apartment buildings in the majority of non- residential districts, reducing parking requirements, capping dedication of parkland, zoning the majority of residential areas for multiple dwelling buildings, limiting short term rentals to prevent diversion of units from the housing stock, increasing building heights in all residential districts, simplifying review processes, providing for concurrent construction of infrastructure and housing, and creating by-right approvals for regulatory compliant developments, among other actions.
This finding demonstrates exactly why it isn’t our regulations that are making housing expensive!
Other forces are at work here. We’re giving too much away for free! We need to tackle affordable
housing from a different angle. What we’ve been doing is causing more harm than good. Many
people/institutions at housing conferences admit that they eventually had to become the developer in order to get the housing they needed for their work force. I think Bozeman should not rely solely on incentivizing for profit developers to meet our housing needs. Limit where
these incentives can be used, and then start building the housing we need ourselves. 19. The City Commission determines the incentives provided in this Ordinance are compatible and consistent with all other provisions of Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code.
How can you possibly make this finding when we haven’t adopted a new UDC yet or revised the
Historic Preservation Program yet!!! Site-specific development ALWAYS has individual impacts, and requires subjective determination! YOU MUST add language back into this ordinance described above, taken from SECTION 2 ITEM J in the original ordinance2105. 20. The City Commission further determines the housing developed through the use of the incentives of this Ordinance will be compatible with existing and future uses and development in the City. Again, how can you possibly make this finding! No Way! YOU MUST put back language from SECTION 7 in the original ordinance 2105 requiring compliance with the NCOD. And I would
argue you need to include language stating that developments using the incentives in this
ordinance MUST COMPLY with any future historic preservations standards that may be adopted. Section 2 My comments in bold “Division 38.380. - Affordable Rental Housing”
Section 2 of the draft ordinance seems to suggest that we are abandoning all efforts to incentivize
affordable housing for sale? We are only concerned with incentivizing affordable housing for
rent? The tables in this section seem to suggest this as well. This is an egregious error, and I don’t
remember the commission giving this direction. Just because something hasn’t been used to date, doesn’t mean that it won’t in the future. Market conditions change. 38.380.20 Applicability and Affordability Requirements A. The incentives in this division supersede the applicable standards otherwise provided in this chapter. All other provisions of this chapter remain applicable. The city retains the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application based on compliance with other portions of this code but may not attach conditions to an approval that have the effect of negating the incentives provided in this division. The incentives in this division are in addition to the departures for housing creation provided in 38.320.070. This is the section of the ordinance that concerns me with regards to the NCOD! Is it the intent to have the incentives in this division supersede the applicable standards provided for in 38.340? By including this, and not including the language above from section 7 of the original 2105, it sounds like the incentives supersede anything else in Chapter 38. Is that the intention? I don’t remember the commission giving that direction! This needs clarification and section 7 (above) of the original ordinance MUST BE added back in!
For organizational purposes, when codified, I would also suggest putting the Affordable Dwellings Required tables just above their associated incentives. Place table 38.380.020-1 directly above the incentives granted Type A in exchange for the affordable dwellings in that table, etc. Assumptions and Calculations 2. The maximum rental rates of an affordable dwelling are based on the AMI of a household and corresponding number of bedrooms within each affordable dwelling. The following establishes the maximum rental rate of each bedroom type based on the correlation between the number of bedrooms with the corresponding area median household income: a. Efficiency unit: AMI for a one-person household; b. One-bedroom dwelling: AMI for a two-person household; c. Two-bedroom dwelling: AMI for a three-person household; and d. Three- bedroom unit or larger: AMI for a four-person household.
Are we satisfied that these terms have been clearly defined. Wasn’t that one of commissioner
Bode’s requests that an Efficiency and a One-bedroom be clearly defined? I do not see
language that would avoid the issues brought about by the proposed Guthrie development in
the future. The sliding partition devised by Homebase and City Staff could still result in “one bedroom” rates being charged for what should really be called an efficiency. Our code defines Efficiency as follows: “Efficiency unit. A dwelling unit containing only one habitable room as defined and regulated by the most recently adopted International Building Code.” But it doesn’t define a one bedroom. If we are expecting two people to share a one bedroom, could we not make some distinction that there must be some living space aside from the bedroom and kitchen. 450 sq foot minimum is a great start, but I worry it’s not enough. Otherwise we end up with the partition and insufficient living space for dignity. What if someone is sick in bed,
and their partner wants to eat a meal or watch TV or work in another room? This should be
possible in a one bedroom. Please. We can require developers to build livable housing. 3. If the calculation of the required number of affordable dwellings results in a fraction of an affordable dwelling, the developer must construct affordable dwellings equal to the next lower integer and either provide a cash- in-lieu payment for the additional fractional amount or construct an additional affordable dwelling. Why not just round up, we need the housing! This is making something ludicrously complicated. The Incentives Themselves Incentives Type A I like that zone edge transitions are expressly required, in the A incentives for multi-family,
however inadequate they may currently be. ZET’s need to apply across a street in the new UDC. I
like the direction of the incentives for single-household attached and detached dwellings, but I
believe that if applied over existing neighborhoods they could create more gentrification through
redevelopment because the affordable units required from the redevelopment are so low. One
unit out of 20! Even if we get one unit out of 4, that level of gentrification makes me
uncomfortable in existing neighborhoods.
For example, a 7000 sq ft lot in R-2 could be subdivided to 2 lots. Then each of those lots is allowed to have a duplex and an ADU. All of a sudden we have 6 housing units where only 1 is affordable.
Alternatively, to create attached dwellings they could subdivide the 7000 sq ft lot into 3 lots and
build 10 (maybe more) for-rent town houses only one of which will be affordable, none of which
are required to have parking!
This sounds like ideal freedom for greenfield development, but when applied over existing
neighborhoods it’s not worth the destruction of historic neighborhoods and displacement of our working class. And as for the multi-household dwelling incentives it’s the same story we have now. Too many historic neighborhoods that have a lot of NOAH are zoned R-3 and up, so they will be mowed down for apartments which we are already overbuilt with (according to realtors). WE NEED TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICTS ON THE MAP WHEN WE DO THE UDC UPDATE! Incentives Type B
This section needs clarification in item 3. For multi-household dwellings and mixed-use buildings. What are the incentives? Is it the .25 vehicle parking spaces per dwelling described in c.? This is confusing… Also, isn’t the new UDC proposing 1 parking space per dwelling unit anyway? So that incentive for single-household developments will become by right. Incentives Type C
Again, isn’t new UDC proposing 1 parking space per dwelling unit, period? This incentive for
single-household construction will become by-right. Isn’t a single grouping of two townhouses a duplex, and therefore will be allowed by right in R-1 in the new UDC anyway? AGAIN, the multi-household dwelling incentives could be fine in appropriate areas, but our zoning districts are all screwed up! Many neighborhoods of historic homes and NOAH are currently zoned R-3 or higher making the incentives inappropriate. 4 additional stories of height is not
appropriate anywhere! We are a city of 50k, not 500k! Please be sensible.
WE NEED TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICTS ON THE MAP WHEN WE DO THE UDC UPDATE!
It’s good that the Type C incentives require compliance with ZET’s, even thought the ones on the
books are inadequate. They need to apply even when a zone changes across a street!
Sec. 38.380.060. - Alternatives for Land Donation and Cash- in-Lieu
This section needs to include a provision to deny the use of land donation or cash-in-lieu if the
development will result in a net loss of affordable housing! Same as my comments above
exemplified by the Block B development proposed for East Mendenhall.
The language around the calculation of cash-in-lieu amounts seems confusing. Maybe an example would be helpful? Item 2 “The per dwelling amount must be based on the difference between the average new construction rental rate for apartments in the city and the established affordable rental rate calculated over the course of 20 years” seems like it should be related to the cost of constructing the
units, not the difference between market rate rents and affordable rents. I think the suggested
method of calculating this could end up in a uselessly low level of cash paid to the city in exchange
for the granted incentives. Especially since we don’t currently have a way to build the housing. In summary, the current proposed draft has major flaws, and I don’t believe this ordinance can successfully be applied city-wide. Restrict the use of it to greenfield development or parcels fronting major arterials. Thank you, Alison Sweeney Submitting comment in my capacity as a private citizen. 12/28/24