HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-20-20 City Commission Packet Materials - WS1. Bozeman Community Plan 2020
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Mayor and City Commission FROM: Chris Saunders, Community Development Manager Marty Matsen, Director of Community Development
SUBJECT: Bozeman Community Plan 2020 - Project Location: The proposed growth policy applies to the entire City and its defined planning area, Application 16521 Continued review of a new growth policy to entirely replace the existing growth policy. A growth policy documents community values, establishes goals, and translates those to planning for locations and nature of
future land development. The adopted growth policy guides development of regulations,
annexation, infrastructure installation and funding, and budget priorities. No final action will be taken at this hearing, direction for revisions to the draft document may be given.
MEETING DATE: October 20, 2020
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action
RECOMMENDATION: Continue public hearing, receive public comment, consider packet materials and provide direction to Staff regarding amendments to the draft Bozeman Community Plan 2020.
STRATEGIC PLAN: 4.1.A Adopt a new growth policy based on sustainable growth principles.
SUGGESTED MOTION: Motions as appropriate to direct amendments (I move to amend the draft Bozeman Community Plan 2020 by …).
BACKGROUND: The City Commission held its first public hearing on an update to the growth
policy on October 6, 2020. The next meeting will be on October 20th. This memo transmits additional information, responses to Commission questions and potential amendments, and responses to public questions including from the October 6th public hearing.
Chapter 4 Implementation, Indicators. This issue is addressed in the attached memo. Planning
and Strategic Services staff will present this material and respond to questions. Direction on possible changes and implementation is requested Commission proposed amendments. This issue is address in the attached memo. Staff has
identified existing text that may address the same material as a proposed amendment, possible locations of where a proposed amendment may be located in the text, and discussion of alternative options for amendments. Public comments and questions. This issue is addressed here and in the attached memo. Public
comment has been received throughout the plan development process and had a strong influence
277
on the recommendations of the Planning Board. Public comment has been archived as received
with the City Clerk. Comments are grouped by year: 2018, 2019, and 2020.
All comments received on or prior to the Planning Board finalizing their recommendation on August 10, 2020 were considered by the Planning Board. Where the Planning Board considered appropriate the draft was revised in response to the comments. After the Planning Board completed
its work, comments received were added to the 2020 folder for review by the City Commission.
As of the writing of this memo, 22 comments have been received and archived for review by the City Commission. If the City Commission review continues into 2021, the City Clerk with create a new file for that calendar year.
Future Schedule
Based upon directed amendments, the Staff will prepare a revised draft of the growth policy for consideration in conjunction with a resolution of adoption. Date for the action will be set following the Commission direction on October 20th.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES: As identified in the staff report.
ALTERNATIVES: 1) Give direction to staff for amendments and set a date for final action. 2) Give direction to staff for amendments and continue to a date certain for further
discussion.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Adoption of the growth policy will directly not use budgeted funds. Depending on the nature and pace of implementation directed by the City Commission additional funding may be requested.
Attachments: Memo re Chapter 4 Implementation, Indicators
Memo re Commission suggested amendments
Staff recommended revisions
Memo re Public comments and questions.
Updated 2020 Vacant and Undeveloped Land Map with tabular data 36x36
Future Land Use Map with Streams Overlay 36x36
Updated growth policy context map 36x36
October 6, 2020 packet materials as follows: Staff report
Planning Board Resolution 20-1
Planning Board Resolution 20-1 Appendix A
Table showing where each required element has been met in the growth policy
2019 Vacant property map
City limits map as of 9/28/2020
Proposed growth policy main text
Proposed growth policy supporting appendices
Proposed future land use map
278
Growth policy update context map
2018 report by Economic Planning Systems
Report compiled on: 9/9/2020
279
TO: BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION
FROM: TOM ROGERS, SENIOR PLANNER
CHRIS SAUNDERS, PLANNING MANAGER JON HENDERSON, STRATEGIC SERVICES DIRECTOR
RE: IMPLEMENTATION OF INDICATORS PER PLANNING BOARD DRAFT OF THE BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN 2020
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2020
The Bozeman Community Plan 2020 (BCP), Chapter 4 Implementation, proposes establishment of numeric indicators to measure community change and outcomes in implementing policies of the
BCP. See beginning on page 52. Indicators are grouped by Chapter 2, Themes. Prior growth policies did not include specific indicators. The Bozeman Strategic Plan, Item 7.4 Performance Metrics, likewise directs the establishment of metrics for municipal services. The Department of Strategic Services has been designated as the
lead agency for this city-wide metric work. The metric development process is actively underway both for the growth policy and the city-wide efforts. Jon Henderson, Director of Strategic Services, participated in several discussions with the Planning Board (Board) as they discussed and developed the proposed indicators. The Board considered a
large number of indicators, consolidated, discarded, and finalized the list included in Chapter 4. Points of discussion included how many indicators were appropriate for each Theme, whether the data was tracked elsewhere, difficulty of data collection and upkeep, effectiveness of an indicator in reflecting the associated issue, how much control the City had on the issue and indicator, and whether and how to set a specific target for the indicator or whether to simply rely on indicator
trends. Effective metrics include the following characteristics:
• Goal oriented with established targets
• Clear message with meaningful outcomes
• Defensible source with manageable updates
• Cross-functional purpose
The Board recognized that the development of indicators is a large process. Staff recommended that before committing to fully developing the method and means of each indicator the City Commission should agree with the general structure and intent of proposed indicators. As noted, the metric development process for the city as a whole is underway. Planning and Strategic Services
staff have continued to consider and evaluate the suggested indicators. Attached to this memo is a
summary of the proposed indicators with notations as to:
• The level of difficulty in developing and maintaining the proposed metric
280
• Whether the data is already tracked by the City of Bozeman
• Whether the indicator connects to another City planning document
• Whether baseline data for the indicator is complete Many indicators have extensive nuances in how they can be calculated. If the indicator is dependent
on another agency then we are accepting that agency’s determination on whether or how to address
the nuances. Some indicators the City applies may be relevant but the City may have little direct control over the outcome as a whole. This does not mean that the indicator is not of value but does affect how actions to influence any adopted target may be taken and how effective they may be. There is an inherent degree of subjectivity in identifying which indicators best reflect the priorities
of the City and the fit of targets to intentions for change. The City is heavily dependent on other
actors in the community in carrying out the intentions of the BCP and seeing the changes tracked by the indicators. It is essential to recognize these interdependencies in considering whether policies and the indicators themselves are working as intended.
For example, Walk Score is an indicator under City of Neighborhoods theme. Walk Score is a
publicly available indicator provided by WalkScore.com. It evaluates availability of bike, transit, and walking access from housing to services. It is a quick and inexpensive means to consider relationship of housing and how accessible services are by various travel modes. It is applicable to community goals for neighborhood character and mobility; and relates to the Climate Action Plan
now under development.
The City does not control any of the proprietary methodology used by WalkScore to calculate a result. The City can work to ensure accurate information is available to use in the calculations. The City can by its policies influence the built environment such as degree of walking and street
connections, distribution of housing, parks, and services. However, the City does not build the
dining, education, and other services used in the calculations. Deciding to implement indicators is an important element of the Commission review of this draft growth policy. This is a new effort and will require additional staff and financial resources to
complete. State law does not require the City to include indicators as part of the growth policy.
Should the City Commission not find adequate benefit from the indicators an amendment should be made to strike them from the plan document and adjust the associated text as necessary. Should the City Commission determine that indicators will provide enough benefit to justify the effort to
establish and maintain them to measure outcomes of BCP implementation Staff recommends the
following three step process: 1. City Commission to decide to keep all of the suggested indicators, to add indicators, or to remove indicators from the Planning Board suggestions.
2. Based on direction given, Staff will identify required methodologies, establish baseline
information, and estimate the level of effort needed to maintain and repeat the indicator. City Commission will review Staff findings and make a final determination to proceed or not with some or all of the indicators. This step would be completed in parallel with BCP
281
adoption and is the focus of this memo. Strategic Services is continuing this work at this time.
3. Based on final direction given, Staff will prepare recommendations for a specific target as
appropriate for each indicator. Staff will develop a recommendation, coordinate review of recommendations with any applicable advisory board, and present recommendations to the City Commission for final determination within six months of BCP adoption as suggested on page 52 of the BCP. Commitment to this work in this time frame will affect available resources for other BCP implementation work. After the first year, an annual report on the
status of each indicator will be provided to the community, including real-time dashboards where possible.
A supplemented table addressing implementation status for the indicators is attached to this memo.
After further consideration of the draft plan, staff suggests three revisions to the Indicators table beginning on Page 53.
1. Page 53, add US Census and ACS to source data list for Housing Stock Diversity metric.
2. Page 54, add “Measures private sector performance” to the notes for Percent of Application Materials Containing All Information Needed indicator. This reflects the stated intent of the Planning Board in establishing this indicator.
3. Page 54, Staff suggests dropping the indicator on implementing the Triangle Community
Plan. Unlike the other indicators it does not lend itself to a numeric measure or target, does not have a repeatable data source, and most of the Triangle Community Plan area is outside of the City’s control. Objective RC-1.5 remains to ensure that the need for the effort is not forgotten. At this time, the Parks Department is working with others to support Gallatin County’s efforts in the development of a trails plan for the Triangle area.
282
ThemeIndicatorSourceFrequencyNotesTargetLevel of Difficulty(to develop metric)CurrentlyTrackedRelated Plan201820192020UpdateBaselineCompleteQualitative City MeasuresCommunity Perception of CityPerformanceCitizen Satisfaction SurveyAnnualIntent to capture citizen quality of lifemeasures such as ICMA National CitizenSurveyMaintain or IncreaseA City of NeighborhoodsHousing Cost BurdenCensus American Community Survey(ACS)AnnualPercentage of households spending morethan 30% of income on housing costsLower2019 Community HousingAction Plan, 2009 EconomicDevelopment Plan55%06/10/20A City of NeighborhoodsHousing Stock DiversityState of Montana Department ofRevenue, Montana Listing ServiceAnnualType, Square footage, number of bedrooms,and number of baths, normalized by taxablemarket value, medium listing and sellingprice, days on marketMaintain or Increase2019 Community HousingAction PlanSee Housing StockDiversity AnalysisA City of NeighborhoodsIntersection DensityCity of Bozeman GIS DivisionAnnualTrail networks may be considered in additionto roadwaysMaintain or IncreaseA City of NeighborhoodsPopulation DensityUS CensusAnnualIncrease2397 persons persquare mile2419 persons persquare mile12/31/19A City of NeighborhoodsResidential DensityState of Montana Department ofRevenueReal-Time dataanalyzed andpublished annuallyGross dwelling units per acre of residentially-zoned and developed land by zoning districtIncrease2019 Community HousingAction PlanSee ResidentialDensity AnalysisMedian LU/AcreNumbersA City of NeighborhoodsWalk ScoreWalk Score.comAnnualAbility to meet basic needs within walkingdistanceIncrease4808/05/20A City Bolstered byDowntown andComplementary DistrictsCommute Mode ShareCensus American Community Survey(ACS)AnnualFocus on walking and bikingIncrease2015 Transportation MasterPlan08/28/20A City Bolstered byDowntown andComplementary DistrictsLocation of DevelopmentCity of Bozeman CommunityDevelopment DepartmentReal-Time dataanalyzed andpublished annuallyDevelopment within subdivisions plattedmore than and less than 35 years agoIncreaseRedevelopmentSee Development vs.RedevelopmentAnalysisA City Bolstered byDowntown andComplementary DistrictsResidential UnitsCity of Bozeman Building DivisionReal-Time dataanalyzed andpublished annuallyNumber of residential units added comparedto overall job growth (district vs. Citywide)Increase2019 Community HousingAction PlanA City Influenced by OurNatural Environment, Parks,and Open LandsAir QualityCity of Bozeman Sustainability DivisionTo be determinedClimate Action Plan coordination - efficientland use patterns and constuctionMaintainA City Influenced by OurNatural Environment, Parks,and Open LandsGreenhouse Gas Emissions Per CapitaCity of Bozeman Sustainability DivisionAnnualClimate Action Plan coordination - efficientland use patterns and constructionReduce2020 Climate Plan, 2009Economic Development Plan607,139 MT CO2e09/17/20A City Influenced by OurNatural Environment, Parks,and Open LandsPark AccessibilityCity of Bozeman GIS DivisionReal-TimePercentage of residents/households within1/2 mile walking to open space or trailsIncrease2007 PROST PlanA City Influenced by OurNatural Environment, Parks,and Open LandsVehicle Miles TraveledMontana Department of TransportationAnnualPer capitaReduce2020 Climate Plan, 2015Transportation Master PlanA City that PrioritizesAccessibility and MobilityChoicesBike AccessibilityCity of Bozeman GIS DivisionAnnualPercent of jobs and residents within 1/2 mileof an all ages and abilities (AAA) route.AAA/LTS 1: protected facility or low speed,low volume road, e.g. buffered bike lane,cycle track, bicycle boulevardIncrease2015 Transportation MasterPlanA City that PrioritizesAccessibility and MobilityChoicesBike and Pedestrian SafetyNational Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration-Fatality AnalysisReporting System (FARS)AnnualAnnual fatal and severe injuriesDecrease2015 Transportation MasterPlan09/24/20A City that PrioritizesAccessibility and MobilityChoicesTransit AccessibilityStreamlineBi-AnnualIncrease ridershipIncrease2015 Transportation MasterPlan283,714 riders peryear281,300 riders per year10/07/20A City that PrioritizesAccessibility and MobilityChoicesTraffic SafetyNational Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration-Fatality AnalysisReporting System (FARS)AnnualAnnual fatal and severe injuriesDecrease2015 Transportation MasterPlan0 Fatalities, 9 severeinjuries09/24/20A City Powered by itsCreative, Innovative, andEntrepreneurial EconomyLand Use AvailabilityCity of Bozeman CommunityDevelopment DepartmentMonthly data analyzedand published annuallyAvailability of land not for economic activitybased on annual land use inventoryMaintainUtility Master Plan(s)A City Powered by itsCreative, Innovative, andEntrepreneurial EconomyPercent of Application SubmittalsContaining All Information NeededCity of Bozeman CommunityDevelopment DepartmentAnnualMeasures private sector performanceIncreaseA City Engaged in RegionalCoordinationAcres Wholly Surrounded butUnannexedCity of Bozeman GIS DivisionReal-Time dataanalyzed andpublished annuallyNumber of acres of annexations of landwholly surrounded by the City but unannexed(i.e. enclaves)Decrease816.7 Acres09/29/20A City Engaged in RegionalCoordinationCity ExpansionCity of Bozeman CommunityDevelopment Department; GallatinCounty Planning DepartmentAnnualNumber of projects within the Planning Areabut outside of City limits that conform toadopted interlocal agreementsMaintain2020 Triangle CommunityPlanA City Engaged in RegionalCoordinationImplement the Triangle PlanPlanning Coordinating CommitteeAnnualPlan is in reviewIncrease2020 Triangle CommunityPlan283
TO: BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION
FROM: TOM ROGERS, SENIOR PLANNER
CHRIS SAUNDERS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
RE: CITY COMMISSION SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS FROM OCTOBER 6, 2020
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2020
Commissioners suggested possible edits and additions to the draft Community Plan as follows. Staff provides crosslinks to existing language, goals, or objectives currently in the Plan that may address part or all of the suggested language additions.
Commissioner Cunningham proposed edits 1. Encourage more intensive development in proximity to major employers to reduce commuting times and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Staff response: The current draft includes a number of objectives that may speak to this edit. They include N-2.3, DCD-1.9, DCD-2.2, DCD-2.7, DCD-2.9, DCD-3.1, DCD-3.5, M-1.1, for example. If these objectives do not rise to the occasion we suggest it would be appropriate to place this objective under Goal DCD-2 on pg. 24. See also the related
discussion on Commissioner Wallner’s third suggested edit.
2. Develop a strategy to incentivize development of under-utilized parcels within Bozeman City limits.
Staff response: The current draft includes a goal and objectives that may speak to this edit. Please see Goal DCD-1 and objective DCD-1.5 on pg. 24. If these efforts are insufficient we suggest it would be appropriate to place this objective under Goal DCD-1 on pg. 24.
For additional information on the location and number of vacant and undeveloped parcels
within the City limits please see the updated map included in the packet. This map does not address parcels which have been developed but have potential for additional development. Analysis of potential redevelopment on individual parcels is a complex process beyond the scope of the growth policy.
3. Ensure an adequate supply of appropriately designated land to accommodate Low Income Housing Tax Credit development in qualifying census tracts.
284
Staff response: Goal N-3, objective N-3.3 and N-3.3 and Goal DCD-1, objective DCD-1.5 on pg. 24 partially address this subject. If these efforts are insufficient we suggest this objective would be appropriate to place it under Goal N-3 or Goal DCD-1.
4. Identify possible routes for future bicycle and pedestrian beltway / greenway.
Staff response: Theme 5 may addresses this goal through objective M-1.2, M-1.13, and M-1.9. In addition, Chapter 4, part 4.3 and 4.4 of the Bozeman Transportation Master Plan
further this goal. If these efforts are insufficient we suggest it would be appropriate to place this goal under Goal DCD-1 on pg. 24. 5. Encourage subdivision orientation in a manner that maximizes the potential for rooftop solar energy generation.
Staff response: Generally included in planning precepts and under Theme 1 | A Resilient City. No direct langue included in draft Plan. However, EPO-3.8 addresses education on diversified power generation which could encompass the concept and be implemented in conjunction with the Climate Action Plan after its adoption. If the existing language is
insufficient Goal N-1 is related and text may augment objective N-1.7 on pg. 20.
6. Ensure an adequate supply of off-leash facilities to meet the future demand of Bozeman dog owners.
Staff response: Not covered in the current draft. Planning Board deliberately avoided including operational details within the draft plan. The update to the Park, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails (PROST) plan is beginning this fall. The RFP release is expected shortly after first of the year. Planning and Park staff discussed the issue of off-leash areas when raised in public comment during the development of the plan. They agree this level of detail
is best addressed in the more specific PROST plan update. Recommendation 10.5.11 in the current PROST states, “Create off-leash dog areas when and where opportunities arise.” Should the Commission wish to include text in the BCP suggested placement is objective under Goal N-4 (pg.21) or Goal EPO-1 (pg. 28).
7. Coordinate with developers to review subdivision HOA protective covenants for consistency with major city objectives.
Staff response: Goal N-3 (pg. 21) and objective N-3.5 may address this initiative. There are
limits in state law (76-2-302) on how much the City can intrude into or prohibit private covenants. However, the City can suggest revisions and point out conflicts. If language is insufficient, placing under Goal N-3 as a separate objective may be appropriate.
285
8. Encourage major employers to provide employee housing within walking / biking distance of place of employment
Staff response: Please refer to Theme 2, Goal N-1 or Goal N-2 and objective EE-1.4. Additional objective may be appropriate under Goal EE-1 (pg. 36). Commissioner Wallner proposed edits 1.) We need to protect our historic neighborhoods and ensure we preserve neighborhood character. A prime example is the non-existent transition zones between multi-story buildings and our neighborhoods.
Staff response: There are several goals and objectives related to this subject. These are: N-1.11, N-4, N-4.3, DCD-2.9, and DCD-3.5. If the Commission wishes to add additional language to address the topic objective N-4.3 may be revised or an objective N-4.4 could be added. (pg. 21) In addressing this topic, clarity of language is critical. Referring to zones of transition implies
creation and application of new zoning districts. If the intent is to work within the existing zoning districts that should be made clear. 2.) I am concerned that we aren’t accounting for two critical items with the CP—Future fires in the National Forest Service areas as we continue our “outward growth” and impacts on wildlife
habitat on the outskirts of Bozeman. Staff response: There are several goals and objectives related to this subject. These are: Goal RC-2, and Objectives RC-2.1, RC-2.2, RC-2.3, RC-2.4, and EPO-4.5 apply to fire and other hazards. Objective EPO-1.5, Goal EPO-2 and Objectives EPO-2.3, EPO-4.6, RC-2.3, RC-2.3
apply to issues of habitat. Objective DCD-1.12 is particularly applicable. It is likely to be many years before the City limit reaches the southernmost section of the Planning Area due to the effort and expense required to extend sewer services that far. During the intervening time the City can work with other agencies and private parties as directed in
Themes 4 and 7 to prioritize areas that may best serve as open or limited development spaces which may or may not become parks or may remain as private lands. The future land use map is only one element of the plan and development standards. Any development needs to address all the applicable elements. The City has the opportunity to either
establish or refine development standards to account for these two issues. For example, the PROST plan update beginning next year could consider the role of natural open spaces in the City’s recreation system, evaluate the placement of parks as a buffer or separator from fire hazard areas, or the City could develop specific wildland urban interface design standards. The watercourse and wetland protection standards in Chapter 38 of the UDC are in place and could
be reviewed and updated where necessary.
286
Should the Commission wish to add language further addressing these issues Themes 4 and 7 appear the locations most consistent with the existing document.
3.) I agree with several of the Bozeman Development Consortium Concerns. My primary complaint is we are making the development process overly complex with too many plans, guidelines, the UDC, etc. We are creating a complex process that directly impacts homeowners, builders, and developer’s ability to construct affordable housing or efficient development that
ultimately contributes to increased construction and development for all of Bozeman. Staff response: There are numerous plans to address the various City responsibilities and priorities. See pg. 9 for a list and Appendix B for a description of the documents. Staff is not prepared at this time to recommend which document(s) should be repealed or consolidated.
Staff agrees that adopted plans should be relevant to community needs and bring value. Outdated documents should be updated or repealed. The larger discussion of how many plans and for what topics is appropriate is outside the scope of the discussion of the growth policy. Such a discussion may be requested to the City Manager.
4.) In areas where appropriate—I’d like to be clear that I’m not referring to anywhere near unique or historic neighborhoods..... We need to create more residential mixed use land designations that will assist with high density multi-unit residential development, which in the long-term will help us obtain our affordable housing goals.
Staff response: The GIS division compared the areas designated as Residential Emphasis Mixed Use on the current future land use map and the areas designated as its equivalent Residential Mixed Use on the proposed future land use map. They found: - Existing Map: REMU 446 acres, 6 locations - New Map: RMU 855 acres, 22 locations
The City Commission may direct amendments to the future land use map to add additional or enlarged areas of RMU. The commercial nodes distributed on the map and located at future or existing intersections of major roads are a combination of Community Commercial Mixed Use (pink) and Residential Mixed Use (orange). The Residential Mixed Use areas are approximately
330 feet (one block) deep. The Commission could direct those to be enlarged. Staff suggests the Commission consider carefully Table 4 which assigns implementing zoning to each land use designation. At annexation the landowner requests zoning to implement the future land use designation. All residential zoning districts presently allow for development
exclusively as single detached homes. The plan recommends evaluation of minimum densities in zoning districts (N-1-1.2, DCD-1.4, DCD-2.3, RC-4.4, and short term action list item 1) and consideration of revisions to building height limits (DCD-2.4 and short term action list item 4). In addition to the future land use map, revisions to zoning may best address this concern. See
also the discussion in Chapter 5 regarding zoning amendments.
287
Mayor Andrus proposed edits 1. Improvements to Table 4 to better describe connection between the future land use category and what happens in each associated implementing district. Staff response: Staff suggests two revisions:
1. The final draft of the BCP to include hyperlinks from the names of the districts, e.g. R-3, to the portion of the municipal code that authorizes the uses in each district. 2. The staff offers a possible restructure from one to three tables. This restructure would provide larger cells in the table and graphic symbols could be included in each cell to give a general sense of the character of that zone. For example, the PLI future land use
designation could have a simple graphic of a fire station, school, or similar public building. Staff will prepare some example mockups for the Commission meeting on October 20th. Due to timing they will not be included with the packet. If the Commission finds this approach suitable an amendment can be directed to implement them in the final draft.
Commissioner Cunningham proposed additional subject Commissioner Cunningham suggested an element be added to the plan considering the question of growing, growing at fixed pace, or not growing. Specific language was not suggested. The
following language has been revised from Appendix D of the staff report as a beginning point for discussion. Should the Commission decide to include language similar to this Staff suggests it be placed in Chapter 1, likely beginning on Pg. 6 following the discussion of the Planning Time Horizon.
TO GROW OR NOT TO GROW? IF SO, HOW? Bozeman has seen nearly continuous growth since its founding. The population of the City has expanded by 275% over the past 50 years.
288
Many factors, including but not limited to: nearby extensive outdoor recreation opportunities, Montana State University, people who left the area for careers returning, changing technology
enabling remote work, and people becoming familiar with the area during visits to Yellowstone National Park influence the decisions of individuals and businesses to move to Bozeman and the Gallatin Valley. Developing factors that appear to be increasing interest in the local area include climate change, increasing economic opportunities in the local area with technology and other sector growth, and recently, the COVID-19 pandemic.
The increasing number of people and associated impacts cause changes in the community. Those changes stimulate an examination of whether the City should continue to grow or if it should try to “put on the brakes.” Such a question reflects the deep concerns of people in many areas and issues.
Diverse changes have caused increases in number of homes and expanding areas of development. As household sizes have decreased over time additional houses are required to serve the same population. The number of homes in Bozeman required to house the same 10,000 people increased 47.8% between 1970 and 2010. That increased number of homes requires more streets, water and sewer pipes, and similar expanded municipal and private facilities. The cost of services per person
correspondingly increases. Should this household size trend reverse, the City could see large population increases without construction of additional homes. Bozeman has expanded in population and land area from in-migration, change in the demographic makeup of the community, new births, and annexation of new areas to serve new or existing
residents. Community change is dynamic and affected by many forces. It is also inevitable. Even if population stayed the same, there are forces that make outward and inward changes in a community.
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
1870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990199520002005201020152020Bozeman Population
289
Context of the growth question Consideration of Bozeman’s growth cannot be separated from the larger context of the Gallatin
Valley. Bozeman has been 45-50% of the county population over time. When people discuss growth in Bozeman they are often thinking of more than just the legal boundaries of the City. Rapid growth has also been happening in other valley municipalities and the unincorporated areas of the County.
The Planning Area for the BCP is approximately 70 square miles. Most of that area lies outside of the existing municipal limits. However, it is not free from development pressure or change. As shown on {new simplified map from GIS showing development context to be inserted} much of the land within the Planning Area and outside of the City has already been subdivided and developed to
some degree, mostly as suburban and rural housing.
Only 8% of all the parcels in the nearly 49 square miles outside of the City limits are larger than 20 acres. Twenty acres is the minimum area generally considered eligible to be classified as agricultural property. This parcel pattern reflects many decades of land use decisions by private
property owners as well as various governmental agencies.
The Planning Area outside of the City’s legal limits remains under the final authority of Gallatin County. The County and City do not have a shared planning board or regulations at this time. As described in Chapter 2, Theme 7 the City works with Gallatin County on land use planning issues.
However, should a land owner outside of the City ask to change zoning or subdivide land the
County Commission has the final decision. The City’s regulations only apply within its legal limits. Areas that people often describe as being in Bozeman such as the Woodland Park and Middle Creek developments along Huffine Lane are outside of the City limits and were approved by the County.
Does the City have to grow?
The City is not required to grow in area or population. The undeveloped areas in town would eventually fill in with development. The City could choose to not annex new property. The City could stop acquiring water rights, stop expanding treatment capacity for water or sewer, or could strictly limit development opportunities through regulations on development intensity or rate. All of
these would result in fewer homes and businesses than would otherwise be present. There is
additional capacity presently in the City’s systems due to planned “working room” to account for the fact that expansion of capacity often comes in large increments and therefore some excess capacity is needed at any given time to meet needs while the next increment of expansion is designed and constructed. Such capacity could be used up and not replaced.
A key sub-question and consequence in this subject is whether lack of capacity in municipal land area or systems would cause people to stop seeking to come to the Gallatin Valley. The residents of the City of Bozeman have for many decades been between 40-50% of the total county population. Since half or more of the county population has chosen to locate outside of the Bozeman limits it is
highly likely that growth would continue but would locate outside the City within the
unincorporated areas or other municipalities. The factors that draw people to the area would be
290
unlikely to be changed by a City decision to restrict development. Therefore, the character of the valley, including areas adjacent to Bozeman, would continue to change but without material influence from the City.
As the population and development of the Gallatin Valley has occurred the degree of interdependence has increased. The economy relies substantially on persons living outside of the city to work at jobs located in the city. Census Data from 2017, the most recent available, shows a total of 33,879 jobs in the City. Of that number 13,667 were serviced by City residents. The number
of City residents leaving the City for employment was 9,874 and the number of non-City residents coming into the City for work was 20,212. A key outcome of this situation is that tens of thousands of people are commuting every day into the City and consuming street capacity, police and fire services, and other municipal services. However,
revenue generated by their homes does not come to the City to offset those demands for service. On a national level, the supply of housing is not keeping up with demand for housing. On a local level, this issue was examined by the 2019 Housing Needs Assessment (HNA) for the City. A
similar effort is being conducted at this time by Gallatin County for areas outside of the City. The
HNA identified a deficiency of available housing as a strong contributor to housing price escalation in the area. Housing prices, both nationally and locally, have increased substantially faster than incomes. Housing scarcity is a substantial concern and impacts the ability of businesses to hire workers. As local unemployment has been low for many years, attraction of new employees is
dependent on the availability of additional housing in the area.
As discussed above, the majority of the Planning Area is outside of the City limits. The City of Bozeman and Gallatin County have worked together to encourage annexation and development within the City limits. Development within the City is more land efficient than rural or suburban development in unannexed areas. Urban intensity development whether more intensive apartment
style development or more typical medium density residential is much more land efficient than rural/suburban development. Comparing suburban development with an average density of one home per 1.25 acres and rural at one home per 5.5 acres to the more intensive apartment style development of a recent project downtown; the suburban development consumes 135 times the amount of land and the rural consumes 594 times the amount of land per home. Development within
the City also provides for a wide range of housing types to meet a wide range of housing needs. Development within the City lessens likelihood of conversion of agricultural and open spaces to other uses but does convert uses on some land with annexation. Municipal development enables use of highly effective centralized water and sewer systems. Such
centralized systems are more protective of water quality both at the surface and underground. Areas such as the Helena Valley in Lewis and Clark County are experiencing problems with ground water contamination resulting from significant use of on-site water and sewer systems. Gallatin County has been a good partner in encouraging potential development to annex and
develop within the City. The current and proposed County growth policies and the Triangle
291
Community Plan support such action. However, if the City is unable or unwilling to annex and provide services the County will not prohibit development on that parcel. As shown on the context map, there has been considerable rural and suburban development within the Planning Area.
If we grow, how? In many planning efforts and discussions over the decades, the Planning Board and City Commission have considered the various elements of the question of to grow or not grow and the
consequences of either approach. After considering this question, they have concluded that having
growth within the physical boundaries of Bozeman results in better outcomes than not. Therefore, the BCP approaches growth as something that overall is positive but recognizes that it does not come without drawbacks and that the community will change over time.
The City has adopted land development regulations and policies to reasonably mitigate negative
impacts. These have been adopted to address the question of “If so, how.” Regulations can do many things to ensure adequate physical facilities and a visually appealing and functional development of sites. They support expansion of employment and tax base for the community. They ensure provision of new parks and walking trails, keep the water flowing if there is a home fire to be put
out, and provide a framework within which people may pursue dreams of their own homes and
businesses. For all they can accomplish, there are some things they cannot do. They cannot make there be fewer people on a favorite walking trail, make certain you see people you know as you walk down the
street, or control things that happen outside of the City limits. They don’t set school service
boundaries; or change the floodplain or water quality or wetland standards established by federal and state agencies. They can’t assure that buying a house will work out well for you. They can’t change the flight path of aircraft headed to the Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport. They cannot assure you of a neighbor you want to have. They don’t change any state or federal policy.
They do not prevent change or guarantee that change will happen in the way any particular person
prefers.
Mitigating impacts
For new people and businesses to come and establish in the community the City must be able to
provide land area, utility services, and other functions. It is the long standing policy of the City to
balance the interests of new and existing residents. Therefore, the City has established standards and procedures to strive to ensure that new development proportionately contributes to the services and facilities needed to support new development. The following examples identify significant policies but it is not an exhaustive list.
• Annexation: Annexation is almost entirely initiated by the landowner. The City has limited ability to start an annexation process. Annexation is often motivated by a desire to develop property or to address a failed on-site septic system. At the time of annexation, land owners commit to provide or do provide easements for major roadways, and to follow the City’s
land development standards requiring the landowner to provide needed infrastructure for
development of the land.
292
• Water Rights: All water in the state not reserved to the Federal Government or Tribal Government is controlled by the State of Montana. No one can use water without the State’s
permission. Such permission is called a water right. When new development occurs, the City requires that new development to provide either water rights to the City or to pay an equal amount of money so the City can acquire water rights adequate to serve the new development. Existing water users are not required to pay for water rights for new development.
• Impact Fees: Impact fees are costs charged to new development to construct fire, water, sewer, and transportation facilities to support new development. There are strict rules to ensure that the impact fees don’t fix existing problems. Impact fees enable the City to more closely keep up with water and sewer treatment capacity and other infrastructure needed for
new development to be functional and safe.
• Utility planning: The City conducts long range planning for water, sewer, transportation, parks, and other services. This planning work examines the needs for existing users and future users. This enables the City to construct facilities before big bottlenecks occur. Since
a water line can have a service life of at least 70 years, sizing them correctly is a significant
concern to avoid future service limits and failures. Knowing what services are needed enables the City to work effectively and cost efficiently to serve existing and future users. Recent expansion and upgrades at the City’s water and sewer treatment facilities were required both for maintaining legal compliance with treatment standards for existing users
and to enable new users.
• Regulations: The City adopts standards for development to correlate timing of new development with the services needed to serve it. This protects the public health and safety. The regulations also provide predictability in decision making to both existing and new
members of the community. Predictability is a very important element in the complex and
difficult public and private decisions relating to growth.
293
TO: BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION
FROM: TOM ROGERS, SENIOR PLANNER
CHRIS SAUNDERS, PLANNING MANAGER
RE: RECOMMENDED REVISIONS TO PLANNING BOARD DRAFT OF THE BOZEMAN COMMUNITY PLAN 202O
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2020
The draft presented to the City Commission from the Planning Board was completed on August 10, 2020. Since then, Staff has continued to review the document and outside influences have continued. Therefore, Staff will continue to monitor for potential changes to the draft needed to
respond to these issues. The following have been identified to date. Additional items will be noted and included as part of the packet for each Commission meeting as the review of the growth policy continues. Recommended revisions:
1. Revise the signature page to reflect the current positions on the City Commission.
2. Revise the list on page 9 to replace the reference to the Gallatin Triangle Planning Study with the recently completed Triangle Community Plan and revise Appendix B accordingly for the description of the Triangle Community Plan. Reflect this change throughout the document
3. Update Table 2 data to account for more recent information available since initial plan development.
4. Revise the list on page 9 to update the title for the housing action plan and the date most recently amended by the City Commission.
5. Revise context map on page 38 to include the Triangle Community Plan boundary. The TCP
was adopted after the preparation of the map.
6. Revise future land use map for Sacajawea Audobon property by E. Main interchange. Property was purchased after map preparation and is not intended for development as shown on the future land use map at this time. Landowner has verbally supported this change.
7. Revise future land use map boundaries to smooth edges, align with street centerlines where
appropriate, and perform general cleanup of the boundaries. No changes will occur with this work that change the designation on a parcel.
8. Page 48, remove implementing zoning dot for NEHMU zoning district from Industrial future land use category to reflect the Planning Board’s designation of that area as Community Commercial Mixed Use.
9. Page 53, add US Census and ACS to source data list for Housing Stock Diversity metric.
294
10. Page 54, add “Measures private sector performance” to the notes for Percent of Application Materials Containing All Information Needed metric
11. Page 54, Staff suggests dropping the indicator on implementing the Triangle Community
Plan. Unlike the other indicators it does not lend itself to a numeric measure or target, does not have a repeatable data source, and most of the Triangle Community Plan area is outside of the City’s control. Objective RC-1.5 remains to ensure that the need for the effort is not forgotten. At this time, the Parks Department is working with others to support Gallatin County’s efforts in the development of a trails plan for the Triangle area.
12. Update Appendix A for public outreach conducted during the public review process.
13. Correct all typographic or layout errors.
295
TO: BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION
FROM: TOM ROGERS, SENIOR PLANNER
CHRIS SAUNDERS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
RE: PUBLIC COMMENTS TO DATE
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2020
Public comment has been received throughout the plan development process and had a strong influence on the recommendations of the Planning Board. Written public comments were archived with the City Clerk. Comments are grouped by year: 2018, 2019, and 2020. All comments received on or prior to the Planning Board finalizing their recommendation on August 10, 2020 were
considered by the Planning Board. Where the Planning Board considered appropriate the draft was revised in response to the comments. The Planning Board received 80 written comments specific to the growth policy update text and map. Additional oral comments were received at various public meetings. See Appendix A of the Bozeman Community Plan 2020 for a summary of outreach and engagement.
After the Planning Board completed its work, comments received were added to the 2020 folder. As of the writing of this memo, 22 comments have been received since August 10, 2020 and archived for review by the City Commission. Many of the issues raised by those comments are addressed in the responses to the questions and comments below.
Comments were received from four persons at the October 6, 2020 public hearing. A summary of the comments/questions and staff responses is below. For full content see the recording of the meeting. Staff has supplemented the response in some cases to more fully respond to comments or questions.
Public Comments summary from October 6th Geoffrey Poole – Future Land Use Map (FLUM), location of industrial at NE corner of S 19th Avenue and Goldenstein Lane. Why next to REMU, impact on walkability, proximity to Sacajawea
Middle School. Clarifying question. Is there a legal means to restrain what use is put in in place in a classification, related to location of Eagle Mount. Staff response: The FLUM addresses both local and broader needs. The industrial location of approximately 122 acres included on the FLUM at the intersection of S. 19th Avenue and
Goldenstein is intended to serve an area of approximately 19,700 acres. It is not disproportionately large to the service area. The location’s adjacency to REMU was not a determining factor in placing the Industrial designation on the site. There are no existing industrial areas in the City south of Main Street other than small business park areas. This
296
reflects the original industrial development along the railroad in the northern section of the community.
A community needs a range of services for a healthy economy. The EPS report notes the City has a need for additional office space and other uses typically seen in Bozeman located in an industrial area. The nature of industrial uses has changed over time. Some of the existing industrial area is not well suited to current needs due to older buildings, limited access, small lots sizes, and other issues relating to original development conditions.
Redevelopment can occur but some limitations relating to location will continue. The site at 19th/Goldenstein is one of very few sites in the City’s Planning Area of larger size that are reasonably level, not impacted by waterways, have good transportation access, reasonably accessible water and sewer access, and are close enough to the existing City to develop in a reasonable time frame.
The City extensive design site and architectural design standards to lessen impacts of any development, including industrial. The location next to REMU zoning is actually advantageous as the REMU district has substantial flexibility in locating diverse uses that may be less sensitive to adjacent industrial uses than a more typical residential zoning
district. The City also implements building codes, storm water controls, and other standards that lessen impacts from any type of development on adjacent uses. Zoning criteria for site approvals consider impacts and mitigation of impacts on adjacent uses. The commenter raised the question of proximity to Sacajawea Middle School. The nearest
point between the SMS property and the proposed industrial area (which happens to be the NE corner of Eagle Mount’s property) is 670 feet. For comparison, the closest distance from Hawthorne Elementary School to an M-1 industrially zoned area which includes manufacturing, warehousing, and car repair is 295 feet. There are no known issues related to this proximity of Hawthorne.
All development in Bozeman is required to provide sidewalks, extend street connections, and otherwise support walking and biking opportunities. Industrial property is not excluded. S. 19th Avenue and Goldenstein Lane will provide bike lanes or separated paths as they are
built to their final design. South 11th will extend to Goldenstein Lane over time regardless of
the future use of the property. Therefore, there are no expected negative impacts to walkability due to the industrial designation. The ability of the area to provide employment near to large areas of housing supports walkability by shortening trip lengths. As shown on Table 4 of the draft, there are multiple implementing districts for the Industrial
future land use designation. The decision of which to apply occurs through a Zone Map Amendment (ZMA). The City Commission is the decision maker for ZMAs. In order to approve ZMAs the City Commission must apply criteria defined by the State. A ZMA is a legislative decision which provides substantial discretion to the City Commission in their evaluation of the criteria. If the City Commission found negatively on some or all of the
297
ZMA criteria they can decide not to approve a ZMA. Therefore, there is a method to deny an inappropriately intensive zoning request for the industrially planned area. The City has limited where agricultural uses are allowed in the City. Eagle Mount is
considered an agricultural use due to the extensive use of livestock in their programs. Industrial zoning districts can allow agricultural uses. The draft plan suggests reviewing where agricultural uses are allowed. The City Commission may amend zoning based on that review. The FLUM does not require change to any existing uses. Should the Eagle Mount property annex, the Industrial FLUM designation would support application of an industrial
zone that supports their continued functions. Taye Calder – FLUM request to revise designation – north of Durston and east of N. 19th Avenue. Change from Community Commercial Mixed use to Residential Mixed Use or Urban Neighborhood.
Staff response: Need specifics for which parcels his comments apply to, there are several ownerships in the referenced area. Request was not clear whether it applied to all parcels or just some. Staff requested commenter send further information to agenda@bozeman.net.
Not received an answer yet.
Emma Wulfhort – clarifying question – potential action date to be October 17th or 23rd? Staff response: During FYI, the City Manager clarified public hearing and potential action is
scheduled for October 17th.
Will Swearingen – Sent in written comments addressing wildland urban interface (WUI) and impacts on wildlife. Open land buffer for WUI and elk. Concern of moving suburban development to county with densities in Urban Neighborhood. Supports restoring Suburban Residential land use
designation.
Staff response: It is likely to be many years before the City limit reaches the southernmost section of the Planning Area due to the effort and expense required to extend sewer services that far. During the intervening time the City can work with other agencies and private
parties as directed in Themes 4 and 7 to identify and prioritize areas that may best serve as
open or limited development spaces which may or may not become parks or may remain as private lands. Objective DCD-1.12 is also applicable. With future updates to the growth policy the FLUM can be refined and amended in accordance with such decisions. Staff does not support designating private property as open lands without consent of the landowner.
The future land use map is only one element of the plan and development standards. Any development needs to address all the applicable elements. The City has the opportunity to either establish or refine development standards to account for WUI and habitat issues. For example, the PROST plan update beginning next year could consider the role of natural
open spaces in the City’s recreation system, evaluate the placement of parks as a buffer or
298
separator from fire hazard areas, or the City could develop specific wildland urban interface design standards.
The City is not compelled to annex property and could decline to annex property it deemed inappropriate such as an excess fire hazard. If the property is not annexed it can be developed in any manner allowed by Gallatin County which may or may not address WUI or habitat concerns.
The Planning Board determined that the Suburban Residential future land use category was inconsistent with the overall direction and principles of the draft growth policy. The change from Suburban Residential to Urban Neighborhood does not change uses or require additional development on existing development or cause lower density housing to relocate unless they wish. The Suburban Residential future land use category in the 2009 growth
policy called for uses and development density to remain as is until such point as they annexed and were municipally zoned. The change to Urban Neighborhood continues the same policy but gives direction of the City’s intention for what happens after annexation. Should property not annex the FLUM does not affect the use of the property as allowed by Gallatin County.
September Workshops Staff received multiple written and oral questions during the three September workshops. Staff prepared a written response to the written questions and to oral questions that were received
multiple times. This response has been posted to the project website and is repeated in this memo to consolidate information. Staff Responses to Public Questions on Bozeman Community Plan 2020 Revised: October 2, 2020 Questions answered were received through written inquiry or came up multiple times during the three public meetings held on September 16th, 23rd, and 30th. 1. The BendonAdams policy recommendations for the NCOD were officially adopted by the
city. Does N1.3 (Revise zoning map to lessen areas for single family type housing, p.20) contradict the NCOD recommendations? We ask this because of the following. There are 24 mentions of density in the Community Plan with no mention of quality and function. The exact language in the Community plan is on page 10: Gathering places and open spaces, including parks and trails, should be in convenient locations to those they serve. Quality and function is superior to quantity alone. In our opinion, the streets of the downtown neighborhoods could be considered not only an essential part of city infrastructure, but also an urban section of the trail system, with an urban forest. Why is this quality and function not considered in the plan? Why is the urban forest allowed to be destroyed by development? Why did this section from the 2009 plan disappear from the
2020 document: the City shall encourage the use of historic Bozeman neighborhoods,
299
including a significantly interconnected street system, as models for the planning and design of new residential neighborhoods. (LU-4.3)
It seems that the downtown residential neighborhoods are being undervalued. Their existence is essential to the quality of life that Bozemanites expect. They contribute to the environmental quality of the city with their green spaces. This is a major theme of our questions.
Staff Response: Multiple questions within the overall question.
Question 1 - Does N-1.3 (Revise zoning map to lessen areas for single family type housing, p.20) contradict the NCOD recommendations?
SR: Key clarification. The Bozeman Community Plan 2020 (BCP) does not call for
lessening or removing any areas for single-household homes. The actual text from the plan says “Revise the zoning map to lessen areas exclusively zoned for single-type housing.”
We don’t believe so. This standard applies equally to any type of housing ranging from a single detached home to apartment buildings and is removing an artificial restriction on ability for neighborhoods to evolve. As with all Themes the associated goals and objectives
must be taken as whole. In a given instance a particular objective will been more importance than another. In this case there are no properties in the community today that are currently zoned exclusively for single-household use. See Section 38.310.030 of the municipal code for allowed uses in residential zoning district.
With respect to the referenced quality and function the quoted text is describing a general
principle related to parks, not to housing. We are not entirely clear what function the question is referring to as it would relate to housing. The question is focused on use, residential in this case, and all residential zoning districts allow residential uses which is supported by the underlying future land use.
Question 2 – Paraphrased. Streets of the downtown neighborhoods could be considered not only an essential part of city infrastructure, but also an urban section of the trail system, with an urban forest. Why is this quality and function not considered in the plan?
SR: In general, we agree with this statement and believe the Plan furthers that streets
(connections) are integral to the function of the City. The Transportation Plan is the primary
driver of the street network and interacts with the Community Plan. Minimum standards for connections are already included in the municipal code. The Planning Board chose to not restate all items from prior plans that have already been included in City standards. In addition, the associated neighborhood and corridor plans explicitly encourage the urban
forest. In fact the City requires street trees to be (re)installed in all boulevards, pedestrian
pathways, parks, and other areas during development.
The goal of high quality streetscapes and street network are an integral part of the plan through numerous goals and objectives. Themes 3 and 5 speak to part of this statement and
300
question by encouraging connections through and between each identifiable area of the City.
With respect to urban trails and park systems we differentiate these pathways, green spaces, and active and passive parks areas. The street network is a public utility/amenity used for
transportation and, in most areas for parking cars. We do not believe the street functions as a viable park, for example, although streets provide essential links to parks.
Question 3 - Why is the urban forest allowed to be destroyed by development?
SR: Street trees located on public property such as street boulevards may not be removed
without prior approval from the City Forester. All trees have value and if a tree is permitted to be removed the City is compensated by the developer. Also, certain tree varieties are failing due to environmental issues such as the Ash Tree Borer. The City no longer allows this species to be planted in the City and has a program to remove this species before it degrades and creates a safety issue. Trees located on private property are themselves private
property. Unless the presence of a tree is required by a development approval the City does not have restrictions on ability for a landowner to replace trees or remove them.
Question 4. Why did this section from the 2009 plan disappear from the 2020 document: the City shall encourage the use of historic Bozeman neighborhoods, including a significantly
interconnected street system, as models for the planning and design of new residential neighborhoods? (LU-4.3)
SR: As noted this Plan focuses on land use and integrates specific plans to further a particular goals of the City. In this case the Transportation Plan takes the lead. The City requires a full street grid for all development. The standards used are based on the historic
Bozeman street grid. The goals referenced continue and are augmented by the Transportation and the draft Plan’s goals of connecting districts, neighborhoods, diversification of commercial activities. The Planning Board chose to not restate all items from prior plans that have already been included in City standards.
2. The zoning change for the Medical Arts parking lot is the template of what we don't want to occur again. The zone change was discussed with community members who were overwhelmingly against it, presenting a petition with all the required signatures after an amazing effort. Is this the procedure that will be followed every time that developers put pressure on the city to change a zone in the transition area? If not, how will the future be
different? Are neighborhood values and character being disregarded for density? Staff Response: This statement highlights a number of components of process and existing development code. First, we understand a number of community members are not in support of the
change. However, the underlying Future Land Use was Community Core. The previous R-4 zoning was not an implementing zoning district for the future land use. State law requires zoning to be “in accordance with” the growth policy. The protest provisions for zoning amendments are set by state
301
law.
The City has not adopted a transition area anywhere in the City that is shown on the zoning map. In this case the surrounding area zoning is a mix of B-3, R-4 and R-3. The question of appropriateness
is a part of any zoning change process. The City does have standards called zone edge transitions. These standards address transitions between zoning districts. In situations where there is a significant difference between the intensity of adjacent zoning districts these standards may apply. Item DCD-2.9, page 25, does call for an evaluation of heights and adjacent neighborhoods. The future land use map does move some land use boundaries so that they fall on streets or alleys rather
than at mid-block where impact are potentially more significant to adjacent properties.
3. The following is a walking survey of the transition area north of the downtown area: A. Building under construction – Lamme and N Wilson St - 5 stories – occupies the entire block
Named Mountain View – parking lot with sign “Parking Reserved for Customers
To the immediate East of the construction is a single family neighborhood of 5 small houses. The one at 22 W. Lamme, a red brick home, is listed in the National Register of
Historic Places.
B. The whole block on Lamme from N Grand to N 3rd all houses have been removed. Will this be the site of another behemoth? On the entire west side of N 3rd is a neighborhood of single family homes
C. Building under construction – 3 stories – on Beall from N Grand to N 3rd named The
Cairnes. It appears to be 3 condos. If this will be residential, it will be more compatible with the neighborhood than the 5 story buildings mentioned previously. If it will be commercial, it will not be compatible. The East side of N Grand, is a neighborhood of all single family houses. North of the building is also a neighborhood of all single family homes on N Grand.
D. Building under construction – 5 stories – Lamme and N Bozeman. Named The Merin
Across the street, a neighborhood of single family homes.
The same kind of incompatible development has occurred on the South side of Main, exemplified by the Black Olive building, which sits next to single family homes and close to a historic district.
Why is there no gradual transition from higher buildings, with greater mass and density to the small family homes in this area? Shouldn't there be a buffer zone of buildings with less mass and density before the residential area is reached? When will there be a revisiting of the B3 zoning to allow for a transition zone so that the multi-story massive buildings can't occupy the transition zone, while other types of less massive business and residential
structures are allowed? Can B3 be revisited to provide regulations for a transition zone between B3 and residential? Can the terms gentle density and gentle infill be added to the
302
plan to refer to the infill in the transition zone and downtown neighborhoods? Staff Response: Multiple questions within the overall question.
Question 1 - Why is there no gradual transition from higher buildings, with greater mass and density to the small family homes in this area?
SR: Clarification, the area north of Main Street included within the B-3 zone does not
include a mapped or obligatory transition area. It is either B-3 or another zone.
Intensity is dependent on the existing zoning district that applies to a given property or series of properties. Each zoning district has specific mass and intensity standards that may not be exceeded. If a property is developed below this amount it does not prohibit a neighbor from exercising their right to construct a larger home or building. In many cases, the existing
development pattern is built substantially less intensively than allowed by the zoning in place today. The smaller homes or buildings constructed were appropriate to the time and circumstances under which they were constructed and may continue so long as the owner wishes to have them. However, the City has moved forward half a century or more in time from when those homes were constructed. The circumstances are no longer the same. In the
example of the Black Olive building included in the question, both the Black Olive site and the adjacent property to the south are zoned as B-3. As they are the same zoning district there is no basis upon which to require a transition standard.
The City has provided two methods to address a transition. First, where possible the City aligns zoning boundaries to streets. This places a sizable physical separation between
developments in zoning districts. Second, where zoning boundaries are not on a street the City has adopted a mass and scale transition requirement, see 38.320.060 of the municipal code. Zoning was adopted in 1934 and has been amended over 500 times since then as the community needs have changed. Consequences of past decisions are manifested with new construction. Chapter 4 of the BCP recommends the City Commission initiate a review of
the zoning map with adjustments to boundaries as needed see RC-4.4 on page 40. Goal N-4 and associated actions continue to support sense of place and history, see page 21.
Question 2 - Shouldn't there be a buffer zone of buildings with less mass and density before
the residential area is reached?
SR: If we understand the question correctly, the question suggests reducing zoning intensity on the outer edges of the B-3 district. This type of action might be perceived as a legislative takings resulting in serious financial ramifications for the City, the taxpayers. The City has engaged in this discussion, considered the issue, and chosen not to pursue further. The City
did take action to address this issue with the “zone edge transition” standards mentioned
above and found in Section 38.320.060.
A possible alternative action to establish a buffer zone is to increase the intensity of residential zoning adjacent to the B-3 district.
303
Question 3 - When will there be a revisiting of the B3 zoning to allow for a transition zone so that the multi-story massive buildings can't occupy the transition zone, while other types
of less massive business and residential structures are allowed?
SR: Previously answered.
Question 4 - Can the terms gentle density and gentle infill be added to the plan to refer to the infill in the transition zone and downtown neighborhoods?
SR: The City Commission could add these terms to the plan. The meaning of the terms would also need to be defined. Without a specific definition they are too subjective as decision making criteria.
4. On page 38, there is a statement requiring a 2 times a year code revision. What analysis of increased staff requirements has been done to implement this provision? How many additional FTE's will be required and at what cost? Staff Response: This process was established in 2019. The City’s staffing includes planners
and attorneys who perform this work. The responsibility for this lies primarily in the City’s long range planning division. No additional staff is planned for this duty. 5. Why are we not getting notifications for Community Development in the four quadrants of the city when we are signed up for the city emails?
Staff Response: This tool was developed to keep individuals informed on development applications being submitted to the City. The question is beyond the scope of the growth policy. The question has been passed on to the City’s IT staff to look into the issue.
6. How long will it take to implement the policies for neighborhoods in the NCOD? The recommendations in the NCOD approved by the City Commission are outlined on p. 49, especially in section 4.1. This section refers to the actual definition of a transition zone, and what the building requirements for this area might look like. This section gave hope and reassurance to the residents of the transition zone, and the downtown neighborhoods, but the
delay in its implementation is dangerous as non-compatible development continues. Also on p. 61 of the NCOD, it is recommended that a plan be developed to have public meetings with impacted neighbors before a plan is finally approved. When will that recommendation take effect?
Staff Response: There are multiple questions within this question.
Question 1: How long will it take to implement the policies for neighborhoods in the NCOD?
304
SR: Based on the context of the question, Staff believes the question is referring to the Policy Recommendations prepared by BendonAdams relating to the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) and acted on by the City Commission on April 8,
2019. The final text of the report incorporating City Commission direction is available. All responses are based on that understanding. Implementation of policies is already underway. The BendonAdams recommendations suggested an extended implementation timeline due to the scope of the work required.
Section 1.4 describes a short, mid, and long term suggested outline of work. Policy recommendation 4.1 assigned a study of a transition zone to a mid or long term priority. The City has already enacted the transition recommendation on page 47. Please note that the recommendations on page 49 of the NCOD report are noted as tools to consider in the future, not directives to implement immediately. Each requires careful consideration before
action. Several of the recommendations are dependent on an update to the cultural resource surveys. The City has begun survey update work. The City Commission funded implementation actions beginning in July 2019. Therefore, implementation began within
three months of City Commission action on the BendonAdams report. The first phase is wrapping up this winter and the second phase is just beginning. Like many planned activities in 2020, the COVID pandemic has caused delays in completing the task. For a description of this work see https://www.bozeman.net/government/historic-preservation.
All policy revision and execution are prioritized with the City Commission direction to the
City Manager as part of annual work planning and budgeting processes. N-4.3 directly supports updating of design guidelines once the necessary cultural resource survey work is complete. This will occur in phases to due to the scope of the work. Revision of the Downtown guidelines will likely occur first as the updated cultural resource survey forms
will be completed soonest in that area.
Question 2: Also on p. 61 of the NCOD, it is recommended that a plan be developed to have public meetings with impacted neighbors before a plan is finally approved. When will that recommendation take effect? SR: The first element of the recommendations on page 61 has been enacted with push notifications and the Community Development viewer which links project locations to related documents. The implementation of recommendation 6.2 has started discussion. The recommendation would require a number of changes to the municipal code and other work has taken priority. No schedule has been fixed for the work.
7. On page 30 discussing parking, the plan acknowledges that eliminating minimum parking requirements will create parking problems. How could you endorse a community plan that purposely creates parking problems? Would it not be better to have the development plans for the downtown prevent those problems?
305
Staff Response: The City has adopted a Strategic Parking Plan. This guides parking management in the downtown area. The City has had a policy over the years that each
development must be self-sufficient in meeting regulations. That is not the only approach.
The City has a long tradition of shared facilities where a common facility serves a wide range of users. Parking can also be managed in such a manner. The plan suggests long term outcomes. To enact those outcomes a considerable amount of work is required to put in place new means of meeting needs. The question of what is “enough” parking is subject to
very different answers based on personal preferences and needs.
The draft Community Plan is a recommendation from the City Planning Board. The purpose of the City Commission public outreach and public hearing process is to hear from concerned citizens on the recommendations. Page 32 of the draft Plan, Goal M-1.12
recommends eliminating minimum parking requires in commercial districts, not all districts.
Please provide the Commission your opinion on this and any other policy direction being suggested. 8. Could you please provide facts on the amount of tax abatements and other incentives the
City has given in the last 10 years to the top five developers?
Staff Response: The staff is looking into this question. Three requests have been received for tax abatement for historic preservation since 2010. Two were approved, one was in 2010 and one in 2012, both were for residential properties. Answer will be supplemented when
more information is available. Information will be described broadly and not cost assigned
to individuals. 9. It seems that higher density is used in the plan to offset climate change. How does cutting
down the old trees and mature vegetation that characterize our historic neighborhoods offset
climate change? This relates directly with question #1. Staff Response: Evaluating impacts of development always involves tradeoffs. The City does encourage tree planting for many reasons and encourages mature trees to be maintained on
site when possible. There is a project now under the construction in the B-3 district called
One 11 lofts located at Lamme Street and N. Willson Avenue. His project includes 54 homes on approximately 0.5 acre of land. This project has approximately 363 linear feet of adjacent street and utility lines. A portion of the more typical residential area of the recently platted Gran Cielo subdivision in the southwest quadrant of the city uses 7.92 acres and
approximately 2,306 linear feet of adjacent street and utility lines to service the same
number of future homes. The One 11 project is within walking distance to elementary schools, parks, and diverse employment and services. Therefore, it is expected that total miles travelled by car will be less than housing further from such services. The City will use less resources to maintain the shorter street and utility line distances. Over the life of the
respective buildings the differences will amplify. The City’s draft Climate Action Plan,
available on the City’s website, addresses in detail these relationships and recommends a
306
compact development pattern.
10. It is obvious that the rent or purchase of dwellings in the new structures downtown will be out of reach of the work force in Bozeman. However, the Community Plan clearly states: EE-1.4 Support employee retention and attraction efforts by encouraging continued development of affordable housing in close proximity to large employers. Does this apply to everywhere except the NCOD area? Why are we not providing housing for the
workforce in Bozeman instead of requiring them to ride a bus to a park and ride? If we are a city of neighborhoods, why are we preventing Bozeman's workforce from residing in a neighborhood close to their employment? The downtown neighborhoods traditionally provided this housing, for teachers, public employees, service workers, health workers, and other essential jobs. Why are the prices of housing and the destruction of affordable housing
in the downtown area being allowed to price these workers out of the market? Staff Response: There are multiple questions within this question. This series of questions involves a wide variety of complex interactions, much of which are beyond the purview of local government action. However, the intent of the EE-1.4 policy statement is to apply to all areas of the City,
including the core area.
Question 1: It is obvious that the rent or purchase of dwellings in the new structures downtown will be out of reach of the work force in Bozeman. However, the Community Plan clearly states: EE-1.4 Support employee retention and attraction efforts by
encouraging continued development of affordable housing in close proximity to large employers. Does this apply to everywhere except the NCOD area? SR: The City’s largest employer is MSU, other large employers include, but are not limited to, the hospital, and school district. The City does encourage housing near large employers
but not all employers are located near available land. Development of an affordable housing project in the NCOD would likely involve aggregation of several properties and redevelopment with a much more intensive project. If the zoning allowed a larger project it could be approved. The NCOD does not restrict use of property, it does affect design.
The City has adopted the Community Housing Action Plan that partially answers these
question. The City Commission is investing heavily in promoting and addressing affordable housing in the community through financial support of HRDC, expanding the role of the City’s Affordable Housing Program Manager, developing more vigorous standards to ensure development includes affordable housing, and other initiatives. However, there are limits that local government can do to solve or provide sufficient affordable housing to meet
demand.
Question 2: Why are we not providing housing for the workforce in Bozeman instead of requiring them to ride a bus to a park and ride?
SR: As shown in this image from the US Census Bureau application OnTheMap, many
307
persons living outside of the city work at jobs located in the city. Data from 2017, the most recent available, shows a total of 33,879 jobs in the City. Of that number only 13,667 were serviced by City residents. The number of City residents leaving the City for employment
was 9,874 and the number of non-City residents coming into the City for work was 20,212.
Constructing enough homes to enable every worker (if they wanted to) live in the City would require more than double the existing housing supply within City limits. This would be in addition to any number of future homes needed by new population growth. The City takes many steps to support and encourage residential development. However, ultimately the
private land owner decides whether to annex, whether to develop, and what kind of development they propose. The City does not directly construct housing for its own or other employees. The City’s regulations facilitate and encourage, but do not require, employers to include housing on-site. See also answer about affordable housing above.
Question 3: If we are a city of neighborhoods, why are we preventing Bozeman's workforce from residing in a neighborhood close to their employment? SR: The City does not prohibit anyone from pursuing purchase or rental of a home in any location. Location of employment and location of housing are subject to change in ways that
bring someone closer or further away from one or the other. The City encourages mixed use development and develop of homes in proximity to employment. See the Future Land Use Map for the distribution of both. Adding additional homes to an area is often possible as existing neighborhoods are usually built at less than the maximum possible intensity. Infill
and redevelopment is both allowed and encouraged when appropriate but also depends on
308
the willingness of the landowner to pursue it. Development of vacant land within the City is also encouraged.
Question 4: The downtown neighborhoods traditionally provided this housing, for teachers, public employees, service workers, health workers, and other essential jobs. Why are the prices of housing and the destruction of affordable housing in the downtown area being allowed to price these workers out of the market? SR: The downtown neighborhoods no longer contain enough housing for the increase in the numbers of persons doing the identified jobs. When there is less supply than demand prices will rise. It is equally fair to ask why the employers do not increase wages adequately for the employees to purchase in downtown neighborhoods. The City does not limit any person from seeking to live in any neighborhood. It is not possible for the City to force the seller of
property to sell to a particular person or type of employee. The City does not control the real estate market pricing, advertising, or willingness to sell. The City is specifically prohibited by the Landlord Tenant Act from intruding into matters between a tenant and property owner.
As an example of demand influence: The US is over 330,000,000 people per the US Census Bureau population clock. One percent of the US population is 3,300,000 people. Bozeman has about 51,000 people and 23,000 homes today. That means that the entire population of Bozeman is 0.00015% (1.5% of 1%) of the US
population. Another way of saying that is if only 1 in 67 people in the top 1% of the US wanted to own a house in Bozeman it would replace everyone in the entire City who lives here now. The NCOD area includes about 15% of all the housing stock in Bozeman. Considering the
population facts above, it takes a very small fraction of people wanting to come here to strongly influence prices in the NCOD. Even if there were no buyers from outside the community, there is still inadequate homes in the NCOD for everyone who may potentially want to live there.
All other issues aside, Bozeman is an attractive town, with good schools, good access physically and electronically, and located in a beautiful place. It isn’t surprising that out of the 4,000,000 tourists a year some see it as appealing and wants to relocate. Not to mention all those top ten lists that have been coming out for years.
309
Population trend in Bozeman 11. Can the City define overcrowded? (For example, can every single family dwelling have a
two story ADU?) What's too much?
Staff Response: Yes, land is overcrowded when the streets, water, sewer, storm water, parks, emergency services, and other systems and services are not adequate to meet the needs of the users on the site. There is no number of homes on a site that is inherently too many if the services are
adequate to support them. As an example, a two acre lot using on-site septic treatment for sewage
can adequately service fewer homes than the same site connected to centralized sewer systems. The City has adopted standards for development to prevent the number of homes or other uses from overwhelming services.
While there may be a tipping point where a street, area or neighborhood is perceived as
overcrowded, or there is too much density, it is often in the eyes of the beholder. If you live and are
surrounded by detached single household development a building that houses five families may be seen as overcrowded. On the other hand, a recent college graduate moving from campus may find this five family building oozing with elbow room.
Accessory dwelling units are allowed on all residential lots and have been since 1998 (if they meet
the adopted standards). An ADU can be either a ground level or two story separate building or may be incorporated into the main building. For more details see 38.360.030 and 38.360.040 of the municipal code.
12. With a priority for infill and affordability, how will the City prevent affordable, compact
trailer courts from being razed for luxury development?
18,630
21,645
23,809
22,660
27,555 28,083
34,698 37,326
43,399
51,400
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
1970 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Bozeman Population
310
Staff Response: The City will not prevent such changes. The owner of a trailer court decides whether or not to continue in operations. The City may not, by state law, interfere in that decision. If
the owner chooses to stop operating the trailer court and redevelop they may do so in accordance with the standards in place at the time they submit a complete application. If the application conforms to the law the City must approve it.
This question highlights the tension between private property rights, the desire for a property owner to develop their property as they wish and a communities desire to meet the needs of all residents.
This is an excellent question to pose to the City Commission to answer. In essence, this is the purpose of the discussion we are having on the Community Plan. What are the City’s priorities and how, or where, do we spend our limited financial resources. 13. How are streams, wetlands, and other of environmental constraints addressed in the growth
policy? Staff Response: Chapter 2, Theme 4 is oriented to this issue. Two goals specifically address it: Goal EPO-2: Work to ensure that development is responsive to natural features; and Goal EPO-4: Promote uses of the natural environment that maintain and improve habitat, water quantity, and
water quality, while giving due consideration to the impact of City regulations on economic viability. The City Planning Board commissioned a Critical Lands Study in 1999. Many elements of that
study were included in the 2001 growth policy and have since become part of the City’s
development standards. The Planning Board chose with the proposed growth policy to not restate all items from prior plans that have already been included in City standards. See as an example Article 38.6 of the municipal code.
Any development proposed must including information on location and characteristics of streams,
wetlands, steep slopes, and other identified features as part of the application package. The City’s Community Development viewer pulls together information from many different sources. Information on wetlands and watercourses is included. This information is necessarily at a coarse scale but provides an important early indication of possible concerns to landowners and the public. The recently complete Triangle Community Plan, a joint project between the City of Bozeman, City
of Belgrade, and Gallatin County, Sections 4.11 through 4.14 also address these subjects. 14. Where do I find all these other plans you are referring to?
Staff Response: Plans are hosted on the City’s website. Links to specific plans are placed
throughout the growth policy text. Page 9 has a list of them. Generally plans are available at: Community Development (growth policy, neighborhood plans, housing) Engineering (utilities, water conservation, transportation) Sustainability (climate action existing and proposed)
311
Vacant & Undeveloped Land Use Over 1/3 Acre
Legend
City Limits
Undeveloped
Vacant
Map Created by City of Bozeman GIS Division 10/8/2020
±0 1 20.5 Miles
Number of Vacant Parcels over 1/3 Acre: 279
Number of Undeveloped Parcels over 1/3 Acre: 66
Total Acres of Vacant Parcels: 830.2
Total Acres of Undeveloped Parcels: 1,806.6
Count of Parcels over 1/3 Acre and are contained within the Planning Projects Layer: 196
312
Traditional Core
RCS
RCS
RCS
RCS
INT
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
S 19TH AVE FRO
N
T
A
G
E
R
D
GOOCH HILL RD S 3RD AVE DURSTON RD COTTONWOOD RD HUFFINE LN
STUCKY RD
BAXTER LN W
E VALLEY CENTER RD SOURDOUGH RD S 11TH AVE W MAIN ST SPRINGHILL RD W BABCOCK ST
W OAK ST N 7TH AVE BRIDGER CAN Y O NRD
DAVIS LN HARPER PUCKETT RD N 19TH AVE W COLLEGE ST
E MAIN ST
W KAGY BLVD N ROUSE AVE BRIDGER DR HIGHLANDBLVDS WILLSON AVE SCHURCHAVEGRAF ST
EKAGYBLVDN 11TH AVE W PEACH ST
E OAKST
S FERGUSON AVE N FERGUSON AVE GOLDENSTEIN LN
E PEACH ST S 11TH AVE FRONTAG
E
R
D
S 3RD AVE GOLDENSTEIN LN
160 acres
40 acres
10 acres
July 21, 2020 Planning Board Recommendation
Text
Legend
Streams
Growth Policy Boundary (Proposed)
City Limits
Parks and Open Lands
Urban Neighborhood
Traditional Core
Residential Mixed Use
Regional Commercial and Services
Community Commercial Mixed Use
Industrial
Public Institutions
No City Services
´0 1 2 3½Miles
This map was created by the City of Bozeman GIS Division and is intended for planning purposes only - 10/2/2020
The boudaries depicted on this map are subject to change through individual amendments and growth policy updates as described in Chapter 5 of this growth policy.
*Amended August 10, 2020
Future Land Use Map
313
INTERSTATE 90 HWY S 3RD AVE GOOCHHILLRDFRONTAGE RD COTTONWOOD RD DURSTON RD
HUFFINE LN
BAXTER LN W
STUCKY RD
E VALLEY CENTER RD SOURDOUGH RD S 11TH AVE W MAIN ST W BABCOCK ST
BRIDGER CANYONRD
W OAK ST N 7TH AVE DAVIS LN SPRINGHILLRDHARPER PUCKETT RD N1
9
T
H
A
VEW COLLEGE ST
E MAIN ST
W KAGY BLVD N ROUSE AVE BRIDGER DR HIGHLANDBLVDS WILLSON AVE GRAF ST
EKAGYBLVD
S 19TH AVE N 11TH AVE W PEACH ST S FERGUSON AVE GOLDENSTEIN LN S 3RD AVE S 11TH AVE FRONTAG
E
R
D
GOLDENSTEIN LN
Legend
Structures in Planning Boundary
!(Residential
!(Farmstead Use
!(Other
!(Commercial
Proposed Planning Boundary
City Limits
Conservation Easements
Government and Education Agencies
Parcels Under 5 Acres
Parcels Five to Ten Acres
Parcels Ten to Twenty Acres
Parcels Twenty to Forty Acres
Parcels Over Forty Acres ±0 1 20.5 Miles
Growth Policy Update
x3949
x213
x251x259
x148
x20x11 1,195 ac1,535 ac4,007 ac
1,650 ac
3,538 ac6,419 ac
15,289 ac
314