HomeMy WebLinkAboutDowntown URD Community Plan comments 12-2-19
Date: December 2, 2019
To: Bozeman Planning Board
Community Development Department
From: Chris Naumann
Downtown Urban Renewal District Board
RE: Bozeman Community Plan, Planning Board Draft, Public Comment
On behalf of the Downtown Urban Renewal District Board, I would like to offer the following
comments regarding the current draft of the Bozeman Community Plan. We believe the
revisions suggested below are important to assure solid alignment between the Community
Plan and the adopted Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan.
General Comments:
1. The 2009 Plan includes a glossary. This would be helpful for this document especially for terms
that are not defined in the Unified Development Code.
2. Consider consistent nomenclature/phrasing. For example, there are references to “community
planning regulations.” This language should be replaced with “Unified Development Code” for
clarity. Additionally, several actions recommend establishing “minimum development intensity
requirements” or incorporating “development minimums in designated growth areas.”
Consistent language and adding examples (such as minimum floor area ratios, minimum number
of stories, etc.) would be very helpful.
3. Several pages use the term “small town feel.” Other places in the document use the term “sense
of place” which seems more appropriate given that Bozeman is already a city of 50,000 people.
4. The Engineering Department has indicated that they are updating their Design Standards to
allow for more compact development. This has the potential to implement so many of the goals
and should be a direct supporting action in the plan.
Specific Comments:
5. One of the “Principles Applied in the Plan” (Page 15) states: “Infill development and
redevelopment should be encouraged, but incremental compact outward growth is a necessary
part of the continuing growth of the City.” This statement appears to give both types of
development equal weight whereas other parts of the plan clearly prioritize a more inward
focus. Consider using a stronger word than “encouraged” such as “emphasized” or “prioritized.”
6. Chapter 2, Theme 1 (Page 16) – The wording “Shape of our City” seems out of place with the
other themes which all begin “A City…” The supporting text states: “The character of our well-
planned City is defined by urban edges, a varied skyline, centers of employment and activity,
pedestrian-friendly streetscapes, and easy access to the natural world.” Past iterations of this
Theme included more specificity as to what is meant by “a varied skyline”. For instance, one
draft specified “three to seven floors”. Without more detail, the phrase “a varied skyline” is too
vague to provide any meaningful guidance.
7. Goal SC-2 (d) (Page 18) is certainly valid but would be better located under SC-3 as this is more
directly related to the Unified Development Code. Also, the Goal should be reworded to more
clearly indicate that the recommendation is to increase allowable heights to account for current
construction methods. An example using number of stories would be helpful here.
8. Goal SC-2 (Page 18) Paired with the above recommendation, a new objective/action related to
height should be added to SC-2 such as: “Evaluate increasing the number of stories allowed in
centers of employment and activity and in industrial zones.” Such added language would more
clearly support the objective to prioritize and incentivize denser infill development.
9. Theme 3 “Importance” (Page 23) states: “Density of development must be balanced with other
community priorities such as the housing choices of citizens.” This wording suggests the only
other community priority is “the housing choice of citizens”. Either explicitly identify all of the
other priorities or to strike the second part of the sentence staring with “such as”.
10. Goal DCD-1 (f) (Page 24) states: “Evaluate parking requirements and methods of providing
parking to meet the need for vehicle parking as part of the overall transportation system for and
between districts.” Consider removing the redundant language “to meet the need for vehicle
parking.”
11. Overall, Goal DCD-2 (Page 24) “Support urban development within the City” includes many great
suggestions; however, it is missing any actions related to parking which is one of the most
influential factors currently limiting urban development. Please consider adding the following
language: “Evaluate parking requirements and methods of providing parking to support urban
infill development.” The 2019 Downtown Improvement Plan includes many ideas such as
unlocking existing spaces by simplifying parking requirements, encouraging shared parking,
designing roads to maximize on-street parking and supporting structured parking.
12. Goal DCD-2 (b) (Page 24) states: “Work with state regulatory agencies and the legislature to
remove disincentives in state law and regulations to municipal development.” Please add detail
as to what general areas or topics this statement is referring to.
13. Goal DCD-2 (f) (Page 24) includes the following language: “Document existing policies and
practices and develop additional policies if needed to appropriately address issues for infill
development.” Again, are there specific policies and practices being referenced by this
statement? Address which issues related to infill? Consider adding specific examples and
rewording to be more encouraging of infill: “Document existing policies and practices and
develop additional policies to support infill development.”
14. Chapter 3, Future Land Use (Page 39): consider the following alternative language for the
description of the Community Core Land Use Designation:
Community Core. The traditional core of Bozeman is Downtown. This area exemplifies high
quality urban design including an active streetscape supported by a mix of uses on multiple
floors, a high level of walkability, and a rich architectural and local character. Additionally,
essential government services and flexible spaces for events and festivals support opportunities
for civic and social engagement. The intensity of development in this district is high with a Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) well over 1.
As Bozeman grows, continued evolution is necessary for long-term resilience. Challenges do
exist, particularly around keeping local identity intact, balancing growth sensitively, and
welcoming more transportation modes and residents. Underdevelopment and a lack of
flexibility can threaten the viability of the land use designation. Future development should be
intense while providing areas of transition to adjacent neighborhoods and preserving the
character of the Main Street Historic District through context-sensitive development.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to continuing to be involved in
the development of the Bozeman Community Plan.
Respectfully Submitted,
Chris Naumann
On behalf of the Downtown Urban Renewal District Board
222 East Main Street #302
Bozeman MT 59715
406-586-4008
chris@downtownbozeman.org