HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-18-17 City Commission Packet Materials - A1. Ordinance 1978 Provisional, UDC UpdatePage 1 of 52
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
City Commission, December 18, 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
City Commission Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application
materials, public comment, Zoning Commission and Planning Board
recommendations, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings
presented in the staff report for application 15320 and move to provisionally adopt
Ordinance 1978 the Unified Development Code update zone text amendment.
Report Date: December 10, 2017
Staff Contacts: Tom Rogers, Senior Planner
Chris Saunders, Policy and Planning Manager
Martin Matsen, Community Development Director
Agenda Item Type: Action – Legislative
224
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 2 of 52
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 3
Project Summary ................................................................................................................. 3
Zoning Commission Recommendation............................................................................... 6
Planning Board Recommendation ...................................................................................... 8
City Commission Alternatives .......................................................................................... 17
SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES .................................................................................................. 18
SECTION 2 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ...................................... 19
SECTION 3 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ........................................................... 20
Section 76-1-606, MCA (Effect of Growth Policy on Subdivision Regulations) ............ 21
Section 76-3-102, MCA (Subdivision Purposes).............................................................. 22
Section 76-3-501, MCA (Subdivision Purposes).............................................................. 23
Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria ....................................................................... 25
PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS ......................................................... 33
APPENDIX A - PROJECT BACKGROUND ....................................................................... 34
APPENDIX B - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT .................................................... 34
APPENDIX C - APPLICANT INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF .................... 46
SUMMARY OF SUBSTANTIVE CHNAGES UDC DRAFT DATED 7/28/2017 .............. 46
SECTIONS FOR WHICH DEPARTURES ARE AVAILABLE .......................................... 51
FISCAL EFFECTS ................................................................................................................. 52
ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................................... 52
225
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 3 of 52
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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
incorporated block frontage standards. Step two, which is included in the proposed
Ordinance 1978, reorganizes the code, broadens block frontage standards to apply throughout
the city, and incorporates a variety of other text.
Specific amendments include:
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
226
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 4 of 52
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
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 by the City Commission as the text amendments were prepared
through this project. In addition, proposed Ordinance 1978 incorporates text amendments
previously approved by the City Commission but not yet adopted, including cash-in-lieu of
parkland, water requirements, subdivision review process, and covenants and other
supplemental application materials.
227
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 5 of 52
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
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 requirements
Amendment 2F – Revisions to subdivision procedures
Amendment 2l – Covenants and supplemental materials
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. A list of public
events is included in this memo.
On May 8, 2017 a complete proposed draft of this phase of the UDC code update was
presented to the City Commission. At the Commission direction, staff unveiled the proposed
draft at five public workshops focusing on different aspects of the proposed code and to
numerous City advisory boards.
228
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 6 of 52
Substantial public comment has been received on the project. Appendix B contains a
summary of the comments received.
Based on public comment and the recommendations of the Zoning Commission and Planning
Board, a revised proposed draft was published on July 28, 2017. This draft was presented to
the City Commission during a public hearing which commenced on August 24, 2017. The
text amendments noticed for this public hearing are listed herein starting on page 46.
Zoning Commission Recommendation
The City of Bozeman Zoning Commission held public work sessions on 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, and June 27, 2017. The
Zoning Commission held public hearings on July 11, 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)
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)
229
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 7 of 52
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)
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.
230
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 8 of 52
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.
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 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, and June 27, 2017. The Zoning
Commission held public hearings on July 11, 2017. A complete record of the public hearings
can be viewed at the link provided below.
The Planning Board proposed numerous changes to the draft UDC as described in the
attached Planning Board Resolution No. 15320.
231
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 9 of 52
In conclusion, the Planning Board recommended 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 Summary of Amendments
On August 24, 2017 the City Commission began consideration of the Unified Development
Code (UDC) update, draft dated July 28, 2017. A motion to approve was made and seconded.
The Commission continued their deliberation on the proposed development code revisions on
the following dates, with links to the public hearings.
LINK TO ORIGINAL AUGUST 24, 2017 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
MATERIALS (STAFF REPORT)
LINK TO SEPTEMER 7, 2017 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
LINK TO SEPTEMER 11, 2017 CITY COMMISISON MEETING
LINK TO SEPTEMBER 18, 2017 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
LINK TO OCTOBER 2, 2017 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
LINK TO OCTOBER 16, 2017 CITY COMMISISON MEETING
LINK TO OCTOBER 23, 2017 CITY COMMISISON MEETING
LINK TO OCTOBER 30, 2017 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
LINK TO NOVEMBER 15, 2017 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
LINK TO DECEMBER 4, 2017 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
During the public meetings the following amendments were made by the Commission within
the scope of the noticed Unified Development Code update:
Amendment 1; passed 5-0
232
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 10 of 52
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to add “recommendations do not constitute votes of
approval or denial” to Section 38.200.010(G).
Amendment 2; passed 5-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to add “Under this section, when advisory boards
review and make recommendations to the review authority that they act in a quasi-judicial
capacity” to Section 38.200.010(G).
Amendment 3; passed 5-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to amend the purpose of Section 38.300.010 to
include E., “Zoning districts and the zoning map communicate the City’s expectation for land
use in each particular district”.
Amendment 4; passed 5-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to restore the line in 38.300.020 “For the purpose of
this chapter, the City is divided and classified into the following use districts” and restore the
table therein.
Amendment 5; passed 4-1
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to strike the table “Summary of housing types
permitted in the residential zoning districts” in Section 38.300.100.
Amendment 6; passed 3-2
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to amend Section 38.300.100, A., to state that the
intent and purpose of the RS residential district is to commemorate and preserve existing RS
zoning only. This district is not available for future land use designation.
Amendment 7; passed 5-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to amend Section 38.300.110.D., to retitle it
“Business district (downtown B-3) and to append “downtown” in front of “B-3” throughout
Section 38.300.110.
Amendment 8; passed 5-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to add a sentence in Section 38.300.110.D., as the
second sentence to read “The downtown B-3 district should be the area of greatest density of
development and intensity of use.”
233
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 11 of 52
Amendment 10; passed 5-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to amend Section 38.300.110.D.4.(a), to unstrike the
sentence and leave it in the document, and remove “a.” to make it the second paragraph of 4.
Additionally, strike the beginning of the sentence “It is the intent…” and state “This district
encourages...”.
Amendment 11; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to approve the two global changes from the staff
memo [Replace the word “plex” with “unit”. For example: Duplex becomes two-unit. Triplex
becomes three - unit. Fourplex becomes four - unit] [Replace “condominium” throughout the
code with language that is consistent with the Montana Unit Ownership Act.]
Amendment 12; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to approve the article 3 change to change “private
garages” to “individual garage”.
Amendment 13; passed 3-1
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to change height from 28 feet to 38 feet in
38.320.060.B.2.a.
Amendment 14; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion as Amended to amend section 38.320.060.B.2.a to
read, “…From a height of up two 3 stories or 40 feet, whichever is greater, and a ten foot
setback…”
Amendment 15; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to make the staff recommendations clarifying the
principles and standards for residential garages that will modify or delete the following
provisions: 38.360.210, 38.360.240, 38.350.050 encompassing:
A. General requirements in the proposed code:
a. Garages are allowed, although not required, in all zoning districts.
b. Ground floor individual garages facing the street are not permitted in the B-3 District.
c. No change to the dimensional parking standards.
d. No change to the number of parking spaces required.
e. Parking is permitted in side and rear setbacks and in the middle of your lot.
f. Parking is not allowed in a front setback. However, if an internal garage space meets
minimum size requirements, then surface parking is permitted in front of the garage
door.
g. Required parking may be met by providing on-street, alley, structured, off-site,
internal garages, or surface parking.
h. Driveway widths are limited in current code and the proposed code.
B. Proposed residential garage standards:
234
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 12 of 52
a. All garage entrances facing the street must be at least four (4) feet behind the front
façade of the structure. Garage entrance may be tucked under building.
b. Allow front porches (covered and uncovered) to encroach five (5) feet into the front
setback.
c. Garage doors for detached single-household dwellings are allowed to face the street.
i. If garage door is more than 10 feet wide it must comprise less than 50 percent of
the width of the ground-level façade facing the street.
ii. There is no restriction to the number of garage doors allowed, only the proportion
of front façade.
d. Garage door standards for townhouses / rowhouses of two to four attached units:
same as detached single-household dwellings. Different standards apply to apartment
buildings and townhouse / rowhouses of 5 or more attached units.
To implement this proposal the following code provisions will be modified and/or deleted.
38.360.210.C (page 264)
38.360.240.B (page 268)
38.350.050.A (page 228)].
Amendment 16; passed 3-2
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to add to 38.360.240.B.2(c) to state, “Individual
garages facing the street are not allowed for townhouse or rowhouse dwellings in the B-3
District.”
Amendment 17; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to revise 38.360.240.B.2 to say, “see 38.360.210.C
for garage standards.”
Amendment 18; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to revise 38.360.210.1 to say, “Where lots abut an
alley, it is encouraged that the garage or off-street parking area take access from the alley. It
may be necessary to take access from alley to meet another standard in the municipal code.”
Amendment 19; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to modify section 38.340.050.D to strike the language
as it is in the staff report and then in section 38.340.050.E to add language furthering the
clarification of when the zoning standards control over adopted guidelines. [Encompassing:
Section 38.340.050.D. When applying the standards of subsections A through C of this
section, the review authority must be guided by the design guidelines for the neighborhood
conservation overlay district which are hereby incorporated by this reference. Application of
the design guidelines may vary by property as explained in the introduction to the design
guidelines. When reviewing a contemporary, non-period, or innovative design for new
235
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 13 of 52
structures or additions to existing structures, the review authority must be guided by the
design guidelines for the neighborhood conservation overlay district to determine whether
the proposal is compatible with any existing or surrounding structures.
Section 38.340.050.E Conformance with other applicable development standards of this
chapter. Development in the NCOD must comply with all other applicable development
standards of this chapter. [Delete the language proposed in the July 28, 2017 draft: Where
there is a conflict between the neighborhood conservation overlay district design guidelines
and other development standards in this chapter, the neighborhood conservation overlay
district design guidelines take precedence, as determined by the reviewing authority.] ].
Amendment 20; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to amend Table 38.320.030 to add an R-S minimum
density.
Amendment 21; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to change footnote as described in staff memo
[encompassing: Change footnotes in Table 38.310.040.B to allow residential in the B-3 if
five or more units; if less than 5 units, residential must be on second and subsequent floors.
Ensure minimum retail depth when residential use is allowed on ground floor.]
Amendment 22; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to delete footnote #6 under Table 38.310.040.B.
Amendment 23; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to delete footnote #7 under Table 38.310.040.B.
Amendment 24; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion on Table 38.320.030 to delete footnotes #3 and #7.
Amendment 25; passed 3-1
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to add language to Residential suburban district (R-S)
38.300.100, “The R-S residential suburban district is not available for newly created
subdivisions, undeveloped land or any land annexed into the city on or after January 1, 2018.
All new s Subdivision and site plan developments in this district shall be subject to the
provisions of division 38.430article 20 of this chapter, pertaining to planned unit
development, and shall be developed in compliance with the adopted city growth policy.”
236
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 14 of 52
Amendment 26; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to change 38.360.030.1.3 to 38.360.030.1.3 and
38.360.030.1.4, with 38.360.030.1.3 saying, “Accessory structures greater than 600 feet may
not be located in any required front, rear, or sideyard setback when no alley is present and
must provide adequate backup maneuverability for required parking spaces,” and
38.360.030.1.4 saying, “Accessory structures greater than 600 feet may be located in
required rear setbacks when an alley is present and must provide adequate backup
maneuverability for required parking spaces.”
Amendment 27; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to reduce the minimum lot area per dwelling
requirement from 5000 square feet to 4000 square feet in R-2 and R-O in Table 38.320.030.
Amendment 28; passed 4-0
Vote to Amendment to the Motion to change the minimum lot size per dwelling for single
household dwellings in RMH to 3000 square feet.
Amendment 29; passed 4-0
Vote to Amendment to the Motion to change R-2 to 0.75, R-3 to 1.0, R-4 and R-O as 1.5 as
maximum floor area ratios.
Amendment 30; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to make it clear that the intent of the commission was
that when they previously defined garages’ intent and purpose in Article 3, it applied to the
entire UDO.
Amendment 31; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to revise residential drive access standards to:
Delete:
Section 38.400.090.C.3.a(2)
Section 38.400.090.C.3.a(3)
Table 38.400.090.C.3.a(3)
Section 38.400.090.C.3.a(4)
Table 38.400.090.C.3.a(4)
Section 38.400.090.C.3.a(4) (numbering error, should have been (5)).
Replace with:
Section 38.400.090.C.3.a(2). Residential drive access standards apply to all residential
development with drive access facing a street, except apartment buildings.
i. Individual residential drive accesses facing the street with a single internal
parking bay meeting the standard of table 38.540.020 may not exceed 12 feet in
237
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 15 of 52
width measured at the right-of-way line and 18 feet in width measured at the curb
line.
ii. Individual residential drive accesses facing the street with two or more internal
parking bays meeting the standard of table 38.540.020 may not exceed 20 feet in
width measured at the right-of-way line and 26 feet in width measured at the curb
line.
iii. Individual and shared drive accesses must be physically separated by means of a
landscaped area greater than or equal to ten feet in width between paved areas and
extending from the front line of the building to the right-of-way line.
iv. Residential complexes with 25 or more dwelling units must meet the commercial
access standards in 38.400.090.C.3.b.
Amendment 32; passed 3-1
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to revise section 38.400.090.d.3 to say:
“Standards for development approved after July 10, 2002. This section must apply to all
development receiving preliminary approval after July 10, 2002. These standards apply to
the minimum distance between public and/or private accesses and intersections, and the
minimum distance between public and/or private accesses and other public and/or private
accesses.”
Amendment 33; passed 3-1
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to delete section 38.400.090.D.2.
Amendment 34; passed 3-1
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to modify 38.400.090.D.3 to say:
“Standards for development approved after July 10, 2002. This section shall apply to all
development received preliminary approval approved after July 10, 2002. These
standards apply to the minimum distance between public and/or private accesses and
intersections, and the minimum distance between public and/or private accesses and other
public and/or private accesses.
Amendment 35; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to amend 38.500.020.A.1 as follows:
For sites within the city's established neighborhood conservation overlay district, the
design provisions of division 38.340 supersede the provisions of this article. However,
the review authority may apply the provisions of this article in the event of a conflict,
where the review authority determines that the provisions herein help new development
better meet the purpose and intent of neighborhood conservation overlay district per
section 38.340.010.
238
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 16 of 52
Amendment 36; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to amend section 38.510.010.b, block frontage
standards, as follows:
“The provisions of this division apply to all development within Bozeman, except single,
two-, three, and four-household dwellings in any configuration.”
Amendment 37; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to replace section 38.530 - Building Design with the
revised standards (see-attached section 38.530 - Building Design standards).
Amendment 38; passed 3-1
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to delete section 38.530.020E (contained in the
Amendment #36, revised building design standards).
Amendment 39; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to modify section 38.530.E. solar to say the
following.
“Active Solar Collection Units (electronic and hydronic) are permitted.”
Amendment 40; passed 3-1
Vote on the Amendment to the Motion to change 38.530.060.C.3.a. Max EIFS from 60 to 50
percent of the total façade (contained in the Amendment #36, revised building design
standards).
Amendment 41; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amended Motion to replace Blank Wall provision AND ADD departure for
blank walls.
Amendment 42; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amended Motion to change Apartment definition to say, “…excluding
townhouse and rowhouses” to definition
Amendment 43; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amended Motion to delete footnote #6 under Table 38.310.030. Permitted uses
in residential districts.
Amendment 44; passed 4-0
Vote on the Amended Motion to delete 38.360.040.C.2.b. ADU 1997 restriction.
239
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 17 of 52
Vote on the Main Amended Motion from August 24, 2017: passed 4-0
“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.”
In conclusion, the Bozeman City Commission voted unanimously (4:0) to approve the main
motion, as amended. The proposed Ordinance 1978 for provisional adoption incorporates
into the July 28, 2017 draft the amendments approved by the City Commission during the
public hearing.
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.
240
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 18 of 52
SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES
241
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 19 of 52
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
recommends approval as submitted.
The Zoning Commission held public hearings on this text amendment on July 11th , 2017, at
6 pm at 121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman. The Zoning Commission considered 21
242
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 20 of 52
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 11, 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 held a public workshop on the amendments on Thursday, August 17th,
2017 and held a public hearing on the amendments on the following dates:
August 24th, 2017
September 7, 2017
September 11, 2017
September 18, 2017
October 2, 2017
October 16, 2017
October 23, 2017
October 30, 2017
November 15, 2017
December 4, 2017
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 to the UDC is a legislative action, the
Commission has latitude to determine 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.
243
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 21 of 52
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
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.
244
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 22 of 52
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.
3. Prevent the overcrowding of land.
Yes. Land becomes 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 existing requirements for 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 Ordinance 1978 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.
245
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 23 of 52
7. Protect the rights of property owners.
Yes. The procedural requirements of the City’s subdivision regulations protect property
rights. The requirements for 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
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.
246
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 24 of 52
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
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.
247
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 25 of 52
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 of 17 chapters
detailing community context, land use, community quality, arts and culture, economic
development to name a few. The text of Chapter 38 as amended is a balance of the various
goals and priorities in the Bozeman Community Plan and advances the plan overall.
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 adopted by the Commission as part of this
project. Each ordinance was found to be in accordance with the Community Plan. In addition
four other proposed text amendments were reviewed and approved by the Commission but
not formally adopted, including cash and/or improvements-in-lieu of parkland dedication and
parkland dedication modifications, water requirements, subdivision regulations, and
requirements for covenants and other supplemental application materials. These approved
amendments are incorporated in the proposed ordinance.
Chapter 3 – Land Use
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 concentrating 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
248
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 26 of 52
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. What defines a neighborhood
is 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. The perceived identity of a neighborhood
may change 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
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 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, these amendments further
the sense of place and support 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 extensive outreach efforts for the development code update has
fulfilled this objective for this text amendment. 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.
249
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 27 of 52
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
requirements while continuing the diverse parking alternatives for commercial and
mixed-use buildings.
Chapter 4 – Community Quality
According to the Community Plan, “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 the code 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.
250
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 28 of 52
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.
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 revised Chapter 38 will create a more predictable, transparent and
consistent 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, and 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.
251
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 29 of 52
Response: This goal and these objectives are 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 development of accessory dwelling units will allow 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 supports 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.
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 based code provisions clarifies 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 supports 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 proposed Ordinance 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
252
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 30 of 52
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.
Response: As the City grows, the increase in buildings and activities can impact
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, and 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 based code provisions clarifies 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.
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 H-1.1 - Encourage and support the creation of a broad range of housing types
in proximity to services and transportation options.
Objective H-1.2 – Encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of the existing housing
stock to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Bozeman residents.
Objective H-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.
253
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 31 of 52
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 H-3.1 – Encourage the provision of affordable housing.
Objective H-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 public comments on the issue of affordable housing asserted that use of
homes for short term rentals (“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 adopted Ordinance 1974 to establish standards for STRs. That ordinance includes a
restriction on the operation of STRs within dwellings where financial support was provided
by the City. This restriction ends when the City has recaptured the support. It is expected that
this will help prevent the change of use of a dwelling into a non-owner occupied STRs. 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 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 to 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
254
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 32 of 52
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
“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 proposed Ordinance
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. The City Commission recently adopted 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 promote the continued growth of the City by providing clearer
development standards and application review procedures. 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
255
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 33 of 52
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.
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 minimize negative impacts of
development on 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
256
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 34 of 52
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.
As of the writing of this report, no written protest against the changes included in the revised
Chapter 38 has been received.
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
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 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 resulted in this proposed Ordinance.
Additional amendment phases will be required to address subjects such as parking, signs, and
zoning map boundaries.
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.
257
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 35 of 52
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
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
258
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 36 of 52
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
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
259
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 37 of 52
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 Hyalite Neighborhood General update and participation
70 5/23/17 Workshop #2
71 5/23/17 Workshop #2 Neighborhoods Deep Dive
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
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
260
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 38 of 52
88 8/17/17 Save Bozeman outreach Transitions
89 8/17/17 Design day part two
57 8/17/17
City Commission public
workshop
90 8/17/17 City Commission public hearing
91 8/24/17 City Commission public hearing
92 9/11/17 City Commission public hearing
93 9/18/17 City Commission public hearing
94 10/2/17 City Commission public hearing
95 10/4/17 Design day part two
96 10/16/17 City Commission public hearing
97 10/23/17 City Commission public hearing Article 3. Submitted Staff changes
98 10/30/17 City Commission public hearing Article 3 and motions
99 11/6/17 City Commission public hearing No action
100 11/13/17 City Commission public hearing No action
101 11/15/17 City Commission public hearing Article 3 & 4
102 11/27/17 City Commission public hearing
103 12/4/17 City Commission public hearing A5,6, & 7
104 12/18/17 City Commission public hearing Codifying Ord
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 had been received on a draft
of the UDC dated May 8, 2017. A number of these comments represented 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 were not specifically addressed
but staff considered them in preparing the July 28, 2017 draft.
A. BPAG comments, letter dated January 24, 2017
261
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 39 of 52
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,
and content specific public meetings with neighborhood groups, design professionals, and
other special interest groups.
262
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 40 of 52
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.
Goal C-1: Human Scale and Compatibility
263
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 41 of 52
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.
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
264
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 42 of 52
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
desirable, there are some essential functional elements of buildings that need to be
provided for buildings to operate as needed.
h. Commercial open space.
265
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 43 of 52
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
basic RMH district standards. Maintenance and replacement of buildings follows
standard processes.
266
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 44 of 52
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.
I. Historic Preservation Advisory Board, memo dated August 10, 2017
a. Residential emphasis mixed-use zoning district.
267
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 45 of 52
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
a. Accessory Dwelling Units.
Staff comment – For Commission consideration.
268
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 46 of 52
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.
A revised UDC draft was created and provide to the public for review on July 28, 2017. All
public comments are available through the meeting links included in the Executive Summary
in this report. In addition, all comments are archived with the City and are available HERE.
All comments were provide to the Commission for consideration. A complete summary of
written comment is attached to this report.
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
SUMMARY OF SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES UDC DRAFT DATED
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)
269
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 47 of 52
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
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
270
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 48 of 52
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
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
271
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 49 of 52
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
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
272
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 50 of 52
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
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.
273
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 51 of 52
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
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
38.530.030.B Building character
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)
274
15320, Staff Report for the Unified Development Code Update and Replacement Municipal
Code Text Amendment Page 52 of 52
Section Reference Subject
38.530.060 Building materials (multiple elements)
38.530.070 Blank walls
38.550.080 Landscaping requirements
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.
Ordinance 1978 (including Attachments A and B)
Planning Board Resolution No. 15320
Public comment summary
275
Page 1 of 5
ORDINANCE NO. 1978
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA TO REPEAL AND REPLACE CHAPTER 38 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, The City of Bozeman (the “City”) is authorized by the City Charter and
Montana law to promote public health, safety and welfare and otherwise execute the purposes of
Section 76-1-102, MCA and the City Charter; and
WHEREAS, The City is authorized by the Section 4.04 of the City Charter and Montana
law to adopt zoning, subdivision, and other land use regulations and provide for the enforcement
and administration of such regulations and otherwise reasonably provide for the orderly
development of the community; and
WHEREAS, The City has undertaken a lengthy public process to amend and revise its
land use regulations, including significant public participation, numerous city commission work
sessions and duly noticed public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the Bozeman Zoning Commission and Planning Board held noticed public
hearings on July 11th and 18th, 2017. The Bozeman Planning Board voted 6:1 to recommend
approval of the proposed amendments and the Bozeman Zoning Commission voted 2:2 to
recommended adoption of proposed amendments; and
WHEREAS, The City Commission intends that by adoption of this Ordinance,
amendments and revisions to Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code which have been
previously approved by the Bozeman City Commission, including those approved on December
4, 2017, September 26, 2016, October 24, 2016, November 21, 2016, February 13, 2017, March
6, 2017, will be final and effective on the effective date described in this Ordinance; and
276
Ordinance No. 1978 Repeal and Replacement of Chapter 38 (“UDC Update”)
Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, The Bozeman City Commission intends by adoption of this ordinance to
repeal existing Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code and replace it in its entirety with a new
Chapter 38, as provided for in Attachment A, with all the amendments and revisions to the current
Chapter 38 shown in attachment B; and
WHEREAS, all amendments and revisions to the current Chapter 38, BMC, shown in
Attachment B, and which are included in Attachment A have been heard by the Bozeman City
Commission pursuant to Montana law and been adopted at duly noticed public hearings.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA:
Section 1
Legislative Findings:
The City Commission hereby adopts the following findings:
1. The above recitals are incorporated herein.
2. The procedures, standards, and regulations included in Attachment A substantially comply
with the Bozeman Community Plan (and other City adopted plans including its facility
plans, transportation plan, parks recreation and open space plan, downtown improvement
plan, and economic development plan).
3. The procedures, standards, and regulations included in Attachment A comply with the
requirements of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, the requirements Title 76, Chpt.
2, part 3, MCA (municipal zoning), and Title 76, Chpt. 5 (Flood Plain and Floodway
Management).
4. Public hearings have been duly noticed and held before the Zoning Commission and
Planning Board, as appropriate, and before the City Commission on all changes to Chpt.
38, BMC as shown in Exhibit B.
5. Findings presented to the Commission in staff memorandum for the changes included in
Attachment A and those made by Commissioners on December 18, 2017, December 4,
277
Ordinance No. 1978 Repeal and Replacement of Chapter 38 (“UDC Update”)
Page 3 of 5
2017, September 26, 2016, October 24, 2016, November 21, 2016, February 13, 2017,
March 6, 2017 are hereby incorporated into findings for adoption of this Ordinance.
Section 2
That Chapter 38 of the Bozeman Municipal Code as currently adopted is hereby repealed
in its entirety and that a new Chapter 38, attached to this Ordinance as Attachment A, is hereby
adopted.
Section 3
That the City official zoning map adopted by the City Commission pursuant to Resolution
4787 on March 27, 2017 is hereby confirmed in its entirety by this Ordinance. Nothing herein
amends any zoning map amendment duly adopted by the City Commission after March 27, 2017.
Section 4
Repealer.
All provisions of the ordinances of the City of Bozeman in conflict with the provisions of
this ordinance are, and the same are hereby, repealed and all other provisions of the ordinances
of the City of Bozeman not in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect.
Section 5
Savings Provision.
This ordinance does not affect the rights and duties that matured, penalties that were
incurred or proceedings that were begun before the effective date of this Ordinance. All other
provisions of the Bozeman Municipal Code not amended by this Ordinance shall remain in full
force and effect.
Section 6
Severability.
That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this
ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, the same shall not affect
the validity of this Ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof, other than the part so
278
Ordinance No. 1978 Repeal and Replacement of Chapter 38 (“UDC Update”)
Page 4 of 5
decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, and shall not affect the validity of the Bozeman
Municipal Code as a whole.
Section 7
Codification.
This Ordinance shall be codified as indicated in Section 2.
Section 8
Effective Date.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on March 31, 2018.
PROVISIONALLY ADOPTED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman,
Montana, on first reading at a regular session held on the 18th day of December 2017.
____________________________________
CARSON TAYLOR
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
ROBIN CROUGH
City Clerk
279
Ordinance No. 1978 Repeal and Replacement of Chapter 38 (“UDC Update”)
Page 5 of 5
FINALLY PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the
City of Bozeman, Montana on second reading at a regular session thereof held on the 4th day of
January, 2018. The effective date of this ordinance is March 31, 2018.
_________________________________
CARSON TAYLOR
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
ROBIN CROUGH
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
GREG SULLIVAN
City Attorney
280
281
282
283
284
#Date Name File Name SizeLocationOtherConfigurationWidthOtherArticulationMaterialsCreative FreedomBlank WallOtherHeightMassScaleOtherNeighborhoodDensityStreetOtherProcessPlan Review CriteriaNCODUseTransitionHistoric PropertyAffordable housingUncategorized1 5/9/2017 K. Bryan UDC update X X
2 5/17/2017 J. Wilkinson UDC update X35/24/2017 A. Kesselheim UDC update X X
4 5/25/2017 R. Canfield Duplicate information X55/30/2017 R. Canfield UDC update X
6 6/3/2017 H. Happel Random small comments X X76/5/2017 A. Jadin UDC pet peeves X X
8 6/12/2017 H. Foch UDC update X96/14/2017 S. Stewart UDC update X X X X X X X X X
10 6/20/2017 R. Pertzborn Daylight Plane X X
11 6/20/2017 BPAG UDC X X X X X X
12 6/30/2017 L. Stewart UDC update X
13 6/30/2017 Design Professionals UDC update X
14 7/3/2017 S. Hedglin UDC update X X X
15 7/7/2017 H. Foch UDC update X X X X X X X
16 7/10/2017 Downtown Partnership UDC update X X X X X X X
17 7/11/2017 B. Clem Brick requirement X187/12/2017 K. Thane Affordable housing X
19 7/12/2017 B. Maxwell Affordable housing X
20 7/17/2017 HRDC Affordable housing X X X
21 7/17/2017 K. Thane Affordable housing X X X X X X227/17/2017 R. Canfield AUD X X X X
23 7/23/2017 BPAG UDC update X X X X
24 7/24/2017 Save Bozeman UDC update X X258/8/2017 H. Schmidt ADU X X X X
26 8/10/2017 HPAB UDC update X X X X X
27 8/14/2017 Downtown Partnership UDC update X X X X X X X X
28 8/14/2017 HRDC UDC update X X
29 8/15/2017 G. Thompson Acustic considerations X X308/16/2017 Mental Health America UDC update X X
31 8/16/2017 R. Canfield UDC update X X
32 8/16/2017 R. Canfield UDC update X X
33 8/19/2017 Montana AIA UDC design standards X X X X X X X X X
34 8/22/2017 R. Pertzborn Cottages X X358/22/2017 R. Pertzborn Lot width X X
36 8/23/2017 A. Kociolek UDC update X X
37 8/24/2017 T. Wells ADU X X X388/24/2017 D. Zinn ADU X X X
39 8/24/2017 B. Caldwell Chaper 5 X X X X X
40 6/28/2017 C. Robertson UDC update X419/8/2017 L & M Benton ADU X X X
42 9/8/2017 C Clow ADU X X X439/8/2017 J Barry ADU X X X
44 9/8/2017 HRDC H Grenier X X
45 9/11/2017 R. Pertzborn Garage setback X X X469/11/2017 M. Bennett UDC X
47 9/11/2017 R. Canfield ADU X X X X489/12/207 HJ Schmidt ADU X X X
49 9/12/2017 C Johnson ADU X X
50 9/14/2017 C. West 4B & design X X X X X X519/15/2017 Neighbor Works UDC X
52 9/18/2017 K. Powel (INC)ADU X X X X539/18/2017 J. Ball UDC X X
54 9/18/2017 B. Gasteyer Development X
55 9/18/2017 S. Riggs UDC X X
56 9/20/2017 T. Minge ADU X
57 9/26/2017 K. Thane UDC update X X589/29/2017 H. Grenier (HRDC)UDC update X X
59 9/29/2017 R. Brown UDC, Section 38 X X X X
60 9/29/2017 C. Kleese Planning Issues X X X6110/8/2017 K. Pohl Infill support X X X
62 10/16/2017 Midtown Board UDC concerns X X X6310/23/2017 R. Rockafellow ADU X X
64 10/27/2017 B. Lloyd UDC update X X X X
65 11/6/2017 Design Community Edits Article 5 X X X X X6611/13/2017 J. Paszkiet Emergency housing X X X
67 11/13/2017 A. Poeschl Emergency housing X X X6811/14/2017 H. Foch Lighting X X
69 11/15/2017 H. Foch Building design X
70 12/2/2017 M. Friebig ADU X X7112/6/2017 D. King ADU X
7273
74
75
76
7778
79
80
15 16 16 3 2 9 7 7 9 4 7 2 4 5 7 14 5 12 6 5 1 7 5 6 12 16
Building Design OtherADULot Size Building Mass/scale Community Character
285