HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-24-17 City Commission Packet Materials - A1. UDC Public HearingPage 1 of 43
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and
Replacement Municipal Code Text Amendment
Public Hearing Dates: Zoning Commission, July 11, 2017
Planning Board, July 11, 2017
City Commission, August 24, 2017
Project Description: Amend and update the Unified Development Code (UDC) of the
Bozeman Municipal Code.
Project Location: These amendments apply to the entire City and all zoning districts as
detailed in the text.
Recommendation: Approval
Zoning Commission Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the
proposed ordinance, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby
adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 15320 and move to
recommend adoption of Ordinance 1978.
Planning Board Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application
materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the
findings presented in the staff report for application 15320 and move to recommend
adoption of Ordinance 1978.
City Commission Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application
materials, public comment, recommendation of the Zoning Commission,
recommendation of the Planning Board, and all the information presented, I hereby
adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 15320 and move to
approve the zone text amendments as shown in the July 28, 2017 Unified
Development Code draft and direct the city manager to return to the
commission with an ordinance codifying these text amendments along with
other text amendments previously approved by the commission but not yet
adopted by ordinance.
Report Date:
Staff Contacts:
August 18, 2017
Tom Rogers, Senior Planner
Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager
Martin Matsen, Community Development Director
Agenda Item Type: Action – Legislative
1
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 2 of 43
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 3
Unresolved Issues ............................................................................................................... 3
Project Summary ................................................................................................................. 3
Zoning Commission Recommendation............................................................................... 6
Planning Board Recommendation ...................................................................................... 9
City Commission Alternatives ............................................................................................ 9
SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES .................................................................................................. 10
SECTION 2 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ...................................... 11
SECTION 3 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ........................................................... 12
Section 76-1-606, MCA (Effect of Growth Policy on Subdivision Regulations) ............ 13
Section 76-3-102, MCA (Subdivision Purposes) .............................................................. 13
Section 76-3-501, MCA (Subdivision Purposes) .............................................................. 15
Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria ....................................................................... 16
PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS ......................................................... 25
APPENDIX A - PROJECT BACKGROUND ....................................................................... 25
APPENDIX B - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT .................................................... 26
APPENDIX C - APPLICANT INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF .................... 37
FISCAL EFFECTS ................................................................................................................. 37
ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................................... 37
ATTACHMENT A: GENERAL SUMMARY OF SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES – UDC
REVISIONS 7/28/2017 .......................................................................................................... 38
ATTACHMENT B – SECTIONS FOR WHICH DEPARTURES ARE AVAILABLE ....... 42
2
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 3 of 43
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Unresolved Issues
1) Recommended changes of the Zoning Commission
2) Recommended changes of the Planning Board
3) Responses to public comment
4) Determination as to whether or not to include residential buildings subject to block
frontage standards, within high-density residential zoning districts, located on
intersection with designated Arterial, and Collector streets in the High Visibility street
corner provisions of section 38.530.050.D.
5) Determination as to whether or not the provisions in the Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District (NCOD) should prevail for transitions. See sections 38.340.040.E and
38.320.060.
Project Summary
The City of Bozeman (City) is revising the development code. The purpose of this project is
to review and update, as needed the Unified Development Code (UDC) for the City of
Bozeman in two related steps. With the adoption of the City’s Community Plan in 2009, the existence of numerous adopted neighborhood and special area plans, and rapid growth (infill and edge), the City recognizes the need to update its land development regulations and
standards.
Bozeman initially adopted zoning in 1934. Bozeman’s current UDC structure, which
includes zoning, subdivision, and infrastructure standards, was established in 2004. Many older elements and standards were carried forward in 2004. The present text therefore does not always reflect the most up to date zoning, planning and infrastructure best practices.
Incremental modifications and updates are ongoing resulting in a less efficient code to
administer, unnecessary complexity, leading to challenges in implementing the land use and
design recommendations in Bozeman’s adopted plans. Areas of Bozeman’s older neighborhoods are nonconforming to current standards. This has led to frequent variance
requests and incremental amendments to the UDC. The older areas of town have experienced
substantial reinvestment in the past 20 years and there is a growing interest in increased
development in the historic core of the community. The additional intensity of use has
created conflicts between new and existing users.
The complexity of the project necessitated a two-step process. Step one focused on the North
Seventh Avenue corridor (“Midtown”) and urban renewal/tax increment district (TIF) and
created a new more user-friendly development code. This example was tested and applied to
the entire chapter 38. Step two continued the evaluation of the Unified Development Code,
Chapter 38, BMC and makes recommendations on the organization, presentation and create revised code for adoption.
3
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 4 of 43
General project objectives are:
• Create a development code that is more user-friendly
• Consistent application of goals and objectives
• Clarity of purpose
• Compatibility with existing plans
• Flexibility
• Predictability for property owners, the City and the community
• Reorganization to improve usability
• Shift emphasis from a use based code to more emphasis on site and building form
• Support infill
• Improve review procedures
• Implement the Midtown plan
• More
A summary of specific amendments to meet project objects are:
1) Create a development code that is more user-friendly
a) Added numerous explanatory images.
b) Reworded for plain language
c) Reorganized for consistent placement of standards in related subjects
d) Increased use of tables for presentation of information rather than extensive text
e) Consistent application of goals and objectives
f) Clarity of purpose with improved statements of intent more tied to specific sections
2) Shift emphasis from a use based code to greater emphasis on site and building form
a) Consolidate multiple uses into broader categories
b) Allow additional uses in districts
c) Consolidate design standards into Articles 4 and 5 from multiple sources to address
form which provides for variety within defined parameters
d) Create departures tool to enable flexibility in design within parameters
e) Departures are reviewed administratively
f) Reduced number of conditional uses in zoning districts
3) Support infill
a) Cash in lieu of infrastructure
b) Simplified parkland dedications process
c) Parkland exemption for small projects adding only one unit like ADUs
d) Revisions to intersection level of service to allow waivers under defined conditions
e) Revisions to simplify accessory dwelling units and lessen impact on adjacent
properties
f) Create standards for transitions between zoning districts to prevent conflicts
4
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 5 of 43
g) Flexibility provided through creation of departures to enable site specific adjustments
to compliance within defined standards
4) Improve review procedures
a) Simplified DRC review process
b) Improved public noticing procedures
c) Added special use permit to enable more expeditious reviews for appropriate projects
d) Consolidate design standards and remove redundant entryway overlay system
e) Created concept review process to facilitate earlier meaningful feedback and lessen
project delay.
f) Removed unnecessary submittal materials.
g) Removed standards made no longer necessary by integration of design standards in
code.
h) Predictability for property owners, the City and the community
5) Implement the Midtown plan
a) Created B-2M and R-5 districts
b) Applied B-2M and R-5 districts
c) Revised setbacks and enabled additional density of development within B-2M
d) Established block frontages for more form based code and less reliance on uses for
regulations.
A number of the initiatives and improvements were deemed critical to the operation of the
City and were adopted, as the amendments were prepared through this project. In addition,
the Community Development Department will integrate current code updates in progress
including cash-in-lieu of parkland, subdivision review process, and others into the overall code update. Each of the following line items were reviewed and adopted by Ordinance by the City Commission and are in effect today. However, the location and numbering of the
text has changed from its adoption to meet the revised numbering system.
Ordinance No. 1915 – Cash-in-lieu of infrastructure
Ordinance No. 1920 - Property maintenance and demolition of historic structures
Ordinance No. 1942 - Create B-2M and R-5 districts
Ordinance No. 1943 - Midtown zone map amendments
Ordinance No. 1944 - Site Plan review process revisions
Ordinance No. 1945 - Revise wetland review board
Ordinance No. 1946 - Revise entryway corridors
Ordinance No. 1952 – Cottage housing use and standards
Ordinance No. 1959 - Level of Service for intersections
Ordinance No. 1962 – Adding R-5 and B-2M added to sign code
Ordinance No. 1963 – Adding Group Living to the R-5 District
Ordinance No. 1964 – Refinement for use within a B-1 District
5
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 6 of 43
Ordinance No. 1965 – Parks as an allowed use in all districts
Ordinance No. 1971 – Affordable townhouse lot size averaging
The following amendments were reviewed and approved by the City Commission but not formally adopted by ordinance and will adopted with Ordinance 1978:
Amendment 2b – Parks, general procedures and guidance, and cash-in-lieu
Amendment 2d – water
Amendment 2F – Revisions to subdivision procedures
Amendment 2l – Covenants and supplemental materials
A list of the additional edits for which public hearings are being conducted at this time is
provided in attachment A.
A series of public outreach events, meetings, small group sessions, and an Advisory Committee was used to create, test, and determine the best approach for the City of
Bozeman. As a result, over 88 public engagement events were held to discuss concepts, share
progress and share information to all interested groups and individuals. See attachment A for
a list of public events.
On May 8, 2017 a complete draft UDC code was presented to the City Commission. At the Commission direction, staff unveiled the draft at five public workshops focusing on different
aspects of the code and to numerous City advisory boards. The final adoption schedule is not
yet established. The Zoning Commission must complete its review before the City
Commission public hearings can begin.
Public comment has been received on the project. Attachment B contains the comments.
A revised draft was published on July 28, 2017 which is the basis for the City Commission
hearings.
Zoning Commission Recommendation
City of Bozeman Zoning Commission held public work sessions on Tuesdays, March 22,
2016, April 5, 2016, October 4, 2016, October 18, 2016, November 1, 2016, February 7, 2017, February 21, 2017, May 16, 2017, June 6, 2017, June 20, 2017, June 27, 2017. The Zoning Commission held public hearings on July 11th and 18th, 2017. A complete record of
the public hearings can be viewed at the links provided below.
The following motions were considered and voted on as noted:
Amendment 1; failed (1:2) Amend section 38.230.040. DRB Authority. Expand DRB review authority to include,
“When along a zoning district boundary between R1, R2, (or otherwise zoned property
currently in residential use, i.e. one to two family homes) and B1, B2, B3, B2M, M1, BP or
UMU and including a project with more than 30 dwelling units or 30 parking spaces.” Amendment 2; passed (2:1)
6
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 7 of 43
Amend section 38.320.060. Zone Edge Transition. Consider point #3 of the Downtown
Business Partnership comment letter dated July 10, 2017. Specifically, allow adjacent
residential properties a height bonus to offset possible building height in the B-3 district.
Amendment 3; passed (2:1) Amend section 38.360.040 Accessory dwelling units (ADU). Relax square footage of
Accessory Dwellings Units (ADU) to 800 square feet in all residential zoning district. And
remove 38.360.040C.2.a.(2), subordinate clause and eliminate the one-third limitation.
Amendment 4; passed (3:0)
Amend section 38.360.030.H.2(b). Accessory structure setback requirement. Delete setback
requirements for Accessory structures for alley loaded lots.
Amendment 5; passed (:0) Amend section 38.360.110.C. Cottage affordable housing applicability. Remove affordable housing requirement for cottage housing projects.
Amendment 6; passed (2:1)
Amend section 38.360.210.C. Row house and townhouse garage standards. Eliminate impediments to garage on units less than or equal to 30 feet in width.
Amendment 7; passed (3:0)
Amend section 38.500.020.B. Building additions, remodels, and site improvements.
Generally reduce impediments for property owners to make incremental improvements to their properties. In particular within tax increment finance districts.
Amendment 8; passed (3:0)
Amend section 38.520.050. Internal roadway design. Eliminate drive through screening
requirement.
Amendment 9; passed (3:0)
Amend sections 38.520.070.B.5 and 38.520.070.E.1. Location and design of service areas
and mechanical equipment. Add “orientate” to list and remove residential limitation so
standards applies to all zoning districts.
Amendment 10; passed (3:0)
Amend section 38.530. Building design. Industry groups to review and codify realistic
building design standards.
Public hearing continued to July 18, 2017.
Amendment 11; passed (4:0)
Amend section 38.320.060. Zone Edge transitions. Bring UDC in conformance with the
NCOD chapter 4B standard.
Amendment 12; failed (2:2)
7
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 8 of 43
Amend section 38.320.060. Zone Edge transitions. Require a 15’ side yard setback. Friendly
amendment was accepted reducing the setback to 10 feet.
Amendment 13; passed (4:0) Amend section 38.530.050.E. Rooftop solar. Rework section to be more permissive. Specifically to say, “Rooftop solar is permitted, provided they are well maintained.”
Amendment 14; passed (4:0)
Amend section 38.530.060.B. Building materials. Widen appropriate materials and be less prescriptive. Specifically, strike “At a minimum” and replace with, “For example…”
Amendment 15; failed (2:2)
Amend section 38.530.070. Blank wall treatments. Delete entire section.
Amendment 16; passed (4:0) Amend section 38.530.070. Blank wall treatments. Add departures to allow additional
flexibility.
Amendment 17; failed (2:2) Amend table 38.540.050-1. Limit the number of bedrooms to two allowed to qualify for
parking requirements in B-3 district.
Amendment 18; failed (2:2)
Amend table 38.540.050-1.Generally reduce residential parking requirements.
Amendment 19; passed (4:0)
Create reference list summarizing all provisions and standards that allow departures
Amendment 20; passed (4:0) Strike all references to Urban Design Manual (UDM) and have both the Zoning Commission
and Planning Board review the UDM when available. (38.110.010, 38.430.090,
38.530.040.B, and 38.530.050.F)
Amendment 21; passed (4:0) Convene a design professional meeting to review proposed building design provisions prior
to Commission public workshop on Thursday, August 17, 2017 and a public hearing on
Thursday, August 24, 2017.
In conclusion, the Zoning Commission voted 2:2 not to recommend the City Commission adopt the revised development code.
In conclusion, the Zoning Commission does not recommends that the Bozeman City
Commission generally revise and adopt Chapter 38, with suggested amendments described
above, as prepared by staff (2:2).
8
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 9 of 43
Zoning Commission Recorded works sessions and public hearing video links
(approximately 12 hours of recordings):
Tuesday, June 6, 2017 Work Session video
Tuesday, June 20, 2017 work session video
Tuesday, June 27, 2017 work session video
Tuesday, July 11, 2017 public hearing video
Tuesday, July 18, 2017 public hearing video
Planning Board Recommendation
City of Bozeman Planning Board held public work sessions on Tuesdays, March 22, 2016,
April 5, 2016, October 4, 2016, October 18, 2016, November 1, 2016, February 7, 2017,
February 21, 2017, May 16, 2017, June 6, 2017, June 20, 2017, June 27, 2017. The Zoning
Commission held public hearings on July 11th and 18th, 2017. A complete record of the public hearings can be viewed at the link provided below.
The Planning Board proposed numerous changes to the ordinance as described in the
attached Planning Board Resolution No. 15320 is attached to this report.
In conclusion, the Planning Board recommends that the Bozeman City Commission generally
revise and adopt Chapter 38, with suggested amendments described above, as prepared by
staff (6:1).
Planning Board Recorded works sessions and public hearing video links
(approximately 12 hours of recordings):
Tuesday, June 6, 2017 Work Session video
Tuesday, June 20, 2017 work session video
Tuesday, June 27, 2017 work session video
Tuesday, July 11, 2017 public hearing video
Tuesday, July 18, 2017 public hearing video
City Commission Alternatives
1) Adopt the ordinance as presented,
2) Direct revisions to the ordinance prior to adoption and request staff to respond with
proposed revision for consideration at a future hearing,
3) Do not adopt the ordinance, or
4) Request additional information and continue discussion on the ordinance.
9
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 10 of 43
SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES
10
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 11 of 43
Zoning Map – Detailed map available at Community Development and on-line
SECTION 2 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS
Having considered the criteria established for a municipal code text amendment, Staff
recommended approval as submitted.
11
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 12 of 43
The Zoning Commission held public hearings on this text amendment on July 11th and 18th,
2017, at 6 pm at 121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman. The Zoning Commission considered 21
amendments to the development code. In conclusion, the Zoning Commission voted 2:2 in
support of the text amendment. The motion failed.
The Planning Board held public hearings on this text amendment on July 11th and 18th, 2017,
at 6 pm at 121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman. The Planning Board considered 21 amendments
to the development code. In conclusion, the Zoning Commission voted 6:1 in support of the
text amendment. The motion passed.
The City Commission will hold a public workshop on the amendments on Thursday, August
17th, 2017 and hold a public hearing on the amendments on Thursday, August 24th, 2017. If
the Commission approves the ordinance, a formal adoption action will be scheduled.
SECTION 3 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In considering applications under this title, the advisory boards and City Commission shall
consider the following criteria. As an amendment is a legislative action, the Commission has
broad latitude to determine a policy direction. There are four components of findings
associated with this text amendment. They are:
1. Planning Board and City Commission only; 76-1-606 MCA. Effects of Growth Policy
on Subdivision Regulations.
In considering the following criteria, the application must be evaluated against
subdivision criteria 1 below. A favorable decision on the proposed application must find
that the positive outcomes of the amendment outweigh negative outcomes for criteria 1.
2. Planning Board and City Commission only; 76-3-102 MCA. Statement of Purpose.
In considering the following criteria, application must be evaluated against subdivision
criteria 2-8 below. A favorable decision on the proposed application must find that the
positive outcomes of the amendment outweigh negative outcomes for criteria 2-8.
3. Planning Board and City Commission only; 76-3-501 MCA. Local Subdivision
Regulations.
In considering the following criteria, application must be evaluated against subdivision
criteria 9-17 below. A favorable decision on the proposed application must find that the
positive outcomes of the amendment outweigh negative outcomes for criteria 9-17.
4. Zoning Commission and City Commission only; 76-2-304 MCA. Criteria and
Guidelines for Zoning Regulations.
In considering the following criteria the analysis must show that the amendment
accomplishes zoning criteria A-D or is neutral. Criteria E-K must be considered and may
be found to be affirmative, neutral, or negative. A favorable decision on the proposed
12
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 13 of 43
application must find that the application meets all of criteria A-D and that the positive
outcomes of the amendment outweigh negative outcomes for criteria E-K.
Section 76-1-606, MCA (Effect of Growth Policy on Subdivision Regulations)
1. Subdivision regulations adopted after a growth policy has been adopted must be made
in accordance with the growth policy.
Yes. The following selections of goals and objectives from the growth policy, while not
exhaustive, indicate that the proposed changes are in accord with the goals and objectives of
the growth policy. No conflicts with the growth policy have been identified.
Objective G-1.1: Ensure growth is planned and developed in an orderly and publicly
open manner that maintains Bozeman as a functional, pleasing, and social community.
Objective G-1.2: Ensure that adequate public facilities, services, and infrastructure are
available and/or financially guaranteed in accordance with facility or strategic plans prior
to, or concurrent with, development.
Objective G-1.3: Require development to mitigate its impacts on our community as
identified and supported by evidence during development review, including economic,
health, environmental, and social impacts.
Goal G-2: Implementation – Ensure that all regulatory and non-regulatory
implementation actions undertaken by the City to achieve the goals and objectives of this
plan are effective, fair, and are reviewed for consistency with this plan on a regular basis.
The aforementioned objectives are supported by enhancing requirements to insure the City
builds neighborhoods and community that focus on human interaction, connectivity,
commerce, and retains the natural amenities our the area. In addition, the provisions
contained in the development code specifically mitigate impacts on the community identified
during development review, including economic, health, environmental, and social impacts.
Section 76-3-102, MCA (Subdivision Purposes)
2. Promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by regulating the subdivision of
land.
Yes. The amendments bring the City’s regulations into compliance with the state statute. The
revisions address issues of: transportation, healthy communities, water supply, mitigation of
development impact, infrastructure, parks and recreation, and other factors. The subdivision
regulations primarily in Article 2 regulate the subdivision process.
13
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 14 of 43
3. Prevent the overcrowding of land.
Yes. Land become overcrowded when the intensity of use is greater than the services
provided to the property. The proposed revisions are part of system which matches intensity
of mitigation to proposed intensity of use. Revisions to aspects of the subdivision submittal
materials and standards will help ensure that adequate information is available to determine
adequacy of public facilities. The development standards require provision of infrastructure
to support the subdivision concurrent with the development of the subdivision. Therefore, the
ordinance will help ensure that a given area of land has capacity to support the level of use.
4. Lessen congestion in the streets and highways.
Neutral. The proposed revisions make minor changes to requirements for street frontage in
some cases. The construction of sidewalks, or traffic mitigation is not being modified. The
existing regulations address evaluation and mitigation of new travel demand from
subdivisions. Therefore, no impact is expected to this criterion.
5. Provide adequate light, air, water supply, sewage disposal, parks and recreation areas,
ingress and egress, and other public improvements.
Neutral. The revisions do not modify standards that may affect the provision of light, air,
water supply, sewage disposal, parks and recreation areas, ingress and egress, and other
public improvements. The existing regulations have been found to meet this criterion.
Submittal requirements provide the necessary information to allow analysis of needed
facilities so that necessary improvements are provided with each development.
6. Require development in harmony with the natural environment.
Yes. The proposed does not alter the basic standards for land development. No changes to
environmental regulations are included with this proposal. The existing regulations address
various natural environment issues including stormwater control and protection of water
courses. Correct placement and location of development will reduce impact on the natural
environment.
7. Protect the rights of property owners.
Yes. The procedural requirements of the City’s subdivision regulations protect rights.
Adequate coordination between all stakeholders are integrated in the City’s subdivision
regulations.
8. Require uniform monumentation of land subdivisions and transferring interests in real
property by reference to a plat or certificate of survey.
Yes. Montana Codes Annotated and Administrative Rules govern monumentation of land
subdivisions and transferring interests in real property by reference to a plat or certificate of
survey. The City’s subdivision regulations include these provisions. No changes to these
14
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 15 of 43
requirements are being proposed. Both public and private interests are addressed in this
manner.
Section 76-3-501, MCA (Subdivision Purposes)
This section requires local governments to adopt regulations that reasonably provide for:
9. Orderly development within the jurisdictional area.
Neutral. The City has long standing provisions to establish an orderly street network, parks
and lots for development. These are shown by experience to be effective. The revisions to not
modify the basic street grid, park requirements, or other standards which establish an orderly
pattern of development.
10. Coordination of roads within subdivided land with other roads, both existing and
planned.
Neutral. The amendments do not address this criterion. The City’s long range transportation
plan locates major roadways. The existing and proposed regulations coordinate with this
plan. Existing regulations which will carry forward in the new regulations will continue to
address street design standards, placement of streets, and access to streets.
11. Dedication of land for roadways and for public utility easements.
Neutral. The amendments do not address this criterion. The City’s long range transportation
plan, water and sewer plans, and stormwater plans identify locations for large scale
infrastructure. Dedication of land for streets is required with subdivision and public utilities
are primarily placed within that right of way. Easements for power, cable, and other privately
provided utilities are required to be included with each plat. No changes to these
requirements are included with these amendments.
12. Improvement of roads.
Neutral. The amendments do not address this criterion. See criteria 10 and 11.
13. Provision of adequate open spaces for travel, light, air and recreation.
Yes. The amendments include provisions to mitigate impacts of lot size by limiting bulk and
mass on each parcel by proportionally limiting the mass of a building to the size of a parcel.
The provisions for parkland are being revised to be more responsive to an urbanizing
community. Minimum standards for on and off-site parks and open space are continuing in
place. Additional flexibility to meet those requirements enables effective open spaces to be
provided that meet the needs of residents while not placing unnecessary burdens during the
development process.
14. Adequate transportation, water and drainage.
Yes. The revised regulations address the contents to be submitted with a development
application. This includes an expanded description of how irrigation water will be provided
15
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 16 of 43
to proposed parks, information on anticipated water consumption for the development and
how that demand will be offset. A mandate for irrigation wells in some circumstances is
being made more flexible which corresponds with recent changes in state law. Water
conservation is receiving greater encouragement and additional flexibility is being provided
for mitigation and treatment of stormwater.
15. Regulation of sanitary facilities, subject to section 76-3-511, MCA.
Neutral. The amendments do not address this criterion. See criterion 11. Chapter 40 of the
Bozeman Municipal Code is the primary governing regulations for water and sewer facilities.
Current regulations which are continuing forward with these revisions require connection to
municipal water and sewer and demonstration of adequate capacity prior to construction.
16. Avoidance or minimization of congestion.
Yes. The municipal code includes several standards to address this issue. As noted above, the
City requires dedication of right of way for streets and construction of streets with
subdivision of property. There are standards for adequacy of traffic flow which are evaluated
with individual projects. Projects may not move forward if adequate capacity is not available.
Application of the standards for street connectivity, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and
overall system capacity avoid or minimize congestion.
17. Avoidance of subdivision which would involve unnecessary environmental
degradation and the avoidance of danger or injury to health, safety, or welfare by reason of
nature hazard or the lack of water, drainage, access, transportation, or other public services or
would necessitate an excessive expenditure of public funds for the supply of such services.
Yes. The proposed amendments require information on hazards, such as the wildland urban
interface, which are a known hazard. This enables analysis and identification of necessary
mitigation measures to reduce hazards to future land owners and to avoid excessive
expenditure of public funds.
Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria
A. Be in accordance with a growth policy.
Yes. The growth policy does not dictate uses or specific standards to the level of detail
contained in the ordinance. It does identify issues and priorities for consideration and does
contain goals and objectives that are desirable outcomes. There is no prioritization of one
goal or objective over another. In determining appropriateness of a particular zoning
ordinance, the Commission needs to find a balance that best advances the interests of the
community. It is inappropriate to maximize one item to the detriment of the remainder of the
goals and objectives of the document. The City adopted the current edition of the growth
policy, the Bozeman Community Plan, in 2009. The Community Plan consists 17 chapters
16
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 17 of 43
detailing community context, land use, community quality, arts and culture, economic
development to name a few.
A review of the document found goals and objectives applicable to this application.
However, not all goals and objectives are implemented by Chapter 38 of the Bozeman
Municipal Code. Fifteen Ordinances have been reviewed and approved by the Commission
as part of this project. Each ordinance was found to be in accordance with the Community
Plan and are not necessarily included in the following analysis. In addition three other
proposed amendments were reviewed by the Commission although not formally adopted
including cash and/or improvements-in-lieu of parkland dedication and parkland dedication
modifications. The parkland related amendments are included in the attached ordinance.
Chapter 3 – Land Use
There are seven core ideas which form a foundation for many of the land use policies of the
Bozeman Community Plan including supporting neighborhoods, maintaining a sense of
place, building on the areas natural amenities, creating centers to foster compact
development, integration of action, urban density to improve efficient cost-effective
provision of urban services, multimodal transportation, and a compact development pattern is
a concentration of persons and activities, and sustainability.
Central to the seven principals are neighborhoods. The Community Plan states, “There is
strong public support for the preservation of existing neighborhoods and new development
being part of a larger whole, rather than just anonymous subdivisions. This idea includes the
strengthening and support of existing neighborhoods through adequate infrastructure
maintenance and other actions. As the population of Bozeman grows, it is harder to keep the
same “small town” feel because residents cannot be on familiar terms with everyone. The
neighborhood unit helps provide the sense of familiarity and intimacy which can be lacking
in larger communities. The neighborhood commercial/activity center and local parks provide
opportunities to casually interact with other nearby residents. Not all neighborhoods are of
equal size or character.”
Response: This excerpt from the plan notes that neighborhoods are both important and vary
in character and size. Neighborhoods may be of residential, non-residential, or mixed use
character. One type of neighborhood is not inherently superior to another. People often make
reference to their neighborhood in describing where they live. The personal mental map of
what defines the neighborhood are influenced by familiarity, availability of notable features,
social connections, and travel patterns. Neighborhoods are often difficult to define
objectively as a specific geographic area and may not have strongly marked natural edges as
perceived identity may changes with proximity to a characteristic feature. A neighborhood is
defined in the glossary to the growth policy as:
“Neighborhood. An area of Bozeman with characteristics that distinguish it from other
areas and that may include distinct economic characteristics, housing types, schools, or
17
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 18 of 43
boundaries defined by physical barriers, such as major highways and railroads or natural
features, such as watercourses or ridges. A neighborhood is often characterized by
residents sharing a common identity focused around a school, park, business center, or
other feature. As a distinct and identifiable area, often with its own name, neighborhoods
are recognized as fostering community spirit and a sense of place, factors recognized as
important in community planning.”
Goal LU-1: Create a sense of place that varies throughout the City, efficiently provides
public and private basic services and facilities in close proximity to where people live and
work, and minimizes sprawl.
Response: Numerous provisions currently exist in the development code to further this goal.
Additional provisions including block frontages that are tailored to the existing and future
neighborhood context and require development to respond to its surroundings. In
conjunction with block frontage site and building design elements, this furthers the sense of
place and supports center based development. Adjustments to the dimensional standards
nudge density to the stated goal in the Community Plan.
Objective LU-1.3: Encourage positive citizen involvement in their neighborhood and
community.
Response: The City’s outreach efforts for the development code update has fulfilled this
objective for this text amendment. See Appendix B. Over 85 public events were held to
create, test and refine the content in the ordinance. Once a draft code was prepared,
additional public workshops took place to engage all groups of our community.
Considerable public comment was submitted and considered during the review.
Goal LU-2: Designate centers for commercial development rather than corridors to
encourage cohesive neighborhood development in conjunction with non-motorized
transportation options.
Response: Applying fundamental design standards to all areas of the City, rather than just
designated entryway corridors, will further this goal by creating street frontage and site
design that relates to the existing neighborhood; provides a vehicular, pedestrian, and
multi-modal transportation network; and requires differentiation of the built environment
on designated intersections.
Additional infill provisions are included to promote residential development in under
utilized properties and other modifications to lessen restrictions on improvements to
properties. Infill provisions include cottage housing, reduced lot size standards, more
permissive accessory dwelling unit standards, courtyard housing developments, more
permissive property improvement allowances, and simplified park mitigation
18
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 19 of 43
requirements while continuing the diverse parking alternatives for commercial and
mixed-use buildings.
Chapter 4 – Community Quality
“Community Quality refers to those things that make Bozeman a special, attractive and
enjoyable place to live, work, and play. Community Quality issues include the ways
neighborhoods are designed, the way new development looks, the way our streets feel
including our urban forest, parkland, trails, commercial districts, new and old residential
neighborhoods, open spaces, views to the mountains that surround the City, the historic and
new architectural styles, and the core of Downtown Bozeman. An important component of
Bozeman’s uniqueness and livability is the quality of the people who live and work here.
Community quality, regardless of design, is ultimately meaningless without citizens that
respect each other and treat one another and the City landscape with decency.”
There are six goals under the community quality heading focusing on human scale and
compatibility, circulation, neighborhood design, design guidelines, public landscaping and
architecture, and sustainability.
Response: A primary goal of the code revisions is to simplify community expectations by
standardizing community, neighborhood, site, and building design requirements.
Eliminating the special entryway corridor district and applying those standards to all
commercial and larger residential buildings and developments will further community
quality by insuring all development meets the City standards of connectivity, open space
requirements, park design, and minimum design standards.
Objective C-1.1 states, “Expand design review programs citywide to ensure well designed
spaces throughout the community.”
Objective C-1.2 states, “Update design objectives to include guidelines for urban spaces and
more dense development.”
Response: Both of these objectives are central to the block frontage, site and building
design standards that will be applied uniformly and predictably throughout the City.
Considerable effort was made to insure unique solutions to site specific constraints is
allowed through the departure tool.
Objective C-1.4: Achieve an environment through urban design that maintains and enhances
the City’s visual qualities within neighborhood, community and regional commercial areas.
Response: The integration of the standards from the Bozeman Design Objective Plan
ensures urban design and visual qualities within neighborhood, community and regional
commercial areas are applied to all areas of the growing community. The provisions
contained in the Chapter 38 will create a more predictable, transparent and consistent
19
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 20 of 43
outcomes by clearly stating City expectations and community needs. Designating block
frontages throughout the City and articulating minimum building design and materials
will enhance the visual quality of the community. Additionally, the site design elements
will integrate each development into the existing neighborhood context with pedestrian,
bicycle, open space, park, and vehicular connectivity.
Goal C-3: Neighborhood Design – New neighborhoods shall be pedestrian oriented, contain
a variety of housing types and densities, contain parks and other public spaces, have a
commercial center and defined boundaries.
Objective C-3.2: Provide for neighborhood focal points to encourage local identity within
the community and provide a place for social interaction.
Objective C-3.3: Establish minimum residential densities in new and redeveloping
residential areas.
Objective C-3.4: Create neighborhood Commercial Centers that will provide uses to meet
consumer demands from surrounding Residential Districts for everyday goods and
services, and will be a pedestrian oriented place that serves as a focal point for the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Objective C-3.5: Integrate a wide variety of open lands, such as parks, trails, squares, greens,
playing fields, natural areas, orchards and gardens, greenways, and other outdoor spaces into
neighborhoods.
Response: These objectives and goal is furthered by bolstering housing variety and
modifying dimensional standards for residential lots. Housing variety is encouraged by
clarifying the myriad of housing types the City code allows and creating additional infill
components that will establish the framework for healthy neighborhoods. In addition,
changes in certain zoning districts dimensional standards and lessening restrictions on the
establishment of accessory dwelling units will allow slightly increased residential
densities in certain areas of the City while continuing to respect existing and planned
character.
Slight reductions in property size augment the effort to develop vital functioning
neighborhoods. Integrating the fundamental design standards from the Bozeman Design
Objectives Manual support parks, open lands, outdoor spaces, squares, and other civic
amenities and foster more vibrant commercial centers by vertically integrating uses.
Goal C-4: Design Guidelines – Create illustrated design guidelines to give clear direction in
design and review of residential and non-residential neighborhoods without unduly
constraining architectural style and innovation.
20
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 21 of 43
Objective C-4.1: Continue to develop the design guidelines for site planning and
buildings to emphasize creativity, diversity, and individuality. The design guidelines shall
be based on the premise that truly creative design is responsive to its context and
contributes to a comfortable, interesting community.
Response: Integrating design standards into the zoning code using a hybrid of Euclidian
and form base code provisos clarify development standards for the development
community, residents, and the City. The standards are modulated based on context to
adapt to the needs of our diverse community. Many standards allow departures that allow
the design community to apply their expertise and creativity to adapt sites and building to
the context in which it will be built while maintaining reliability of standards.
Objective C-4.2: All new residential buildings should be designed to emphasize the
visually interesting features of the building, as seen from the public street and sidewalk.
The visual impact of garage doors, driveways, and other off-street parking will be
minimized and mitigated.
Response: Article 5, Project Design is a response to this objective. Project design sets the
basic design elements and standards commercial and large residential buildings must
meet.
Objective C-4.3: Ensure the development of new residential structures that are
aesthetically pleasing through urban design.
Response: The development code improves the existing design standards for detached
and attached residential structures relating to garages and garage locations to improve the
streetscape and community function. Simple design standards apply to multi-household
structures to maintain aesthetic value and mitigate their potential impacts on adjacent
properties and neighborhoods.
Objective C-4.5: Investigate expanding form based zoning as a design review strategy for
the City.
As the City grows and the impacts from more buildings and activities can affect
neighborhoods. A successful tool to address these impacts are form-based zoning codes
(FBC). FBC’s address the design of a development site and building resulting in de-
emphasizes use in favor of mitigating impacts on adjacent properties and neighborhoods.
The revised development code integrates design standards into the zoning code using a
hybrid of Euclidian and form base code provisos clarify development standards for the
development community, residents, and the City. The standards are modulated based on
context to adapt to the needs of our diverse community. Many standards allow departures
that allow the design community to apply their expertise and creativity to adapt sites and
building to the context in which it will be built.
21
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 22 of 43
Chapter 6 – Housing
“Shelter is a physical necessity and human right for all people. Housing is a critical part of
the character of the community. Our individual and collective aspirations for shelter
significantly shape our lives and our communities. As our community’s population changes
our housing supply must also change to accommodate it.”
Goal H-1: Promote an adequate supply of safe, quality housing that is diverse in type,
density, cost, and location with an emphasis on maintaining neighborhood character and
stability.
Rationale: A community needs a variety of housing stock to accommodate the diversity
in personal circumstances and preferences of its population. The type of housing required
may be different throughout a person’s life. A healthy community has a wide range of
citizens with differing age, education, economic condition, and other factors. Stable
neighborhoods encourage reinvestment, both financial and emotional that strengthens and
builds the community.
Objective 1.1 - Encourage and support the creation of a broad range of housing types in
proximity to services and transportation options.
Objective 1.2 – Encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of the existing housing
stock to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Bozeman residents.
Objective 1.3 - Promote the provision of a wide variety of housing types in a range of
costs to meet the diverse residential needs of Bozeman residents.
Goal H-3– Encourage an adequate supply of affordable housing and land for affordable
housing.
Rationale: There will always be a portion of the population which earns less than the
median income. This may be for many reasons. This affects the ability to find market rate
housing which is adequate for basic housing needs. Lack of adequate housing effects
health, social stability, and many other issues which can have severe negative and inter-
generation effects.
Objective 3.1 – Encourage the provision of affordable housing.
Objective 3.3 – Promote the development of a wide variety of housing types, designs, and
costs to meet the wide range of residential needs of Bozeman residents.
Response: Some comments on the issue of affordable housing asserted that use of homes for
STRs can remove dwellings from the stock of homes for long term use and therefore increase
pricing. Other comments asserted that the ability to obtain additional income from rentals
was helpful in being able to meet housing costs.
The City is reviewing a separate draft ordinance to establish standards for STRs. That
ordinance includes a restriction on the operation of STRs within dwellings where financial
22
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 23 of 43
affordable housing support was provided by the City. This restriction ends when the City has
recaptured the support. It is expected that this will prevent redirection into a non-owner
occupied condition. Type 1 or Type 2 STRs occur within the principal residence of the owner
or lessee. Therefore, they do not remove dwellings from the housing stock. The issue of
STRs will receive final resolution separately.
The regulations incorporate numerous elements supportive of affordable housing. These
range from prioritization in application processing, to flexibility in meeting development
standards, to requirements for new subdivisions to incorporate a percentage of price
controlled homes. The city removed common barriers to affordability such as minimum
home sizes years ago. Provisions to enable accessory dwelling units are made more flexible
with these amendments.
B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers.
Yes. The development standards provide for identification and mitigation of urban/wildfire
interface. Development within floodplains is restricted. Setbacks and other development
standards facilitate emergency service access. See also criterion C.
C. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare.
Yes. The essential standards for provision of public services such as water and sewer will
not be modified. The balance of proposed standards are expected prevent overcrowding or
other negative impacts. Access to clean water and treatment of contaminated water is
provided for. See Criterion D. General welfare is advanced by well designed developments
that are functional, attractive, and hold their value over time. Article 4 establishes standards
to create a strong community fabric that is greater than any one project and enables a
functional and healthy community. Article 5 establishes standards for building design which
supports an attractive community where people wish to live and work.
D. Facilitate the provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other
public requirements.
Yes. Standards for provision of public facilities are included. See subdivision criteria 4, 5,
10, and 11. The City does not have standards for dedication of school sites. The standards do
provide for pedestrian access to schools for children to travel to school. All site development
must demonstrate availability of adequate transportation, water, sewer, and park facilities
prior to approval. The regulations are integrated with other City standards in Chapter 40 for
provision of and operation of utilities.
E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air.
Yes. The basic standards for setbacks, dedication of parks, on-site open spaces, etc. that
affect this criterion are continued with the proposed ordinance. There are some revisions for
setbacks along arterial streets. The block frontage standards in Article 5 provide for
23
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 24 of 43
“packages” of standards that collectively ensure the issues of this criteria are provided.
Minimum standards for windows and air circulation/venting remain in the building codes.
F. Effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems.
Yes. The current allowances and requirements for parking apply based on the number of
bedrooms in the structure. No changes to the number of required parking spaces are proposed
with these amendments. Presently, any residential development may count a certain number
of on-street parking spaces and provide for parking on-site as well. The draft does not require
enclosed parking of any sort. Enclosed parking is allowed if the owner chooses to provide it
but it is not required. This is the same standard that applies to other residential development.
Evaluation of overall traffic effects occurs during subdivision or site development review. A
separate amendment is being processed for changes to parking standards in the B-2M district.
Evaluation of those changes is found in the staff report for that application.
G. Promotion of compatible urban growth.
Yes. The amendments enable the continued growth of the City. The standards, as shown in
other criteria, are consistent with the development standards and patterns of the City.
H. Character of the district.
Yes. There are many zoning districts in Bozeman and the proposed amendments. No new
districts or changes to the district boundaries shown on the zoning map are proposed at this
time. The proposed amendments maintain the essential existing character of individual
districts. Some changes are proposed in the authorized use tables. These changes primarily
aggregate uses into more broad categories. This is intended to simplify the tables and
application review which improves clarity and ease of use, two of the purposes of this code
review project.
Article 5 incorporates directly into the zoning standards design standards were previously
included in the Entryway Corridor Overlay District (ECOD). The ECOD will be removed as
part of these amendments as it will no longer be needed. The incorporation of the design
standards will enable an improved and more consistent review of the site plan development
criteria as applied to the site specific context of individual developments. This will support
the continuing character of individual districts. A new set of standards for zone edge
transitions will lessen abrupt changes in building scale at zoning district boundaries
I. Peculiar suitability for particular uses.
Yes. No changes to the zoning boundaries are proposed with these amendments. The location
of zoning districts has previously been found to be appropriate. The authorized use tables
have been reviewed for consistency with the intent and purpose of individual districts and
found to be appropriate.
24
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 25 of 43
J. Conserving the value of buildings.
Yes. No changes to the zoning boundaries are proposed that would cause buildings to
become non-conforming to the district in which they are located. The regulations include
multiple provisions to address this criterion. Division 38.340 directly addresses historic
preservation and preservation of existing buildings. Other portions of the municipal code
require buildings to maintained in a safe and secure condition to avoid decay and public
hazards. The building design standards of Article 5 will avoid negative impacts to adjoining
properties. The community design standards of Article 4 will ensure adequate street
circulation, parks, and other necessary features.
K. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area.
Yes. No changes to the zoning boundaries are proposed with these amendments. The uses
authorized in the use tables for each district are consistent with the district purpose. The
zoning boundaries are in substantial compliance with the land use map of the growth policy
which establishes the broad policy for location of uses. As described in Criterion A, the
proposed zoning is consistent with the growth policy overall.
PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS
IN THE CASE OF WRITTEN PROTEST AGAINST SUCH CHANGES SIGNED BY THE
OWNERS OF 25% OR MORE OF THE AREA OF THE LOTS WITHIN THE AMENDMENT
AREA OR THOSE LOTS OR UNITS WITHIN 150 FEET FROM A LOT INCLUDED IN A
PROPOSED CHANGE, THE AMENDMENT SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE EXCEPT
BY THE FAVORABLE VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE PRESENT AND VOTING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION.
For this text amendment application the applicable calculation of protesting owners would
include all owners of all properties in all districts of the City for issues affecting the entire city
such as review processes and generally applicable standards. For issues affecting a defined
subsection of the city such as an individual zoning district the calculation of protesting owners
would include all owners within the affected area. This protest does not apply to provisions
relating to subdivision review as there is no state authority for protest of subdivision regulations.
APPENDIX A - PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City has had zoning since 1934. The City has replaced the entirety of its zoning regulations
fifteen times since then and completed over 250 individual amendments to the text. These
regulations have developed over time as the City has grown from 6,855 in 1930 to over 45,000
25
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 26 of 43
today. The City Commission and Staff identified a need for a substantial revision to the zoning
regulations to catch up with changing state laws and to meet the needs of the community as it
changes from small town to a full city.
The City funded the project in FY 2015. A consultant was selected and public outreach was
conducted prior to any changes being prepared. A first phase of the project to create two new
districts was completed in May 2016. The second phase which includes an overall reorganization
as well as numerous changes to the substance of the text is now in review. Follow up phases will
be required to address subjects such as parking, signs, and zoning map boundaries are needed
and will be funded as opportunity permits.
APPENDIX B - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT
This application is for an amendment to the municipal code. Therefore, the required notice is
publication in the newspaper per Table 38.40.030, BMC. Notices were published on June 25,
2017 and July 2, 2017 in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle before the public hearings by the Zoning
Commission and Planning Board. In addition to this notice, a notice of the proposed amendment
as well as the text of the amendments were posted on the City’s website. Information was
distributed through the InterNeighborhood Council and Neighborhood Coordinator.
A notice was published on July 30, 2017 and August 6, 2017 in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle
before the public hearings by the City Commission. In addition to this notice, a notice of the
proposed amendment as well as the text of the amendment were posted on the City’s website.
Information was distributed through the InterNeighborhood Council and Neighborhood
Coordinator.
Throughout the code update process and in addition to minimum noticing requirements multiple
engagement efforts were employed to educate interested parties and, solicit comment on all
aspects of the code update, and encourage individuals and interested parties to be involved in the
project. A complete list of public events is included herein. Presentation materials and
documentation of these events is a part of the application and may be reviewed at the
Community Development Department. Draft documents, code, meeting materials were posted to
the UDC Update web page hosted on the City of Bozeman’s web site.
Bozeman Code Update Web Site
Outreach, meetings and public hearings and meetings
# Date Event Name General Subject
1 7/10/15 Economic Development Midtown discussion
2 7/13/15 Economic Development Consultant Update
26
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 27 of 43
3 7/13/15 Information Technology Share Point set up
4 7/14/15 Economic Development TIF Board Meeting
5 8/17/15 City Commission CC Special Presentation
6 8/24/15 City Commission CC PSA Adoption Hearing
7 9/3/15
BZN Climate Partners
presentation
8 9/10/15 City Wide Kickoff
City wide kick-off in Commission
Room
9 11/5/15 NSURB Board Meeting 10 11/9/15 City Commission Presentation for Studio
11/9/15 Advisory Committee Meeting
11
Nov 15-
19/15 Studio Storefront 12 11/9/15 Midtown Workshop 13 11/11/15 City Wide Workshop
14 11/18/15
Downtown Bus Improvement
Board Project Update
15 11/23/15 City Commission Summary of Studio
16 12/3/15 NSURB Board Meeting 17 12/15/16 Advisory Committee Meeting Block frontage concepts
18 1/7/16 NSURB Board Meeting
Zoning district boundaries, zoning
classification options
19 1/12/16 Advisory Committee Meeting Zoning district boundaries, zoning classification options
20 2/4/2016 NSURB Board Meeting 21 2/9/16 Advisory Committee Meeting Midtown Code - MAKERS
22 2/8/2016 City Commission Midtown Workshop Special
23 2/9/2016 Advisory Committee Meeting Midtown Code
24 2/9/16 Midtown Workshop Development Code Draft
25 3/22/16 Advisory Committee Meeting Midtown code/map, admin
26 3/22/16 ZC & PB Work Session Midtown code/map, admin
27 3/28/16 City Commission Work Session Midtown code/map, admin
28 3/29/16 City Wide Open House City Wide Phase 2 Public Meeting
29 3/29/16 MURB meeting Discussion on program
30 4/5/16 ZC & PB Public Meeting Ordinance adoption
31 4/7/16 MURB meeting
32 4/11/16
City Commission Adoption
Hearing Continue to April 25
33 4/25/16 City Commission Adoption Hearing Adoption night
34 5/2/16
City Commission Adoption
Hearing Revised Midtown code adoption
35 5/10/16 Advisory Committee Meeting Cottage house, Phase 2 plan, more
27
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 28 of 43
36 6/14/16 Advisory Committee Meeting Format & process
38 6/27/16 City Commission Layout & process
39 7/12/16 UDC Advisory Committee DOP & Block Frontage
40 8/2/16
Zoning Commission & Planning
Board UDC Design & Adoption Plan
41 8/9/16 UDC Advisory Committee Parks & Historic, water policy
42 8/15/16 City Commission DOP & UDC update/coordination
43 10/4/16
Zoning Commission & Planning
Board
Subdivision processes, LOS, Cash
for intersections, covenants
44 10/18/16
Zoning Commission & Planning
Board Miscellaneous corrections
45 10/24/16 City Commission
Covenants, Sub process, cash for
infrastructure. LOS
46 11/1/16 Zoning Commission & Planning Board Water 1, Misc. corrections
47 11/1/16 UDC Advisory Committee Water adequacy, ADU and infill
48 11/7/16 City Commission UDC update status report
49 11/10/16 INC Outreach Infill & ADU discussion
50 11/21/2016 City Commission Water 1, Misc. corrections
51 12/5/16 City Commission Infill policy discussion
52 12/13/16 UDC Advisory Committee Dec 5 Sum & Transitions
53 12/13/16 Preservation Board Dec 5 Sum & Transitions
54 12/14/16 Affordable Housing Board Dec 5 Sum & Transitions
55 1/10/17 UDC Advisory Committee Article 5
56
1/25/2017
& 2/22/17 Design Review Board Article 5
57 2/3/17 First Friday's ADU's
57
2/7/17 &
2/21/17
Zoning Commission & Planning
Board Article 5
58 2/14/17 UDC Advisory Committee Article 5
59 2/22/17 Design Review Board Article 5
60 2/24/17 CAHAB Meeting Affordable Housing
61 2/27/17 City Commission Article 5
62 4/14/27 Wonderlust Presentation Complete Package
63 5/8/17 City Commission Adoption schedule
64 5/11/17 INC Outreach 65 5/11/17 Workshop #1 Overview
66 5/16/17 UDC Advisory Committee
67 5/16/17 Zoning Commission & Planning Board 68 5/23/17 Neighborhood deep dive 69 5/18/17 New Highalite Neighborhood General update and participation
70 5/23/17 Workshop #2 71 5/23/17 Workshop #2 Neighborhoods Deep Dive
28
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 29 of 43
72 5/24/17 Cooper Park Historic group General Subject
73 5/25/17 Workshop #3 Design Professionals
74 6/1/17 Workshop #4 Planning & Engineering
75 6/2/17 First Friday 76 6/6/17 ZC/PB Workshop Article 1-3
77 6/8/17 Workshop #5 78 6/13/17 UDC Advisory Committee 79 6/13/17 HPAB 80 6/20/2017 HRDC General issues
81 6/20/17 Downtown BID See complete summary
82 6/20/17 ZC/PB Workshop 83 6/21/17 Downtown TIF See complete summary
84 6/27/17 ZC/PB Workshop Comments & amendments
85 6/28/17 CAHAB 86 7/11/17 ZC/PB public hearing Final adoption
87 7//18/17 ZC/PB public hearing Final adoption
88 7/17/17 Transitions discussion
89 8/17/17 Design professional discussion 90 8/17/17 City Commission code workshop
89 8/24/17 City Commission public hearing
The draft development code was presented to the City Commission on May 8, 2017 initiating the
formal review period. Numerous public comments have been received and provided to the
Zoning Commission, Planning Board, and City Commission for consideration. Staff has
reviewed all comments and provided a summary of comments for the Commission to consider.
The summary is included in this report.
Summary of Public Comment on the May 8, 2017 draft
As of close of business on August 10, 2017 eighteen (18) comments have been received. A
number of these comments represent larger groups such as Bozeman Preservation Advocacy
Group, Downtown Bozeman Partnership, InterNeighborhood Council, and the Human Resource Development Council. In addition, a number of individuals provided thoughtful specific comment on various aspects of the proposed development code. Other comments focused on
specific areas of interest.
Numerous public comments have been received during the past two years of this project and
prior to the issuance of the May 8th draft. Those comments have been considered in the preparation of the current draft but are not individually addressed below. Comments have been submitted regarding many specific development projects during the same period which address
subjects also included with the amendments. Those comments are not specifically addressed
below but staff has considered them in preparing the current draft.
29
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 30 of 43
A. BPAG comments, letter dated January 24, 2017
a. Relationship between NCOD and zoning requirements
Staff comment – The more specific generally prevails. Unresolved issue is to determine
whether or not the more restrictive zoning transition provisions apply in the 4B area of the NCOD.
b. Suggesting more Design Review Board review.
Staff comment – DRB authority is expanding to entire City. Article 5 design standards
mitigate potential impact of development on the existing community. Proposed threshold
is a balance of community needs and property owner expectations.
c. Plan review criteria
Staff comment - Building height is a specific standard that applies to all areas within the
City. Dimensional standards are part and parcel of the zoning district and are not a
subjective criteria.
d. Zone Edge Transitions
Staff comment – There are no zone edge transition requirements in the existing zoning
code except for the UMU district. Proposed code amendment is considerably more
stringent that is included in the NCOD regulations. See point a above; unresolved issue is
to determine whether or not the more restrictive zoning transition provisions apply in the
4B area of the NCOD.
e. Historically significant addition
Staff comment – Staff believes this addition is appropriate in the context of this code
section. The purpose is not to protect all structures regardless of their condition, rather
focus resources on structures of greater value with objectively established review criteria
set forth in the US Department of the Interior standards for historic properties. Additional code provisions ensure the neighborhood and community character is being addressed
with development and modifications.
B. INC comments, letter dated January 20, 2017
a. Comments relating to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
Staff comment – Analysis suggest general agreement with INC comments and proposed
alterations to ADU standards and provisions. However, staff is cognizant that in certain
situations and contexts there will be differences of opinion to whether or not a proposed
ADU is complimentary to the primary structure. Please note, design harmonization is
largely limited to properties within the NCOD.
C. Save Bozeman comments, letter dated May 8, 2017
a. Time request to consider UDC update and NCOD Subchapter 4B.
Staff comment – The Community Development Department in assessing needs, creating
alternatives, drafting development code, and revising the code have hosted over 90 public meetings, studios and subgroup meetings. These outreach efforts included City-wide
open houses, Bozeman Historic Preservation Board, CAHAB, InterNeighborhood
Council, the Bozeman Zoning Commission, Bozeman Planning Board, City Commission,
30
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 31 of 43
and content specific public meetings with neighborhood groups, design professionals, and
other special interest groups.
In addition, upon completing this outreach effort, at the City Commission’s request, five
additional public workshops were noticed and held after the initial unveiling of the public draft of the development code on May 8, 2017. After these public workshops the Zoning
Commission and Planning Board held three public workshops to review and craft
proposed changes to the code lasting approximately four hours each. This effort
culminated in two more public hearings to officially make a recommendation to the City
Commission totaling another 8 hours of public hearings. A complete list of public outreach meetings is included with the staff report. Additional public workshops and hearings will now be conducted by the City Commission before any action on the
amendments.
D. Design Professionals comment, letter dated June 30, 2017
a. Comments relating to proposed design standards.
Staff comment – The proposed design standards are reasonable and appropriate to
adequately mitigate impacts of development on existing and developing neighborhoods.
They further the goals and objectives of the Bozeman Community Plan; the building
standards and site design further these desires. The standards authorize numerous departure that allow ample alternatives that allow design flexibility and modulate
development based on site specific considerations. In addition, building design concepts
and standards were presented at public workshops, brought before the Zoning
Commission and Planning Board for multiple workshops to solicit comment. The Design
Review Board, made up of design professionals and another advisory board to the City Commission, held numerous public meetings to discuss the building design standards.
The DRB found the provisions and standards in the draft code to further the Community
Plan and the Bozeman Design Objectives Plan.
At the request of the Zoning Commission and Planning Board the Department created
another opportunity to address building design and solicit comment and suggestions by the design community. This meeting is scheduled for Thursday, August 17, 2017 from
12:00 – 2:00 pm in the City Commission Room, City Hall. All are welcome to attend.
The UDC Update Advisory Committee considered each aspect of the draft development
code including the building design components. Numerous members of the architectural
design community participated in these meetings.
Additional workshops specifically for the design community took place to educate and
refine the standards.
The Bozeman Community Plan clearly states the content in the draft code is supported by
the broad community, not just design professionals, with specific goals and objectives. In
addition to the one goal and objective referenced by the design community please see the following 14 goals and objectives for a more complete picture:
G-1 Growth Management
Objective G-1.3: Require development to mitigate its impacts on our community as
identified and supported by evidence during development review, including economic,
health, environmental, and social impacts.
31
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 32 of 43
Goal C-1: Human Scale and Compatibility
Objective C-1.1: - Expand design review programs citywide to ensure well designed
spaces throughout the community.
Objective C-1.2: - Update design objectives to include guidelines for urban spaces and
more dense development.
Objective C-1.4: Achieve an environment through urban design that maintains and
enhances the City’s visual qualities within neighborhood, community and regional
commercial areas.
Goal C-3: Neighborhood Design
Objective C-3.2: Provide for neighborhood focal points to encourage local identity within
the community and provide a place for social interaction.
Objective C-3.4: Create neighborhood Commercial Centers that will provide uses to meet consumer demands from surrounding Residential Districts for everyday goods and services, and will be a pedestrian oriented place that serves as a focal point for the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Goal C-4: Design guidelines
Objective C-4.1: Continue to develop the design guidelines for site planning and
buildings to emphasize creativity, diversity, and individuality. The design guidelines shall
be based on the premise that truly creative design is responsive to its context and
contributes to a comfortable, interesting community.
Objective C-4.2: All new residential buildings should be designed to emphasize the visually interesting features of the building, as seen from the public street and sidewalk.
The visual impact of garage doors, driveways, and other off-street parking will be
minimized and mitigated.
Objective C-4.3: Ensure the development of new residential structures that are
aesthetically pleasing through urban design.
Objective C-4.4: Provide for the protection of character and the enhancement of services
in existing residential neighborhoods.
Objective C-4.5: Investigate expanding form based zoning as a design review strategy for
the City.
E. Scott Hedglin comments (member of the UDC Advisory Committee and on the North 7th
Urban Renewal Board), letter dated June 30, 2017
a. Comments relating to proposed design standards.
Staff comment – The code development process is one of balancing interests and
concerns. The Commission can adjust that balance as they consider and act on the draft. Many elements of the design standards allow for departures to enable flexibility in the
way a design responds to a particular standards. The staff report includes a listing of
standards for which departures are available.
32
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 33 of 43
A form based code is a regulation, not a guideline. Therefore, it must be sufficiently
defined to not be vague or arbitrary. Form-based codes address the relationship between
building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one
another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. Articles 4 and 5 provide this set of standards. Some, like block sizing, are continuations of existing standards, and others like
block frontage design standards, are new.
F. Downtown Business Improvement District and the Downtown Urban Renewal District, letter
dated July 10, 2017
a. B3 Intent and focus.
Staff comment – At the Commission’s discretion.
b. Special Use Permits for on premise service of alcohol.
Staff comment – At the Commission’s discretion. The draft includes this change.
c. Zone Edge Transitions.
Staff comment – Currently the NCOD standards apply. Staff included this issue as an
unresolved issue for the Commission to consider and make a final determination. The
proposed generally applicable zoning standards are more restrictive than the dimensional
standards found in the 4B section of the NCOD standards.
d. Row Houses and Townhomes.
Staff comment – The City has limited authority to modify existing utility and building
standards from NWE, national electrical codes, or the International Building Codes.
There are numerous safety and operations issues relating to public and private utilities
that are affected by easement standards. This is a separate discussion from the present
UDC amendments.
Garage setback requirements. Footnote 15 refers to individual residential garage
entrances only. Parking structures and surface lots have different setback requirements.
Placing rows of individual residential garages along property boundaries would not
support the intent and purpose of the B-3 district as noted in the comment No. 4.
Design guidelines for row/townhomes are a point of discussion for a number of commenters. Only residential buildings with four or more attached units must meet the
standards of Article 5.
e. Parkland dedication in B-3.
Staff comment – no comment
f. Special privacy setbacks.
Staff comment – no comment
g. Building design.
Staff comment – within the context of the B-3 zone existing design standards apply
through the NCOD and ant applicable historic district. As the City grows to meet the
demands of the community, the proposed design standards are in place to mitigate impacts and create a safe and interesting environment to keep Bozeman attractive for
commercial investment and community activity. While architectural innovation can be
33
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 34 of 43
desirable, there are some essential functional elements of buildings that need to be
provided for buildings to operate as needed.
h. Commercial open space.
Staff comment – No, restaurant seating area would not qualify as commercial open space as this would be for private use. Please note that this provision only applies to
developments larger than one acre. The Lark Hotel addition open space located between
the building and Main Street would meet the standards and intent of this section although
this required because it is less than one acre in size. As intensity of use increases, the
importance of intentional open spaces also increases. Healthy communities need diverse locations for informal interactions and special events in all elements of the community.
i. Parking.
Staff comment – Staff concurs with increasing the off-street parking space distance and
clarification of mixed-use buildings.
G. HRDC comments, letter dated July 17, 2017 and August 14, 2017
a. Townhouse.
Staff comment – In general the proposed code expands the variety of housing and
encourages individual development to pro blend housing types and discourage large areas
of single type housing. Provision of parking areas is required. Enclosed parking, such as garages, are permitted with all housing although not required. Garages facing the street and obscuring access to the unit and, eliminating on street parking, and discouraging
neighborhood integration are not permitted on townhomes with widths less than 30 feet.
However, garages are permitted on the side, and/or rear of any lot.
b. Transitional and emergency housing and related services.
Staff comment – residential use is permitted in most zoning districts although generally
limited to second or subsequent floors in commercial and industrial districts. The intent
and purpose of some commercial and all industrial districts are provide area un-
encumbered by the challenges of adjoining residential use. The City has limited
industrial areas to meet the long-term needs of the community and conversion of these resources may have unintended consequences on the vitality of future industrial and
commercial investment.
c. Manufactured home communities (page 256 in the July 28, 2017 draft).
Staff comment – Existing manufactured home developments desiring annexation in the
City are encouraged. Although there are special situations, the City does not differentiate between a manufactured home and stick built homes with regard to lot size, setbacks or
other dimensional standards, the same standards apply to all detached single-household
structures. The standards in section 38.360.180 are simply not necessary or are redundant
with international building code requirements administered by the Building Division.
The state for many years considered rent or lease of multiple manufactured homes on a single parcel of land as a subdivision. The standards to be removed were adopted in
response to that process requirement. The state has adopted new standards for lease or
rent development in Chapter 76-8, MCA that has made the subdivision process
unnecessary. Removal of the standards means that the development of a new
manufactured home development would follow the standard site plan review process and
34
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 35 of 43
basic RMH district standards. Maintenance and replacement of buildings follows
standard processes.
Different standards apply to manufactured homes on individual lots as noted in section
38.360.160.
d. Apartment design standards.
Staff comment – The City continues to grow. More and larger residential buildings are
being constructed. Impacts of denser and larger residential buildings is critical to our
community and existing neighborhoods. As the City has experienced, construction of
apartment buildings can create significant challenges for neighborhoods. The proposed design standards mitigate the impacts of intensity and create safer, more livable
developments that add to fabric of the City. The impacts of density do not differentiate
between people with less or more income, the impacts are the same. Therefore for
fairness and equity all neighborhoods are grated the same protection.
This development is one of the primary reasons why sound design and site layout is needed at this juncture.
e. Lost in the mix.
Staff comment – The expedited review procedures of 38.230.050 are limited to zoning
projects. The incentives for affordable housing are applicable to subdivisions.
Subdivisions have very specific state required review timelines that make the processing prioritization less relevant.
f. Lot area.
Staff comment – staff is proposing reductions in lot area and width for the higher density
residential districts. Additional reductions are possible although require consideration of
other dimensional standards to insure all requirements work in harmony.
g. ADU.
Staff comment – no comment.
h. Cottage housing.
Staff comment – the cottage housing provisions were adopted by ordinance as part of the
overall UDC update at the request of the Commission. No revisions are proposed at this time. However, the Zoning Commissions and Planning Board has recommended
eliminating the affordable housing requirement.
H. Save Bozeman comments, letter dated July 25, 2017
a. Zone Edge Transition.
Staff comment – Zone edge transition are include with the draft development code. No
zone edge transitions have been integrated into zoning code previously except in the
UMU district. The proposed language is more restrictive than what is in the NCOD
regulations. As noted above, staff identified an unresolved issue to focus attention on this
issue. Discussion of zone edge transitions does not address the question of whether property has an appropriate zone. No changes to zoning boundaries are proposed with
these amendments.
35
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 36 of 43
I. Historic Preservation Advisory Board, memo dated August 10, 2017
a. Residential emphasis mixed-use zoning district.
Staff comment – No comment,
b. Overlay District Standards.
Staff comment – The language to be removed is duplicative to the cited sections. If the
Commission considers the cross-reference desirable it does not change any standard or
procedure.
c. Certificate of appropriateness.
Staff comment – Section 38.450.120 requires documentation to be created by properly qualified persons. Staff is not the only qualified source for this work. Staff will review any documentation prior to accepting it. The current restriction is a bottleneck in being
able to review proposed development.
d. Standards for Certificates of Appropriateness.
Staff comment – No comment.
e. Demolition or Movement of a Historic Structure.
Staff comment – No comment.
f. Intent and Purpose of NCOD.
Staff comment – Public notice and comment and appeals are addressed elsewhere in the
code. The statements are duplicative but provide a reference to applicable sections.
g. Review Authority.
Staff comment – The determination of how to involve the DRB is a policy decision by
the Commission. Expanding their role will increase project review times and require
additional staff effort.
h. Site Plan Review Criteria.
Staff comment – Compliance with height limits is addressed in criteria 5 for site plans.
Criteria 7 includes building mass as a part of its standards. Height is an element of mass
and therefore it is duplicative to list it separately.
i. Zone Edge Transitions.
Staff comment – Numerous comments on this issue have been received. This proposed standard will need to be evaluated along with other alternatives.
j. Intent and Purpose of NCOD.
Staff comment – No comment.
k. Accessory Dwelling Units (ground floor detached).
Staff comment – Multiple comments have been received on this subject. The NCOD does not have alleys of 30 feet width. Alleys in the NCOD vary from 12 to 20 feet wide.
Adoption of this standard would effectively prohibit ground floor ADUS.
l. Review of Demolition or Movement of Historic Structures of Sites.
Staff comment – Staff agrees that having clear implementation of this section is
important. Staff is developing written guidance and procedures to implement this section.
J. HJ Schmidt and Tami Minge comment, dated August 10, 2017
36
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 37 of 43
a. Accessory Dwelling Units.
Staff comment – For Commission consideration.
Additional individual comments have been received as described below:
1. Kevin Thane comments. Comments were not necessarily supported by CAHAB as
suggested. Staff is generally not supportive of comments. Most standards are in place to
address specific community concerns.
2. Jeannie Wilkinson comment addressing the adoption process.
3. Alan Kesselheim. Building height removed from plan review criteria. Height is regulated
under standard zoning standards and is not needed in this section.
4. Richard Canfield comments. Focus on ADU issues.
APPENDIX C - APPLICANT INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF
Applicant: Bozeman City Commission, PO Box 1230, Bozeman MT 59771
Report By: Tom Rogers, Senior Planner
Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager
FISCAL EFFECTS
Budgeted funds will be expended for implementation of this text amendment. The cost of the
project was previously budgeted. Staff time will be required to revise forms, provide public
education, and take other implementation steps.
ATTACHMENTS
The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development
Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715. The complete application includes
presentations, notes, comments, questionnaires used to create the draft code being reviewed.
Zoning Commission draft meeting minutes
Planning Board draft meeting minutes
Planning Board Resolution No. 15320
July 28, 2017 development code with edit marks
July 28, 2017 development code without edit marks
37
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 38 of 43
ATTACHMENT A: GENERAL SUMMARY OF SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES
– UDC REVISIONS 7/28/2017
Amendments include overall reorganization as follows:
1. General provisions (user guide, and purpose & authority)
2. Permits, legislative actions & procedures (consolidates project applications, review
procedures, and approval criteria)
3. Zoning districts & land use (introduces zones, permitted uses, and density & dimensional
standards)
4. Community design (includes standards related to public and larger scale community
design issues such as streets, block size & connectivity, subdivision design, and parks)
5. Project design (includes standards to apply to the design of individual developments,
including development frontages, site planning, building design, parking, landscaping,
signage, etc.)
6. Natural resource protection (mostly wetlands and floodplain regulations)
7. Definitions
The text amendments will include the creation and addition of:
Section 38.510 – Block Frontage Standards
Storefront
Landscape
Mixed
Gateway
Internal
Other
Industrial
Section 38.520 – Site Planning & Design Elements
Relationship to adjacent properties
Non-motorized circulation & design
Vehicular circulation & parking
Internal open space
Service areas and mechanical equipment
Section 38.530 – Building Design
Building character
38
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 39 of 43
Building massing & articulation
Building details
Building materials
Blank wall treatment
Specific amendments will amend multiple sections by (section references follow the revised
organization):
Eliminating duplicative code references
Amend Section 38.270.070.C payment of cash in-lieu of capital facilities
Amend Section 38.210.010 the duties of Administrative Design Review (ADR)
Amend Section 38.220 submittal materials and requirements for subdivision and site plan
applications
Amend Section 38.220 supplementary documents
Amend Section 38.230.040 Design Review Board (DRB) authority
Amend Section 38.230.100 plan review criteria
Add Section 38.230.120 to create Special Use Permit (SUP) procedures and criteria
Add Section 38.230.130 to create the community design framework master plan
Add Section 38.250.060 to create departures for specific development standards
Amend Section 38.270.090 refining development or authority for the maintenance of common areas and facilities developer or property owners’ association
Amend and refine Section 38.300 purpose and intent of residential, commercial, industrial,
and mixed use zoning districts
Amend Section 38.300.050.C where district boundaries divide a lot or parcel into two or more districts
Amend Table 38.300.100 to add a reference table showing permitted housing types within
each zoning district
Amend Section 38.310.020 classification of uses by refining evaluation criteria and authority
Amend Tables 38.310.030, 38.310.040, 38.310.040.B, and 38.310.040.C, residential uses
Amend Section 38.320.020 form and intensity standards in residential districts
Amend Tables 38.320.030, 38.320.040, and 38.320.050 for residential, mixed-use, and non-
residential districts
Amend Section 38.320.060 zone edge transitions
Amend Section 38.330.010 UMU district special standards
Amend Section 38.330.020 REMU district special standards
Amend Section 38.340.E conformance with other applicable development standards
39
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 40 of 43
Delete Section 38.340.200-280 Entryway Corridor Overly District
Delete Section 340.400-470 Casino Overlay District
Amend Section 38.350.050 Setback and height encroachment, limitations, and exceptions
Amend Section 38.360.030 accessory buildings, uses and requirement standards and creating daylight plane provisions
Amend Section 38.360.030.I to harmonize garage setbacks with previously approved text
amendments
Amend Section 38.360.040 accessory dwellings units reducing unit square footage in certain
districts, allowing ADU’s on the ground floor when standards are met in certain districts and generally modifying standards
Deleting Section 38.360.080 automobile washing establishments
Deleting Section 389.360.090 cemeteries
Amending Section 38.360.150 large-scale retail standards
Deleting Section 38.360.180 manufactured home communities
Amending Section 38.360.160 manufactured homes on individual lot standards
Deleting Section 38.360.170 portable carry out food and beverage buildings
Amend Section 38.360.210 single, two, and three-household dwellings residential garage
intent and standards
Amend Section 38.360.240 townhome and rowhouse dwelling to create building standards, garage standards, internal drive isle standards, and create usable open space requirements
Amend Section 38.400.010 streets, general to include alleys
Amend Section 38.400.090.C drive access requirements and standards
Amend Table 38.400.090.C.3.a(4) maximum driveway widths for townhome or rowhouse
dwellings
Amend Section 38.400.100.A street vision triangles
Amend Section 38.400.110 transportation pathways to modify and clarify standards and
alternate easements
Amend Section 38.410.020 to include neighborhood centers are subject to block frontage
standards
Amend Section 38.410.030 adding courtyard access lots
Amend Section 38.410.040 clarifying block standards
Amend Section 38.420.020 parks and open space requirements
Amend Section 38.420.030 to allow and establish standards for cash donation in-lieu of land
dedication
Amend Section 38.430.090 clarifying planned unit development standards
40
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 41 of 43
Deleting Section 38.430.100 North 19th Avenue/West Oak Street entryway corridor
Amend Section 38. 510 block frontage standards creating storefront, landscape, mixed,
gateway, internal, other, and industrial frontage standards
Amend Section 38. 520 to add site planning & design elements including the relationship to adjacent properties, non-motorized circulation & design, vehicular circulation & parking,
internal open space, and service areas and mechanical equipment standards
Amend Section 38. 530 to add building design elements including building character,
building massing & articulation, building details, building materials, and blank wall
treatment
Amend Table 38.560.060 non-residential sign standards to include a maximum square footage for pole signs
Amend Section 38.700.020 deleting animal hospital definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding definition of articulation
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding articulation interval
Amend Section 38.700.020 deleting auto salvage yard definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 deleting bar definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding blank wall definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 deleting convenience food restaurant
Amend Section 38.700.020 refining definition of convenience use
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding definition of cornice
Amend Section 38.700.020 deleting date of submission definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding departure definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding façade definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 deleting food processing facility
Amend Section 38.700.020 deleting front line of building definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding general service establishment definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding heavy retail service establishment definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding high visibility street corner definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 deleting industry, heavy definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 deleting industry, light definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 defining level I, II, and II improvements
Amend Section 38.700.020 defining live-work unit
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding manufacturing, heavy definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 manufacturing, light definition
41
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 42 of 43
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding manufacturing, moderate definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding pedestrian-orientated open space
Amend Section 38.700.020 defining rowhouse
Amend Section 38.700.020 defining rowhouse cluster
Amend Section 38.700.020 refining definition of setback
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding transom window definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding trellis definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 adding vertical building modulation
Amend Section 38.700.020 refining warehouse definition
Amend Section 38.700.020 refining yard definition
And generally correct grammar, numbering corrections, active voice, etc.
ATTACHMENT B – SECTIONS FOR WHICH DEPARTURES ARE
AVAILABLE
The following sections and subjects are a listing of locations within the proposed code where
a departure from a standards is allowed. Departures in general are authorized by Section
38.250.060.
Section Reference Subject
Table 38.320.020 Footnote 19, form and intensity standards for residential
districts
38.360.110.F Cottage Housing subdivisions design standards
38.410.080.F Stormwater facility occupancy of yards
Table 38.510.030.B Storefront block frontage standards (5 elements)
Table 38.510.030.C Landscaped block frontage standards (4 elements)
Table 38.510.030.D Mixed block frontage standards (2 elements)
Table 38.510.030.E Gateway block frontage (3 elements)
Table 38.510.030.F Internal roadway storefront block frontage (2 elements)
Table 38.510.030.G Other block frontage (4 elements)
38.510.030.H Landscaping in industrial zones
38.510.030.K Multiple frontage designations – entry placement and
parking location
42
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 43 of 43
Section Reference Subject
38.520.030 Relationship of site development to adjacent properties
38.520.040.C Internal circulation on sites with multiple buildings
38.520.040.D Pathway design
38.520.060.C Usable commercial open space
38.520.070.C Screening of service areas and equipment
38.530.040.B Building massing and articulation – non-residential
38.530.040.C Building massing and articulation - residential
38.530.040.E Maximum façade width
38.530.040.F Roofline modulation
38.530.050 Building details (multiple elements)
38.530.060 Building materials (multiple elements)
38.550.080 Landscaping requirements
43
44
45
46
47
Joint City Planning Board and
Zoning Commission
Tuesday, June 27th, 2017 6:00 PM
City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Avenue
A. Call meeting to order
Present Were:
Paul Spitler (PB)
Jordan Zignego (PB/ZC)
Jerry Pape (PB)
Chair Paul Neubauer (PB)
Erik Garberg (ZC)
Henry Happel (PB)
Dan Stevenson (ZC)
Lauren Waterton (PB)
B. Changes to the Agenda
C. Approve Joint Meeting Minutes (None)
D. 06:07:47 PM (00:01:31) Public Comment – Please state your name and address in an
audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on
matters falling within the purview of the Committee. There will also be an opportunity in
conjunction with each action item for comments pertaining to that item. Please limit
your comments to three minutes.
06:08:15 PM (00:01:59) Brian Guyer from HRDC made public comment regarding p. 279 of the
UDC draft, which covers town homes and row homes. He stated that the changes in
requirements would impact the affordability of homes. He also voiced concerns regarding the
manufactured home communities and their eventual need to be annexed into the city due to
failing wells and septic systems. His concerns were in relation to the difficulty of the process for
these home owners.
E. Action Items
1. 06:11:44 PM (00:05:28) UDC Work Session (Rogers)
Memo: Comment and Amendment Process on Draft UDC
ZC & PB Summary of Comments
48
06:12:38 PM (00:06:22) Board member Jordan Zignego commented that he appreciates the
UDC moving toward a form base code with set‐backs and commented on landscaping,
pedestrian accessibility and parking requirements.
06:18:58 PM (00:12:42) Board member Paul Spitler offered comments that encouraged
implementing language in the updated UDC code that supported the City’s climate action
plan.
06:28:07 PM (00:21:51) Board member Dan Stevenson who contributed to the previous UDC
update commented that connecting the City’s other
06:29:49 PM (00:23:33) Board member Waterton asked if there were cases where the
document referenced other city documents for compliance. Rogers answered that there are
other places where this occurs and referenced the Prost Plan as an example. The group
continued to discuss whether or not the UDC was the correct place to tie to other city
objectives from other plans.
06:41:46 PM (00:35:30) Spitler continued by suggesting including compliance with the Prost
Plan under the Subdivision Review Criteria (p. 90, no. 8).
06:44:51 PM (00:38:35) Rogers stated that the code does fully require compliance with the
Prost plan as written, through Site Plan and Subdivision activities with its requirements for
parkland and trail networks. He said that it may be necessary to provide clarity there so that
the requirements are more obvious.
06:46:19 PM (00:40:03) Board member Stevenson brought the board’s attention to p. 337 of
the UDC draft, 1st paragraph as where it comes very close to recognizing the Prost Plan. He
wondered if providing clarification there would meet Spitler’s intent in his previous
comment.
06:47:36 PM (00:41:20) Spitler commented on a deletion on p. 172 under 38.11.010 1b
striking the text “foster the development of vertically oriented mixed uses in contrast to
single use development distributed along high vehicle capacity roadways.” He requested un‐
deleting that text.
Board member Waterton thought that there was a replacement statement added to p. 174
item #3. She suggested that it was a reorganization to simplify that section of the code.
06:52:36 PM (00:46:20) Spitler added a comment suggesting reducing minimum parking
requirements, increasing allowed restrictions to the minimum parking requirements for
developments that use car sharing or that are close to transit.
49
06:54:11 PM (00:47:55) Zignego agreed that parking requirements need to be reduced and
singled out a statement that says “too little parking in B3”, requesting to negate that
statement. He continued by stating that these are things that could be tied into public
transportation and long range planning and how those pieces fit together.
06:55:06 PM (00:48:50) Board member Pape also commented on parking and suggested
that changes need to be made regarding how we handle parking, using the Black Olive
project as an example.
06:56:18 PM (00:50:02) Chair Neubauer commented on a section in the UDC regarding
parking (p. 437 & 438) on the sentence that says “but must not exceed two spaces per unit.”
He asked that they revisit that section to provide clarity, stating that it is vague.
06:57:41 PM (00:51:25) Commissioner Mehl stated that there are 4 parking areas of interest
currently, including: downtown, zones adjacent downtown, B2M parking district and B2M
overall.
07:03:00 PM (00:56:44) Board Member Pape spoke against zero parking and presented his
input for the UDC update. He had concerns regarding a form over function code, losing
privacy in regard to duplexes, townhomes and condos with putting aesthetics before
function by restricting garages in the front. He pointed out that restricting garages in the
front increases impervious surface and decreases safety for pets and children by forcing
yards in the front, therefore requiring a shorter fence.
07:21:23 PM (01:15:07) Pape provided an example of alley facing garages and the negative
consequences that resulted. Pape continued to point out areas in the code he felt conflicted
each other.
07:31:20 PM (01:25:04) Board member Henry Happel pointed out a statement at the
bottom of p. 26 of the UDC. The statement that concerned him says “In the case of
difference of meaning or implication between this chapter and the City’s Growth Policy, the
Growth Policy must control…” Happel was concerned that this was an ambiguous
statement and could potentially lead to legal issues.
07:32:50 PM (01:26:34) Board member Erik Garberg pointed out a code section on p. 365
(38.500.020a: Relationship to Other Codes and Documents) where it states which article
presides when article provisions may conflict with others.
07:35:03 PM (01:28:47) Board member Waterton had a comment on p. 39 regarding the
Design Review Committee process as it relates to the updated UDC. Rogers responded to
say that what the DRC looks at is not changing, just the process with which they do the
review.
50
07:40:15 PM (01:33:59) Chair Neubauer requested to increase the number of projects that
the Design Review Board would review by lowering the qualifications that required a project
to be brought to DRB. He clarified that this would be an attempt to put more weight behind
more of the subjective things in the UDC.
07:53:33 PM (01:47:17) Planning and Zoning Commission continued to work through the
memo marking areas to discuss. Some items had been addressed in previous conversation.
07:54:38 PM (01:48:22) Board members discussed transition areas, set‐backs and potential
requirements for building height. Members deliberated on whether adding restrictions
would alleviate the identified issues.
08:10:41 PM (02:04:25) Board member Henry Happel pointed out a code section regarding
garage setbacks from alleys, asking that the required setback be reduced in order to
increase the yard (UDC draft p. 244‐245).
08:19:01 PM (02:12:45) Chair Neubauer proposed increasing the maximum size for ADUs by
changing the restriction that the ADU not exceed 1/3rd of the total area of the principal
structure to 2/3rd. (38.360.040 a1: p. 247‐248).
Board member Morice supported this and also proposed removing the rule that says that a
garage with an ADU above the garage cannot exceed the height of the principal structure.
Commissioner Mehl recommended removing the proportion requirement entirely and
having a maximum square footage.
08:24:12 PM (02:17:56) Board member Waterton stated that in order to support affordable
housing as much as possible and to support density in compatible neighborhoods she thinks
that the parking requirement to have one off street parking space with an ADU should be re‐
evaluated.
08:30:24 PM (02:24:08) Happel voiced support for the other member’s ideas to loosen
restrictions with ADUs in order to promote infill and affordable housing.
08:36:21 PM (02:30:05) Board member Dugan asked about drive aisle restriction. She noted
that the UDC should be consistent in referencing drive aisle vs. driveway. (p. 310, #2)
08:40:15 PM (02:33:59) Board member Morice advocated for looking at a percentage rather
than specific drive aisle width restriction with townhomes to promote architectural
creativity.
08:47:14 PM (02:40:58) Board member Waterton raised questions regarding improvements
on non‐conforming properties to allow minor improvements without triggering large scale
requirements for development review. (p. 366)
51
Waterton also commented on special residential block frontages (p. 383) and the example
illustration, which she felt caused confusion. Waterton is asking where these restrictions
would apply and if there is a way to simplify the requirement.
08:58:03 PM (02:51:47) Board member Morice asked about front façade requirements,
which require a large amount of glass (60% of façade). Morice asked if it would be possible
to remove the requirement where it has to be between 30 inches from the ground and 10
ft. high. (p.372)
09:00:49 PM (02:54:33) Chair Neubauer reviewed the process of providing comments and
edits to Planner Tom Rogers for the UDC update. He explained that Planning Board and
Zoning Commission will vote separately to provide feedback to the City Commission. Board
members and staff continued discussion on how best to move through the recommendation
and voting process for the City Commission.
F. FYI/Discussion
G. 09:17:49 PM (03:11:33) Adjournment
For more information please contact Tom Rogers at TRogers@bozeman.net
This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm
Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require
assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 582‐3232 (TDD 582‐2301).
52
Joint City Planning Board and
Zoning Commission
Tuesday, July 11th, 2017 6:00 PM
City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Avenue
A. 06:07:53 PM (00:00:37) Call meeting to order
Present Were:
Jerry Pape (PB)
Dan Stevenson (ZC)
Lauren Waterton (PB)
Henry Happel (PB)
Chair Paul Neubauer (PB)
George Thompson (ZC/PB)
Eric Garberg (ZC)
Commissioner Chris Mehl (PB)
B. Changes to the Agenda
C. 06:14:00 PM (00:06:44) Approve Joint Meeting Minutes
5.16.2017
MOTION to approve minutes from 5/16/2017 minutes
MOTION SECONDED
VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passed
D. Public Comment – Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the
record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview
of the Committee. There will also be an opportunity in conjunction with each action item
for comments pertaining to that item. Please limit your comments to three minutes.
06:08:39 PM (00:01:23) Chris Naumann, Executive Director of the Downtown Business
Partnership, commented regarding the UDC Update. He represented the Business
Improvement District and Downtown Business Renewal District, submitting a document
that addressed topics including: adding “Downtown” to all titles indicating importance,
addressing transition between zones (p. 13 in the UDC), townhomes and rowhomes,
changes in where parkland fees from Downtown businesses are spent, etc.
53
06:14:28 PM (00:07:12) Chair Neubauer spoke to the board members, cautioning against
violating rules of decorum, stating that if members were insulting other board members or
individuals specifically, they would not be permitted to continue.
E. 06:19:10 PM (00:11:58) Action Items
1. UDC Public Hearing (Rogers)
06:21:04 PM (00:13:48) Planner Tom Rogers reviewed the process for adopting the updated
Unified Development Code (UDC). Rogers reiterated that each Planning Board and Zoning
Commission will make recommendations to the City Commission.
06:27:50 PM (00:20:36) Zoning Commission:
MOTION: As a Zoning Commissioner having reviewed and considered the proposed ordinance,
public comment and all the information presented for application 15230, I move to recommend
adoption of Ordinance 1978: Erik Garberg
MOTION SECONDED: George Thompson
06:28:42 PM (00:21:26) Planning Board:
MOTION: As a Planning Board member having reviewed and considered the proposed
ordinance, public comment and all the information presented for application 15230, I move to
recommend adoption of Ordinance 1978: Henry Happel
MOTION SECONDED: Lauren Waterton
06:31:07 PM (00:23:51) Motion to include projects in the Design Review Board when along a
zoning district boundary between R1, R2 or otherwise zoned property currently in residential
use and B1, B2, B3, M1, M2 or MU. Parameters would include projects of substantial size, 30+
dwelling units or 30+ parking spaces along a zoned interface boundary (proposed addition to
p.82 38.230.040)
MOTION SECONDED: Commissioner Mehl
DISCUSSION…
06:56:07 PM (00:48:51) Planning Board VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
06:58:09 PM (00:50:53) Zoning Commission VOTE: 1 for; 2 against ‐‐ Motion Fails
07:00:18 PM (00:53:02) Board members and staff discussed how to proceed with deliberation
and motions to ensure thoroughness for each issue raised.
07:09:58 PM (01:02:42) Board Member Happel voiced concerns regarding a letter received from
design professionals. Happel felt that the design professionals should have the opportunity to
have their views heard. Happel noted that there had been a significant improvement over
54
where the UDC draft was before, but that they should slow down so that they can take their
time. Board Member Dan Stevenson supported this statement. Members continued to discuss
whether they should support the document as a whole in order to provide more time for
changes.
07:18:36 PM (01:11:20) Chair Neubauer spoke to his objective in this process as the Chair of the
board and the process thus far. Neubauer stated that there were many opportunities for the
development professionals to have input during the workshops prior to their letter. He
recommended that they proceed with the input they’re able to provide regarding the UDC.
07:53:20 PM (01:29:54) Planning Board and Zoning Commission resume after a break.
07:53:57 PM (01:30:31) Regarding a 28 feet height requirement in B3 zoning, Board member
Waterton recommended making an amendment which would request Planning staff to take into
consideration the Downtown Associations comments regarding item #3: transitions between
zones and additional consideration with the required height, increasing the 28 feet restriction to
measure in a number of floors rather than a specific height (p. 213‐214 of the UDC draft).
07:58:54 PM (01:35:28) Motion to amend the motion to add a request to staff to favorably
study the letter from the Downtown Association with regard to item #3 transition between
zones regarding additional height bonus within the residential side.
MOTION SECONDED: Jerry Pape
Discussion…
08:01:00 PM (01:37:34) Planning Board VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
08:01:25 PM (01:37:59) Zoning Commission VOTE: 2 for; 1 against ‐‐ Motion Passes
08:01:51 PM (01:38:25) Chair Neubauer discussed his proposed changes to Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs). He recommended that maximum square footage remain at 800 sq. ft. and remove
line #2 on p. 248, which is a ratio requirement.
08:06:15 PM (01:42:50) Motion for ADUs, in all residential zoning districts, to have a maximum
square footage of 800 sq. ft. and to remove line 2 on p. 248 which refers to a ratio.
MOTION SECONDED
Discussion…
08:10:46 PM (01:47:20) Planning Board VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
08:10:54 PM (01:47:28) Zoning Commission VOTE: 2 for; 1 against ‐‐ Motion Passes
55
08:11:19 PM (01:47:53) Motion to eliminate the table on p. 245 which provides setback
requirements for garages on alleys as they serve no public purpose: Henry Happel
MOTION SECONDED
Discussion…
08:13:28 PM (01:50:02) Planning Board VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
08:13:42 PM (01:50:17) Zoning Commission VOTE: All in Favor ‐‐ Motion Passes
08:14:18 PM (01:50:53) Board member Thompson discussed cottage housing and suggested
that it not be considered specifically affordable housing.
08:15:40 PM (01:52:14) Motion to remove the affordable requirement (p. 253: section C) for
cottage housing.
MOTION SECONDED
Discussion…
08:22:26 PM (01:59:01) Board members discussed how removing the affordable housing piece
would change cottage housing.
08:27:19 PM (02:03:54) Planning Board VOTE: 2 for; 5 against – Motion Fails
08:27:45 PM (02:04:19) Zoning Commission VOTE: 2 for; 1 against – Motion Passes
08:28:11 PM (02:04:45) Motion to make it possible to put garages on the front of houses on
duplexes and townhomes without regard for where the front door is located as can be seen in
existing design in Bozeman to promote affordability and to charge staff with dismantling,
authoring or otherwise modifying the code so that the examples provided become easily
possible.
MOTION SECONDED
08:33:31 PM (02:10:05) Discussion…
08:46:22 PM (02:22:56) Amended Motion to request that staff facilitate the necessary
authorship to remove impediments to the creation of the types of housing described with
certain examples being anything built by Dan Rosengreen on Merriweather, on 25th, any
applicable HRDC projects to encourage affordable housing. Included is the requirement that
such executions not create tremendous amounts of garage block face through a series of
possible recommended deviations to prevent that from happening. Examples including any of
the Rosengren construction, tented garages, changes in structural face of roof lines, etc. The
strict interpretation is that you can build a 3 bedroom, 2 ½ bath, 2 car garage with 2 parking
spaces on the pad in front.
56
08:47:59 PM (02:24:33) MOTION SECONDED
Discussion…
08:51:58 PM (02:28:32) Planning Board VOTE: 6 for; 1 against – Motion Passes
08:52:18 PM (02:28:52) Zoning Commission VOTE: 2 for; 1 against – Motion Passes
08:54:05 PM (02:30:42) Changes in trigger for site improvements is discussed (p. 366)
08:54:11 PM (02:30:46) Motion to direct staff to favorably review reducing the triggers to
incentivize redevelopment, particularly within tif districts: Eric Garberg
08:56:55 PM (02:33:29) Board member Pape offered a friendly amendment suggestion to the
motion, recommending encouraging incremental investment that would progress
improvements.
08:59:07 PM (02:35:41) Pape retracted his friendly amendment and supported Garberg’s
original motion.
08:59:22 PM (02:35:57) Planning Board VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
08:59:35 PM (02:36:09) Zoning Commission VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
09:00:06 PM (02:36:40) Board member Lauren Waterton asked for clarification on p. 383: Item J
regarding special residential block frontage standards along sidewalks and internal pathways.
Planner Tom Rogers responded with an example of where this would apply.
09:06:33 PM (02:43:08) Waterton voiced concern regarding the amount of screening required
for a drive through lane. It requires a planting strip at least 5 feet wide with a continuous
planting of evergreen shrubs and/or trees that will provide continuous evergreen screen of at
least 4 feet at maturity. (p.397: item 3a)
09:07:21 PM (02:43:55) Motion to direct staff to modify that language to reduce screening to
something more applicable to a normal parking lot: Lauren Waterton
Discussion…
09:12:40 PM (02:49:19) Planning Board VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
09:12:51 PM (02:49:26) Zoning Commission VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
09:13:20 PM (02:49:55) Motion to modify wording from “locate and shield” to minimize sounds
and reduce impacts to adjacent residentially zoned properties to read: “locate, orient and
shield” to minimize sounds and reduce impacts to “nearby residential properties”. (p.404: #b.5
& p.407: #e.4)
MOTION SECONDED
Discussion…
57
Friendly amendment to remove typo (extra “2)
Friendly amendment to change wording to “all zones”: Jerry Pape
09:18:50 PM (02:55:25) Planning Board VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
09:18:57 PM (02:55:31) Zoning Commission VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
09:19:32 PM (02:56:06) Motion to direct staff to establish industry based working groups with
local design and construction community with the goal of affectively codifying sound planning
and design guidance while striking a balance to not be overly prescriptive, specific to Article #5.:
Dan Stevenson
09:20:12 PM (02:56:47) Stevenson commended the Planning staff, stating that 80‐90% of the
UDC is an awesome document, but that the public comment received opened his eyes to the
fact that it may be going too far in some of the design prescription, using Lauren’s drive through
as an example. He wanted to prevent pushing design professionals into a corner that challenges
their creativity and their ability to problem solve with enough room to end up with the best
product that Bozeman deserves.
09:21:35 PM (02:58:09) Board member Pape suggested a friendly amendment to Stevenson’s
motion.
Discussion…
09:30:25 PM (03:07:00) Board member Waterton recommended limiting Stevenson’s Article 5
amendment to Section 38.530. Stevenson accepted this as a friendly amendment.
09:33:59 PM (03:10:33) Planning Board VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
09:34:08 PM (03:10:42) Zoning Commission VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
F. 09:34:30 PM (03:11:09) FYI/Discussion
G. 09:35:40 PM (03:12:14) Adjournment
For more information please contact Tom Rogers at TRogers@bozeman.net
This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm
Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require
assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 582‐3232 (TDD 582‐2301).
58
Joint City Planning Board and
Zoning Commission
REVISED
Tuesday, July 18th, 2017 7:30 PM
City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Avenue
A. 08:01:00 PM (00:01:10) Call meeting to order
Present Were:
Commissioner Chris Mehl
Lauren Waterton (PB)
Julien Morice (ZC)
Jordan Zignego (PB/ZC)
Chair Paul Neubauer (PB)
Henry Happel (PB)
Brianne Dugan (PB)
George Thompson (PB/ZC)
Erik Garberg (ZC)
B. Changes to the Agenda
C. Approve Joint Meeting Minutes (none)
D. Public Comment – Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the
record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview
of the Committee. There will also be an opportunity in conjunction with each action item
for comments pertaining to that item. Please limit your comments to three minutes.
E. 08:01:51 PM (00:02:01) Action Items
1. UDC Continued Public Hearing Application 15320 (Rogers)
Public Hearing Memo
Staff Report
Public Comments (aggregated)
Summary of Amendments
08:03:46 PM (00:03:56) Planner Tom Rogers noted that there have been ten amendments so
far, the last dealing with building design components.
08:05:52 PM (00:06:02) Public Comment:
59
08:06:27 PM (00:06:37) Lisa Kirk resides in one of the zone edge transition properties adjacent
to the B3 halo and commented on proposed changes to the UDC regarding setbacks, building
height and angle of rise described in Article 3, section 38.320.60. She continued to state the
changes she and the group she represents, Save Bozeman, would like to see in the UDC draft.
08:11:42 PM (00:11:52) Chair Neubauer commented on a proposed amendment from Board
member Lauren Waterton and asked that staff review the amendment regarding a height bonus
up to 3 stories, with a flat roof on the residential side. Neubauer interpreted the memo to read
that the base height of 44 ft. would remain, which was not mentioned in the amendment.
On Amendment #9, Neubauer requested that the language be modified to be more closely tied
to the email sent in regards to the amendment.
08:13:51 PM (00:14:01) Board Member George Thompson commented regarding mechanical
and acoustic equipment, speaking to an email he sent referencing Chicago building code, which
noted sound criteria at property lines. Thompson requested that they use wording from the
Chicago building code. Neubauer pointed out that the amendment was not made in front of the
board as a formal action and recommended that Thompson do that at this or a subsequent
meeting.
08:17:41 PM (00:17:51) Board members continued to offer clarification regarding Waterton’s
amendment for residential height bonuses and the wording on the amendment summary
memo.
08:20:28 PM (00:20:38) Board member Julien Morice asked about building height (p. 213).
Morice suggested that building height maximum be one story higher than the adjacent zoning
maximum height as a transition.
08:25:35 PM (00:25:45) Motion for height maximum to go off of the NCOD guidelines of 44 feet
vs. reducing height maximum to 28 or 38 ft. in transition zones: Julien Morice
MOTION SECONDED: Erik Garberg
08:26:14 PM (00:26:24) Discussion…
08:33:35 PM (00:33:45) Chair Neubauer offered a friendly amendment to add a 15 foot side
setback, 40 feet height restriction with a 45 degree angle.
08:33:55 PM (00:34:05) Morice recommended they stipulate number of stories in addition to a
height restriction measured in feet.
08:34:44 PM (00:34:54) Morice and Neubauer discussed setbacks as part of the motion.
Garberg stated that his Second on the motion does not support Neubauer’s friendly
amendment.
60
08:35:55 PM (00:36:05) Neubauer’s friendly amendment failed with no Second.
08:36:40 PM (00:36:50) Planning Board VOTE: 4 For; 3 Against – Motion Passes
08:37:24 PM (00:37:34) Zoning Commission VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
08:39:57 PM (00:40:07) Motion that in the limited number of transition zones that we have, the
opportunity is presented, such that there is enough of a setback that either party can utilize a
portion of the setback to produce privacy mitigation through any number of means:
emblements, structural, other forms of noise abatement. The setback would be 15 feet to grant
the ability to employ any of those other mechanisms by either party, development or impacted
party: Jerry Pape
MOTION SECONDED
08:40:42 PM (00:40:52) Discussion…
08:56:07 PM (00:56:17) Board member Happel offered a friendly amendment to change the
setback on the current amendment to 10 feet rather than 15 feet. Neubauer accepted this as
the Second to the motion.
08:56:20 PM (00:56:30) Planning Board VOTE: All in favor – Motion Passes
08:56:36 PM (00:56:46) Zoning Commission VOTE: 2 for; 2 against – Motion Passes
08:58:16 PM (00:58:26) Motion to remove language after “permitted” in section regarding solar
panels: Paul Neubauer
MOTION SECONDED: Erik Garberg
08:59:27 PM (00:59:37) Friendly amendment to read “Rooftop solar units are permitted
provided they are functioning and well maintained.” (p. 422)
08:59:43 PM (00:59:53) Planning Board VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
08:59:50 PM (01:00:00) Zoning Commission VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
09:00:17 PM (01:00:27) Board member Morice voiced concerns and asked to strike subsequent
language after “minimum” when referring to building materials. (p. 424 b.)
09:03:07 PM (01:03:17) Board member Pape offered a friendly amendment to say “and any
other structurally sound innovative building materials”.
61
09:05:09 PM (01:05:19) Motion for everything in part b of section 38.530.06, the sentence “in
all material…” after “sidewalks” be removed.
MOTION SECONDED
09:08:03 PM (01:08:13) Garberg agreed to take a Happel’s friendly amendment to take the
second sentence and change it to say “for example: stone, brick, masonry…”
09:08:31 PM (01:08:41) Planning Board VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
09:08:40 PM (01:08:50) Zoning Commission VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
09:08:58 PM (01:09:08) Public Comment:
09:09:12 PM (01:09:22) Public comment received regarding transition zoning and the NCOD
prior to 2015. Commenter also referenced a pending lawsuit regarding the NCOD changes.
09:15:02 PM (01:15:12) Chris Budeski offered comments regarding professional designers
having the ability and flexibility to do their job. He stated that the UDC can be too detailed and
felt it would be helpful to offer suggestions rather than hard rules.
Budeski also commented on affordable housing and said that he hoped the city wouldn’t move
too quickly with affordable housing.
09:17:52 PM (01:18:02) Randy Peters offered comments regarding preserving neighborhoods
rather than losing them to new development.
09:20:08 PM (01:20:18) Motion to strike the entire blank wall requirement. (p.427): Julien
Morice
MOTION SECONDED
09:22:34 PM (01:22:44) Discussion…
09:29:23 PM (01:29:33) Planning Board VOTE: Unanimous against – Motion Fails
09:30:06 PM (01:30:16) Zoning Commission VOTE: 2 for; 2 against – Motion Fails
09:30:31 PM (01:30:41) Motion to modify blank wall treatment to offer departures: Henry
Happel
MOTION SECONDED
62
09:30:47 PM (01:31:00) Planning Board VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
09:30:54 PM (01:31:05) Zoning Commission VOTE: All in Favor – Motion Passes
09:31:18 PM (01:31:28) Motion to change wording in parking table to read “not to exceed two
bedrooms per parking space” rather than one parking space per dwelling. (p.437): Paul
Neubauer
MOTION SECONDED
09:33:17 PM (01:33:27) Discussion…
09:45:25 PM (01:45:35) Planning Board VOTE: Unclear Count – Motion Fails
09:45:44 PM (01:45:56) Zoning Commission VOTE: Unclear Count – Motion Fails
09:45:59 PM (01:46:09) Board member Morice asked if the board should make a suggestion to
the Commission to relax parking requirements on the tables in the UDC.
09:46:26 PM (01:46:36) Motion to suggest that the table 38.504.050‐1 that the parking
requirements are reduced in almost every line of the table – consider each one: Julien Morice
MOTION SECONDED
09:47:01 PM (01:47:11) Discussion…
09:49:17 PM (01:49:27) Planning Board VOTE: Unanimous against – Motion Fails
09:49:27 PM (01:49:37) Zoning Commission VOTE: Unanimous against – Motion Fails
09:50:00 PM (01:50:49) Board members discussed over‐arching motion to approve the UDC
draft with amended motions and how to proceed.
09:51:08 PM (01:51:18) Motion to request a list of every section that offers a departure so that
it is clear to see when you can and can’t apply for a departure: Lauren Waterton
MOTION SECONDED
09:52:36 PM (01:52:46) Planning Board VOTE: Unanimous for – Motion Passes
09:52:47 PM (01:52:57) Zoning Commission VOTE: Unanimous for – Motion Passes
09:52:54 PM (01:53:04) Board member Waterton discussed the Urban Design manual and how
it fits within this document. She voiced concerns regarding the two connected documents and
adopting the UDC and therefore adopting the Design Manual, which is not complete.
63
09:56:52 PM (01:57:02) Motion to amend to remove all reference of the Bozeman Design
Manual from the UDC draft prior to it being available for review: Lauren Waterton
MOTION SECONDED
09:56:30 PM (01:56:40) Commissioner Mehl offered a friendly amendment to state that it was
the Pleasure of the Planning board and zoning commission to review the document prior to it
going to the City Commission.
09:57:59 PM (01:58:09) Planning Board VOTE: Unanimous for – Motion Passes
09:58:08 PM (01:58:18) Zoning Commission VOTE: 2 for; 1 against – Motion Passes
09:58:27 PM (01:58:37) Waterton expressed concerns regarding not having seen the Block
Frontage maps and related, the “high visibility street corners and gateways” referenced on
p.425. Waterton did not make a motion, but stated that she would like to see these documents.
10:00:00 PM (02:00:10) Planner Tom Rogers responded and noted that the community design
framework maps are all available online in draft form. He stated that the definition of a high
visibility street corner and said it was roughly defined as any commercial district that is at the
cross section of arterials streets or an arterial and a collector street.
10:04:27 PM (02:04:37) Waterton brought up Board Member Stevenson’s request from the
previous meeting with regards to the building design section. His request was to convene an
industry group to look at the building design section.
Motion to request the above referenced convening take place within the next month, prior to
the City Commission reviewing the UDC.
10:05:33 PM (02:05:43) Director of Community Development, Martin Matsen addressed
Waterton’s concern. He stated that they can absolutely hold a forum with the design
professionals. He also stated that they have had that forum a couple of times and had only a
few show up. He continued with options to hold this meeting.
MOTION SECONDED
10:09:27 PM (02:09:37) Planning Board VOTE: Unanimous for – Motion Passes
10:09:35 PM (02:09:45) Zoning Commission VOTE: Unanimous for – Motion Passes
64
Over‐Arching MOTION ‐‐
10:09:52 PM (02:10:02) Board members continued discussion on the over‐arching motion to
approve, as amended, or reject the UDC draft.
10:10:26 PM (02:10:36) Discussion…
VOTE:
10:21:51 PM (02:22:01) Planning Board VOTE: 5 for; 1 against – Motion Passes
10:22:02 PM (02:22:12) Zoning Commission VOTE: Unclear Count
F. 10:22:11 PM (02:22:21) FYI/Discussion
10:22:50 PM (02:23:10) Planner Rogers reviewed the next steps with the UDC draft and shared
that it would be going before the Commission on August 17th and August 24th for special
Thursday meetings.
10:24:03 PM (02:24:13) Chair Neubauer announced his resignation from the Planning Board. He
thanked staff and stated that it had been a privilege.
G. 10:25:31 PM (02:25:41) Adjournment
For more information please contact Tom Rogers at TRogers@bozeman.net
This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm
Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require
assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 582‐3232 (TDD 582‐2301).
65