HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-22 EVB Agenda & Packet MaterialsA.Call to Order - 6:00 PM
Via Webex:
https://cityofbozeman.webex.com/cityofbozeman/onstage/g.php?MTID=edb15fc8548549d246384a7fbc8e1c32a
Click the Register link, enter the required information, and click submit.
Click Join Now to enter the meeting
Via Phone:
This is for listening only if you cannot watch the stream or channel 190
• Call-in toll number (US/Canada): 1-650-479-3208
• Access code: 2553 269 7746
Public Comment:
If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda, please send an email to
agenda@bozeman.net prior to 4:00pm on the Monday before the meeting. You may also
comment by visiting the City's public comment page.
You can also comment by joining the WebEx meeting. If you do join the WebEx meeting, we ask
you please be patient in helping us work through this online meeting. If you are not able to join
the Webex meeting and would like to provide oral comment you may send a request to
agenda@bozeman.net with your phone number, the item(s) you wish to comment on, and
someone will call you during the meeting to provide an opportunity to comment. You may also
send the above information via text to 406-224-3967.
As always, the meeting will be streamed through the City's video page (click the Streaming Live in
the drop down menu), and available in the City on cable channel 190.
B.Disclosures
C.Changes to the Agenda
D.Approval of Minutes
D.1 Approval of Minutes February 2, 2022 and March 2, 2022 (DiTommaso)
E.Public Comments
This is the time to comment on any matter falling within the scope of the Economic Vitality Board.
There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that
item but you may only speak once. Please note, the Board cannot take action on any item which
does not appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the Board shall speak in a civil and
THE ECONOMIC VITALITY BOARD OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
EV AGENDA
Wednesday, April 6, 2022
1
courteous manner and members of the audience shall be respectful of others. Please state your
name and place of residence in an audible tone of voice for the record and limit your comments to
three minutes.
General public comments to the Board can be found in their Laserfiche repository folder.
F.Action Items
F.1 Bozeman Code Audit to Create and Preserve Housing (David Fine, Economic Development
Manager, Housing and Development)
G.FYI/Discussion
G.1 Progress Report on the Economic Development Strategy Update (DiTommaso)
H.Adjournment
I.For more information please contact Brit Fontenot, bfontenot@bozeman.net
General information about the Economic Vitality Board is available in our Laserfiche repository.
This board generally meets the first Wednesday of the month from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm.
Citizen Advisory Board meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and
require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Gray at 406-582-3232 (TDD 406-
582-2301).
2
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Economic Vitality Board
FROM:Jesse DiTommaso, Economic Development Specialist
Brit Fontenot, Economic Development Director
SUBJECT:Approval of Minutes February 2, 2022 and March 2, 2022
MEETING DATE:April 6, 2022
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Administration
RECOMMENDATION:Approve minutes as submitted.
STRATEGIC PLAN:1.2 Community Engagement: Broaden and deepen engagement of the
community in city government, innovating methods for inviting input from
the community and stakeholders.
BACKGROUND:In accordance with Commission Resolution 5323 and the City of Bozeman's
Citizen Advisory Board Manual, all boards must have minutes taken and
approved. Prepared minutes will be provided for approval by the board at
the next regularly scheduled meeting. Staff will make any corrections
identified to the minutes before submitting to the City Clerk's Office.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None.
ALTERNATIVES:As directed by the Board.
FISCAL EFFECTS:None.
Attachments:
020222 Draft EV Board Minutes.pdf
030222 Draft Economic Vitaility Board Minutes.pdf
Report compiled on: February 25, 2022
3
Bozeman Economic Vitality Meeting Minutes, February 2, 2022
Page 1 of 3
THE ECONOMIC VITALITY MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
MINUTES
February 2, 2022
Present: Joseph Morrison, Sara Savage, Suzanne Berget White, Craig Ogilvie, Danielle Rogers, John
Carey, Katharine Osterloth
Absent: Christopher Coburn
A) 00:04:17 Call to Order - 6:00 PM
B) 00:04:20 Disclosures
C) 00:04:31 Changes to the Agenda
D) Public Service Announcements
There were no public service announcements.
E) 00:09:13 Approval of Minutes
E.1 January 5, 2022 Economic Vitality Board Meeting Minutes
010522 DRAFT EV Board Minutes F.pdf
00:09:49 Motion E) Approval of Minutes
Danielle Rogers: Motion
Craig Ogilvie: 2nd
00:10:19 Vote on the Motion to approve E) Approval of Minutes. The Motion carried 7 - 0
Approve:
Joseph Morrison
Sara Savage
Suzanne Berget White
Craig Ogilvie
Danielle Rogers
John Carey
4
Bozeman Economic Vitality Meeting Minutes, February 2, 2022
Page 2 of 3
Katharine Osterloth
Disapprove:
None
F) 00:10:31 Public Comments
There were no public comments.
G) 00:11:03 Action Items
G.1 00:11:03 Economic Vitality Board 2022 - 2024 Workplan
EV Board Memo RE 2022-2024 workplan 1.26.22.docx
00:11:07 Staff Presentation
Staff liaison Fontenot presented the 2022-2024 Economic Vitality Workplan to the Board.
00:49:23 Public Comment Opportunity
00:50:14 Board Discussion
00:53:31 Motion To approve the work plan as written.
Sara Savage: Motion
John Carey: 2nd
Board members discussed their opinions on the work plan.
01:00:03 Vote on the Motion to approve To approve the work plan as written. The Motion carried 7 – 0.
Approve:
Joseph Morrison
Sara Savage
Suzanne Berget White
Craig Ogilvie
Danielle Rogers
John Carey
Katharine Osterloth
Disapprove:
None
H) 01:11:29 FYI/Discussion
Liaison Fontenot informed the Board of upcoming meeting agenda materials.
I) 01:13:34 Adjournment
5
Bozeman Economic Vitality Meeting Minutes, February 2, 2022
Page 3 of 3
For more information please contact Brit Fontenot, bfontenot@bozeman.netGeneral
information about the Economic Vitality Board is available in our Laserfiche repository.
6
Bozeman Economic Vitality Board Meeting Minutes, March 2, 2022
Page 1 of 4
THE ECONOMIC VITALITY BOARD MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA
MINUTES
March 2, 2022
Present: Joseph Morrison, Sara Savage, Craig Ogilvie, Danielle Rogers, John Carey, Katharine
Osterloth, Christopher Coburn
Absent: Suzanne Berget White
A) 00:00:02 Call to Order - 6:00 PM
B) 00:00:29 Disclosures
Chair Katy Osterloth disclosed she has been to several meetings of the local task force for CEDAW.
Vice Chair Danielle Rogers disclosed she has worked on the local task force for CEDAW.
C) 00:01:43 Changes to the Agenda
There were no changes to the agenda.
D) 00:02:02 Consent Items
D.1 00:02:03 Vote to re-approve the 2022-2024 Economic Vitality Board Work Plan
EV Board Work Plan Memo.pdf
EV Board Workplan 2022-2024.pdf
00:03:18 Public Comment
There were no public comments.
00:06:16 Motion Re-Approve 2022-2024 Economic Vitality Board Work Plan as submitted.
Sara Savage: Motion
Katharine Osterloth: 2nd
00:07:14 Vote on the Motion to amend Re-Approve 2022-2024 Economic Vitality Board Work Plan as
submitted. The Motion carried 6 - 0
Approve:
Joseph Morrison
7
Bozeman Economic Vitality Board Meeting Minutes, March 2, 2022
Page 2 of 4
Sara Savage
Craig Ogilvie
Danielle Rogers
John Carey
Katharine Osterloth
Disapprove:
None
E) 00:07:27 Public Comments
There were no public comments.
F) 00:08:16 Action Items
F.1 00:08:19 Review and recommend approval of Resolution 5384 Establishing the
City of Bozeman as a City for CEDAW (Convention of the Elimination of Discrimination
Against Women)
CEDAW Draft Resolution 5384.pdf
CEDAW Memo 20220211.pdf
00:08:34 Staff Presentation
Communications Manager Mileur and Neighborhoods Coordinator Hess presented Resolution 5384
Establishing the City of Bozeman as a City for CEDAW to the Board.
00:25:15 Board Questions
Board members directed questions to staff.
00:41:05 Public Comment Opportunity
00:43:14 Jan Strout, Public Comment
Jan Strout spoke in support of the resolution and provided suggested amendments from the Bozeman
CEDAW task force.
00:48:29 Board Discussion
Board members discussed changing the motion language to be more inclusive.
01:11:09 Motion Motion to recommend to City Commission approval of Resolution 5384 Establishing
the City of Bozeman as a City for CEDAW (Convention of the Elimination of Discrimination Against
Women)
Craig Ogilvie: Motion
Katharine Osterloth: 2nd
01:13:15 Motion That the phrase women and girls be changed to women + of all ages.
Craig Ogilvie: Motion
8
Bozeman Economic Vitality Board Meeting Minutes, March 2, 2022
Page 3 of 4
Sara Savage: 2nd
01:14:12 Vote on the Motion to amend That the phrase women and girls be changed to women + of all
ages. The Motion carried 6 - 0
Approve:
Joseph Morrison
Sara Savage
Craig Ogilvie
Danielle Rogers
John Carey
Katharine Osterloth
Disapprove:
None
01:20:15 Vote on the Motion to approve Motion to recommend to City Commission approval of Resolution
5384 Establishing the City of Bozeman as a City for CEDAW (Convention of the Elimination of Discrimination
Against Women) . The Motion carried 7 - 0
Approve:
Joseph Morrison
Sara Savage
Suzanne Berget White
Craig Ogilvie
Danielle Rogers
John Carey
Katharine Osterloth
Disapprove:
None
G) 01:21:00 FYI/Discussion
G.1 01:21:06 Unified Development Code Affordable Housing Assessment Discussion
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment PRD Dec 2021.pdf
Affordable Housing Memo EV Board Meeting 03.02.22.pdf
01:21:32 Staff Presentation
Economic Development Department Director Brit Fontenot introduced members of the Clarion team to
the Board and gave a brief overview of the code audit.
01:22:31 Clarion Presentation
Elizabeth Garvin of Clarion & Associates presented the UDC code audit to the Board.
01:48:08 Board Questions
Board members directed questions to Ms. Garvin.
02:05:18 Public Comment Opportunity
9
Bozeman Economic Vitality Board Meeting Minutes, March 2, 2022
Page 4 of 4
02:06:41 Board Discussion
Board member Ogilvie inquired if the City Commission could comment that the City supports citizens
and those that have deep connections to the Ukraine.
H) 02:10:09 Adjournment
For more information please contact Brit Fontenot, bfontenot@bozeman.net
General information about the Economic Vitality Board is available in our Laserfiche repository.
10
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Economic Vitality Board
FROM:David Fine, Economic Development Manager, Housing and Development
Renata Munfrada, Community Housing Program Manager
SUBJECT:Bozeman Code Audit to Create and Preserve Housing
MEETING DATE:April 6, 2022
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Policy Discussion
RECOMMENDATION:Discuss and provide feedback to staff.
STRATEGIC PLAN:4.5 Housing and Transportation Choices: Vigorously encourage, through a
wide variety of actions, the development of sustainable and lasting housing
options for underserved individuals and families and improve mobility
options that accommodate all travel modes.
BACKGROUND:Modification to the City of Bozeman’s existing Affordable Housing Ordinance
(AHO) was recommended in the Bozeman Community Action Plan to
broaden application of the AHO to multifamily housing, calibrate income
targets, and strengthen deed restrictions. State restrictions on inclusionary
zoning now require a complete restructuring of the AHO.
Root Policy Research is working in partnership with Clarion Associates to
help the City revise the AHO. Their Financial Feasibility Model reflects an
incentive-based system. The feasibility model examined development
proformas allowing smaller lot sizes, increased building heights, and parking
reductions in exchange for the inclusion of income-restricted units in the
development.
The analysis indicated that incentives in exchange for affordability are viable
on paper; however, local developers have indicated that there may not be
extensive market support to make these “shallow” incentives work in
practice. The shallow incentives would likely generate a small proportion of
affordable units. Though the incentives do modestly improve returns for
developers, perceived market barriers and developer preferences could
prevent widespread adoption among existing market-rate developers in
Bozeman.
Based on these findings, in addition to public comment provided by
residents, City staff are evaluating the previously proposed “shallow”
incentive-based approach and determining whether rather than explicitly
requiring affordable housing in exchange for these incentives, it would be
11
more effective to include those shallow incentives in the base Unified
Development Code (UDC), in order to encourage increased housing supply,
by allowing urban density and reducing regulatory costs to the developer,
across the spectrum of housing needs.
Concurrently, the feasibility analysis encouraged the development of “deep”
incentives for affordable housing developers whose projects are at least 50%
affordable (i.e. LIHTC developers, land trusts, HUD-funded housing, Habitat
for Humanity, etc.) in order to make the development of workforce housing
easier and faster for those who specialize in such housing. The City will
continue to move forward with the advancement of these deep incentives
and more comprehensive code revisions as part of the larger code audit
work.
The current work for discussion continues the City’s efforts and commitment
to practical and achievable actions to support the creation of housing,
specifically housing at lower price points. The issue remains very challenging.
The tools available to Bozeman are limited, especially compared to the
scope of the challenges. At this time, City staff are requesting a
recommendation from the advisory board on our approach to shallow
incentives on whether to incorporate these density bonuses into the unified
development code for availability to all builders as an incentive to supply, or
specifically incentivizing affordable housing projects through the provision of
density bonuses.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None at this time.
ALTERNATIVES:As directed by the Economic Vitality Board.
FISCAL EFFECTS:No fiscal effects related to this work session.
Attachments:
2022 Commission Memo for Work Session.pdf
2021 AHO Root Policy Memo.pdf
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment.pdf
Report compiled on: April 1, 2022
12
Memorandum
REPORT TO: City Commission
FROM: David Fine, Economic Development Manager, Housing and Development
Chris Saunders, Community Development Manager
Jeff Mihelich, City Manager
SUBJECT: Housing Affordability Work Session
MEETING DATE: March 1, 2022
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Policy Discussion
RECOMMENDATION: Direction to Staff
Introduction
Housing affordability is a long‐standing issue for Bozeman and many other communities. As early as
1972, Bozeman’s community planning documents identified a policy focus to pursue improvement of
housing availability and affordability. The City of Bozeman evaluated and implemented many different
approaches over the years with limited success compared to the need. The current work for discussion
on March 1, 2022 continues the City’s efforts and commitment to practical and achievable actions,
within the City’s control, to support creation of housing and specifically housing at lower price points.
The issue remains very challenging. As shown in attached materials, the challenges have become more
and not less difficult due to many circumstances in the past few years. The tools available to Bozeman
are limited, especially compared with the scope of the challenges. The suggested actions will not solve
all the issues; however, they represent important tools to advance incremental progress.
Market Conditions
Price escalation fundamentally changed Bozeman’s housing market. These increases, brought about by
market forces, have altered what kinds of housing the market can produce and at what level of
affordability. Affordability, in this case, is defined as a housing unit that devotes 1/3 or less of
household’s income to housing. Housing professionals describe housing affordability in relation to area
median income (AMI) for a household as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) for a given household size. Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) analyzed the
Bozeman housing market and showed what incomes would be necessary for Bozeman homes to
affordable, given recent price escalation of single‐household homes.
13
The chart above shows how the affordability of a single‐household home has changed between 2016
and 2021. Such a home now requires a household to earn 219% of the area median income for such a
home to be deemed affordable. Given these costs, it is unlikely that housing units can be provided
affordably without incentive or subsidy.
One Valley Community Foundation and Future West recently attempted to quantify the subsidy
required to produce affordable units of housing and defined that subsidy as a “capital gap”.
14
One Valley’s analysis, completed in the spring of 2021, showed that to produce an affordable rental unit
for household making 80% AMI would require $23,333 in subsidy. A townhome with affordable
purchase price for a household making 100% AMI would require nearly $100,000 in subsidy. These
examples are illustrative of the challenge to create affordable housing units in the Bozeman market.
These capital gaps for developers can be filled with both monetary incentives /subsidies to produce
affordability, or by reducing other development costs. Reductions in development costs could include
reducing the cost of land per unit, by decreasing lot sizes, increasing building height, or reducing the
amount of valuable land devoted to parking. In this way, changing what is allowable under the code can
act as an indirect incentive to make affordable housing production more feasible.
Data‐Based Approach to Feasible Housing Affordability
The City of Bozeman engaged Clarion Associates and their sub‐consultant, Root Policy Research, a firm
specializing in housing economics, to propose changes to the unified development code (UDC) to
incentivize the production of community housing units. A key way to evaluate any incentive is to apply a
“but for” test: The incentive must enhance the feasibility of providing affordable housing units that
would not be financially feasible “but for” the application of the incentive. The team developed
prototype proformas of for‐sale and rental housing types from single household detached housing units
15
to multi‐household units based on regional housing prototypes and costs, market data and interviews.
These proformas create base case scenarios for evaluating the financial feasibility of affordable housing
production within existing code. The consultants modeled the following base case scenarios:
3‐story rental residential with standard parking requirements (2.0 spaces for a 2‐
bedroom unit);
3‐story multifamily condo development with standard parking requirements (2.0 spaces
for a 2‐bedroom unit)
For‐Sale townhomes with a 3,000 square foot lot size
Single‐household units with a 4,000 square foot lot size
The UDC currently allows for these base case scenarios in applicable zoning districts, where townhomes
and multifamily, respectively, are currently allowed.
The consultants applied code incentives to these base case scenarios to see how the incentives
change the feasibility of providing affordable housing units. These incentives constitute a bonus on what
is currently allowed by the code. The proposed code changes include the following incentives:
Reduced lot size requirements
Reduced parking requirements
Height Bonuses
The consultants adjusted the base case scenarios by allowing smaller lot sizes, increased building
heights, and/or parking reductions in exchange for the inclusion of income‐restricted, affordable, units
in the development. They evaluated the impact of these bonuses on project feasibility and projected the
percentage of affordable housing units these incentives would facilitate that would likely not exist “but
for” the incentive.
16
Shallow Affordability Incentives
Clarion found that incentives that would ordinarily enhance affordability had only modest impact in the
Bozeman market. Yet, long‐term affordable housing units remain community assets and every unit
counts. The consultants found that the application of height, lot size, and parking incentives would
feasibly produce between 1.5% affordability, and 13% affordability, depending on the housing type.
Based on these projects Staff and Clarion are recommending the following Shallow Incentives:
These Shallow Incentives would allow the market to produce long‐term affordability with a range of
housing unit types without the provision of cash or another subsidy.
17
Deep Affordability Incentives
Clarion recommended larger code‐based incentives for developments that produced affordability well‐
beyond what the market would could produce with code‐based incentives alone. These projects, like
GMD’s Arrowleaf and Perennial Park low‐income housing tax credit (LIHTC ‐ “Li‐Tech”) development and
the Bridger View development near Story Mill Park, produced affordability in 50% or more of their units
by harnessing federal monetary subsidy, social impact investing, and private philanthropy. In exchange
for this depth of affordability, Staff and Clarion recommend the following Deep Incentives:
Given the massive public and private incentives required to produce deep affordability, Staff believes
providing more significant incentives appropriate, and likely necessary to make more projects like these
possible.
Policy Context
1. Four high level principles informed the effort to reset affordable housing related standards and
incentives and consider overall enhancement of creation of homes:
Follow state law. House Bill 259, passed by the 2021 Montana Legislature, barred the
use of the City’s compulsory affordable housing provisions. This affected several
subdivisions and removed obligations for them to construct price limited housing. It also
made the existing procedures and standards unworkable. The City needs to reset the
affordable housing process to an incentive‐based program.
Administrative review of applications. The public review process requires time and
investment by both the public and private participants. Application of adopted
standards can usually be more expeditiously and consistently applied through
administrative review procedures. Administrative procedures provide for public
comment and awareness but provide a less time‐consuming review process. Most land
development reviews in Bozeman are administrative, additional options for
administrative review were investigated. Some types of review are required by law to be
approved by the City Commission such as annexations and subdivisions.
18
Align incentives/benefits to functional and practical areas consistent with actual
construction. Offered incentives which don’t provide sufficient benefit to a developer
are ineffective and do not result in construction of additional housing. Since the City can
only use incentives to encourage additional housing production it is necessary that the
incentives be practical and balanced with the amount of housing sought.
Identify duplicative or overlapping standards. Land development is a complex process.
There are many issues which must be addressed. Over time, standards are adopted to
respond to public concerns. Sometimes, those standards either overlap or provide only
a small margin of improvements. Identifying these situations enables either removal of
duplicate standards or better coordination to simplify use of the code.
Recommended Changes to the Unified Development Code (UDC)
Clarion created four distinct but related work products. These will be further described during the
March 1st work session. The first three items of this work are not yet in final format. The
recommendations continue to undergo legal review and changes are expected as the recommendations
are put into ordinance format, related sections are identified that need to be revised to be consistent
with recommendations, and Commission direction is incorporated.
Departures
Departures are an existing tool used to allow alternative compliance with adopted standards. It is
difficult to imagine every possible outcome for a standard when applied to specific properties.
Departures allow for minor adjustments consistent with the purpose of a standard and integrate within
existing review processes to “smooth the edges” while retaining the integrity of the standards. Clarion is
suggesting some modest departures to provide flexibility that can allow market rate developments to be
completed more affordably, within the spirit of the existing code standards. Examples of departures
could include marginal flexibility related to setbacks, building height, lot coverage, parking, and private
open space requirements. Application of these new departures will primarily be administrative.
Replace the Affordable Housing Ordinance
Replace Division 38.380, Affordable Housing – This portion of the municipal code required subdividers to
construct a certain percentage of housing at limited prices. The Montana Legislature has revised the law
to prohibit use of this approach. The section has been rebuilt entirely to be an incentive based voluntary
participation option. It remains focused on encouraging construction of price limited housing. The new
language proposes a two‐ tiered approach aligned with shallow (market) and deep subsidy options. The
shallow subsidies tier is tied to the analysis and assumptions in the work by Root Policy (see attached
materials). The deep subsidy option is generally based on the guidelines applicable to Low Income
Housing Tax Credits, the primary funding source for the majority of long‐ term price limited housing
construction. Use of the deep subsidy option is not limited to Low Income Housing Tax Credits.
Application of these incentives and housing construction does not change the development review
process and may be either Commission or Administrative action.
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Planned Unit Development (PUD)is an existing process which allows a developer to propose
substantially different standards in exchange for public benefits as outlined in the municipal code,
38.430. The text governing the PUD process is proposed to be entirely replaced with an increased focus
19
on housing affordability, sustainability, and historic preservation. The option to provide public benefit
through open space is removed.
This revision changes the PUD process to a rezoning action rather than a use within an existing district as
is the current method. This brings PUD approval into the zone map amendment process which requires
the City Commission to be the final approval body. The proposed revision adds steps and time to the
overall process but provides intermediate approvals for a developer which increases some certainty for
the project and requires less up‐front detail with initial submittal. Follow up applications are required to
move to construction approvals. The follow up applications (e.g. subdivisions or site plans) may be
approved by Commission or administratively depending on application type. The existing process has
been rebuilt to a tighter focus on current community priorities.
General Code Review
This process is a more overarching review examining Chapter 38, Unified Development Code. This
chapter is the primary municipal code regulating development and use of land and covers many
concepts and concerns. The City regularly examines and updates its regulatory structure. This work is a
continuation of that practice and focuses on support of the longer‐term revisions project the City
Commission has funded. The RFQ for the longer‐term project issued on February 20th and is expected to
be completed by end of 2024. Reviewing the recommendations, Staff has identified some rapid action
items that could be quickly implemented prior to completion of the larger project should the
Commission so direct. See the attached summary file of options.
Next Steps
What comes next in this municipal code amendment process?
Ordinances must address a single subject. Given the discrete elements of the three
recommendations for Departures, Affordable Housing, and Planned Unit Development staff
suggests preparation and review of three ordinances for implementation. Depending on the
degree of modifications directed by the Commission and needed response to legal review the
following schedule for formal review is anticipated but not assured and the schedule may need
to be revised.
March 1 – City Commission Work Session
March 2 – Economic Vitality Board Work Session
March 2‐20 Ordinances completed to reflect Commission direction
March 20 – Public notice published in Bozeman Daily Chronicle Notice for text
amendment
March 20 ‐ April 3 – Public education and staff reports
April 4 – Community Development Board public hearing
April 6 – Economic Vitality Board Recommendations
April 26 – City Commission public hearing and potential provisional adoption
May 10 – City Commission potential final adoption ‐ Effective Date 30 days after final
adoption
Short term action list – Possibility of preparing additional ordinances for quick response to
address issues identified with the general code review and related elements identified by staff.
20
Expected timeline to start public review is in approximately 2 months with completion of review
and Commission decision within 6 months. This work would fit into the Staff time allocation set
aside for the April semi‐annual code amendment process. A list of potential subjects is attached.
The larger UDC update project will continue to move forward. The RFQ has been issued and the
consultant selection process to support the work will follow.
Commission Questions and Direction
1. Does the Commission wish for the new Departures mechanism to proceed?
2. Does the Commission find the two‐tier incentive structure and associated housing price
limits acceptable?
3. Does the Commission want to advance the revised Planned Unit Development process
and alternative community benefits approach?
4. Does the Commission wish the Staff to proceed with the recommended amendments in
the short‐term action list as the April 2022 bi‐annual amendments?
21
Background on Affordable Housing Efforts
The current project is a continuation of a long series of efforts in support of affordable housing. The City
works hard to leverage opportunities and partnerships that can help carry forward housing production
and especially housing for the least advantaged. These efforts include but are not limited to:
Regular analysis of housing needs and creation of housing action plans to identify tools and
options for housing, most recently the Community Housing Action Plan in 2020.
Direct financial support from general funds for multiple affordable housing projects.
Financial support for education and down payment assistance.
Welcoming new annexations and infill development to provide land for housing
Flexible zoning districts that allow for a wide range of housing combinations
Of‐right reviews of most development to provide certainty to the public and development
communities
Many code revisions over the past 20 years, including in 2021, such as but not limited to capping
maximum park dedication requirements, removing minimum home sizes from zoning, allowing
accessory dwellings in all residential zoning districts, substantially reduced land area per home
requirements, reduced and flexible parking requirements, administrative review of most
development types, increased building heights, and expedited review processing for affordable
housing projects.
Infrastructure (e.g. streets, water, and sewer) planning and construction support to avoid delays
in being able to bring homes to production and be cost effective in installation and operation of
essential services.
Challenges Beyond the City’s Control
Although the City has pursued and will continue to pursue many methods to support housing availability
and affordability there are substantial challenges. While Staff is hopeful City policy can make a
difference, it is prudent to recognize those factors beyond the City’s control, so that the hard work of
the community can be focused where it can have the greatest impact. The following factors are beyond
the City’s control and likely have a greater impact on affordability than many of these proposed code
changes. Nothing in the proposed amendments will:
Lower the price at which someone will sell land
Cause more people to be willing to bring land to market and annex
Require people to use development capacity authorized to create more housing
Address labor force availability or supply chain delays and costs
Raise wages so that people have greater capacity to pursue housing
Address personal lending qualifications or terms offered by lenders such as interest rates
Lessen Federal and State requirements for land development which are substantial cost factors,
such as standards for water quality permitting and treatment
Change personal preferences for housing
Increase water availability in our arid climate
Alter private covenants which add restrictions to development that add cost or otherwise limit
the development capacity of annexed property
22
Attachments:
Root Policy Research Memorandum – Incentive Testing
Clarion Associates Code Audit
Short Term Code Edits for Affordability
23
MEMORANDUM
To: Bozeman AHO Project Team
From: Root Policy Research
Re: Incentive Testing – Preliminary Results
Date: November 3, 2021
The City of Bozeman’s existing Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) reflects an
inclusionary zoning system which is no longer permissible (due to recent state
legislation) and only applied to owner occupied development. Root Policy Research is
currently working in partnership with Clarion Associates to help the City revise the AHO:
1. To reflect an incentive-based system (as opposed to a mandatory inclusionary
system); and
2. Broaden the application of the AHO to rental developments in addition to for-
sale (owner occupied) developments.
In order to calibrate the incentive options, Root developed a financial feasibility model
which tests various incentives on a variety of rental and for-sale development
prototypes.
Feasibility Model
Financial feasibility models are based on development proformas typically used in the
real estate industry to determine whether a project is financially feasible. A proforma is
comprised of a development budget (construction and other costs associated with
building development); an estimate of income as units are sold or rented; and an
estimate of project value based on project income at stabilization and the estimated
value of the entire development at sale.
The feasibility model starts with base case scenarios that reflect current development
conditions under Bozeman’s existing zoning code:
3-story rental residential with standard parking requirements (2.0 spaces for a 2-
bedroom unit);
For-Sale townhomes with a 3,000 square foot lot size; and
Single-household units with a 4,000 square foot lot size.
24
Page 2
Root then adjusted the base case scenarios by allowing smaller lot sizes, increased
building heights, and/or parking reductions in exchange for the inclusion of income-
restricted units in the development. Root then compared the returns to
developers/investors on the base case to returns on incentive case developments.
Improved returns suggest the incentive package is favorable to developers and a viable
option to incentivize creation of affordable units.
Development prototypes and costs are consistent with the construction prototypes and
costs described the Gallatin County Regional Housing Study but also include some
adjustments by Root based on market conditions and input from local development
professionals.
Preliminary Findings
The feasibility analysis does indicate that incentives in exchange for affordability are
viable on paper; however, interviews with developers indicate that there may not be
widespread market support for the height and/or density needed to make the
incentives work.
Based on initial staff discussion, the feasibility results below prioritize breadth of
affordable unit creation over depth of affordability. In other words, we set the AMI
targets on the upper bound of need in order to maximize the percentage requirement.
In setting final targets for the AHO, the City should consider feasibility, housing needs,
and policy goals.
Multi-unit rental residential. Figure 1 shows the feasibility model proforma for
the baseline 3-story prototype along with prototypes of increasing height paired with
parking reductions and affordability requirements. In the figure, green shading
highlights the incentive package; red shading highlights the affordability requirement,
and incentive viability is indicated by an increase in return on cost and annual net cash
flow.
The model shows that increasing the entitlement height supports an affordability
requirement of up to 8% of units affordable to 100% AMI households, when paired with
a parking reduction (down to 1.0 spaces per unit).
However, the incentive does not improve with additional height—in other words, a 1-
story bonus (leading to a 4-story development) supports the same affordability
requirement as a much larger density bonus (up to 12 stories). This is due to the
increasing building costs of higher-story development types.
Though not shown in the figure, the same incentive package (additional height paired
with a parking reduction) could also support a lower percentage of units affordable to
deeper levels of AMI: 5% of units affordable to 80% AMI or 3% of units affordable to 60%
AMI.
25
Page 3
Figure 1. Feasibility of Incentives for Multi-Unit Rental Prototype
Source: Root Policy Research with data from Gallatin County Regional Housing Study 2021 and interviews with developers.
Though the incentives modeled above do improve returns for developers, Root’s
interviews with local developers indicate that there may be perceived market barriers
and/or developer preferences that could prevent widespread adoption. Many
developers prefer a 3-story development type because it does not require elevators,
Baseline
3-Story 4-Story 5-Story 6-Story 12-Story
Multi-Unit Multi-Unit Multi-Unit Multi-Unit Multi-Unit
Prototype/Incentive Description
Bldg Height or Density 3 stories 4 stories 5 stories 6 stories 12 stories
Lot size per unit 1,452 990 495 403 272
Affordable unit requirement 0%8%8%8%8%
AMI target n/a 100% AMI 100% AMI 100% AMI 100% AMI
Site and Prototype Characteristics
Parcel Size (acres)1.00 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
Density (DU/acre)30.00 42.00 88.00 108.00 160.00
Building SF (excl. parking for M-U)28,000 51,944 103,889 127,500 177,778
Efficiency 95%90%90%90%90%
Parking Ratio 2.0/unit 1.0/unit 1.0/unit 1.0/unit 0.5/unit
Parking Type 100% surface 100% surface50% sur / 50% str50% sur / 50% str25% ug/ 75% str
Total Units 30 55 110 135 200
Income Restricted Units 0 4 9 11 16
Avg SF per unit (2 Bedroom)850 850 850 850 800
Development Costs
Land Costs 1,524,600$ 1,905,750$ 1,905,750$ 1,905,750$ 1,905,750$
Infrastructure and Site Cost 1,392,000$ 2,589,278$ 4,217,583$ 5,214,375$ 5,594,627.75$
Construction Cost 6,960,000$ 12,946,389$ 28,117,222$ 34,762,500$ 55,946,277$
Soft Costs 1,392,000$ 2,589,278$ 5,623,444$ 6,952,500$ 11,189,255$
Contingency (5% of hard+soft costs)487,200$ 906,247$ 1,897,913$ 2,346,469$ 3,636,508$
Construction financing cost 509,855$ 948,388$ 1,986,165$ 2,455,580$ 3,805,606$
Total Development Cost 12,265,655$ 21,885,329$ 43,748,078$ 53,637,173$ 82,078,024$
Total Development Cost per Unit 408,855$ 397,915$ 397,710$ 397,312$ 410,390$
Revenues and Operating Expenses
Rental/Sales Revenue
Market-Rate Rent (per unit /mo)2,730$ 2,730$ 2,730$ 2,730$ 2,867$
Income Restricted Rent (per unit /mo)-$ 2,035$ 2,035$ 2,035$ 2,035$
Operating/Sales Expenses
Operating Costs (annual)72,000$ 132,000$ 264,000$ 324,000$ 504,000$
Property tax 23,670$ 43,395$ 86,790$ 106,515$ 157,800$
Net Operating Income / Sales Revenue 838,028$ 1,501,519$ 3,003,037$ 3,685,546$ 5,722,402$
Valuation Detail
Project Value (NOI/Cap Rate)16,760,570$ 30,030,374$ 60,060,749$ 73,710,919$ 114,448,045$
Annual debt service on long-term financing 500,840$ 893,637$ 1,786,351$ 2,190,149$ 3,351,466$
Annual Net Cash Flow (after debt service)337,189$ 607,882$ 1,216,686$ 1,495,396$ 2,370,937$
Return on Cost 6.8%6.9%6.9%6.9%7.0%
MULTI-UNIT RENTAL
Bonus Variations
26
Page 4
internal corridors, or structured parking—it also reflects a known commodity which
minimizes risk. Further height increases also introduce new construction techniques
(e.g., 5-story requires 4-story stick over 1 story of podium) that may not be desirable for
all developers. Though developers largely expressed a desire for flexible parking
requirements, actual parking ratios are also driven by perceived market demand.
Townhome and single unit for-sale residential. A similar analysis was
conducted for lower-density for-sale products in which the incentive was a reduction in
lot size. Figure 2 shows the feasibility results of the specified lot size reductions paired
with affordability requirements (at 120% AMI for townhomes and 150% AMI for single
household units). In the figure, green shading highlights the incentive package; red
shading highlights the affordability requirement, and incentive viability is indicated by
an increase in return on cost and project margin.
Figure 2. Feasibility of Incentives for Single-Unit For-Sale Prototypes
Source: Root Policy Research with data from Gallatin County Regional Housing Study 2021 and interviews with developers.
Baseline Baseline
Townhome Townhome Townhome Single-HH Single-HH Single-HH
17 du/a 20 du/a 24 du/a 6 du/a 15 du/a 22 du/a
Prototype/Incentive Description
Dwelling Units per Acre 15 du/a 20 du/a 24 du/a 11 du/a 15 du/a 22 du/a
Lot size per unit 3,000 2,200 1,800 4,000 3,000 2,000
Affordable unit requirement 0%9%13%0%2%2%
AMI target n/a 120% AMI 120% AMI n/a 150% AMI 150% AMI
Site and Prototype Characteristics
Parcel Size (acres)6.89 5.05 4.13 9.18 6.89 4.59
Building SF 120,000 120,000 120,000 190,000 190,000 190,000
Total Units 100 100 100 100 100 100
Income Restricted Units 0 9 13 0 2 2
Avg SF per unit 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,500 1,500 1,500
Development Costs
Land Costs 7,500,000$ 5,500,000$ 4,500,000$ 9,200,000$ 6,900,000$ 4,600,000$
Infrastructure and Site Cost 7,700,000$ 7,700,000$ 7,700,000$ 12,487,500$ 11,812,500$ 11,812,500$
Construction Cost 22,000,000$ 22,000,000$ 22,000,000$ 33,750,000$ 33,750,000$ 33,750,000$
Soft Costs 3,300,000$ 3,300,000$ 3,300,000$ 5,737,500$ 5,737,500$ 5,737,500$
Contingency (5% of hard+soft costs)1,650,000$ 1,650,000$ 1,650,000$ 2,598,750$ 2,565,000$ 2,565,000$
Construction financing cost 975,975$ 975,975$ 975,975$ 1,537,161$ 1,517,198$ 1,517,198$
Total Development Cost 43,125,975$ 41,125,975$ 40,125,975$ 65,310,911$ 62,282,198$ 59,982,198$
Total Development Cost per Unit 431,260$ 411,260$ 401,260$ 653,109$ 622,822$ 599,822$
Revenues and Operating Expenses
Rental/Sales Revenue
Sale Price Market Rate (per unit)510,000$ 496,400$ 487,375$ 785,248$ 755,802$ 718,011$
Income Restricted Sale Price (per unit)-$ 405,850$ 405,850$ -$ 507,300$ 507,300$
Sales Revenue 51,000,000$ 48,825,050$ 47,677,635$ 78,524,837$ 75,207,403$ 71,485,080$
Valuation Detail
Cost of sale/marketing (2% of rev)1,020,000$ 976,501$ 953,553$ 1,570,497$ 1,504,148$ 1,429,702$
Project Margin 6,854,025$ 6,722,574$ 6,598,108$ 11,643,429$ 11,421,057$ 10,073,181$
Return on Cost 15.9%16.3%16.4%17.8%18.3%16.8%
TOWNHOME SINGLE-UNIT
Bonus Variations Bonus Variations
27
Page 5
For townhomes, a lot size reduction from 3,000 square feet to 2,200 square feet allows
for an affordability requirement of 9% of units affordable to 120% AMI. If lot size is
further reduced to 1,800 square feet, the affordability requirement can increase to 13%
of units (affordable to 120% of AMI) and still provide a more favorable return to
developers.
For single-household units, however, incentives yield lower feasible affordability
requirements. A lot size reduction from 4,000 square feet to 3,000 square feet only
allows for an affordability requirement of 2% of units affordable to 150% AMI. A further
reduction to 2,000 square foot lots actually lowers returns (due to the declining market-
rate price associated with a smaller lot) and therefor does not offer a viable incentive.
In interviews, local developers did express some concern with moving toward lot sizes
below 2,500 square feet based on challenges with utility/infrastructure configuration,
design standards, and market demand.
Conclusions
The feasibility analysis shows the following incentive packages and affordability
requirements to be viable on paper, meaning they improve developer returns as
measured by return on cost, annual net cash flow, and/or project margin. The analysis
prioritized maximum affordable unit generation so focuses on higher AMI targets (100%
AMI for rental and 120%-150% AMI for for-sale) though incentives could also require
lower proportions of units at deeper AMIs.
Figure 3. Summary of Incentive Viability at Maximum Feasibility with High AMI Targets
Source:
Root Policy
Research.
Despite the viability of the above incentives “on paper,” some developers were skeptical
that there is market demand for higher buildings and smaller lot sizes. In other words,
current developers seem relatively content with existing entitlements. As such, incentive
adoption may be low among existing market-rate developers in Bozeman.
It is also noted that the City likely hoped incentive packages would yield a greater
proportion of affordable units than is modeled in the feasibility analysis.
Baseline prototype Incentive Package Feasible Affordability
Requirement
3-Story Rental
Residential
1-3 Story height bonus (4-6 story
building) and parking reduction to
1.0 spaces per unit
8% of units at 100% AMI
Lot size reduction to 2,200 SF lot 9% of units at 120% AMI
Lot size reduction to 1,800 SF lot 13% of units at 120% AMI
Single-Household
Unit on 4,000 SF lot Lot size reduction to 3,000 SF lot 2% of units at 150% AMI
Townhome on 3,000
SF lot
28
Page 6
Based on these conclusions, Root recommends the following tiered approach for the
City’s AHO:
1. Include incentives (based on the feasibility analysis) for market-rate developers
to include a small proportion of affordable units in their development. However,
the City should expect relatively low adoption of such incentives, under current
market conditions. The City should also continue to evaluate and calibrate
incentives, particularly following code revisions that are currently in process.
As noted previously, the AHO incentive packages should consider feasibility,
housing needs, and policy goals. To that end we propose the following
discussion questions prior to setting final incentives/affordability requirements:
➢ Do you prefer the incentives be structured as percentage increases in
height and percentage reductions in lot size or as specified stories (feet)
for height and specified square footage for lot sizes? (For example, you
could offer a 33% height bonus or a 1-story height bonus).
➢ After seeing the feasibility results based on relatively high AMI targets, do
you still want to focus on the upper end of AMI for rental and for-sale or
would you prefer to accept a lower proportion of units at deeper AMIs?
Note that Root typically recommends rental incentive programs target
60% to 80% AMI and for-sale programs target 80% to 120% AMI. These
ranges are also more in line with the needs identified in the 2019
Community Housing Needs Assessment.
➢ How much differentiation do you want in the AHO by development type?
We recommend at least differentiating between a rental incentive
package and a for-sale package but could further differentiate
townhomes and single-unit if desired. In addition, we can simplify
affordability requirements such that each program has the same
percentage of units requirements but AMIs differ (e.g., all programs
require 5% of units be affordable at specified AMIs but the AMIs differ).
2. Develop additional incentives for affordable housing developers whose projects
are 100% affordable (i.e., LIHTC developers, land trusts, Habitat for Humanity,
etc.) in order to make the development of workforce housing easier and faster
for those who specialize in such housing. These incentives should be based on
interviews with affordable developers to understand the unique barriers their
projects face as opposed to a market-driven feasibility analysis.
29
Unified Development Code
Affordable Housing Assessment
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT | DECEMBER 2021
30
31
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................1
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2
Implementing the Bozeman Community Plan 2020 ................................................................................. 2
Scope of this Affordable Housing Assessment.......................................................................................... 3
Understanding Local Housing Demand ..................................................................................................... 3
Equity and Community.............................................................................................................................. 4
Organization of this Code Assessment ..................................................................................................... 4
Public Outreach ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Bozeman’s Growth Policy and Planning Documents ................................................................................ 5
Bozeman’s Current Zoning ...................................................................................................................... 10
Zoning District Distribution ..................................................................................................................... 12
Outcome 1: Create More Housing ..................................................................................................... 14
Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 14
Changes to Allow More Housing in Existing Districts ............................................................................. 16
Changes to Form and Intensity Standards .............................................................................................. 23
Update Use-Specific Standards to Reduce Barriers to Innovative Housing ............................................ 30
Revise Project Design Standards ............................................................................................................. 36
Covenants and Homeowners Associations ............................................................................................. 42
Outcome 2: Preserve Existing Affordable Housing ............................................................................. 43
Discourage Redevelopment of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing ............................................... 43
Outcome 3: Make Development Standards More Predictable ........................................................... 46
Provide More User-Friendly Explanations .............................................................................................. 46
General Provisions (Art. 1) ...................................................................................................................... 47
Zoning Districts and Land Uses (Art. 3) ................................................................................................... 47
Community Design (Art. 4)...................................................................................................................... 49
Project Design (Art. 5) ............................................................................................................................. 51
Natural Resource Protection (Art. 6) ...................................................................................................... 51
Definitions, Terms, and Measurements (Art. 7) ..................................................................................... 51
Outcome 4: Rethink the Housing Review Process .............................................................................. 53
Reconsider Required Detail of Housing Application Requirements ....................................................... 53
Clarify Uncertainty in the Application of Subjective Standards .............................................................. 55
Creating an Expedited Zoning Review Process for Housing Projects ...................................................... 55
32
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |
Managing What Is Measured .................................................................................................................. 56
Outcome 5: Revise the Zoning Map .................................................................................................. 58
Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 58
Growth Policy and CHAP Guidance ......................................................................................................... 58
Housing-Supportive Rezoning Locational Criteria .................................................................................. 59
Create New Zoning Districts to Reflect Range of Bozeman Neighborhoods .......................................... 60
Next Steps ....................................................................................................................................... 61
33
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment | 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Bozeman Affordable Housing Assessment is to identify changes that the City could
make to the Unified Development Code (UDC), zoning map, and development review processes to remove
regulatory barriers to the creation of affordable housing.
The recommendations in this Assessment are intended to support the implementation of the Bozeman
Community Plan 2020 and the Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan. Prior to creating an initial draft
of this Assessment, Bozeman’s Planning Department and the project consultant team participated in a
series of public outreach events with City boards, the professional development community, and the
general public. A second round of community-based outreach will be undertaken to gather more feedback
about the specific recommendations provided in this Assessment.
The UDC Affordable Housing Assessment is focused around five sets of recommendations:
Create More Housing
There are regulations included in the current use tables, form and intensity standards, and project design
standards that create barriers to the creation of more housing. Adjustments to the types of housing
permitted in zoning districts, combined with adjustments to required lot areas and maximum building
heights, would open up opportunities for the creation of a moderate amount of increased housing in
existing neighborhoods and allow the construction of more housing at different densities in new
development areas.
Preserve Existing Affordable Housing
It is not possible for Bozeman to try to “build” itself out of the current affordable housing problem through
new construction alone. Instead, the City needs to also consider preserving its existing stock of affordable
housing, much of which may continue to be available at lower sales prices and rents than the new
“affordable” housing that might replace it.
Make Development Standards More Predictable
The UDC is a complex legal document that includes numerous standards intended for application across
various different project types. Some of these standards are subjective and repetitive, and can be revised
and updated for clarity and predictability, particularly as they apply to new development, redevelopment,
and infill housing projects.
Rethink the Housing Review Process
Bozeman can also revise the UDC to reduce the time, expense, and unpredictability of the housing
development application and review process by reducing the amount of detail required for initial or
preliminary applications, expanding the use of administrative review, expediting of code interpretations,
and using a “maximum extent practicable” standard for development approval.
Revise the Zoning Map
Finally, there are rezoning actions the City can take that would implement the Community Plan and the
Community Housing Action Plan and encourage the creation of more housing in Bozeman.
The dates and details about opportunities to participate in the next round of community outreach process
to comment on this Affordable Housing Assessment are described at the end of this document.
34
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |2
INTRODUCTION
Implementing the Bozeman Community Plan 2020
The purpose of this Bozeman Unified Development Code Affordable Housing Assessment is to identify
potential changes that can be made in the City’s regulatory standards and processes to enhance
opportunities to provide and protect affordable housing.
This report explores how policy is interpreted into standards and processes in the Unified Development
Code (UDC). One of the roles of the UDC is to implement relevant plans with affordable housing objectives,
including the Bozeman Community Plan 2020 (BCP2020) and the Bozeman Community Housing Action
Plan (CHAP). This is done through: (1) the creation or amendment of development standards (e.g., lot
dimensions, permitted uses, required design elements), and (2) the application of housing policies in the
review of site and structure design during the
application process. These two regulatory roles
frequently work hand-in-hand, and this Assessment
recommends changes to both. The UDC is also
influenced by factors such as community preferences,
existing neighborhood character, infrastructure design,
applicable life safety code requirements in the building
code and fire code, and climate (particularly the impact
of Montana winters and summer drought and fires).
Bozeman has been focused on encouraging the creation
of more housing for some years. Many code edits that
would be considered preliminary changes in other
communities have already been made in Bozeman.
These revisions are reflected in the current UDC,
specifically in Section 38.380, Affordable Housing, and,
perhaps more importantly, across the body of the text.
Those changes include past reductions in minimum lot
sizes and setbacks, allowing Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs) in all zoning districts, and making many types of
development applications subject to administrative
approval, rather than requiring a public hearing before
an appointed or elected body. If basic zoning provisions are considered to be Version 1.0, Bozeman’s past
efforts to promote affordable housing through code changes can be thought of as Version 2.0.
The intent of this Assessment is to help Bozeman identify the next set of updates -- Affordable Housing
Amendments Version 3.0. The AH 3.0 edits will reflect an additional round of more nuanced changes that
can further promote construction and preservation of affordable housing opportunities over time. Often,
different aspects of these regulations and processes will need to be combined for specific projects, and
applied with flexibility and creativity to accommodate the types of housing developments that the
community is ready to see. This report focuses on the UDC as one of the multiple considerations that
impact the overall affordability of housing. Removing regulatory barriers does not ensure that more
affordable housing will be created, or that more permanently affordable housing will be created, but can
represent a set of incremental changes that, cumulatively, can improve both housing availability and
affordability.
35
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |3
Scope of this Affordable Housing Assessment
It is important to acknowledge that there are myriad issues outside of the UDC that have both direct and
indirect impacts on cost of housing, including conditions or requirements attached to development
approvals, fees, cost of land, cost of materials, COVID-impacted supply chains, and the current labor
market. These challenges and impediments, along with the City’s strategies to address them, are
discussed in greater detail in the Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan (CHAP, available on the City’s
website).
The full Affordable Housing Code Audit project has been divided into four parts, each of which takes a
different look at how Bozeman regulates for housing. It is intended to work in conjunction with: (1)
suggested edits to the current Planned Unit Development regulations, (2) proposed revisions to the
Affordable Housing Ordinance (AHO) in light of recent statutory changes approved by the Montana State
Legislature, and (3) a proposed list of new Departures for Affordability to be added to Title 38. Those three
sets of recommendations for changes to the Unified Development Code will be made available on the
Bozeman City website and are not repeated in this Assessment.
This document focuses specifically on UDC changes that would promote housing affordability. There are
many other improvements that could be made to the UDC that would improve user-friendliness,
predictability, efficiency, and implementation of Community Plan goals. Unless those changes would
impact housing affordability, they have not been mentioned in this Assessment.
Understanding Local Housing Demand
The Bozeman Community Housing Action Plan (CHAP) was approved by the City Commission in 2019 and
updated in early 2020. The CHAP includes this definition of community housing:
Homes that those who live and/or work in Bozeman can afford to purchase or rent. This includes
apartments, townhomes, condominiums, emergency shelters, accessory dwelling units, mobile
homes and single-family homes – all dwelling types – serving the entire spectrum of housing
needs
The 2019 City of Bozeman Community Housing
Needs Assessment, referenced in the CHAP,
identified a need for between 5,400 and 6,340
housing units over the next five years to
address the City’s current housing shortfall.
Within this shortfall, there is significant demand
for units priced below market rate. While
increasing the supply of housing will not, by
itself, guarantee that housing becomes more
affordable, it is very unlikely affordability can be
improved without an increase in housing
supply. Increased supply allows Bozeman
residents more opportunities to move to
different units that better suit their needs in
both existing neighborhoods and new
development. This Assessment makes use of Bozeman’s distinction between small “a” affordable
housing, generally defined as housing at price points that are within range to many in the community but
are not restricted for sale or rental by households below a defined income level, and capital “A”
36
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |4
Affordable housing, defined as housing that is restricted for sale or rental by households below defined
income levels.
Equity and Community
The Bozeman Community Plan 2020 makes clear that although Bozeman is very focused on improving the
affordability of housing, it remains thoroughly committed to the quality of buildings, neighborhoods, and
life for all of its residents. Additionally, in the Bozeman Strategic Plan (2018), Section 4.2, “High Quality
Urban Approach,” for example, clarifies that the City will “[c]ontinue to support high-quality planning,
ranging from building to neighborhood layouts, while pursuing urban approaches to issues such as
multimodal transportation, infill, density, connected parks and trails, and walkable neighborhoods.” These
plans reflect Bozeman’s desire that all citizens be able to experience the benefits of these good planning
practices. There should be no visible distinction between the quality of planning, connectivity, open space,
or building design between the approved development plans for more and less affordable parts of the
city.
This commitment to equity is both laudable and important. Across the U.S., households with fewer choices
are often denied full integration into a community’s quality of life, and that denial often has
disproportionate impacts on households that are lower income and/or headed by persons of color,
women, and those experiencing disability. As a practical matter, one of the most effective ways to ensure
equitable access to the City’s enviable quality of life is to ensure that new opportunities for more
affordable housing are not geographically isolated or focused in a particular area, but are instead spread
throughout Bozeman and served by the same types of public spaces and services provided to other
Bozeman residents. In the pages that follow, we have focused our recommendations on those changes
that could promote the production and preservation of both capital “A” and small “a” affordable housing
in ways that do not result in lower levels of design, open space, livability, or neighborhood quality for
those many Bozeman residents who will be occupying that additional affordable housing.
Organization of this Code Assessment
Land development codes cover myriad topics, and there are many possible ways to organize
recommendations for change. Because the structure of the current Bozeman Unified Development Code
reflects the many layers of land development regulation in the City, and because many scattered
regulations may contribute to a single housing barrier, we have not organized these recommendations to
correspond to individual sections of the UDC. Instead, we have organized them into the following five
“outcomes” reflecting major strategies to promote housing affordability:
Create More Housing
Preserve Existing Affordable Housing
Make Development Standards More Predictable
Rethink the Housing Review Process
Revise the Zoning Map
Public Outreach
This project started with an initial round of public and stakeholder engagement, conducted between April
28 and May 12, 2021. City staff and the consultant team held a series of virtual (due to the COVID-19
pandemic) meetings with representatives of the Bozeman Community Affordable Housing Advisory Board
(CAHAB), the building and design community, the Zoning Commission, and the Planning Board. On May 3,
37
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |5
2021, the City staff and consultant team also held a virtual meeting to introduce the project and solicit
questions and opinions from the general public and neighborhoods. Two of those four meetings involved
online survey questions that were designed to help understand the participants’ priorities and
preferences among the difficult choices involved in promoting affordable housing. Not surprisingly, this
initial round of meetings resulted in a very wide variety of opinions about what types of housing should
be prioritized, where they should be encouraged, and what potential impacts of affordable housing might
need to be mitigated. Before and during these outreach efforts, the consultant team also referenced a
detailed survey of public opinion on housing concerns and preferences that was conducted as part of the
Community Plan drafting and review process.
There will be additional outreach and engagement to review draft recommendations in Tasks 2 and 3, and
the final Code Audit report recommendations in Task 4.
Bozeman’s Growth Policy and Planning Documents
Community Plan Housing Goals
The Bozeman Community Plan 2020 identifies the City’s preferred land use and community-building
themes, goals, and objectives that will be applicable to public and private development decisions over the
next 20 years. The BCP2020 is relevant to this Affordable Housing Assessment because: (1) zoning and
subdivision regulations must be consistent with the Plan, and (2) the Plan’s Themes, Goals, and Objectives
provide policy guidance leading to the development of the future vision of Bozeman identified by the
38
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |6
community during that recent planning effort. In a regulatory assessment, the policy information in the
Community Plan is used three ways:
a. To guide recommendations for specific edits and updates to the Unified Development Code and
Zoning Map,
b. To fill in regulatory gaps and omissions where the current regulations do not adequately address
a topic, and
c. As part of the review of the permits and procedures section, by checking to ensure that the
application review processes implement key City development priorities.
The Community Plan is organized around five topics: 1. Basics, 2. Themes, 3. Future Land Use, 4.
Implementation, and 5. Amendments + Review. Housing affordability is addressed across all aspects of
the Plan, starting in Section 1. Basics, where housing affordability is identified as a basic planning precept:
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY (Bozeman Community Plan 2020 pg. 21)
Housing affordability is a critical issue for the community and has been an ongoing concern since it was
identified as an issue in the 1972 community master plan. Housing instability and homelessness are public
health issues and are exacerbated by the rapid rise in housing prices. The positive attributes that make
Bozeman a desirable place to live contributed to ever-increasing housing demand. Comparatively low
wages have not increased at the same rate as housing costs. Home price increase exceeding wage increase
is a national trend. The sale price of homes has more than fully recovered from the 2008 recession for all
housing types. The median sale price of homes, including single-households, townhomes, and
condominiums, has increased 90% since 2012. This is an average increase of almost 12% per year.
According to the most recent Bozeman Housing Needs
Assessment, an estimated 5,405 to 6,340 housing units for
residents and employees are needed by 2025, or an
average of about 770 to 905 units per year. This figure
includes housing for employees, units needed to open up
the current tight rental and ownership markets, provides
choice to households, housing for employees filling jobs
vacated by retirees, workers filling new jobs, plus related
non-employee citizen housing needs.
Bozeman has taken the issue of housing seriously. It
developed a housing needs assessment in 2019, hired a
Community Housing Program Manager, and released the
Community Housing Action Plan (CHAP) in October 2019.
The CHAP was updated in April 2020.
The availability of affordable housing, whether for rent or
for purchase, is one of Bozeman’s most serious problems,
as demonstrated by both the 2018 EPS Study and the CHAP.
Mitigating this shortage is a top priority of the Bozeman
City Commission, the Planning Board, and the Community
Development Department, in conjunction with local and
regional authorities. The three top action items in the
Community Affordable Housing Action Plan are:
39
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |7
Ensuring community housing serves the full range of incomes without losing sight of safety net
programs for extremely low income and homeless families. This includes safety net rentals below
30% AMI (about $20,000 per year), additional resident and employee rentals up to 80% AMI
(about $55,000 per year), and ownership housing up to 150% AMI (about $104,000 per year).
Producing community housing at a rate that exceeds, or at least matches, job growth so that new
employees can find homes.
Striving to produce community housing at a rate that matches the spectrum of community
housing needs, while also preserving what we have through a target of no net loss of existing
community housing stock below 80% AMI.
Together, these three priorities reinforce that Bozeman is focused on both production and preservation
of affordable housing, and on both capital “A” (income restricted) and small “a” forms of affordable
housing. To address these goals, the CHAP identifies 19 priority action strategies to be evaluated
implemented over the next five years.
Zoning and land use regulations are among those local regulations that directly influence the cost of
housing and the achievement of the CHAP goals. This Plan supports housing regulations that allow for a
range of housing types intermixed with one another, denser development, and efficiencies of various
types that can help reduce housing costs while not jeopardizing public safety and other community
priorities. More housing, in a variety of type, size, and cost, is needed at prices that residents can afford.
This will provide choices, the ability to move as life circumstances change, allows employers to fill jobs,
recruit, and retain employees, supports businesses, and supports citizen and student growth.
Bozeman Community Plan 2020 Section 2, Themes identifies the City’s desired outcomes, organized by
Theme, Goal, and Objectives. The provision of affordable housing is woven into four of the Community
Plan’s seven Themes as specific objectives and actions, including the following:
THEME 2 | A CITY OF UNIQUE NEIGHBORHOODS
Goal N-1: Support well-planned, walkable neighborhoods.
N-1.1 Promote housing diversity, including missing-middle housing.
N-1.2 Increase required minimum densities in residential neighborhoods.
N-1.3 Revise the zoning map to lessen areas exclusively zoned for a single-housing type.
N-1.4 Promote development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
N-1.11 Enable a gradual and predictable increase in density in developed areas over time.
Goal N-2: Pursue simultaneous emergence of commercial nodes and residential development
through diverse mechanisms in appropriate locations.
N-2.2 Revise the zoning map to support higher intensity residential districts near schools,
services, and transportation.
Goal N-3: Promote a diverse supply of quality housing units.
N-3.1 Establish standards for provisions of diversity of housing types in a given area.
N-3.2 Review zoning districts to assess the range of housing types in each district.
N-3.3 Encourage distribution of affordable housing units throughout the City with priority
given to locations near commercial, recreational, and transit assets.
40
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |8
N-3.4 Require development of affordable housing through coordination of funding for
affordable housing and infrastructure.
N-3.5 Strongly discourage private covenants that restrict housing diversity or are contrary to
City land development policies or climate action plan goals.
N-3.6 Include adequate residentially-designated areas for anticipated future housing in the
future land use map.
N-3.7 Support compact neighborhoods, small lot sizes, and small floor plans, especially
through mechanisms such as density bonuses.
N-3.8 Promote the development of "Missing Middle" housing (side by side or stacked duplex,
triplex, live-work, cottage housing, group living, rowhouses/ townhouses, etc.) as one of the
most critical components of affordable housing.
N-3.9 Ensure an adequate supply of appropriately designated land to accommodate Low
Income Housing Tax Credit development in qualifying census tracts.
Goal N-4: Continue to encourage Bozeman’s sense of place.
N-4.3 Revise Design Guidelines within the Conservation Overlay District to distinguish
Downtown from the residential neighborhoods, to encourage neighborhoods and
neighborhoods near transition areas, both north and south of Downtown.
THEME 3 | A CITY BOLSTERED BY DOWNTOWN AND COMPLEMENTARY DISTRICTS
Goal DCD-1: Support urban development within the City.
DCD-1.1 Evaluate alternatives for more intensive development in proximity to high visibility
corners, services, and parks.
DCD-1.2 Remove regulatory barriers to infill.
DCD-1.4 Update the Unified Development Code (UDC) to reflect density increases or
minimums within key districts.
Goal DCD-2: Encourage growth throughout the City, while enhancing the pattern of community
development oriented on centers of employment and activity. Support an increase in
development intensity within developed areas.
DCD-2.1 Coordinate infrastructure development, land use development, and other City
actions and priorities through community planning.
DCD-2.2 Support higher density development along main corridors and at high visibility street
corners to accommodate population growth and support businesses.
DCD-2.3 Review and update minimum development intensity requirements in residential and
nonresidential zoning districts.
DCD-2.4 Evaluate revisions to maximum building height limits in all zoning districts to account
for contemporary building methods and building code changes.
DCD-2.7 Encourage the location of higher density housing and public transit routes in
proximity to one another.
41
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |9
DCD-2.8 Revise the zoning ordinance, reducing the number of zoning districts to be more
consistent with the designated land use classifications, to simplify the development process,
and support affordability objectives of the plan.
DCD-2.9 Evaluate increasing the number of stories allowed in centers of employment and
activity while also directing height transitions down to adjacent neighborhoods.
Goal DCD-3: Ensure multimodal connectivity within the City.
DCD-3.5 Encourage increased development intensity in commercial centers and near major
employers.
DCD-3.6 Evaluate parking requirements and methods of providing parking as part of the
overall transportation system for and between districts.
Goal DCD-4: Implement a regulatory environment that supports the Community Plan goals.
DCD-4.4 Differentiate between development and redevelopment. Allow relaxations of code
provisions for developed parcels to allow redevelopment to the full potential of their zoning
district.
THEME 5 | A CITY THAT PRIORITIZES ACCESSIBILITY AND MOBILITY CHOICES
Goal M-1: Ensure multimodal accessibility.
M-1.1 Prioritize mixed-use land use patterns. Encourage and enable the development of
housing, jobs, and services in close proximity to one another.
M-1.12 Eliminate parking minimum requirements in commercial districts and affordable
housing areas and reduce parking minimums elsewhere, acknowledging that demand for
parking will still result in new supply being built.
THEME 6 | A CITY POWERED BY ITS CREATIVE, INNOVATIVE, AND ENTREPRENEURIAL
ECONOMY
Goal EE-1: Promote the continued development of Bozeman as an innovative and thriving
economic center.
EE-1.4 Support employee retention and attraction efforts by encouraging continued
development of affordable housing in close proximity to large employers.
Additional plans, reports, and City website information relevant to this UDC Affordable Housing
Assessment are available on the City of Bozeman website.
42
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |10
Bozeman’s Current Zoning
Bozeman currently has 19 zoning districts, grouped and distributed generally as follows:
Primary Use Zoning Districts Total Current
Acreage
Percent of
Zoned
Property
Residential
R-S Residential Suburban 957.8 7.1
R-1 Residential Low Density 1852.8 13.8
R-2 Residential Moderate Density 816.2 6.1
R-3 Residential Medium Density 2077.7 15.5
R-4 Residential High Density 884.9 6.6
RMH Residential Manufactured Home 123.1 0.0
Residential-Emphasis
Mixed-Use
R-5 Residential Mixed-Use High Density 116.2 0.9
R-O Residential Office 488.3 3.6
REMU Residential Emphasis Mixed-Use 386.1 2.9
Commercial-Emphasis
Mixed-Use
NEHMU Northeast Historic Mixed-Use 962.2 7.2
B-1 Neighborhood Business 72.6 0.5
B-2 Community Business 1345.8 10.0
B-2M Community Business Mixed 185.9 1.4
B-3 Downtown Business 151.2 1.1
UMU Urban Mixed-Use 38.1 0.3
Industrial
M-1 Light Manufacturing 572.8 4.3
M-2 Manufacturing and Industrial 39.9 0.3
B-P Business Park 240.1 1.8
Public/Institutional
(MSU) Public Lands and Institutional 2090.1 15.6
These zoning districts have been created over time to reflect community needs and development
preferences. However, they can be changed as needed through a public process established by Montana
statute. State law grants local governments broad authority to create the number and type of zoning
districts the community finds appropriate to achieve its planning goals. Montana statutes do not mandate
the creation of specific types of districts, including districts restricted to single household detached
dwellings.
Residential Districts (Sec. 38.300.100)
This description of the current zoning districts is provided for general informational purposes only. More
information about the purposes and standards for each zoning district is available in the UDC.
a. Residential Only
Bozeman’s six residential districts allow the development of a range of housing types at densities
based on the purpose of the district. Residential low density (R-1), for example is intended to provide
single-household residential development and development is limited (generally) to single-household
dwellings. The Residential High Density (R-4) district allows the most dense development, including
three- and four-household dwellings, townhouses, and apartments (as well as some associated
offices). These districts account for almost 50% of the City’s current zoning.
43
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |11
b. Residential Mixed-Use
Bozeman has three districts that are primarily residential but allow some mixed-use development,
meaning some non-residential development is allowed to be included a neighborhood: Residential
Mixed-Use High Density (R-5), Residential Office (R-O), and Residential Emphasis Mixed-Use (REMU).
The development of higher density residential housing, such as townhouses and apartments, is
permitted in all of these districts.
Commercial/Mixed-Use Districts (Sec. 38.300.110)
Bozeman’s role as the regional employment center for southwestern Montana is reflected in the current
range of commercial and mixed-use districts and the distribution of use of these districts across the city.
All of the UDC’s commercial districts (Neighborhood Business (B-1), Community Business (B-2),
Community Business Mixed (B2-M), Downtown Business (B-3), Urban Mixed-Use (UMU), and Northeast
Historic Mixed-Use (NEHMU)) allow a mix of housing in addition to commercial uses. In the present zoning
district line-up, the UDC does not have any commercial-only districts, which is helpful when considering
housing development options.
Industrial Districts (Sec. 38.300.120)
Typically, industrial zoning districts would not be the subject of much analysis in an affordable housing
assessment. In Bozeman, however, accessory residential apartments are permitted as an upper floor use
in the Light Manufacturing (M-1) and Manufacturing and Industrial (M-2) districts.
Public Lands and Institutional District (38.300.130)
The Montana State University campus is zoned Public and Institutional Lands (PLI), and so are the
schools that serve Bozeman residents and students from surrounding areas. This district does not figure
prominently in the housing-related analysis of this assessment, but the City could consider steps to
encourage the adaptive reuse of vacant or obsolete school structures as housing.
44
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |12
Zoning District Distribution
The City is currently zoned predominately residential, as shown in gold in the Bozeman 2020 Zoning by
District table. The distribution of residential and residential/mixed-use districts by acreage is shown on
the bottom left and the commercial/mixed-use distribution is shown on the bottom right. The type, mix,
and location of the current zoning districts all play a role in determining whether and how housing projects
are designed and approved.
The zoning map on the next page reflects how these districts are distributed across the City.
45
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |13
46
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |14
OUTCOME 1: CREATE MORE HOUSING
Overview
The 2019 Community Housing Needs Assessment report estimates that Bozeman needs an additional
4,000 housing units over the next 3-4 years to start closing the gap between demand and availability and
the related gap between availability and price. This estimate may have changed when considering the
increased demand for housing seen in 2020 and associated with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
While additional housing supply is not the only change needed to improve affordability, it is very difficult
to see how affordability can improve without additional supply being part of the solution. One important
strategy to open the door to new housing starts is to lower existing barriers to the type and number of
units that can be built across all price points, allowing for homeowner and renter movement across a
wider range of new and existing homes.
New housing can be built on vacant land (typically referred to as new development); individual vacant
lots (typically referred to as infill development), and on lots that already have older or vacant structures
or improvements (typically referred to as redevelopment). There is often an initial assumption that
changes to residential densities will take place with when new lands are annexed and zoned for
development, new annexations into the City within the past 10 years have indeed typically been zoned
for higher density development (often equivalent to the R-3 zoning district or higher). One critical
constraint on the construction of new units in Bozeman, however, is the limited availability of vacant land
within the City for new and infill development. Currently,
57 percent of all land area within city limits is zoned for
either residential use or residential mixed-use districts,
such as R-O and REMU. “More than 50% zoned
residential!” sounds like significant opportunity for more
housing development, but the reality is that there is very
little development-ready vacant land remaining. The
2020 Land Development Inventory Report identifies only
5% percent of land within Bozeman that is undeveloped
and zoned to accommodate residential development.
This low number is further reduced when the current
owners of vacant land are uninterested in developing
that land, because the City cannot force unwilling
property owners to develop.
While annexation is one option to increase the amount of vacant land in Bozeman, as discussed in the
BCP2020, Montana law requires the property owner to initiate the annexation process. The City can no
Housing by Zoning District, 2020 Community Plan
Residential infill development, Louisville, CO
(kgarch.com)
47
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |15
more force annexation of new lands than it can force development of existing vacant lands. In addition,
relying on new annexations to fill the gap in affordable housing supply is problematic because new
construction is often more expensive than reusing or modifying the existing housing stock and related
infrastructure, and because focusing affordable housing production on annexed lands is in tension with
the Community Plan and CHAP policies of making affordable options available throughout the City.
With so little developable land available, any effort to increase the quantity of housing available while
decreasing cost will have to allow increased residential density in the existing zoning districts through infill
and redevelopment.
The consultant team has identified five categories of issues in the current UDC where regulations can
impact the overall number of new housing units constructed in Bozeman. Changes to these regulations
are intended to encourage “gentle density” through the addition of an accessory dwelling unit, a second
attached single-household unit, or well-designed townhomes. Regulations for these types of housing can
be adjusted to encourage the development of more housing that is still scaled to reflect the general
character of the neighborhood or zoning district.
In addition to changing the list of different housing types permitted in each zoning district and changing
the current standards on lot and building size to allow more housing, the UDC could further promote both
capital “A” and small “a” affordable housing by reducing ambiguity and subjectivity in the standards
applied by the City in reviewing applications for housing development. Often, regulatory changes
recommended in one section (such as permitted uses) will need to be matched with changes in another
section (such as lot and building dimensional standards). For example, making significant headway in
permitting larger-scale townhouse development in the Residential Medium Density (R-3) district may also
require changes to required minimum lot sizes and setbacks. The set of recommendations provided in this
section should be considered as a suite of changes to be undertaken together.
As noted earlier, there are several other changes the UDC that would improve user-friendliness,
predictability, and effectiveness. For example, some of the current zoning districts are very close in both
permitted uses and required lot and building dimensions This section of the report only targets
recommendations related to increasing housing supply recommendations and does not include
recommended changes at a zoning district level. As part of a general code revision process, however,
Bozeman should consider revising the current zoning district line-up to better differentiate the role and
function of the zoning districts. This may include district consolidations among some of the residential
districts; creation of new districts, such as character-based district for existing neighborhoods and
greenfield design-based districts for new development; and dividing districts that may be too broad to
implement key planning goals, such as PLI and B-P.
Allowing a wide diversity of housing is a hurdle that the community has already jumped. This section
identifies a series of steps that Bozeman can take to expand the areas in which these types of housing are
allowed. As noted above, the Bozeman Community Plan 2020 includes multiple actions to increase the
48
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |16
supply of affordable housing that should be implemented through changes to the UDC use tables.
Examples include:
Goal N-1: Support well-planned, walkable neighborhoods.
N-1.1 Promote housing diversity, including missing-middle housing.
N-1.2 Increase required minimum densities in residential neighborhoods.
N-1.4 Promote development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
N-1.11 Enable a gradual and predictable increase in density in developed areas over time.
Goal N-3: Promote a diverse supply of quality housing units.
N-3.1 Establish standards for provisions of diversity of housing types in a given area.
N-3.2 Review zoning districts to assess the range of housing types in each district.
Read together, the Community Plan goals include two concepts: (1) creating more housing diversity in
more areas of the city, and (2) increasing housing densities, which is a calculation of the number of units
permitted on a lot. In the UDC, these two concepts are addressed in the use tables and through the
minimum density and minimum lot size requirements, each of which is addressed in the following two
sections.
Changes to Allow More Housing in Existing Districts
The following distribution of residential housing types are currently allowed in Bozeman’s zoning districts:
Current Available Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
RS R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O B-1 B-2 B2-M B-3 UMU REMU NEHMU Key: P=Permitted C=Conditional Use Permit Required X=Not Allowed
AHO=Thru Affordable Housing Ordinance Only N=Not Specified (UDC is silent)
Detached Homes
Single-household
(1 unit) P P P P P P P X X X X X P P
ADU (1 unit)[1] P P P P P P P X X X X X P P
Cottage Housing P P P P P P P X X X X X P X
Manufactured Home P P P P P P P X X X X X P P
Attached Homes
ADU (1 unit) P P P P P P P X X X X X P P
Two-Household
(2 units) X X P P P P P X X X X X P P
Three/Four Household
(3 or 4 units) X X X P P P P X X X X X P X
Townhouse / Rowhouse
(2 units) AHO AHO P P P P P N N N N N N N
(up to 5 units) X X X P P P P X N N N X P P
(more than 5 units) X X X X P P P X C P P X P
Live-Work Unit N N N N N N N P P P P P P P
49
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |17
Current Available Uses in Residential Zoning Districts
RS R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-O B-1 B-2 B2-M B-3 UMU REMU NEHMU Key: P=Permitted C=Conditional Use Permit Required X=Not Allowed
AHO=Thru Affordable Housing Ordinance Only N=Not Specified (UDC is silent)
Multi-Unit Household
Apartment Building
(5 or more units) X X X X P P P X C P P P P X
Apartment Building Ltd. (between 5
and 8 units) X X X P P P P N N N N N N N
Group Living P P P P P P P P P P P X P P
NOTES: [1] These districts do not distinguish between permissions for attached versus detached ADUs.
In order to grow the supply of housing, the City should consider changing the amount and types of housing
allowed in each zoning district, as described below.
Changes to Density Measurement and Use Classification
Before addressing the bigger picture changes to how much housing should be allowed by zoning district,
there are two “functional” UDC changes that can have positive impacts on housing supply: (1) revising
how density is measured, and (2) reclassifying multi-unit dwellings.
1. Density Measurement
Bozeman currently measures residential density in all of the current zoning districts except R-5 using
a “net” acreage denominator; the part of the lot that will be allocated to infrastructure and sensitive
lands (e.g., wetlands) protection is removed from the total acreage calculation before dividing the
parcel size by the minimum lot size to establish density. For example, 10,000 square foot parcel A is
reduced by 3,000 square feet to account for infrastructure, resulting in a net area of 7,000 square
feet, and then divided into lots depending on the applicable zone district. If that parcel is in a zoning
district with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, one lot (Lot A1), can be created. The net
calculation can vary from parcel to parcel based on site conditions. As an example, 30 percent of
parcel A may also be wetlands, which would further reduce the net lot area to 4,000 square feet and
potentially impact the ability to create even one lot. This approach can be changed for new
development in the residential districts to use a “gross” acreage approach, where the infrastructure
and non-buildable percentage of the lot is removed AFTER the density calculation to allow the
creation of more lots on a parcel. In the example above, two buildable lots could be created, although
they would still have to be located to avoid sensitive lands and planned infrastructure. Applying gross
density to calculate the total number of lots in a new development will not impact the provision of
infrastructure, only how the City and developers make their early calculations about lot layout and
structure siting. In making a change to gross density measurement, the City will need to also consider:
(1) whether to extend gross density to mixed-use development or refine the calculation to reflect the
combination of residential and non-residential uses on a site, and (2) whether to apply gross density
to infill and redevelopment projects, where this change could result in the creation of more lots
(although likely on a very limited basis) in built-out neighborhoods.
50
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |18
2. Changes to Multi-Unit Household Classifications
The current UDC is actually quite permissive in the types of housing allowed across the City, but not
as clear as it could be in describing the range and types of housing permitted in each zoning district.
While code drafting usually benefits from simplicity, there are categories in the regulations where
providing more detail and eliminating uncertainty can be helpful to applicants as they conceptualize
what the code allows. One revision, for example, that could make a difference in better matching
multi-household structures to surrounding community character is to establish a more detailed menu
of multi-household building classifications, such as small (up to 6 units), medium (6-18 units), and
large (18 units and over). Establishing these specific classifications can then be linked to the density
descriptions in the City’s various planning documents – for example, aligning the large multi-
household classification with references to “high density development” and identifying those zoning
districts where that scale of multi-household use is appropriate. Changes like this allow the UDC to
educate the infrequent users and create more accurate expectations about the types of development
that can take place across the City.
Changes to Allowed Residential Land Uses and Permitted Densities
The following sections identify recommended change to residential use types and densities by zoning
district.
1. Residential and Residential Emphasis Mixed-Use Districts
a. Suburban (R-S) and Residential Low Density (R-1)
The R-S and R-1 districts are intended for single-household residential development. Together, the R-
S and R-1 districts account for approximately one third of the City’s residential land. The minimum
required density in R-S districts is 2 DU/net acre1 (or 2.5 DU/gross acre, creating net lot sizes around
15,000 to 17,000 square feet), and is 5 DU/net acre (or about 7 DU/gross acre) in the R-1 districts,
creating net lot sizes around 6,000-7,000 square feet). Additionally, the R-S district has served as a
designation for environmental protection, with R-S zoning including acres of protected wetlands,
open spaces, trails, and acres otherwise not available for development or redevelopment. Finally, R-
S zoning has also functioned as a “holding zone,” until a property owner determines the specific form
of development they wish to pursue on a parcel, at which time there is a rezoning request for the
property. The R-S district is only applicable to existing neighborhoods and, as of 2018, can no longer
be used for new development.
Opportunities for redevelopment in the R-S (and R-1) district with larger lot sizes can include the
creation of new lots through lot splits or resubdivision, as well as the creation of additional units
through building conversions (such as converting existing single-household units to two or more
household units). Accessory dwelling units should continue to be permitted, with changes to those
regulations as recommended in this Assessment. R-1 zoning continues to be available for new
development and should be updated to require increased minimum density by 1 to 2 units/acre,
which would be 6 DU/net acre or 8 DU/gross acre to create lot sizes around 5,000-5,500 square feet.
Cities like Minneapolis and states like Oregon that are on the leading edge of promoting gentle density
in previously single-household neighborhoods are making changes to these types of districts to permit
two-household dwellings by right. This allows owners of single-household dwellings to convert a
portion of their dwelling into a second unit without requiring additional lot area or compliance with
the restrictions imposed by the ADU regulations. This kind of “internal conversion” is already
1 For these examples, net density was calculated at gross density minus 20% to 30% of the lot area.
51
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |19
permitted in Bozeman, subject to adequate lot size; however, the UDC would better promote
conversions of existing housing to accommodate an additional unit if it did not require additional lot
area for that second unit.
This type of internal conversion of an existing dwelling unit is an important in allowing a homeowner
to generate additional income from the rental of the second unit or provide generational housing for
a family member. In many cases, these conversions are accomplished with no change to the exterior
footprint of the existing dwelling, maintaining the physical character of the neighborhood. Consistent
with practice in many U.S. cities, the creation of a second primary dwelling unit on a lot should be
counted towards the maximum density allowed in the zoning district, but the creation of a smaller
and subsidiary ADU, as an accessory use, should not be counted as an additional dwelling unit for
purposes of calculating residential density.
b. Residential Moderate Density (R-2)
The R-2 district is intended for one- and two-household development and accounts for about 6% of
residentially zoned land in the City; the majority of it located around Downtown Bozeman or adjacent
to higher density development. Currently, R-2 allows up to two units (two-household dwelling or
townhouse) per building and has a minimum density requirement of 5 DU/net acre (about 7 DU/gross
acre, creating lot sizes of around 6,000 to 7,000 square feet). We recommend increasing the allowance
up to five units per lot, whether in the form of townhouses or small apartment buildings and revising
the minimum density from 5 to 8 DU/net acre (about 7 to 9 du/gross acre), allowing minimum lot sizes
around between 4,000 and 4,500 square feet. This increase can be achieved with the current list of
allowed uses in the R-2 district. Given the central location of much of the R-2 zoning, this change could
make a positive contribution to creating a dense, walkable center in the community.
c. Residential Medium Density District (R-3)
R-3 is the most widely applied zoning district designation, covering about 16% of residentially zoned
land. R-3 is both reflective of the development patterns in many of Bozeman’s “second-ring” suburban
neighborhoods and serves as a “transitional” district that bridges the low development densities of R-
1 and higher density residential and mixed-use development. Currently, the R-3 district allows one to
five dwelling units in the full range of structure types, from single-household detached to townhomes
to apartments, at a minimum density of 5 DU/net acre. We recommend increasing the R-3 minimum
density to 10 units per net acre (about 13 du/gross acre), allowing minimum lot sizes around 3,100 to
3,500 square feet.
d. Residential High Density District (R-4) and Residential Mixed-Use High Density
District (R-5)
The R-4 and R-5 districts together account for just under 8% of residential zoning in Bozeman. Both
are intended for high-density development, with some mixed-use development allowed in R-5.
Though the two districts have identical regulations for the type of housing allowed, R-5 has more
permissive lot requirements, with no minimum lot sizes for some types of structures. Both districts
have a minimum density of 8 DU/acre, with R-4 calculated in net density and R-5 calculated in gross
density. To promote the higher-density development this district allows, we recommend eliminating
the availability of new single-household dwellings in these zones in the future. To accommodate this
change, both the zoning districts and nonconformities sections of the UDC can be revised to ensure
that existing single-family units remain classified as legal, conforming uses unless they are abandoned
or replaced. We also recommend increasing the minimum density to 14 DU/net acre (about 17
52
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |20
DU/gross acre, for structure types where minimum lot sizes are calculated, this will allow lots of about
2,200 to 2,500 square feet).
e. Residential Office (R-O)
The R-O district encompasses slightly less than 4% of zoned land in Bozeman, and is intended to allow
the development of multi-household and apartment uses in conjunction with office uses, at a
minimum density of 6 DU/net acre. R-O should be located in areas with similar development, along
arterial corridors, and as transitional development between lower density residential and commercial
development. Currently, R-O standards limit the extent (i.e., percentage) of residential development
permitted in a structure when it lies within a non-residential land use designation. This could be
changed to require non-residential uses on the first floor without limiting the amount of residential
development permitted in the structure above the first floor. This would allow the development of
more residential dwelling units in the R-O district , while still respecting the district intent for a mix of
residential and office uses.
f. Residential Emphasis Mixed-Use (REMU)
This district is a more flexible version of the UMU district that limits non-residential uses to 30 percent
of gross floor area as shown in a site plan, master site plan, or PUD. It represents 2.9% of the zoned
land in the city, and the non-residential limit does not apply to schools, parks, community centers,
City services, or structured parking. Because this district encourages but does not require mixed-use
(i.e., it allows single-purpose residential buildings), we do not have recommendations for change at
this time. However, because much of the REMU-zoned land is located near the university, the City
may want to consider incentivizing the construction of student-oriented housing (such as the
emerging development of 3-4 bedroom/3-4 bath units with shared living rooms and kitchens) in order
to relieve pressure that the student housing demand currently disperses over much of Bozeman.
While this type of student housing is permitted as a form of “group living” in the current UDC, that
use could be further incentivized for this purpose.
g. Residential Manufactured Home Community District (RMH)
The intent statement for the RMH zoning district indicates the zoning is appropriate for “existing
mobile home parks and areas adjacent to commercial or mixed-use districts and/or served by transit.”
Although this text suggests that the RMH district could be used to create a new manufactured home
park, this could be clarified by rephrasing as “existing or new.”
One benefit of this approach is that this district can be tailored to allow the creation of Tiny House
communities, an approach to affordable housing was recently adopted by Aurora, Colorado. The
existing regulations may need to be revised to match the requirements for these smaller structures
(typically 400 or 500 square feet versus 800 feet for a traditional single-wide manufactured home).
While the availability of the RMH district to accommodate new manufactured home and Tiny Home
parks is consistent with the affordability goals articulated in both the Community Plan and the CHAP,
it is unlikely that the continued availability of this tool will produce a very significant amount of new
small “a” affordable housing, simply because high land prices often make it more profitable to
produce other types of housing.
Note: Mixed-Use Districts. Historically, many “commercial” zoning districts also allowed residential uses.
This practice has continued and expanded, although most newer codes rename commercial districts as
“mixed-use” districts to reflect the inclusion of residential uses. This is the case in Bozeman’s UDC, where
residential uses are permitted to some extent in all of the commercial districts.
53
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |21
2. Commercial and Industrial Districts
a. Neighborhood Business (B-1)
Only 72 acres of land are zoned B-1, which accounts for less than 1% of the 2020 zoning district
distribution. This district is intended to be used to provide pedestrian-oriented, neighborhood-serving
commercial uses and can be mixed with residential development. Currently, only apartments are
permitted in the B-1 district, but this can be expanded to include the limited addition of three- and
four-household units, townhomes, and mixed-use structures, all of which can be designed to function
well in a neighborhood commercial area. Care should be taken to limit the overall amount of
residential development in the district so that the local-scale non-residential function of the district is
not lost.
b. Community Business (B-2) and Community Business District-Mixed (B-2M)
The B-2 commercial business district is intended for the development of commercial centers that
serve multiple neighborhoods, while the B-2M district does the same for a larger trade area. B-2
zoning accounts for about 10% of the City’s current zoning and is widely distributed along Main Street
outside of Downtown, around the I-90/Median interchange, along N 19th Street, and in smaller
segments in all quadrants of the city.
In contrast, the B-2M zoning district created in 2018 only covers 1.5% of the land in the City, and is
located primarily around midtown and along Huffine Lane on the western edge of the city. The
primary difference between the B-2 and B-2M districts in the use table is that those residential uses
that permitted by conditional use review in B-2 are often permitted by right in B-2M. Historically,
there may have been a reason for requiring residential uses to obtain a conditional use permit, but
that may reflect a time when communities separated commercial and residential uses because they
made “bad neighbors.” This view of planning has been gradually replaced with a more place-based
approach and allowing a wider range of residential uses-by-right in most commercial districts. In
Bozeman, the residential uses by right available in the B-2M district could be added to the B-2 district.
Note: Ground Floor Uses. Some of the current UDC districts, such as B-2, B-2M, B-3, UMU, and REMU
have limitations on when residential uses can be placed on the ground floor. In the B-2 district, for
example, ground floor residential is a conditional use. In B-2M and B-3 ground floor residential must be
located a minimum depth of 20 feet behind the front façade (i.e., there must be a different use at the
front entrance and the residential space is located “behind” that use). This concept may have migrated
into many codes from form-based code practice, where it is typically used more selectively (rather than
applying to all land in a zoning district regardless of location). Bozeman has already started to narrow its
requirement for ground floor non-residential uses through the use of different frontage types. We
recommend that the City review the frontage type maps to ensure that non-residential frontage types
(such as storefront) are limited to areas where there is no added benefit to allowing ground floor housing
uses, and where the market will support non-residential ground floor uses. Many cities are concluding
that there are some areas where demand for leasing and occupancy of ground floor non-residential uses
is so weak that allowing ground floor residential uses would be of more value to the community. If that is
true in Bozeman, we recommend that the UDC be amended to allow single use residential buildings
without ground floor non-residential uses in areas of low demand.
54
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |22
c. Downtown (B-3)
The Downtown B-3 district is fairly small at approximately 150 acres and just a little over 1% of
Bozeman’s current zoning. A wide range of non-single-household residential uses is permitted by right
in the Downtown and we do not recommend use changes for this district.
d. Urban Mixed-Use (UMU)
The UMU district only accounts for 38 acres or 0.3% of the current zoning. This district has a required
use mix, limiting the primary use to 70 percent of the gross square footage developed on each site.
UMU also has a ground-floor commercial use requirement for 70 percent of the ground floor block
frontages to a depth of 20 feet from the street unless the ground floor use is parking. To better
accommodate housing demand in Bozeman, we recommend that the ground floor commercial
requirement be further limited and that structures outside of the core of a UMU development area
be allowed to contain first floor residential uses.
e. Northeast Historic Mixed-Use (NEHMU)
The Northeast Historic Mixed-Use district is unique
because it is designed to accommodate a specific
mixed residential/light-industrial neighborhood. It
combines uses permitted in the R-2 and M-1 zoning
districts and allows case-by-case determination of the
most appropriate use of land within a broad range of
both non-residential and residential uses. The
NEHMU district (combined with the R2 district to the
south) represents a portion of what was historically
Bozeman’s working-class, mixed-use neighborhood.
Public comments have indicated that in the past few years many of these smaller homes are being
replaced with larger incompatible homes, sometimes by combining several smaller lots into one larger
single household property. While the current zoning reflects a past desire to accommodate the older
existing non-residential uses, the Community Plan suggests that the area should transition towards
residential use. In light of this policy change and the significant need for additional housing supply,
the City should consider adding additional types of multi-household housing uses to this district,
removing heavy commercial and industrial uses from the lists of available uses, and/or replacing the
NEHMU district with a more traditional residential zoning district, which could be done either through
the application of a current commercial district that allows the proposed development density, or a
new residential district that accomplishes the same goal in a way that is consistent with the
Community Plan goal of having residential densities at 14 to 22 du/net acre supporting the
intersection-oriented commercial uses.
3. Industrial Zoning Districts
a. Light Manufacturing (M-1)
The M-1 district currently allows buildings to contain up to 50% of their area in residential uses. Since
many contemporary light industrial uses no longer produce the kinds of impacts that would require
separation from residential developments (light, noise, odor, emissions), the City should consider
allowing the creation of additional housing above or on the same site as these low-impact uses by
allowing the 50% residential threshold to be applied on a site-wide basis (rather than a per-building
basis). Alternately, many cities are re-evaluating their inventory of industrially-zoned land in light of
changing economic and market forces, and are concluding that some smaller, older, areas without
NEHMU district on the Bozeman zoning map
55
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |23
good access to highways, air, or rail facilities are unlikely to attract employment-creating development
in the future, and are remapping those lands into mixed-use zones that would allow for a wider range
of residential development. While Bozeman’s M1 lands appear to be fairly well located and suited to
modern light industrial demands, we suggest that Bozeman conduct an analysis of whether any of the
current 572 acres of M-1 land is unlikely to attract or retain the intended employment uses in the
future.
b. Business Park (B-P)
Many cities are also revising their business park zoning districts to allow the introduction of multi-
household residential uses. In some cases, this is driven by a desire to promote walkable mixed-use
development, while in other cases it is motivated by the difficulty of attracting non-residential
investment to the remaining parcels in existing business parks. Regardless of the motivation, some
cities are allowing new residential uses with limitations on the percentage of land in a defined
business park that can be occupied by residential uses, or allowing residential uses to be developed
only after a stated percentage of the land area has been occupied by non-residential uses, in order to
ensure that an intended employment zone does not become a predominantly residential area.
Bozeman currently has 240 acres of land zoned B-P, 27 acres of which were vacant in 2020, and we
recommend that the City explore whether multi-household housing types should be permitted in this
zoning district.
4. Overlay District
There is one overlay district in Bozeman – the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD), which
was created in 1991. Because this district regulates the form and dimension of permitted development –
rather than permitted uses – and because it can be used to better preserve existing housing, it is discussed
as part of Outcome 2: Preserve Existing Affordable Housing, below.
Changes to Form and Intensity Standards
Form and Intensity standards are those
regulations in each zoning district that
address the minimum or maximum sizes
of a lot or structure or that require
additional lot area for specific housing
types (such as multi-household units and
ADUs) in specific zoning districts.
While most development codes regulate
these issues in some way, Bozeman’s
dimensional and bulk standards are
more extensive and complex than most.
On most lots, the development potential
for new housing is subject to minimum
lot sizes, lot area per dwelling unit,
minimum building setbacks, maximum
height limitations, floor area ratio (FAR) limitations, minimum open space standards, maximum lot
coverage, and maximum rear lot coverage. There are also relevant standards “hidden” in table footnotes
and located in different section of the UDC. Applying specific building frontage requirements adds another
layer of complexity that may impact how the lot can be used for housing development. We recommend
simplifying or eliminating some form and intensity standards and making others more flexible to reduce
Form and intensity standards establish required measurements
for lots and structures
56
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |24
this complexity and enable the creation of additional small “a” affordable housing in Bozeman. The City
may want to consider reorganizing the location and format of the form and intensity standards as part of
a larger code update.
The relative complexity of Bozeman’s form and intensity is shown in the comparison table below, and our
recommendations for simplifying these standards appear in the sections following the table:
Dimensional Standards Comparison Communities
Lot
Area
Lot
Width
Max.
Height
Lot
Area/
Unit FAR
Min.
Open
Space
Max.
Lot Cov.
Max.
Rear Lot
Cov.
Bozeman Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Missoula Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes
Billings No Yes Yes No No Yes [2] Yes No
Helena[1] No [3] No Yes [3] No No No Yes No
Laramie, Wyoming Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No
Spokane,
Washington Yes Yes Yes No Some Yes Yes No
Bend, Oregon Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No
[1] N/A for downtown residential development.
[2] Multi-unit/mixed-use development only
[3] Rural districts only
Of the communities reviewed, all measure at least two fewer dimensions than Bozeman. That may seem
to be a simplistic comparison, but each measurement represents a specific requirement on the lot or for
the structure, so eliminating two could have a noticeable impact on how the lot is used or structure
designed. Floor area ratio and minimum open space are the two types of measurements that most of the
comparison communities do not use, and both are discussed in more detail below.
Lot Standards
1. Reduce Required Minimum Lot Sizes for Non-
Single-Household Development
Bozeman has been steadily reducing minimum lot sizes
since the 1990s, down to the current single-household
minimum lot sizes of between 3,000 and 4,000 square
feet, depending on the building type. Single-household
detached dwelling lots for income-restricted affordable
housing can be as small as 2,700 square feet, and the
Residential Mixed-Use High-Density (R-5) and REMU
districts allow even smaller “small-lot single-
household” development on a 2,500 square foot lot.
These figures are much more reasonable than those
used by many medium sized cities for single-household
dwellings.
Attached and multi-household dwelling types, such as
two-to-four household dwellings and apartments, generally require additional lot area over the
standard minimum. This requirement generally reflects an older approach to zoning grounded in
Lot area is the total horizontal area within the
boundary lines of a lot
Lot area is the total horizontal area within the
boundary lines of a lot
57
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |25
suburban standards with embedded assumptions that uses that differ even slightly from single-
household dwellings should be separated from them by more lot area. When combined with the UDC
requirements for on-site open space and low FAR limits, this approach requires large (and expensive)
lots for non-single-household building types, as shown in the table below.
Minimum Lot Size by Dwelling Type
Lot area per unit Total square footage
required
Multi-Unit “Penalty”
per Structure
Single-household
dwelling
R-5 + RMH: 3,000
Other: 4,000
Two-household
dwelling
All but R-O: 2,500
R-O: 3,000
5,000 per 2-HHD DU
R-O: 6,000 per 2-HHD DU 2,000 to 3,000 sq. ft.
Three- and four-
household
dwelling
R-3, R-4, R-O: 3,000
R-5: None
9,000 per 3-HHD dwelling
12,000 per 4-HHD dwelling 5,000 to 8,000 sq. ft.
Townhouse/
Rowhouse
R-3, R-4, R-O: 3,000
R-5: None
Dependent on number of
units
2,000 sq. ft. and up,
depending on number of
units
Apartments and
Apartment
Building, Limited.
R-4, R-O: First DU 5,000 +
1,200 per DU
R-3: 3,000 per unit
R-5: None
5 units in R-4, R-O: 9,800
5 units in R-3: 15,000
The additional-lot-area-per-unit standards are a significant contributor to high housing prices for non-
single-household development and tends to spread out lots containing even two-, three-, or four- unit
housing in ways that undermine the City’s goals for walkability. The Bozeman Community Plan 2020
encourages developers to “think small” by recommending that the UDC:
N-3.7 Support compact neighborhoods, small lot sizes, and small floor plans, especially
through mechanisms such as density bonuses.
N-3.8 Promote the development of "Missing Middle" housing (side by side or stacked duplex,
triplex, live-work, cottage housing, group living, rowhouses/ townhouses, etc.) as one of the
most critical components of affordable housing.
Other communities in Montana and the region, in comparison, already think small. Helena only
requires minimum lot sizes for large lot residential (Open Space Residential) and residential uses in
the Neighborhood Business district. In its recent zoning code update, Billings moved from a minimum
lot size requirement to a minimum lot width requirement in most residential and mixed-use districts.
Great Falls employs a combination of minimum lot size and dwelling unit density that is not a one-to-
one correlation. The Multi-Family Residential Medium Density (R-5) district, for example, has
minimum NEW lot size of 7,500 square feet, and allow 4 units on a lot of that size.
In all six of their multi-family districts, Missoula allows 3,000 square foot minimum lot areas and,
depending on the intensity of the district, the required lot area per unit ranges from 500 to 2,700
square feet. These dimensions are for conventional development; permanently income-restricted
development does not have a minimum lot size but requires between 400 and 2,160 square feet per
unit. Laramie, Wyoming, establishes a minimum lot area for a principal building and a smaller per unit
lot size for additional units; in the R-3 district the minimum lot area for a principal townhouse
structure is 6,000 square feet and the additional per unit minimum is 1,000 square feet. Finally,
Spokane, Washington, takes a minimum lot area-based approach like Bozeman’s UDC, but requires
58
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |26
much smaller lots. In the Residential Multifamily District, minimum lot sizes for detached houses are
1,800 square feet, attached houses are 1,450 square feet, and duplexes/multi-dwelling structures are
2,900 square feet.
We recommend that Bozeman move to eliminate
the lot-area-per-dwelling-unit regulations for
single-household attached and multi-unit (e.g.,
apartment) housing. This can be done in a
targeted manner based on zoning district,
location, dwelling type, and/or whether the
neighborhood is new or already developed.
While the additional lot-area-per-dwelling
standard might be removed altogether for new
development on vacant land, it could instead be
subject to contextual or averaging standards in
established neighborhoods. For example, in established neighborhoods minimum lot sizes for
redevelopment of older properties for two-, three-, or four-family structures or townhouses could
require that the new lots be generally similar (for example, between 75% and 125% of the size of
existing lots on the same block) in order to allow the redevelopment to fit into the established fabric
of the neighborhood without requiring a fixed amount of land per dwelling unit. In addition, we
recommend that the elimination or reduction of lot-area-per-dwelling-unit apply to conversions of
existing single-unit to multi-unit structures where that conversion takes place within roughly the same
building footprint.
2. Reduce Minimum Lot Width
Minimum lot widths determine how wide a lot
has to be at the front building line, and impact
how many linear feet of street frontage are
required to serve a neighborhood for access
and utilities. Lot widths in residential
neighborhoods can have a significant impact on
housing cost, because wider lots need to have
longer pipes, wires, and pavement on fronting
streets. Lot widths also determine how new lots
“fit into existing neighborhood character.
Nationally, many cities are re-thinking
minimum lot widths, particularly for infill and
mixed-use development, in order to reduce
some of the costs associated with a wider lot
frontage. As context for this discussion,
substantial portions of older neighborhoods in
many western U.S. cities were platted as 25-foot-wide lots, were developed with correspondingly
small houses, and these neighborhoods remain among the more affordable and walkable
neighborhoods in these cities.
Minimum lot widths currently range from 30 to 60 feet wide in the City’s residential districts, varying
primarily based on the housing type. Lot width requirements have many exceptions. Interior
townhome lots, for example, are permitted to be narrower than end lots due to additional side
setbacks on the end lots, and currently have no minimum standard. Reduced minimum lot widths are
Two-unit dwelling on a single-unit footprint
Lot width is the distance as measured in a straight
line, between side lot lines at the points of
intersection with the required front building line.
59
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |27
permitted for lots on alleys where lot access is taken from the alley, and also for income-restricted
affordable housing on smaller lots. The current market rate required minimums are generally
consistent with the associated requirement to provide extra lot area for multi-household units.
We recommend eliminating minimum lot width requirements for new development on vacant land,
and reducing those minimums for redevelopment in existing neighborhoods to allow for “gentle
density” and market development of more housing that is generally in character with the existing
neighborhood fabric. Reducing minimum lot widths will not prohibit wider, street-facing development
because the developer can choose to provide widths beyond the minimum. It will, however, allow the
creation of narrower lots and may encourage the development of new alley systems. If the intent of
current minimum lot widths is to preserve “light and air” between buildings, that can be done through
adjusting setbacks or maximum lot coverage rather than requiring wider lots.
Many newer development codes are eliminating minimum lot width standards altogether in
Commercial, Mixed-use, and Industrial zoning districts. We recommend that the City remove the
current minimum 100-foot lot width requirement in the Neighborhood Commercial (B-1) district, and
the 100-foot minimum lot width in the Community Business (B-2) district, to enable creative infill
housing development. Cities that have taken this step in recent years include Bloomington, Indiana;
Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Rochester, Minnesota, among others.
Neither Helena or Missoula regulate lot width and depth. Billings regulates lot width only, using
standards that depend on neighborhood context. Older, close-in neighborhoods have a
minimum/maximum lot width range of 20 feet to 80 feet, and more suburban development has a
minimum/maximum lot width range of 50 feet to 120 feet. Laramie, Wyoming has regulations most
similar to Bozeman’s, where their single-household district requires a lot width of 50 feet. Multi-
dwelling districts allow lot widths between 40 and 60 feet. Of note in Laramie’s most intensive multi-
dwelling district is the allowance for townhouse unit lots to be only 16 feet wide. In Spokane,
Washington, as previously mentioned, lot sizes are generally smaller, and so are lot dimensions. The
largest lot width and depth in the city is 40 feet by 80 feet – and this applies equally to single dwellings
in the city’s more suburban districts (comparable to Bozeman’s R-S, R-1, and R-2) and to attached
housing such as a duplex. In more urbanized areas, both single dwellings and duplexes are permitted
on lots with a width of 25 feet. Lot widths also affect other City operations and standards beyond
zoning, including utility installations and maintenance, which may place some limitations on individual
site flexibility.
3. Floor Area Ratio Requirements
Floor area ratio (FAR) requirements have been around for decades and have increased in use and
popularity during two different eras of zoning – in the sixties and seventies with the increased
popularity of performance zoning focused on flexible lot development that was fully mitigated and
screened from adjacent development, and early in adoption of form-based regulations to try to
provide a more flexible way to tailor form-based controls to reflect more nuanced neighborhood
character (to the consternation of many form-based code advocates). Both times, the renewed use
of FAR standards declined over time, primarily because this standard does not lead to predictable
design outcomes, and because FARs tend to be both difficult for citizens to understand and a poor
proxy for how well new development will “fit into” the surrounding context. The use of FAR
measurement in the UDC appears to have migrated originally from the newer mixed-use districts into
other districts. The UDC contains more than enough standards to regulate the scale, intensity, height,
and “openness” of new development without the added artificial density limits created by FARs, and
60
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |28
we recommend that they be eliminated – at least for residential development and mixed-use
development with a housing component.
4. Lot Coverage Requirements
Maximum lot coverage requirements
are part of the historic trifecta of lot
size, lot width, and lot coverage
standards that have typically been
employed by communities to support
large lot, separated structure
residential development. As with
some older codes, Bozeman
compounds the complexity of these
controls by regulating both maximum
lot coverage and maximum rear yard
coverage. The City may have more
success with encouraging
development on smaller lots by concurrently reducing (or eliminating) minimum lot widths and
increasing (or eliminating) maximum lot coverage requirements. Although maximum lot coverage
limits can serve an important purpose in promoting on-site stormwater management, that goal can
also be accomplished through shared or communal open spaces designed for stormwater
management without forcing each lot to contain individual open space that drives up housing costs.
These types of changes must be coordinated with the City’s stormwater operations and regulations
applied to the City by state and federal agencies. At a minimum, we recommend that Bozeman adjust
the maximum lot coverages so that they reflect on-site open space needed for effective stormwater
management, rather than serving as third way to require housing to occupy more land than it would
otherwise need to occupy.
Building Dimensional Standards
1. Permitted Heights
In built-out communities with little remaining vacant land, allowing taller structures is an important
way to encourage increased housing production on existing land. The Bozeman Community Plan 2020
agrees, recommending that:
This graphic from New York City shows how FAR impacts building bulk but not necessarily building design.
Lot coverage is the ratio of horizontal area, measured from the
exterior surface of the exterior walls of the ground floor, of all
principal and accessory buildings on a lot to the total lot area.
61
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |29
DCD-2.4 Evaluate revisions to maximum building height limits in all zoning districts to account for
contemporary building methods and building code changes.
The City’s recent changes to height limits in residential zones demonstrate that Bozeman is aware of
this issue, and has already taken steps to address it. The increased height allowed in residential
districts and simplification of the standard as related to roof pitch have brought Bozeman more in line
with best practices in this area of regulation. We recommend that as the City implements the revised
standards, they also engage in a continuing conversation about whether additional increases in
maximum height would be of benefit.
Concerns raised by allowing taller buildings near existing low-density residential areas can be
addressed through neighborhood adjacency standards, setbacks, and screening, and, for taller
structures, building stepback requirements. Standards similar to the current non-residential stepback
standards in Section 38.320.060 can be established to apply to both residential adjacency and
residential/non-residential adjacency.
Similar changes should be considered in the commercial/mixed-use districts. The Downtown (B-3),
the B-2, B2-M, and UMU district, all have fairly low maximum height limits that could be reviewed and
potentially increased. The 2019 Downtown Bozeman Improvement Plan includes this illustration of
how the current UDC requirements work together with typical building design to result in a five-story
building:
The Downtown Improvement Plan then goes on to recommends allowing structures to be built to
seven stories outside of the historic core:
Regulations and building construction requirements typically limit Downtown development to five stories Regulations and building construction requirements typically limit Downtown development to five stories
62
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |30
"Downtown's height limits should be adjusted to enable buildings of seven stories
outside of the historic core, rather than specifying 70 feet which more usually results
in five-story buildings. For buildings with seven stories, urban design guidelines could
be put in place to shape and break down the massing while still enabling the density
needed for a vibrant, inclusive Downtown.
For example, the floor plates on levels five through seven can be designed to step
back from the building edge to break down the form. A height increase to seven
stories could also be an opportunity to address long-term affordability by
incentivizing smaller units through height bonuses."
We support these recommendations as a further way for Bozeman to enable the production of
more small “a” affordable housing without the need for discretionary hearings or approvals.
2. Establish Minimum Heights
To encourage increased development of moderate density multi-household dwellings, the City could
consider establishing minimum building heights in the higher intensity commercial districts. Requiring
at least two stories in the B-2M and B-3 zoning districts, for instance, could prevent lots from being
used for the development of single-story commercial structures. There is precedent for minimum
heights in Bozeman; UMU currently has a minimum building height of 22 feet, and REMU has a two-
story minimum requirement when for mixed-use development.
Update Use-Specific Standards to Reduce Barriers to Innovative Housing
The size and layout of future development and redevelopment is regulated through both lot and building-
related dimensional standards and use-specific standards. There are two specific housing types in the UDC
with current use standards that could be revised and simplified in ways to encourage more production of
market-based affordable housing.
Simplify Currently Allowed Housing Types
1. ADUs
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are a secondary and subordinate dwelling unit on the same lot as a single-
household or multi-household uses. They can be “attached” (located in the attic, basement, or converted
garage space of a primary house) or “detached” (in a carriage house, over a detached garage, or on the
ground floor of a converted garage). ADUs have proven to be a popular, less controversial way of adding
housing to existing single-household neighborhoods in many communities across the United States – in
part because many older neighborhoods already contain a scattering of these types of secondary units
(some of which predate zoning).
Bozeman has already endorsed ADUs and allows them in all residential zoning districts. However, the
current standards for creating an ADU in these districts are very strict, and significantly decrease the
chances that many ADUs will be created. Like many other “first generation” ADU ordinances, the current
standards appear to reflect a fear of unintended consequences when allowing a new land use. Across the
U.S. many “second generation” ADU ordinances are being created with revisions similar to the following,
and we recommend that Bozeman consider these types of changes:
Raising occupancy limit from the current two-persons to four persons, which aligns with the
International Building Code allowance for apartments. In Bozeman, this approach may require
63
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |31
further study, because keeping the occupancy of an ADU subordinate to that of the primary unit
is very important to allow utilities to be extended from the primary dwelling unit to any detached
ADU without requiring construction of new utility mains or payment of related fees.
Increasing the permitted size of an ADU to 800 square feet.
Removing the requirement for additional lot area to construct an ADU.
Removing the requirements for ground floor ADUs to have alley access.
Deleting the requirement to provide an additional parking space for an ADU, or amending the
requirement to state that if two spaces exist on a lot where an ADU is proposed, provision of an
additional parking is not required.
Eliminating discretionary review for compatibility and consistency and instead applying objective
standards related to shadowing, privacy, and other impacts.
These changes reflect a growing body of experience showing that ADUs are an important form of gentle
density and that many of the feared negative impacts of ADUs have not occurred.
Additionally, any overlap between the accessory building (Sec. 38.360.030) and accessory dwelling unit
(Sec. 38.360.040) standards should be eliminated so that ADUs are only regulated by the ADU standards.
2. Cottage Housing
Many communities have found that cottage housing developments, which generally include a group of
smaller size-limited freestanding homes on a single lot, to be a useful way of providing small “a” affordable
housing at lower cost to both younger and older households for which a smaller house is more than
adequate. Although Bozeman already allows this type of housing, the City’s current regulations are more
extensive and complex than those used by many other cities. As with ADUs, the number and level of detail
in these regulations deter the creation of a type of housing that Bozeman has already decided is desirable.
Other communities that want to promote cottage development have limited their use-specific regulations
to the following elements:
Maximum project size (size of lot and number of units),
Minimum common open space and orientation of units around this space,
Minimum setbacks and buffering of homes from the project boundaries,
Minimum separation between individual structures (often tied to the building code),
Maximum permitted house size,
Minimum parking standards, and
Location of required parking (often in a shared parking area).
The following standards in the City’s current cottage housing regulations should be considered for
elimination: (1) additional private open space for each cottage, (2) requirement for additional entrance
for units facing public right-of-way; and (3) architectural requirements for a “unified theme” or specific
design features.
64
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |32
Consider Additional Forms of Innovative Housing
The UDC should be revised to include definitions and to identify in which zoning district the following new
types of housing uses are permitted, and to establish use-specific standards to ensure that they “fit into”
the surrounding context that any negative impacts are mitigated:
1. Tiny Houses
Despite the popularity of discussions about tiny houses, there is often a great lack of clarity as to what
type of housing is being proposed and how that housing is regulated. All forms of housing are
regulated as both structures and uses. From a structure perspective, tiny houses can first be
categorized based on whether they are constructed for use as long-term or short-term housing. Tiny
houses intended for long-term housing are regulated similarly to residential structures, and those
intended for mobile, short-term housing are regulated similarly to recreational vehicles (RVs).
Bozeman (like almost all other U.S. cities) requires that any tiny houses intended for more than
occasional occupancy that meet applicable building and safety. This can be the standard building code
for units like Bozeman’s Housing First Village homes (which that were custom designed by MSU
architecture), or the Manufactured Home Code (HUD Code) for units that were factory-built and have
at least 400 square feet of living space. Tiny houses that do not meet the City’s current residential
building code or the HUD code can only be used for occasional occupancy (usually less than 30 days)
regardless of whether they are approved as primary or accessory dwellings.
Once the structure-related issues are addressed, the UDC also needs to specify how the house will be
regulated as a use, and this is where Bozeman’s UDC can be improved. Tiny houses can be regulated
as: (1) an ADU (accessory use), (2) a primary single-household dwelling on an individual platted lot
(primary use), (3) a primary single-household dwelling a subdivision of individual lots with tiny homes
(primary use), (4) a group of homes on a single platted lot intended for long-term rental (primary use
similar to a manufactured home park), or (5) a group of homes on a single lot intended as short-term
or transient housing for the currently homeless (a primary use with tailored specialty use standards).
While the current UDC technically allows the use of tiny houses that comply with building and safety
standards for all of these purposes, each of these types of tiny house development are subject to
different use standards. For example, tiny houses proposed as ADUs must meet all applicable ADU
standards. Groups of tiny homes on a single lot intended as primary dwelling units can often be
addressed as a type of manufactured home community use. Aurora, Colorado, recently adopted
regulations to allow these types of communities. The City should consider clarifying what standards
apply to each of these uses of tiny houses, and revising those standards if necessary to allow broader
use of these structures.
2. Congregate/Group Living
While the federal Fair Housing Act requires that American communities treat group living facilities for
the physically or mentally disabled (including recovering substance abusers) the same as housing
facilities of the same size and scale available to the general public, there are many forms of group or
communal living that are not covered by the Fair Housing Act. This can include housing cooperatives,
groups of the elderly or young that agree to share a housing structure, co-housing facilities, single-
room occupancy (SRO) facilities, and intentional communities focused on a specific belief system or
set of values. Generally, the current UDC treats housing subject to Fair Housing Act requirements
related to disabilities as congregate care uses, while those forms of housing not subject to the Act are
categorized as group living or cooperative household uses.
65
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |33
The frequency and variety of these alternative group living choices will likely continue to expand,
especially as costs rise, and Bozeman’s UDC is well positioned to accommodate the various
permutations because it allows group living in all residential zoning districts. Cooperative households
are permitted by right in the R-3, R-4, R-5, and R-O districts and requires special use permission in the
R-S, R-1, R-2, and RMH districts. To improve user-friendliness, however, the UDC could be more
explicit about the range of non-FHA group housing options that are allowed, through adding them to
the use table, providing definitions, and as needed, establishing use-specific standards for the various
kinds of living arrangements that are permitted in the group living category. If subject to such use-
specific standards, cooperative household could be permitted by right in all residential districts, as
group living is now.
While the City’s current “Apartment, Limited” standards were apparently drafted to allow a specific
co-housing development, that use is better categorized as part of this broad category of group living.
If that reclassification occurs, the current “Apartment, Limited” use should be retired or merged into
the general “Apartment Building” use.
3. Rooming and Boarding
The UDC should also specify more clearly that extra rooms in dwelling units of all types may be rented
out to persons other than the primary tenants of the dwelling unit for either short-term (where short-
term rentals are permitted) or for long-term use, subject to a limit of 8 residents, unless further limited
by occupancy standards on the building code. New roommate finding systems like Circle, Diggz,
SpareRoom, and Roomiematch have vastly expanded the scope and potential of rooming
arrangements to provide an important (and legal) additional source of housing, and the UDC should
take a flexible approach to these arrangements in most or all zoning districts.
4. Stacked Flats
Stacked flats are, essentially, a duplex housing use in a structure that looks like a single-household
attached townhouse/rowhouse structure. Instead of leading into a single two- or three-floor
townhouse, the street-level entry to the structure leads into an entry serving both a 1- or 2 story
ground floor and a 1- or 2-story upper floor unit (both of which may be individually owned through a
cooperative or condominium arrangement). This form of housing has emerged on both the west and
east coasts as a new approach to promote affordability in neighborhoods that allow
townhouses/rowhouses by allowing each of the attached structures to contain two dwelling units.
Though we understand that there is nothing in Bozeman’s code that precludes this kind of structure,
the allowance for it could be more clearly and explicitly defined.
Create Complete and Consistent Definitions and Use-Specific Standards
The current UDC contains a common definition/standard triple step: (1) there are incomplete or missing
definitions for different types of housing, (2) some of the current definitions include substantive
regulations, and (3) some of the use-specific regulations include definitions. Establishing a complete and
consistent set of definitions and use standards for each type of housing allows the City to ensure shared
expectations with applicants and neighbors. From a best-practices perspective, the definitions and
standards should be organized consistently with definitions in Article 7, use-specific rules in Div. 38.350,
and zoning district-specific regulations in Div. 38.330.
66
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |34
1. Update Current Housing Definitions
This section identifies the current UDC housing-related terms that should be either defined or
redefined, along with suggested changes that would improve their consistent and effective use in
implementing the Future Land Use Map of the BCP2020.
Complete and Consistent Housing Definitions
Term Current Definition or Standards Suggested Changes
General Terms
Household A person living alone, or any of the following
groups living together as a single nonprofit
housekeeping unit and sharing common living,
sleeping, cooking and eating facilities: 1.Any
number of people related by blood, marriage,
adoption, guardianship or other duly-authorized
custodial relationship; 2.Not more than four
unrelated people; or 3.Two unrelated people and
any children related to either of them; 4.Persons
or groups granted a request for a reasonable
accommodation to reside as a single
housekeeping unit pursuant to section
38.35.090.5."Household" does not include:
[paraphrased] a. Any social organization; b. Any
group that is temporary or seasonal in nature; c.
Prison/post-incarceration housing; or d.
transitional or emergency housing
This definition is fairly close to
current best practices, but could
be improved by clarifying that any
group of individuals whose right to
live together is protected by the
federal Fair Housing Act is
considered a household (without
having to apply for a reasonable
accommodation under that Act).
Dwelling A building, or portion thereof, meeting the
requirements of the City's adopted International
Building Code and used by one household, as
defined by this article, for residential purposes.
Dwellings may exist in many configurations,
including single-household, two-household,
multiple-household dwellings and group homes.
Dwellings do not include hotels, motels, Type-3
short term rentals as defined in section
38.360.260.
The list of examples should be
expanded to include the new
types of housing (including Tiny
Houses, cottage housing, and co-
housing) listed above.
Housing Type Terms
Accessory
Dwelling
Units,
Attached
and
Detached
Not defined in Art. 7, Definitions; 38.360.040
ADU Use Table describes: (1) ADUs above an
accessory building, (2) ADUs on the ground floor
of an accessory building, (3) detached ADUs
including second story additions on detached
garages, and (4) ADUs that are part of the
principal dwelling unit.
Add definition in Article 7. The use
standards could be simplified to
distinguish only between attached
and detached ADUs, rather than
the four categories currently
described.
Apartment
Building,
Limited
Not defined in Art. 7, Definitions; 38.360.070 use
standards describe this as: 5-8 units in a single
building, 120 ft max building dimension, 10,000 sf
max floor area
Add definition in Article 7;
consider renaming this use as co-
housing.
67
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |35
Complete and Consistent Housing Definitions
Term Current Definition or Standards Suggested Changes
Apartment
Building
A building other than a hotel, motel, townhouse,
or rowhouse containing five or more dwelling
units.
Merge with the definition of
apartment.
Relocate the scale, size, and layout
standards in the form and
intensity standards rather than
here in the definition.
Cottage
Housing
Not defined in Art. 7, Definitions; 38.360.120 use
standards describe this as: the subdivision of a
parcel of land, referred to herein as the primary
lot, into: a) dependent lots for individual
dwellings, and b) private common areas for the
common use of the owners of dependent lots.
Add definition in Article 7.
Rowhouse A dwelling unit that shares one or more common
or abutting walls with one or more dwelling units.
A rowhouse does not share common
floors/ceilings with other dwelling units.
To clarify the distinction between
a Rowhouse and a Townhouse,
this definition should state that
the attached units are typically
located on a single lot. If helpful to
UDC users, alternatively layouts
can be illustrated in the use-
specific standards.
Rowhouse
Cluster
A building consisting of three or more rowhouses. Merge with the definition of
Rowhouse above. If the purpose
of this definition is to establish a
minimum or maximum number of
attached rowhouse units, that
should be done through use-
specific standards applicable to
specific zoning districts.
Single-
Household
Dwelling
Not defined in Art. 7, Definitions Add definition.
Small-lot
single-
household
Not defined in Art. 7, Definitions Add definition.
Three-
Household
Dwelling or
Four-
Household
Dwelling
Not defined in Art. 7, Definitions Add definition. These uses are
generally excluded from the
definitions of Rowhouse and
Townhouse if they are located in a
single structure on a single lot.
Two-
Household
Dwelling
Not defined in Art. 7, Definitions Add definition.
Townhouse A dwelling unit, located on its own lot, which
shares one or more common or abutting walls
The second sentence of this
definition contains substantive
68
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |36
Complete and Consistent Housing Definitions
Term Current Definition or Standards Suggested Changes
with each wall having no doors, windows or other
provisions for human passage or visibility with
any other dwelling units, each located on its own
lot. A townhouse does not share common
floors/ceilings with other dwelling units. Each of
the attached dwelling units must have:
1.Independent water and sewer service lines and
metering pursuant to the applicable plumbing
code and all other City regulations; 2.Individual
services for all private utilities; and 3.A two-hour
fire separation separating the dwelling unit from
any adjoining dwelling units.
regulations that should appear in
townhouse use-specific
regulations (38.360.250) instead
of the definition.
Townhouse
Cluster
A building consisting of three or more dwelling
units, each meeting the definition of a
townhouse, placed side-by-side and/or back-to-
back.
This is an unusual definition that
should either be merged with the
definition of Town house above or
addressed in use-specific
standards applicable to specific
zoning districts.
The current UDC also addresses temporary forms of housing, like transitional and emergency shelters.
These types of facilities, which generally provide related services for their occupants and provide only
temporary housing. While important to the City’s comprehensive approach to housing, these housing
types do not increase the overall amount of capital “A” affordable or small “a” affordable long-term
housing and are not addressed in this report.
Revise Project Design Standards
Project design standards (also referred to as “development standards”) are groups of regulations that
apply to a lot or development in in each zoning district. Typical development standards include parking,
landscaping, screening, parks and open space dedications, and building design. Bozeman has project
design standards for all of these categories, as well as standards for privacy, pedestrian circulation,
vehicular circulation, and on-site open space.
While each of these topics contribute to the enviable quality of life enjoyed by Bozeman residents, the
number of standards and criteria related to each of these topics is unnecessarily long. In our experience,
very lengthy and detailed lists of project design standards often reflect a desire to avoid all possible
unintended consequences of a proposed development, but they can also add significant costs to the
proposed development and increase the time and expense of preparing and reviewing applications for
new housing developments. In general, we believe that “more words do not necessarily make for better
development;” in some cases they increase development costs far beyond the public benefits created by
compliance with the standard.
This section includes recommendations for changes to these standards to encourage the development of
more affordable housing without eroding the quality of life in Bozeman’s neighborhoods.
69
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |37
Applicability and Compliance (Sec. 38.500.020)
Applicability and compliance standards describe when redevelopment of an existing site or structure will
be required to come into compliance with new regulations adopted after the initial development of the
property. The current applicability and compliance standards are clear and understandable and establish
three different thresholds at which the current project design standards are applied. Level I standards are
applied to minimal improvements, Level II standards to a middle range of improvements (increases in
building area by 20-50%) that do not involve relocating a structure, and Level III standards are applied to
extensive improvements (an increase in building area larger than 50% or the relocation of a structure).
At each threshold, a specific level of compliance with any new or changed regulations is established. The
Level I and II requirements for improvements or compliance are consistent with similar approaches in
other communities, but Level III thresholds and compliance standards should be reviewed and revised to
promote affordability. A project that triggers Level III standards will be required to fully comply with all
applicable development standards. Depending on the structure and site, this can be an expensive change
that effectively discourages any redevelopment of the site. To avoid this result, some communities set the
Level III threshold at a 75-80% increase in building area, which can allow the property owner to allocate
more project funding to interior improvements, including the creation of additional housing. Alternatively,
the UDC could be revised to raise the Level III threshold just for those projects that include a significant
number of new residential units, or to exempt those projects from compliance with some of the façade,
site design, or parking requirements.
70
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |38
Block Frontages (Div. 38.510)
The UDC is currently a mix of traditional and form-based code controls and an overall code analysis should
include a look at whether these regulations work together or at cross-purposes. Of particular note is the
citywide applicability of form-based regulations such as block frontages, which in many hybrid codes
would only be applicable to those areas where form regulations have been specifically created to reflect
local character.
The block frontage standards establish the range of street-facing elements, such as building location,
parking lot location, and landscaping, for which consistency of design and application are important to
maintain a consistent or compatible design character in different areas of the City. This map provides a
sample of downtown block frontage designations:
From an affordable housing perspective, the concern about broadly applied block frontages is that they
may inadvertently combine a limited list of available ground floor uses with a requirement that the ground
floor be designed for commercial occupancy (through minimum commercial use depth requirements and
minimum floor-to-ceiling height) in locations where there is inadequate market to support non-residential
ground floor uses. The block frontage standards could be clarified and adjusted to encourage the creation
of additional housing as follows:
Section from Bozeman Block Frontages Map (bozeman.maps.arcgis.com)
71
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |39
1. Storefront Frontage
This frontage is intended for use in “vibrant and active shopping and dining areas;” the Frontages Map
should be reviewed to ensure that Storefront Frontage is carefully applied to those current or future
locations where that description is accurate and economically viable. The City could clarify in Table
38.510.030.B that the ground floor non-residential use requirement is only applicable to the minimum
non-residential space depth. It could also reduce the required minimum non-residential space depth
from 20 feet to a floating standard that accounts for different structures sizes, such as the lesser of
20 feet or the front 1/3 of the ground floor. In Section B.3.d, the UDC could provide examples to clarify
what “an acceptable tradeoff” might include. In areas where the changes discussed above would allow
ground floor residential occupancy, reduce or waive the minimum ground floor height requirement
(or remove those frontages from the frontage segment maps).
2. Mixed Block Frontage
Mixed Block Frontages can be used “to accommodate a mix of ground floor uses and allow a diversity
of development frontages.” Mixed block frontages are likely intended to provide design flexibility to
property owners, but that may not result in effective plan or code implementation. To avoid overuse
of the Storefront frontage and its limits on ground floor residential use, the City could limit the use of
Storefront Frontage in the Mixed Block Frontage to match the specific intent of where Storefront
should be located. The UDC could also include standards for a “general building” where the Mixed
Block Frontage applies, reflecting that not all mixed-use buildings need to have a Storefront design.
The City has recently removed an impediment to single-use residential building along mixed block
frontages by eliminating the requirement for a 13-foot minimum ground floor-to-ceiling height on the
ground floor.
3. Landscaped Block Frontage
The Landscaped Block Frontage intent indicates that this frontage is applied to “all new and existing
streets in applicable residential districts, plus . . . residential based streets and other streets in
commercial/mixed-use zoned areas where special landscape frontages are desired.” This is a very
broad applicability statement. Many communities with form-based code provisions apply these
standards to commercial and mixed-used areas, but not to residential multi-household or lower
intensity residential areas. Applying this frontage type in a residential setting may simply increase the
complexity of the design and the time it takes to review the project.
4. Interior Street Frontage
This frontage applies to “some existing commercial storefront areas that are located on internal
roadways. The interior street frontage requires a 12-foot minimum sidewalk “walking surface”, which
could be replaced with a more contextual requirement that takes into account existing development
on the street as well as adjacent non-storefront areas, and a narrower width allowed in existing areas
where significant future pedestrian activity is not foreseen.
5. Structured Parking Facility Frontage
The standards for this frontage specify that “parking structures should be located behind buildings in
the interior of blocks or below grade. Parking garages that front streets must line the parking garage
at street level with an active use.” Where parking garages have a street frontage, on the street level
only, they must be “wrapped” with a commercial or residential use. In areas where this requirement
applies, the standards could be revised to allow the upper floor of the structure to be designed for
72
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |40
future conversion to residential uses as an
alternative to wrapping structure with
commercial or residential uses. In many cases,
designing the structure for future conversion
to housing uses may be more cost-effective
than requiring relatively narrow “wrap”
structure (for which there is often limited
market demand).
On-Site Residential and
Commercial Open Space (Sec.
38.520.060)
We understand that Bozeman is in the enviable position of having a well-supported parks and recreation
system with enough dedicated land to provide a high level of park services to the entire City. To match
the need for more housing with the availability of parks and open spaces, we recommend reducing and
redesigning the usable residential on-site open space requirement for development located within a
reasonable and safe walking distance from a park. Current planning practice estimates that most people
will walk about five minutes to reach a park, which typically equals about .25 mile or 1,320 feet of distance.
In consideration of the more local outdoor needs of children and pets, smaller on-site open spaces with
amenities such as tot lots and pet friendly green spaces can be required instead.
Parking (Div. 38.540)
During the early outreach efforts for this Assessment, minimum parking requirements were cited more
frequently than any other element as increasing housing development costs. There are two primary ways
that parking requirements drive up project costs. First, parking typically must be provided on-site (on the
same lot as the housing development), increasing the amount of land a project requires and driving up
land cost per dwelling unit. Second, although enclosed parking is not required in Bozeman, many
developers choose to construct garages to meet minimum parking requirements which further increases
construction costs.
While some newer development codes have eliminated parking requirements altogether, most
communities still require some minimum level of parking for most residential uses. On-site parking
minimums are established in an effort to prevent traffic congestion caused by residents parking on streets
and overflow on-street parking in adjacent residential neighborhoods. In looking at the significant costs
to development and the community created by parking, there has been a great deal of academic and
practitioner discussion about the amount of “overparking” that has resulted from standards based 1960s
assumptions about parking demand. Many communities are now moving to reduce the amount of on-site
parking required.
Historically, it was not uncommon for development codes to set parking requirements for multi-
household development based on number of bedrooms; newer codes increasingly drop that approach.
The correlation between bedrooms and car ownership is not very strong and this approach tends to drive
up the cost of housing for larger families. It is also unusual for a per-bedroom parking requirement to
apply to single-household, townhouse, and two-household structures. We recommend that per-bedroom
parking requirements be replaced by per dwelling unit (DU) standards shown as shown in the table below.
The Shelby in Alexandria, Virginia, wraps 240 dwelling
units around 384 parking spaces (KTGY Arch. + Planning)
The Shelby in Alexandria, Virginia, wraps 240 dwelling
units around 384 parking spaces (KTGY Arch. + Planning)
73
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |41
Recommended Changes to Residential Parking Requirements
Dwelling Type Current Requirement Proposed Minimum Req.
Up to four-household
dwelling
One-bedroom: 1.5 spaces/unit (R-5 = 1.25)
Two-bedroom: 2 spaces/unit (R-5 = 1.75)
Three-bedroom: 3 spaces/unit (R-5 = 2.5)
More than 3 bedrooms: 4 spaces/unit (R-5 = 3)
1 space/DU
Townhouse/
Rowhouse
One-bedroom: 1.5 spaces/unit (R-5 = 1.25)
Two-bedroom: 2 spaces/unit (R-5 = 1.75)
Three-bedroom: 3 spaces/unit (R-5 = 2.5)
More than 3 bedrooms: 4 spaces/unit (R-5 = 3)
1 space/DU
ADU 1 space per ADU No additional parking space
required.
Manufactured home 2 spaces per unit 1 space/DU
Cottage housing, or
tiny house
development
Not listed 1 space/DU
Apartments
Efficiency and one-
bedroom
Efficiency: 1.25 spaces/unit (R-5 = 1)
One-bedroom: 1.5 spaces/unit (R-5 = 1.25) 1 space/DU
Two-bedroom and
larger
Two-bedroom: 2 spaces/unit (R-5 = 1.75)
Three-bedroom: 3 spaces/unit (R-5 = 2.5)
More than 3 bedrooms: 4 spaces/unit (R-5 = 3)
1 space/DU
1. Changes to General Provisions (38.540.010)
In addition to reducing the minimum required parking, some changes to the general provisions in the
UDC parking chapter could allow for additional flexibility in site design and more affordable housing
development.
Flexibility in parking requirements can facilitate adaptive reuse of structures, such as conversion
from non-residential to residential, that might not otherwise be possible with strict adherence to
parking standards. Some newer codes provide that the existing amount of parking on site cannot
be reduced but additional parking will not be required, and we recommend that change to
Bozeman.
While the UDC already permits off-site parking within 1,000 feet of a use in the B-2M zoning
district, the City should consider permitting off-site parking within a stated distance of any use.
This could be helpful in facilitating the development of new housing types such as cottage housing
and tiny home communities, which can be good candidates for small scale infill development but
may not be able to meet on-site parking requirements.
In the commercial and mixed-use districts, we recommend that the City adopt a system of shared
parking conversion factors that account for use of a single parking space by different users at
different times of the day, rather than requiring the preparation of a parking study to support a
shared parking adjustment. This saves the time and expense of preparing a study and recognizes
that tenant turn-over makes most the usefulness of site-specific studies very limited. Most newer
codes do not require the submittal of parking studies except for very large and complex projects
or those applications requesting significant deviations from other code requirements.
74
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |42
2. Update and Expand Parking Reduction Allowances
The current UDC contains several provisions that allow for a reduction in the number of required on-
site parking spaces in specific circumstances. These types of reduction factors are common in newer
development codes and can be a significant factor in promoting small “a” affordability.
Based on practices in other medium-sized cities, we recommend the City consider the following
changes to the current parking allowances.
The reduction of minimum parking requirements in the R-5 zoning district could be expanded to
the R-4 district, and to other relatively dense mixed-use nodes in Bozeman. The definition of
dense mixed-use node or center can be defined and included in the regulations to ensure
consistent applicability.
Bozeman should also consider adding a new reduction for senior housing.
Age-restricted housing developments are often permitted to provide parking at a rate up to 50%
lower than the rates required for similar housing structures that are not age-restricted. While
Bozeman already has a provision allowing group homes and community residential facilities to
request an adjustment if the operator can demonstrate that the residents are not permitted to
operate motor vehicles, this proposed change would be more broadly applicable, and would be
available simply based on documentation of the age-restriction (rather than requiring
discretionary approval of a request to the City).
Covenants and Homeowners Associations
The changes recommended in this section can have important positive impacts on the cost and
construction of housing in Bozeman by reducing the amount of lot area required and increasing the
amount of structure permitted. However, these improvements can be undercut by property-owner-
imposed deed restrictions (“covenants”) that mandate specific lot sizes or structure sizes or that limit
housing structures or uses. Covenants are private contracts between the property seller and the buyer
and can be more restrictive than the UDC. The City is currently working to educate developers about the
impacts of covenants on long-term affordability in Bozeman and needs to continue in this effort. In
addition, the City may want to consider discouraging the future creation or adoption of new covenants
inconsistent with Bozeman’s desire to promote affordable housing.
75
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |43
OUTCOME 2: PRESERVE EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
While most discussions of affordable housing focus on vacant land development and redevelopment, it is
equally important to identify ways in which the Unified Development Code can be used to preserve
existing housing, and to reduce speculative pressures to expand or replace that existing housing with more
expensive housing over time. Some of the proposals explored in this section are designed to limit both
the net loss in the number of small “a” affordable dwellings if and when some of those older structures
are replaced with larger numbers of units.
Discourage Redevelopment of Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) (Section
(38.340.010)
The NCOD overlay district was created in 1991 to stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of buildings
that contribute to the character and fabric of specific established neighborhoods. This district covers three
distinct areas: (1) Downtown, (2) neighborhoods north of Downtown, and (3) neighborhoods south of
Downtown.
Specific designated historic structures and areas are interwoven into the NCOD and are described in the
“Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.” Construction
in this district must be in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic
Buildings and must meet specific architectural appearance design guidelines related to height, scale,
massing, and materials. A “Certificate of Appropriateness” is required for all work in this district with a
few exceptions (e.g., egress windows, fences). Deviations from dimensional and development standards
are allowed within the Conservation Overlay District, but an applicant must demonstrate that proposed
deviations are more historically appropriate to the building and/or site than the underlying standard.
Deviations are not available for uses.
The 2015 NCOD Audit recommended removal of the NCOD by 2020 and replacement with smaller more
specific overlay areas for the Historic Districts and general design guidelines to promote compatible
development outside the districts. In 2019, the Bendon Adams Report instead recommended keeping the
overall NCOD boundaries intact (with minor adjustments) but breaking the NCOD program into two
programs – one to preserve historic buildings and another to protect neighborhood character and context
for the three specific areas listed above. Following that report, further conversation in Bozeman is now
focused on eliminating the NCOD while maintaining both the preservation function and neighborhood
character protection through the creation of new base or overlay zoning districts that are tailored to meet
these two priorities. We generally support this change.
More specifically, we support the separation of the historic preservation function for individually listed
structures and districts (and the continued application of the Certificate of Appropriateness system to
modifications of those buildings) from simpler neighborhood conservation (but not historic)
redevelopment standards. We also support a recommendation that NCOD areas not designated as historic
structures or districts be placed in one or more new base or overlay districts (perhaps one for each for the
north of Downtown and south of Downtown areas) with simpler neighborhood conservation standards
that do not overlap with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards and that are applied administratively by
City staff.
Although NCOD was designed to protect and preserve housing and character, the new neighborhood
character zoning district(s) could be designed to better conserve existing housing in order to address
76
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |44
Bozeman’s housing affordability challenge. More specifically, conservation of existing smaller housing
should be a primary focus in those new zoning districts designed to replace the NCOD. The City should
consider a provision that existing single-household dwellings in these the areas north and south of
Downtown only be allowed to expand by a certain percentage of their existing size during any five-year
period, unless the single-family use or structure is replaced by another form of housing (such as a two-
household, three-household, or four- household use) that increases the housing supply. As an alternative
to a percentage size control, the City could revise the current standards to establish maximum home
width, depth, or volume standards that would prevent the replacement of existing homes with much
larger homes. Any such standards should be based on the established scale and character of homes in the
zoning district, and should be careful to define any houses that already exceed the stated maximums as
legal conforming (not nonconforming) structures.
Additionally, the new neighborhood character district(s) should be designed as either strictly residential
or mixed-use districts with a limited structure footprint size. While the current NCOD district applies
design and development standards to the broad range of residential and non-residential development
permitted in the underlying base zoning district, there is a risk that the availability of higher intensity or
higher value non-residential uses in the underlying zone district could lead to the replacement of existing
smaller homes with those uses. In order to discourage demolition and replacement of existing smaller
homes with non-residential uses, the City could consider imposing a 5,000 square foot size limit on the
gross square footage of non-residential uses (excluding civic uses required to provide public services) in
the new character districts.
New Affordable Housing Protection Overlay District
In light of current and foreseeable market pressures, it is likely that existing smaller, more affordable
houses in many areas of Bozeman will continue to be purchased, demolished, and replaced by larger,
more expensive homes. While the replacement of existing single-household structures with two-, three,
four-, or multi-family structures would add new housing supply that could help remove market pressures,
the replacement of an old home with a new home does not add supply. In order to help preserve
Bozeman’s existing stock of smaller, older, more affordable homes, the City may also want to consider
creating a housing preservation overlay zoning district that could include limits on home expansion,
maximum house width, depth, or volume, or other standards designed (similar to those described for the
character-based replacements for the NCOD district above) to ensure that redevelopment of existing
homes results in new homes that “fit” with their neighbors while discouraging the purchase of existing
homes to replace them with much larger and more expensive houses. This new overlay would be designed
to apply in areas other than the areas north and south of Downtown currently covered by the NCOD and
could also limit the ability to replace existing smaller homes with non-residential uses (particularly larger
ones) that would otherwise be allowed in the underlying base zoning districts.
Residential Manufactured Home Parks (RMH) (Sec. 38.300.100.G)
Residents of manufactured home parks rarely own the land under their homes; instead, it is often owned
by a park operator who may or may not have an interest in preserving and maintaining the park.
Throughout the country, communities are increasingly viewing manufactured home parks as a valuable
source of already-existing affordable housing and are taking steps to prevent the removal of those parks
that are viable, safe, and have been developed with proper infrastructure connections. Bozeman should
consider whether those manufactured home parks already zoned RMH should be further protected in
ways that do not interfere with the operation of those parks (as required by Montana law). As an
exception, most newer codes do not discourage the redevelopment of parks containing homes that do
not meet HUD safety standards for manufactured homes under the National Manufactured Housing Act.
77
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |45
The City may also want to consider allowing redevelopment of manufactured home parks in ways that
add to the overall housing supply (as opposed to redevelopment for non-residential purposes), as
discussed for the neighborhoods north and south of Downtown above.
Some of the existing manufactured home parks, however, are not zoned RMH. Zoning ordinances that
include existing mobile home parks as one use in residential or mixed-use zoning district that allows a
wide variety of alternative uses make it easier for owners of manufactured home parks to redevelop the
property (and displace existing residents) in favor of a higher value residential or mixed-use development.
Where manufactured home parks in Bozeman are not zoned RMH -- as is the case with the Wagon Wheel
Trailer Court at 23rd Street and College Street (which is zoned R-O) or the Gallatin Valley Trailer Court
north of Griffin Drive (which is zoned M-1). The City should evaluate the continued viability of those parks
as sources of affordable housing in light of health, safety, and infrastructure standards, and should
consider discussing with the property owners rezoning the viable parks into the RMH zoning district, if
possible, in order to preserve this important source of small “a” affordable housing.
78
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |46
OUTCOME 3: MAKE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MORE PREDICTABLE
Over the past several years, Bozeman has revised the UDO to allow many types of development to be
approved administratively and without a public hearing. This is consistent with national trends to promote
efficient, predictable development, and this fairly high level of administrative decision-making should be
continued.
In order to obtain administrative approval, however, Bozeman’s UDC requires compliance with an
exceptionally large number of development standards and criteria, which adds time and expense to the
development review and approval process. More specifically, the City’s long list of standards and criteria
related to specific uses, community design, project design, and natural resources are often subjective,
which makes it difficult for applicants, staff, boards, and the general public to confirm that the standard
has been met. In addition, some of the standards and criteria overlap in ways that make it difficult to
comply with two or more standards addressing the same topic.
One example involves the City’s residential lot development standards (discussed above), which currently
require compliance with minimum lot width, minimum lot area, minimum building setbacks, maximum
lot coverage, maximum backyard lot coverage, and in some cases maximum FAR and minimum private
open space – a total of seven different parameters to regulate the relatively simple question of where a
building can be located on a residential lot. Similarly, detached ADUs must meet three types of standards:
the base district standards for lot area, width, setbacks, height; the ADU-specific standards related to
setbacks, location, size, and height; and standards for accessory structures related to location, footprint,
setbacks, and height. For all these reasons, the City should consolidate and simplify many of the current
standards and criteria in order to improve the efficiency and predictability of the development review
process.
In addition to the examples below, Title 38 Articles 4, Community Design; 5, Project Design; and 6 Natural
Resources Protection, repeat the same standard or criteria in multiple sections. Although not directly
affecting housing affordability, those repetitive standards add unnecessary time and expense to both the
application process and the City application review process. In general, each substantive standard should
be stated once, and only at the stage(s) in the development approval process where the information
needed to confirm compliance with that standard is available and relevant.
Provide More User-Friendly Explanations
There are many existing provisions in the current Bozeman UDC that could contribute to the creation of
additional or less expensive housing. However, these provisions can be difficult for the public to find, such
as when they are located in footnotes to a table, or difficult to understand, such as when they included in
a larger category or uses with a very general name. Listed below are some examples of zoning terms and
standards concepts that are not well explained in the UDC but that are relevant to achieving more
affordable housing through project design. In a broader code rewrite, these provisions should be clarified
for the benefit of both professional developers and non-professional code users. In Bozeman, under the
current UDC:
There can be multiple primary structures on a lot, provided there is sufficient lot area.
There are no minimum requirements on the size of structures as long as they conform to building
code (which means that tiny houses are just houses, and micro-units are just apartments).
An existing single-household dwelling may be internally converted to two units (either duplex or
internal ADU, depending on district permissions) if it meets the lot size requirement, which are
larger than that required for a single unit.
79
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |47
Stacked flats, where a single entrance leads to 2 or more units in one structure, is a permitted
building type, with number of units limited only by the types of housing use listed in the zoning
district regulations.
A very broad range of housing arrangements are included in “group living” and “cooperative
household” categories.
The broad definition of household allows for renting rooms within a housing structure to
unrelated tenants, up to an occupancy limit of 8 people (building code permitting) and is not
categorized as a rooming or boarding house.
In addition to making these changes within the UDC, the City should prepare a UDC Users’ Guide that
explains development categories, such as group living, and site layout concepts, such as block frontages,
in non-regulatory language and with the support of illustrations and photos. This can make the legal
language of the UDC more accessible and help describe the multiple approaches that may be taken to
accomplish what the code allows.
General Provisions (Art. 1)
Move Sec. 38.100.070, Conditions of Approval, to Permits section.
Zoning Districts and Land Uses (Art. 3)
Intent and Purpose Statements (38.300.100 to .130)
The language in intent and purpose statements is policy-oriented and non-regulatory and can be used as
guidance for a wide range of project and site design decisions. Because these types of statements are
inherently general and subjective, the UDC should make clear that they are not to be used for regulatory
purposes unless they are specifically listed as a criteria to be met for specific types of development
approvals. We recommend that the current intent and purpose statements be reviewed, revised, and
shortened to better link to the 2020 Community Plan, better describe the City’s housing development
goals, and provide guidance about how the various zoning districts and use standards can be applied to
promote preservation and production of affordable housing.
Permitted Uses (38.310)
This section describes, through a series of use tables, which uses are permitted in which zoning districts
in Bozeman. We recommend that the City consider the following improvements to promote housing
affordability.
Create a single use table that shows allowed housing types across all zoning districts – residential,
commercial and mixed-use, industrial, and public -- for ease of user comparison. A single use table
also reminds the City to consider amending existing housing use definitions to encourage
flexibility, rather than adding new, narrowly-defined uses, each time a new type of housing is
proposed. It also makes it easier to make innovative types of housing available in additional zoning
districts as the City gains experience with any unanticipated impacts and how to mitigate them.
Move substantive regulations out of use table footnotes. Regulatory drafting, as a form of legal
drafting, should limit the use of footnotes to “useful but not critical” information. Many of the
current table footnotes could be moved into either Div. 38.330: Zone Specific Provisions, Div.
38.320: Form and Intensity Standards, or Div.38.350: General Land Use Standards as appropriate.
For example, Table 38.310.030.A: Permitted General and Group Residential Uses in Residential
80
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |48
Zoning Districts, has this note regarding the R-O district: “The primary use of a lot, as measured
by building area, permitted in the R-O district is determined by the underlying growth policy land
use designation. Where the district lies over a residential growth policy designation the primary
use shall be non-office uses; where the district lies over a non-residential designation the primary
use shall be office and other non-residential uses. Primary use shall be measured by percentage
of building floor area.” This is significant information regarding applicable regulations for this
district and (in addition to being revised as recommended earlier in this report) should not be
located in a located in a table footnote. Potential housing developers and redevelopers should be
able to find substantive standards, conditions, or qualifications grouped in a location with similar
information in order to accurately compare redevelopment opportunities across different zoning
districts.
Remove words like “encouraged” and “preferred” from use regulations. For example, in the REMU
district: “2. Developments are encouraged to include non-residential uses, especially commercial
and neighborhood support services, mixed horizontally and/or vertically, to promote compact,
walkable and sustainable neighborhoods.” Words like these create ambiguity as to whether (1)
the City is simply requesting something, or (2) whether it can deny an application for failure to
follow the guidance, or (3) whether it can condition an approval on compliance with the guidance.
Words like these create ambiguity among the applicant, citizens, and staff as to what is required
by the City, and should generally be limited to non-regulatory planning documents or purpose
and intent statements.
Form and Intensity Standards (38.320)
In addition to our recommendations for substantive changes to Form and Intensity standards to promote
housing affordability on page 38 above, there are many ways in which the wording of these standards
could be improved to remove risk and unpredictability from the housing development process. The
following are examples (not a complete list) of the types of standards that should be revised.
1. Revise General Instructions for Clarity and Consistent Application
Current Sec. 38.320.020.A provides general information about the lot area and width standards and
contain subjective terms that decrease development predictability.
“1. All lots must have a minimum area as set forth in the form and intensity standards tables within
this division and the more restrictive applies. These minimums assume a lack of development
constraints. All newly created lots must have a minimum area adequate to provide for required
setbacks and parking as set forth in the tables within this division. Lots less than 3,000 square
feet, or less than 25 feet wide may be limited in their ability to comply with other required
standards of the municipal code.
2. All lots must have a minimum width as set forth in the form and intensity standards tables
within this division. These minimums assume a lack of development constraints. All lots must
conform to development standards for provision of public and private utilities.
3. Lot area and width may be reduced to allow a density bonus through the PUD process. The
amount of a bonus, methodology for calculating the bonus, and standards for allowing a bonus
are described in section 38.430.090.E.2.b(6).”
The predictability of these standards could be improved by removing (1) the text regarding lack of
development constraints, (2) the text about accommodating required setbacks and parking tables, (3)
the text about smaller/narrower lots finding it difficult to comply with other UDC standards, and (4)
81
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |49
the text about provision of public and private utilities. Most newer codes simply establish minimum
lot standards for each zoning district. While each of the UDC requirements (including parking, utilities,
setbacks, and landscaping, among others) apply, each of those is checked once when development is
proposed, and the ability to meet those standard requirements is general not reviewed when
confirming minimum lot sizes. In addition, the text about adjustments through the PUD process is
unnecessary, as that applies to all UDC standards that may be modified through the PUD process. In
addition to removing repetitive or subjective language, a common understanding of UDC standards
could be significantly improved by providing illustrations and drawings of what is required and how
measurements are made.
2. Design Review
While many medium-sized cities across the country have a design review process, for relatively small
projects, a requirement for additional review by the Design Review Board (DRB) can add time and
uncertainty to housing development projects. Although UDC 38.230.040 clarifies which types of
projects can receive administrative rather than DRB design review, the City may want to raise the
upper limit for administrative design approvals for housing projects above the current limit of 45
dwelling units in order to facilitate faster approval of those projects. This recommendation is offered
with the understanding that, at the time of writing, changes are underway regarding the number and
duties of Boards within the City, and final changes may eliminate the need for this recommendation.
Community Design (Art. 4)
In General
The Community Design article focuses on important city, neighborhood, and site development elements
that are required to be incorporated into many subdivisions and multi-structure development projects.
As with some other sections of the UDC, the list of standards and criteria that need to be met is longer,
more repetitive, and in some cases more subjective than those found in newer development codes.
In many cases, these standards and requirements are applied at the time of subdivision plat approval,
while in other cases they are reviewed for compliance at the time of site plan or master site plan approval.
In a third category of cases (which should be relatively rare) a specific standard is reviewed for compliance
at both of these stages in the development process. Unfortunately, the current UDC does not clarify at
which stage of land development some of the standards will be applied,
which can lead to wasted time and effort in the application process. For
example, an applicant may spend time and money to document compliance
with a standard in an application for a subdivision plat approval, when the
City does not in fact review that aspect of development for compliance until
a specific development is proposed for a specific parcel within the approved
subdivision.
In addition, many of the standards in Article 4 appear to be drafted to apply
to raw land development, while others would logically apply to only small-
scale infill or redevelopment projects, but the UDC text does not always
make that distinction clear. Revising this article to clarify the stage of
development and the types of applications to which the standard applies
could significantly increase the responsiveness of applications for new
housing development as well as reducing the costs of preparing a responsive
application.
Infill development has a
different context than new
development. (Lebanon,
TN, infill overlay)
82
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |50
Transportation Facilities and Access (Div. 38.400)
This section includes many examples of subjective standards that add unpredictability to the development
process, even for those applications that meet the more objective standards related to streets and access.
Examples include the following:
Uncertainty created by requiring that streets must meet right-of-way and construction standards in
four different documents (one of which is a plan rather than a regulation), because those standards
may not be consistent with each other. The requirements to submit a pavement design report based
on specific site soil data and design-year traffic loading conditions prior to submitting plans and
specifications is unusual, and many communities would only require this for larger projects or areas
of known soil challenges.
An apparent requirement that intersections with arterial and collector streets operate at minimum
level of service C regardless of the size of the project, for a design year that is at least 15 years
following the date of the application, is also unusual. Documenting compliance with this requirement
can be onerous for a small housing project, and although exceptions are available, they require the
review authority to make four separate findings, which would themselves be difficult for a small
project to meet.
Requirements for each lot to have a minimum of 25 feet of frontage on a public or private street may
be dated, and some newer codes would allow a narrower frontage to encourage more efficient design
without the need for a Master Site Plan or PUD approval.
Uncertainty is also created by text stating that consolidation of access points onto public streets “is
desired and must be considered during all levels of site plan review”, because compliance with most
types of development standards is reviewed at a defined point in the process (in order to avoid the
cost of documenting consideration more than once) and because each instance of language like
“desired” or “considered” creates ambiguity as to whether the City may deny or condition an approval
based on failure to meet the desired design.
Community Design and Elements (Div. 38.410)
This section of the UDC, too, has numerous instances where standards are repeated in more than one
section, as well as ambiguous language for which it would
be difficult to demonstrate compliance in an
administrative review process. In addition, the number of
standards and criteria in each category itself adds time to
both the application and the review process. Examples
include the following:
A requirement that “the lot size, width, shape, and
orientation must be appropriate for the location and
contemplated use of the development”, because the
use of words like “appropriate” leave wide room for
the applicant and City staff to disagree as to whether
the standard has been met.
A requirement that residential development contain
a variety of lot sizes, regardless of the size of the
proposed development. While variety in residential
lot size and design is almost always favored, it may be General statements about lot design may cause
unintended conflicts
83
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |51
difficult for small infill or redevelopment projects to meet this standard, and the wording of the
standard makes it unclear what level of variety will meet the standard.
Planned Unit Developments (Div.38.430)
A recommended replacement for this section has been provided to the City in a separate document.
Project Design (Art. 5)
The Project Design article includes site-specific development standards that are required to be
incorporated into site-specific development applications. In addition to covering topics normally included
in project design, however, it also repeats many of the standards or considerations listed in Article 4
(Community Design). While this is sometimes necessary, it is often not necessary, because decisions made
to comply with Community Design requirements effectively address the issue, or because the
consequences of those earlier decisions are difficult to mitigate through Project Design. In other cases, it
is more efficient to only apply the standard at the Project Design phase because the information required
to demonstrate compliance with the standard is not available (or only available at a high cost) at the
Community Design stage. Examples of standards and criteria in this section that increase cost and
uncertainty in ways that raise housing costs include the following:
A provision permitting departures from the order of priority of block frontages, if the location and
orientation of the buildings “are compatible with the character of the area and enhance the character
of the street” because “compatible” is a subjective term, open to differing interpretations, which
creates uncertainty.
A requirement that windows providing the only solar access to a multi-household dwelling unit be set
back 15 feet from the property line, which directly increases the amount of land required for this type
of development, with departures again requiring a determination of “compatibility”.
A requirement that multi-household residential development provide a specially marked or paved
sidewalk through parking areas, regardless of the size of the development or parking area, where
many newer codes would apply this standard only to larger projects and parking lots.
Natural Resource Protection (Art. 6)
The Natural Resource Protection article includes Bozeman’s floodplain and wetland regulations. Because
these standards, criteria, and permitting procedures are closely tied to federal and state regulations, and
because they very directly impact public health and safety and protection of environmentally sensitive
areas, they are usually not modified, adjusted, or waived to help achieve other community planning goals
(even for small projects). We recommend that these regulations be reviewed as part of a larger UDC
updating process so that the impacts of any changes can be evaluated from the perspective of multiple
competing community goals, rather than just from the perspective of promoting housing affordability.
Definitions, Terms, and Measurements (Art. 7)
The UDC contains a list of terms that are subject to multiple interpretations. In addition to better defining
(or eliminating the use of) terms like “compatible”, “harmonious” and “appropriate”, as discussed above,
we recommend that Bozeman review and define terms and phrases like “residential character”,
“consistency with established development”, “good access”, and “special significance”. Because of the
inherent subjectivity of these terms and the difficulty of confirming whether then have been met, our
primary recommendation is that use of these and other similar terms be discontinued and be replaced by
objective development standards and approval criteria that help contribute to these goals. If that is not
84
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |52
possible, then the terms should at least be defined and the factors to be considered (or not considered)
in determining compliance should be identified in the UDC. As an example from another community, the
term “consistent architectural treatment ” is defined in one recent code as follows:
“A consistent architectural treatment is one where all building walls have defined levels of articulation
and use different combinations of the same materials.”
85
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |53
OUTCOME 4: RETHINK THE HOUSING REVIEW PROCESS
Changes to the UDC substantive regulations to make the production and preservation of affordable
housing a regulatory priority should be supported by changes to the review and approval procedure to
ensure that both small “a” affordable and capital “A” affordable projects move from design to
construction smoothly and predictably. This section of the report is focused primarily on changes within
the UDC, but also includes some targeted suggestions regarding management of the development review
process.
Reconsider Required Detail of Housing Application Requirements
In general, the development review processes included in UDC Article 2, Permits, Legislative Actions and
Procedures, appear very detailed and “front-loaded” in terms of submission requirements required for
the initial stages of any review. This issue is not unique to Bozeman; many communities have tension
between how much information is needed for good decision-making and what amount of development
detail an applicant should be required to provide (and pay for) for initial development approvals. During
the first round of public outreach for this report, we heard that this balance is currently tipped in favor of
the City, with a development review process that requires significant detail about the project design in
order to submit an application that will be considered complete. Requiring this level of detail at the outset
can slow down the review process by setting the “complete application” hurdle too high and creating a
time and expense problem for housing projects, among others.
As a result, we hear that many applications are
incomplete when they are initially presented to the
City, forcing applicants and staff spend time sending
the application back-and-forth with comments and
responses until the application can begin to be
reviewed against UDC standards. Requiring a
complete application (referred to as “adequate” in
the UDC) before beginning to review it is a regulatory
best practice that the City should continue to follow.
However, the City should consider whether a lower
level of detail could be required for initial
applications, with more detail to be provided (and the
professional expertise to prepare those additional
materials to be paid for) after initial approvals have
been granted. This, in turn relates to the number of
Community Design and Project Design standards and
criteria discussed in Outcome 3 above, because the
more standards apply to each step of the approval
process, the more detail needs to be provided to meet those standards (or to propose a compromise
approach between two standards that are in tension with one another).
There are three procedural approaches to re-balancing the level of detail required with the level of
approval being sought by the applicant, all of which may be applicable to the current processes and
submission requirements:
Adjust Initial Submission Requirements
Review the individual submission requirements for each type of application to determine the relative need
for detail at the different permitting and project design stages (e.g., 30% design at site plan review, 60%
The level of detail required for preliminary road
design may be significantly less than that
required for preliminary stormwater design.
(US EPA)
86
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |54
design at construction plan review, and 90% design at building permit application). This proposal
sometimes faces two objections. First, that the applicant will propose one thing and build another, but
that concern can be addressed through requirements that later submissions comply with the approvals
of earlier submissions and that any major deviations from those earlier approvals, as defined in the UDC,
will require the applicant to submit a completely new application. Even then, however, the UDC could
require that only those pages or portions of the application that are being significantly altered (and other
pages dependent on them) need to be a part of the re-application.
Second, this change sometimes brings concern that the applicant will not, in fact, be able to submit a later
stage application that is consistent with the first approval due to unforeseen engineering, soil, unmarked
infrastructure, or other constraints. The response is to clarify in the UDC that the risk of unknown site
conditions is borne by the applicant, who can perform additional site or engineering analysis at their own
expense in order to minimize this risk, or simply take the risk. Most newer development codes allow the
applicant to make this decision in order to reduce the up-front costs of preparing earlier application
documents. If the applicant chooses this option, obtains an early-stage approval, and finds it impossible
to submit a consistent follow-on application, the first stage approval may expire, and that step may need
to be repeated. That result, however, would be the result of applicant choice, and not because the City
required more detailed approval than was really required to grant the first approval.
Create Major/Minor Categories
Create Major/Minor application and amendment categories that better reflect the detail of information
needed in the application process. Some communities, for example have a minor site plan process (which
is what the current Sketch Plan Review process appears to be) as well as a method to process a minor
change to an existing approval. UDC Sections 38.230.150 and .160 establish the criteria and processing
method for current approvals and do allow for administrative approval where there are no significant
changes to the original plan. The triggers for “significant” and inclusion of DRB review should be revisited
to determine whether this section can be revised to allow more amendments to be processed
administratively.
Revamp the Waiver Process
Some communities also allow submission requirements to be adjusted through a waiver process. The UDC
includes this approach in Sec. 38.230.090.D.4:
“The DRC may grant reasonable waivers from submittal of application materials required
by these regulations where it is found that these regulations allow a waiver to be
requested and granted. In order to be granted a waiver the applicant must include with
the submission of the preliminary plan a written statement describing the requested
waiver and the reasons upon which the request is based. The final approval body must
then consider each waiver at the time the preliminary site plan is reviewed. All waivers
must be identified not later than initial submittal of the preliminary site plan stage of
review.”
Although it is a best practice to update regulations to reduce the number of needed substantive waivers,
it is also a good practice to provide for procedural waivers of application materials that appear to be
unnecessary or of very minor applicability to a particular application. The current procedure, though, is
relatively awkward in its reliance on the DRC to approve waivers of application materials. Unless the DRC
is able to respond to these requests fairly quickly, it could result in delays in preparing the application,
since what needs to be included in the application is not known until the next meeting of the DRC. We
recommend that the authority to grant submission waivers should be moved from the DRC to the Director
87
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |55
(or the Director’s designee) and an optional pre-application process used to allow applicants to quickly
learn whether a waiver will be granted.
Clarify Uncertainty in the Application of Subjective Standards
Through our community outreach and work with staff, we have heard that the current development
application and review process in Bozeman is both “detailed and thorough,” (discussed in the previous
section) and “time consuming and uncertain.” It is not uncommon to find thoroughness and uncertainty
both living in the same regulations because creating good development often requires the application of
some subjective standards to site-specific projects.
Subjective standards, as discussed earlier, are typically the provisions that raise uncertainty for both
applicants and staff. In the context of development review, subjective standards raise questions how
differing interpretations of those standard among Bozeman staff affect the acceptance of an application
as “complete”. If, and where, Bozeman staff disagree as to whether subjective standards for a complete
application have been met, the City should consider requiring the potential differences in interpretation
to be noted and the application deemed complete and allowed to proceed to substantive review.
Creating an Expedited Zoning Review Process for Housing Projects
To the extent possible, projects that include new housing (that is not at a luxury-level price point) should
be allowed to proceed through the fastest development review process. Some options include:
Expand Use of Sec. 38.230.070 Sketch Plan Review
Bozeman’s current Sketch Plan Review process allows administrative approval of certain applications that
conform to applicable UDC standards. A number of housing types are already included in the sketch plan
applicability list, including:
Single-household and manufactured homes on individual sites;
One dwelling on an infill site;
Two-household, three-household, and four-household residential units, each on individual lots
and independent of other site development;
ADUs in residential districts; and
Group living for eight or fewer persons on a single lot.
This list could be expanded to include “any residential development up to 12 units” or a similar threshold
as determined by the City. Sketch plan review could also be used for mixed-use development below a
specified footprint, such as 10,000 square feet.
Create a Housing-Specific Site Plan Process
If the constraints and expectations of the current sketch plan process cannot be effectively adjusted to
include smaller housing projects, the City could create a tailored site plan process that is housing-specific
and that reflects Bozeman’s current housing priorities in its review and approval criteria.
Simplify the Review of Manufactured Homes on Individual Lots
At a more specific level, the City should consider eliminating the current requirements for photographs
and special approvals for manufactured homes to be located on individual residential lots. If the unit
meets HUD code, is placed on a foundation as required, meets setbacks, and meets objective design
88
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |56
regulations, the unit should be reviewed and processed in the same way as any other single-household
dwelling.
Establish a “Maximum Extent Practicable” Standard for Housing
Approval
The City’s current practice of approving reasonable departures from specific development standards is a
very helpful step in navigating a complex development code. Bozeman could take this approach one step
further by establishing a “maximum extent practicable” standard for housing projects. Drawn from
standards used in environmental litigation and engineering design, this standard allows the Director to
determine that an application is:
Accomplishing the applicable standard to the level that is achievable using applicable
design measures, techniques and methods that are available and capable of being
implemented based on available technology and in light of project site constraints. The
cost of additional compliance can be considered, but shall not be the determining factor
in whether the standard has been met to the maximum extent practicable.
Managing What Is Measured
In Bozeman, as in most cities, development application review is a joint process that includes multiple
departments. Updates and revisions to the UDC may not impact the activities of the Public Works or Parks
and Recreation. To gain a better understanding of how the overall review and approval process is running,
and where delays might be occurring due to the need to align and coordinate decision across
departmental lines, the City should consider expanding the existing Housing Dashboard.
Whether as part of a permit review software system or simply on a spreadsheet, the City could start
tracking housing project applications of a specific size or type (e.g., more than 10 units or 25 units or as
part of mixed-use development) against relevant metrics, such as:
a. How long did the application process take and how many rounds of review were required?
b. What waivers or exemptions were requested?
Sample development dashboard (Adams County, PA)
89
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |57
c. What UDC interpretations were requested, either formal or informal?
d. How did the approved project compare to the original concept?
e. Where did any delays in the processing flow occur, and why?
Measuring these and other parameters can help identify how the efficiency and predictability of the
housing project review process can be improved and whether those improvements will require further
changes to the UDC, to required application materials, or to interdepartmental management procedures.
90
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |58
OUTCOME 5: REVISE THE ZONING MAP
Overview
The reality of the current housing challenge is that Bozeman needs to look beyond single-household
residential home construction and encourage the development of more two-household, three-household,
four-household, and multi-household projects. Because there is little available and undeveloped land
currently zoned for higher density residential (R-4 and R-5) or mixed-use development (R-O, B-2M,
Downtown B-3, UMU, or REMU) zoning districts, the first and most important step is to determine where
these types of new housing can be located. The City’s current approach to obtaining more medium- and
higher-density housing is to rely on applicants to proposed rezoning to a higher density district. The
rezoning process can be expensive in terms of time and cost to applicants, is inherently uncertain, and is
often likely to attract conflict.
To remove this significant barrier to producing and preserving affordable housing, the City can use its
legislative authority to revise the zoning map, which has not been comprehensively reviewed and updated
for many years. Strategic legislative rezoning can make Bozeman housing-ready, while at the same time
immediately removing a significant layer of uncertainty and cost.
Growth Policy and CHAP Guidance
The 2020 Community Plan includes both general recommendations about expanding development
opportunities and specific recommendations about priority locations for higher density zoning, both of
which can be undertaken through targeted rezonings in Bozeman, including:
N-1.3 Revise the zoning map to lessen areas exclusively zoned for a single-housing type.
N-1.11 Enable a gradual and predictable increase in density in developed areas over time.
N-2.2 Revise the zoning map to support higher intensity residential districts near schools, services,
and transportation.
N-3.3 Encourage distribution of affordable housing units throughout the City with priority given to
locations near commercial, recreational, and transit assets.
DCD-2.2 Support higher density development along main corridors and at high visibility street corners
to accommodate population growth and support businesses.
DCD-2.7 Encourage the location of higher density housing and public transit routes in proximity to
one another.
DCD-3.5 Encourage increased development intensity in commercial centers and near major
employers.
M-1.1 Prioritize mixed-use land use patterns. Encourage and enable the development of housing, jobs,
and services in close proximity to one another.
EE-1.4 Support employee retention and attraction efforts by encouraging continued development of
affordable housing in close proximity to large employers.
91
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |59
The CHAP, at page 18, includes recommendations of similar scope:
With the goal of allowing increased density where appropriate this strategy would seek to identify
areas where density could contribute to increased housing supply. The strategy is meant to create
uniformity in decision making and lend some level of certainty to property owners looking to aid
Community Housing efforts by adding to the housing supply beyond what current zoning would allow.
Tools in this strategic area may include changes to policy as well as text within the City Code.
• Align growth policy recommendations with the density goals supporting upzoning.
• Develop expanded criteria to be used for evaluation of up-zoning applications.
• Develop appropriate transition standards when up-zoning existing parcels.
• Identify areas ripe for up-zoning.
In order to better protect Bozeman’s existing stock of small “a” affordable housing, this legislative
rezoning approach can also include mapping the replacements for the NCOD discussed above that
separates historic preservation controls from form and character controls, as described in Outcome 3. It
can also include the pro-active mapping of suggested new Affordable Housing Protection Overlay District
for other neighborhoods with naturally occurring affordable housing.
Housing-Supportive Rezoning Locational Criteria
The “right” location for specific rezonings will need to be determined through a review of existing zoning,
existing development, redevelopment potential, and infrastructure availability. The Bozeman Community
Plan 2020 also recommends considering the following locational guides:
Near schools and public transit
(coordinate with Redesign Streamline
2020: Transit Development Plan),
In and around commercial centers and
near major employers,
To create mixed-used development
patterns (i.e., add housing in areas of
concentrated commercial or office
development),
Near recreation areas, and
Where existing residential or mixed-use
areas could incorporate additional
housing.
Proactive rezoning can be either
transformational or incremental in approach.
Transformational rezoning opportunities might include changing a Residential Office (R-O) district along
an arterial street or adjacent to Community Business (B-2) or higher density residential development into
an Urban Mixed-Use (UMU) district or rezoning a Residential Suburban (R-S) district adjacent to transit to
a Residential High Density (R-4) district. Individual legislatively-initiated rezonings can also allow gradual
or incremental change in areas of existing development. Making a change from a residential district that
allows two-household development to a district that allows up to five-household development can allow
both more housing and retention of existing neighborhood character. Changing some of the current
Redesign Streamline 2020: Transit Development
Plan
92
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |60
Residential Medium Density (R-3) districts to Residential High Density (R-4) districts or rezoning some
Residential Office (R-O) districts to Residential Emphasis Mixed-Use (REMU) may help provide some of the
gradual density increases that the City needs to encourage.
Create New Zoning Districts to Reflect Range of Bozeman Neighborhoods
In addition to changing the zoning map, Bozeman can also consider updating its zoning district line-up to
create more specific opportunities for redevelopment. As an established and growing city, Bozeman’s
zoning districts need to create new housing opportunities in both established neighborhoods and on
vacant land near the edges of the city. By refining the menu of zoning districts to better reflect the types
of places described in the Community Plan, and by creating new districts that more accurately reflect
desired types of development that are not easily achievable under the current UDC, the City might make
the rezoning and development approval processes go more smoothly and be prepared for annexation as
those are proposed by local property owners. Opportunities might include:
Zoning that allows institutions that are able or likely to provide housing, such as religious, educational,
and health-care groups, to provide housing in a campus setting where the impacts of that housing will
be experienced internally, rather than on surrounding neighborhoods;
Custom-built zoning districts for existing neighborhoods that reflect neighborhood-specific design and
infill standards; and
Establishment of “greenfield” zoning districts that are used to guide the development of newly
annexed areas and that ensure a mix of housing with most new developments.
93
Bozeman UDC Affordable Housing Assessment |61
NEXT STEPS
This Affordable Housing Assessment provides a roadmap for making key updates to the UDC. It reflects
community-based policies established in a range of Bozeman planning documents, including the Bozeman
Community Plan 2020 and Community Housing Action Plan. This Assessment is one of four tools that
Bozeman is creating to promote and preserve affordable housing. The City is also considering three
possible specific amendments to the City Code that may be considered before a more extensive update
of the UDC is considered. The first two of those amendments are:
1. A new list of Departures for Affordability to be added to Title 38 to allow administrative approval of
small “a” affordable housing projects that cannot quite meet UDC standards for the zoning district
where they are located.
2. A new Planned Unit Development Ordinance to be added to Title 38 that would simplify current
regulations, re-orient them towards housing affordability, and allow negotiated approval of
innovative housing projects by the City Commission after a public hearing.
Once the drafts of those two documents have been posted, the consultant team will conduct a second
round of outreach to the public, stakeholders, and elected and appointed officials to get feedback on (1)
this Assessment, (2) the proposed Departures for Affordability, and (3) the new Planned Unit
Development Ordinance.
Based on the results of that engagement and the willingness of participants to consider some of the
proposed changes, the consultant team will prepare the third proposed interim ordinance:
3. A new Affordable Housing Ordinance to replace current section 38.380 that will respond to the 2021
Montana State Legislature prohibition on mandatory inclusive zoning requirements by creating a
voluntary system. This document includes substantial optional density, height, and development
bonuses for capital “A” affordable housing projects – i.e., those for which the developer voluntarily
agrees to income-restrict the housing units.
The consultant team will then conduct a third round of outreach to the public, stakeholders, and elected
and appointed officials to get feedback on the draft Affordable Housing Ordinance. We will then revise
this draft Assessment and the three draft interim ordinances to reflect public comments and to ensure
that they are internally consistent. The City of Bozeman will then make a decision as to which, if any, of
the proposed changes it wants to propose for adoption, and in what order. This schedule is generally
reflected on the graphic to the right.
The next round of public outreach session dates will be published in mid-September.
94
Memorandum
REPORT TO:Economic Vitality Board
FROM:Jesse DiTommaso, Economic Development Specialist
Brit Fontenot, Economic Development Director
SUBJECT:Progress Report on the Economic Development Strategy Update
MEETING DATE:April 6, 2022
AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission
RECOMMENDATION:Listen to the brief presentation and ask questions of staff or EV Board/RLC
members about the progress of the Economic Development Strategy
Update.
STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver
information to the community and our partners.
BACKGROUND:The EV Board began the process of updating the 2016 Economic
Development strategy in January, 2022 as part of the EV Board workplan.
Staff will provide regular updates on the progress of the ED Strategy update
throughout the next several months.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None.
ALTERNATIVES:None.
FISCAL EFFECTS:None.
Attachments:
EV Board EDSU Update 04-05-22.pdf
Report compiled on: March 28, 2022
95
Economic Development
Strategy Update
96
Background
•Original strategy done in 2016
•Led and monitored by the City of Bozeman but
includes regional partners, the RLC or Regional
Leadership Committee.
•Outlines a vision, values, and guiding principles
97
Process
January February March April May June July August
Conditions Assessment
Stakeholder Engagement
Strategy
Action Plan
98
What has been done
•1 Consultant visit (2 days)
•5 Sector focus groups
•5 Stakeholder interviews, including underrepresented
business owners
•2 Regional Leadership Committee meetings
99
What is next
•Finalize vision, values, guiding principles
•Define diversity
•Start work on the strategy
100