Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-25 Public Comment - J. Delmue - Ideas for CDB Motions re_ the Current Draft of the UDCFrom:Jason Delmue To:Henry Happel; Jennifer Madgic; Ben Lloyd; Mark Egge; Chris Egnatz Cc:Chris Saunders; Erin George; Sam Sagstetter; Trenton Ruffalo; Tom Rogers; Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Ideas for CDB Motions re: the Current Draft of the UDC Date:Friday, October 17, 2025 9:59:31 AM Attachments:Proposed JD Motions 1 for CDB 10-20 v2.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. Fellow CDB Board Members, This e-mail is also being sent to comments@bozeman.net so that it will be part of the public folder. Please don't reply to all with substantive responses since we have a virtual quorum. Attached are some ideas I have for motions that I might make at the Nov. 3 CDB Meeting re: the UDC Update. It's possible that the action item will extend to the next meeting (Nov. 17). For our coming meeting, we have a Work Session about the Current (Sept 2025) Draft UDC. I hope that Chairman Happel can orchestrate a morefree-flowing discussion among us, Staff, and others who might attend with specific knowledge to lend to the analysis of these and whatever other UDC edits board members might be considering or members of the public might suggest that CDB might make to the Commission. --Jason 406.600.2896 Page 1 of 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD in prep for Oct. 20, 2025 Motions offered for consideration by Board Member Jason Delmue – Round 1 Intended to be discussed at the Work Session on Oct 20 and possibly made, deliberated, and voted on at the Public Hearing scheduled to start on Nov. MOTION 1: This Board recommends to the City Commission to count ADUs toward meetfng minimum density requirements. 38.260.030.A.3.a (p. 2-81). Reasoning: ADUs are some of the least controversial dwelling units and provide very gentle density. They contribute toward density and should be counted for doing so. MOTION 2: This Board recommends to the City Commission to decrease to 12’ (from 15’) the minimum height of the ground floor in a non-residentfal building in B-1, B-2M, B-3, REMU, and NEHMU. Secs. 38.220.020.B (p. 2-21), 040.B (p.2-25), 050.B (p. 2-27), 070.D (p. 2-33), & 080.D (p. 2-37). Reasoning: Projects that need or want a taller ground floor can still have it. This change only removes a mandate for really tall first floors. Even 12’ is still tall, with a ceiling height of likely 10’. Most concerning with a 15’ minimum ground floor is the implication for mixed-use buildings that feature or prioritize residential uses on the ground floor. Such tall construction, if not otherwise needed, adds cost and height. Parts of town zoned for mixed use can use more housing. If the developer of such projects desires to have a shorter (but still tall) ground floor and concludes that it will work well for both the non-residential and residential portions of the ground floor, this should be a permissible option. MOTION 3: This Board recommends to the City Commission for restaurants in NEHMU to increase the maximum allowed size to 3,000 SF (from 2,500 SF). Sec. 38.320.090.D.3 (p. 3-33). Reasoning: For consistency in the code, 3,000 SF should be adopted. Areas that are more focused on residential uses (R-D, R-C, and R-B) allow for 3,000 SF restaurants (as well as General Service, Health and Exercise, Personal Service, and Retail uses up to that size). The mixed-use NEHMU zone seems just as well suited to restaurants if not more so, and so it should not have a smaller allowed size. Page 2 of 3 MOTION 4: This Board recommends to the City Commission to increase to 12 (from 8) the maximum number of units in a building in R-B. Sec. 38.210.030.B.2 (p. 2-11). Reasoning: We heard from architects that work on affordable housing projects about the relatively high affordability of a three-story building designed with a single staircase and 4 units per floor. With the as-drafted maximum of 8 units per building, this affordable structure would not be allowed. A three-story building with four units per story is dramatically smaller in scale than the buildings that have been the subject of some public criticism. Those 5- and 6-story buildings tend to have several to many dozen units in them. R-B has a max building width (120’). In addition, all of the other constraints still apply (parking, max height, max wall plate, max lot coverage, min open space, etc.). It is contrary to multiple goals of the Community Plan to arbitrarily cap at 8 the number of units in a structure that meets all of these many other requirements. MOTION 5: This Board recommends to the City Commission to allow by right in R-A structures containing up to 4 dwelling units. Sec. 38.210.020.B.2 (p. 2-9). Reasoning: The City needs more housing units, especially in parts of town that are close to already established retail and commercial offerings. By definition, the City’s least- dense zones (slated to become R-A) have relatively fewer dwellings (and therefore vehicles) per a given area. These areas have lost population. They are, therefore, well suited for some gentle infill. The City’s zoning and building codes, among many other things, ensure safety, prevent buildings being too close, prevent parcels from being overbuilt, etc. So long as these many requirements are met, there is no compelling reason to put such a low cap (duplex plus an ADU) on the number of dwelling units per lot. Conversely, allowing more dwelling units can encourage smaller units, which tend to be more affordable than larger units. Affordability is also increased by spreading land costs across more units. Moreover, the trend of intense gentrification – where a modest house is demolished and replaced by a large, new, elegant (and therefore extremely expensive) SHR – might be lessened at the margins by allowing 3- and 4- plexes as a redevelopment option. The foregoing reasoning applies to infill locations. For new green field development, the City has seen very few annexations with initial zoning of R-1 or R-2, and so those neighborhoods can be expected to develop with a mix that consists of more than only SHRs, duplexes, and ADUs. In other words, changing R-A to allow up to 4 units by right is not likely to have a meaningful impact on these new areas. Most zones are several to many blocks in size. Legally limiting a zone to only SHRs, duplexes and ADUs is contrary to the Community Plan’s goal of having neighborhoods with a variety of housing types. It is also contrary to the mix of housing that occurred prior to zoning in beloved parts of town such as N. Church Ave. and the Bon Ton Neighborhood, to name only two. Page 3 of 3 MOTION 6: This Board recommends to the City Commission that, unless R-A is revised to allow structures up to 4 dwelling units, then the Centennial Park Neighborhood and the Bon Ton Neighborhood should be downzoned from R-C to R-B instead of to R-A. (Zone Map) Reasoning: Unless R-A is revised accordingly, it is not a good zone for achieving the community’s goals as set forth in the Community Plan. Accordingly, areas should not be downzoned to this zone. Particularly with respect to the Bon Ton Neighborhood, R-A as currently drafted is contrary to the long-established pattern that exists and would make the structures that contain more than a duplex non-conforming. One of the Bon Ton Neighborhood’s main organizers, Jim Webster, on multiple occasions referred to R-A- and-a-half, thus acknowledging that R-A, as currently drafted, is too restrictive. MOTION 7: This Board recommends to the City Commission to change the Purpose of NEHMU to "This district is envisioned as a vibrant, eclectfc, mixed-use neighborhood that honors its historic roots in light industrial, manufacturing, and residentfal uses. At the same tfme, it welcomes the thoughtiul integratfon of new neighborhood-scale artfsan, art-making, retail, service, and other commercial uses. Adaptfve reuse of existfng buildings, along with context-sensitfve new constructfon, should foster actfve street frontages that invite social interactfon through art, public plazas, and gardens.". Sec. 38.220.010.G (p. 2-19) Reasoning: This was grass-roots language developed by a resident of the NE Neighborhood in collaboration with other involved neighbors and the consultation of a local planner. Unless Staff finds some of this language problematic or contrary to the vision of this area’s future, it seems appropriate to have a purpose statement of a unique part of the town crafted by involved residents of that part of town.