HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-19 Public Comment - Gallik, Bremer & Molloy, P.C. - Medical Arts Parking Lot Zone Map Amendment GALLIK, BREMER & MOLLOY, P.C. ORIGINAL
Attorneys at Law
777 East Main Street, Suite 203
PO Box 70
Bozeman, Montana 59771-0070
(406) 404-1728
September 16, 2019
City Commission BY HAND
City of Bozeman
121 North Rouse
Bozeman, Montana 59715
RE: Proposed Zone Map Ainendinent, Medical Arts Parking Lot.
Honorable Members of the Bozeman City Commission:
"Beyond a doubt, the most frequently litigated zoning issue involves
the validity of rezoning decisions." "The policy considerations — and,
derivatively, the legal principles — governing rezoning can be usefully
conceptualized as attempts to reconcile the competing and conflicting
goals of promoting, on the one hand, desired stability, and, on the
other hand, desired flexibility.
Ziegler, 3 The Law of Zoning and Planning, (2018 ed.) § 38: 1 at 38-2.
I submit this letter on behalf of myself, and other landowners who live near
and rightfully oppose the Medical Arts parking lot zone change application from
R-4 to B-3. I join them in respectfully requesting that the City "recognize that the
real heart of Bozeman is its neighborhoods, all of them, together, historic or not,"
and that you be "accountable to all community interests, not just a segment of
developers." Otherwise, as I predicted during a public comment period before this
Commission two (2) years ago, the existing neighborhoods impacted by the
"incremental" (staff's word, not mine) extension of B-3 zoning into our
neighborhoods, both north and south of Main Street, coupled with relaxation of
standards applicable to "neighborhood conservation overlay districts," will
continue to suffer "death by a thousand cuts," allowing in turn the further
expansion of B-3 deeper into our downtown neighborhoods.
1
I live at 316 North Third Avenue, where I already see the squeeze of
intensification of development (and corresponding densities) spreading from
Downtown and now Midtown into our neighborhoods. Several of my neighbors
have recently picked up stakes and fled to other areas, where they can find again,
and at substantially less tax rates, a residential neighborhood similar to what they
called once called "home" -- where they raised families for decades, while being
able to walk to neighborhood schools, walk downtown, park in front of their
homes, and enjoy relative peace and quiet. Other neighbors are likewise
considering leaving their homes for these same reasons.
Having read the Application, the Staff Report's recommendation of
approval, viewed the Zoning Commission meeting and comments I realistically
hold no expectation that the result of tonight's meeting, with or without a super
majority, will be anything but an "affirmance" of the Developer's application.
Accordingly, I offer these comments for purposes of preserving the record upon
appeal to the District Court. To this end, I incorporate by reference all public
comment submitted in opposition to and in favor of the Application, as well as the
proceedings before the Zoning Commission.
1. The Application Seeks to Upzone the Property To a Use More
Profitable to the Landowner at the Expense of the Neighborhood
And Without the "Careful Study and Strategic Relocation of the
-3 Boundary Line" Required by the Recently Adopted
Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan.
The application before you seeks to change the zoning on a portion of the
Medical Arts Parking Lot from R-4 (Residential High Density District) to B-3
(Downtown Business District). This request is properly characterized as
"upzoning," i.e., "rezoning or reclassification to a more intensive use category —
usually one that is more profitable to the landowner." 3 Ziegler, The Law of
Zoning and Planning, § 3 8:11 at 38-10.
As Ziegler explains, "[i]n the nature of things, upzonings nearly always
occur on only a piecemeal basis and in response to a request by the zoned property
owner to be reclassified." Id., p. 38-1. He continues,
The desire of nearby property owners to maintain neighborhood lands
in lower-intensity use and the desire of local government officials to
get reelected virtually guarantee, as a matter of politics, that a local
governing body will rarely upzone land on a comprehensive basis.
2
Rather the tendency will be to upzone land only on the specific
request of a property owners seeking rezoning and, then, only if the
upzoning is not met by too much neighborhood resistance or is
thought necessary to defeat a potential claim of confiscatory zoning
by a property owner.
Id., p. 38-11, n. 1.
The parcel of the land at issue is 0.7 acres in size. Staff Report at
p. 19 [423]. "The [requested] change is an incremental expansion of the entire B-3
district and is physically contiguous to the B-3 district." Id. at 9[2 (emphasis
added).
While the City's future land use map, for the subject property, designates
this as "Community Core" the City's recently adopted Downtown Bozeman
Improvement Plan (DBIP), a Neighborhood Plan, classifies this property as outside
"the Community Core" and, instead, part of the neighboring "Residential" land use
designation. Staff explains:
The proposed amendment is adjacent to but not within the area of the
Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan (DBIP) adopted in 2019.
The DBIP is a neighborhood plan. A neighborhood plan considers in
greater detail than possible in the growth policy in the future
development of a subset of the community. A neighborhood plan
must be consistent with the overall direction of the growth policy."
Id., p. 11 [415] (emphasis added) (Excerpt attached).
Note, Staff acknowledges that the neighborhood plan need only be
consistent with the "overall direction" of the growth policy. Montana law
makes clear that a "growth policy is not a regulatory document and does not
confer any authority to regulate that is not otherwise specifically authorized
by law or regulations adopted pursuant to law." MCA § 76-1-605.
To this end, because a growth policy and future land use map is
simply "general policy," the fact that a future land use map designates a
piece of property in a particular fashion is only one (1) part of the analysis,
not the entire analysis as it appears the zoning commission was led to
believe. To be clear, the law requires only that this Commission "be guided
by and give consideration to the general policy and pattern of development
3
set out in the growth policy in the . . . adoption of zoning ordinances or
resolutions." MCA § 76-1-605(1)(c) (emphasis added).
2 There has Not Been "Careful Study and Strategic Location" of
the B-3 Boundary as Required by the Recently Adopted.
Staff and the Applicant seek to justify the piecemeal, upzoning of this small
piece of property by claiming the "need to correct a discrepancy between he
residential land use classification for the property of"Community Core" and the
Bozeman Community Plan's Future land use map." Staff Report, p. 2 [4061. This
is misleading, inconsistent with state law and ignores the plain language of the
City's recently adopted plan for this area.
As explained, the growth policy and future land use map is simply sets forth
general policy, which this Commission uses as a guide. It is not a regulatory
document. The DBIP, as staff explains, "considers in greater detail than possible
in the growth policy the future development of a subset of the community." Staff
Report at 11 [415].
The DBIP, adopted by this Commission only months ago, recognizes the
conflict between the growth policy designation for this lot and the DBPI. Rather
than brushing that conflict aside in this application, like the Applicant and Staff
attempt to do as a mere "housekeeping matter," your own plan makes clear that
"careful study" of the zoning associated with this property is required before
moving the B-3 boundary, including the boundary appurtenant to this property:
The Downtown B-3 district is primarily surrounded by residentially
zoned neighborhoods as well as anchored by less intense commercial
zoning on the east and west ends. It is important that the zoning
regulations and land use projections designated in the community plan
are aligned so that future development or changes is predictable,
objective, and coordinated.
Id., P. 110.
The DBIP recognizes that there are several locations within its planning
area, "where land uses and zoning designations are in conflict." Id., p. 111. One
of these areas is the property subject to this application. Id. The DBIP makes
clear that resolution of this conflict is properly addressed through careful study and
strategic relocation of the B-3 boundary line:
4
Each of these areas should be addressed through careful
study and strategic relocation of the B-3 boundary line. Care
should be taken to keep the changes to the boundary as minimal as
possible so that they maintain and reinforce the existing downtown
and neighborhood areas on either side. Funclannentalli, the Downtown.
district should not he reduced in area. Likewise, this f•ecornrnenclation
is also not intended to ineaningfidly expand the district. Rather the
hope is that minor boundary adjustments will address potential land
use conflicts and reduce the potential for future challenges.
M., p. 11 (first emphasis added, second emphasis part of original emphasis).
While Staff recognizes the need to remove the conflicts, it ships the most important
part of the Study's analysis, by ignoring the plain language of the plan, requiring
study and analysis before moving a boundary.
Here, there has been NO study, let alone "careful study" of a "strategic"
relocation of the B-3 boundary area for this piece of property. Instead, Staff
reports that "[t]he application indicates the intent of the zone map amendment is to
correct a discrepancy between the residential zoning and the land use classification
for the property of "Community Core." Staff Report, p. 2 [406]. Staff blindly
accepts that rationalization, id. at p. 9, [413] even though neither it, nor the
Applicant has undertaken the "careful study" mandated by the DBIP to ensure a
strategic relocation of the B-3 boundary line. Such a "careful study" would surely
include neighborhood notice and an opportunity to be heard. However, that has
not happened. Instead, both Applicant and Staff declare by fiat, without "careful
study," that with the elimination of the boundary conflict as a simple housekeeping
measure, "no conflicts with the Growth Policy have been identified. M., p. 12
[416]. See also, Staff Report at p. 16 [420] (same).
Resolution of the boundary conflict, by careful study, as the DBIP mandates,
is intended to address many of the concerns raised by neighboring landowners in
their comments to the Zoning Commission and this Commission in their written
and public comments. As the DBIP states, alignment of zoning and growth policy
objectives help ensure that "future development or change is predictable, objective
and coordinated." M., p. 110.
The need for a "careful study," is further demonstrated by the dearth of
substantive information or analysis in Application and Staff Report, which is
justified by kicking the can down the road as "part of the development review
5
process if the property is proposed for redevelopment." Staff Report, p. 12 [416].
This is nonsense and turns the DBIP's analysis on its head. The time for analysis
of these issues is now, as part of the careful study mandated by the DBIP.
For example, under Section D of the Staff Report, concerning whether the
amendment would "facilitate the provision of transportation, water, sewerage,
schools, parks, and other public requirements, Staff writes:
Yes. Adoption of the requested amendment does not require a change
in use from the existing function as a parking lot. No additional
facilities are required for the parking lot to continue. Any
redevelopment of the property will be required to meet city standards
for water, sewer or transportation system upgrades or restrictions
resulting from proposed future development. The adequate provision
of public requirements is addressed as part of the development review
process if the property is proposed for redevelopment.
Icy. p. 12 [416]. Assuming the land in question will remain a parking lot for
purposes of upzoning is naive at best, disingenuous at worst.
This Commission knows the land at issue will not remain a parking lot.
Regardless, as part of the analysis required to evaluate the proposed amendment,
including the careful study that should proceed any adjustment of the boundary
under the DBIP, Staff(and this Commission) should assume the maximum
potential buildout of the property at the densities allowed under B-3. To simply
defer that analysis until a later date is inconsistent with the standards adopted by
the DBIP and state law governing adoption of zoning regulations.
The same analysis applies with respect to Staff's shallow analysis on the
"effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems. Id. at p. 14 [418].
Staff writes: "A change in the zoning from R-4 to B-3 will not itself change the use
of the property from a parking lot for the . . . Medical Arts building. Therefore,
there is no anticipated immediate effect on transportation systems from the change
in zoning designation." Id.
Just as the Staff Report offers no analysis on the foregoing issues to reach
conclusions supportive of the end result, because it must assume the land may
simply stay a parking lot, it likewise offers no study or analysis on how it can
conclude, that if the property "is to be redeveloped" that the "most appropriate uses
are those allowed in the proposed B-3 district, some of which would not be
6
allowed in the existing R-4 district." Id., p. 15 [419]. Which uses is Staff
referring to? Why are they most appropriate? How does that justify the change in
boundary, even though the DBIP urges careful study to "strategically" locate the
boundary between residential and business.
The same criticism applies with equal force to the "character of the district
analysis," located in Section H, including deferring analysis of the interaction
between the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, because "[m]ost of the
NCOD standards are not applicable to the present use of the site as there are no
buildings associated with the use." Id., p. 17 [421]. The same criticism applies to
Section I (Peculiar suitability for particular uses"). Section J (conserving the
value of buildings, arbitrarily limits its analysis to the effect of the amendment on
buildings "within the boundary of the amendment." Id., p. 17 [421]. The analysis
is broader and requires that one look across the street and across the alley. This
analysis and conclusion is arbitrary and capricious.
In sum, the information in the Application and Staff Report are so lacking in
fact and foundation that is it clearly unreasonable to base approval of the
application upon that information, and if relied upon would constitute an abuse of
discretion." Lake County First v. Polson City Council, 2009 MT 322, 9132, 352
Mont. 489, 218 P.3d 816. Id, 133. The Application is properly rejected in favor,
in the first instance, of the "careful study" the DBIP mandates before adjusting
boundaries.
2. The Agenda Item Type is Quasi-Judicial in Fact and Law.
Second, I respectfully disagree that the action by this Commission is
"legislative." Staff Report, p. 1 [405]. Instead, and with due respect to decisions
by the Montana Supreme Court, which modified prior holdings, the act of
upzoning small pieces of property, like the property at issue is properly
characterized as quasi-judicial in fact and law.
The property at issue is 0.7 acres in size. The owner wants to upzone the
property because it will increase its value to him or her. The land to the north and
west are residential neighborhoods. The vast majority of the land to the northeast
is also residential. The overwhelming majority of property owners in the area have
expressed their opposition to the City's incremental destruction of their
neighborhoods through the process of B-3 creep.
7
There are statutes governing zoning and rezoning, a comprehensive plan and
future land use map that has already been adopted and, most recently, the DBIP, all
of which inform this Commission's decision.
Montana, by virtue of the decision in Lowe v City of Missoula, 165 Mont.
38, 43, 525 P.2d 551, 554 (1974) (overruled on other grouncls by Greens at Fort
Missoula, LLC v. City of Missoula, 271 Mont. 398, 897 P.2d 1078 (1995) was
considered among the jurisdictions applying the quasi-judicial treatment to
rezonings. The Court stated in Lowe:
There is under Montana statutes and case law a sound distinction
between `zoning' and the act of `rezoning' or granting or refusing a
variance. The former constitutes a legislative act while the latter is
more of an administrative or quasi-judicial act in applying provisions
of existing ordinance and law. In such application the exercise of
sound discretion is limited by the provisions of the statute, including
such standards as are set forth therein.
165 Mont. at 43. On that basis, the Court held that a grant of rezoning is
invalid in the absence of facts and findings showing compliance with twelve
substantive standards set forth in what is now MCA § 76-2-304.
The Court retreated from this position in Schanz v. City of Billings, 182
Mont. 328, 597 P.2d 67 (1979) where it stated: A review of authorities reveals no
elemental distinction between the act of `zoning' and the act of `rezoning.' A
rezoning ordinance, like a zoning ordinance, is a legislative enactment, and is
entitled to presumptions of validity and reasonableness. . . . [W]e depart here from
the distinction expressed in Lowe between the acts of zoning and rezoning." 597
P.2d at 71. The Court stated, however, that Lowe retained continued validity
inasmuch as rezonings should still be reviewed for facts and findings showing
compliance with the substantive standards, and has been relied upon by the Court
in cases since that time, including Lake County First v. Polson City Council, 2009
MT. 322, 352 Mont. 489, 218 P.3d 816.
While the current "black-letter" law in this state suggests that the act of
rezoning is a legislative act, that conclusion is a legal fiction and properly subject
to further review by the Court.
The adoption of growth policies and future land use maps, of general
applicability, or rezoning of large areas, are properly considered legislative in
8
nature. This is because initial zoning and large rezonings "bear the indicia of
traditional legislative action, i.e., they are acts establishing policy and have effect
on the entire community or large portions thereof." Ziegler, § 40:21 at 4051-52.
On the other hand, "characteristics primarily cited in identifying a rezoning as
quasi-judicial are the facts that:
(1) A decision has great impact on a limited number of persons or
property owners while having comparatively little impact on the
community at large;
(2) The proceeding is aimed at arriving at a fact-based decision between
two distinct alternatives, i.e. pro or con;
(3) The decision, viewed functionally, and analytically presents an
instance of policy application rather than policy setting.
Id. at p. 40-52-53. "Under these criteria, the clearest case of a quasi-judicial
rezoning is that of a rezoning sought by a single property owner for a
comparatively small parcel of property." Id. at 40-54.
The application before this Commission is the "clearest case of quasi-
judicial rezoning" under the foregoing standards. This is important, because it
offers individuals, like neighbors, with greater procedural protections. While some
of these enhanced protections exist under existing law, there are additional
procedural protections such as the right to discover and seek disqualification from
the decision making body of persons who have conflicts of interest or have had
improper ex parte contacts with the Applicant or his or her representatives, to
ensure the decision made is based solely on matters of record. See, Ziegler, §
40:23.
3. Spot Zoning/Spot Planning.
The Staff Report summarizes the general principals associated with spot
zoning analysis and cites to a Montana case outlining the framework of analysis.
Whether impermissible spot zoning has occurred presents a fact-specific inquiry
that varies from one case to the next. Plains Grains, LP, v. Board of County
Comnnrission.ers, 2010 MT 155, IT 58-66 , 357 Mont. 61, 238 P.3d 332 (discussing
standards applicable to spot zoning claims). The Staff Report, however, fails to
consider the basic underpinning of spot zoning claims, which applies in this case:
the owner of the land in question requests that his or her land be "upzoned" to
9
allow a higher density or more intensive use or development." Ziegler, § 41.2 at
41-3 (citing cases).
In this regard, it is important to note, as discussed earlier, that while there are
competing interests associated with zoning decisions, and zoning is by no means
static, having adopted a comprehensive plan and a unified Ordinance implanting
that plan, this Commission cannot simply ignore or amend through legislative fiat,
the existing standards which were adopted after notice, opportunity to be heard,
and input from the community this Commission serves, "[m]erely because certain
individuals want it done or think it ought to be done."
If a general zoning ordinance is passed and persons buy
property in a certain district, they have a right to rely upon the rule of
law that the classification made in the general ordinance will not be
changed unless the change is required for the public good . . . . The
power to amend is not arbitrary. It cannot be exercised merely
because certain individuals want it done or think it ought to be done.
Kennedy v. City of Evanston, 181 N.E. 312, 313-314 (Ill. App. 1932).
a The Proposed Use is &nificantly Different From The
Prevailing Uses of Land in the Area.
Closely related to actual conformance with a comprehensive plan is the issue
of compatibility of the newly zoned parcel with surrounding uses. Compatibility is
important not only because it enhances rational planning, but because of the
detrimental effect an incompatible use may have on neighbors. Ziegler, § 41:8.
"An amendment which reclassifies a small parcel to allow a use which is
inconsistent with its neighborhood is likely to be overturned." Id. at 41-33-34
(citing cases). The BUDC recognizes this principle.
Staff concedes that the prevailing land uses immediately to the north and
wast of the subject property are residential. To the south and immediatel to the
east, for one (1) block, the land is B-3. In addition to significantly higher density,
another important difference from the prevailing land uses "in the area," is that the
B-3 zoning, allows commercial uses not allowed in the adjacent residential
neighborhoods.
The site has been used as a parking lot, primarily during business hours (8-
5). At night, there are no customers and few (if any cars). Traffic to and from the
10
lot is greatly diminished after hours, with traffic associated, primarily, with that
going to and from the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
b. Size and Numbei-of Rezoned Parcels.
"The size of the rezoned parcel is a significant factor in nearly all spot
zoning cases. The reclassification of a small area of land bounded by property
burdened with greater restrictions is not likely to advance the purposes of a
comprehensive plan." Ziegler, § 41:6 at 41-30; Plains Grains, 163.
Staff acknowledges the property is very small (0.7 acres) but creates, out of
whole cloth, a justification not found in law: "The change is an incremental
expansion of the entire B-3 district and is physically contiguous to it." Id. at 19,
[4231. This argument, if understood correctly, is similar to the subterfuge
argument, often rejected by courts, that looks to rezoning two (2) or more parcels
as a means to obscure the actual purpose of according special treatment on one
particular landowner. Ziegler, at 41:8 (citing cases).
The facts are that we have one (1) parcel of property, 0.7 acres in size. It is
zoned R-4, and has been R-4 for decades. The land to the north, west and vast
majority of northeast is burdened by substantially greater restrictions than the
Applicant seeks with this parcel.
C. The Change Is In The Nature of Special Legislation Designed
To Benefit One Landoivtter at the Expense of the
Surrounding Landowners. 1
"The number of landowners affected by the proposed rezone must be
analyzed in concert with the third factor—whether the proposed zone change
constitutes `special legislation." Plains Grains, 164. "The number of landowners
affected relates directly to whether the zoning constitutes special legislation
designed to benefit one person. This inquiry should focus on the benefits of the
proposed rezone to surrounding landowners not the benefits — financial or
otherwise- that would accrue from the proposed development." Id, ( emphasis
added).
Staff concludes, by citation to its flawed analysis, discussed above, and
without discussing the many objections by neighboring landowners, that "no
substantial negative impacts or `expense' to the surrounding landowners or the
general public have been identified in staff's analysis. . . ." It talks about
11
additional commercial uses as appropriate, simply because city plans say it is so.
If that is the case, why have a hearing? Why undertake any analysis?
In a vague concluding sentence, Staff states: "The existing use of the site
may continue without interruption with the new zoning designation in place." Id.,
p. 19 [423]. Is staff suggesting that the limit of the analysis, for a zone map
amendment that increases density and introduces commercial uses not otherwise
allowed on the property or in surrounding neighborhoods, is a parking lot?
The proper analysis, ignored by Staff, includes an inquiry on the benefits of
the proposed rezone to surrounding landowners. Plains Grains, 164. Instead, the
analysis must focus on the benefits of the proposed rezone to surrounding
landowners, not the benefits, financial or otherwise, what would accrue from the
proposed development." Id. (emphasis added). Viewed in its proper light —
impact on the surrounding landowners -- because of the high density, coupled with
commercial uses are not otherwise allowed in the immediate areas to the north and
east, and the majority of the northeast, the Applicant is the primary beneficiary of
the zone map change. There is no discernible benefit to that accrues to the
neighbors with B-3 zoning.
Finally, staff's analysis seeks to delay "review of demands and impacts from
future development . . . at the time development is proposed and mitigation of
impacts as justified and required by law." Id. p. 19 [423]. The law requires an
analysis now, under what is possible under proposed zoning if adopted, not some
nebulous time in the future.
CONCLUSION.
The application is properly denied.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 16"' day of September, 2019.
GAL 7RIEMER & MOLLOY, P.C.
Brian K. Gallik
Attachment
C: City Attorney
12
Downtown
Bozeman
s sa
ws
Improvement Plan �
May 2019
� ��
Study Area
WHERE IS DOWNTOWN?
LU w
Downtown Bozeman contains and is surrounded > Q w Q w >
by residential neighborhoods,historic districts, w Q Z Worth Q w
Q Q Q = U
and growing employment centers.One of the best Q Z � Tracy Y 2 w U
Q
features of Downtown is that its boundaries are Q �_ Q N D j J
M O O X
open,rather than closed,allowing a direct,walkable VILLARD ST m 0 co 3
transition from the core to nearby neighborhoods. ---- -;
No highway,river,or bridge separates downtown _
businesses from the surrounding community. j
Instead,a change in scale,architectural styles, W9
land uses,streetscape language,and ground LAMME ST fill �� *' « •c---- -----——— LAMME ST
!—— sir *. 4
floor treatment signals that one is moving from I � ,• � �n•�.-� �
Downtown Bozeman into another neighborhood. !
Ma ! ! • , �� MENDENHALL
Beyond the in Street historic district,it is > r—— • —-_
sometimes hard to draw an exact line and identify Q L x ��� 1[ Iwo'; l;
where Downtown stops and starts.For purposes of f i �11 III Jr T MAIN ST
this plan,the area shown by a red dashed line refers <'-Male Street
to Downtown and the"Core Area"is, smaller area r I ddm
centered on Main Street from Grand to Rouse,and AB
north and south to the alleys. 19.dim � � w —
While there may be a red dashed line to define the 31-1 — — Will I
study area,the plan looks beyond these boundaries Lindley I I
to understand Downtown in the context of the Place
community.The DB1P considers Downtown `COOIJer Park Q ; ;
in relationship to surrounding neighborhoods, W Q Z
3Y w Q g �i B3 Zone
existing regulatory boundaries and historic districts. . Q Q U a Ij
> O O
At the same time,it is focused on a specific = z J South Tracy/ w I r
area that is defined by combining the City's B-3 �`/i l m =� South Black _ =
l7 pp I i
zoning district with the Urban Renewal District. U
i
This area encompasses the Main Street Historic ,/�, Bon Ton
District and extends-at its widest points-north
to Villard Street,south to just past Olive Street 1
west to 5th Avenue and east to North Broadway Urban Renewal District!
O /
Avenue.Downtown is not a homogeneous area so
there are sometimes discrepancies between zoning
boundaries and the underlying growth policy land
use des gnatlons. ID-2019 Downtown m)—,—ont Plan
11-2019 Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan
ti�
ri
DE F
Design new buildings
for sustainability, -
durability and design G DOWNTOWN RE AREA
excellence. CO
h.1
N
Growing in Place Inconsistencies can lead J
As Downto-wn Continues to evolve,growth to greater challenges
and preservation need to be carefully balanced. ra n d uncertainty during
h'
Downtown zoning is designated as"Downtown
district(downtown B-3),"which encourages redevelopment for
density,a mix of uses,a pedestrian-oriented residents, city staff, and
environment,and urban building forms.The
B-3 code also notes that"reinforcing the area's developers.
historical pedestrian-oriented context are very density residential uses exist in the residential a street or alley,creating greater sensitivity for
LAND USE AND ZONING ALIGNMENT districts surrounding the B-3 zone.However,along development on adjacent parcels indicated by
' important."While these goals are in line with b 6 P )r P• (�
DBIP principles,downtowns like Bozeman have The Downtown B-3 district is primarily surrounded the perimeter,there arc a few locations where land dashed lines on map).
unique development histories that can lead to by residentially zoned neighborhoods as well as uses and zoning designations are in conflict.The
Each of these areas should be addressed through
some inconsistencies among regulations,use,and anchored by less intense commercial zoning on the map above points out Ivey areas of conflict:
careful study and strategic relocation of the B-3
scale.Varied patterns,streetscapes,and massing are east and west ends.It is important that the zoning Three sites where a small amount of boundary line.Care should be taken to keep
common,valuable elements of all urban settings, regulations and land use projections designated commercial core land uses extend beyond the the changes to the boundary as minimal as
and it is important to both encourage variety and in the community plan are aligned so that future B-3 zone(A,B,C); possible so that they maintain and reinforce
balance it with clarity and predictability. development or change is predictable,objective,
the existing downtown and neighborhood
and coordinated. Three sites where there are future residential areas on either side.Fundamentally,the
To the extent possible,the DRIP seeks to land uses that are zoned as B-3(D,E,F);and
resolve conflicts in planning and zoning,clarif}' Adjust the B-3 District Boundary to Downtown district should not be reduced in
height limits,reduce overlapping regulations, Eliminate Land Use and Scale Conflicts Three sites where community commercial area.Likewise,this recommendation is also
and strengthen the ability of zoning and design mixed use future land uses either extends not intended to meaningfully expand the
standards to ensure sensitive transitions between For the most part,the Downtown B-3 zoning within the B-3 area(G,1-1)or is adjacent and- district.Rather,the hope is that minor boundary
boundary contains designated community core incompatible with existing zoning adjustments will address potential land use conflicts
buildings of different scales.Any changes P g(I)• )
or public institutional land uses,consistent with
suggested in the DBIl will need to be refined for Several areas where the B3 zoning changes to and reduce the potential for future challenges.
integration into the UDC. Downtowns -
mixed use and civic setting.Lower t g
R-2/4 within the same blocs:,rather than across
110 2019 Dcwrnc,vn 3o:emnn Imnrovcmem Pl;:m 111-2.019 Dewntowri Go'rernars Imotmeinenl Flan,.
t
THEORETICAL MODEL FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY
krLL4ROSTRFFT ,��JW
Ile JF.
aF4LL SrRFFT
mv.,#z
M4tNSTRF MFryOFNH4LC STgFFT �^ `)� 1PP4 P TJ�
°LrvFSTRFFT.G M2RSON LAW`�/P y//'y�y� 'Vy///////�/�i � tp �✓ �.1�.1�, �MMKSTRF Jp`,p.1
CURrrSS -_\`\`\�!�ti�v'^'���V / _;� M4iN R F ST. ���.,�V /�"a/4N�glry,,l FT ' x. �� P,��\•C
110otisTRFk-r off"?
a4
OLrvFSTgFCT ��/� Imo' C Per a 100.,tpq`^
OS`,I„P j4'`0 �• �a�`'��`F'1^r/y���.�J'C�� J �- \`^��\] Iya�°P° ai
�•�_1///J//�
SIFT
n_—_'-J
^\ / VV. LINDLEY VARk
C� Existing
Under Construction- ^ �/
Approved or Proposed-
Potential Capacity lltuildinga are hypothetical and P.,rposes onlyi
+P Potential Sites for Future Parking Structures/Expansion
——Main Street Historic District boundary
Urban Renewal District boundary
'As of January 1.2019
56-2019 Downlown 80-IT160 ImprOvement Plan
' 57-2019 D°wnnxvn 9°:eman Improvement Plan '