Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-03-25 Public Comment - M. Egge - Egge Suggested Motions for CDB Nov 3 MeetingFrom:Mark Egge To:delmue Cc:Henry Happel; Jennifer Madgic; Mark Egge; Ben Lloyd; Chris Egnatz; Chris Saunders; Erin George; Tom Rogers; Sam Sagstetter; Trenton Ruffalo; Mike Maas; Bozeman Public Comment Subject:[EXTERNAL]Egge Suggested Motions for CDB Nov 3 Meeting Date:Monday, November 3, 2025 9:03:20 AM Attachments:Egge UDC Comments.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. Good morning fellow CDB members, This is being cc'd to Staff as well as comments@bozeman.net. This issubmitted as a public comment regarding our meeting on 11/3. Please do not "reply all" to this email. There are three topics that I believe warrant the board's consideration: 1. Downzoning requests for the R-4 area of the Bon Ton Historic District. The existing "R-C" character of the area would result in numerous nonconformities if downzoned to R-A. The attached PDFillustrates the extent of the existing R-C character in this area. 2. Street Facing Entrances Requirement. Given that Bozeman's parcels tend to be platted narrow and deep, I fear that this change would beprejudicial against some building forms that make multifamily structures work on lots with narrow frontages. 3. Addressing the partial shed roof ban created by the unholy union ofnumeric height standards from the current UDC with the wall plate height standards leftover from prior versions of the draft code. As illustrated by the public comment submitted by Eric Bonnett on 7/3/2025, the draft code is prejudicial against shed roofs and favors mansard and gambrel roofforms with significantly greater allowable height. Mark Egge1548 S Grand Ave Bozeman, MT 59715 1 3 November 2025 Recommendations from Mark Egge regarding the draft Unified Development Code: Bon Ton Nonconformities While the built environment of the Centennial Park neighborhood does reflect an R-A character, the same cannot be said of the R-4 district of the Bon Ton Historic District. The R-4 portion of the Bon Ton Historic District has been designated for higher densities since at least the 1960s (see Figure 1). The area has an existing “R-C” character, including numerous existing commercial uses and apartments ranging from 4 – 43 units. Downzoning this district to R-A would create significant nonconformities (see Figures 2, 3). Figure 1 Bozeman Zoning Map, 1960 2 Figure 2 Parcels nonconforming to R-A Zoning Figure 3 Existing Residential Uses (source: Montana Cadastral Data, 2024) 3 This area is a multifamily-majority area (the count of homes in multifamily configurations outnumber the count of single-family detached dwellings). I find it troublesome that the City would grant a petition by a minority of homeowners to designate the majority renters in the district as legally nonconforming. Reading the comments of the neighbors who petitioned for the change, it seems like they like things the way they are, which seems to me like a good argument for keeping the zoning the same it has had for the last 50 years. Finally, data from the 2000 and 2020 decadal censuses show that this area has lost population in the recent past, even while the overall city population has grown by 50%. Banning missing middle housing from a highly walkable, amenity rich neighborhood with good transit service that immediately borders downtown is not in accordance with our growth policy. To cure this contradiction, I propose this motion: Whereas downzoning the R-4 area of the Bon Ton Historic District to R-A would create significant nonconformities and apparent contradiction with the growth policy, we recommend the draft Zoning Map designation be based on the current and historic zoning. 4 Street Facing Entrances This strikes me as a solution in search of a problem that would have the unintended consequence of creating undue prejudice against practical multifamily building forms. As someone who spent a college summer delivering pizzas in Bozeman and who has knocked thousands of doors on behalf of various political campaigns, I have never in my memory had an issue finding an entrance in a manner that this code would cure. Since our parcels in Bozeman tend to be long rather than wide, multifamily units with entrances that face the side of the parcel are a common architectural form for missing middle type housing, as shown in the examples below. Recommended motion: Whereas requiring that entrances must face the street may unduly prejudice our development code against some practical missing middle structural forms well suited to the typical shape of Bozeman parcels, we recommend the treatment of building entrance requirements from the current code be preserved in the draft code. Triplex, North 3rd 5 Fourplex, South Grand Fiveplex, East Story Street 6 Sixplex, North Church St Fourplex, South Tracy 7 Mansard Roof Amendment When the height limit mechanism was changed from the number of stories to numeric standards from our existing UDC, I expected that both the number of stories and the wall plate height regulations would be removed. The wall plate height is a form-based concept that was intended to work in tandem with the number of allowable stories. Per Erik Bonnett’s comment on July 3rd, the current wall plate height limits are problematic for certain roof types—especially shed roofs. The current code varies the maximum building height based on the pitch of the roof. As Erik’s illustration from 7/3 demonstrates, the draft code would allow a gambrel roof structure of up to 40’ in R-A, but effectively prohibit any two-story shed roof structures, such as a shed roof ADU over a garage. 8 There are a few potential remedies that would prevent a proliferation of Mansard Roofs and an unintended ban on shed roofs. The simplest would be to maintain the numeric limits from the current code (which vary by roof pitch) and omit the additional wall plate height restrictions. This would also help address the wall plate public comments submitted on August 26th. Table 38.320.030.C Density, building height, and setbacks Use Type/Standard Zoning District R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O RMH Maximum building height (feet) (38.320.020.E) Roof pitch in feet R-S R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O RMH Less than 3:12 28 28 30 36 40 505 50 28 3:12 or greater 42 40 40 46 50 605 60 40 Recommended motion: Whereas existing residential height limits have demonstrated a broad degree of community acceptance and whereas encumbering these height limits with an additional wall plate height limit would prejudice the code in favor of certain roof forms and against others without justification in health, safety or welfare, we recommend that the existing residential height limits in the current code be preserved in the draft code instead of number of stories or wall plate height. Alternative motions: …we recommend that the plate height be measured from the low side of the roof for all roof types. – or – …we recommend addition of the text indicated in bold below to the draft code text: Measurement a. Wall plate height is measured from grade to the wall plate of the building. b. Wall plate height is measured at the point where the exterior wall intersects the roof structure, typically at the building corners. For complex roof forms - such as cross gables or standard gables - the measurement applies at the corners, and the roof form then extends above this height. For shed roofs, the measurement applies at the lowest two corners, and the roof form then extends above this height. c. Dormers located within the roof form above the wall plate cannot exceed more than 50% of the width of the roof. d. The high-side plate corners of a shed roof located within 15' of a property line cannot exceed by more than 6 feet the wall plate maximum height specified by zoning district.