HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-09-24 Public Comment - A. Sweeney - Attn_ Historic Preservation Officer and Advisory BoardFrom:Alison Sweeney
To:Bozeman Public Comment; Sarah Rosenberg
Subject:[EXTERNAL]Attn: Historic Preservation Officer and Advisory Board
Date:Tuesday, July 9, 2024 10:38:08 AM
Attachments:BBC_Neighborhood_Friendly_UDC_Final_v2_Reduced.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello HPAB,
I'm hoping this reaches all of you ahead of Thursday's meeting. I will be attending remotely,
so I wanted to submit public comment ahead of time.
Thank you very much for your letter to the City Commission regarding the Guthrie!
I'm looking forward to participating in next week's engagement opportunities and I've been
promoting them!
I'm submitting to you the report compiled by members of the Better Bozeman Coalition
(BBC) in hopes that you will take the time to read it, and include our recommendations in your
own going forward. This report was compiled by residents through hundreds of hours of
research and development. We are not professionals, just folks who live here and love our
small city, but we believe that our recommendations are based on sound policy with proven
results in other communities. There is a chapter dedicated to Historic Preservation, but we
believe the entire report contains information that may be useful or of interest to you.
Recently the BBC also brought Professor Patrick Condon to Bozeman, and we were very
pleased that 2 City Commissioners, 3 members of the Community Development Advisory
Board, and David Fine from the city's Economic Development Staff were in attendance for his
presentation. During the Q&A session following his presentation he answered an attendees
question regarding what he suggests Bozeman do. He had two very important takeaways for
us.
Limit parcel assembly as a way to regulate mass and scale of new developments in
historic parts of town (the NCOD)
Rather than blanket upzoning, do an affordable housing overlay district that requires any
bonus density be affordable.
The first is an excellent recommendation and I wish we had included it in our report. The
second, the affordable housing overlay, is referenced in our report, and is explained further in
his latest book Broken City.
I am very excited about the possibilities that a Landmark Program could bring to Historic
Preservation in Bozeman. But I want to unequivocally state that most residents and members
of the BBC do NOT want to see the NCOD scrapped or dissolved. We want it reinforced with
robust protections for one of our most valuable resources; our historic core.
I will have plenty of questions for our consultants next week in person, but please read and
consider our report. Thank you for serving the community on this advisory board.
Alison B. Sweeney
Vice Chair
Better Bozeman Coalition
406-404-5740
P.S. Last night I went on Extreme History's newest tour of Bozeman's South Side Historic
African American Community and it was fabulous of course! Consider signing up for
one: https://extremehistoryproject.org It's fun for the whole family!
A Neighborhood Friendly
Unified Development Code
Recommendations Compiled by
The Better Bozeman Coalition
May 31, 2024
2
Background and Intent
After the City released its first draft of the revised Unified Development Code (UDC) in the fall of 2023
using the services of Austin Texas based consultants Code Studio, residents from across Bozeman
gathered to voice their opposition through many hours of oral public comment in front of the
Community Development Advisory Board. This outcry was coupled with hundreds of written public
comments against the draft submitted to the City online.
The City wisely paused the update until the New Year. This pause created time for the City and groups
such as the Better Bozeman Coalition to come to a better understanding of the issues related to the
proposed zoning changes and how they would impact the future of Bozeman. The challenge is clear:
How can we best meet the growth needs of Bozeman with affordable and diverse housing options while at
the same time providing solutions that are equitable to both newcomers as well as the current residents
who have made Bozeman the desirable and economically successful city that it is.
In our research, we have found that there is a pervasive narrative across the state and the country, that the
best way to address the affordable housing shortage is to change zoning and building codes to allow for
the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods in order to spur the creation of what pro-build advocates
are calling “Missing Middle Housing”.
“Missing Middle Housing “is a range of house-scale buildings with multiple units—compatible in
scale and form with detached single-family homes—located in a walkable neighborhood.” -
https://missingmiddlehousing.com
The Better Bozeman Coalition does not dispute that racism played a significant role in the proliferation
of single-family zoning, nor the fact that historically, the creation of suburbs was in part subsidized
“white flight” from city centers and included the targeted construction of freeways through black and
working-class neighborhoods. Remarkably, the current upzoning movement playing out across the
country is a continuation of these same policies. The current movement gives developers and real estate
interests access to valuable land currently occupied by economically diverse, working-class populations
so that the land can be put to some other “highest and best use”. This redevelopment leads to the
displacement of vulnerable populations and gentrification that is exclusionary in its very nature due to
the high cost of the redeveloped properties.
Moreover, our research has revealed the reality that increasing density alone does not produce
affordability, but that there are other policies that do, which we recommend the City of Bozeman adopt.
Based on the expert observations of long-serving urban planners and peer-reviewed studies, upzoning is
actually counterproductive to the pursuit of affordable housing creation and the goal of maintaining
diverse neighborhoods.
In addition, our research and recommendations in this report cover zone edge transitions, increased
height allowances, solar access, floor area ratio regulations, demolition, historic preservation,
deconstruction, affordable housing and the location of fraternities and sororities.
3
The creators of this document respectfully submit the recommendations contained herin to the City of
Bozeman with the intent that city staff, consultants, and elected officials will use it as a resource when
making changes to the first draft of the UDC update. The suggestions we make in this document are
researched and designed to preserve the character of our existing neighborhoods, protect existing
affordable housing, set the stage for future affordable housing creation, enable us to meet our climate
goals, and limit the damage to Bozeman’s urban forest.
This document is not intended to take the place of renewed public engagement surrounding the UDC
update that includes Bozeman homeowners and renters, stakeholders that were not sufficiently consulted
or involved in the UDC rewrite process for the creation of the first draft. The Better Bozeman Coalition
urges the City to come up with a re-engagement plan that includes direct mailers to residents and
property owners whose zoning and building codes will be changed by the UDC update. We believe that
the engagement survey completed early this year preferentially reached computer savvy residents who
were already engaged with the UDC review process and left out most other residents of Bozeman. These
mailers should include clear, understandable language about zoning and code changes and a schedule of
events where residents and property owners can participate in shaping the next UDC draft.
We believe that Bozeman is a unique place in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem with a charm and
character embodied in its built environment which is as important to protect as the natural environmental
amenities that surround it. Our waterways, mountains, wildlife, and native plants provide outdoor
recreation opportunities that everyone cherishes. These natural amenities are also what make it possible
to live here through the ecosystem services they provide. Additionally, the character of our existing
neighborhoods, business districts, urban trails, wetlands, and forest resources provide a quality of life
that everyone who chooses to live here also cherishes.
4
Acknowledgements
These individuals contributed to the content of this document on a volunteer basis out of a love-for, and
pride-in our city, as well as a sense of civic duty. Better outcomes are realized when residents are
involved in shaping the way we grow.
Lead Author
Alison Sweeney
Contributing Authors
Kathy Powell
Mary Lou Osman
Michelle Osman
Ken Silvestri
Brian Close
Ron Brey
Lorre Jay
Larry Johnson
Rick Kerin
Susie Drukman
Tim Marcinko
Robert Rydel
Brandon Spitzer
Dan Carty
We thank additional contributors who wish to remain anonymous
5
Table of Contents
Background and Intent ................................................................................................................. 2
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... 4
1. The Truth About Density and Affordability ................................................................................... 6
2. The Trouble With Upzoning ...................................................................................................... 9
3. Zone Edge Transitions .............................................................................................................. 13
4. Increased Height Allowances .................................................................................................... 19
5. Solar Access ............................................................................................................................ 28
6. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) regulations ........................................................................................... 30
7. Demolition and Historic Preservation ....................................................................................... 36
8. Deconstruction Ordinance ....................................................................................................... 42
9. Affordable Housing ................................................................................................................ 43
10. Locating Fraternities and Sororities ........................................................................................ 48
11. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 49
6
1. The Truth About Density and Affordability
Density on its own does not produce affordability in the housing market; either for sale or for rent.
Density can allow for more people to live in walkable neighborhoods, helping the City achieve climate
goals laid out in the 2020 Bozeman Climate Plan. However, if the additional density is to be reached
through redevelopment of existing neighborhoods, on already expensive urban land, affordability must
be sacrificed. The high cost of land, labor, and lumber precludes an affordable outcome from
redevelopment. Additionally, the redevelopment of existing housing poses the threat of a net-loss of
affordable housing. By tearing down an existing affordable home or multifamily dwelling to replace it
with more units, we gain density, but end up with fewer units of housing financially accessible to our local
workforce.
Bozeman is in a national, perhaps even a global real estate market. As long as there is a demand for high
end housing in Bozeman that is what will be built. Even though there is also a demand for housing that is
financially accessible to our full time residents who work here, the free market will give us development
that is financially out of reach for those we need to house here for the city to function. Developers are
allowed to build what will bring them the most profit. High-end housing will drive up prices, making the
production of affordable housing even more difficult.
In his February 2023 article in The Tyee, Patrick Condon, Professor at the University of British
Columbia, Master of Urban Design, says the following:
“My preferred approach is this: Don’t just “up-zone” for new density hoping that new
supply will lead to affordability (it won’t), but insist that up-zoning for new density be
contingent on affordability… Any social benefit demand applied by the city, in this case
adding less expensive housing, will affect the project “proforma” and put downward
pressure on the price developers can pay for land… Is this practical? Yes. We are already
doing this. The Downtown-Eastside/Oppenheimer plan has proven that you can zone
for affordability, in this case mandating it over 50 per cent of units, and still have projects
get built.”
Since the state legislature bans the widely used tool of inclusionary zoning, Bozeman will need to
investigate alternatives such as the affordable housing overlay zoning described in professor Condon’s
recent book Sick City. It is being used successfully in Cambridge Massachusetts now.
The pursuit of density through redevelopment also puts our urban forests at risk. With no protections in
city code to ensure that established trees are allowed to age in place, we will lose existing trees to new
construction. It isn’t necessary. With an urban tree protection ordinance the City can adopt code to
regulate tree removal on public and private property. Our older, more established trees have a built-
in resilience that new plantings do not. With our changing climate a young tree has less chance of
reaching maturity than an established tree has of surviving unpredictable weather patterns. (See for
example, “The Importance of Old Trees”, University of Michigan Institute for Global Change Biology)
Furthermore, dense urban environments are the most stressful environments for trees to survive in. By
reducing open space that exists in our established neighborhoods we increase the stress even on
7
established members of our urban forest ecosystem. Replacing trees with buildings will increase the
urban heat island effect, increasing the use of air conditioning, making our climate goals that much more
difficult to attain. Urban air quality will suffer, water quality will suffer, and the health impacts on our
community will be negative. The removal of trees will happen gradually through redevelopment, so the
effects will be cumulative rather than immediate, making it harder to recognize and prevent.
Recommendations
• The BBC recommends that the City of Bozeman adopt zoning and building codes to dis-
incentivize tear down and redevelopment of existing neighborhoods, while allowing for
sensitive infill that requires affordability in at least some of the units. Overlay zoning tools are a
legal possibility to achieving this end. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and demolition regulations are
other options discussed in a later section of this document.
• Work with individual Neighborhood Associations and HOA’s to develop zoning that works
with the existing environment, housing, and residents. Adopt a policy of withintrification, where
the current residents instead of outside developers drive the changes. How an existing
neighborhood adds density without displacement will look different in different neighborhoods.
• Allow increased density and mixed use in new greenfield development. As new land is
annexed into the city limits, allow for smaller lot sizes, better walkability in design, and more
multi-family construction in mixed use developments that allow for neighborhood scale
commercial in walkable proximity to residential dwellings. The draft UDC achieves this.
• Develop an urban tree protection ordinance in partnership with local groups like the
Bozeman Tree Coalition, and professional ecologists, so that new housing and trees can coexist.
This is possible if the City Commission adopts findings according to the 2023 Montana Code
Annotated 76-3-511 that the health of our urban forest is necessary to maintain public health.
• Adopt an affordable housing preservation policy as prioritized by the City Commission at the
January 26th 2024 priority setting work session. Incorporate tactics described in the December
2023 American Planning Associations publication on preserving Naturally Occurring Affordable
Housing, or NOAH.
8
Redevelopment at the corner of 8th and Alderson resulted in 5 units replacing an existing single-family
home as well as most of the trees that were on the property. The real estate listing for the new units range
in price from $900,000 to $1.4 million. We’ve gained units, but lost affordability.
9
2. The Trouble With Upzoning
Upzoning is when the development potential on a piece of urban land is increased. Upzoning can be in
the form of increased height allowances, decreased minimum lot sizes, reduced setbacks, removal of
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) regulations, and/or an increase in the number of separate dwelling units allowed
on a parcel (increasing density). The following image, used by Professor Patrick Condon, demonstrates
the affect upzoning has on the price of urban land.
At a teleconference in February 2021 Professor Condon shares the observed reality of upzoning to
increase housing supply in Vancouver.
“We have incrementally quadrupled the density of Vancouver, but we haven’t seen any
decrease in per square foot costs. That evidence is indisputable. We can conclude there
is a problem beyond restrictive zoning. … No amount of opening zoning or allowing for
development will cause prices to go down. We’ve seen no evidence of that at all.”
The value of urban land is determined by the demand for it, and the development potential awarded to it
through zoning and building codes. If development potential is increased in high demand areas through
opening up zoning constraints, the price of that land will increase before any of the newly allowed density
can be built and occupied. Because of this, upzoning cannot result in affordable housing creation in
a high demand real estate market.
10
In their 2019 analysis titled, “Housing, urban growth and inequalities: The limits to deregulation and
upzoning in reducing economic and spatial inequality,” Andrés Rodríguez-Pose of the London School of
Economics (LSE) and Michael Storper, make the following findings.
“Upzoning is far from the progressive policy tool it has been sold to be. It mainly leads to
building high-end housing in desirable locations.”
Richard Florida in his May 2019 article for Bloomberg, Building More is no Match for Inequality, states
the following.
“And upzoning ends up fueling, not relieving, economic and spatial inequality.”
Many cities use upzoning as a way to target the redevelopment of a neighborhood that isn’t producing
sufficient tax revenue. Raising the tax-assessed value of urban land puts more money in city coffers to
provide city services. The problem is that this redevelopment almost always results in displacement
through gentrification. At the BBC we accept the following definition for gentrification from the Oxford
Languages Dictionary:
“The process whereby the character of a poor urban area is changed by wealthier people
moving in, improving housing, and attracting new businesses, typically displacing
current inhabitants in the process.”
Above: a parcel containing an existing affordable home on the left (rented when purchased by a
developer) is redeveloped to take advantage of additional density allowed by zoning, resulting in the
displacement of the renter, the removal of multiple mature trees, and a change in neighborhood character
pictured on the right. The new housing is unattainable to the same demographic of the displaced renter.
Gentrification.
Land Use Policy, in their April 2021 edition, published a report by Jenna Davis, titled, How do
Upzonings Impact Neighborhood Demographic Change? Examining the link between land use policy
and gentrification in New York City. This report gives us statistical data that proves upzoning has led to
gentrification and displacement.
11
“…this paper examines upzoning activity in New York City as a case study into how
upzonings interact with neighborhood change, using the non-Hispanic white population
as a proxy for gentrification… this paper finds that upzonings are positively and
significantly associated with the odds of a neighborhood becoming whiter.”
Recommendations
• The BBC recommends that rather than upzoning, the city should examine removing barriers in
the building code to subdividing existing structures into multiple units as a way to increase
density without redevelopment. This could include waving impact fees and/or grandfathering in
noncompliant duplexes. Allow a density bonus tied to subdividing an existing structure (for
example, for structures built before the year 2000) rather than demolishing and rebuilding. This
should be coupled with minimum Floor Area Ratios so that new units give us dignified housing.
• Create an Additional Dwelling Unit (ADU) incentive package that reduces the cost to produce
granny flats. This needs to be tied to a short-term rental ban. If the city is giving financial
incentives, the new unit should not be built as a speculative investment, but as housing.
• Streamline the Planned Development Zone (PDZ) process in order to facilitate increased density
tied to affordability in a neighborhood sensitive context. This aligns with a suggestion made at
the City Commission’s priority setting meeting in January of 2024.
A young couple bought the single-family home pictured above and during a remodel added a basement
apartment to help pay their mortgage. The BBC recommends the City examine barriers in code to doing
more of this. This can benefit the elderly looking for a live-in caretaker, or adult children who want to
move home, but can’t find a place to rent that they can afford. It will also allow landlords to divide
existing properties to increase the number of rental units on the market.
12
The small ADU shown in the photo on the
left, added above an existing garage adds
density in a neighborhood sensitive way.
13
3. Zone Edge Transitions
Since upzoning and redevelopment cannot bring affordable housing to Bozeman, the BBC suggests that
stronger zone edge transition (ZET) regulations be adopted in order to minimize the impacts of new
development on existing neighborhoods. This will make for better design in new neighborhoods as well.
The City’s current ZET’s are inadequate to protect existing neighborhoods from the impacts of new
development.
• The current ZET’s compromise the location of existing National Historic Register listed
buildings and existing Historic Districts.
• They eliminate the potential for future passive solar design or active solar energy generation.
• They put current installed solar energy generation systems at risk due to shading.
• No transition measures need be taken if new development is located across even a narrow
neighborhood street. This leads to new construction overwhelming existing residential
neighborhoods leading to a flurry of sell offs and displacement of current residents.
• No transition is currently required between R-4 and any lower density residential district. R-4
has a current height allowance of 40 to 50 ft (depending on roof pitch).
• Current ZET code doesn’t require sufficient building design features that protect the privacy of
existing residents.
Following is a diagram showing some of the current Zone Edge Transition regulations in Bozeman.
The image above shows a 3 story existing home next to a transition, however many existing homes are
only one story, making the transition even more inadequate.
14
The proposed zone edge transitions are even worse. In the first draft of the UDC rewrite, no transition
measures are required when a zone changes across even a narrow neighborhood street. With the
increased building height allowances in the proposed code, the problems this is already creating will be
exacerbated. We are not learning from our mistakes.
Growth Policy Reference page 25: R 1.1 Be reflective: use past experience to inform
future decisions.
The new draft includes no protections proposed for active solar energy generation systems. The ability
to redevelop existing buildings to use passive solar design is still ignored. With the increased building
heights proposed in the new code even more properties surrounding new development will be negatively
impacted. Studies show an increased wintertime heat load on buildings permanently shaded, and some
residents are already experiencing shading to their property sufficient to prevent their producing home
grown food. The lack of ZET’s in the proposed UDC are actually setting us back in terms of achieving
our climate goals.
In a December 2021 publication of Building and Environment, researchers presented in their article,
Evaluating the Impact of Shading from Surrounding Buildings on Heating/Cooling Energy Demands of
Different Community Forms, the following:
“Additionally, climate is a major factor that affects shading, apart from the index
parameters and building layouts. Anna P [12] used EnergyPlus to study the degree
of shading in two cities with different climate and realistic single-family residential
building. The results showed that the energy demand decreases by 42% in summer
in Miami and increases 22% in winter in Minneapolis. Further research using a
hypothetical nine-building block that contained a three-story commercial reference
building [13] in eight cities in the U.S. indicated that the building's energy
consumption can increase by 60.4% than that without shading.”
Our growth policy does call for long-term community benefit from policies that prioritize sustainability.
Growth Policy Reference page 26: R 2.9 Long-
Term and Lasting Impact: Create
long-term gains to the community with solutions
that are replicable and sustainable,
creating benefit for present and future generations.
Growth Policy Reference page 38: EPO-3.9
Integrate climate change considerations into
development standards
15
Building design regulations in the proposed UDC’s zone edge transitions are not adequate to protect the
privacy of existing residential neighbors who find themselves adjacent to taller, denser buildings
resulting in a drastic reduction in quality of life in established neighborhoods.
Buildings that step back are much more
interesting architecturally. If solid-wall
balcony enclosures are required, they provide
privacy to both new and existing residents
while enjoying their outdoor open space.
If a landscape barrier is going to be used or
required as a privacy measure in ZET’s they
need to specify evergreen trees. As you can
see in this image to the right, deciduous trees
provide privacy for only a small portion of the
year in our climate.
Require the use of letterbox windows (on the left in the
image above) on facades that directly overlook adjacent
residential neighborhoods and those across an alleyway.
More conventional windows (on the right in the image
above) are better suited to facades in new construction
that are across a street from established neighborhoods.
16
Despite a height allowance of 65 ft in the new R-B zone, (95ft if a project is using the deep incentives
awarded in chapter 38.380) planners did not see fit to require any transition measures between R-B, and
R-A, even between adjacent lots! Here’s what that looks like in practice:
The entire Historic Preservation Advisory Board
voted unanimously against the transition
requirements in the new draft code during their
September 2023 meeting.
The NCOD Policy Direction report issued in 2019 by
Bendon Adams and Orion Planning & Design
suggested, “Incorporate additional site design
standards within the existing zone edge transition
requirements” on page 49.
Another idea was to “Create a B-3 transitional zone
(B-3T) for areas located beyond the core downtown
district. This could be an overlay district or separate
zone district (B-3T) that would apply to properties
located between Babcock and the existing B-3
boundary to the south, and Mendenhall and the
existing B-3 boundary to the north. The intent of the
existing B-3 zone would remain in place, with
massing, scale, site design and other dimensional
requirements adjusted to better align with a
transitioning commercial, mixed use to residential,
mixed-use neighborhood.
Neighborhood sensitive zone edge transitions are actually the key to successfully increasing density
in the urban environment. They are the primary method of reducing the impacts of new
development on existing neighborhoods. The BBC wants Bozeman to do density well.
Growth policy reference page 34: 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.
Recommendations
• Require zone edge transition (ZET) regulations to apply across neighborhood streets that
measure 60 feet across (from curb to curb) or less.
• Require solar access measures be taken to avoid new construction blocking existing or future
active solar energy generation systems and the potential for future passive solar design in
adjacent redevelopment projects. See a later chapter on Solar Access.
17
• Use step-backs above the 2nd story, not the 3rd when a transition occurs on a lot line or across an
alley, rather than a street.
• When a zone that includes no setbacks from the lot line (in other words allows 100% lot coverage
with no set backs) borders an existing residential lot, require a step back in new construction
after 1 story, and require that wall to be solid with no windows and a high fire rating.
• Have elevations drawn illustrating real neighborhood homes adjacent to new construction, and
across a 35-foot street from new construction, in order to fully understand what new proposed
ZET’s will actually look like in practice.
• Require building design features, such as what materials may be used, on the first 3 stories, when
a ZET borders a designated historic district or historic property in order to maintain the integrity
of location for historic resources. These features should apply across a narrow street as well as
adjacent lots.
• Require noise mitigation measures for mechanical systems equipment in new construction
located adjacent to residential lots.
• Require building design features that protect the privacy of existing adjacent neighborhood
residents.
1. Evergreen landscape barrier requirements
2. Window sizing and placement on walls of new construction that face existing residential
neighborhoods above the second floor
3. Require solid balcony walls or screening to protect both new and existing residents
privacy in new construction above the second floor.
18
4. Allow fire lanes to be placed in the transition area to further minimize impacts on
existing neighborhoods. Fire lanes act as a natural set back between zones.
• Use the Municipal Resource Services Center manual titled Protecting Existing Neighborhoods
from the Impacts of New Development, as a guide to create neighborhood friendly zone edge
transition regulations.
• Since the winter sun in Bozeman dips to only 22.5 degrees above the horizon, when a taller
denser building is located to the south of an existing neighborhood, the angle determining the
allowable building envelope for new construction may need to be even less than 45 degrees as
measured from the base of an existing home.
• Zones should be adjusted to transition across a street in the instance that denser, taller,
development is allowed to the south of residential neighborhoods.
19
4. Increased Height Allowances
Illustrations of the new zoning districts provided by Code Studio used an isometric perspective, which is
deceptive in communicating the actual difference in mass and scale between two buildings. This makes it
easier to underestimate the impact of new height allowances proposed in the first draft of the UDC
rewrite. Bozeman’s residential neighborhoods are not built out to their current height allowances. Since
the redevelopment of our existing neighborhoods cannot bring us affordable housing, the BBC questions
the need to increase height allowances in all zones. When compared to many other cities, our existing
height allowances are actually quite liberal. Portland only allows 30 ft. total building height in R zones.
The intent of imposing height restrictions is to recognize the aesthetic value height has in creating
neighborhood character. When housing blends well with surrounding other structures, regardless of
their use, new infill can avoid obstructing important landmarks, and allow natural elements to be enjoyed
by everyone; view sheds, airflow, sunlight etc. If significant density is added to Bozeman in the form of
tall buildings, only those economically privileged enough will be able to enjoy those things that all
Bozeman residents once had access to.
Height restrictions also play a significant role in increasing or disciplining land value through awarded
development potential. In a 2014 Strong Towns article titled, “A Case For Height Restrictions”, Charles
Marohn makes this argument:
“Today our cities are starved for growth. At the same time, there are scores of people
wanting to do small projects – incremental development – that are stifled by the
artificially high cost of land. How can I say “artificially”? You have a one-story strip
mall, a vacant lot and a sixteen-story tower next to each other. What is the value of the
vacant lot? Let’s say the local code allows that vacant lot to be developed as a one-story
strip mall, but nothing higher. If the strip mall is worth $500,000, then the vacant lot
is going to be somewhere around $75,000. Okay, but what if the development code
allows that vacant lot to be developed as a sixteen-story tower? If the tower is worth
$20,000,000, then that vacant lot is going to fetch a much higher price, maybe as
much $2.5 million.”
The numbers might be a little different in Bozeman, but the principal holds true. In order to portray how
the additional height allowances in the proposed UDC will actually be perceived from ground level by
residents, the BBC has had architectural massings done by a professional. These follow for residential
zones R-A, R-B, R-C, commercial zones B-3 and B-2M, and mixed-use zone NEHMU. Each image
shows the developable height allowed under the new UDC next to an existing home in each zone.
20
15.0' Max
1 Additional Story @15'
for Affordable Housing Incentives
Unknown How to Apply with
25ft Max Top Plate Height Requirement
45.0'
Draft Unified Development Code
Zone R-A - Proposed Maximum Allowable Building Height
Comparison to Typical Home
420 North 10th
Bozeman, Montana
0'
0"12"1"2"
15'30'60'
Scale: 1" = 30'
*Current Zone R-1*
5' Lot Line Setback
Exhibit 1
5.0' Max
Above Ground
Current Code: 28' to 40' Max
(Dependent on Roof Pitch)
15.0'
25.0' Max
Top Plate
21
15.0' Max
2 Additional Stories @15'
Each for Affordable
Housing Incentives
90.0'
30.0'
Draft Unified Development Code
Zone R-B - Proposed Maximum Allowable Building Height
Comparison to Typical Home
620 North Tracy
Bozeman, Montana
0'
0"12"1"2"
15'30'60'
Scale: 1" = 30'
*Current Zone R-4*
5' Lot Line Setback
Exhibit 2
5.0' Max
Above Ground
Current Code: 40' to 50' Max
(Dependent on Roof Pitch)
22
15.0' Max
2 Additional Stories @15'
Each for Affordable
Housing Incentives
105.0'
30.0'
Draft Unified Development Code
Zone R-C - Proposed Maximum Allowable Building Height
Comparison to Typical Home
427 North 6th
Bozeman, Montana
0'
0"12"1"2"
15'30'60'
Scale: 1" = 30'
*Current Zone R-5*
5' Lot Line Setback
Exhibit 3
5.0' Max
Above Ground
Current Code: 50' to 60' Max
(Dependent on Roof Pitch)
23
15.0' Max
Upper Story
18.0' Max
Ground Story
2 Additional Stories @15'
Each for Affordable
Housing Incentives
108.0'
30.0'
Draft Unified Development Code
Zone NEHMU - Proposed Maximum Allowable Building Height
Comparison to Typical Home
701 North Wallace
Bozeman, Montana
0'
0"12"1"2"
15'30'60'
Scale: 1" = 30'
*Current Zone NEHMU*
5' Lot Line Setback
(0' Mixed Use and
Townhouses)
Exhibit 4
5.0' Max
Above Ground
Current Code: 50' Max
24
15.0' Max
Upper Story
18.0' Max
Ground Story
4 Additional Stories @15'
Each for Affordable
Housing Incentives
153.0'
60.0'
Draft Unified Development Code
Zone B-2M - Proposed Maximum Allowable Building Height
Comparison to Typical Home
610 West Lamme
Bozeman, Montana
0'
0"12"1"2"
15'30'60'
Scale: 1" = 30'
*Current Zone B-2M*
0' Lot Line Setback
(By Proposed Only)
Exhibit 5
5.0' Max
Above Ground
Current Code: 5 Stories or 60' Max
(Whichever is Less)
25
Draft Unified Development Code
Zone B-3 - Proposed Maximum Allowable Building Height
Comparison to Typical Home
24 West Lamme
Bozeman, Montana
0'
0"12"1"2"
15'30'60'
Scale: 1" = 30'
*Current Zone B-3*
18.0' Max
Ground Story
15.0' Max
Upper Story
5.0' Max
Above Ground
4 Additional Stories @15'
Each for Affordable
Housing Incentives
168.0'
60.0'
Current Height
Allowance
70' Max Outside of Core Area
55' Max Inside Core Area
0' Lot Line Setback
(By Both Standards)
Exhibit 6
26
With land prices already quite high in Bozeman, and additional development potential likely to increase
that price even further, the BBC questions the wisdom of increasing height allowances when we have
room to add density under the current height allowances. We have a lot of room to grow without putting
unnecessary inflationary pressure on land value.
Our existing height limits will allow for missing middle housing to be built. If we increase height
allowances we will actually skip the generational phase of development known as the missing middle,
instead incentivizing high-density luxury condos that dwarf neighborhoods.
Growth Policy reference page 29: N-1.11 Enable a gradual and predictable increase
in density in developed areas over time.
Growth Policy reference page 30: 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.
For context, here is a table of the different types of housing allowed under our current code
For clarity, very little of Bozeman is actually zoned R-1. And in the areas that are zoned R-1, a variety of
housing types are actually allowed. Many of the areas zoned R-2 and R-3 have single-family homes in
them, giving the impression that single-family zoning has constrained development. In the central and
historic neighborhoods, single-family homes predominate because there was a demand for it, even
though the construction of what is now referred to as the “missing middle” was always allowed.
27
Recommendations
• Leave existing height allowances in place to prevent raising the price of urban land even more.
• Existing height allowances should also be left in place because even though they do present a risk
to residential and commercial solar energy generation, increasing height allowances would put
systems at an even higher risk of being shaded by new development.
• Adjust zones to more accurately reflect what is already on the ground. For example the home in
Exhibit 3 at 427 N. 6th Ave should not be in R-C. Adjusting zoning will prevent tear-down, and a
loss of existing affordable housing (currently rented) by reducing the profit potential from
redevelopment.
• Introduce a wall plate height as suggested in the first draft of the UDC, but 25 feet is too
generous. This will disrupt neighborhood character in many areas of the city, consider 15ft.
• Adopt code that in some way relates height allowance in redevelopment projects to the existing
neighborhood homes adjacent to the redeveloped property. This will promote sensitive infill
with equitable access to natural amenities such as view sheds, airflow, and sunlight.
• Increase allowed density in certain neighborhoods where appropriate (and in cooperation with
neighborhoods) tied to an affordable housing overlay district in order to allow smaller local
developers to build “missing middle housing.” This type of construction is more likely to
employ local labor, rather than the imported labor of the large metropolitan out-of-state
developers. It’s not that we can’t build the “missing middle” because of code; lots of diverse
housing types are allowed in most zones in Bozeman (cottage housing is allowed everywhere!)
but the artificially high price of land prevents them. As witnessed in Vancouver, affordable
housing overlays can discipline land prices by affecting the pro-forma financial analysis of
projects that are allowed to be built. The exact same premise is put forth in the Strong Towns
article referenced on page 18.
28
5. Solar Access
For years the City of Bozeman has been loosening regulations around installing solar energy generation
on both residential and commercial property. It’s working! This has resulted in an incredible number of
net-metered customers within the city limits. The BBC’s recent inquiry of NorthWestern Energy shows
that there are 2217 grid-tied net-metering customers in Bozeman with an installed production capacity of
almost 20 Megawatts! There are numerous other systems producing solar thermal energy, which usually
offsets natural gas usage, which further reduces the carbon footprint of our buildings.
Bozeman has an ambitious goal of using 100% clean electricity by 2030. That is only 6 years away.
Residential and commercial solar electric generation on privately owned buildings is contributing
significantly to this goal.
While the draft UDC furthers the cause, making
the installation of renewable energy generation
even easier, it overlooks the need to now protect
it. Much of this private investment is at risk
because of increased redevelopment pressure in
our community. The increased height
allowances, and lack of zone edge transitions, in
the proposed Unified Development Code rewrite
puts these resources at such an increased risk of
shading that it’s time to protect active solar
energy generation, and the ability to redevelop
existing parcels of land in the city using passive
solar design.
Growth Policy reference page 25: R-2.1 Co-Benefits: Provide solutions that address
problems across multiple sectors, creating maximum benefit.
A significant amount solar electricity generating capacity has been installed by private owners in
Bozeman. Because it is tied to an existing electrical grid it now becomes a contributing public resource.
Protecting it provides maximum benefit across both public and private sectors.
Growth Policy reference page 26: R-2.7 Adaptive Capacity: Include flexible and
adaptable measures that consider future unknowns of changing climate, economic,
and social conditions.
As global average temperatures rise, Bozeman will see an increase in electricity demand for air
conditioning during the summer months. This will potentially be exacerbated by the increased heat
island effect and degradation of our urban forest through increased densification. Therefore electricity
generated at the time of this increased demand will be even more valuable than it is today.
29
Protecting installed solar energy generation will also give the local industry professionals who consult,
install, and service these systems continued job security, contributing to a resilient local economy.
Recommendations
• Develop a complete solar access law for inclusion in the UDC update working with City Staff, the
Sustainability Advisory Board, and partner groups in the community including industry
professionals from Montana Renewable Energy Association (MREA), the Montana
Environmental Information Center (MEIC), and MSU’s Sustainability department.
30
6. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) regulations
Our current UDC contains Floor Area Ratio (FAR) regulations that determine the bulk of the building
that can be constructed on a lot within the city limits. The current regulations are shown in the table
below.
In the bottom row of this table we see two numbers
separated by a colon. The first number is the FAR, the
second (always 1) represents the total lot size. So
essentially this number is a fraction, or ratio. Most
cities write FAR using just the first number. For
example the allowed FAR in zone R-1 is 0.5. Multiply
this number by the square footage of your lot and you
get the allowed square footage for you home. Bozeman
has average lot sizes of about 6,000 sq. ft. So your
calculation would look like this:
0.5 x 6000 = 3000 sq. ft.
You can build a 3000 square foot home on that lot.
31
Different people define a McMansion differently, but some cities are now using stricter FAR regulations
to prevent the demolition of modest, older, more affordable homes by owners who like the location but
not the home on the lot. More affordable homes are snapped up and redeveloped into ultra-modern
luxury McMansions leading to the gentrification of once working class neighborhoods. Our current FAR
regulations are not strict enough to prevent this from occurring, so what may have been a more affordable
home for someone, is allowed to be redeveloped for a new more affluent homeowner. For example in the
current zone R-2 the floor area ratio is 0.75.
0.75 x 6000 = 4500 sq. ft.
That is a big home; some might say a McMansion. The FAR regulations in our current code are not tied
to the number of dwelling units, so you can tear down a small home and build a McMansion, even in a
zone that would let you build a duplex, multiple townhouses, rowhouses, or cottage housing.
Large modern McMansion dwarfs an older home
The first draft of the UDC rewrite contains no Floor Area Ratio (FAR) regulations whatsoever. Instead
there is a 10,000 sq. ft. maximum building size. You are allowed to cover 40% of your lot. So in the new
R-A zone someone could build a 3 story, 10,000 sq. ft. home. There is no guarantee that the new
structure will contain multiple units. Some people say you could never build a house that big because of
other constraints, like the 40% lot coverage. Let’s examine this for a minute. Most lots in Bozeman are
around 6,000 sq. ft. but many are larger. A 7,000 or even 9,000 sq ft lot is not unheard of.
40% of 7000 is 2800 sq ft
So that’s the allowed footprint of your house. You can build a basement, and 3 stories above ground. So
that’s 4 floors at 2800 sq ft which easily accommodates a 10,000 sq ft building. Some cities are
implementing strict FAR regulations with additional square footage allowed only if additional units are
produced. This at least gives us density, though as we know from experience small does not necessarily
32
equal affordable in our current market when there are a handful of studio and one-bedroom apartments
for sale at $600,000 to $700,000.
Here’s an example of what Portland decided to do with its FAR regulations after successive previous code
revisions led to increasingly larger building envelopes with no requirement for multiple units:
33
And this is the code that was implemented to address this problem:
Portland Zoning Code Amendment 33.110.210 Floor Area Ratios
“FAR limits are being added to the R7, R5 and R2.5 zones. Over the last few years, new houses in these
zones have grown in size to the point where new development sometimes overwhelms existing houses on
the block. With the potential for additional dwelling units (up to four units per lot in some cases), there
could be pressure to continue to increase the size of buildings. FAR is an effective tool for regulating the
overall bulk of a building while providing reasonable flexibility in site layout, housing style, and design.
“Buildings with more floors will have smaller footprints, which increase outdoor area and yard space, but
more floors can increase shadowing and reduce privacy on adjacent lots. Buildings that are single level
can have larger footprints that reduce yard space, however this configuration can improve privacy for
adjacent lots.
“The proposed FARs were calculated with consideration of building coverage limits to encourage
smaller building footprints and larger outdoor areas. The proposed FARs also encourage compatibility
with adjacent existing houses. FAR limits are not proposed for the lowest density zones (RF, R20, R10),
because these areas are characterized by larger and more variable lot sizes. Consequently, new
development in these areas has not generally overwhelmed adjacent lots. In addition, the additional
housing types allowed in R7-R2.5 will not be allowed in RF-R10, which lessens pressure for building
34
larger structures.” (See page 32 in the report, “Residential Infill Project, An Update to Portland’s
Single-Family Zoning Rules.”
The American Planning Association (APA) has a name for smaller, older, more affordable homes; NOAH
or Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing. If we can prevent the loss of NOAH through strict floor area
ratio regulations we will help maintain access to our central and historic neighborhoods for people who
will be priced out through redevelopment. The following is from the APA’s December 2023 issue:
“However, many other NOAH units are vulnerable to loss through redevelopment.
Over the past decades, individuals and custom homebuilders have often purchased
older single-family homes simply for the value of their lots and their desirable locations.
The NOAH structure is then demolished and replaced with a much larger and more
expensive home that is not affordable to existing residents of the neighborhood. In
addition to individual home replacement, some larger housing builders have acquired
multiple adjacent NOAH properties, demolished those homes, merged the lots, and
constructed a larger number of attached townhomes, apartments, or condominiums
on the combined properties.”
This nearly perfectly describes what we’ve witnessed occurring in Bozeman for years. We will end up
with a less economically and culturally diverse center of town.
The small, relatively affordable house on the left was demolished and
replaced with a high-end duplex
A strict FAR regulation may have been able to preserve this NOAH on the left, while allowing the
homeowner to build an addition to turn it into a duplex or add an ADU. Instead our current regulations
allowed it to be redeveloped into high-end duplexes, where each unit sold for $1.8 million. This could be
part of the City Commission’s commitment to create an affordable housing preservation plan. A priority
set in January of 2024.
35
Recommendations
• Adopt strict FAR regulations to prevent the redevelopment of NOAH into luxury homes. For
example, a FAR of 0.4 could prevent the redevelopment of NOAH.
• Award additional FAR tied only to additional units, as long as the original structure is
maintained. If the original structure is demolished to make way for new multi-unit housing with
greater FAR allowances, all of the new units must be deed restricted for affordability. This is
discussed more in a later affordable housing overlay section. We know smaller is not necessarily
more affordable, so in order to prevent speculative land redevelopment additional density
through redevelopment would need to be tied to affordability.
• Do not consolidate the current R-1 zone with other zones. Consolidation is unnecessary since R-
1 already allows a diversity of housing types. Portland and other cities still have several residential
zones reserved for single-family homes. Moreover, only 41 % of Bozeman’s housing stock is
single-family homes compared to 70% statewide, and 60% nationally. Bozeman is currently
leading the state in a diversity of housing types.
• In order to preserve NOAH, do not upzone current R-2 neighborhoods. Only award increased
density in conjunction with an affordable housing overlay zone, described in more detail later in
this report.
36
7. Demolition and Historic Preservation
Many residents in Bozeman feel that the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) is the
reason we have such well-preserved historic character in our central neighborhoods, and that this is an
asset to the community. This sentiment is well documented in the 2019 NCOD Policy Direction Report
by Bendon Adams and Orion Planning & Design. Here are some quotes that came from the engagement
with the community.
“The NCOD preserves Bozeman’s sense of place and character so it doesn’t become
“Everywhere, USA.””
“The NCOD and especially the historic neighborhoods need to be preserved and not
overwhelmed by new, large scale, unattractive development.”
“Revisions to the regulations may be helpful to address noncontributing buildings,
however, the survey of historic resources within the City should be updated to ensure the
continued preservation of historic resources that may not have been considered historic
at the time of the previous survey.”
Bozeman residents consider the preservation of older neighborhoods within the NCOD and our Historic
Districts essential to the continued charm and economic success of our city. But Historic Preservation
has taken on new meaning in the last decade or so, as it has been increasingly recognized as a way to
preserve and lift up the stories of overlooked populations across this country including LGBTQ and
BIPOC communities. The elevation and celebration of these histories, coupled with the dramatic
increase in redevelopment and infill from unsympathetic developers have led to a general feeling that the
NCOD isn’t protecting our neighborhoods and Historic Districts the way it was originally intended to.
The true history of our town is only now beginning to be told, thanks to community organizations like
The Extreme History Project. The City’s Belonging in Bozeman Plan, adopted in December 2023
records a history of Bozeman’s overlooked communities for the first time in official documents. The
tangible reminders of this history include historic African American neighborhoods and a red-light
district that would be jeopardized through the incentivized redevelopment promoted by the City’s first
draft UDC update. Also at risk are the many post-war veteran, immigrant, and working-class
neighborhoods that are eligible and worthy of protection through reinvigorated historic preservation
policies. The Better Bozeman Coalition believes that it is irresponsible and risky to incentivize
redevelopment of these neighborhoods before the Historic Preservation Program is reworked and
strengthened including expanded surveying of our historic resources beyond the existing Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District (NCOD).
Historic Preservation in Bozeman is poised to see a new injection of interest, and momentum since the
city hired Community Planning Collaborative out of Jacksonville Florida to help rework the NCOD and
guide us through the creation of a Local Landmark Program. The City Commission also set
strengthening Historic Preservation as one of its priorities for the next two years. Additionally, we have a
37
progressive Historic Preservation Officer who wants to implement people centered Historic Preservation
in addition to place centered Historic Preservation.
People centered preservation includes overlooked
communities and advocates for the preservation of
the tangible links to their past in our city. The
homes belonging to members of Bozeman’s
historic African American community may not be
the most incredible examples of certain schools of
architecture. But they are important to preserve
because once we lose them, we can never get them
back, and it’s much easier to lose their stories if all
the physical reminders of their trials and triumphs
are removed. This is an example of vernacular architecture “having acquired significance” because of the
people associated with it.
The role of Historic Preservation Policy in any great city is to manage the changes occurring over time,
not to prevent change. It’s not healthy to freeze things in time, but old buildings and neighborhoods give
our community a soul, and maintain the proximity of the past. Acknowledging and preserving our past
prepares and informs us going forward.
Historic Preservation is also the most sustainable way to grow a city. Often building and neighborhood
design was particularly well suited to its environment because people didn’t have access to cheap fossil
fuel energy the way they do today. While insulation must be updated, solar orientation, the handling of
snow load, and the placement of deciduous trees were fundamental considerations for building in an
environmentally responsive context. Eves on homes were designed to allow sunlight into rooms in
winter, while preventing it in summer, etc. In many cases old buildings are well adapted to their location.
Adaptive reuse of historic structures also prevents tons of quality building materials from ending up in
our landfills. Historic structures are our inheritance in terms of embodied energy, the energy consumed
by all of the processes associated with the production of a building. We should not squander it. See the
next section for a deconstruction ordinance to address this in situations where a historic structure really
must come down. Reduce-Reuse-Recycle should apply to our buildings too.
In many ways the mixed use zoning in the new draft UDC is a wonderful gift to Historic Preservation.
Currently, if historic homes are to be adapted for a different use they need to be in a zone like B-2M, B-3,
NEHMU, or R-5. The development potential in these zoning districts allows such a large building
envelope that it puts the physical structures at risk because redevelopment would be so much more
profitable. Our current code does not protect even nationally listed historic buildings from demolition.
Bozeman’s Sweet Pea Study Club
38
Owning a home in the NCOD is not for everyone. It comes with a responsibility of custodianship. You
are the owner of a historic resource, not just the land underneath it. In a way, the NCOD and underlying
zoning function as covenants to regulate what an owner can and can’t do with a property. This agreement
needs to be strengthened going forward to prevent the loss of tangible history. Strict FAR regulations
will also help protect historic resources from demolition.
The small home above on the left was originally owned by Oswald and Ada Smith. According to a 2016
survey, it was listed as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. It’s one of 13 properties that
were surveyed at the request of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board in order to create a National
Historic District honoring our African American population in early Bozeman. Oswald Smith was a
janitor for the Ellen Theater for over 40 years! He died in 1968.
The Samuel Lewis house at 209 S. Tracy, shown on
the left, is an example of a small historic home that
could well be adapted to house offices or some other
commercial use. Unfortunately, it is currently zoned
B-3 and the profit potential from redevelopment in
B-3 puts the structure itself at risk.
In the first draft of the UDC rewrite, neighborhood
scale business is allowed in lower density zones like
R-A. This is a great way to reduce the incentive to
tear down a historic structure, but instead adapt it for
an appropriate neighborhood friendly commercial
use.
Samuel Lewis was a local African American barber
and business owner and his half-sister, Edmonia
Lewis, was a world-renowned sculptor.
39
Oswald and Ada Smith’s home (arguably an example of NOAH that we should be trying to protect) is an
example of a loss that the NCOD was designed to protect against. The new building doesn’t compliment
neighborhood character, because it doesn’t comply with the design guidelines for the NCOD, just one
example being the suggested use of horizontal lap siding. This redevelopment also raises the price of the
property, putting it out of reach of working class Bozeman residents, as well as raising the property taxes
of everyone around it. Also notice the loss of so many mature trees through the redevelopment process.
The deterioration of Historic Preservation in Bozeman can be traced back to ordinance 1927, adopted in
May of 2016, which led to the following changes:
• Removed the review of demolition applications within the NCOD from the purview of the
Historic Preservation Advisory Board (HPAB) as well as other powers that this body previously
used to enforce the NCOD guidelines.
• Under ordinance 1927 the NCOD guidelines became voluntary rather than required.
• The Historic Preservation officer became a member of staff of the City of Bozeman appointed by
the City Commission, rather than being hired by and acting as staff to the HPAB. This change
served to politicize the role.
Ordinance 1920 adopted in January of 2017 further undercut Historic Preservation in Bozeman. For
several years Bozeman didn’t even have a Historic Preservation Officer. During this time any priority to
maintain neighborhood character was further sacrificed to new development in the downtown B-3 zone.
Today we are living with a Historic Preservation Program that is struggling to be effective at saving even
the historic resources within the NCOD. We do have strong codes to prevent the demolition of
historically significant resources, but we need the will to enforce them. For example, the existing
Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) chapter 38.340.090 requires a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
be issued in order to demolish a historic building. One of the criteria for obtaining a COA for
demolition, is described in item C.2. of that section. The developer must prove the following:
"38.340.090.C.2 Whether the structure has no viable economic life remaining. ‘No
viable economic life remaining’ means the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation to bring
the structure to a habitable condition as established by the applicable technical codes in
article 10.02, exceed the costs of demolition and redevelopment to minimum standards
with a building of the same type and scale."
Furthermore, in order to establish this criteria, multiple bids must come to the same conclusion as
described in (BMC) 38.220.090.A.1.j:
“If demolition of a historic structure, as defined in article 7 of this chapter, is proposed a
structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation
to bring the structure to a habitable condition as established by the applicable technical
codes in Article 10.02, versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment. Analysis must
include cost estimates from more than one general contractor for the work. The cost
comparison is between the cost to rehabilitate the structure to a condition which meets
the building code standard for occupancy and demolition and construction of a new
structure of the same type and scale to building code standards.”
40
This code has not been strictly applied to many of the demolitions within the NCOD in recent years.
This erodes the public’s trust in our local government. Residents begin to believe that officials and staff
are “in the pockets” of the developers who are profiting from their luxury developments in our historic
neighborhoods. Residents can’t understand why historic homes and other beloved structures are allowed
to be demolished if this is not the case.
The Historic Preservation Advisory Board stopped the demolition of the Armory Building twice when
they had judiciary powers, and we would not have the beautiful adaptive reuse building we do now if it
weren’t for their actions. Bozeman’s current two-year stay of demolition is a mere annoyance for anyone
intending to demolish historic properties within NCOD. Often, they simply wait the two years and then
proceed with the demolition. Required maintenance is also being ignored as buildings are blatantly left
to the destruction of the weather, prior to an application or re-application of a Certificate of
Appropriateness for Demolition.
Many cities deny demolition of historic structures outright. Some allow for the demolition of historic
properties only in cases where a property owner establishes proof of economic hardship or the property
poses a safety threat after a fire or other type of natural disaster. Many cities in Montana have
Preservation Commissions, rather than advisory boards, and these bodies are empowered with the
authority to deny demolition of historic buildings. In a February 22nd, 2024 edition of the Missoula
Current, a City Preservation Commission’s denial of a demolition of a privately owned building on the
site of Fort Missoula is described.
“In a process that played out akin to a trial, the majority of council agreed that the
developer, Tres Birds, failed to demonstrate that its application didn't receive a fair
review and that the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) acted in bias when denying
the permit. The vote to uphold the HPC's denial of the permit passed on a 7-4 vote.“I do
not feel that the (developer) has proven error on behalf of the HPC,” said council
member Mike Nugent.”
Missoula City Council deferred to the Historic Preservation Commission on a demolition ruling.
Recommendations
• Enact a moratorium on demolitions until a new historic properties inventory survey can be
completed that includes surveys of post war, mid-century neighborhoods outside the NCOD. If
this is not possible, direct staff to strictly enforce the existing code around determining “viable
economic life left” in a structure.
• Allocate proper resources to a Historic Preservation Program including the updated survey and
promoting our Historic Preservation Officer to a full time position with full time pay.
• Enact a local Landmark Program with an expanded definition of sites worthy of protection to
include “acquired significance” through cultural association to overlooked communities, events
associated with the civil rights movement, and the women’s movement, and Bozeman’s early
history of agriculture.
41
• Consider adjusting the NCOD boundary to include more mid-century neighborhoods. Do this
in coordination with neighborhoods including but not limited to those represented on the Inter-
Neighborhood Council.
• Once a completed historic properties inventory survey has been finalized reinstate the review of
demolition to the Historic Preservation Advisory Board, elevating them to a proper Historic
Preservation Commission. Restoring demolition review to the board was recommended as a
short-term goal on page 12 of the 2019 Final NCOD Policy Direction Report.
• Adopt a deconstruction ordinance for demolition city-wide, explained further in the next section.
• Change zoning in historic neighborhoods to align with historic preservation goals. Downzone
the sections of Bon Ton, Cooper Park, and South Tracy Historic Districts that are currently
zoned B-3 and R-4 to less dense zones to protect the historic character of these neighborhoods.
This change was recommended in the 2019 NCOD report.
• Downzone the properties surveyed as part of the future African American neighborhood historic
district to protect them from redevelopment.
• Create and adopt an incentive program for restoration efforts within an expanded NCOD.
• Create and adopt an incentive program for property owners who want to internally subdivide an
existing historic structure to add more dwelling units.
• Codify NCOD design guidelines so they are not optional.
• Put a sizable fine in place for anyone who neglects maintenance and anyone who demolishes a
building found to have viable economic life left, within the NCOD. Unlawful demolitions should
require reconstruction.
• Implement and resource the Heritage Tree Program in cooperation with the Historic
Preservation Advisory Board.
• Have the current Historic Preservation consultants, Community Planning Collaborative, work
with Code Studio to implement downzoning, zone edge transition regulations, and mixed-use
zoning to protect historic resources.
• Work to actively promote the formation of a Historic Preservation non-profit in the community
to help fund restoration work.
• Use Historic Preservation policy tools to protect NOAH.
42
8. Deconstruction Ordinance
Older buildings were often constructed using quality materials that can be reused or recycled if the
building is dismantled properly.
“Every year the US demolishes 1 billion square feet of existing buildings to replace them
with new ones.” [Rogers Merlino, K. (2018). Building Reuse; Sustainability,
Preservation, and the Value of Design. University of Washington Press] “This burdens
our municipal landfill unnecessarily.”
The sustainable solution is to feed these materials into a circular economy through recycling or
reuse. The BBC recommends that the city’s code be amended to incorporate a requirement that for
buildings over 50 years old, a contract with a certified deconstruction contractor be a required part of any
application for demolition. Other cities have implemented this type of requirement as part of both
Historic Preservation and Climate Action Plans.
Recommendations
• Adopt a deconstruction clause in the
Bozeman Municipal Code for buildings 50
years or older.
• Work with the Historic Preservation Advisory
Board, and the Sustainability Advisory Board
to create language based on other City’s
success. San Antonio is currently using best
practices.
• Identify possible contractors willing to be
certified in deconstruction.
• Identify possible repositories for the salvaged
materials. Pacific Steel and Recycling, the
ReStore etc. so that they can be put back into
use for affordable housing.
43
9. Affordable Housing
Bozeman is in a national, perhaps even a global real estate market. As long as there is a demand for
luxury housing in Bozeman that is what developers will build. Even though there is also a demand for
housing that is financially accessible to our full time residents who work here, the free market will give us
luxury development. And it will drive up prices, making the production of affordable housing more
difficult.
It is the right of developers to build whatever will bring them the most profit in compliance with city
zoning and building codes. The problem it poses for us, is that we don’t end up getting the housing we
need to function as a city. We need service workers, but also importantly we need people to plow our
streets, fix our roofs, staff our hospitals, our police and fire departments, our schools, our mechanic
shops, and our grocery stores. Housing is no longer accessible to purchase for these essential workers in
our community, and affording rent is becoming more burdensome.
Housing as an investment allows homes to sit empty, because they are a place for people to park their
money and build wealth. These are not people who live and work in our community. According to the
most recent census data there are 15 million vacant homes in the United States. According to a website
interpreting census data called USA FACTS:
“These vacant homes, which include rentals, represent 10.5% of the country’s
total housing inventory.”
This is in stark contrast to a 2023 report issued by the National Alliance to End Homelessness finding
that:
“Homelessness has been on the rise since 2017, experiencing an overall increase of 6
percent. In 2022, counts of individuals (421,392 people) and chronically homeless
individuals (127,768) reached record highs in the history of data collection. Unsheltered
rates are also trending upward, impacting most racial, ethnic, and gender subgroups.”
At the BBC we do not support upzoning in Bozeman’s UDC rewrite that encourages the redevelopment
of our existing neighborhoods. As articulated in the first two chapters of this report, redevelopment of
already expensive urban land cannot bring us affordable housing. We agree that we need to build “the
missing middle” entry-level housing. We do not agree that the increased height allowances, and other
upzoning tactics in the proposed UDC rewrite applied to existing neighborhoods, will get us that. On
the contrary, as articulated in chapter 2 of this report, the increased height allowances proposed will
actually incentivize that we skip that phase of development all together, going from single family homes
and one story neighborhood commercial to high-density high-rise development at luxury prices.
At the Better Bozeman Coalition the affordable housing policies, and those addressing homelessness that
we support are predicated on the three P’s as outlined by the 2019 article titled, “3 Ps’ Is Best Solution For
Housing Affordability And Homelessness Crises” in News by Housing is a Human Right.
44
“To that end, it’s crucial to protect tenants, preserve existing affordable housing,
and produce new affordable housing. We protect tenants by preventing gentrification
and homelessness by making rents affordable and discouraging evictions through strong
tenant protections such as rent control and just cause eviction. We preserve existing
affordable housing by not allowing developers to demolish it to build luxury housing.
We produce new affordable housing for middle and working class residents, the poor,
and unhoused individuals through adaptive reuse, pre-fab and modular housing, and
other cost-effective construction methods.”
The state legislature has removed many of the tools used successfully in other places to protect tenants.
But the BBC supports the City Commission priority, set in January 2024, to provide tenants a right to
council. At a minimum we need to do this. Moreover, we support continued exploration into ways,
allowed under state law, that might be used to improve tenant protections.
The Historic Preservation measures and those recommended by the American Planning Association,
described in earlier chapters around protection of NOAH, are paramount to implement as soon as
possible in Bozeman’s high-demand real estate market. This will not only preserve housing stock that
currently sells below the median home price in Bozeman, it will also preserve a large portion of the older
homes in the core neighborhoods that are currently rented out to local tenants. If we don’t preserve
existing affordable housing, we risk displacing working class tenants from the center of town for a
generation or more. At the BBC, we believe part of the charm of our central and historic neighborhoods
is the economic diversity among residents that can be found there.
The third tenant of the 3 P’s is the hardest; Produce affordable housing. But it’s actually so simple on the
face of it. The free market can’t give us affordable housing, so we turn to innovative approaches that are
being used successfully elsewhere.
Affordable Housing Overlay
The first of three approaches the BBC would like to see the City of Bozeman take, has to do with zoning
in the UDC rewrite. Overlay districts are a zoning tool allowed to municipalities in Montana. The BBC
suggests a strategic downzoning of neighborhoods to mostly match what is already built out on the
ground. This is to prevent speculative redevelopment and gentrification. Overlay an affordable housing
district that awards a density bonus (increased number of dwelling units allowed on a given parcel) if the
new units are deed restricted for affordability at 60% AMI (Area Median Income) for rental and 100%
AMI for sale. How is this different than the deep incentives in the affordable housing ordinance? An
affordable housing overlay district doesn’t award extra height or less parking, it ties increased density to
affordability. This has the affect of disciplining the pro-forma financial analysis of projects as described
in chapter 1 of this report, which in turn disciplines the land value. This tool is described in detail in
Professor Patrick Condon’s book Sick City published in 2021. An affordable housing overlay district is
being used successfully in Cambridge Massachusetts and Vancouver BC.
45
A Cooperative Housing Model
Across the country communities are coming together to fund housing themselves. Several of these
cooperative models are described in a recent New York Times article titled, Priced Out of Housing,
Communities Take Development Into Their Own Hands.
“Much of the approach stems from efforts by the federal and local governments to make
it easier for small investors to put money into real estate developments. Federal rules
once barred small investors — those whose net worth is less than $1 million or who make
less than $200,000 a year in income — from participating in development projects; that
changed in 2015. At the same time, a few states enacted laws allowing small investors to
put their money into local developments.”
These developments are typically mixed use, having small-scale commercial and some short-term rental
units subsidize the housing units that are affordable, income-based rentals, for local workers. Investors
can include up to 1000 community members. This differs from Bozeman’s current Community Housing
Impact Fund, because investors would be putting money into a specific project, not a general fund. The
role of the City of Bozeman in a scheme like this would be to streamline the Planned Development Zone
process to allow for speedy approval of affordable housing applications and maybe one or two departures
from code that doesn’t threaten surrounding areas. It’s important not to compromise design standards
or zone edge transition requirements because this leads to stereotypical resentment in communities of
affordable housing projects as being ugly or overwhelming to established neighborhoods.
This is in line with Goal 2 of the Belonging in Bozeman plan’s Housing Goals and Recommendations.
“Goal 2. Reduce displacement of residents who work and go to school in Bozeman
but cannot afford to live in Bozeman. 2. Convene local partners to explore the
potential for co-operative housing models.”
Local partners could include financial institutions like NorthFork Financial, First Interstate Bank, or
local credit unions. For example, Stockman Bank in Missoula financed the construction of the Hogan
apartment complex with over 50 local investors contributing. According to the website, “We anticipate
rents at The Hogan to be about half of typical independent senior living facilities in Montana, and less
than a third of a typical assisted living facility. “ https://www.thehoganmt.com
Municipally Owned Housing
In a May 16th Bozeman Daily Chronicle article it was announce that, “Montana to get $38.7 million from
federal housing voucher program.” Conspicuously absent from the roster of housing authorities awarded
the new federal funding was Bozeman. Because Bozeman is the only major city in Montana that doesn’t
have a housing authority or any publicly owned housing whatsoever.
Public housing is recognized the world over as an essential tool to keep housing affordable to the people
you want and need in your community. Paris suffers from such high desirability that 25% of its residents
live in municipally owned housing according to a recent New York Times article, How does Paris stay
Paris? By Pouring Billions into Public Housing. Not just housing, but small scale neighborhood
46
commercial is subsidized in Paris because they recognize that in order to keep their little wine and cheese
shops, and their bakeries, and fresh vegetable vendors in every neighborhood, they have to make it
happen on purpose. Small business can’t compete with the global chains. And if a community wants to
keep it’s unique flavor, it needs to make it happen.
Public housing has failed in the past because it’s been subject to the whims of continually decreasing
federal funding. But Montgomery County Maryland has been using a different model for decades that
relies on revenue bonds, available only to municipalities, that are paid back over time by the rents from
mixed income affordable housing projects, where higher earning renters subsidize lower income renters.
But it needs to be administered by a housing authority because they have a unique ability to function as a
bank. The model is described in a New York Times article titled, This is Public Housing, Just Don’t Call
it That. The Housing Opportunities Commission in Montgomery County Maryland has been using this
model successfully for decades.
Recommendations
• Continue to support local non-profits in the important housing work they are doing.
• Act on the City Commission’s priority to adopt a regional unhoused policy.
• Form a local housing authority to make use of creative models for municipally owned mixed-
income affordable housing schemes using city owned land.
• Explore every possible avenue to protect renters allowed under Montana law.
• Continue to advocate in Helena for the right to implement a luxury sales tax, and even a vacancy
tax in order to fund the creation of affordable housing.
• Lobby Helena to overturn HB 259 to restore the right to use inclusionary zoning
• Implement strategies to preserve NOAH. An affordable housing preservation policy is already
one of the Commission priorities set in January 2024.
• Explore tenants right to purchase, or first right of refusal laws that would be possible to
implement in City code. This is necessary to protect mobile home park tenants as well as some
historic multi-family homes that are currently rented to local working residents.
• Lobby Helena for the right to enact rent control and eviction protections.
• Implement strict FAR regulations so the existing housing stock, often occupied by renters,
would be preserved rather than torn down for redevelopment into luxury condos.
• Explore opportunities to use the materials gleaned from a deconstruction ordinance to make tiny
homes for transitional housing on city owned land.
• Zone new land for manufactured housing.
• Work with individual neighborhoods to develop a neighborhood plan for where and what type of
increased density would be appropriate.
47
• Adopt the provisions in the first draft of the UDC for greenfield development only (where it
might have a chance of producing affordable housing) so that new more dense neighborhoods
can be created promoting walkability and neighborhood scale commercial development.
48
10. Locating Fraternities and Sororities
There is a concern by many neighbors and neighborhoods as to where new or relocating fraternity and
sorority houses can locate in Bozeman. In 2017 the UDC listed Fraternity and Sorority Houses as a
unique “Separate Residential Use’. They could locate in R-3, R-4, office and commercial zoning districts
but were not allowed in R-1 or R-2. The requirements for parking, lot size, and open space for fraternity
and sorority houses were the same requirements as for Group Living.
Unbeknownst to neighbors and neighborhoods, the city removed Fraternity and Sorority Houses as a
Separate Use and grouped them into Group Living allowing them in any residential zoning district.
When a single-family home on Garfield was rented to 4-5 men, the neighbors were ok with that until they
learned it was really a 50 member fraternity. How was that possible when the UDC rules they knew said
that could not happen? This was hugely disruptive. Many neighbors felt unsafe as large parties and big
gatherings happened. Police were called when the parties ran late into the night. Discussions with the
fraternity about concerns did not help. So, the neighbors filed a lawsuit that proper notice of this change
was not given and the court ordered the city to go back to what the code was in 2017.
Although the current and proposed UDC rewrite still list the changed language of 2018, neighbors were
told by city Planning that the actual code being applied is the one from 2017.
Recommendations
• Revert back to the 2017 UDC code with reference to the location of fraternities and sororities.
• List Fraternity and Sorority Houses as a “Separate Use” and a subset under Group Living. The
City of Billings and Missoula both do this in their municipal codes.
• Allow new or relocating fraternity and sorority houses in high density mixed use zoning districts
with adequate parking mandated to support large gatherings.
• Follow the same requirements as Group Living for parking, lot size, open space, on-site
occupancy and duration of occupancy.
• Address the need for a required minimum size for indoor meeting/ gathering/ event rooms.
Fraternities and Sororities at MSU have 30-90 members. Most single-family houses are not
designed to hold 50 people for a gathering. Any new or relocating fraternity or sorority house
needs to be required to have a minimum inside meeting/gathering/event room to hold at least
50 members. There are meeting room calculators on line.
Chi Omega sorority meeting room=1,059 sq ft
Delta Gamma sorority meeting room =992 sq ft
• Define Fraternity/ Sorority house. As an example, the Billings Muni code uses the following
definition: “Fraternity/sorority house: A dwelling or dwelling unit occupied by and maintained
exclusively for fraternity or sorority members, their guests or visitors and affiliated with and
acknowledged as a fraternity/sorority house by an academic or professional college or university
or other recognized institution of higher learning.”
49
12. Conclusion
At the Better Bozeman Coalition, our mission is…
To preserve the unique character of Bozeman’s
neighborhoods while working with the city on
housing affordability, availability and
natural resource sustainability.
We acknowledge Bozeman’s neighborhoods, whether new or old, are the heart of this city. They are
places of community for all those who live in them. We believe that we can meet the challenges of
growth without destroying the things that make our City beautiful, unique, and desirable. We
hope to welcome future residents to live and work in a City that honors our past history and is safe,
accessible, healthy, beautiful, equitable, affordable, and sustainable for generations to come.
These recommendations represent the ideas and values of a group of concerned residents who want to
protect our existing and future neighborhoods from gentrification, and exploitation by unsympathetic
developers who increasingly want to cash in on the charm of our community. We celebrate the
economically diverse neighborhoods we have, and encourage policies that prevent displacement of those
who live and work here. We have something great here, let’s work together to keep it that way.
This report is not intended to take the place of proper community engagement on behalf of the City
surrounding further amendments to our Unified Development Code. Every resident and property owner
in Bozeman deserves to weigh in on zoning changes and historic preservation in their neighborhoods.
Better outcomes result when residents participate.