Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-12-22 CDB Agenda and Packet MaterialsA.Call to Order - 6:00 pm B.Disclosures C.Changes to the Agenda D.Approval of Minutes D.1 Approval of Minutes(Fuller) E.Public Comments This is the time to comment on any matter falling within the scope of the Community Development 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 Community Development Board cannot take action on any item which does not appear on the agenda. All persons addressing the Community Development Board shall speak in a civil and 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 THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA CD AGENDA Monday, September 12, 2022 This meeting will be held both in-person and also using Webex, an online videoconferencing system. You can join this meeting: Via Webex: 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, channel 190, or attend in-person United States Toll +1-650-479-3208 Access code: 2554 372 8196 If you are interested in commenting in writing on items on the agenda please send an email to agenda@bozeman.net prior to 12:00pm on the day of the meeting. Public comments will be accepted in-person during the appropriate agenda items. You may also comment by visiting the Commission's 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 hybrid meeting. As always, the meeting will be streamed through the Commission's video page and available in the City on cable channel 190. 1 minutes. General public comments to the Board can be found in their Laserfiche repository folder. F.Action Items F.1 The South 8th zone map amendment requesting amendment of the City Zoning Map to change the zoning on 0.18 acre parcel from R-4 (High Density Residential District) to R-5 (Residential Mixed-Use High Density District).(Rogers) G.FYI/Discussions G.1 Upcoming Items Expected for September 19, 2022 Community Development Board Meeting and Future Meetings.(Saunders) G.2 UDC Update - Project overview and consultant introduction (Saunders) H.Adjournment For more information please contact Anna Bentley, abentley@bozeman.net General information about the Community Development Board is available in our Laserfiche repository. This board generally meets the first and third Monday 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). In order for the City Commission to receive all relevant public comment in time for this City Commission meeting, please submit via the Commission Comment Page or by emailing agenda@bozeman.net no later than 12:00 PM on the day of the meeting. Public comment may be made in person at the meeting as well. 2 Memorandum REPORT TO:Community Development Board FROM:Jonathan Fuller CD Tech Lacie Kloosterhof CD Office Manager Anna Bentley Interim CD Director SUBJECT:Approval of Minutes MEETING DATE:September 12, 2022 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Minutes RECOMMENDATION:Approve meeting minutes from 07-18, and 08-01. STRATEGIC PLAN:1.1 Outreach: Continue to strengthen and innovate in how we deliver information to the community and our partners. BACKGROUND:none UNRESOLVED ISSUES:none ALTERNATIVES:Approve on a later date with amendments. FISCAL EFFECTS:none Attachments: CD Board Meeting Minutes 07-18-22.pdf CD Board Meeting Minutes 08-01-22.pdf Report compiled on: September 9, 2022 3 Bozeman Community Development Board Meeting Minutes, 07-18-2022 Page 1 of 5 THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES Monday, July 18, 2022 A) 00:02:35 Call to Order - 6:00 pm Present: Gerald Pape, Brady Ernst, Henry Happel, Padden Guy Murphy, Stephen Egnatz, Jennifer Madgic Absent: Allison Bryan, Nicole Olmstead, John Backes B) Disclosures 00:03:25 There were no voluntary disclosures. C) 00:03:35 Changes to the Agenda 1. No minutes approved at this meeting. 2. Agenda items F.2 and F.3 were postponed to a subsequent meeting. D) 00:03:40 Approval of Minutes There were no approvals of minutes at this meeting. E) 00:04:42 Public Comments There were no general public commenters during this meeting. F) Action Items F.1 00:05:00 130 Flanders Mill Road Annexation of 1.0875 acres and amendment of the City Zoning Map for the establishment of a zoning designation of R-3 (Residential Medium Density). 22043 Flanders Mill ZMA CDB SR.pdf  Senior Planner, Tom Rogers, presented City Staff Report and applicant submittal.  Allison Bryan joined the meeting at approximately 18:07. 4 Bozeman Community Development Board Meeting Minutes, 07-18-2022 Page 2 of 5 Present: Gerald Pape, Allison Bryan, Brady Ernst, Henry Happel, Padden Guy Murphy, Stephen Egnatz, Jennifer Madgic Absent: Nicole Olmstead, John Backes 00:14:02 John Meyer of 416 N Wallace commented on water concerns with annexations in general. 00:16:59 The board presented questions to staff. 00:20:50 Motion Having reviewed and considered the staff report, application materials, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 22043 and move to recommend approval of the 130 Flanders Mill Road Annexation Zone Map Amendment, with contingencies required to complete the application processing. Stephen Egnatz: Motion Gerald Pape: 2nd 00:27:23 Vote on the Motion to approve Having reviewed and considered the staff report, application materials, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 22043 and move to recommend approval of the 130 Flanders Mill Road Annexation Zone Map Amendment, with contingencies required to complete the application processing. . The Motion carried 7 - 0 Approve: Gerald Pape Allison Bryan Brady Ernst Henry Happel Padden Guy Murphy Stephen Egnatz Jennifer Madgic Disapprove: None F.2 1001 Thomas Drive Annexation Requesting Annexation of 15.115 Acres and Zone Map Amendment of the City Zoning Map for the Establishment of a Zoning Designation of REMU (Residential Emphasis Mixed Use) Application 22067  Agenda item moved to next meeting. F.3 6730 Davis Lane Annexation Requesting Annexation of 10.071 Acres and Amendment of the City Zoning Map for the Establishment of a Zoning Designation of REMU (Residential Emphasis Mixed-Use District) Application 22020  Agenda item moved to next meeting. F.4 00:28:31 Recommendation of approval for a site plan for construction of a multi- household condominium development including 8 buildings, with three (3) mixed use 5 Bozeman Community Development Board Meeting Minutes, 07-18-2022 Page 3 of 5 buildings, one (1) commercial building, and four (4) three-unit buildings. Required parking, stormwater management, landscaping, and other improvements are included. 21235_SixRangeCondominiums_SR_ComDevBoardFinal.pdf Development Review Application.pdf 001 Cover Sheet.pdf 027 Site Plan.pdf 030 Material Pallete.pdf 030.1 Overall Elevations.pdf 053 Landscape Plan.pdf 093 Elevations Triplex.pdf 066 Overall Elevations - Building A.pdf 074 Overall Elevations.pdf 082 Overall Elevations.pdf 086 Exterior Elevations - Building D.pdf 031 Graphics - Bldg A.pdf 036 Graphics Bldg B.pdf 038 Graphics Bldg B.pdf 040 Graphics Bldg B.pdf 043 Graphics Bldg C.pdf 047 Graphics Bldg D.pdf 051 Graphics Tri-Plex.pdf 00:35:29 Staff Presentation  Lynn Hyde presented the Six Range Condominiums Site Plan remotely. 01:04:02 Six Range Condominiums applicant, Matt Paine, presented. Present: Gerald Pape, Allison Bryan, Brady Ernst, Henry Happel, Padden Guy Murphy, Stephen Egnatz, Jennifer Madgic Absent: Nicole Olmstead, John Backes 01:41:14 Public Comment on this Project occurred at this time. 01:43:32 Mickey Smotherman publicly commented. 01:48:21 John Meyer of 416 N Wallace, commented in opposition to the project. 01:49:55 Bob Brocksma of 176 Mill Creek Dr. commented with project concerns. 01:50:36 Gene Valentine of 4209 Palisade Dr. commented with concerns. 01:52:23 Jim Masker commented with acoustic concerns. 01:53:33 Donna Cox at 4203 Palisade Dr. commented on building height. 01:54:09 John Schmidt 4289 Palisade Dr. commented with parking concerns. 6 Bozeman Community Development Board Meeting Minutes, 07-18-2022 Page 4 of 5 01:55:11 John Cox 4203 Palisade Dr. commented with concerns about trash enclosure location concerns . 01:56:57 Genevieve Ryder at 210 Eagle Creek Dr. commented with concerns. 01:57:52 Board presented questions to City Staff and the applicant. 02:03:04 Motion Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for the site plan application 21235 for the Six Range Condominiums Site Plan and move to recommend approval of the Site Plan, subject to recommended conditions and all applicable code provisions. Allison Bryan: Motion Brady Ernst: 2nd 02:30:53 Motion Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for the site plan application 21235 for the Six Range Condominiums Site Plan and move to recommend approval of the Site Plan, subject to recommended conditions and all applicable code provisions and further subject to further discussion and hopefully agreement between the developer and the Cottonwood Condominium Association concerning public access and easements and concerning the elimination of light pollution from vehicles parking on the south property boundary. Henry Happel: Motion Padden Guy Murphy: 2nd 02:31:50 Vote on the Motion to amend Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for the site plan application 21235 for the Six Range Condominiums Site Plan and move to recommend approval of the Site Plan, subject to recommended conditions and all applicable code provisions and further subject to further discussion and hopefully agreement between the developer and the Cottonwood Condominium Association concerning public access and easements and concerning the elimination of light pollution from vehicles parking on the south property boundary.. The Motion carried 6 - 2 Approve: Allison Bryan Brady Ernst Henry Happel John Backes Padden Guy Murphy Jennifer Madgic Disapprove: Gerald Pape Stephen Egnatz 02:32:54 Vote on the Motion to approve Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for 7 Bozeman Community Development Board Meeting Minutes, 07-18-2022 Page 5 of 5 the site plan application 21235 for the Six Range Condominiums Site Plan and move to recommend approval of the Site Plan, subject to recommended conditions and all applicable code provisions.. The Motion carried 5 - 2 Approve: Allison Bryan Brady Ernst Henry Happel Padden Guy Murphy Jennifer Madgic Disapprove: Gerald Pape Stephen Egnatz G) 02:35:16 FYI/Discussions G.1 02:35:44 Calendar Year 2021 Land Use Inventory CY2021 Land Use Report.pdf 02:36:39 Chris Saunders presented the 2021 Land Use Inventory Report. G.2 02:41:16 Upcoming Items Expected for August 1, 2022 Community Development Board Meeting. H) 02:44:51 Adjournment For more information please contact Anna Bentley, abentley@bozeman.net General information about the Community Development Board is available in our Laserfiche repository. 8 Bozeman Community Development Board Minutes, 08-01-22 Page 1 of 9 THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA MINUTES Monday August 08, 2022 A) 00:05:30 Call to Order - 6:00 pm Present: Gerald Pape, Allison Bryan, Henry Happel, John Backes, Padden Guy Murphy, Jennifer Madgic Absent: Brady Ernst, Nicole Olmstead, Stephen Egnatz B) 00:06:18 Disclosures There were no voluntary disclosures at this meeting. C) 00:06:32 Changes to the Agenda Order of matters undertaken amended for this meeting. Housing ordinance proposed as first agenda item. 00:07:23 Motion Start with Housing ordinance as it is a complex and potentially lengthy topic to be discussed. Gerald Pape: Motion Jennifer Madgic: 2nd After some discussion, this motion did not get voted on and informally failed to pass. 00:10:25 Motion C) Changes to the Agenda. Move item G.8 before G.7 and after G.6 Henry Happel: Motion Jennifer Madgic: 2nd 00:10:46 Vote on the Motion to approve C) Changes to the Agenda. Move item G.8 before G.7 and after G.6. The Motion carried 6 - 0 9 Bozeman Community Development Board Minutes, 08-01-22 Page 2 of 9 Approve: Gerald Pape Allison Bryan Henry Happel John Backes Padden Guy Murphy Jennifer Madgic Disapprove: None D) 00:11:02 Approval of Minutes D.1 Approval of Minutes from May 16, 2022. CD Board Meeting Minutes 05-16-22.pdf 00:11:20 Motion I move to approve the minutes from May 16, 2022. Jennifer Madgic: Motion Gerald Pape: 2nd 00:11:35 Vote on the Motion to approve I move to approve the minutes from May 16, 2022. The Motion carried 6 - 0 Approve: Gerald Pape Allison Bryan Henry Happel John Backes Padden Guy Murphy Jennifer Madgic Disapprove: None E) 00:12:00 Consent Items E.1 Recommendation of approval for a site plan proposing construction of two, three story multi-household buildings and associated parking, open space, and infrastructure, application 21327. Required parking, stormwater management, landscaping, and other improvements are included. 01 Development Review Application SIGNED.pdf 02 Narrative.pdf 00 A0-0 - COVER.pdf 02AC2.1 - ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN.pdf 08 AC4.0 - MATERIAL BOARD.pdf 09 AC5.0 - SPANISH PEAKS PARK IMPROVEMENTS.pdf 18 L102 - PLANT SCHEDULE & NOTES.pdf 10 Bozeman Community Development Board Minutes, 08-01-22 Page 3 of 9 19 L103 - NORTH LANDSCAPE PLAN.pdf 20 L104 - SOUTH LANDSCAPE PLAN.pdf 21 L201 - LANDSCAPE DETAILS.pdf 17 L101 - OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN.pdf 23 N-A2-1 - 2ND FLOOR PLAN.pdf 24 N-A2-2 - 3RD FLOOR PLAN.pdf 25 N-A3-0 - BUILDING ELEVATIONS.pdf 22 N-A2-0 - 1ST FLOOR PLAN.pdf 31 S-A2-2 - 3RD FLOOR PLAN.pdf 32 S-A3-0 - BUILDING ELEVATIONS.pdf 29 S-A2-0 - 1ST FLOOR PLAN.pdf 30 S-A2-1 - 2ND FLOOR PLAN.pdf 00:13:30 Motion I move to approve the consent item regarding application 21-327 as submitted. Jennifer Madgic: Motion John Backes: 2nd 00:14:20 Vote on the Motion to approve I move to approve the consent item regarding application 21- 327 as submitted. The Motion carried 6 - 0 Approve: Gerald Pape Allison Bryan Henry Happel John Backes Padden Guy Murphy Jennifer Madgic Disapprove: None F) 00:14:35 Public Comments There was no general public comments at this meeting. G) 00:17:35 Action Items 00:18:00 Motion I move to continue action items G.1, G.3, and G.4 to a date certain of August 15th, and to continue action item G.2 to a date certain of September 12th. Henry Happel: Motion Jennifer Madgic: 2nd 00:18:18 Vote on the Motion to approve I move to continue action items G.1, G.3, and G.4 to a date certain of August 15th, and to continue action item G.2 to a date certain of September 12th.. The Motion carried 6 - 0 11 Bozeman Community Development Board Minutes, 08-01-22 Page 4 of 9 Approve: Gerald Pape Allison Bryan Henry Happel John Backes Padden Guy Murphy Jennifer Madgic Disapprove: None G.1 Continuation of the Block 104 zone map amendment requesting amendment of the City Zoning Map for a city block bounded by Tamarack Street on the north, Front Street to the east, Wallace on the west, and Aspen Street on the south consisting of approximately 7.33 acres and the accompanying adjacent right-of way from M-1 (Light Manufacturing) to B-2M (Community Business District – Mixed). G.2 Continuation of the South 8th zone map amendment requesting amendment of the City Zoning Map to change the zoning on 0.18 acre parcel from R4 (High Density Residential District) to R5 (Residential Mixed-Use High Density District). G.3 Continuation of the Thomas Drive Zone Map Amendment requesting to change zoning from on 15.037 acres from R-4 (Residential High Density) to REMU (Residential Emphasis Mixed Use). G.4 Continuation of Gran Cielo - Cielo Way and S. 27th Ave. ZMA to Change the Zoning from R3 (Residential Medium Density District) to R-4 (Residential High Density District) on 4.279 Acres, Application 22117 G.5 00:18:50 6730 Davis Lane Annexation application 22020 requesting annexation of 10.071 acres and amendment application 22020 of the City Zoning Map for the establishment of a zoning designation of REMU (Residential Emphasis Mixed-Use District). 22020 6730 Davis Annx-ZMA CDB SR.pdf 00:20:50 Tom Rogers presented on 6730 Davis Lane Annexation and Zone Map Amendment; Application 22020. 00:22:22 There were no general public comments. 00:31:45 Motion Having reviewed and considered the staff report, application materials, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 22020 and move to recommend approval of the 6730 Davis Lane Zone Map Amendment, with contingencies required to complete the application processing. Jennifer Madgic: Motion Gerald Pape: 2nd 12 Bozeman Community Development Board Minutes, 08-01-22 Page 5 of 9 00:35:30 Vote on the Motion to approve Having reviewed and considered the staff report, application materials, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 22020 and move to recommend approval of the 6730 Davis Lane Zone Map Amendment, with contingencies required to complete the application processing. The Motion carried 6 - 0 Approve: Gerald Pape Allison Bryan Henry Happel John Backes Padden Guy Murphy Jennifer Madgic Disapprove: None G.6 00:35:51 1001 Thomas Drive Annexation application 22067 requesting annexation of 15.115 acres and zone map amendment of the City Zoning Map for the establishment of a zoning designation of REMU (Residential Emphasis Mixed Use). 22067 1001 Thomas Annx-ZMA CDB SR.pdf 00:36:12 Tom Rogers presented on 1001 Thomas Drive Annexation Application 22067 requesting annexation of 15.115 acres. 00:43:26 Staff presented questions to City Staff. 00:44:20 Questions for the applicant were presented. 00:48:27 Motion Having reviewed and considered the staff report, application materials, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 22067 and move to recommend approval of the 1001 Thomas Drive Annexation Zone Map Amendment, with contingencies required to complete the application processing. Gerald Pape: Motion Padden Guy Murphy: 2nd 00:51:55 Vote on the Motion to approve Having reviewed and considered the staff report, application materials, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 22067 and move to recommend approval of the 1001 Thomas Drive Annexation Zone Map Amendment, with contingencies required to complete the application processing.. The Motion carried 6 - 0 Approve: Gerald Pape Allison Bryan Henry Happel 13 Bozeman Community Development Board Minutes, 08-01-22 Page 6 of 9 John Backes Padden Guy Murphy Jennifer Madgic Disapprove: None G.8 00:52:07 Heritage Christian School Zone Map Amendment to Establish an Initial Zoning of R-3, Residential Medium Density, on Approximately 13 Acres at 4310 Durston Road, Application 22170 22170 HCS Annx-ZMA CC SR.pdf 00:52:25 Chris Saunders presented on Heritage Christian School Annexation Zone Map Amendment Application 22170. 00:59:34 Zach Gray Civil Engineer representing the applicant provided information about water and sewer. 01:03:15 No public comment on this application. 01:03:48 Motion Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the staff report, application materials, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 22170 and move to recommend approval of the Heritage Christian School Annexation Zone Map Amendment, with contingencies required to complete the application Gerald Pape: Motion Jennifer Madgic: 2nd 01:06:10 Vote on the Motion to amend Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the staff report, application materials, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 22170 and move to recommend approval of the Heritage Christian School Annexation Zone Map Amendment, with contingencies required to complete the application. The Motion carried 6 - 0 Approve: Gerald Pape Allison Bryan Henry Happel John Backes Padden Guy Murphy Jennifer Madgic Disapprove: None G.7 01:06:37 Ordinance 2105, Repeal Division 38.380, Affordable Housing, and Amend Associated Standards and Replace With a New Division 38.380 Affordable Housing Text Amendment, Application 22133 14 Bozeman Community Development Board Minutes, 08-01-22 Page 7 of 9 22133 CDB Staff Report - 38.380 Replacement 7-26-2022.pdf Ordinance 2105 38.380 Affordable Housing 7-25-2022.pdf 22133 38.380 Replacement - e-news.pdf 01:07:44 City Staff Chris Saunders presented on Affordable Housing Ordinance 2105. 02:01:21 City Economic specialist David Fine informed staff. 02:35:19 Motion Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the staff report, draft ordinance, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 22133 and move to recommend approval of Ordinance 2105. Padden Guy Murphy: Motion Gerald Pape: 2nd 02:54:29 Vote on the Motion to approve Recommended Motion: Having reviewed and considered the staff report, draft ordinance, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 22133 and move to recommend approval of Ordinance 2105.. The Motion failed 1 - 5 Approve: Allison Bryan Disapprove: Gerald Pape Henry Happel John Backes Padden Guy Murphy Jennifer Madgic 02:58:16 Motion Motion to continue this discussion on housing affordability with hopes of more public engagement by Jennifer. Jennifer Madgic: Motion Padden Guy Murphy: 2nd 03:05:35 Vote on the Motion to continue Motion to continue this discussion on housing affordability with hopes of more public engagement by Jennifer. The Motion carried 6 - 0 Approve: Gerald Pape Allison Bryan Henry Happel John Backes Padden Guy Murphy Jennifer Madgic 15 Bozeman Community Development Board Minutes, 08-01-22 Page 8 of 9 Disapprove: None 03:07:25 Motion Jennifer's motion by requesting the City's consulting group and any ancillary groups provide justification for their conclusions and show the nature of their comps, to show where they got the data from. Gerald Pape: Motion Henry Happel: 2nd 03:09:43 Vote on the Motion to amend Jennifer's motion by requesting the City's consulting group and any ancillary groups provide justification for their conclusions and show the nature of their comps, to show where they got the data from.. The Motion failed 2 - 4 Approve: Gerald Pape Padden Guy Murphy Disapprove: Allison Bryan Henry Happel John Backes Jennifer Madgic 03:11:31 Motion Part two of Pape's motion amending Jennifer's motion to continue the discussion on affordable housing. I move to consider exploration of alternative mitigations involving the community in this particular piece of code. Gerald Pape: Motion Henry Happel: 2nd 03:13:30 Motion was retracted by Pape. 03:13:50 Motion Propose the concept of non-binding workshops where the board can discuss themes with consultants, developers, and others relating, but not limited to design, consultants, etc., in order to provide and receive feedback for reasons discussed in the meeting (see video). Padden Guy Murphy: Motion Gerald Pape: 2nd Board member Murphy's motion was withdrawn. H) 03:24:36 FYI/Discussions H.1 Upcoming Items Expected for August 15, 2022 Community Development Board Meeting. Chris Saunders explained the upcoming item expected to take place on August 15th, 2022. 16 Bozeman Community Development Board Minutes, 08-01-22 Page 9 of 9 I) 03:25:46 Adjournment For more information please contact Anna Bentley, abentley@bozeman.net General information about the Community Development Board is available in our Laserfiche repository. 17 Memorandum REPORT TO:Community Development Board FROM:Tom Rogers, Senior Planner Anna Bentley, Interim Community Development Director SUBJECT:The South 8th zone map amendment requesting amendment of the City Zoning Map to change the zoning on 0.18 acre parcel from R-4 (High Density Residential District) to R-5 (Residential Mixed-Use High Density District). MEETING DATE:September 12, 2022 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Community Development - Legislative RECOMMENDATION:Having reviewed and considered the staff report, application materials, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 22077 and move to recommend approval of the South 8th Zone Map Amendment, with contingencies required to complete the application processing. STRATEGIC PLAN:4.1 Informed Conversation on Growth: Continue developing an in-depth understanding of how Bozeman is growing and changing and proactively address change in a balanced and coordinated manner. BACKGROUND:The owner, Jeremy Seglem, and applicant, Aspekt Architecture, submitted an application to rezone an existing parcel totaling 0.18 acres from R-4 to R- 5. The property currently hosts a detached residential structure and associated detached accessory buildings with alley access. Although no future development plans were submitted or required with the application, based on the applicant narrative it appears future development will be “mixed-use.” The adjacent property on the southwest corner of the subject property is also owned by Carroll on Main, LLC. The property is within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) but is not within a designated historic district. The primary differences between the R-4 and R-5 districts are in permitted uses and dimensional standards. R-5 allows limited restaurant and retail uses and requires less land area per residential unit, allows 10 more feet of height or five stories, smaller setbacks, and less parking. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:There are no unresolved issues with this application. ALTERNATIVES:1. Approve the application with contingencies as presented; 2. Deny the application based on findings of non-compliance with the 18 applicable criteria contained within the staff report; or 3. Open and continue the public hearing, with specific direction to staff or the applicant to supply additional information or to address specific items. FISCAL EFFECTS:No unusual fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed by this zone map amendment. Attachments: 22077 South 8th ZMA CDB SR.pdf Report compiled on: September 8, 2022 19 Page 1 of 26 22077, Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Public Hearing Date(s): Community Development Board acting in their capacity as the Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on August 1, 2022 at 6:00 pm; continued to September 12, 2022. City Commission public hearing will be held on April 5, 2022 at 6:00 pm; continued to September 27, 2022. Project Description: The South 8th zone map amendment requesting amendment of the City Zoning Map to change the zoning on 0.18 acre parcel from R-4 (High Density Residential District) to R-5 (Residential Mixed-Use High Density District). Project Location: The property is addressed at 116 S. 8th Avenue and legally described as Lots 12 and 13, Block 3, Park Addition to Bozeman located in the Northwest One-quarter (NW ¼) of the Southeast One-Quarter (SE ¼), of Section 12, Township Two South (T2S), Range Five East (R5E), P.M.M., City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. Recommendation: Meet standards for approval Recommended Community Development Board Motion: Having reviewed and considered the staff report, application materials, public comment, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 22077 and move to recommend approval of the South 8th Zone Map Amendment, with contingencies required to complete the application processing. Recommended City Commission Zoning Motion: Having reviewed and considered the staff report, application materials, public comment, recommendation of the Community Development Board, and all information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 22077 and move to approve the South 8th Zone Map subject to contingencies required to complete the application processing. Report Date: September 7, 2022 Staff Contact: Tom Rogers, Senior Planner Lance Lehigh, City Engineer Agenda Item Type: Action – Legislative EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Unresolved Issues None identified at this time. 20 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 2 of 26 Project Summary The owner, Jeremy Seglem, and applicant, Aspekt Architecture, submitted an application to rezone an existing parcel totaling 0.18 acres from R-4 to R-5. The property currently hosts a detached residential structure and associated detached accessory buildings with alley access. Although no future development plans were submitted or required with the application, based on the applicant narrative it appears future development will be “mixed-use.” The adjacent property on the southwest corner of the subject property is also owned by Carroll on Main, LLC. The property is within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) but is not within a designated historic district. The primary differences between the R-4 and R-5 districts are in permitted uses and dimensional standards. R-5 allows limited restaurant and retail uses and requires less land area per residential unit, allows 10 more feet of height or five stories, smaller setbacks, and less parking. Application materials can be viewed on the City’s development map at the following link. https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=260400&cr=1 No public comment has been received as of the production of this report. Community Development Board (Zoning Commission) Summary The Community Development Board acting in their capacity as the Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on September 12, 2022. A summary of the meeting will be provided during the staff presentation to the City Commission. All recorded public meeting videos can be viewed at the following link: https://www.bozeman.net/departments/city-commission/commission-meeting-video Alternatives 1. Approve the application with contingencies as presented; 2. Deny the application based on findings of non-compliance with the applicable criteria contained within the staff report; or 3. Open and continue the public hearing, with specific direction to staff or the applicant to supply additional information or to address specific items. 21 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 3 of 26 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 Unresolved Issues ............................................................................................................... 1 Project Summary ................................................................................................................. 2 Community Development Board (Zoning Commission) Summary ................................... 2 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 2 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES .................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 2 - RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES OF ZONE MAP AMENDMENT..... 7 SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS ........................................ 8 SECTION 4 - ZONE MAP AMENDMENT STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ............. 8 Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria ......................................................................... 9 PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS ......................................................... 23 APPENDIX A - DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND .............. 24 APPENDIX B - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT .................................................... 24 APPENDIX C - PROJECT GROWTH POLICY AND PROPOSED ZONING ................... 24 APPENDIX D - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF............................ 26 FISCAL EFFECTS ................................................................................................................. 26 ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................................... 26 22 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 4 of 26 SECTION 1 - MAP SERIES Figure 1: Vicinity Map 23 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 5 of 26 Figure 2: Current Zoning Map B-2M Zoning R-4 Zone R-4 Zone R-2 Zone 24 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 6 of 26 Figure 3: Future Land Use Designations Urban Neighborhood Designation Community Commercial Mixed Designation 25 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 7 of 26 Figure 4: Historic District Illustration SECTION 2 - RECOMMENDED CONTINGENCIES OF ZONE MAP AMENDMENT Please note that these contingencies are necessary for the City to complete the process of the proposed amendment. Recommended Contingencies of Approval: 1. That all documents and exhibits necessary to establish the amended municipal zoning designation of R-5 shall be identified as the “South 8th Zone Map Amendment”. 2. The applicant must submit a zone amendment map, titled “Carroll on Main Zone Map Amendment”, acceptable to the Director of Public Works, as a PDF which will be utilized in the preparation of the Ordinance to officially amend the City of Bozeman Zoning Map. Said map shall contain a metes and bounds legal description of the perimeter of the subject property including adjacent rights-of-way, and total acreage of the property. 3. The Ordinance for the Zone Map Amendment shall not be drafted until the applicant provides an editable metes and bounds legal description prepared by a licensed Montana surveyor. 26 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 8 of 26 SECTION 3 - RECOMMENDATION AND FUTURE ACTIONS Having considered the criteria established for a zone map amendment, the Staff recommends approval as submitted. The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the amendment on May 27, 2022. The DRC did not identify any infrastructure or regulatory constraints that would impede the approval of the application. The Community Development Board acting in their capacity as the Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on this zone map amendment on September 12, 2022. The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. in the Commission Room at City Hall, 121 N. Rouse Ave, Bozeman, Montana, Members of the public will also be able to participate remotely via WebEx. Instructions for joining the WebEx meeting will be included on the meeting agenda which is published on the City’s website at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. The City Commission will hold a public meeting on the zone map amendment on September 27, 2022. The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. in the Commission Room at City Hall, 121 N. Rouse Ave, Bozeman, Montana, the City Commission will conduct a public hearing on the proposed Zone Map Amendment application. Members of the public will also be able to participate remotely via WebEx. Instructions for joining the WebEx meeting will be included on the meeting agenda which is published on the City’s website at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. SECTION 4 - ZONE MAP AMENDMENT STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS In considering applications for plan approval under this title, the advisory boards and City Commission must consider the following criteria (letters A-K). As an amendment is a legislative action, the Commission has broad latitude to determine a policy direction. The burden of proof that the application should be approved lies with the applicant. A zone map amendment must be in accordance with the growth policy (criteria A) and be designed to secure safety from fire and other dangers (criteria B); promote public health, public safety, and general welfare (criteria C); and facilitate the provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements (criteria D). Therefore, to approve a zone map amendment the Commission must find Criteria A-D are met. In addition, the Commission must also consider criteria E-K, and may find the zone map amendment to be positive, neutral, or negative with regards to these criteria. To approve the zone map amendment, the Commission must find the positive outcomes of the amendment outweigh negative outcomes for criteria E-K. In determining whether the criteria are met, Staff considers the entire body of regulations for land development. Standards which prevent or mitigate negative impacts are incorporated throughout the entire municipal code but are principally in Chapter 38, Unified Development Code. 27 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 9 of 26 Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria A. Be in accordance with a growth policy. Criterion met. The BCP 2020, Chapter 5, p. 73, in the section titled Review Criteria for Zoning Amendments and Their Application, discusses how the various criteria in 76-2-304 MCA are applied locally. Application of the criteria varies depending on whether an amendment is for the zoning map or for the text of Chapter 38, BMC. The first criterion for a zoning amendment is accordance with a growth policy. Future Land Use Map The proposed amendment is a change to the zoning map. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze compliance with the future land use map. Chapter 3 of the BCP 2020 addresses the future land use map. The introduction to that chapter discusses the importance of the chapter. Following are some excerpts. “Future land use is the community’s fundamental building block. It is an illustration of the City’s desired outcome to accommodate the complex and diverse needs of its residents.” “The land use map sets generalized expectations for what goes where in the community. Each category has its own descriptions. Understanding the future land use map is not possible without understanding the category descriptions.” The area of this application is within the urban area in the City’s adopted land use plan. As shown on the maps in Section 1, the property is designated as Urban Neighborhood. The subject property is surrounded by other Urban Neighborhood designated properties. The Urban Neighborhood designation description reads: “This category primarily includes urban density homes in a variety of types, shapes, sizes, and intensities. Large areas of any single type of housing are discouraged. In limited instances, an area may develop at a lower gross density due to site constraints and/or natural features such as floodplains or steep slopes. Complementary uses such as parks, home-based occupations, fire stations, churches, schools, and some neighborhood-serving commerce provide activity centers for community gathering and services. The Urban Neighborhood designation indicates that development is expected to occur within municipal boundaries. This may require annexation prior to development. Applying a zoning district to specific parcels sets the required and allowed density. Higher density residential areas are encouraged to be, but are not required or restricted to, proximity to commercial mixed use areas to facilitate the provision of services and employment opportunities without requiring the use of a car.” 28 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 10 of 26 The correlation between the future land use map of the growth policy and the zoning districts is presented in Table 4 of the Bozeman Community Plan 2020. As shown in the following excerpt from Table 4, the R-5 district is an implementing district of the Urban Neighborhood category. The Applicant narrative makes a strong case in support of the requested zone change. Staff generally concurs with these findings. The Argument chapter covers many of the review criteria detailing the Location & Transportation, Residential Focused Mixed-Use, and Form & Intensity Considerations. In addition, the applicant provided specific comment on the State required review criteria. However, the application fails to address Theme 2: A City of Unique Neighborhoods. Goals and Policies A zoning amendment is also evaluated against the goals and policies of the BCP 2020. Most of the goals and policies are not applicable to this application. Relevant goals and objectives have been identified by staff. Conflict with the text of the growth policy hasn’t been identified. The Short Term Action list on page 63 of the BCP 2020 describes 14 items to implement the growth policy. The first two relate to direct changes to the zoning map in support of listed goals and objectives. These include increasing the intensity of zoning districts in already developed areas. Beginning on page 71 of the BCP 2020 in the section titled Zoning Amendment Review, the document discusses how the City implements zoning for new areas, amendments to areas, and revisions to existing text. This section includes a discussion of when the City may initiate a zoning change to a more intensive district to increase development opportunities. This section demonstrates that the City, as a matter of policy, is supportive of more intensive zoning districts and development, even within already developed areas. This 29 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 11 of 26 policy approach does not specify any individual district but does lean towards the more intensive portion of the zoning district spectrum. The Community Plan includes several goals and objectives that are broadly served through this application, including: The R-5 zoning district is promotive of the City’s desire for higher density, urban-scale development with a diverse mixture of possible uses. The R-5 district can help to absorb a portion of the growth that is projected for the City and allows limited commercial activity to support that residential activity. Supported goals include the following: “Goal N-3: Promote a diverse supply of quality housing units.” The R-5 district allows construction of the full range of residential buildings in the City. This supports the opportunity for diversity of supply. Quality of housing cannot be assessed at this time but will be reviewed with subsequent development review for compliance with adopted standards. The City’s Community Housing Needs Assessment documented a shortage of housing within the City and encourages additional housing construction. “Goal DCD-1: Support urban development within the City.” The proposed zoning is the City’s most intense residential zoning district. Minimum densities are higher and parking requirements are less. Any future development will be required to occur at urban densities and will be within the City. “DCD-2.2 Support higher density development along main corridors and at high visibility street corners to accommodate population growth and support businesses.” Not all goals and policy of The Community Plan are furthered by this application. One example is Goal N-4: Continue to encourage Bozeman’s sense of place and N-4.1 Continue to recognize and honor the unique history, neighborhoods, neighborhood character, and buildings that contribute to Bozeman’s sense of place through programs and policy led by both City and community efforts. Staff finds the application does not fully support Goal N-1: Support well-planned, walkable neighborhoods and specifically, objective N-1.1 Promote housing diversity, including missing middle housing. The R-5 district is designed to support apartment through higher minimum densities although it does allow for a wide range of housing types. Townhomes and rowhouse are allowed although our development industry has not focused attention on this type of missing middle housing. This theme is co-listed with Goal N-3: Promote a diverse supply of quality housing units and objective N-3.8 that is intended to 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. 30 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 12 of 26 The subject property and adjacent R-4 zoned properties do not maximize permitted intensity. However, there is a clear delineation line separating this parcel and others from the commercial district to the north, see image below. As noted above, nearly all residential structures are two- story or less and have a mass and scale representative of single-household homes. The question of character highlights a central theme. Would R-4 or R-5 zoning promote the unique character of the district more appropriately? The R-5 zone encourages larger development and more density through decreased lot coverage, less parking, more height, allows commercial uses, and an increase in minimum density. If fully developed, the R-4 zone allows considerable more mass and bulk than currently constructed. As noted in the application submittal it is the property owner’s intent to redevelop the site. The Bozeman Community Plan 2020, Chapter 5, page 72, includes a discussion of what justifications support a change in zoning. This application addresses two of those justifications. First, a change in correlation between zoning and growth policy, and second, the owner requests the change and can meet required standards. This report determines the required standards can be met. No material conflicts with the growth policy have been identified. 31 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 13 of 26 Considering this analysis as a whole, staff finds this criterion is met and the application is in accordance with the growth policy. B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers. Criterion met. The subject property is currently served by City of Bozeman Fire and Police Departments. The property is vacant, except for a partially constructed stormwater facility on the northwest corner of the property. Future development of the property will be required to conform to all City of Bozeman public safety, building and land use requirements, which will ensure this criterion is met. The change from R-4 to R-5 is not likely to adversely impact safety from fire and other dangers. C. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare. Criterion met. City development standards included in Chapter 38, Unified Development Code, building codes, and engineering standards all ensure that this criterion is met. Adequate water and sewer supply and conveyance provide for public health through clean water. Rapid and effective emergency response provides for public safety. The City’s standards ensure that adequate services are provided prior to building construction which advances this criterion. General welfare has been evaluated during the adoption of Chapter 38 and found to be advanced by the adopted standards. Provision of parks, control of storm water, and other features of the City’s development standards also advance the general welfare. Compliance with the BCP 2020 as described in Section 4, Criterion A, shows advancement of the well- being of the community as a whole. See also Criterion B. D. Facilitate the provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements. Criterion met. The BCP 2020, page 74, says the following regarding evaluation of Section 4, Criteria B, C, & D for zoning amendments: “For a map amendment, all three of the above elements are addressed primarily by the City’s long range facility Plans, the City’s capital improvements program, and development standards adopted by the City. The standards set minimum sizing and flow requirements, require dedication of parks, provision of right of way for people and vehicles, keep development out of floodplains, and other items to address public safety, etc. It is often difficult to assess these issues in detail on a specific site. For example, at the time of annexation, the final intensity of development is unknown and it may be many years before development occurs and the impacts are experienced. The availability of other planning and development review tools must be considered when deciding the degree of assurance needed to apply an initial zoning at annexation.” The City conducts extensive planning for municipal transportation, water, sewer, parks, sustainability, and other facilities and services provided by the City. The adopted plans allow 32 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 14 of 26 the City to consider existing conditions; and identify enhancements needed to provide service to new development. See page 19 of the BCP 2020 for a listing. The City implements these plans through its capital improvements program (CIP). The CIP identifies individual projects, project construction scheduling, and financing of construction for infrastructure. Private development must demonstrate compliance with standards prior to construction. Dedication of school facilities is not required by municipal zoning standards. However, School District 7 will have opportunity to review and comment on future development. The subject properties are within the City’s land use, transportation, parks, and utility planning areas. Those plans show this property as developing within the City when development is proposed. As stated in 38.300.020.C, the designation of a zoning district does not guarantee approval of new development until the City verifies the availability of needed infrastructure. 38.300.020.C, “Placement of any given zoning district on an area depicted on the zoning map indicates a judgment on the part of the city that the range of uses allowed within that district are generally acceptable in that location. It is not a guarantee of approval for any given use prior to the completion of the appropriate review procedure and compliance with all of the applicable requirements and development standards of this chapter and other applicable policies, laws and ordinances. It is also not a guarantee of immediate infrastructure availability or a commitment on the part of the city to bear the cost of extending services.” E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air. Criterion met. This criterion is not about individual preferences for a given degree of visual openness but about preservation of public health. The R-5 district provides adequate light and air through the Bozeman Unified Development Code’s standards for park and recreation requirements, on-site open space for residential uses, maximum building height, lot coverage, and setback requirements. The form and intensity standards, Division 38.320, provide minimum lot areas, lot widths, lot coverage and maximum floor area ratios, and prescribe require minimum separation from property lines and limits building heights. Section 38.520.030 requires building placement to ensure access to light and air. Division 38.420 and Section 38.520.060 require dedication of parks and on-site open spaces to meet needs of residents. The standards provide a reasonable provision of adequate light and air. In addition to the zoning standards, adopted building codes contain more detailed requirements for air circulation, window placement, and building separation that further ensure the intent of this criterion is satisfied. 33 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 15 of 26 F. The effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems. Criterion met. The requested change in zoning from R-4 to R-5 will not itself impact the motorized and non-motorized transportation system. The transportation is complete that serves the property. Future land uses and intensity of development are not entirely known. R-5 zoning allows some commercial activity, but due to the size and configuration of the lot significant additional traffic would not be anticipated. The property is located on South 8th which is a designated Collector Street according to the Bozeman Transportation Master Plan, 2017. Although not directly adjacent, West Babcock is a designated Minor Arterial Street at this location. Future development and redevelopment of the property will be required to comply with transportation-related standards and reviewed for impacts on the surrounding streets, intersections, and sidewalks, and improvements to the transportation network to serve the site, which will improve the overall transportation system. These improvements include provisions for non-motorized transportation systems. The change in zoning district will have minimal effect on required road improvements, pedestrian or bicycle facilities, or similar compliance with standards. The site has a Walk Score of 86, a Transit Score of 28, and Bike Score of 75. Average walk score for the city as a whole is 49 (up from 48) out of 100. According to Walk Score® the walk score measures the walkability of any address based on the distance to nearby places and pedestrian friendliness. 90 – 100 Walker’s Paradise. Daily errands do not require a car. 70 – 89 Very Walkable. Most errands can be accomplished on foot. 50 – 69 Somewhat walkable. Some errands can be accomplished on foot. 25 – 49 Car-Dependent. Most errands require a car. 0 – 24 Car-Dependent. Almost all errands require a car. These values are provided by Walk Score, a private organization which presents information on real estate and transportation through walkscore.com. The algorithm which produces these numbers is proprietary. A score is not an indication of safety or continuity of services or routes. Scores are influenced by proximity of housing, transit, and services and expected ability, as determined by the algorithm, to meet basic needs without using a car. Sites located on the edge of the community have lower scores than those in the center of the community as the area is still under development and therefore diversity of uses is less than in fully established areas. There are no adopted development standards relating to the walk score. 34 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 16 of 26 G. Promotion of compatible urban growth. Criterion not met. The Bozeman Community Plan establishes a preferred and compatible development pattern. “The land use map sets generalized expectations for what goes where in the community… The land use categories and descriptions provide a guide for appropriate development and redevelopment locations for civic, residential, commercial, industrial, and other uses. The future land use designations are important because they aim to further the vision and goals of the City through promoting sustainability, citizen and visitor safety, and a high quality of life that will shape Bozeman’s future.” (Community Plan p. 51). Individuals may have widely varying opinions about what constitutes compatibility. Compatible development and Compatible land use are defined in Article 38.700.040 BMC to establish a common reference for consideration of this criterion and application of development standards. They are defined as: “Compatible development. The use of land and the construction and use of structures which is in harmony with adjoining development, existing neighborhoods, and the goals and objectives of the city’s adopted growth policy. Elements of compatible development include, but are not limited to, variety of architectural design; rhythm of architectural elements; scale; intensity; materials; building siting; lot and building size; hours of operation; and integration with existing community systems including water and sewer services, natural elements in the area, motorized and non-motorized transportation, and open spaces and parks. Compatible development does not require uniformity or monotony of architectural or site design, density or use. Compatible land use. A land use which may by virtue of the characteristics of its discernible outward effects exist in harmony with an adjoining land use of differing character. Effects often measured to determine compatibility include, but are not limited to, noise, odor, light and the presence of physical hazards such as combustible or explosive materials.” Based on this definition the proposed map amendment is not congruent with compatible development. An argument can be made the existing R-4 zoning is not in harmony with the neighborhood and the NCOD due to scale of development allowed by the base zoning. The R- 5 inherent intensity erodes the character of the existing neighborhood and street scape with its lot coverage, building height, and use. There is a clear delineation across the street by an alley separating light commercial uses in similarly styled structures. The Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District is an area that was created by the City of Bozeman to recognize the historic core of the Bozeman community. It encompasses Bozeman’s nine National Register of Historic Places historic districts, as well as the many individual National Register listings. Please see Chapter 5 for a detailed description of each historic district. 35 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 17 of 26 All proposed alterations (including demolition) to structures and sites within the area are subject to design review by the City of Bozeman Department of Planning and are subject to standards set forth in the City of Bozeman Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), in addition to these particular design guidelines. As stated in the UDC section 38.340.010.C, “the intent and purpose of the conservation district designation is to stimulate the restoration and rehabilitation of structures, and all other elements contributing to the character and fabric of established residential neighborhoods and commercial or industrial areas.” Further, the ordinance states that while new construction is invited and encouraged, “primary emphasis is given to the preservation of existing buildings, provided the design of such new places enhances and contributes to the aesthetic character and function of the property and the surrounding neighborhood or area.” The concept behind the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District concept is to protect Bozeman against alteration and demolition that might damage the unique fabric created by the hundreds of important buildings and sites that make up the historic core of Bozeman. However, preservation of character is difficult when relying on the guidelines for development in the NCOD. The standards that development is reviewed against are not regulatory. Sarah Rosenberg, Bozeman Historic Preservation Officer, offers the following comment on the application. “Although 116 S. 8th Avenue is not located in a historic district, it is still located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). As outlined in the Bozeman Community Plan, Goal N-4 encourages that Bozeman’s sense of place is continued and neighborhood character is recognized and honored through programs and policies. Chapter 38.340, Overlay District Standards, emphasizes that the aesthetic character and function of the property and surrounding neighborhood maintains the historic settlement patterns. With zone changes within the NCOD, it is necessary to evaluate the surrounding character of the area including the size, scale, and setting of the property. It is not the intent of the NCOD to discourage new construction or other development but to ensure that any new space enhances and contributes to the neighborhood. This property is located in a neighborhood that reflects that of a more traditional residential settlement pattern. The alley to the north acts as a buffer to distinguish between the more intense commercial uses, the Cooper Park Historic District directly east of the property, and the residential neighborhood that continues along South 8th Avenue. The ZMA application narrative states that the reasoning for the zone change to R-5 is to allow a mixed use building commercial on the ground floor and to accommodate more residential units above it than the R-4 zone district allows. It is important for the character of the street at this boundary to maintain that residential use 36 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 18 of 26 along the ground floor such that is typical along South 8th. This R-4 zone district boundary helps transition to the lower residential R-2 zone district a block south and mainly makes up structures of one to four household dwellings. From my analysis, the following is suggested for the property: 1. Maintain the R-4 zone district status. 2. Preserve the existing structures as they emulate the character of an established neighborhood. Preserving existing buildings also helps satisfy the goals of the Climate Action Plan to reduce construction waste that goes into the landfill. 3. Conduct a historic inventory to determine its contributing status as the property does not have a form affiliated with it. This is also required per 38.340.120 if the end goal is to demolish the structure. 4. If preserving the structures is not feasible, provide a detailed neighborhood context study that could assist in bettering determine the form and scale of the proposal, how it relates to the adjacent Cooper Park Historic District and the South 8th Avenue corridor.” As noted in the definition of Compatible development, there are many elements that contributed to compatibility. The final sentence of the definition deserves emphasis: “Compatible development does not require uniformity or monotony of architectural or site design, density or use.” Compatible development can be different than what is already in place. The City has adopted a variety of standards to implement compatibility. Both the R-4 and proposed R-5 district are predominantly residential districts. The allowed uses for residential districts are set in 38.310.030. Review of Table 38.310.030.B – Permitted accessory and non-residential uses in residential zoning districts shows the R-5 district is more permissive for retail and restaurant activity although those differences are restricted in size and configuration to retain compatibility with the primarily residential uses in the zoning district. The form and intensity standards for residential districts are in 38.320.030. Comparing R-4 and R-5 reveals more differences than in permitted uses. The R-5 district allows more intensive development. The more intensive development elements allowed in the R-5 district are subject to additional development standards established in Article 38.5, Project Design, of the municipal code. These standards address both site and building design to enable differing uses and scales of development to be meet the definition of compatible in the municipal code and presented above. “Sec. 38.500.010. - Purpose. This article (38.5) implements the Bozeman's growth policy. Overall, this article: A. Provides clear objectives for those embarking on the planning and design of development projects in Bozeman; 37 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 19 of 26 B. Preserves and protects the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Bozeman; C. Ensures that new commercial and multi-household development is of high quality and beneficially contributes to Bozeman's character; D. Ensures that new developments within existing neighborhoods are compatible with, and enhance the character of Bozeman's neighborhoods; E. Promotes an increase in walking and bicycling throughout the City; F. Enhances the livability of Bozeman's residential developments; F. Maintains and enhances property values within Bozeman.” The City Commission has adopted standards to control development impacts and support compatibility. The following excerpt from the BCP 2020, page 75 describes the City’s approach. “What combination of uses under what conditions can work well together? There is a wide range of possible answers for each community to consider. Some communities take a highly prescriptive worst-case view and try to restrain all possible points of perceived conflict. This tends to create a very homogenous community with little interest or scope for creativity. Bozeman takes a different approach. The worst case scenario is recognized as unlikely, but possible. Development standards deal with the majority of cases, while restraining extraordinary problems. The City creates standards under items 1 through 3; when one district is adjacent to another and is consistent with the growth policy, any physical conflicts will be minimal, if present at all. The City’s zoning policy encourages continued development of mixed uses. … The City uses the broad scope of its development standards to enable differing uses to be successful near each other. This shows on the zoning map where districts providing a wide diversity of uses are intermixed.” Staff concludes the proposed R-5 is not compatible urban growth as called for in the growth policy. See also discussion for Criteria A & H. H. Character of the district. Criterion not met. Section 76-2-302, MCA says “…legislative body may divide the municipality into districts of the number, shape, and area as are considered best suited to carry out the purposes [promoting health, safety, morals, or the general welfare of the community] of this part.” Emphasis added. This proposal amends the zoning map and not the text. Therefore, no element of this amendment modifies the standards of any zoning district. The character of the districts as created by those standards remains intact. As noted above, the City Commission has latitude in considering the geographical extents of a zoning district. It is not expected that zoning freeze the character of an area in perpetuity. 38 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 20 of 26 Rather, it provides a structured method to consider changes to the character. This is especially true when applying zoning to undeveloped areas as any new construction will alter the physical characteristics of the area. The City has defined compatible development as: “The use of land and the construction and use of structures which is in harmony with adjoining development, existing neighborhoods, and the goals and objectives of the city's adopted growth policy. Elements of compatible development include, but are not limited to, variety of architectural design; rhythm of architectural elements; scale; intensity; materials; building siting; lot and building size; hours of operation; and integration with existing community systems including water and sewer services, natural elements in the area, motorized and non-motorized transportation, and open spaces and parks. Compatible development does not require uniformity or monotony of architectural or site design, density or use.” The NCOD influences this application. As noted in criterion H and elaborated by the City’s Historic Preservation Officer, a distinct neighborhood character exists. Although this property and the adjacent properties are not inventoried as historic structures, they contribute to the character of the street which is made up of single and two-story homes with porches and front doors facing the street, gable roofs, and creates a protonate entrance to the Campus of Montana State University. Although the City has adopted many standards to identify and avoid or mitigate demonstrable negative impacts of development, they are limited in preserving the character of the neighborhood. Only one property is being considered for the zone change which is creating difficulty finding that erosion of the character of the area is not being impacted. However, if a larger area or number of properties were jointly request this zone change this analysis may indicate a different determination. Further analysis is provided under criterion G above. Based on the entirety of this discussion staff finds the application does not promote the character of the district. I. Peculiar suitability for particular uses. Criterion met. Future uses for construction on the site are not finalized at this time, so the suitability of the site for particular uses is not easily evaluated. However, considering the context of the site with the statements of intent in the applicant submittal further development will occur and will likely be residential. As shown in Figure 4, the property is bounded by B-2M zoning on the north, R-4 to the west and south, and R-2 to the east. The proposed R-5 district supports a greater variety uses that R-4. Final determination of suitability will occur during the site development process. The intent of the R-4 and R-5 districts are similar with the difference focused on the secondary purpose. While the R-4 district focuses on associated service functions, R-5 relies on 39 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 21 of 26 residentially supportive commercial uses, emphasis added. Both districts provide for high- density residential development through a variety of compatible housing types and residentially supportive commercial uses in a geographically compact, walkable area to serve the varying needs of the community's residents. Therefore, this criterion is met. J. Conserving the value of buildings. Neutral. The site has an existing two-household residential building with associated accessory structure. R-5 zoning allows for more diverse development on the subject parcel. There is no known data that suggests intensification adjacent to inholding properties diminished the value of adjacent property or buildings, however, a perception of decreased value is often referenced. Based on available evidence it appears that further intensification in increases the value of property and buildings adjacent to those properties that experience development or redevelopment. The values of some buildings may improve in the future as new and improved amenities are provided to the area as the site is developed according to the proposed R-5 district, while other buildings’ values are unlikely to be impacted largely due to a robust real estate market and lack of unmitigated offensive uses allowed by the proposed zoning district. K. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area. Criterion met. As stated above, the BCP 2020 illustrates the most appropriate use of the land through the future land use map. This application generally complies with the BCP 2020 by proposing zone map amendments of districts that continue to implement the future land use map designations. In this case, urban neighborhood development has been identified by the community as the most appropriate types of development for the property. The Unified Development Code contains standards, protections and review processes to ensure the land is developed in ways that are appropriate to a site’s context and according to the BCP 2020. Similarly, as stated by the applicant, “… the location is specifically appropriate to address the goals of mixed-use development & density as they pertain to walkability, multi-modal transportation, and proximity to commercial districts. Any future development must follow the review processes defined in the Bozeman Unified Development Code in order to prove compliance with standards and requirements as well as to evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed land use.” Bozeman Community Plan illustrates the most appropriate use of the land. In this case Urban Neighborhood development has been identified by the community as the most appropriate types of development for the property. The Unified Development Code contains standards, protections and review processes to ensure the land is developed in ways that protect and promote public health, safety, and general welfare.” 40 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 22 of 26 Spot Zoning Criteria Rezoning may, in certain factual circumstances, constitute impermissible “spot zoning.” The issue of whether a rezoning constitutes spot zoning was discussed by the Montana Supreme Court in Plains Grains LP v. Board of County Comm’rs of Cascade County and Little v. Bd. Of County Comm’rs, in which the Court determined that the presence of the following three conditions generally will indicate that a given situation constitutes spot zoning, regardless of variations in factual scenarios. 1. Is the proposed use significantly different from the prevailing land uses in the area? No. This criterion includes the modifier ‘significantly.’ It is not prohibited to have uses that are different. To be a Yes, the reviewer must demonstrate a ‘significant difference.’ There are differences between R-4 and R-5 although not significant. There are incremental increases in intensity and use. Please refer to Appendix C below for a complete list of permitted and not permitted uses. As a result, the proposed R-5 zoning designation would not result in primary uses of the site which are significantly different from prevailing and planned land uses in the area. The R-5 zoning district has been determined to be an implementing district of the Urban Neighborhood future land use designation. 2. Is the area requested for the rezone rather small in terms of the number of separate landowners benefited from the proposed change? Yes. In order to determine whether or not this condition is present both this question and the following point must be evaluated together. While the proposed zoning change directly benefits one property owner and indirectly impacts or benefits adjacent properties and the greater community. Analysis suggests the application furthers a number of review criteria and does not promote others. This analysis indicates the presence of a narrow benefit for the proposed change. If a larger area and number of property owners proposed this change the analysis may indicate a different outcome. However, the R-5 zoning designation is an implementing district to the Urban Residential land use designation and may be utilized by any other property owners who wish to employ the R-5 district to their respective property. The proximity of this site to supporting residential development and other commercial areas will generally be conducive to simultaneous emergence of residential and commercial activities, as supported by the BCP 2020, see Goal N-2. On the other hand, if the change results in deterioration of the neighborhood then the only property owner and future residents of the development would be most benefited by the proposed change. 3. Would the change be in the nature of “special legislation” designed to benefit only one or a few landowners at the expense of the surrounding landowners or the general public? No. No substantial negative impacts to the surrounding landowners or the general public have been identified due to this amendment. While the number of landowners who will 41 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 23 of 26 directly benefit from the proposed zone map amendment is small (one), the proposed amendment is not at the expense of surrounding landowners or the general public. As discussed above in the various review criteria, no substantial negative impacts have been identified due to this amendment. The proposed R-5 zoning designation will allow for a variety of uses conducive to the Urban Neighborhood land use designation. Further, as discussed in Criterion A, the application is consistent with both the City’s and the County’s growth policy. The growth policy is the overall land use policy for the community. Consistency with the growth policy demonstrates benefit to the general public. As discussed under Criterion D, the City’s development standards will require the applicant to provide the needed infrastructure to support any proposed development prior to construction. Concurrency and adequacy of infrastructure remove most potential injury to others. As discussed in Criterion H, the application is similar and consistent with the existing and developing character of the area. Therefore, the amendment does not benefit the landowner at the expense of others. Development of the site in any manner may create additional demand for services and change the character of the site as a large retail space and substantial parking area. A change to an urban district does not inherently injure the surrounding landowners. PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS IN THE CASE OF WRITTEN PROTEST AGAINST SUCH CHANGES SIGNED BY THE OWNERS OF 25% OR MORE OF THE AREA OF THE LOTS WITHIN THE AMENDMENT AREA OR THOSE LOTS OR UNITS WITHIN 150 FEET FROM A LOT INCLUDED IN A PROPOSED CHANGE, THE AMENDMENT SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE EXCEPT BY THE FAVORABLE VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE PRESENT AND VOTING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION. The City will accept written protests from property owners against the proposal described in this report until the close of the public hearing before the City Commission. Pursuant to 76-2-305, MCA, a protest may only be submitted by the owner(s) of real property within the area affected by the proposal or by owner(s) of real property that lie within 150 feet of an area affected by the proposal. The protest must be in writing and must be signed by all owners of the real property. In addition, a sufficient protest must: (i) contain a description of the action protested sufficient to identify the action against which the protest is lodged; and (ii) contain a statement of the protestor's qualifications (including listing all owners of the property and the physical address and legal description of the property), to protest the action against which the protest is lodged, including ownership of property affected by the action. Signers are encouraged to print their names after their signatures. A person may in writing withdraw a previously filed protest at any time prior to final action by the City Commission. Protests 42 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 24 of 26 must be delivered to the Bozeman City Clerk, 121 North Rouse Ave., PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-1230. APPENDIX A - DETAILED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The owner, Jeremy Seglem, and applicant, Aspekt Architecture, submitted an application to rezone an existing parcel totaling 0.18 acres from R-4 to R-5. The property currently hosts a detached residential structure and associated detached accessory buildings with alley access. Although no future development plans were submitted or required with the application, based on the applicant narrative it appears future development will be “mixed-use.” The adjacent property on the southwest corner of the subject property is also owned by Carroll on Main, LLC. The property is within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) but is not within a designated historic district. The primary differences between the R-4 and R-5 districts are in permitted uses and dimensional standards. R-5 allows limited restaurant and retail uses and requires less land area per residential unit, allows 10 more feet of height or five stories, smaller setbacks, and less parking. APPENDIX B - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT Notice was sent via US first class mail to all owners of property located inside the site and within 200 feet of the perimeter of the site. The project site was posted with a copy of the notice. The notice was published in the Legal Ads section of the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on July 17 and August 24, 2022. The Community Development Board hearing is scheduled for August 1, 2022 and continued to September 12, 2022. The City Commission public hearing is scheduled for August 16, 2022 and continued to September 27, 2022. Public comment has been received on this application. Comments can be reviewed at the following link: https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=259743&dbid=0&repo=BOZEMAN&cr=1 APPENDIX C - PROJECT GROWTH POLICY AND PROPOSED ZONING Adopted Growth Policy Designation: The property has a future land use designation of: Urban Neighborhood. 43 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 25 of 26 The Urban Neighborhood category primarily includes urban density homes in a variety of types, shapes, sizes, and intensities. Large areas of any single type of housing are discouraged. In limited instances, an area may develop at a lower gross density due to site constraints and/or natural features such as floodplains or steep slopes. Complementary uses such as parks, home- based occupations, fire stations, churches, schools, and some neighborhood-serving commerce provide activity centers for community gathering and services. The Urban Neighborhood designation indicates that development is expected to occur within municipal boundaries. This may require annexation prior to development. Applying a zoning district to specific parcels sets the required and allowed density. Higher density residential areas are encouraged to be, but are not required or restricted to, proximity to commercial mixed use areas to facilitate the provision of services and employment opportunities without requiring the use of a car. Proposed Zoning Designation and Land Uses: The applicant has requested R-5 (Residential Mixed-Use High Density). The R-5 district provides for high-density residential development through a variety of compatible housing types and residentially supportive commercial uses in compact, walkable areas to serve the needs of the community’s residents. Single and multi-household dwellings are allowed, along with offices and small-scale retail and restaurants as secondary uses. This district is appropriate for areas adjacent to mixed-use districts and/or served by transit. A full list of permitted use can be view in tables 38.310.030.A and B. 44 22077 Staff Report for the South 8th Zone Map Amendment Page 26 of 26 APPENDIX D - OWNER INFORMATION AND REVIEWING STAFF Owner: Jeremy Seglem, 102 Nostalgia Lane, Bozeman, MT 59715 Applicant: Aspekt Architecture, LLC, 1103 N. Pinecreast Drive, Bozeman, MT 59715 Representative: Aspekt Architecture, LLC, 1103 N. Pinecreast Drive, Bozeman, MT 59715 Report By: Tom Rogers, Senior Planner FISCAL EFFECTS No unusual fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed by this zone map amendment. ATTACHMENTS The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715. In addition, application materials can be viewed on the City’s development map at the following link. https://weblink.bozeman.net/WebLink/Browse.aspx?startid=260400&cr=1 45 Memorandum REPORT TO:Community Development Board FROM:Chris Saunders, Community Development Manager Anna Bentley, Community Development Interim Director SUBJECT:Upcoming Items Expected for September 19, 2022 Community Development Board Meeting and Future Meetings. MEETING DATE:September 12, 2022 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Citizen Advisory Board/Commission RECOMMENDATION:No action required. STRATEGIC PLAN:4.2 High Quality Urban Approach: Continue to support high-quality planning, ranging from building design to neighborhood layouts, while pursuing urban approaches to issues such as multimodal transportation, infill, density, connected trails and parks, and walkable neighborhoods. BACKGROUND:The following project review items are presently scheduled for the September 19, 2022 Community Development Board meeting. 1. Trout Meadows Phase 3 Site Plan 22109 - Review as Design Review Board 2. Text Amendment to remove conditional uses and permitting process from Chapter 38, Unified Development Code 22258 - Review as Zoning Commission. Draft text is available through the Community Development viewer. As a reminder, the Community Development Board's duties include providing recommendations to the City Commission as the impact fee advisory committee. The Board was provided training on these duties and responsibilities on April 18th. The time for the review and recommendations on the Capital Improvement Program is approaching. The training materials are available at the Board folder in Laserfiche. The recording of the April 18, 2022 meeting is also available through the City's website. Staff suggests the Board members review this material. A draft calendar of the CIP review process is attached. UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None. ALTERNATIVES:None. FISCAL EFFECTS:None. Attachments: 46 CIP Calendar FY24 to FY28.pdf Report compiled on: September 6, 2022 47 Function/Task Responsible Department FY24‐FY28 ELT‐ Kick off HR/Finance 8/10/2022 CIP Level Open for Entries Finance 8/22/2022 CIP entry trainings (At least two) Finance TBD ‐ Email with dates will go  out after level opens Departments review staffing plan w/  ACM or CM ALL Departments Early September Public Works entry deadline Public Works Divisions 9/16/2022 Public Works Fund review PW Directors/Engineer/Finance 9/30/2022 ENTRY IN CIP COMPLETED ALL Departments 9/30/2022 CIP Reports to Departments Finance 10/14/2022 CIP Management meetings  ALL 10/17 and 10/18 Public Works Funds 9am‐ 12pm 10/17/2022 General fund and Special Rev Funds 9am‐ 12pm 10/18/2022 HR Meets with Departments to Update  Staffing Plan HR/Departments 10/2022 ‐ 11/2022 Transportation Board 10/27  Community Development  Board 11/7 and 11/21  Library Board 11/16 Final CIP balancing Finance/ City Manager's Office 11/7/2022 CIP Document completed and posted  linked in packet Finance 11/10/2022 Commission Meetings‐Presentation on  Highlights from selected funds (one  memo for action item) Finance / PW‐ Street Maint, Street  Impact Fee, A&C, Water, Impact Water,  Wastewater and Wastewater Impact,  Stormwater, and Solid waste 11/22/2022 Staffing Plan ACM/CM meetings HR/Departments TBD Commission Meetings‐Presentation on  Highlights from selected funds (one  memo for action item) Finance / ALL‐ General Fund and all  other Special Revenue funds  12/6/2022 Commission Meetings‐ Final Resolution  Adoption Finance ‐ Resolution $$ 12/13/2022 Staffing Plan is costed Finance 12/2022 Staffing Plan CM/ACM Balancing CM/HR/ Finance 1/2023 Staffing Plan communicated prior to  Budget  CM/HR 2/2023 FY24 ‐ FY28 Advisory Board Meetings Finance/Public works/Fire/Library 48 Dept/Div Funds Day Time Date and Location 9am ‐12pm Solid Waste 640 9‐9:15 Stormwater 670 9:15‐9:30 Water 600 9:30‐10:00 Wastewater 620 10‐10:30 Streets (Street & Vehicle  Maintenance) 111,710 10:30‐11 Engineering (PW Admin, Impact  Fees, A&C, Street & Curb) 141, 610, 630 11‐12:00 9am‐ 12pm Parking 650 9‐9:10 Community Development  (Planning & BI)  100, 115 9:10‐9:20 Fire 187, 113 9:20‐9:40 Forestry 112 9:40‐9:50 Parks  195 9:50‐10:10 Library Dep Fund 561 10:10‐10:20 Cemetery 10:20‐10:30 Recreation 10:30‐10:45 Facilities 10:45‐11 IT 11‐11:15 Police 11:15‐11:30 Other Depts  11:30‐12 Monday 10/17/2022 Commission  Room ‐ City Hall Tuesday 10/18/2022 Commission  Room ‐ City Hall  Public Works General Fund Other funds 10 49 Memorandum REPORT TO:Community Development Board FROM:Chris Saunders, Community Development Manager Anna Bentley, Community Development Interim Director SUBJECT:UDC Update - Project overview and consultant introduction MEETING DATE:September 12, 2022 AGENDA ITEM TYPE:Community Development - Legislative RECOMMENDATION:Receive presentation and ask questions. STRATEGIC PLAN:4.2 High Quality Urban Approach: Continue to support high-quality planning, ranging from building design to neighborhood layouts, while pursuing urban approaches to issues such as multimodal transportation, infill, density, connected trails and parks, and walkable neighborhoods. BACKGROUND:On November 19, 2020, the City Commission adopted the Bozeman Community Plan 2020, the latest edition of the growth policy, through Resolution 5133. State law requires that zoning regulations be in accordance with the growth policy. Chapter 4, Implementation, of the growth policy includes "13. Retain firm that specializes in form-based development codes to evaluate the City's UDC, especially with regard to completing the transition to a form-based code and simplification so that it can be understood by the general public and consistently applied by planning staff." On December 21, 2021, the City Commission adopted Resolution 5368 establishing priorities for the next two years. These City Commission priorities include adopting changes to the Unified Development Code to "facilitate increased housing density, housing affordability, climate action plan objectives, sustainable building practices, and a transparent, predictable and understandable development review process." The Community Development Board's 2022 work plan includes Focus Area 3: Unified Development Code Update. Chapter 38 of the municipal code is the Unified Development Code (UDC) that includes the City's zoning, subdivision, and other land development standards. The UDC is used by a wide range of persons from occasional users to professionals and elected officials. The UDC Revision process (the UDC Project) will focus on implementing policy recommendations found in recently adopted plans including Bozeman Community Plan 2020, Climate Action Plan, Community Housing Action Plan, and the in-progress Parks, Recreation, and Active Transportation. The UDC project is focused on 50 specific improvements, with direction for the project to be completed by December 2023. Objectives for this project are: Implementation of growth policy, climate action plan, housing action plan, and other adopted city plans. Improving readability and usability of the code for infrequent users while maintaining legal soundness. Update and revisions to zoning district descriptions and options consistent with the growth policy. Improve graphics To achieve this City Commission priority, the City has contracted with a consultant team. Following a national search and competitive selection process, Code Studio was selected. The Code Studio team brings decades of technical and practical experience to the project. The adoption of an updated growth policy and related plans established the policy direction for amendments to be implemented with these code updates. The UDC project allows the City to put the tools in place to take action on adopted policy; the project is not intended to create new policy or change the policy direction already established in adopted plans. Code provisions related to subdivision review processes were updated in fall 2021 to conform to state law changes and are not expected to materially change with this code update. The code update is one of many implementation actions for the growth policy. There are many objectives and goals of the growth policy applicable to this project. Examples include but are not limited to: R-2.1 Co-Benefits: Provide solutions that address problems across multiple sectors, creating maximum benefit. N-1.2 Increase required minimum densities in residential districts. N-2.5 Ensure that new development includes opportunities for urban agriculture, including rooftop and home gardens, community gardens, or urban farms. 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. DCD-1.2 Remove regulatory barriers to infill. DCD-2.3 Review and update minimum development intensity requirements in residential and nonresidential zoning districts. 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. 51 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. EE-2.2 Review and revise, or possibly replace, the Business Park Mixed Use zoning district to include urban standards and consider possible alterations to the allowed uses. EE-2.3 Adopt zoning regulations that establish and define the range of urban agricultural practices, including vertical farms and other forms of urban farming, as a permitted or conditional use in appropriate locations. The magnitude of the anticipated changes to the text necessitates periodic input from the Commission and public to ensure the project remains on course and timely. A series of focused work sessions with the City Commission are proposed at critical junctures in the process to gather information and confirm project direction. Each work session will focus on one element of policy implementation. The sequence of subjects will correlate and coordinate with ongoing work, with the added goal of identifying key elements early in the process and working efficiently. These meetings are also where staff receives broad direction from the Commission that shapes the policy. After these Commission work sessions staff will begin to develop policy language and the information will then be shared with the advisory boards to receive your valuable insight and policy recommendations. Then the formal code language works its way back to the Commission, along with Board recommendations, prior to formal adoption. It’s an effective iterative and inclusive process. City Commission work sessions are below; dates provided are those in the Commission's six-month schedule. The work sessions will be available to the public through the City's video archive of meetings. Tuesday, September 13th - Organization and Page Layout Tuesday, October 18th - Zoning Districts Tuesday, November 15th - Sustainability Tuesday, January 24th - Parking Tuesday, February 14th - Park Standards Tuesday, March 21st - Transportation UNRESOLVED ISSUES:None. ALTERNATIVES:None. FISCAL EFFECTS:Funds for this project have been budgeted. Report compiled on: September 8, 2022 52