Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-25 Public Comment - A. Sweeney - UDC draft public comment for CDB Public Hearing Nov. 3From:Alison Sweeney To:Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]UDC draft public comment for CDB Public Hearing Nov. 3 Date:Sunday, November 2, 2025 4:45:49 PM Attachments:UDC draft; comments for DCB public hearing November 3.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. Hello City Clerk, Could you please make sure the attached comment is submitted to all members of theCommunity Development Board, the Community Development Department and the City Commissioners. Thank you, Alison B. SweeneyBernadette's Handmade Jewelry Bozeman MT406-404-5740 alison-bernadettes.com UDC draft; comments for DCB public hearing November 3 The majority of the community is happy with the unit count allowed per residential zoning district so don’t change what’s in the current draft. ● The Existing Building Alternative in R-A is a wonderful compromise created by neighborhood residents, staff and commissioners. Keep it intact. ● Do not remove the unit cap in R-C. Montana code and our own UDC make generous provisions for nonconforming structures to continue existing use, renovate, or perform maintenance. It is not a concern. Furthermore, it is helpful to have a zoning district in our code that allows for something between the 8 units of R-B and the unlimited number allowed in R-D. Since all allow some commercial, removing unit caps in R-C would render the difference between R-C and R-D almost non-existent, so you might as well just do away with R-C all together. I’m NOT recommending that! Leave R-C capped at 24 units. With no ban on parcel assembly, and the allowed building width too large to be meaningful, the unit cap of 24 gives us the potential for something larger than 8 but smaller than 100, which is inappropriate in most neighborhoods. Adopt Mr. Bonnett’s suggestion about measuring wall plate height on structures with a shed roof, but only in conjunction with a lower total height allowed in R-A. ● I recommend a total allowed height of 34 ft in R-A. The reason is that the gambrel roof (which has been a concern of mine since 2023) allows for far too massive a structure to be compatible next to anything but the Story Mansion really. ● With setbacks of only 5 ft in the draft, 40 ft allowed height is simply too tall. 34 ft will allow for a decent sized structure to have a 12/12 pitched roof which is best to shed snow in our climate and is the perfect pitch for flush mounted solar panels to have the best average solar incidence at our latitude. Flush mounts do not require a COA in the NCOD. ● Many major metropolitan areas have height restrictions of 30ft or lower (Seattle, Denver, San Diego, Austin, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City). Small is beautiful, and we can still meet our housing needs. Do NOT upzone 11th any further between Babcock and College! One member of the ComDev board threw out the idea to me of making lots facing 11th Avenue on this stretch R-C. I understand why the current small expansion of R-C has been done in the proposed draft map, but GO NO FURTHER! ● A wall of massive apartment buildings here will cut off our neighborhood from Irving School and Cooper park. We don’t have a park in our neighborhood and Cooper is our go to. Do not wall us off! ● The board member suggested that taller denser buildings here would buffer the neighborhood on either side from the traffic on 11th. There is no issue with traffic even being perceived by the lots facing 10th and 12th either from their homes or their yards. What they will need buffering from is 50 ft tall apartment buildings across their alleyways that require no transition regulations ● This stretch of street already contains a diverse mix of housing occupied by working class renters and owners. ● From the staff report on page 12: “Shared housing is increasingly common. The City’s zoning regulations have allowed various forms of shared housing for many decades. Reuse of larger residential structures for shared living of different types can be an economic and less disruptive manner to allow additional residential density without disrupting the built environment. The draft code provides additional latitude to remodel existing structures into a greater number of homes while limiting the physical expansion of the structure. The annual land use inventory shows areas developed prior to zoning have an existing pattern of mixed housing types. Those areas are functional and often referenced as being desirable. Therefore, there is reason to allow the natural evolution to such a mixed housing state in other areas of the community.” ● Quit messing with what already works and concentrate on areas of the community that lack diversity of housing and neighborhood scale commercial. Cultivate B-1 as a truly neighborhood scale commercial zone ● Do not increase the allowed square footage in a commercial space in B-1 from 5,000 to 10,000 sq ft. This zoning district is meant to be neighborhood supportive business, not high intensity commercial. Most local shops can’t afford these large, expensive spaces. ● In order to be more compatible with neighborhoods, reduce the overall height allowed from 45 ft to 30 ft. This would remove the necessity for zone edge transition regulations to apply in this district as it would be compatible in mass and scale with neighborhoods. ● While this may be a decrease in allowed height from the current code it will NOT create a large number of non-conforming structures in existing B-1 zoned areas and it could encourage the proliferation of much needed neighborhood scale commercial in outlying parts of town. (If there are any structures currently taller than 30 ft, Montana code and our UDC make ample provision for continued use, maintenance and renovation of non-conforming structures). ● Additional height could be granted in exchange for affordability in upper story residential units. Don’t just give away the height! ● While the minimum lot width of 15 ft in the proposed draft UDC is great, the allowed building width of 125 ft is much too large for a neighborhood friendly commercial building. Reduce this by half if not more. Again, any non-conforming structures will be grandfathered in and smaller scale buildings will make this zoning designation more attractive to newly developing neighborhoods. Comply with SB 243, but do not exceed it without requiring affordability in exchange ● SB 243 prevents Bozeman from imposing height restrictions in the B-3 zone less than 60 ft. B-3 currently caps height at 70ft. We should not increase allowed height to 90 ft as proposed in the latest draft. This is “gifting” a public resource to private owners as detailed by economist Cameron Murray. ● B-P zoning designation is proposing to allow up to 80 feet in some cases, though state law only mandates 60ft. Since commercial and residential are limited uses, the need for additional feet is not justified. Any additional height should be leveraged for affordability if permitted at all. ● Since we do not have a housing shortage, but we do have an affordability problem, grant extra height ONLY through Professor Condon’s “density bonus in exchange for affordability!” Our current Affordable Housing Ordinance does this. ● Bozemanites have said no to increased height time and time again (see graphic below). If it is to be allowed at all it must be leveraged for affordability. ● On page 17 of the staff report it references a Community Plan objective: “DCD-2.9 Evaluate increasing the number of stories allowed in centers of employment and activity while also directing height transitions down to adjacent neighborhoods” Well, we evaluated it, and Bozeman residents said NO to additional height! Zone Edge Transitions ● Transition regulations need to be enforceable on both the front and sides of subject lots. Just because the front of a building is not facing a certain direction, that does NOT remove the impact of an enormous building on a lower intensity zoning district. For example, the view below is from the intersection of N. Tracy and Villard. The Henry should NEVER be allowed to happen again! Looking South. It doesn’t matter if this is the front of the building or the side, the impacts to adjacent homes is the same. Therefore the transition measure should be the same. The right of way here is measured at 52 ft 5 inches (1 ft past sidewalk). Transition 1b should apply. Transition 1b. Furthermore, here is the other side of that building from the intersection looking West. Transition 1b should also apply to this side of the building. It doesn’t matter where the “front” is. This right of way measures only 56 ft (1 ft beyond the sidewalk). This is where B-3 (The Henry) is located across from R-A. It is even more important when the lower intensity zoning district is a National Register Historic District. Our Growth Policy says we should learn from our mistakes: R 1.1 Be reflective: use past experience to inform future decisions. The Henry should never happen again! We are a city of 60k, not 600k! Mr. Pertzborn does not like the setback transition requirement stating that it creates inequity in adjacent lots. In order to address this; ● I suggest the additional setback and stepback be triggered if the proposed development on the subject lot is taller than the wall plate height limit of the adjacent lot. ● And again this is triggered across a right of way less than 60 ft, whether it is the front or side of the subject lot. ● This way a building that poses no additional impact to adjacent lots from more intense development (height) will not be subject to Mr. Pertzborn’s suggested inequity. ● Do NOT remove the landscape component in the current draft transition regulations! If we want a livable city we’re going to need to increase our urban forest, not decrease it. I appreciate Mr. Pertzborn’s suggestion of using different letters because it is confusing. X and Y will work well. I also appreciate Mr. Pertborn’s suggestion to draw the diagrams to scale. I’VE BEEN BEGGING FOR THIS FOR 2 YEARS! I would still suggest that across alleyways we include transition measures that require the subject lot to use opaque balcony screening, and letterbox windows. There is no reason you need to peer down into your neighbor’s backyard from your luxury flat and watch their kids play or the garbage truck come by. I also suggest that the official zoning map clearly show where zone edge transitions apply. This could be as simple as a thick blue line between zone boundaries. For example: The thick blue line between zoning districts delineates where a transition regulation kicks in. Notice between B-3C and B-3 no transition is required, but between B-3 and R-A it does. Since Bozeman street measures only 55 ft 4 inches it will require a transition across the right of way. Also East Curtiss only measures between 57’ 9” to 58’ 1” wide. Older streets are not always uniform. But delineating the zoning map in this manner leaves no confusion as to development entitlement on either side.