HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-19 Public Comment - Groundprint growth policy
October 23, 2019
Bozeman Planning Board
c/o Community Development Department
via email trogers@bozeman.net & csaunders@bozeman.net
RE: Bozeman Community Plan Future Land Use Classifications
Please consider the following comments and suggestions regarding the October 17, 2019 draft language
for the future land use classifications in the update to the Bozeman Community Plan.
1. Urban Residential – The days of needing to physically separate land uses are long
gone. To support walkability, which improves health, equity and climate change, single
use categories should be completely eliminated in our growth policy. This category
should be renamed “Urban Neighborhood” and should note that small commercial
uses like the corner store are encouraged. The Correlation Table should be revised to
allow B-1 zoning in this category. Perhaps more geographical options in more than one
land use category will generate more successful neighborhood commercial nodes.
2. Residential Emphasis Mixed Use – This category should be renamed “Residential
Mixed Use” or something else to distinguish it from the zoning designation with the
same use. As a consultant, it is very confusing to explain why two totally different
things have the exact same name. The language in this category generally allows small
detached single-unit dwellings and prohibits single-story commercial. Details of the
specific language has been interpreted different ways by Staff and elected officials and
should be revised for clarity. This category can be implemented at different scales. The
Correlation Table should be revised to continue to allow R-3 zoning in this land use
category.
3. Commercial Emphasis Mixed Use (CEMU) – The growth policy, as a high-level
document, should avoid creating new acronyms. Leave the acronyms to zoning. Across
all land use categories, the growth policy needs to be clear about supporting
residential uses on all upper floors. The current language states: “Residences on upper
floors in appropriate circumstances are allowed.” With a severe housing shortage in
our city, residences should always at least be considered on upper floors. Please
consider the following consistent language across all applicable categories:
“Residences on upper floors are strongly encouraged.” This will go much farther
toward solutions than simply noting in the plan that affordable housing is a problem.
4. Regional Commercial and Services – Consider either combining or more clearly
distinguishing this classification from the Commercial Emphasis Mixed Use category.
Do we really need both? Again, the language related to residential uses on upper floors
is flawed: “Residential space should not be a primary use and should only be included
as an accessory use above the first floor.” If a large-scale commercial use wants to
include several levels of residential development on second or subsequent floors, that
would be great to help with our housing needs. The use of words “not be a primary
use” and “accessory” in the proposed language could be interpreted to mean that less
than 50% of the overall floor area of a building which would prohibit multiple floors of
residential and decrease the financial viability of doing any residential above
commercial. Simplifying the language to: “Residences on upper floors are strongly
encouraged” would fix this conflicting language and would support the goal of
increasing our community’s overall supply of housing without decreasing street-level
activity. More residential above commercial would actually increase the street-level
activity.
5. Industrial – Again, a growth policy should not dictate land uses. Many industrial uses
can support residential uses on upper floors. This needs to be added to the description.
See recommended language in comments above. The zoning designations of M-1 and
M-2 distinguish if residential uses are allowed or not. A growth policy should stay
higher level when talking about land uses. This is especially important if we move more
toward a form-based code in the future.
Thank you for your work and for the opportunity to participate. I look forward to reviewing the land use
maps in more detail once they are available on the interactive GIS.
Sincerely,
Susan Riggs, AICP