HomeMy WebLinkAbout191212_BozemanCommunityPlan_Appendices_V3_LowResBOZEMANMT
PLAN APPENDICES
12 DECEMBER 2019
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 III
CONTENTS
SUMMARY BY APPENDIX. V
APPENDIX A. A-1PHASE ONE | FOUNDATION. A-1PHASE TWO | ANALYSIS + VISION. A-4
PHASE THREE | OPPORTUNITIES + CHOICES. A-6
PHASE FOUR | DRAFT + FINAL PLAN. A-9
INFRASTRUCTURE TOPIC PLANS. B-1STRATEGY FOR DEVELOPMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. . B-1
INVENTORY REPORT. C-1HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE. C-1EXISTING CONDITIONS. C-12
PHYSIOGRAPHY. C-15
SOCIOECONOMICS. C-17
PROJECTIONS REPORT. D-1POPULATION PROJECTIONS . D-1HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL BUILDING SPACE PROJECTIONS. D-2LAND DEMAND PROJECTIONS. D-3
LOCAL SERVICES PROJECTIONS. D-4
NATURAL RESOURCES PROJECTIONS. D-4
76-1-601(4) (C) INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN. E-1
GLOSSARY. F-1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 V
SUMMARY BY APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: ENGAGEMENT AND PROCESS TO CREATE THE PLAN
Appendix A details the outreach and engagement process that helped shape the Community Plan. The
four-phase process used in-person and digital approaches to engagement to capture the voice of the
community.
• Phase One (Foundation) engaged the community and determined what people love about Bozeman,
what people believe could be improved about Bozeman, and their vision for Bozeman’s future.
• Phase Two (Analysis and Vision) built upon the engagement in Phase One and refined the plan
themes that were developed based upon Phase One comments from the community. Furthermore,
participants were asked to consider opportunities that can help the City realize its vision.
• Phase Three (Opportunities and Choices) outreach involved a community event held at the Bozeman
Public Library and an online questionnaire that were designed to gather community input on the
specific opportunities that coincide with each of the six Themes.
• Phase Four (Draft and Final Plan), the final phase in the Community Plan Update process was
conducted over the course of several months to ensure community opportunity to review the
document, satisfaction with, and acceptance of the Plan. Community comments provided throughout
the first three phases were incorporated into this final Plan which includes specific goals, objectives,
and designated indicators to measure success of each goal.
APPENDIX B: INFRASTRUCTURE TOPIC PLANS
Appendix B includes references to the City’s key infrastructure plans, with descriptions of, and links to
each plan document. Included plans detail future and existing plans for topics including but not limited
to transportation, storm water, wastewater, parks and open space, public safety, economic development,
housing, and parking.
APPENDIX C: INVENTORY REPORT
Appendix C details the history of the City of Bozeman, along with existing conditions text that highlight
where the City currently is, and the direction is has been trending in. Statistics and text in this section
are taken directly from the Demographic and Real Estate Market Assessment prepared by Economic
and Planning Systems (EPS) in 2018. Demographic information included highlights existing population
characteristics such as total count, income, and age, as well as housing, employment, and commercial
and industrial statistics.
APPENDIX D: PROJECTIONS REPORT
As with Appendix C, projections shown in Appendix D have been extracted from the Demographic
and Real Estate Market Assessment prepared by Economic and Planning Systems (EPS). Projections
include population, employment, and housing growth, as well as demand projections for land, housing,
commercial, and industrial space.
APPENDIX E: INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN PER 76-1-601(4)(C) MCA
The law authorizing growth policies allows additional items to be added to a growth policy. One of those
items is a discussion on how infrastructure is expanded, the consequences of that expansion, and how
negative effects of the expansion can be mitigated.
APPENDIX F: GLOSSARY
Defines specific terms used in the Plan.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 A-1
APPENDIX A
Residents, property owners, stakeholders, and public officials shaped this Community Plan throughout a
progressive four-phase update process.
PHASE ONE | FOUNDATION
The Foundation Phase engaged the community and determined what people love about Bozeman, what
people believe could be improved about Bozeman, and their vision for Bozeman’s future. Outreach
efforts consisted of an ice cream social event at Dinosaur Park, one-on-one interviews, group sessions,
Planning Board and City Staff meetings, and an online questionnaire.
Responses indicated that Bozeman’s outdoor lifestyle, sense of place and belonging while in a City
environment, and high quality of life were the three aspects of the City that people loved the most.
A-2 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN, APPENDICES
Areas where participants felt Bozeman could
improve were; multimodal transportation, the
preservation of farmland and open space, and
housing affordability.
When asked about the desired future of Bozeman,
people envisioned a larger city with a dynamic,
modern economy, a variety of attainable housing
options, and a multimodal transportation system.
SUMMARY
Background
What is the Community Plan and what is its
purpose?
Imagine what Bozeman will look and feel
like in twenty years. How will the community
accept a large increase of residents? How will
transportation be addressed? Will we grow
upward or outward in relation to density? What will
Bozeman be known for?
The Community Plan builds on the overarching
vision and vision statements within the Strategic
Plan and specifically guides land use planning
decisions.
The passage of time, as well as a high rate of
development, changing economic conditions, and
maturing nearby communities make it necessary
to update the Plan and through its process,
identify the community supported answers to
those questions above.
Notification and Interview Process
Stakeholders were contacted directly through
email and in-person interviews were conducted
at the Community Development building. The
interviews focused on the aspects of Bozeman
that the participants loved, areas where
improvement is needed in the future, and a vision
for Bozeman in the year 2040. Stakeholders
were asked to complete the online survey as well
as invite their colleagues in the community to
participate. In addition, everyone interested had
access to multiple listening sessions provided
throughout the community. Participation was
recruited by direct email, news releases, and other
broadly applicable outreach.
Overall Summary
What do you LOVE most about Bozeman?
Top 10 List (LOVES)
1. Small Town Feel
2. Outdoor Lifestyle
3. The People
4. Bike/Trail Network
5. Parks & Recreation
6. Architecture
7. Connectivity
8. Central Location
9. Downtown
10. Climate
What would you like to IMPROVE about Bozeman
in the future?
Top 10 List (IMPROVES)
1. Growth Management
2. Improve Transparency
3. Multimodal Transportation
4. Improve Infrastructure
5. Neighborhood Identity
6. Reduce Regulations
7. City Leadership
8. Increase Walkability
9. Historic Preservation
10. Alleviate Traffic
In 2040, Bozeman will be…
Top 10 List (2040)
1. Multimodal Transportation
2. Well-Preserved
3. Small Town Feel
4. High Quality of Life
5. Bikeable
6. Walkable
7. Distinct Neighborhoods
8. Regional Growth
9. Vibrant
10. Model City
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 A-3
Key Takeaways
The stakeholders of Bozeman are very passionate
about the City and take pride in the sense of place
and belonging and outdoor lifestyle that Bozeman
provides. The close-knit community, access to
nature, the high quality of architectural design,
and Downtown were also frequently mentioned as
aspects that interviewees loved about the City.
Stakeholders were most concerned about the
potential for Bozeman to become sprawled and
cited its issues with the transportation system, the
need for government transparency, and absence
of neighborhood identity as areas in which
Bozeman should improve in the future.
In 2040, Stakeholders imagined Bozeman to
be a well-preserved city that has maintained its
sense of place and belonging with a multimodal
transportation system that provides access to
a series of distinct and vibrant neighborhoods.
Several comments highlighted that Bozeman will
be a model city for others to base their future
development upon.
A-4 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN, APPENDICES
PHASE TWO | ANALYSIS + VISION
Phase Two built upon the engagement in Phase
One and refined the seven themes that were
developed based upon Phase One comments
from the community. Furthermore, participants
were asked to consider opportunities that can
help the City realize its vision.
Outreach efforts consisted of a community
event, one-on-one interviews, group sessions,
City Commission presentations, and an online
questionnaire.
People stated that they would like to see
increased corner-commercial developments in
or near neighborhoods, improved multimodal
transportation options and access throughout
the community, increased density, historic
preservation, and greater regional Planning
efforts.
SUMMARY
Notification
The planning week 2 Community Event was
publicized at each phase two public event; at
updates to the City Commission and Bozeman
Planning Board; direct emails to those who have
supplied their contact info as part of this process;
social media outlets, including the City’s existing
Facebook, Nextdoor, and Twitter accounts;
postcards at highly trafficked locations and other
ongoing City and community events.
Purpose
Each step in the Community Plan update process
is built to collect a greater level of detail than
the previous step, through thought provoking
questions and exercises. The purpose of the
Community Event was to begin defining specific
opportunities that can help the City realize the
seven themes that were developed through
previous outreach efforts.
The Event
The Community Event took place at the Bozeman
Public Library on Thursday, November 29th,
between 5 and 7pm. Members from City staff
and consultant team provided an overview of
the Community Plan, progress to-date, and
instructions for the opportunities exercise.
Participants were asked to choose four themes
to provide opportunities for, and given a chance
to physically locate areas for opportunities by
drawing on a large-scale map of Bozeman.
Approximately 45 people attended the event.
Identified Opportunities, Summarized by Theme
The Shape of the City:
• Support the development of an additional
regional park within the City
• Strengthen the viability of other areas to
distribute goods and services and alleviate
congestion Downtown
• Integrate walkable areas throughout the City
• Foster increased development within the
northeast area of the City
• Encourage appropriately-sized commercial
nodes within neighborhoods
• Maintain and improve the City’s infrastructure
• Reduce the prevalence of large parking lots to
promote walkability
A City of Neighborhoods:
• Define specific neighborhoods through the
identification of unique features
• Facilitate increased community engagement
through additional parks, community centers,
and commercial nodes
• Coordinate improved public transportation
access throughout neighborhoods
• Increase neighborhood density through the
rezoning / up-zoning of vacant lots
• Permit farmers’ markets and food trucks to use
vacant lots
• Locate affordable housing near public transit
and necessary amenities
• Expand workforce housing near Montana
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 A-5
State University
• Consider implementing a resort tax
• Preserve the unique identity of northeast
Bozeman
A City Bolstered by Downtown and Complementary Districts:
• Identify a district at the west end of the City to
promote a cohesive, walkable destination
• Investigate North 7th as the primary location
for taller buildings
• Establish and enforce density minimums on
North 7th
• Emphasize affordable housing along North 7th
• Reassess the historical significance of
structures on North 7th
• Promote compatible infill Downtown
• Develop parklets and additional greenspace
throughout districts
• Promote commercial development near
Montana State University
A City Influenced by Our Natural Environment, Parks, and Open Space:
• Maintain healthy urban forests
• Establish public transit connections to parks
• Implement trail corridors
• Preserve and utilize creek corridors as a way
to support walkability and water quality
• Enhance wayfinding throughout parks and
open space
• Create connections between parks and the
neighborhoods around them
• Retain the mountain views through the
development of wide streets
• Ensure parks and open space are accessible
to all ages
• Improve lighting in parks to promote year-
round use
• Incentivize trail construction in fringe
developments
A City Influenced by Regional Cooperation and Defined Edges:
• Expand the City’s planning jurisdiction
• Focus on long-term water conservation to
avoid additional infrastructure costs in the
future
• Explore the annexation of inholdings to
promote efficiency of services
• Adjust tax policy for inholdings to be
commensurate with the surrounding zoning
district
• Encourage school districts to stay within City
limits
A City that Prioritizes Mobility Choices:
• Coordinate with the Streamline to develop a
circulator transit route between Downtown,
The Cannery, and North 7th
• Expand access to public transportation and
frequency of service
• Increase infrastructure funding for multimodal
transportation options
• Amplify winter maintenance of bike routes
• Reduce the frequency of large delivery
vehicles on Main Street
• Further develop east/west bicycle corridors
• Explore commercial nodes to the west to
reduce congestion Downtown
• Improve wayfinding to promote pedestrian
activity
• Designate key locations for protected bike
routes
A City Powered by its Creative, Innovative, and Entrepreneurial Economy:
• Attract high-paying jobs through the promotion
of Bozeman’s high quality of life
• Consider a sales tax as an alternative to
property tax increases
• Collaborate with local educational institutions
to increase the qualified workforce base
• Foster Bozeman’s local agriculture industry
through the support of agri-hoods and food
distribution centers
• Recognize the potential benefit of attracting
and promoting the sustainability industry and
“green” start-up companies
• Encourage the use of live/work spaces
to support small businesses and housing
affordability
PHASE THREE | OPPORTUNITIES + CHOICES
Phase Three outreach involved an online
questionnaire that were designed to gather
community input on the specific opportunities that
coincide with each of the seven Themes. Multiple
tools were used to encourage participation
including news posts on the City website, direct
emails to those who had supplied their contact
info as part of this process; and social media
outlets, including the City’s existing Facebook,
Nextdoor, and Twitter accounts.
Increasing walkability and access to neighborhood
commercial uses, along with strategically locating
affordable housing were just some of the many
proposed opportunities from the public event.
230 people took part in the online survey and,
in addition to the objectives mentioned above,
increasing density, preserving open space,
and establishing multimodal connections were
suggested.
SUMMARY
Overview
The Opportunities Survey was opened to the
public on December 12, 2018 and closed on
January 25, 2019. A total of 230 people took
part in the survey, designed to identify and
confirm opportunities related to the seven
vision statements. Later in the year, at the Sweet
Pea Festival and SLAM festival, a follow-up
questionnaire was held with similar results from
approximately 200 responses. As shown in the
chart below, the three most selected visions were:
11. A City Influenced by our Mountains, Open
Space, and Parks;
12. A City that Prioritizes Mobility Choices; and
13. A City of Neighborhoods.
The Shape of the City
Participants indicated that commercial nodes
are needed in the northwest neighborhoods,
North 7th, and south of Kagy and generally felt
that the seven story height was appropriate and
used the Baxter Hotel as an example. However,
some responses indicated a desire to see shorter
buildings in the future in areas where mountain
views could be diminished.
Downtown, North 7th, 19th, and the Cannery
District were all said to be areas where more
intense development should take place.
Additionally, responses showed that there was a
preference for more intense development in those
areas if open space in town was maintained and
continually expanded through new developments.
When asked about additional opportunities to
fulfill this vision, responses included:
• Increasing density in appropriate areas
• Incentivizing infill as a way to increase density
• Preserving open space
• Promoting affordable housing along transit
corridors
• Reducing parking minimums
• Focusing on alternative transportation options
Participants in the questionnaire indicated
that pedestrian-friendly streetscapes and the
integration with surrounding natural landscapes
were the two items within the theme that they
were most excited about.
*It is important to note that this theme was
removed and its components were consolidated
into the other six themes, where appropriate.
A City of Neighborhoods
It was recognized that a neighborhood
is a concept without a simple definition.
Characteristics of neighborhoods included:
proximity to parks; walkability; cohesiveness
amongst neighbors; diversity of ages, specific
boundaries, and historic or cookie-cutter
nature. While 60% of respondents stated that
their neighborhood included walkable centers,
commercial nodes, inclusivity, housing variety,
schools, and parks, the remaining 40% of people
indicated that walkability and commercial nodes
were missing from their communities.
When asked about additional opportunities to
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 A-7
fulfill this vision, responses included:
• Encouraging small grocery store development
• Maintaining housing character in new
developments
• Increasing connectivity to parks and
neighborhoods
• Encouraging affordable housing development
• Developing community gardens
• Improving pedestrian and bike access
• Enhancing traffic calming measures
• Promoting accessory dwelling units
Participants in the questionnaire indicated that
they were most excited about convenient and
accessible neighborhoods, with strategic growth
in developed areas also being of importance.
A City Bolstered by Downtown and Complementary Districts
Participants were asked about building height
preferences in each of the three named districts
(Downtown, Midtown, and University) and
responses were quite varied. In Downtown,
height preferences ranged from a maximum of
three stories to a maximum of thirty stories with
five to seven being the most common answer. In
Midtown, height maximums ranged from three
stories to thirty with the most common again
between five and seven stories. Responses for
height preferences in the University district had
the same results as Midtown and Downtown. In
remaining areas of the City, the preferred height
limit was much lower, typically up to three stories
with several comments stating that five story
developments are appropriate.
More mixed-use areas are desired within
Bozeman along with strategic preservation of
trees, open space, and wetlands.
When asked about additional opportunities to
fulfill this vision, responses included:
• Encouraging mixed-use development
• Expanding public transportation
• Reducing car-dependency
• Promoting commercial activity near the
university
• Locating affordable housing developments in
Midtown
• Defining additional districts on the west and
northeast parts of Bozeman
Responses to the questionnaire indicated that
multimodal connectivity between districts, and
diversity in housing and employment opportunities
were the two most exciting components of this
theme.
A City Influenced by Our Natural Environment, Parks, and
Open Space
Over 94% of respondents indicated they live
within a ten-minute walk of a park or open space.
Of those 94%, 67% said that they walk to local
parks or open space multiple times a week.
Connecting existing trail systems, along with
expanding the trail systems in the west side of
Bozeman were frequently mentioned as important
components of this vision.
When asked about additional opportunities to
fulfill this vision, responses included:
• Researching sustainable funding options for
Bozeman’s green spaces
• Increasing density in the city core
• Improving pedestrian safety
• Continuing partnerships with the Gallatin
Valley Land Trust, Trust for Public Land, and
others
• Creating more stringent development
requirements that emphasize trail connectivity
Responses to the questionnaire showed an equal
level of interest in natural environment protection
regulations, open space acquisition, and climate
change impact considerations.
A City Engaged in Regional Coordination
Responses showed a strong desire to protect
wetlands, floodplain, wildlife habitat, and key
corridors for north/south wildlife migration.
Additionally, limiting sprawl, promoting sustainable
practices, and preserving agricultural land were
mentioned. Participants also stated that greater
A-8 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN, APPENDICES
coordination between the City and regional
authorities is needed in relation to transportation,
water, sewer, growth management, and more.
• When asked about additional opportunities to
fulfill this vision, responses included:
• Increasing public engagement efforts
• Expanding education and training sessions for
elected officials
• Restoring and naturalizing regional waterways
• Coordinating planning efforts and documents
Questionnaire responses showed a substantial
interest in the efficient use of land and thoughtful
expansion of the City’s area.
A City that Prioritizes Mobility Choices
46% of participants said that they have used
public transit in the past year. For those that have
not used public transit, reasons comprised of: long
commute times using public transit; inconvenient
scheduling; and lack of bus stops.
For those that are that said they are employed,
46% drive a car, 30% ride a bike, 17% walk, and 6%
work from home, and only 1% use public transit.
When asked about additional opportunities to
fulfill this vision, responses included:
• Funding winter maintenance of trails and paths
• Enhancing traffic calming measures
• Developing protected bike-paths along main
roads
• Establishing more east-west connections
• Promoting safe pedestrian access to all public
schools
• Increase funding for alternative transit options
(bus, bicycle, walking)
• Researching the feasibility of an affordable
airport shuttle
• Creating connectivity requirements for new
development
Questionnaire respondents chose safe and
functional walking and biking and interconnected
systems as the most exciting aspects of this
theme.
A City Powered by its Creative, Innovative, and
Entrepreneurial Economy
Low wages and rising housing costs are seen as
the largest deterrents for those starting a business
in Bozeman, due to the difficulty for prospective
employees to live in town. The high quality of life
in Bozeman, its excellent location, and Montana
State University are seen as some of the most
attractive reasons why a business would locate
here.
When asked about additional opportunities to
fulfill this vision, responses included:
• Increasing minimum wage within the City
• Reducing regulatory restrictions on small
businesses
Support for local companies and growing from
within, as well as economic diversification were
chosen as the most exciting components of this
theme.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 A-9
PHASE FOUR | DRAFT + FINAL PLAN
The final phase in the Community Plan Update
process was conducted over the course of
several months to ensure community awareness,
satisfaction, and acceptance of the Plan.
Community comments provided throughout the
first three phases were incorporated into this final
Plan which includes specific goals, objectives, and
designated indicators that measure success of
each goal.
COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE 1 SUMMARY
Notification
The Community Open House was publicized
through television; at updates to the City
Commission and Bozeman Planning Board; direct
emails to those who have supplied their contact
info as part of this process; and social media
outlets, including the City’s existing Facebook,
Nextdoor, and Twitter accounts.
Purpose
Each step in the Community Plan update process
is built to collect a greater level of detail than
the previous step, through thought provoking
questions and exercises. The purpose of the Open
House was to present Future Land Use Categories
and Maps to the public for feedback. Public input
and comments will be integrated into the final
Community Plan.
Event
The Community Open House took place at
the Bozeman City Hall Commission Room on
Thursday, October 17th, between 4 and 6pm.
Members from City staff provided summaries
of the draft Future Land Use Categories, and
presented the Future Land Use Map (shown to the
right). Participants were asked to assess whether
the Future Land Use Categories match the needs
of the community, and to provide input on the
Future Land Use categories’ spatial placement in
the City. Meeting participants wrote their answers
to three main questions about the categories on
white boards. Approximately 73 people attended
the event.
COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE 2 SUMMARY
Notification
The Community Open House was publicized
through television; at updates to the City
Commission and Bozeman Planning Board; direct
emails to those who have supplied their contact
info as part of this process; and social media
outlets, including the City’s existing Facebook,
Nextdoor, and Twitter accounts.
Purpose
The purpose of the Open House was to present
the initial public draft of the Community Plan
including Future Land Use Categories and
Maps to the public for feedback. Public input
and comments will be integrated into the final
Community Plan.
Event
The Community Open House 2 took place at the
Bozeman City Hall Commission Room on Tuesday,
December 3rd, between 4 and 6pm. Members
from City staff were available to answer questions
on the text of the plan, provided summaries of the
draft Future Land Use Categories, presented the
Future Land Use Map, and metrics for success.
Approximately 20 people attended the event.
PUBLIC HEARINGS SUMMARY
Notification
The City conducted multiple public hearings to
share and receive information from the community
prior to making a decision on whether or not
to adopt the draft Community Plan. The public
hearings were publicized through television; at
updates to the City Commission and Bozeman
Planning Board; direct emails to those who
have supplied their contact info as part of this
process; and social media outlets, including the
City’s existing Facebook, Nextdoor, and Twitter
accounts.
Purpose
The purpose of the public hearing is the formal
opportunity for community participation in the adoption process. Public hearings are required by state
law prior to any final decision by the Planning Board or the City Commission. Public input and comments
will be considered and may be integrated into the final Community Plan.
Event
[A list of all public hearings will be created and included in the final draft of the document].
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 B-1
INFRASTRUCTURE TOPIC PLANS
STRATEGY FOR DEVELOPMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND REPLACEMENT OF
PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.
The City of Bozeman actively manages its infrastructure. In 2018 alone, the City performed 27,442
maintenance operations. During 2015-2019, the City invested $107,206,000 in expansions and upgrades
to its water, sewer, streets, and stormwater systems. In the upcoming five years the City’s Capital
Improvement Program anticipates an expenditure of $126,913,000 for the same four programs. The City
prepares facility plans to evaluate current conditions, consider future needs, identify future locations and
sizing for needed construction, and maximize operational effectiveness and efficiency.
B-2 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN
Facility Plans presently in place include:
• 2017 Fire Master Plan
• 2007 Parks, Recreation, Open Space and
Trails
• 2017 Transportation Master Plan
• 2008 Stormwater Master Plan
• 2015 Wastewater Collection Facilities Plan
• 2017 Water Facility Plan
• 2013 Integrated Water Resources Plan
• 2013 Transportation Safety Plan
The planning area for each facility plan generally
matches the planning area for this growth policy.
Minor mismatches do occur at fringe locations.
Over time, these will be corrected as each plan
is updated and matched to the growth policy
boundary. The water plans rely on geographical
features and facilities located well outside of the
land use planning area. This is reflective of the
realities of watershed operation.
Each plan contains analysis of existing and future
needs. For detailed evaluation of each facility
please consult the appropriate facility plan. A
summary is provided later in this Appendix.
Some facilities, such as transportation, address
the demands placed by many thousands of daily
commuters and of persons passing through the
community. Others, like stormwater, primarily
address needs by residents. A comparison of
individual plans will therefore show differences in
the size of anticipated service populations now
and in the future. For a generalized discussion of
existing conditions please see Appendix B and for
generalized future needs please see Appendix D.
Collectively, these plans provide an infrastructure
plan that meets the requirements of 76-1-601(3)(c)
(v) and (4)(c), MCA.
The City has a highly robust web presence to
share infrastructure information. Using web
viewers, anyone can see existing and future
infrastructure. They can select individual segments
to obtain basic information on age, size, and type.
This greatly facilitates infrastructure management
and design by both public and private parties to
upkeep and expand systems.
MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT
City staff conduct daily maintenance and
operations on all facilities and local services. Local
services are all services provided by the City for
the benefit of citizens and visitors. These services
include, but are not limited to, police, fire, water,
recreation, streets, parks, libraries, wastewater,
and solid waste collection and disposal. Daily
maintenance is supported by the annual budget
funded by the taxes and fees assessed for
services. The City’s adopted budgeting principles
commit to adequate maintenance and orderly
replacement. Operational expenses from the
water, sewer, sanitation, and stormwater functions
are paid by the monthly service fees assessed
to users of the service. Maintenance of streets
is primarily funded by a city-wide special district
that is billed with the semi-annual property tax
bills. Where appropriate, special improvement
districts help reconstruct some local streets.
Parks is presently supported by the general
fund but creation of a special district may be
voted on in the spring of 2020. For a more
extensive discussion of budgeting and accounting
principles, individual operations, and expenditures
please see the most current City budget.
The City maintains a substantial inventory of
various facilities including, but not limited to:
• 287.7 miles of water main
• 2,656 fire hydrants
• 231.2 miles of sewer main
• 9 sewer lift stations
• 109.6 miles of stormwater mains
• 98.6 miles of stormwater urban waterways
• 215.1 miles of City maintained streets with an
overall network of 286.1 miles
• 1,025.4 acres of City park
• 82.2 miles of trails
• 50 playgrounds
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 B-3
Each facility element is entered into the City’s
robust asset management software, Cityworks.
The City has received three awards for its asset
management program. These are:
• 2008 Special Achievement in Geographic
Information Systems
• 2013 Exemplary Cityworks User
• 2017 Special Achievement in Geographic
Information Systems
The characteristics of each item are included
in the asset management program as well as
its geographic location. This asset list enables
departments to consider age, condition, and
other factors to determine when maintenance
or replacement is required. There are adopted
standards for expected service life of each type of
facility. The City includes maintenance concerns in
its design process and standards. The operating
departments prepare budget requests each year
to provide needed funding to replace deficient
items or those reaching the end of their service
life. Substantial projects become part of the
City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) which
provides public disclosure of substantial projects.
The City has found that adequate maintenance
reduces the frequency of required replacement is
less expensive over the long run.
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT
The facility plans look forward to construction
of additional infrastructure needed to service
an expanding City. Each considers where new
work can best be located. Most facilities operate
as networks of connections and therefore,
placement of one new improvement can facilitate
further expansion or improve function of existing
work. The water, sewer, and transportation plans
specifically identify needed improvements to
expand or upgrade service in areas not currently
annexed to the City.
The facility planning process provides an essential
opportunity to coordinate between plans and
agencies. As the City considers extensions of
sewer and water it enable a change in land use
from rural to urban uses. The City prioritizes
identification of larger scale facilities such as
collector and arterial streets. Local service items
such as local streets and minimum sized water
mains are most effectively designed during
the land development process when greater
information on uses is available.
The City has established design standards
and performance standards for all levels of
infrastructure. These standards guide the
individual project designer during preparation of
development applications.
The City uses a Capital Improvement Program
system to plan for major projects over a five
year period. The facility plans provide the
basic material from which to construct the CIP,
having identified major needed projects to
service an expanded city. The CIP is updated
annually through a public process. This provides
transparency in City operations and enables
participation by the public in decision making.
Individual projects are identified, benefits and
costs are described, funding sources are assigned
and an overall picture of the revenue needed
to construct the projects is determined. The CIP
process ensures that a longer term vision of the
community’s development is always considered in
prioritizing individual projects for construction. The
annual update enables the City to be responsive
to changing conditions including needs identified
for proposed development.
It is expected that the City will become part
of a new Metropolitan Planning Organization
[MPA] during the effective period of this plan.
An MPO is a federally required multi-community
organization for areas over 50,000 in population
that supports multi-jurisdiction coordination in
transportation planning and road development.
As described in Theme 6 the City is committed to
Regional Coordination and will take many different
actions to participate in shared decision making.
The Gallatin Triangle Planning Study in 2014
documented 10 different types of formal interlocal
cooperation tools in place in the valley. In 2016,
B-4 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN
the City of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, and Gallatin
County established the Planning Coordinating
Committee to provide a forum for exchange of
information and discussion regarding common
issues of land use and development. The City and
County staff regularly communicate on operations
issues. Additional interlocal agreements will be
adopted as needed to formalize coordination.
The City does not extend municipal services
outside of its boundaries. Therefore, development
desiring access to water or sewer service must
first annex. This policy enables a clear delineation
in service provision and supports a rational
expansion of infrastructure. All services within the
City are provided by the City. Services outside
the City are provided by another government
agency. The City of Bozeman and Gallatin County
are presently developing an interlocal agreement
to document long standing informal agreements
on annexation and development; and to establish
a new agreement on how development occurs
within the planning area but not yet ready
for annexation. The City hopes to extend its
boundaries incrementally and avoid unannexed
areas surrounded by the City. Such inholdings
complicate efficient delivery of service and can
cause difficulties with extensions of utilities.
SUMMARY OF FACILITY PLANS
Per the growth policy statute 76-1-601(2)(e),
MCA, this element must include at a minimum:
“a strategy for development, maintenance, and
replacement of public infrastructure, including
drinking water systems, wastewater treatment
facilities, sewer systems, solid waste facilities,
fire protection facilities, roads, and bridges.” This
statement does not mean that a fully developed
capital improvements plan must be included in
the growth policy. The public facilities element in
the growth policy is intended to be more general
and includes a summary of past completed public
facility projects.
Integrated Water Resources Plan – September
2013: https://www.bozeman.net/home/
showdocument?id=836
In 2012-2013 the City of Bozeman developed
an Integrated Water Resources Plan to guide its
water supply and water use policy and practices
for the next 50 years. The Plan’s purpose was to
project the City’s water demand decades into the
future, examine the potential means to meet the
demand, and recommend the most promising
measures for further study or implementation.
Recommendations include making a vigorous
water conservation program the cornerstone
of the City’s water management, as well as
acquiring additional water rights, conducting
feasibility studies for water source optimization,
and more. Long-term recommended actions
include constructing one or more impoundments
on Sourdough Creek above the treatment plant,
developing a new well field to supply the city, and
to work with the owners of the “Salar Project” to
develop a well field or impoundment.
Recommended ancillary activities to supplement
the short, medium, and long term actions
include: continuous public engagement related
to this process and water resource possibilities,
developing a plan to address conveyance loss of
Hyalite Reservoir Water, monitor creeks to better
understand water yields and hydrographs.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 B-5
This plan was followed by the Integrated Water
Resources Implementation Plan in December of
2013. This plan provides additional detail on how
the recommendations adopted within the IWRP
would be implemented. Included in the plan are
tables that list specific tasks and their subsequent
implementation highlights and milestones.
2008 Storm Water Facilities Plan – May 2008: http://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink8/0/
doc/46890/Electronic.aspx
The 2008 Storm Water Facilities Plan was
developed in response to Bozeman’s rapid growth
and development. The Plan outlines seven goals,
which include; Inventory the Existing System;
Plan for Future Growth; Evaluate Existing Problem
Areas; Storm Water System Analysis; NPDES
Permit Application and Implementation; Financial
Plan; Recommended Plan. The most significant
recommendations from the Plan were: moving
forward with establishing a funding source for
storm water, guidance for development of a
uniform approach to development submittals, and
continuing to rely upon development-based storm
water management until the Phase 2 program and
creation of a utility are more advanced.
Bozeman Transportation Master Plan – April 2017: https://mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/
brochures/bozeman_tranplan_study.pdf
The Bozeman Transportation Master Plan (TMP)
serves as a guide for development of and
investment in the community’s transportation
systems in a comprehensive manner. The TMP
was developed through a collaborative approach
with city and state staff, elected officials, and
local residents and provides the blueprint
for a transportation system that will serve
the community’s citizens well into the future.
The TMP provides for guiding transportation
infrastructure investments based on system needs
and associated decision-making principles. The
Plan incorporates all applicable background
information, includes detailed analysis of options
and alternatives, incorporates meaningful input
from citizens and local officials, and provides a
framework for future efforts within the context of
State and Federal rules, regulations, and funding
allocations.
This comprehensive plan identifies community
goals and improvements to the transportation
infrastructure and services within the city
of Bozeman and that portion within Gallatin
County that is likely to include future urban
area expansion. The Plan addresses regional
transportation issues, overall travel convenience,
traffic safety, sustainability, complete streets,
funding, transportation demand management
(TDM), and multi-modal connections. The
Plan includes recommendations for short-
term improvements as well as recommended
modifications and capital improvements to
major roadways. The Plan also includes policy
suggestions to align with the community’s vison
for the Bozeman area.
Bozeman Community Transportation Safety Plan
– July 2013: https://www.mdt.mt.gov/pubinvolve/
bozemanctsp/docs/boz_ctsp_final_07_2013.pdf
The Bozeman Community Transportation Safety
Plan (CTSP) was developed as the City began
working to reduce the number of severe injury
crashes in the urban area. A Transportation Safety
Advisory Committee (TSAC) was established and
they identified three focus areas to reduce fatal
and incapacitating crashes in Bozeman: inattentive
driving crashes, lack of occupant protection
usage, and bicycle and pedestrian crashes. The
Plan is focused on strategies that could reduce
severe injury crashes with these contributing
circumstances. These strategies are accompanied
by guidance on their implementation, including
action steps, stakeholder groups involved,
leaders, and resources. The plan used crash
data provided by the Montana Department
of Transportation (MDT) and worked with a
consultant to facilitate planning meetings and to
develop materials.
B-6 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN
This plan emphasized implementation of these
efforts as its most important component. Many of
the identified strategies involve little or no cost,
and can be implemented quickly.
2015 Wastewater Collection Facilities Plan Update – June 2015: https://www.bozeman.net/
home/showdocument?id=832
The Wastewater Collection Facilities Plan Update
is an update to the City’s previous document,
guided by the intent to update and evaluate the
City’s existing wastewater collection system, and
to estimate and plan for future expansion based
on current population and land use trends. The
main goals of the Plan are: define and evaluate
the existing infrastructure in order to determine
capacity and existing flows, estimate location and
nature of future population growth and associated
increases in wastewater quantities, and to develop
a comprehensive plan to address deficiencies
and meet present and future requirements, while
continuing to plan for and accommodate the City’s
growth.
Recommendations are made related to:
updates to the City’s wastewater database, flow
monitoring, capacity increases, existing system,
future system, and policies.
2017 Water Facility Plan – July 2017: https://www.
bozeman.net/home/showdocument?id=4977
The Water Facility Plan contains information on
the City’s three water supplies, treatment and
distribution system, and future construction
needed to provide continued quality service to a
growing community. The City recently replaced
its water treatment plant to address both demand
for additional capacity and more strict regulatory
standards. Climate change and its associated
impacts pose a challenge to Bozeman’s water
supply and the City is undertaking conservation
and efficiency efforts based upon the
recommendations of the plan. This plan replaces
the 2007 water facility plan.
Drought Management Plan – January
2017: https://www.bozeman.net/Home/
ShowDocument?id=4791
The Drought Management Plan is designed to
maximize available water supplies and reduce
water use during times of shortage and provide
guidelines the City of Bozeman will use to manage
water supply and water use during drought. The
guidelines are designed to maintain the health,
safety, and economic vitality of the community;
to avoid adverse impacts to public activity and
quality of life for the community; and to consider
individual customer needs as much as possible to
the greatest extent possible in the face of water
shortages.
Because each drought is different, it is not
practical to develop a set of hard-and-fast rules
to apply to all droughts. Rather, these guidelines
are intended to provide a framework for timely
drought response while maintaining flexibility to
respond to unique drought conditions. These
guidelines are intended to assist the Bozeman
City Commission (the Commission) in making
decisions throughout the course of a drought. The
Commission may adjust or refine the response
based on actual drought conditions.
The Plan is based on an analysis of Bozeman’s
climate and available water supplies, a review
of other drought plans from across the United
States and lessons learned from past drought
events in communities throughout the Western
United States. As this is the City of Bozeman’s
first Drought Management Plan, it will be updated
regularly to ensure that it addresses current
conditions and will be administered by the City
of Bozeman’s Public Works Division (Bozeman
Water).
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 26 NOVEMBER 2019 B-7
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails (PROST)
Plan – December 2007: https://www.bozeman.net/
home/showdocument?id=3284
The Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails
(PROST) Plan provides a comprehensive look at
recreation needs in Bozeman. The PROST Plan
was prepared by the Bozeman Recreation and
Parks Advisory Board with the assistance of City
staff and includes an inventory of existing facilities,
forecasts needed facilities, and proposes policies
to carry out the plan. In general, this plan provides
a framework for integrating existing facilities and
programs and further developing a system of
parks, recreation facilities and programs, open
spaces, and trails. Additionally, the plan is used
for evaluating grant applications, public funding
expenditures, and influencing the preparation of
individual park master plans.
Fire & EMS Master Plan – August 2017: https://
www.bozeman.net/Home/ShowDocument?id=5495
This analysis includes a thorough review of the
organization structure, training, performance
measures, prevention activities, and interactions
with mutual aid partners. Specifically, the Center
for Public Safety Management, LLC (CPSM) was
tasked with providing recommendations and
alternatives regarding fire department operations,
staffing levels, and alternative modes of operation
referencing both the current service demand and
options that can position the department to best
manage the community’s anticipated growth.
Forty-two recommendations were included in
the Plan and are derived from industry best
practices. These recommendations are listed
in five categories; I. Organization, Management
and Personnel; II. Facilities and Capital; III.
Planning and Risk Management; IV. Operations,
Dispatch and V. Deployment; Training and
Prevention. There is a page reference after each
recommendation which indicates the page of the
report on which the recommendation is found.
Bozeman Community Climate Action Plan
– 2011 https://www.bozeman.net/home/
showdocument?id=3130
The Bozeman Community Climate Action
Plan (CCAP) is a result of the Mayor’s Climate
Protection Agreement signed in 2006. The
CCAP identifies ways in which the community
can begin to address climate change. The
Mayor’s Community Climate Task Force (MCCTF)
was appointed to develop the Plan, which
is the second part of a two-part plan to fulfill
the requirements of the Climate Protection
Agreement. There is a five milestone process as
part of the agreement the mayor signed in 2006,
including: conducting an emissions inventory,
setting a reduction target, developing a climate
action plan, implement policies and measures, and
monitoring and verifying results.
The recommendations in the Plan are divided
into five sections that include potential reduction
of carbon: Community Engagement and
Implementation, Residential and Commercial
Building, Transportation, Waste Water and
Recycling, and Energy Production. The
recommendation with the greatest potential
reduction in carbon emissions relates to the
exploration of renewable energy power purchase
agreement options, while others consist of the
encouragement and incentivization of solar
energy, enhancing the sidewalk network, and
more.
B-8 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN
Urban Forestry Management Plan – February
2016: https://www.bozeman.net/home/
showdocument?id=3621
The Bozeman Urban Forest Management Plan
(UFMP) aims to sustainably and efficiently manage
Bozeman’s urban forest and to illustrate the full
expanse of benefits urban trees can provide. This
plan focuses on finding the most cost-effective
ways to accomplish these goals in Bozeman.
The City of Bozeman and the public have given
the urban forest in Bozeman more attention and
priority in recent years, resulting in more effective
management and an increase in the maintenance
of public trees. This plan emphasizes strategies to
maximize the benefits the urban forest provides,
ranging from the environmental, psychological,
sociological, and economic areas.
The UFMP contains three major components:
Tree Infrastructure, Management of the Urban
Forest, and Community Engagement. These three
components work together to build the most
efficient urban forest in Bozeman. The UFMP
presents the most cost-effective management
possible, yet it preserves the existing canopy
cover, substantially grows canopy, and maximizes
benefits. Every opportunity to “do more with
less” is stressed in this plan, and the budget
recommendations will result in greater overall
efficiency while gaining a remarkable return on
investment. This plan represents an impartial
overview of the current structure and offers a
management strategy that focuses on increasing
work productivity while addressing issues related
to risk and liability
Economic Development Strategy Update – November 2016: http://weblink.bozeman.net/
WebLink8/0/doc/120846/Electronic.aspx
The Economic Development Strategy Update
(EDS) includes an economic profile of Bozeman,
highlighting population and employment growth
patterns, industry clusters (photonics, IT, tourism,
etc.), and the key strategies to expand Bozeman’s
economic base, support local businesses, and
enhance regional connections. Additionally,
the document compares Bozeman to other
communities, and to itself through a Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT)
analysis, and outlines the process and survey
results gathered in the development of the EDS.
Within the EDS, three economic development
pillar strategies are defined, including: Support
retention and a mechanism to drive economic
development; and Support education and
workforce development initiatives to provide
businesses with qualified workers. The specific
actions and metrics that follow the development
pillar strategies are proposed with the
acknowledgement that they are flexible, due to
the ever-changing nature of the economy. As new
opportunities arise, the document may be revised.
This document should be updated every three to
five years to stay current and provide the most up-
to-date recommendations.
Community Housing Needs Assessment –
February 2019: https://www.bozeman.net/home/
showdocument?id=8773
The Community Housing Needs Assessment
(CHNA) provides an updated housing needs
assessment of the City of Bozeman. It is part one
of a two-part process that is intended to help
the City of Bozeman understand and devise a
plan to address the housing needs of residents
and the workforce. The goal is to ensure that
the City has the housing necessary to support a
thriving community, through housing to support
businesses, economic development, and
community vibrancy. The report evaluates the
spectrum of housing needs in the City, providing
an overview of special needs programs and
emergency housing options, as well as affordable
rentals through home purchase opportunities.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 B-9
Community Housing Action Plan – October 2019
https://www.bozeman.net/Home/
ShowDocument?id=9443
The Community Housing Action Plan (CHAP)
was completed in October of 2019 and is an
action plan guided at identifying Bozeman’s top
community housing priorities and designing a plan
to get housing built for a range of resident and
employee needs in Bozeman over, at minimum, a
five-year span.
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Report – 2015: https://www.bozeman.net/Home/
ShowDocument?id=5513
The City of Bozeman established the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
(NCOD) in 1991 as a locally-adopted zoning district
that prioritizes conservation of neighborhood
character and preservation of historic properties.
The boundary was initially based on the City’s
1957 census boundary. The boundary does
not necessarily reflect the historical integrity of
structures either adjacent to, within or outside the
boundary. Substantial reinvestment has occurred
in the NCOD area over 24 years as Bozeman has
grown significantly since 1991. Therefore, the City
evaluated the NCOD and what recommendations
were needed to update the district and its
associated regulations. The City is also conducting
evaluations and revisions of land development
standards which interact with this report. Some
recommendations from the draft report have been
removed as they have already been completed.
Best practices were studied from six communities
across the country, along with three cities in
Montana to determine what unique preservation
nor infill strategies could be implemented in
Bozeman. The analysis concluded that the NCOD
has affected affordable housing, infill development
and the historical integrity of properties within the
district. The District has had several successes
including preserving potential historical buildings,
creating historic districts, and preserving
neighborhood context in certain areas. However,
the NCOD has also had challenges including
affordable housing and application of design
guidelines and code enforcement.
Recommendations are listed for each focus area
and in some instances these recommendations
are in conflict with each other. This was done
on purpose to encourage the public and City
Commission to determine what is the most critical
aspect moving forward whether it be affordable
housing, historic preservation, infill development,
or creating new design guidelines. However, a
preferred set of recommendations is provided that
tries to achieve a balance between the four focus
areas. It should be noted that these can and will
likely change pending input from City Commission
on what direction the NCOD should take moving
forward.
Design and Connectivity Plan for North 7th Ave
Corridor - October 2006: https://www.bozeman.
net/Home/ShowDocument?id=556
This plan should serve as a formal policy
document related to improvements along North
7th Avenue. It should be used when planning
improvements along the corridor, and as a means
for recruiting businesses in the area. In addition
it should serve as a roadmap for private property
owners, investors, and individual businesses in
planning individual projects, such that they will
help to reinforce the overall vision for the area.
The purpose of this plan is: To provide a design
framework plan for improvement projects along
the corridor that will enhance connectivity for the
pedestrian, bicyclist and automobile; To illustrate
the vision for the plan; To provide implementation
strategies and funding mechanisms.
B-10 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN
Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan –
May 2019: https://www.bozeman.net/home/
showdocument?id=9041
The 2019 Downtown Bozeman Improvement
Plan (the DBIP) builds on Bozeman’s planning
history and recent energy. A successful downtown
contains a diverse mix of uses, encourages
interaction, and creates unique experiences
that cannot be duplicated. Downtown’s success
is tied to its strong sense of place, which has
been strengthened in recent years by a healthy
economy, a careful balance of tourism with local
livability, and a clear framework for investment
laid out in the 2009 Downtown Improvement
Plan. Yet, as Bozeman grows, Downtown cannot
be content with today’s successes; evolution is
necessary for long-term resilience. Challenges
do exist, particularly around keeping Downtown’s
local identity intact, balancing growth sensitively,
and welcoming more transportation modes and
residents. This plan has been shaped by many
people in the Bozeman community who worked
hard to create an inspired vision for the next
decade.
This plan is guided by five main principles: The
Heart of a Thriving Bozeman; More than Main
Street; Walkable and Accessible; Welcoming to
Everyone; Connected to Nature and Culture.
Within the plan are public engagement
summaries, up-to-date statistics, suggested code
amendments, and a memorandum related to the
market analysis.
Cemetery Master Plan (Sunset Hills) – June 2017: https://www.bozeman.net/home/
showdocument?id=5408
This twenty-year plan outlines short-term policy
considerations related to the management,
physical grounds, and general environment of the
Sunset Hills Cemetery; and the long term planning
for perpetual care of the future Sunset Hills
Cemetery.
Downtown Strategic Parking Management Plan
– July 2016: https://www.bozeman.net/Home/
ShowDocument?id=1762
This plan reflects an overall evaluation of the
downtown parking system. The evaluation
entailed review of existing parking operations
and assets, previous study findings, and
municipal code; in-depth discussions and three
topic-specific work sessions with the Bozeman
Parking Commission (BPC); and six public forums
to allow for community input and discussion.
From this process, the consultant developed a
comprehensive parking management plan that
responds to the unique environment, goals, and
objectives of Downtown Bozeman. Within the
plan are policy, organizational, code-related, and
parking management action strategies.
Midtown Action Plan – August 2017: https://
www.midtownbozeman.org//uploads/Documents/Action-Plan-V10.pdf
The intent of this Plan is to attract targeted private
investment by leveraging the market potential
of the Midtown District, and removing barriers
to development through strategic infrastructure
investments and incentives. This is especially
important for this District as the city does not own
any property and is reliant on cooperation and
collaboration with property owners to realize the
vision for this area.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 26 NOVEMBER 2019 B-11
Gallatin County Hazard Mitigation and
Community Wildfire Protection Plan [DRAFT] –
January 2019:
https://www.readygallatin.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/DRAFT_Gallatin-County-Hazard-
Mit-Plan_12-21-2018.pdf - 2018
https://www.readygallatin.com/wp-content/
uploads/2019/01/DRAFT_Gallatin-County_CWPP_01-07-2019-ver-2.pdf
The City participates in disaster and response
planning on a cooperative basis with other local
governments. In 2000 the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) began a pre-disaster
program. This required every county in the nation
to prepare an all-risk assessment and mitigation
plan for any anticipated natural disaster (i.e.
flooding, earthquake, winter storm, wildfires). The
City Fire Department provides the staffing for the
Gallatin County Disaster and Emergency Services
function under an Interlocal agreement. The
County and the five municipalities jointly prepared
a Hazard Mitigation Plan which was completed
in 2006, 2012, and 2018. The plan examines a
wide range of possible emergency circumstances
or events. Each event is rated for likelihood of
occurrence, breadth of impact, and resources
needed to respond.
After the 2000 fire season in the United Stated,
it was evident that something must be done to
better prepare and protect communities and
residents that live in or near forested lands. The
National Fire Plan was developed in August 2000,
following a landmark wildland fire season, with the
intent of actively responding to severe wildland
fires and their impacts to communities while
ensuring sufficient firefighting capacity for the
future.
In Montana, the Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management has worked with the Montana
Department of Commerce to award grants to
communities for the development of community
fire plans. The Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI)
was launched in August, 2002 with the intent
to reduce the risks severe wildfires pose to
people, communities, and the environment.
By protecting forests, woodlands, shrub lands,
and grasslands from unnaturally intensive and
destructive fires, HFI helps improve the condition
of our public lands, increases firefighter safety,
and conserves landscape attributes valued
by society. The Bozeman Fire Department,
cooperation with Gallatin County and the other
fire service providers prepared a local plan for
wildfire which made recommendations to the local
governments. This plan meets the requirement for
a growth policy to delineate the wildland-urban
interface and make recommendations regarding
regulations. Implementation occurs through other
actions such as subdivision regulations.
This plan has multiple but basic objectives. These
objectives are as follows:
1. Identify and prioritize current WUI areas
within and around each of the 19 fire districts
and departments to include adjacent public
lands.
2. Identify potential areas that are currently
under development or in planning stages
within these fire districts and fire service
areas.
3. Identify local fire protection resources.
4. Provide detailed mapping of Gallatin County,
fire departments, and WUI areas
5. Inform and educate public and private
land owners of hazardous or potentially
hazardous WUI areas.
6. Provide ideas and recommendations for
possible hazard mitigation in high risk areas.
7. Continue to bring local, state, federal, and
interested party decision makers to the table
for future planning and education.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 C-1
INVENTORY REPORT
This Appendix includes the history of Bozeman and additional demographic data that was not included
in the main body of the Community Plan.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Prior to the establishment of permanent settlements in southwestern Montana, a variety of nomadic
Native American bands frequented and utilized the region now known as the Gallatin Valley.
Archeological evidence documents that prehistoric peoples enjoyed the Valley’s once-plentiful natural
resources for more than 10,000 years. Later, members of the Bannock, Blackfeet, Crow, Flathead, Gros
Ventres, Shoshone, and several other historic tribes seasonally camped in the well-watered region en
route to and from the buffalo hunting grounds to the east of the Bridger Mountains.
C-2 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN
Meriwether Lewis arrived at the Three Forks of the
Missouri River on July 28, 1805. Lewis described
the Gallatin Valley as “a smooth extensive green
meadow of fine grass in its course meandering
in several streams...and a distant range of lofty
mountains ran their snow clad tops above the
irregular and broken mountains which lie adjacent
to this beautiful spot.” Nearly one year later,
William Clark’s expedition, with the navigational
assistance of Sacajawea, a Bannock/Shoshone
Indian, ascended the Gallatin River and observed:
“several leading roads which appear to a gap in the
mountains,” which is now known as Flathead Pass.
At the recommendation of his native guide, Clark
traveled east through what later became known as
Bozeman Pass, eventually making his way to the
Yellowstone River drainage and beyond.
Thanks in large measure to the lavish descriptions
of the Lewis and Clark Expedition; others were
soon attracted to southwestern Montana.
Fur trappers harvested in the region until the
1850s, when local beaver populations had been
substantially depleted. The first permanent
white settlements in the vicinity, however, were
established following the discovery of gold in
Bannock, Virginia City, and Last Chance Gulch
between 1862 and 1865. John Bozeman and
others guided immigrant trains along the infamous
Bozeman Trail, which entered the Gallatin Valley via
Bozeman Pass. Perceiving the economic potential
of having a community at the mouth of this
important gateway, John Bozeman and two friends
– Daniel Rouse and William Beall – planned a town
site directly west of the opening.
Possessing exceptionally fertile and well-
watered soil, as well as geographic proximity to
several nearby mining camps that provided a
ready market for goods and services, Bozeman,
Montana, became one of the earliest and most
successful agricultural communities in the Rocky
Mountain West. Early resident William Alderson
described the community’s surroundings as “one
of the most beautiful and picturesque valleys the
eye ever beheld, abounding in springs of clear
water, flowers and grass in abundance.” In sharp
contrast to many other more arid regions of the
West, this comparatively fruitful local environment
served as a powerful magnet for settlement and
economic development. As Alderson’s diary noted,
for example, farmers came to the Bozeman area
“expecting to make money,” and most were not
disappointed.
The draw of the Gallatin Valley was strong enough
that by September of 1864, The Montana Post
reported that the area was “being fast settled up
with farmers, many of whom came to Montana as
a better class of miners and after...quitting their
original pursuits secured 160 acres of land on
which they...go to work in true farmer fashion.”
Valley residents soon marketed potatoes, beets,
carrots, rutabagas, and parsnips in the mining
camps they had formerly occupied. Soon, focus
had expanded to include the cultivation of wheat,
oats, and barley; and the roots of an extensive
BBOO ZZEEMM AANNMM TT CCOOMM MM UUNNIITTYY PPLLAANN APPENDICES | 33, 04 DECEM BER 2019, DRAFT FOR CITY STAFF REVIEW
Possessing exceptionally fertile and well-w atered soil, as well as geographic proximity to
several nearby mining cam ps that provided a ready m arket for goods and services,
Bozem an, M ontana, becam e one of the earliest and m ost successful agricultural
com m unities in the Rocky M ountain W est. Early resident William Alderson described the
com m unity’s surroundings as “one of the m ost beautiful and picturesque valleys the eye
ever beheld, abounding in springs of clear w ater, flowers and grass in abundance.” In
sharp contrast to m any other m ore arid regions of the W est, this com paratively fruitful
local environm ent served as a powerful m agnet for settlem ent and econom ic
developm ent. A s Alderson’s diary noted, for exam ple, farm ers cam e to the Bozem an area
“expecting to m ake m oney,” and m ost were not disappointed.
The draw of the Gallatin Valley w as strong enough that by Septem ber of 1864, The
M ontana Post reported that the area w as “being fast settled up with farm ers, m any of
whom cam e to M ontana as a better class of miners and after...quitting their original
pursuits secured 160 acres of land on which they...go to work in true farm er fashion.”
Valley residents soon m arketed potatoes, beets, carrots, rutabagas, and parsnips in the
mining cam ps they had form erly occupied. Soon, focus had expanded to include the
cultivation of w heat, oats, and barley; and the roots of an extensive agricultural industry
in the region were planted. Thanks to the safety guaranteed by the nearby establishm ent
of Fort Ellis in August of 1867, the town of Bozem an grew quickly, becom ing the county
seat that sam e year.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 26 NOVEMBER 2019 C-3
agricultural industry in the region were planted.
Thanks to the safety guaranteed by the nearby
establishment of Fort Ellis in August of 1867, the
town of Bozeman grew quickly, becoming the
county seat that same year.
Following the prevailing economic stagnation
of the 1870s, the Northern Pacific Railroad
desperately sought local markets and natural
resources to help offset the huge costs of its
transcontinental expansion. Eventually, the Gallatin
Valley’s established reputation as “the granary of
Montana,” together with its proximity to Bozeman
Pass and the large coal reserves of the neighboring
Trail Creek area, attracted the attention of the
railroad. On January 9, 1882, the Northern Pacific
purchased a large tract of land located northeast
of Bozeman from Perry and William McAdow
and began construction of a six-stall, masonry
roundhouse to accommodate helper engines for
pushing eastbound trains over Bozeman Pass–the
highest point on the railroad. In a matter of months,
Bozeman became the first town on Montana’s
Northern Pacific line.
Although Bozeman was unusual in that it did not
owe its life to the railroad, the Northern Pacific
dramatically changed the Gallatin Valley, even prior
to its arrival there. Until the coming of the railroad,
the Valley’s commerce with the rest of the nation
was possible only by freighter – south to Corinne,
Utah, on the Union Pacific Railroad, or North to
Fort Benton, Montana, on the Missouri River. Thus,
following confirmation that the railroad would
traverse the Valley on its trek to the West Coast,
local anticipation reached a fevered pitch. Area
farmers and ranchers, many of whom had become
painfully aware of the economic disadvantages of
their geographic isolation from eastern population
centers, perceived the railroad as nothing less than
the key to progress for the Bozeman area.
Almost immediately, local expectations were
fulfilled as railroad optimism sparked a prolonged
redefinition of the region’s character, appearance,
and quality of life. Confident that the railroad’s
arrival would spark a major building and settlement
boom in Bozeman, Nelson Story and local partners
Walter Cooper and John Dickerson platted Park
Addition, one of the largest subdivisions on
Bozeman’s affluent southern side. The East Side
(later Hawthorne) School at 114 North Rouse,
the Masonic Lodge at 137 East Main, the Lamme
Main Street in Bozeman, circa 1868
C-4 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN
Building at 29 East Main, and the Spieth and Krug
Brewery at 240-246 East Main were constructed
in 1883. The City of Bozeman was incorporated
later that same year in celebration of the fact that
the region was no longer circumscribed by the
limitations of geographic isolation. “We may now
feel that we are part of the great world’s business
activities,” proclaimed Judge H.N. Maguire. And,
indeed, to many local residents the possibilities
seemed endless.
As is the case in other communities, the advent
of the Northern Pacific marks a watershed in the
developmental history of the Gallatin Valley. With
the railroad’s assistance, Bozeman rapidly moved
toward economic and demographic stabilization.
Population in the Bozeman area increased
dramatically from 867 in 1880 to approximately
3,000 in 1883. “Under the impetus of the near
approach of the track of the Northern Pacific
road,” the Avant Courier reported, “Bozeman has
doubled its population during the past year.”
The arrival of the railroad also impacted the ethnic
composition of the City’s population. Construction
of the railroad resulted in an influx of Chinese
workers. In 1870 there were 4 Chinese-born
residents of Bozeman and by 1910 that number
had swelled to 62. There we also a few African-
American families in Bozeman, many of which
moved West during the Civil War. By the time of
the 1910 Census there were 38 African Americans
residing in Bozeman. During the late 1800s Native
Americans sometimes camped near the fledgling
City. While they did not reside in the City, they did
come to town for trade and supplies.
The establishment of Yellowstone National Park in
1872, combined with the completion of the railroad
line through Bozeman, was also an economic
boon for Bozeman. Bozeman became the main
point of departure for park-bound visitors. The
importance of Yellowstone National Park to the
local economy expanded even more with the use
of private automobiles.
The ongoing transformation sparked by the
railroad boom was truly remarkable. Fred M.
Wilson, traveling correspondent for the Helena
Herald, reported that
“Bozeman has indeed made a proud record
during the past twelve months. Her wonderful
growth, resulting from the advent of the iron
horse…has exceeded the anticipations of the most
sanguine. Business houses have nearly doubled
in number, large and handsome houses now cover
tracts of land which a few years ago were beyond
the limits of town, the streets are thronged with
a busy, hungry crowd, and one who has been
absent but a season finds difficulty in recognizing
the staid and sober town of the past in the
bustling, ambitious city of the present.”
While the effects of the railroad boom quickly
subsided and local population levels actually
declined in the mid-1880s, Montana’s attainment
of statehood in 1889 served as the impetus for
yet another pivotal surge in local development.
In an effort to impress Montana voters enough to
choose Bozeman as the site of the state capital in
an 1892 special election, area promoters set out to
redefine their community. Local residents erected
several prominent public and private buildings in
the years immediately following the declaration of
statehood, including the impressive Bozeman City
Hall and Opera House (1890), the gothic-styled
Saint James Episcopal Church (1890-91) at 9 West
Olive Street, the Victorian Commercial Bozeman
Hotel (1891-92) at 307-21 East Main Street, and the
gothic City High School building (c. 1892) which
once occupied the present site of the Emerson
Cultural Center at 111 South Grand Avenue. Several
notable local residences, such as the Julia Martin
House (1892) at 419 South Grand Avenue, were
also constructed in this period.
In addition to these ambitious projects,
Bozeman also witnessed other significant steps
toward sophistication between 1889 and 1892.
Community boundaries were officially extended
into surrounding farmlands in an effort to make the
City look larger on paper than it was in actuality
and, therefore, more impressive to Montana’s
voters. In a further effort to make Bozeman appear
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 26 NOVEMBER 2019 C-5
ready for the capital designation, the “Capitol Hill
Addition” was platted in 1890, and South Eighth
Avenue was laid out as a boulevard leading up
to the intended site of the capitol. Electric lights
were installed on the City’s main thoroughfares
in 1891, and an extensive local streetcar system
was established the following year. The Northern
Pacific Railroad also constructed a brick
passenger depot at 829 Front Street in 1892.
By September of 1892 – less than two months
before the special election to settle the capital
question – a regional promotional magazine,
The Rockies, boasted that the Gallatin Valley
possessed the economic stability of “the largest
and most productive agricultural region in the
entire northwest.” Bozeman, in particular, was
praised as having “every convenience found in
eastern cities of ten times its population.”
Despite this and other bold efforts at self-
promotion, when the ballots were counted in
1892, Bozeman took fourth place with 7,636 votes,
behind Butte, Anaconda, and Helena with 7,757,
10,147, and 14,032 votes respectively. Although a
great deal of time and effort went into Bozeman’s
bid for the capital, local residents were not
discouraged following their defeat. The Bozeman
Weekly Chronicle positively asserted that “the
capital contest has been the means of attracting a
great deal of favorable attention to Bozeman and
the money spent is by no means wasted.”
The paper’s emphatic outlook was soon justified.
Within a year, Helena got around to allocating
other state institutions, among which were the
units of the higher education system. Due no
doubt in part to Bozeman’s impressive growth
during its bid for the capital, the College of
Agriculture and Mechanic Arts was located in
Bozeman on February 16, 1893 – the first of the
units to be established. The school opened in
April of that year and classes were held in the
local skating rink, where Holy Rosary Church
is now located. When the legislature finally
appropriated the necessary funds, Montana
or “Old Main” Hall was built in 1896 and the
foundation of what is now Montana State
University was laid.
The advent of dry land farming techniques,
which were aggressively promoted by the new
agricultural college, coupled with an ongoing
homestead boom, dramatically increased
Main Street in Bozeman, circa 1893
C-6 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN
Bozeman’s population from 3,419 in 1900 to 5,107
in 1910. These demographic changes, in turn,
reaffirmed Bozeman’s advantageous position
as a regional supply center, inspiring numerous
changes in the architectural character of the
community. As early as 1907, a surplus of hard
milling wheat was, for the first time, available for
shipment to markets outside of Montana. This
reality prompted the Chicago, Milwaukee and
Saint Paul Railroad to gain access to Bozeman
in 1911–a development that further bolstered the
local agricultural economy.
The volume of agricultural and railroad activity
in the Valley continued to intensify during
the 1913 1929 Progressive era thanks in large
measure to the growth of Montana State
College’s Agricultural Experiment Station–
which encouraged the application of “industrial
principles to agricultural expansion.” In advocating
the scientific management of farming, the
Agriculture Experiment Station also promoted
crop diversification; and, following 1911 soil tests,
17,000 acres of peas were planted in the Valley.
The obvious success of the experiment, coupled
with the fact that legume cultivation was a natural
soil enricher and pea vines could be used as
animal fodder, stimulated the development of four
local seed pea companies. The incredible success
of Bozeman’s seed pea industry stimulated the
incorporation of the Bozeman Canning Company
on North Rouse Avenue. Soon the Gallatin Valley
was producing seventy-five percent of the seed
peas raised in the United States and Bozeman
was referred to as the “Sweet Pea Capital of the
Nation.” The industry thrived in the Gallatin Valley
until the mid-1950s, employing hundreds of local
residents, particularly women.
Drought conditions prevailed throughout the
1920s, but Gallatin County fared relatively well
in comparison to other counties in eastern
Montana. The community also reaped the
rewards of an active tourist economy during the
era as thousands of pleasure seekers flooded
through area train stations. With the advent of
the automobile, Bozeman’s role as a gateway to
Yellowstone National Park became even more
pronounced; and, for the first time, recreational
tourism began to rival agriculture as a major
industry in the area.
Due largely to the established relationship
Main Street in Bozeman, circa 1900
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 26 NOVEMBER 2019 C-7
between agricultural pursuits and the Valley’s
two transcontinental railroads, the Bozeman
area survived the Great Depression better than
most, and continued its historic precedent of
economic expansion throughout its 1930-1950
Nationalization Phase of Development. Like other
places across the nation, Bozeman faced many
challenges following the Stock Market Crash of
1929; but, for the most part, the town of nearly
7,000 fared comparatively well. Local newspaper
headlines on January 1, 1930 optimistically
proclaimed: “All signs point toward continuance of
prosperity…Nothing in the present situation that
is menacing or pessimistic…Agriculture in better
condition than ever.”
Several factors contributed to this positive
outlook. As in years past, an abundance of water
in the region caused agriculture in the Gallatin
Valley to flourish at a time when most farmers and
ranchers were ravaged by natural disasters and
financial ruin. Drought-stricken cattle from other
regions were brought into the Bozeman area.
By 1932, local dairy farmers were constructing a
$25,000 cooperative creamery that was expected
to double the farm population of the County.
The success of the local farm economy is further
evidenced by the development of the Gallatin
Valley Auction Yards and Vollmer slaughterhouse
complex in the mid-1930s.
When Montana’s economy was at its lowest point,
Bozeman also witnessed a new relationship with
the federal government, which further bolstered
the local economy. While drought conditions
continued to hinder agricultural pursuits and
forced many Montana counties to seek federal
assistance during the Depression years, many
area farmers and related businesses, such as
the Montana Flour Mills Company, profited by
providing flour and cereal products for Roosevelt’s
New Deal assistance programs. Flourishing
agribusiness, coupled with the presence of MSC’s
Agricultural Extension Service, made Bozeman the
principle actor in Montana’s New Deal farm policy
activity and underscored Bozeman’s role as the de
facto capital of rural Montana.
Thanks in large measure to its growing role in
New Deal Farm policy, as well as the fact that
many unemployed students were flocking to
Bozeman, Montana State College expanded
dramatically during the period, having
obvious ripple effects on the town and its built
environment. In 1932, MSC had 1,056 students,
many of whom were attracted to Bozeman
because they could not find jobs. By 1939, student
population had jumped nearly sixty percent to
1,801 students. This dramatic increase helped to
further bolster Bozeman during the worst years of
the Great Depression and generated increasing
opportunities for local housing and business
development.
While Bozeman’s population actually decreased
during the era of the Great Depression, dropping
from 8,855 in 1930 to 8,665 in 1940, construction
activity in the City continued to grow. In 1932, for
example, the total value of local building permits
was a less than impressive $98,883. By 1940, the
total building permit valuation had grown more
than four times to $428,780, a solid indication that
local growth and development accelerated toward
the end of the decade.
As expected, Bozeman’s economy continued
to expand, especially after the bombing of
Pearl Harbor in December of 1941. Mechanisms
were already in place to provide the nation’s
armed forces with locally produced agricultural
commodities, such as flour, wool, and meat. Major
local employers, such as Montana Flour Mills and
the Bozeman Canning Company, operated at
maximum capacity during the era.
Throughout WWII, and for more than a century
after, the Bozeman Armory Building was home to
Charlie Company and the 163rd Infantry Regiment
of the Montana National Guard. This Guard unit
drew members from all over the state. The Armory
Building was dedicated just 4 months after the
bombing of Pearl Harbor.
The end of the war and the return of veterans
C-8 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN
brought ever-increasing activity to Bozeman. The
effects of the 1944 G.I. Bill of Rights stimulated
further growth at the college and in the housing
industry. Local responses to shortages in housing
supply prompted the development of wood
product industries such as the Idaho Pole plant,
which was established in 1946, and the pulpwood
industry, started at Gallatin Gateway in 1947.
Together these and other developments helped
ensure the continuing expansion of Bozeman and
its institution of higher learning, Montana State
College.
In the years immediately following World War
II, the major factors influencing Bozeman’s
earlier development continued to exert an
important influence on Bozeman’s character and
appearance. The agricultural heritage that had
shaped daily life in the Gallatin Valley from day
one continued to play a major role, as evidenced
by the establishment of the Winter Fair in 1946.
Likewise, the ever-growing Montana State
College remained the largest local employer
and continued to ensure the economic vitality
of the community. But even as these historic
forces continued to shape the growth of the
area, a succession of new technological and
transportation-related developments further linked
Bozeman with the outside world and profoundly
altered local life in the coming decades.
Radio, television, and Hollywood soon wedded
the Gallatin Valley with the broader culture of
the nation. As music and other mass-produced
popular amusements were instantly made
available to area residents for the first time, local
values and aspirations changed. More than ever,
Bozeman youth embraced the possibility of
leaving the Gallatin Valley for more sophisticated
pastures.
Meanwhile, others discovered the Bozeman area.
Northwest Airlines made its first landing at Gallatin
Main Street in Bozeman, circa 1940
Field on June 22, 1947, and for the first time,
commercial plane service conveniently connected
the Gallatin Valley with the rest of the world. Like
the railroads, airlines further encouraged tourism
and the more recent phenomenon of living in
Bozeman and working elsewhere.
In 1966 the interstate highway was completed
through the Bozeman area. Prior to this time, all
east-west traffic coming through the area traveled
down Main Street. With the completion of the
interstate, however, Main Street was bypassed–a
transition which had dramatic economic impacts
for Downtown Bozeman and paved the way for
modern day strip development on Bozeman’s
periphery.
Together with already existing transportation
systems, the interstate and airlines triggered
Bozeman’s emergence as a nationally recognized
recreational mecca. Yellowstone Park and dude
ranch tourism flourished in the summer months;
and with the establishment of Bridger Bowl (1955)
and later Big Sky (1973), a year-round tourism
industry was established.
With growing frequency, the fertile farmland of
the Gallatin Valley was subdivided for residential
development to accommodate a burgeoning local
population. Between 1960 and 1970, Bozeman’s
City limits almost doubled in area, from 2,640
acres to more than 5,000. Many subdivision
proposals were brought before the Bozeman City
Commission, which in turn increased from three
to five members in 1970 to handle the heavier
workload. That year, Bozeman’s first City-County
planner was hired.
Despite brief declines, population in the Bozeman
area increased during the last thirty years. From
1971 to 1975, the number of Bozeman residents
increased four to five percent. Even more
pronounced growth was witnessed in the area
immediately adjacent to the City limits. Within a
four-and-a-half mile radius from the City limits,
population jumped eighteen percent during the
period, with four thousand acres of farmland
turned into housing tracts. Between 1980 and
1990, Gallatin County’s population increased
another 17.7 percent to 50,463. During the next
five years, the County’s population grew again
to 59,406, with an average annual increase of
3.4 percent, the highest increase in Montana.
Between 1980 and 1990, Bozeman’s population
grew a healthy 4.7 percent.
During the early 1980s, as Bozeman prepared
for its centennial as an incorporated City, efforts
were undertaken to survey the town’s historic
and architectural resources. Under the direction
of paid and volunteer professionals, more than
eighty local residents documented roughly 4,000
properties in Bozeman’s historic core. Since that
time, nine historic districts containing more than
eight hundred buildings, as well as an additional
forty individual landmarks, have been listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.
Under these development pressures, farming in
the Bozeman area has steadily declined. Local
agribusiness has been increasingly supplanted
by new economic stimuli – especially recreational
tourism and real estate development. In 1950,
1,129 farms and ranches dotted the Gallatin
Valley. By 1992 that number had dropped to
798. Between 1978 and 1992 alone, Gallatin
County saw a 21.3 percent decrease in acreage
devoted to farmland, according to the United
States Census of Agriculture. In the five-year
period between April of 1993 and April of 1998,
an estimated 9,230 acres were developed in
the Gallatin Valley and outside the City limits of
Bozeman.
The start of the ongoing boom in Bozeman’s
growth and development roughly coincides with
the making of Robert Redford’s A River Runs
through It in 1992. The movie’s imagery and story
line had a tremendous impact in popularizing
western Montana as “The Last Best Place” and,
likewise, affiliated the region with a simpler,
recreation-oriented quality of life, which now
epitomizes the local mindset. The movie also
promoted the rapid expansion of the region’s fly-
fishing industry, which further advanced the local
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 26 NOVEMBER 2019 C-9
C-10 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN
tourist economy.
With the advent of the Internet, fax machines,
and other high-tech means of communication,
Bozeman attracted increasing numbers of
residents who live in the Gallatin Valley but
work elsewhere. Studies during the 1990s
confirmed that, despite unparalleled population
and economic growth in the area, more than
forty percent of local residents were employed
elsewhere. Telecommuters, retirees, and the
independently wealthy were settling in the
Gallatin Valley, creating increased demands for
local services and lower-paying service industry
jobs. Thus, despite an apparently booming local
economy, Gallatin County residents averaged
$17,032 in annual wages during the 1990s and
ranked thirty-third among Montana’s fifty-six
counties in per capita income. Due to the City’s
continued economic expansion, the annual
average wage in the City had increased to
$28,901 in 2005, and ranked eleventh among
Montana’s counties in annual average wage
earned per capita. The larger concern now is
the rapid increase in the cost of living – and
specifically the cost of housing – in the City
relevant to increases in wages and per capita
income. Recent data from the US Census
Bureau shows that median household income is
approximately $46,000 and the median home
price was $398,000 as of August 2017. According
to the EPS report, a household needs to earn
at least $68,400 annually to afford a home in
Bozeman at the 30 percent of income affordability
standard.
As the 2018 Economic and Planning Systems,
Inc. (EPS) Report states, “Bozeman has a level
of economic diversity and strength that exceeds
many other small western cities, especially those
North 7th Avenue, circa 1970
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 26 NOVEMBER 2019 C-11
that are not part of a larger metropolitan region.”
A key component of Bozeman’s healthy local
economy has been the establishment of many
high-tech businesses in the Gallatin Valley.
Providing generally higher wages, these clean
industries are widely regarded as examples of
desirable economic development that is in many
ways compatible with the much-cherished natural
amenities that southwest Montana offers to its
residents and visitors. The local economy has also
been fueled in recent years by the construction
industry and businesses that support that industry
such as building supplies, banking and financial
services, and landscaping material suppliers and
installers.
EPS found that in-migration, or those moving from
other areas made up a significant part of the City
and County’s population increase. Job growth has
increased as well, but according to EPS, nearly
half of all new jobs created from 2010 through
2016 paid less than $16.00 per hour ($34,000
per year). In an already competitive and high-cost
housing market, low-paying job growth could likely
increase the demand for more affordable and
attainable housing development in the community.
The community continues to be interested in
high quality development that protects and
reflects Bozeman’s unique character. Bozeman
possesses many of the qualities people seek
in the communities where they live and work.
These include: clean air, good schools, access to
recreational activities, low crime, and an attractive
downtown. These amenities will continue to
attract people to our community. The challenge
is accommodating growth and change while
protecting the very qualities that brought people
to Bozeman.
Main Street, 2019
C-12 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN, APPENDICES
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following information can be found in the
2018 Demographic and Real Estate Market
Assessment developed by Economic & Planning
Systems, Inc. (EPS). Population and demographic
details can change quickly. The US Census
Bureau annually conducts the American
Community Survey (ACS) which provides updated
information about community trends. Those
seeking the most current information are directed
to the ACS. The 2020 US Census will provide the
most comprehensive information.
POPULATION GROWTH
Bozeman is one of the fastest growing places
in the nation. Between 2000 and 2016, the City
added approximately 17,000 new residents, which
translates to a growth rate of nearly 1,100 new
residents per year or an annual growth rate of
3.0 percent. While regional population growth
slowed during the Great Recession between 2008
and 2010, it has quickly surpassed pre-recession
levels. Growth rates since 2014 have averaged
approximately 4.7 per year or roughly 1,800 new
residents per year, leading to an estimated 2016
population of 45,250.
The Gallatin Valley is evolving from a rural to a
more urban region. The surrounding communities,
such as Belgrade and unincorporated areas in
Gallatin County, have also experienced significant
growth. The Gallatin Valley (a roughly 10-mile east
and south to 15-mile west distance of Bozeman
depending on topography) has a population of
approximately 100,000 people. Every 10 years,
the U.S. Census updates the urbanized and
metropolitan area designations, defined as areas
with more than 50,000 people and a population
density in a core area of at least 1,000 people
per square mile. Based on the region’s growth,
the Gallatin Valley may be designated as an
urbanized area in 2020. This designation may
make the region eligible to form a metropolitan
planning organization (MPO) to carry out regional
transportation planning and to receive federal
transportation planning and construction funding.
HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
Approximately 43 percent of the Gallatin County
population resides in Bozeman. Bozeman
is also the economic hub of the County and
represents approximately 77 percent of total
County employment. The median household
income in Bozeman is nearly $46,000 per year,
which is lower than the countywide average of
approximately $55,500. Some of the differences
are attributed to the large student population in
Bozeman which brings down the median. When
income figures are examined for renters and
owners, Bozeman’s household income is more
similar to countywide figures. Owner households
in Bozeman have a median household income
of $68,000 compared to the County median
of $71,000. Just outside of Bozeman in the
unincorporated area, there are neighborhoods
with large high-end homes and luxury ranches
where household incomes are higher.
The presence of Montana State University
directly impacts the general demographics of
Bozeman. Incomes, the average age, and average
household size in Bozeman are all lower than the
County as a whole. In addition, the proportion of
renter households is significantly higher than in
the rest of the County.
AGE DISTRIBUTION
The population of Bozeman is younger when
compared to the County and State. The median
age in Bozeman is 27.2 compared to a median
age of 33.2 in Gallatin County and 39.9 in
Montana. The primary driver of this is the
large number of students attending MSU. The
proportion of the total population between the
age of 20 and 24 in Bozeman is 21.1 percent
compared to 7.2 percent in Montana. Bozeman
also has a higher proportion of people between
the ages of 25 and 39 compared to Montana, due
to the large number of students that remain in the
area following graduation and the appeal of the
city to those that are in the early stages of their
career.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 C-13
HOUSING
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) defines a household as being
“cost burdened” when it is paying 30 percent or
more of its income to rent or mortgage payments.
In Bozeman, 22 percent of owner households are
paying more than 35 percent of their income in
rent and nine percent are paying between 30 and
35 percent. For renters, 44 percent are paying
more than 35 percent of their income to rent.
Another eight percent pay between 30 and 35
percent of their income in rent. Unfortunately, the
Census does not allow us to differentiate between
students and the resident employee population.
Nevertheless, this is a large proportion of cost-
burdened households.
As of August 2017, the median home price in
Bozeman was $398,000 up from $245,000 as
the recovery from the Great Recession began
with annual appreciation rates over 10 percent per
year over the past five years. To afford the median
priced home in Bozeman at the 30 percent of
income affordability standard, a household needs
to earn at least $68,400 per year or $32.00
per hour for one earner. The median household
income for owner households is currently about
$68,000 indicating that overall home prices are
still in line with incomes at this broad statistical
level. These figures however do not account
for the quality of the housing available at this
price. In addition, it is the rapid increase in home
values that people are experiencing especially
since wages in incomes have not kept pace with
housing cost increases.
Home prices in Belgrade, Livingston, and Three
Forks have also increased at 10 to 12 percent per
year over the same time period. Living in outlying
areas may reduce amounts paid for housing but
increases costs for transportation that may offset
much of the perceived cost savings of locating
outside of Bozeman.
EMPLOYMENT
Bozeman continues to be the economic hub
of the region with approximately 77 percent
of total Gallatin County employment. While
Gallatin County employment has historically
been concentrated in Bozeman, the growth in
the technology and outdoor industries in the late
1990s accelerated this trend. This concentration
of high-tech employment in Bozeman has also
translated to a high number of startups in the City.
Since 2005, Bozeman has captured roughly 80
percent of total employment growth in the County.
This means that for every 10 jobs created in
Gallatin County, eight were in Bozeman.
From 2005 through 2014, employment growth in
Education and Health Services, and Leisure and
Hospitality represented approximately 65 percent
of the total job growth that occurred in Bozeman.
Employment in Construction and Information both
experienced contraction in total employment.
While many service related jobs have surpassed
their pre-recession levels there are others, such
as Information that have experienced a slower
recovery and have not fully recovered to their pre-
recession levels.
RETAIL
Retail located in Bozeman serves the City
population of 49,000 plus the Gallatin Valley
with another 60,000 people, and outlying areas
of Southwest Montana. At least a third of retail
sales in Bozeman are estimated to come from
outside this Gallatin Valley local trade area from
Southwest Montana and from visitors/ tourists.
The city’s trade area has however shrunk since
Walmart, Costco, and Target located in Helena
several years ago.
With the contraction in the retail market due
to the growth of e-commerce, there are fewer
opportunities to expand retail. In addition,
demographic changes are favoring less ret ail
consumption and a shift to the food and beverage
market. Most of the national ‘ big box’ retailers that
are still active and expanding are already present
C-14 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN, APPENDICES
in Bozeman-such as Costco, Walmart, Lowes,
Home Depot, Target, and Kohl’s. Thus, there are
few other store chains left that would expand
to Bozeman. Looking further out however, new
stores and concepts do appear in the market from
time to time, and Bozeman will be an attractive
location for them. However, we do not expect the
demand for these types of sites and properties to
increase substantially over the next 10 years.
It is likely that as Belgrade and other surrounding
communities grow, they will reach a large enough
size and support their own retail base at least
for community-serving retail (less so for regional
retail). Given that there is no sales tax in Montana
and therefore not a large fiscal benefit to siting
new retailers - and that Bozeman already has the
largest share of the regional retail market - retail
development and recruitment does not need to be
a priority for the City.
OFFICE SPACE
Gallatin County added over 1,600 jobs in
professional services since 2005, with at least 80
percent of that occurring in Bozeman. Similarly,
Bozeman accounted for 80 percent of the total
office construction in Bozeman, Belgrade, and
Four Corners combined. There is demand for
office space, but it is difficult for the market to
respond. The bulk of the market is small firms
looking for about 1,000 to 5,000 square feet.
Building large speculative office buildings is
therefore risky due to the large number of tenants
needed to fill a building. Building smaller buildings
is costlier as some costs decrease per square foot
with larger buildings.
Land and construction costs in Bozeman require
high rents (over $20.00 per square foot) to make
an office building financially feasible, which is high
for small local businesses.
INDUSTRIAL SPACE
Over past 16 years, the Greater Bozeman market
added 1.9 million square feet of industrial space.
Over half of this was in Belgrade and nearly 40
percent was in the Four Corners area. Bozeman
captured only 10 percent of the industrial market.
The land consumptive nature of many industrial
uses coupled with land values and development
costs dictate that Bozeman is no longer
competitive for many larger heavier industrial
uses.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 C-15
PHYSIOGRAPHY
GEOLOGY AND STRUCTURE
The Gallatin Valley is near the southern border
of the northern Rocky Mountains physiographic
province and is part of the Three Forks structural
basin. This structural basin is one of the high
intermountain basins that are characteristic of this
province.
The Three Forks structural basin was probably
formed in pre-Oligocene time. In the Oligocene
and Miocene time, there was either a continuation
of down-faulting along one or more of the basic
boundaries or a down warping of the basin. During
the formation of the basin, through-drainage
was interrupted and many hundreds of feet of
sediments, derived from the adjoining highlands
and from falling volcanic ash, were deposited
under lacustrine and terrestrial conditions. These
Tertiary strata constitute most of the valley fill.
Resumption of through-drainage in late Tertiary
time resulted in extensive erosion of these
materials. A mantle of alluvium was deposited in
much of the basin during Quaternary time.
The Bridger Range, a high linear mountain range
that bounds the Gallatin Valley on the east,
extends from Bridger Creek to the head of Dry
Creek. The mountains are composed of rocks
ranging in age from Precambrian to Cretaceous.
The Paleozoic and Mesozoic rocks strike north-
northwest, parallel to the axis of the range.
They dip steeply to the east and in places are
overturned to the east. Several high- angle thrust
faults transect the Bridger Range. Most of them
have an eastward trend. Normal faulting along the
west side of the Bridger Range is believed to have
elevated the range with respect to the valley.
Available subsurface information indicates that
a fault system exists along the front of both the
Bridger and Gallatin Ranges. The mountains of
the Gallatin Range are composed of Precambrian
gneiss and some infaulted blocks of Paleozoic
and Mesozoic rocks. The rocks are tightly folded
and severely crumpled in places; yet, a general
east-west trend is recognizable. The Gallatin River
Canyon separates the Madison Range on the west
from the Gallatin Range on the east. Structurally,
however, the two ranges are segments of the
same mountain unit. This unit bounds the Gallatin
Valley on the south.
The Tertiary strata in the Gallatin Valley form a
homocline that dips from one to five degrees in a
general direction of the Bridger Range.
HYDROLOGY
Bozeman and Gallatin County are crossed with
numerous creeks and irrigation canals. Most of the
creeks flow from the southeast to northwest to the
Gallatin River. Major creeks and rivers within the
planning area include:
• East Gallatin River, in the northeastern portion
of the City and planning area;
• Bozeman (Sourdough) Creek, flowing south to
north through the City and joining with Rocky
Creek to form the East Gallatin River. Bozeman
Creek has been channelized and rerouted into
a storm pipe as it flows through the center of
town;
• Nash Spring Creek, Matthew Bird, and Figgins
Creeks in the southern portion of the City of
Bozeman;
• Hyalite Creek, southwest of the City;
• Rocky Creek, flowing northwest along the
Interstate through the northeast sections
of the City of Bozeman, and joining with
Bozeman Creek to form the East Gallatin River;
• Bridger Creek, flowing west from Bridger
Canyon, into the East Gallatin River;
• Baxter Creek and Aajker Creek, flowing south
to north, through the western part of the City;
and
• East and West Catron Creeks, flowing south to
north, through the middle of the City.
Groundwater is another abundant resource in the
Gallatin Valley. Generally, groundwater is near
C-16 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN, APPENDICES
the surface, and flows from south to north to the
East Gallatin River. Locally high water tables of
less than ten feet below the surface are prevalent
throughout the valley. Groundwater aquifers are
recharged through many sources. Recharge is
received from infiltration from the many rivers,
streams, and irrigation ditches. In addition, faults
located along the mountain fronts aid in recharge
by distributing the rain and snow runoff along their
corridors.
The future quality and quantity of groundwater
is uncertain. Changes in agricultural irrigation
patterns in the Gallatin Valley, prolonged drought,
and increases in residential and landscaping
irrigation will all impact groundwater resources.
The quality of groundwater resources may also
be in jeopardy due to the proliferation of on-site
septic systems.
WEATHER AND CLIMATE
The weather and climate of the Bozeman area is
a significant factor to consider when planning for
park and recreation facilities and programs. The
weather impacts a wide-range of considerations
such as:
• The scheduling of warm verses cold weather
recreation programs
• Maintenance of park and recreational facilities,
which varies seasonally
• Installation of vegetation, new equipment,
parking lot improvements, etc.
• Provision of seasonal activities such as ice
skating/hockey and Nordic skiing in the winter
and outdoor swimming and tennis in the
summer
Bozeman is located at an elevation of 4,793 feet
above sea level. The average growing season is
107 days.
The MSU weather station recorded that 23.75
inches of precipitation fell during 2018 which was
5.08 inches above average and the eighth wettest
year on record.
SAND AND GRAVEL RESOURCES
Bozeman rests on an alluvial plain. As a
consequence, sand and gravel are widely
present within the planning area. Many areas
are not available for extraction due to other uses
covering the surface or the presence of significant
buried infrastructure. Relocating such uses or
infrastructure would not be financially feasible.
The majority of commercial sand or gravel
operations serving Bozeman are located outside
the planning area. The Montana Department of
Environmental Quality reviews and issues permits
for commercial sand and gravel mining. Removal
of gravel in order to create ponds or incidental to
other activities does not require a DEQ permit or
review.
Table A-1: Average Temperatures in Fahrenheit Scale by Month – 1892 through 2016
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Maximum Temperature 31.7 35.5 42.7 53.9 63.0 71.6 81.4 80.3 69.4 57.6 42.2 33.6 55.2
Minimum Temperature 12.0 15.3 21.4 30.4 38.4 45.2 51.1 49.5 41.2 32.9 22.2 14.5 31.2
Source: Montana State University station, Montana Climate Summaries, Western Regional Climate Center.
Table A-2: Average Precipitation in Inches by Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Total Precipitation 1892-2016 0.87 0.73 1.34 1.89 2.89 2.91 1.35 1.24 1.70 1.54 1.12 0.88 18.48
Total Snowfall 1948-2016 12.6 10.2 15.7 13.1 4.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.8 5.8 11.6 11.9 86.0
Snow Depth 1931-2016 5 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 2
Source: Montana State University station, Montana Climate Summaries, Western Regional Climate Center.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 C-17
Removal of sand and gravel can have substantial
impacts to groundwater, air quality, adjacent
owners, public streets, and other interests.
Establishment of new or expanded extraction
operations should be carefully reviewed and
adequate mitigation provided for identified
negative impacts.
SOCIOECONOMICS
Bozeman has five economic segments that make
it unique and create both opportunities and
challenges.
HIGHER EDUCATION
Montana State University is one of the primary
economic anchors in the City of Bozeman. In 2016,
the University had a student headcount of 16,440.
Since 2009, the rate of growth in the number of
students grew at just under four percent per year,
which is significantly higher than the historical
growth rate since 1990, which was closer to
one percent per year. While this rate of growth
may not be maintained over the long-term, the
University will continue to be a major driver in
the local economy. The University also employs
roughly 3,100 employees and has $514 million in
annual operations spending. The vast majority of
operations spending is paid to employees and
Montana vendors.
TOURISM AND RECREATION
Tourism and recreation continue to be a major
driver in Bozeman and Montana. The Bozeman
area benefits from its proximity to some of the
State’s most beautiful natural amenities, such as
hiking trails and rivers and streams that are often
used for fishing and rafting, as well as its proximity
to Yellowstone National Park and two popular
ski areas: Bridger Bowl and Big Sky. During the
summer months, Yellowstone National Park is
the top destination for nonresident visitors in
Montana, many of whom pass through or spend
time in Bozeman. Since 2000, park visitation
has increased at approximately 2.6% per year
or roughly by 89,000 visitors per year. Walking
around Downtown Bozeman one often hears
foreign, mostly European, languages being
spoken indicating the global draw of the region.
HEALTHCARE
The Health Care sector is one of the largest
employers in Bozeman and Gallatin County and is
a significant contributor to the regional economy.
Bozeman Health, which is composed of two
hospitals (one in Bozeman), several treatment
centers and urgent care centers, and retirement
and assisted living facilities, is one of the primary
drivers of the regional health care sector. In
addition, there are many smaller local technology
firms that are part of the health care field and
contribute to economic growth in the region.
TECHNOLOGY
Bozeman continues to be a hub for technological
companies that are both started in or moved
into Montana. The city includes a diverse set
of technology companies that range from
software and hardware companies to optics
and photonics firms. The presence of larger
and more established firms, such as Oracle,
and the influence of Montana State University
creates a business environment that is strongly
entrepreneurial.
REGIONAL TRADE CENTER
Bozeman is a regional trade and service center in
Southwest Montana. Bozeman’s retail, services,
and healthcare businesses serve a trade area
of approximately 150 miles or more. Serving this
large of a trade area has increased the amount
of retail that Bozeman can support. The influx of
visitors has helped the community diversify the
retail and food and beverage mix and strengthen
downtown through the additional injection of
spending in addition to the local and regional
population.
C-18 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN, APPENDICES
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 D-1
PROJECTIONS REPORT
This Appendix includes projected trends for the community for the life of the Growth Policy. The
following information can be primarily found in the 2018 Demographic and Real Estate Market
Assessment developed by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS).
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
If current trends continue even at a more moderate pace, Gallatin County will grow by nearly 55, 000
people from 2017 through 2045 with about half of the growth likely to occur in the City of Bozeman.
Job growth will drive most of population growth, and 42,000 new jobs are projected over this time
period. Projected job growth is 1,500 jobs per year over the roughly 25- year projection tapering from
1, 700 jobs per year in the near term down to 1, 300 per year in the outer years of the projection. To
support the projected job growth in all of Gallatin County, a population increase of nearly 55,000 is
D-2 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN, APPENDICES
required or almost 2,000 people per year at an
annual rate of 1.52 percent. This is a lower rate
than has been experienced in the recent past.
From 2000 through 2016, Gallatin County added
an average of 2,200 people each year. This
period included a severe national recession which
limited job creation. If job creation is higher than
projected then population will likewise increase.
As a municipality, Bozeman has the tools to
provide water and sewer service at the City scale.
Smaller districts in the unincorporated County do
not have the same financial resources to provide
these services which will limit the amount of
growth that occurs in unincorporated areas.
HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL BUILDING SPACE PROJECTIONS
Bozeman has consistently accounted for about
half of the population and housing growth in
Gallatin County, and the projections in this report
assume that this trend continues. Bozeman is also
expected to continue to account for a large share
of the retail, office, major employer, and hospitality
markets going forward.
With Bozeman capturing approximately half of
the countywide housing demand, this projection
estimates demand for 12,700 new homes in
Bozeman over the 2017 through 2045 time period.
On an annual basis, construction is projected at
approximately 450 homes per year on average
compared to 600 homes per year over the past 10
years. Actual residential construction in the period
since the projection exceeded even the 600
home per year rate. An affordable housing needs
assessment prepared in 2018 found a deficiency
of 728 dwellings to meet existing demand and
support a healthy housing market. The 2010
US Census found that one-third of housing in
Bozeman was occupied by an individual resident.
Most homes are capable of servicing more than
an individual person. Personal choices in housing
occupancy affect the type and number of homes
necessary in the future.
Nonresidential construction demand in Bozeman
is projected to be 6.3 million square feet from
2017 through 2045. For office development,
Bozeman is projected to maintain its current
market share of 80 percent of the Gallatin County
office market totaling 1.7 million square feet from
during this time. The estimated share of the
industrial and warehousing market is lower, at 10
percent based on the higher land costs in the city
and the growth in industrial space in Four Corners,
Belgrade, and Manhattan. Industrial demand in
Bozeman is estimated at nearly 500,000 square
feet for the planning projection period. In the
retail, restaurant, and hotel markets, Bozeman is
expected to continue to be a major regional trade
and services hub for Southwest Montana, and
capture 70 percent of the retail market countywide
with 1.4 million square feet of retail demand
projected. Likewise, for government, education,
and health care, Bozeman is projected to capture
75 percent of the demand in these sectors.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 D-3
LAND DEMAND PROJECTIONS
Projected land demand for the 2017 to 2045 time
period ranges from 3,820 to 5,716 acres, with
housing demand being the primary driver of land
demand. Residential development formats will
have the most influence on the form of the city
and the amount of land needed to meet market
demand.
Not including the existing deficiency in homes,
the baseline projection of land demand projects
residential land demand at 3,100 acres on current
estimated development densities (units per acre)
ranging from 3.0 units per acre (gross density
including right of way and public spaces) for single
household detached units to 20 units per acre on
average for multifamily development. Three units
per acre for single household detached homes is
an average net lot size of 7,100 square feet (0.16
ac.). A more compact development scenario was
also prepared with higher residential densities;
single household detached homes are assumed
to be 5.0 units per acre gross density which
translates to an average lot size of 4,300 square
feet. The compact scenario projects residential
land demand at 1,800 acres. In all cases, a 50
percent planning adjustment is added to allow for
healthy market competition and land use planning
flexibility. Residential land demand comprises 70
to 80 percent of total land demand in the higher
density and lower density scenarios, respectively.
Over the projection period, non-residential land
demand is estimated at approximately 500 acres,
or 18 acres per year. Commercial development
densities were held constant as they will be
dependent on market preferences for surface
parking-which is costly to develop. On average,
commercial rents and values do not make
structured parking financially feasible in Bozeman.
Some high value areas such as Downtown and
around major employers could support structured
parking that will allow for higher commercial
development densities. Additional access
using good bicycle and pedestrian facilities
can also reduce parking demand. The 0.30
FAR assumption for office space is still higher
than typical suburban densities and reflects the
influence of high land costs in Bozeman.
After adjusting for planning flexibility and market
competition, the baseline scenario totals to 3,900
acres of land and the higher density scenario
totals to 2,600 acres. In both cases, residential
land demand comprises 70 to 80 percent of the
total land demand, highlighting the importance of
housing on the physical form of a community.
Very roughly, these acreages translate to
about 4 to 6 sections of land area (4 to 6
square miles) assuming that all development
was on undeveloped land. There are however
opportunities in Bozeman to fill in existing
undeveloped enclaves (land surrounded or nearly
surrounded by incorporated Bozeman that has
not been annexed), or to redevelop areas not
constructed to their full potential such as along
N. 7th Avenue. Infill and redevelopment will
reduce the amount of new land that is consumed
by growth. In particular, The Midtown (North 7th
corridor) has several large properties that can
support a large amount of additional housing
and employment. Infill and redevelopment in that
type of setting has the most potential to affect net
land demand. In other cases where, for example,
one housing unit is replaced by only one or two
units, there is much less of an impact on net land
consumption.
The amount of land available for infill development
can be estimated, but it is uncertain as to how
much land will actually be redeveloped as it varies
widely according to the economic conditions (e.g.
existing profitable businesses) of each individual
property and the desires of individual property
owners. The 2018 annual land use inventory
prepared by the City found that approximately 6%
of the City is vacant property. Vacant property is
land ready for development but currently has no
structures. Approximately 11.7% of the City area is
undeveloped meaning it has been annexed but is
not subdivided and is not ready for construction
of structures. Infill tends to be more intensive in
use than development on the edge of the City.
However, there is much less area available for it. It
is estimated that 10-15% of new construction in the
next 20 years may be located within infill areas.
D-4 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN, APPENDICES
LOCAL SERVICES PROJECTIONS
The demand for local services is analyzed in the various facility plans such as fire, transportation, water,
and sewer. The future service demand and other information in those plans, as may be updated from
time to time, is available and meets any state law requirements for such information.
NATURAL RESOURCES PROJECTIONS
The natural setting of Bozeman is one of its greatest assets. Many people enjoy the outdoors as
reflected in Theme 3 of the Plan. As an example, it is estimated that up to 50,000 people per month visit
Hyalite Canyon south of town during the summer. In town trails see heavy use as well year round.
Use of natural resources is expected to increase as the population increases. Demand for water is
described in the various water plans prepared by the City. The City strives to minimize demand for
natural resources by efficient operations of its utilities and other functions. Per person water use in
Bozeman has decreased over time due to higher efficiency standards and active maintenance.
The City is crossed by many watercourses and wetlands are also present. The City has adopted
regulations to limit impact on both. No changes in numbers of water courses are expected. Wetlands
may be modified as allowed by federal wetland standards. The City strives to have any wetland
mitigation resulting from wetland modification located within the Gallatin Valley.
There are no known forestry, commercial mining, or mineral resources known within the planning area.
Therefore, there are no expected changes to these natural resources.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 E-1
76-1-601(4) (C) INFRASTRUCTURE
PLAN
Section 76-1-601(4)(c), MC authorizes a growth policy to include an infrastructure plan to consider
how and where infrastructure may be provided, coordinate with adjacent communities, and consider
impacts and mitigation of impacts of infrastructure extension. The following table outlines the required
information and where the required information in provided.
E-2 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN, APPENDICES
(4) A growth policy may:
(c) establish an infrastructure plan that, at a
minimum, includes:
(i) projections, in maps and text, of the
jurisdiction's growth in population and number of
residential, commercial, and industrial units over
the next 20 years;
Appendix D – Projections report
(ii) for a city, a determination regarding if and how
much of the city's growth is likely to take place
outside of the city's existing jurisdictional area over
the next 20 years and a plan of how the city will
coordinate infrastructure planning with the county
or counties where growth is likely to take place;
Chapter 3, Appendices B and D
(iii) for a county, a plan of how the county will
coordinate infrastructure planning with each
of the cities that project growth outside of city
boundaries and into the county's jurisdictional
area over the next 20 years;
Not applicable to the City
(iv) for cities, a land use map showing where
projected growth will be guided and at what
densities within city boundaries;
Ch 3 – Future Land Use
(v) for cities and counties, a land use map that
designates infrastructure planning areas adjacent
to cities showing where projected growth will be
guided and at what densities;
Ch 3 – Future Land Use, Appendix B -
(vi) using maps and text, a description of existing
and future public facilities necessary to efficiently
serve projected development and densities
within infrastructure planning areas, including,
whenever feasible, extending interconnected
municipal street networks, sidewalks, trail systems,
public transit facilities, and other municipal public
facilities throughout the infrastructure planning
area. For the purposes of this subsection (4)(c)
(vi), public facilities include but are not limited
to drinking water treatment and distribution
facilities, sewer systems, wastewater treatment
facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, parks and
open space, schools, public access areas, roads,
highways, bridges, and facilities for fire protection,
law enforcement, and emergency services;
Appendices B and C addresses the majority of these
subjects. The City does not control placement of public
schools. The City does work with School District 7 on
annexation and site design of properties to provide
school services. The City’s facility plans address density of
development in determining future pipe and road sizing.
The municipal standards are expected to be adequate
to service any future school building. School District 7’s
service area is much larger than the City of Bozeman.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 E-3
(vii) a description of proposed land use
management techniques and incentives that will
be adopted to promote development within cities
and in an infrastructure planning area, including
land use management techniques and incentives
that address issues of housing affordability;
Appendix B – infrastructure report, cross references to
main document. The City requires annexation prior to
extension of services. This ensures that new development
is under a cohesive and comprehensive development
review program. These include both subdivision and
zoning based development review addressing all
identified purposes in 76-1-102, 76-2-301 and 304,
and 76-3-101, MCA. The City’s development standards
support affordable housing and urban scale development
by facilitating intensity of land use and efficiency of
infrastructure. The City provides financial support in
various ways for affordable housing.
(viii) a description of how and where projected
development inside municipal boundaries for
cities and inside designated joint infrastructure
planning areas for cities and counties could
adversely impact:
(A) threatened or endangered wildlife and critical
wildlife habitat and corridors;
There are no known threatened or endangered wildlife or
habitat within the planning area. Application materials for
subdivision or zoning development requires identification
of wildlife habitat in the area to be developed. Effects and
necessary mitigation can then be identified and required
during the review.The City has adopted standards to
protect watercourse corridors and wetlands.
(B) water available to agricultural water users
and facilities;
Transitions from agricultural to other uses may affect
agricultural water user facilities. The City has adopted
standards applicable both with subdivision and zoning
authorized changes in land use to protect water user
facilities. The standards require coordination and contact
with water facility owners and protection of facilities.
Water sources primarily arise outside of the planning area.
(C) the ability of public facilities, including
schools, to safely and efficiently service current
residents and future growth;
The City’s facility plans, summarized in Appendix B,
demonstrate the City’s plans and ability to serve current
users and future growth. School District 7 has their
own facility plans and they indicate they are capable of
providing services as growth continues.
(D) a local government's ability to provide
adequate local services, including but not limited
to emergency, fire, and police protection;
The City’s facility plans, summarized in Appendix B,
demonstrate the City’s plans and ability to serve current
users and future growth. City voters approved a bond in
2019 to build a new public safety center which will provide
municipal courts, police, and fire facilities.
(E) the safety of people and property due to
threats to public health and safety, including but
not limited to wildfire, flooding, erosion, water
pollution, hazardous wildlife interactions, and
traffic hazards;
The City’s adopted development standards require
development to stay out of designated floodplains,
control stormwater runoff and erosion, and provide
for a multifunction transportation system that protects
safety of the traveler. The City’s development standards
require multiple access points, adequate water flow for
firefighting, and separation of buildings to lessen potential
impacts from fire and wildfire. The City applies the state
adopted building codes which address fire resistance
and suppression. The City’s water and sewer services are
subject to intensive monitoring to ensure that citizens are
not exposed to water pollution.
(F) natural resources, including but not limited to
forest lands, mineral resources, sand and gravel
resources, streams, rivers, lakes, wetlands, and
ground water; and
The City has setback and other standards adopted to
protect streams, wetlands, and rivers from pollution,
encroachment, and streambank disruption. There are
no commercially viable forest lands within the planning
area. There are no known mineral resources other than
possible gravel within the planning area. There are no
functioning gravel mining operations that would be
negatively affected by the planned growth depicted in
chapter 3.
G) agricultural lands and agricultural production;
and
Bozeman is located in an area with good soils for
agriculture. Agricultural industries are disrupted when
land coverts to either suburban or urban purposes.
Substantial portions of the planning area outside of
the City limits have been converted from functional
agricultural operations to hobby or non-agriculture uses.
Loss of small scale farms is a national trend.
(ix) a description of measures, including land use
management techniques and incentives, that
will be adopted to avoid, significantly reduce, or
mitigate the adverse impacts identified under
subsection (4)(c)(viii).
The City has robust standards for land development.
Intensive development is allowed with provision for
adequate services to new users. The municipal codes,
design standards, and topic plans as described in
Appendix B, ensure that mitigation of negative impacts
is provided or impacts are avoided all together.
Development at true urban intensities is less land
consumptive than suburban or rural residential uses and
therefore displaces less agriculture.
Detailed standards are in Chapters 2, 16, 18, 26, 32, 34,
38, 40, and 42.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 F-1
GLOSSARY
These terms are defined to help the reader understand what the terms mean when used in this plan.
If terms are not defined here they may be defined in an adopted topic plan. If not, they have standard
dictionary meanings.
Bozeman Planning Area. See Figure 3-1.
Compatible Development. The use of land and the construction and use of structures which is in harmony with adjoining development, existing neighborhoods, and the goals and objectives of this plan. Elements of compatible development include, but are not limited to: variety of architectural design; rhythm; scale; intensity; materials; building siting; lot and building size; hours of operation; and integration with existing community systems including water and sewer services, natural elements in the area, motorized and non-motorized transportation, and open spaces and parks. Compatible development does not require uniformity or monotony of architectural or site design.
F-2 CITY OF BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN
Compatible Land Use. A land use which may by virtue of the characteristics of its discernible outward effects, exist in harmony with an adjoining land use of differing character. Effects often measured to determine compatibility include, but are not limited to, noise, odor, light, and the presence of physical hazards such as combustible or explosive materials.
Connectivity. The degree to which roads and paths are connected and allow for direct travel between destinations.
Density. For residential areas, the number of homes per net acre
of land. For non-residential areas, by floor area ratio: the number
of square feet of building area per net acre of land.
Downtown. The area subject to the Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan and generally bounded by Broadway Avenue, Lamme Street, 5th Avenue, and Olive Street. An area of mixed uses, Downtown is generally characterized by historic architecture and is principally commercial in character.
Goal. A statement of general purpose or intent relating to a defined topic. A goal generally seeks an improvement in the status of a subject under the heading of a theme.
Growth. An increase in Bozeman’s population and/or area. The increase may be the result of natural population growth through births exceeding deaths, in-migration, or annexation.
Growth rate. A measure over time of the increase or decrease in
City population compared to the City’s population at a specified
date. Growth rates are usually expressed as a percentage and
applied to time increments of one, five, or ten years.
Health. A state of physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. Health is a resource for everyday life, not the objective of living. Health is a positive concept emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical capacities.
Human Scale. The proportional relationship of a particular building, structure, or streetscape element to the human form and function. Human scale does not prohibit multistory structures.
Infill. The development or redevelopment of vacant, abandoned,
or under-utilized properties within developed areas of the City,
and where water, sewer, streets, and fire protection have already
been developed and are provided. Infill is located within land
subdivided for at least 35 years.
Mitigate/Mitigation. Measures required or taken to avoid, minimize, compensate for, or offset definable negative impacts of development on the environment, public facilities and services, or other issues of community concern defined by ordinance.
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.
Net acres. The area of land measured in acres, minus any dedications to the public, such as public or private streets and parks.
Objective. A more specific statement than a goal which seeks
to advance the intent of a goal. Objectives bridge the distance
between goals which are general in nature and policies which call
for a specified and distinct action to be accomplished. An example
is: “Support and encourage creative site development design.”
Open Space. Land and water areas retained for use as active or passive recreation areas, agriculture, or resource protection in an essentially undeveloped state.
Pedestrian Oriented. Development designed with an emphasis on pedestrian safety, convenience and accessibility that is equal to or greater than the emphasis given to automotive access and convenience.
Policy. A definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions.
Sprawl. A pattern of development generally characterized by a
combination of:
• low population density,
• forced reliance on individual automotive transportation,
• distribution of land uses which require driving in order to satisfy basic needs,
• and development which leaves large undeveloped areas
surrounded by development.
Topic Plan. A formal plan prepared for a specific physical resource or function of the City which examines the current state, future needs, and recommended means of meeting identified future needs. Examples of topic plans are the Wastewater Facility Plan, Affordable Housing Action Plan, and the Transportation Plan.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW DRAFT, 12 DECEMBER 2019 F-3
Walkable. A walkable area has:
• A center, whether it’s a main street or a public space.
• People: Enough people for businesses to flourish and for public transit to run frequently.
• Parks and public space: Functional and pleasant public places to gather and play.
• Pedestrian design: Buildings are close to the street, parking lots are relegated to the back.
• Schools and workplaces: Close enough that walking to and from home to these destinations is realistic.
• Complete streets: Streets designed for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit.